# UAV's and a Canadian carrier



## Kestral (9 May 2005)

I have finally found a forum to discuss this idea!

It has long been my dream to see another Canadian  carrier, but in this day and age ($$$) it is very unlikely.  

However...

I have been looking for a long time at launching UAVs from a ship.  This should be relatively easy.  No people on-board means that a catapult system could use a much higher G force to launch the aircraft.  No cockpit or person means a lighter plane/jet.  This should equate to a smaller deck length to launch the UAV.  I understand that some armies are able to launch UAV from a specialized truck bed...

The main problem with this is not the taking off, but the landing.  We can't afford a big ship.  Thus we can't have a long landing deck.  I need some method of capturing, netting recovering or whatever to really make this idea work on a smaller ship.  Perhaps a strengthed frame to withstand being caught by a net.

Testing should be cheap:  Use a scrapped ship and just add testing platforms onto it as needed.  The launch deck should be small enough to attach to a frigate.  A frigate can't recover it, but it could launch it.

Building the UAV:  Not so cheap.  I expect the main problems to come here.  With a lighter plane come a plane that is more affected by crosswinds and that can carry less fuel and less munitions.  Serious design work would also have to go into building a plane that can stand massive G force from an aggressive catapult.  Plus the landing gear/arresting cable something for landing...  These UAV could launch/carry all sorts of things missiles, detection pods, torps....

Building the carrier:  Have the U.K. build it.  I.E. someone with experience.  The various radars, weapons, whatever can be added in a Canadian yard after initial construction.  We do have a long-standing relationship with certain countries.  We should use it.  They get some of our tax dollars we get their experience in carrier building.  As I understand it the hull, decking and engines are relatively cheap in comparison to the weapons systems.  The ship size should be much smaller that even the 20 000 ton British carriers.

Supporting Units:  E2 hawkeye -> This is a CTOL air craft.  We can't afford the deck.  The British use a Sea King with a type of radar attached to it.  I have always had concerns about endurance about this setup.  Best bet -> a balloon with the same type of radar (I am stealing this idea from someone else on this board  :)  This could also be launched from a frigate and also be recovered by a frigate.

What this setup means:  This will give the CAF a presence in the air both defensively and offensively while at sea.  It would radically increase the reach of the navy.  Helicopters are not the same as jets.  UAV should be much cheaper, faster, expendable and just plain more offensive.  Please note that the UAVs will not have the endurance of a CTOL, but I believe that this would give us a brand new platform that we could afford.  We can spend lots or a little on the carrier's systems, but it is the deck that we really need.  The UAV's can be few or plentiful, cheap or expensive.  Bottom line is with the carrier we have a valid platform to further develop a Naval airforce at a world class level for a reasonable price.

Think of it as skipping a step in carrier development.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 May 2005)

If you search the forum you will see we have talked the merits and limitations of carriers.


----------



## Kestral (10 May 2005)

I did read the other posts.

What I am trying to suggest here is a new design for a carrier:  A Micro Carrier.

This could be on a much smaller hull.  Say perhaps the same size as a Air-Defense Destroyer.

If Canada uses the common hull design for it's larger ships, AOR and amphib, everyone would nod their heads and say good efficiency.

Canada could also design a destroyer hull for around 6000 tons as replacement for the Tribal DDs's.  Say 4 hull forms, 3 for Air Defense and 1 as a carrier test bed.  That flat deck can allow all helos to work from it, so at worst it would be a helo carrier.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 May 2005)

Kestral said:
			
		

> Canada could also design a destroyer hull for around 6000 tons as replacement for the Tribal DDs's.   Say 4 hull forms, 3 for Air Defense and 1 as a carrier test bed.   That flat deck can allow all helos to work from it, so at worst it would be a helo carrier.



I wonder, though, if you could support several helicopters in a hull that size?  It's one thing to be able to launch and recover them, but where do we put them the rest of the time?


----------



## winchable (10 May 2005)

So you're suggesting something like the Ark Royal (or one of it's predecessors) which technically weren't carriers, they were cruisers that had a small flight deck added to them?


----------



## winchable (10 May 2005)

Swear to God I'm not making that up, I remember watching a program about that though I can't remember specific details.
The fleet didn't want carriers built but someone recognised the need for carriers so they built cruisers and put flight decks on them to avoid the agressive appearance of having carriers.

...This is going to drive me mad.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 May 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> Swear to God I'm not making that up, I remember watching a program about that though I can't remember specific details.
> The fleet didn't want carriers built but someone recognised the need for carriers so they built cruisers and put flight decks on them to avoid the agressive appearance of having carriers.



I've heard them refered to as "through-deck cruisers" but thought that was just a name given for political, rather than technical, reasons.

I always thought "Canadian Patrol Frigate" was perhaps in the same category, given that they outweigh some destroyers and are perhaps a bit overqualified for some "patrol" taskings.


----------



## NCRCrow (10 May 2005)

I actually like the idea, it more realistic than most corn dog posts I have seen on here. 

UAV's are the future, just ask the Dutch. As they have got rid of there MPA's for UAV's.

This ship would need an extensive communications suite and C4ISR capability, plus specialized recovery helo's for UAV's. Combined with ELINT/IMINT/SIGINT and comms , (Link 11, 14, JTIDS) and TBMCS (Theatre Battle Management) and SATCOM this would be a joint cap!!!!

I am thinking a modified Blue Ridge/ Mount Whitney class, with the capability to launch and recover UAV's (which does not require much space) but at least 3 helos. (It would take some modifications)

This platform in the future might be able to launch drones such as the BQM-74E for training.

Good Vision and realistic!


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 May 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> So you're suggesting something like the Ark Royal (or one of it's predecessors) which technically weren't carriers, they were cruisers that had a small flight deck added to them?





			
				Che said:
			
		

> Swear to God I'm not making that up, I remember watching a program about that though I can't remember specific details.
> The fleet didn't want carriers built but someone recognised the need for carriers so they built cruisers and put flight decks on them to avoid the agressive appearance of having carriers.
> 
> ...This is going to drive me mad.





			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I've heard them refered to as "through-deck cruisers" but thought that was just a name given for political, rather than technical, reasons.
> 
> I always thought "Canadian Patrol Frigate" was perhaps in the same category, given that they outweigh some destroyers and are perhaps a bit overqualified for some "patrol" taskings.



What are you guys talking about?  The Ark Royal is an Invincible-Class _Aircraft Carrier_: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/148.html

They initially called them "Through-Deck Cruisers" to get them through Parliament, but they were always conceived as Escort Carriers.

There was an Ark Royal in WW1 that was a merchant ship converted to carry seaplanes: it was the first aircraft carrier in the world, but is long-gone and doesn't really have any relevence to the the discussion of carriers today.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 May 2005)

Supposedly the next generation of surface combatant will embark UAVs as part of its air det.

Nor will I be surprised if UAVs will be a feature of the JSS program.


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2005)

The size and shape of the UAV "Carrier" really depends on the sorts of UAVs you want to embark. Some UAVs resemble helicopters, so don't need much of a flight deck at all, while a carrier launching "Global Hawks" would need to be the size of a real aircraft carrier since the Global Hawk is a rather large aircraft.

There isn't anything wrong in principle with this idea, some issues like bandwidth allocation would be a bit difficult to resolve but are not insurmountable. The real question is what exactly would the CF use such a ship for? Embarking an air wing of UACVs carrying weapons stores would be a non starter for political reasons, so the only other role would be to launch surveillance craft for fleet protection under weigh, and to provide oversite for the joint force once it is ashore. I am not sure we would need an entire aircraft carrier for that.


----------



## mjohnston39 (10 May 2005)

> Nor will I be surprised if UAVs will be a feature of the JSS program



Quickly looking through the JSS statement of opperational requirement, I seem to recall seeing a section on the need for the JSS to launch and retrieve UAVs. 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/docs_presentations/state_op_require_e.asp

Mike.


----------



## Kestral (10 May 2005)

I am thinking that the size and shape of the UAV carrier would be mainly as big as we can afford.  So not that big. 

The UAV's are the real question.  

It comes to mind that there are at least 4 types of airborne UAVs:

1.  propeller for recon, over the horizon targeting and maybe asw
2.  jet for ground strikes, surface strikes and air superiority (also kamikaze and missile defense)
3.  helicopter for missile defense (think CIWS hanging under a helo) or decoys....?
4.  blimp/balloon for recon and air traffic control

They all have their own uses and drawbacks.  Do you think that a UAV could be easily configured for VTOL?

I do know that Boeing is working on a jet based UAV (did any one else see that TV special on the JSF?)


A blueprint for a Canadian Task force?

2 x Frigates                    (2 Large Helos)
1 x Micro-Carrier              (Say 12 UAVs)
1 x Air-Defense Destroyer (1 Large Helos, 1 Recon blimp)
1 x Sub
1 x AOR                         (2 Large Helos)


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 May 2005)

Below are the X-45 and X-47 UAV's. The X-47 has been carrier tested.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/

http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/X-47/gallery.htm


----------



## winchable (10 May 2005)

> What are you guys talking about?  The Ark Royal is an Invincible-Class Aircraft Carrier





> There was an Ark Royal in WW1 that was a merchant ship converted to carry seaplanes:





> So you're suggesting something like the Ark Royal *(or one of it's predecessors)* which technically weren't carriers, they were cruisers that had a small flight deck added to them?



As Neill pointed out, I had a fragmented memory of the documentary.
Wrong about the cruisers part..half wrong.

Any historical paralell we could draw with regards to converting a ship without a flight deck to a ship with a flightdeck seems relevant, and this seems to be one of the options presented here with regards to a short range UAV.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 May 2005)

I think though if we wanted a UAV carrier it would come at the expense of any amphib we are looking to get. While a UAV carrier would help with joint ops(as pointed out by NCRCrow) an amphib is more attractive to all 3 elements.


----------



## Kestral (11 May 2005)

If I had to choose between an Anphib or a carrier, I would pick the Anphib.  I suspect that most other professionals would as well.  Carriers are nice, but that anphib is more useful...

With the new JSS project I would like to see 4 ships emerge.  2 Supply ships and 2 Amphib ships...


----------



## NCRCrow (11 May 2005)

UAV's are still viable and low cost. 

The Amphib could hold a logistical value as well as a C4ISR platform. This would make all the elements buy in to as well as other agencies for there needs (Customs, RCMP)

U need very little space to launch and recover UAV's.

The UAV could do a forward RECCE of the area and give the Amphib commanders the battle space management.

Also serve as tracking tgts for the Navy and definately contribute to the RMP for force protection and ASUW.

It would   be a dynamic platform and cheap! (relatively)


----------



## George Wallace (11 May 2005)

Kestral said:
			
		

> With the new JSS project I would like to see 4 ships emerge.   2 Supply ships and 2 Amphib ships...



This is the absolute minimum that you would want.  Remember that at any one time there will be a ship in drydock for maint/repair/refit.  With two coasts, widely separated by the continent, it would most likely be best to have three or four ships of each class, to handle such eventualities.


----------



## childs56 (11 May 2005)

the US miltary launches UAV's off of their Destroyers, using a catapult. They they recover them with a net. A little damge at times but it is very effective.  If we get a sole Carrier for the UAV's then we are loseing one other aspect. If we  incorporate it in the JSS or Ampihb etc then we will win on all sides. Should we be relying on UAV/s for all our needs no. They are good but lets not fall into this situation of relying on them for all our tasks.  Adapt the Ships to launch and recover them then employ them with in their capibilties.


----------



## NCRCrow (11 May 2005)

Nets, parachute, Fire Scout helo,expendable..........

I am looking for a multi-purpose Amphip, that will satifsy all the needs and have more of a utility value for everyone.

UAV's are a part of the puzzle, rely on them , of course not!

But a combination would be ideal. I like the JSS idea but Real time imagery in the Commander's hands is an invaluable resource.

Joint Operations with a high level of battlefield awareness, plus the capability to actually deliver the troops into theatre..safely

The JSS must be also be protected and a UAV to do ASUW Surpic or RCMP Drug interdiction would make this a poltical selling pont..which is our reality.


----------



## NavyShooter (11 May 2005)

I think that UAV's are starting to come of age, and there should be something in the way of a maritime element added for the Navy's Benefit.

How many ships are sailing now without an air-det?  Is it possible that in the absence of an airdet, one of the smaller UAVs could be embarked?  

You can fit a sea container into the Hangar, which would certainly provide enough space for a compartmentalized controlling system, (not sure how they run them, but surely the remote stuff can be fit into a sea container!)  then you have the flight-deck rigged with new nets to allow the capture of the UAV.

There would definitely need to be some consideration given to the salt water and such, as this is a very corrosive environment.  I would imagine though that it is less difficult than the sand/mountains of Afghanistan.  (I do recall the reliability issues that were encountered there.)

While the UAV would not be able to do many of the missions that a SeaKing does (SAR, ASW, Personnel transport etc) it would provide a Ship Without Air Det an increase in it's surveillance range with existing technology, and without huge costs.

The other UAV types that exist are not likely to be able to operate off a CPF Flight deck platform (except for possibly the helo UAV's) so to operate them we would have to get some sort of "Through-deck-Cruiser" or some such thing.  This would also require a shift in the political direction of the forces...as an Armed UAV is something that is likely to get involved in "Combat" and that's not something that was discussed much in the latest defence plans....

NavyShooter


----------



## NCRCrow (11 May 2005)

UAV's would also be cost effective tgts for tracking  purposes, which could exercise the Combat team at the direction of the Ship.

The   UAV simulation of Harpoon/EXOCET profiles, would eliminate the need for tasking fast air with short play times or expensive contractors. It would be a valuable trg tool as well as doing 360 maritime or amphib landing reconaissance.

I would like to see a Joint C4ISR/ Amphib lander, with the Navy sailing/defending the ship, airforce (AESOP's) flying the UAV's/HELO's and the army doing the landings with a comprehensive J Staff with the emphasis on data fusion (ELINT/IMINT/SIGINT). Giving the best overall picture based on tactical experience.

So the Land commanders can land the troops and we can support them effectively.

I feel like i am the only one defending the original post.

Better polish my boots for Navy League!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 May 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think though if we wanted a UAV carrier it would come at the expense of any amphib we are looking to get. While a UAV carrier would help with joint ops(as pointed out by NCRCrow) an amphib is more attractive to all 3 elements.



If you went with the new Schelde Enforcer-series LHD, don't you get both?

Link:  http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/



Matthew.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

Wow - I like those boats....


----------



## NCRCrow (12 May 2005)

I like the middile one


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

General Hillier, if you are reading this thread....


----------



## winchable (12 May 2005)

The one in the middle looks like the "Ocean" or "Albion"

That other two remind me of fish..


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wow - I like those boats....



The best part is their modular design process and the options.  













M.   

P.S.  If anyone knows Hillier, by all means forward him the link.  I think this looks like an outstanding solution.  I should add that the Euro is likely to fall in the few months by as much as 25% which could make these significantly more affordable.


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2005)

A bit of cold water:

The idea of having a capable UAV on each and every ship is similar to the idea of turboprop powered VTOL "Tail sitter" point defense interceptors which was in vogue for a short time in the 1950s. Although aircraft like the XFV-1 and XFY-1 were very small (about 30' tall X 30' wingspan), they still needed room for their hanger, plus the support personnel like the mechanics, armourers, flight controllers etc. More room was needed for the consumables and quarters for these people and more still for the consumables of the plane itself. In short, the "Pogo" could not be deployed on _just_ any ship with a fantail or merchantman with a clear deck space, you either sacrificed a lot of ship space, grew the ship (ever wonder why a "Patrol _Frigate_" is 5000t displacement?) or went straight to an aircraft carrier of some sort. UAVs, although "small" aircraft, will be subject to many of the same considerations.

UAVs can do lots of wonderful things, no doubt, but I wonder if the limitations (especially if deployed on existing warships) would not outweigh the advantages. A UAV carrier would raise a lot of opposition in the political world, perhaps resulting in the carrier program being cancelled and UAV capability severely restricted, at least until such time that a land base can be secured.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 May 2005)

> UAVs can do lots of wonderful things, no doubt, but I wonder if the limitations (especially if deployed on existing warships) would not outweigh the advantages. A UAV carrier would raise a lot of opposition in the political world, perhaps resulting in the carrier program being cancelled and UAV capability severely restricted, at least until such time that a land base can be secured.



Lets see....
1) Possible act as a system for a ships missiles to be guided to its target thus increasing accuracy, can be used for damaged assessment without risking a manned a/c
2) having a extra set of eyes out there thus getting more info to the commanders that may need it
3) economical over manned aircraft
Thats to name a few....whats the limitations??


----------



## aesop081 (12 May 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> A bit of cold water:
> 
> The idea of having a capable UAV on each and every ship is similar to the idea of turboprop powered VTOL "Tail sitter" point defense interceptors which was in vogue for a short time in the 1950s. Although aircraft like the XFV-1 and XFY-1 were very small (about 30' tall X 30' wingspan), they still needed room for their hanger, plus the support personnel like the mechanics, armourers, flight controllers etc. More room was needed for the consumables and quarters for these people and more still for the consumables of the plane itself. In short, the "Pogo" could not be deployed on _just_ any ship with a fantail or merchantman with a clear deck space, you either sacrificed a lot of ship space, grew the ship (ever wonder why a "Patrol _Frigate_" is 5000t displacement?) or went straight to an aircraft carrier of some sort. UAVs, although "small" aircraft, will be subject to many of the same considerations.
> 
> UAVs can do lots of wonderful things, no doubt, but I wonder if the limitations (especially if deployed on existing warships) would not outweigh the advantages. A UAV carrier would raise a lot of opposition in the political world, perhaps resulting in the carrier program being cancelled and UAV capability severely restricted, at least until such time that a land base can be secured.



Other than regurgitating flawed 1950's naval tactical thinking, do you have anything but the obvious to add ?  I'm quite certain that the USN did not see the deployement of pioneer UAV from the back deck of BBs as a limitation when it allowed them to do BDA and direct the fire of their 16 inch guns when they were firing them at iraqi position in 1991.


----------



## NCRCrow (12 May 2005)

I winning some people back over....heck it wasnt even my thread.

I like UAV's and I like data fusion and I like to see infantry deploying from Canadian amphibs.

Nothing compares to the USS Bataan Amphib Battle Group deploying into Pakistan from the GOO (OP APOLLO Roto 0)

Helo's, Harriers, LCAC's and all that good stuff, it made this Navy League cadet have a lump in his throat from the Bridge wing.

Maybe someday, us Canadians might do the same.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Lets see....
> 1) Possible act as a system for a ships missiles to be guided to its target thus increasing accuracy, can be used for damaged assessment without risking a manned a/c
> 2) having a extra set of eyes out there thus getting more info to the commanders that may need it
> 3) economical over manned aircraft
> Thats to name a few....whats the limitations??



Off the top of my head:
Training + extra crew
Susceptible to Jamming and/or Hacking (yikes!)

Ask yourself what the limitations of unmanned ships or tanks might be ...


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head:
> Training + extra crew
> Susceptible to Jamming and/or Hacking (yikes!)
> 
> Ask yourself what the limitations of unmanned ships or tanks might be ...



Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be EASIER to train UAV pilots than regular pilots?  Wouldn't UAV's require LESS crew than regular aircraft?  As I remember, the US was working on making it possible for UAV's to "network" so that for the majority of a given mission they could fly themselves, and a human could therefore control multiple aircraft at once.  Plus you get rid of the pesky problem of pilots dying on you when a plane goes down, so you don't have to train new ones as often.  As for jammng and hacking...obviously there is some (pretty small) possibility for problems there, however, I doubt Osama and his buddies are up to the task of breaking military encryption protocols.  Might be a problem if you have to fight, say, China, but otherwise it's not something to worry about.


----------



## Kestral (12 May 2005)

First things first.   The JSS project:

First:   these ships are going to be complex enough without adding more features.   After reading some posts about the Multirole Kingston class ships I am more conviced that this project is going to have problems fitting:   fuel and dry good storage, a hospital, room for joint planning, lots of room for vehicles and men and room to operate utility helos on a single ship.

I would rather see this project produce more ships that are smaller but with specialize roles.   I.E. a dedicated AOR ships and a seperate Amphib ship/s.

Secondly:   The JSS will be, at best, a defensivly designed ship.   Check out the speed 21 knots, not 30 knots, it will not be able to keep up with the fleet during at sea combat operations.   It might be designed using civi ship building standards!


----------



## aesop081 (12 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Off the top of my head:
> Training + extra crew
> Susceptible to Jamming and/or Hacking (yikes!)
> 
> Ask yourself what the limitations of unmanned ships or tanks might be ...



I think maybe you need to rethink what you have just said.........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 May 2005)

> Off the top of my head:
> Training + extra crew
> Susceptible to Jamming and/or Hacking (yikes!)



Why would you need extra crew when you could use one of the aircrew...off watch pilot or co-pilot?

Your next point..depends on what the controlling band and frequency is for the UAV... very hard to do.


----------



## Kestral (12 May 2005)

When it comes time to replace the Tribal class destroyers should be the right timeframe.  We will need air defense assets and to me it doesn't make sense to change some of the Halifax frigates over.

After the completion of the JSS project I think we will see new replacements for the DDs within a few years.  The new Micro Carrier will need a full-length flight deck, mainly for efficiency.  It simply makes more sense to launch aircraft from the bow and land them at the stern.  Once the aircraft is landed they get walked directly back to the bow for relaunching.  With two separated air decks, the aircraft need to be moved down an elevator, moved forward, brought up and elevator then relaunched.

The new Destroyer platform will be an offensivly-designed ship.  It will have the speed and armour (OK damage control systems) to be placed directly on the front lines.  So take this hull form and widen it (1:7 instead of 1:9), put a full-length flight deck on and remove darn near everything that doesn't involve the UAVs.  This will allow a much large number of UAVs to be carried.  Let the Maritime Helos be carried by the DD and FH's.

I think the politicians will like this idea.  It is cheap and hopefully effective  Use 1 hull form and build 2 different types of ships -> Air Defense Destoyers and a Micro Carrier.


----------



## aesop081 (12 May 2005)

Kestral said:
			
		

> When it comes time to replace the Tribal class destroyers should be the right timeframe.   We will need air defense assets and to me it doesn't make sense to change some of the Halifax frigates over.
> 
> After the completion of the JSS project I think we will see new replacements for the DDs within a few years.   The new Micro Carrier will need a full length flight deck.   Mainly for effinecy reasons.   It simply makes more sense to launch aircraft from the bow and land them at the stern.   Once the aircraft is landed they get walked directly back to the bow for relaucnhing.   (With a two seperate decks seperated by a tower, the aircraft need to be moved down an elavator, walked forward, brought up and elevator then relaunched.
> 
> ...



WTF ?


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 May 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> WTF ?



Well put.


----------



## Kestral (12 May 2005)

Whoa, sorry guys.  I went back and cleaned up it just a little


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2005)

As far as I can tell, the idea of a "dedicated" UAV Carrier is a white elephant: if you want to go to the time and expense of building a smaller (~escort) Carrier, why wouldn't you build one with combat aircraft?  Are we seriously discussing a 15,000t "Recce ship"?

OR, why would you want to push helos off the decks of other ships, in favour of aircraft that would reduce your SAR, ASW, etc. capability (and would require additional crew and training in the case of having both helo + UAV)?

OR, why would you build an Amphibious Assault Ship with no CAS capability whatsoever?

I can see how incorporating a few UAVs into a battle group would make some sense, but this looks to me to be more of a solution in search of problem than anything else ...

I still think that Jamming and Hacking should be a legitimate concern against any techincally-competent enemy.


----------



## Kestral (12 May 2005)

There is no reason that a UAV can't be a combat capable aircraft.

They could fire air-air missles, air-ground missles, air-sea surface missles...


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

There are deffinitely combat capable UAV's.  While we're daydreaming, why not build missile-frigates that can carry UAV's?  That way you have recconoisance and two types of strike capabilities on one ship.


----------



## Kestral (12 May 2005)

Why not just use the UAV to launch cruise missles?

The Americans have come to the conclusion that it is easier to use a re-usable launch platform (ie planes) to launch cruise missles.   This way the missles can be smaller (thus take up less room) and it can also extend their range....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2005)

Kestral said:
			
		

> There is no reason that a UAV can't be a combat capable aircraft.
> 
> They could fire air-air missles, air-ground missles, air-sea surface missles...



Let's compare "combat capable": the biggest, latest and greatest UAV (Global Hawk) carries max. 3,000 lbs of ordinance (and you would need something pretty close to a full-sized carrier to launch it) ... an "old-tech" Harrier carries 5,000 lbs + 2 X 30MM cannons ... which would you rather have on your side?

To even get close the development costs would be unimaginable (for Cdn, defense budgets, anyway).


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Let's compare "combat capable": the biggest, latest and greatest UAV (Global Hawk) carries max. 3,000 lbs of ordinance (and you would need some thing pretty close to a full-sized carrier to launch it) ... an "old-tech" Harrier carries 5,000 lbs + 2 X 30MM cannons ... which would you rather have on your side?
> 
> To even get close the development costs would be unimaginable (for Cdn, defense budgets, anyway).



It all depends on what you're looking for man.  An M1A1 Abrams carries quite the punch, but you probably don't wanna use it if you're trying to sneak up on 2 or 3 guys sitting in a trench.  The HMG fires 12.7mm rounds, but we give riflemen a 5.56mm rifle.  Bigger isn't always better.  I know you flyboys are very protective of your toys (and goddamn I mis flying) but relax, noboy is advocating taking them away from you.  UAV's have uses for which they're better suited than regular aircraft, and vice vera; for the best effect you want to have both available.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I still think that Jamming and Hacking should be a legitimate concern against any techincally-competent enemy.



Jamming maybe, but probably not hacking through a brute force attack because the wireless data encryption keys can be changed for every mission if need be, just like the one time encryption pads. Spoofing and overloading the rx might be a problem if the host platform is located near shorelines with multiple sites for tx. Instructions for manoeuvring the bird might not be received correctly, in which case the bird would revert to a pre-programmed flight path and and rtb.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> It all depends on what you're looking for man.  An M1A1 Abrams carries quite the punch, but you probably don't wanna use it if you're trying to sneak up on 2 or 3 guys sitting in a trench.  The HMG fires 12.7mm rounds, but we give riflemen a 5.56mm rifle.  Bigger isn't always better.  I know you flyboys are very protective of your toys (and goddamn I mis flying) but relax, noboy is advocating taking them away from you.  UAV's have uses for which they're better suited than regular aircraft, and vice vera; for *the best effect you want to have both available*.



That's kinda my point: with the $$$ spent on a UAV-only carrier, you would be trading-off a lot of other capability ... taking helos off the ship, you'd be losing it completely.



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Jamming maybe, but probably not hacking through a brute force attack because the wireless data encryption keys can be changed for every mission if need be, just like the one time encryption pads. Spoofing and overloading the rx might be a problem if the host platform is located near shorelines with multiple sites for tx. Instructions for manoeuvring the bird might not be received correctly, in which case the bird would revert to a pre-programmed flight path and and rtb.



Don't kid yourself: as it stands, AirSnort (for one example) can hack 128-bit wireless encryption in under a second!  (and that's only what a total "non-nerd" dork like me knows about) ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 May 2005)

Can you give an example the last time a UAV was jammed or hacked?


----------



## Kestral (12 May 2005)

The communications problems MUST have been resolved or the US never would have even considered building UAVs.   I don't know what the solutions are, but even if I did know I wouldn't tell 

In regards to the weight of ordinance that a UAV can carry , I_AM_JOHN_GALT, points out some good problems.

The Carrier would be flying in a battle fleet, not alone.   It would provide the UAVs, the battle group provides the large helos.   If given the choice between 1 Harrier and 1 UAV (say a even a predator type), yes I would choose the Harrier.   What about 1 Harrier vs 2+ Predators.   Or what about 1 Predator vs no air support at all?

I would refer him to http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/ and http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/rq-1_predator.pl

The newer X-45C can carry up to 2000 Kilos of ordinance.

However I don't know the dimensions of these aircraft.   Can they fit in tiny a carrier?   Can they be launched from a tiny catapult?   Can they be recovered at sea?   Will the US sell us some?   Can Canada afford to buy them?


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> That's kinda my point: with the $$$ spent on a UAV-only carrier, you would be trading-off a lot of other capability ... taking helos off the ship, you'd be losing it completely.



Agreed, losing helos on ships would be bad.   However, we already have ships which can carry helos, and none that can carry UAV's.   And considering that the army has helos, and can deploy them from ground bases, and also considering the fact that UAV's are a lot smaller (therefore a ship could carry more of them) and more in tune with the type of support ground troops require, I'd say we could afford to build the next generation of ships without helo capability if it meant we'd get UAV's.



			
				I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Don't kid yourself: as it stands, AirSnort (for one example) can hack 128-bit wireless encryption in under a second!   (and that's only what a total "non-nerd" dork like me knows about) ...



Well first off, it takes much longer than a second.   Airsnort monitors transmission packets and uses them to figure out the encryption key.   That means that breaking the encryption depends on the ammount of traffic flowing through the network.   The method relies on a flaw in the way that the 802.11 protocol is designed, rather than being able to "brute force" a 128 bit key.   Considering that UAV's wouldn't be using the 802.11 protocol, Airsnort wouldn't work, and similar methods might or might not be effective.   Secondly, 128 bit encryption is old news.   Even civilian applications these days are more and more using 4096bit encryption.   Proprietary military protocols would probably use an even longer key for encryption, and the actual transmission method would (I would hope) be more secure than a civilian protocol.   So a hostile power would, first, have to figure out the properties of the transmission protocol being used, second, figure out a weakness in that protocol, and third, assuming they've found a weakness, monitor the transmissions long enough to gather sufficient packets to help them break the encryption.   All in all, they'd be better off shooting rounds randomly into the sky and hoping they hit the damn thing.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Agreed, losing helos on ships would be bad.  However, we already have ships which can carry helos, and none that can carry UAV's.  And considering that the army has helos, and can deploy them from ground bases, and also considering the fact that UAV's are a lot smaller (therefore a ship could carry more of them) and more in tune with the type of support ground troops require, I'd say we could afford to build the next generation of ships without helo capability if it meant we'd get UAV's.


I don't think our thinking is really that far apart: a number of smaller UAVs makes a lot of sense (as I mentioned above) ... larger ones, with yet-to-be-developed "combat capability" anywhere close to existing technology would have to be as big as manned aircraft.




> Well first off, it takes much longer than a second.  Airsnort monitors transmission packets and uses them to figure out the encryption key.  That means that breaking the encryption depends on the ammount of traffic flowing through the network.  The method relies on a flaw in the way that the 802.11 protocol is designed, rather than being able to "brute force" a 128 bit key.  Considering that UAV's wouldn't be using the 802.11 protocol, Airsnort wouldn't work, and similar methods might or might not be effective.  Secondly, 128 bit encryption is old news.  Even civilian applications these days are more and more using 4096bit encryption.  Proprietary military protocols would probably use an even longer key for encryption, and the actual transmission method would (I would hope) be more secure than a civilian protocol.  So a hostile power would, first, have to figure out the properties of the transmission protocol being used, second, figure out a weakness in that protocol, and third, assuming they've found a weakness, monitor the transmissions long enough to gather sufficient packets to help them break the encryption.  All in all, they'd be better off shooting rounds randomly into the sky and hoping they hit the darn thing.


Well, I'm not a security expert, but I know for a fact that AirSnort can break 128-bit encryption in under a second (once packages have been gathered): I pointed this out not as a direct threat to UAVs (they couldn't possibly work on 802.11), but rather to illustrate a 'big picture' truism: no system, no matter how well secured, is 100%.  Most people accept that 128-bit encryption is pretty darn secure, but any idiot can download something like Phlak and gain control of almost any system they can get their hands on.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Can you give an example the last time a UAV was jammed or hacked?


 No: it has probably never happened.  But how often has it been tried?  And "never has" is nothing like "never could".  I hope I'm being paranoid, but sometimes paranoid works.


----------



## NCRCrow (13 May 2005)

Anything that can emit RF energy can be hacked/jammed.

But the probability of a data link being jammed is remote , due to the high level of energy needed to barrage jam a wide area. (thats alot of white noise)

It also gives up the enemy position as they are now transmitting RF modulation.

To spot jam the UAV u would need to point it at the moving UAV, catch the right TX/RX freq and hammer it, while keeping the UAV in an almost fire control solution. (Good Luck-thats one powerful jammer)

And if it is being jammed , I am sure the UAV Command link is freq agile and will work through it.


----------



## 48Highlander (13 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not a security expert, but I know for a fact that AirSnort can break 128-bit encryption in under a second (once packages have been gathered): I pointed this out not as a direct threat to UAVs (they could possibly work on 802.11), but rather to illustrate a 'big picture' truism: no system, no matter how well secured, is 100%.   Most people accept that 128-bit encryption is pretty damn secure, but any idiot can download something like Phlak and gain control of almost any system they can get their hands on.



In my younger years I used to be quite the "security expert"    At one point I had complete control of over 2000 computers all over the world, so I know just how easy it can be to defeat normal security measures.   Recently I gained administrator access to a huge chunk of the Bell Canada network quite by accident while attempting to help an employee install an anti-adware program.   However, the modern fear of "hacking" is totaly blown out of proportion.   Most hacking techniques depend on user and adminiastrator incompetence rather than a flaw in the technology.   As an example of that, I once worked as a security guard at AECL Canada, the crown corporation responsible for designing nuclear reactors.   They had very complex security measures in place, however, I know that within a few days I could have had access to their entire network if I chose to do it.   All I had to do was break the password on a workstation computer (very easy to do), "break" the computer, install a key-logging program, and then wait for a network administrator to show up and fix the computer.   Very simple procedure, but in the entire sequence of event, I'm not really breaking any of the more complex encryption methods of the network; all I really have to do is exploit the weakest point at very stage, which in turn enables me to move one step higher.   Most hackers these days depend exactly on these types of methods, because encrpytion and security methods have evolved to the point that a direct attack is usualy impossible.

Now, keeping that in mind, try to imagine what it'd be like trying to take over a piece of technology which you've never been exposed to before, which uses proprietary communication protocols which you have to figure out from scratch (or if you're lucky, get your intelligence agencies to steal the specifications for), and which doesn't envolve human users at any level which could be helpful to you.   I don't know how to effectively describe the difficulty of such a prospect to you, but it would be damn difficult.   To make it easier for you to visualise, think of an automechanic sitting in front of an aircraft carrier and trying to figure out how it works.   Certainly not an impossible task, but extremely difficult.

So, excluding user incompetence, any succesfull hack in our day depends entirely on a flaw in the operating systrem or the trasnmission protocol.   Either of those would require our "enemies" to have access to the original code which we used to program either the UAV's or the control mechanism.   Assuming they got the code, they could still spend months or years going through it without finding an exploitable weakness.   And even assuming they found it, we'd quickly realize that we're losing control of our UAV's, and we'd employ our own programmers to patch the code ASAP.   So, worst case scenario, if they were DAMN good, they could take control of one or two UAV's before we figure out what they were doing, and fixed it.

Like I said, they'd be better off firing randomly into the sky and hoping they hit something.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 May 2005)

> Agreed, losing helos on ships would be bad.  However, we already have ships which can carry helos, and none that can carry UAV's.  And considering that the army has helos, and can deploy them from ground bases, and also considering the fact that UAV's are a lot smaller (therefore a ship could carry more of them) and more in tune with the type of support ground troops require, I'd say we could afford to build the next generation of ships without helo capability if it meant we'd get UAV's.



You forget what ship based helos do then if you think it would be that easy for shore based aviation and UAVs to take over like that. I would love to see a pilot that was doing heli-ops in support of the ground pounders for the last couple of months be able to fly in and hunt down a submarine or for that matter be able to land on a pitching and rolling flight deck of a warship. Ask someone like Sam69 its not easy. Ask someone like Duey if they could just come in and hunt down a sub just at a snap of your fingers. Pull back guys you are starting to talk out of your lanes.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, the idea of a "dedicated" UAV Carrier is a white elephant: if you want to go to the time and expense of building a smaller (~escort) Carrier, why wouldn't you build one with combat aircraft?   Are we seriously discussing a 15,000t "Recce ship"?
> 
> OR, why would you want to push helos off the decks of other ships, in favour of aircraft that would reduce your SAR, ASW, etc. capability (and would require additional crew and training in the case of having both helo + UAV)?
> 
> ...




Well then reverse the order or your argument.  In your ideal task force, what inherent capabilities do you want and what kit is necessary to provide those capabilities.

My list (based on presence of threat in likely areas of deployment)
1)  Self Defence from small vessels (suicide bombers equivalent to the USS Cole attack)
2)  Self Defence from coastal patrol vessels with ASuW Missiles
3)  Self Defence from unadvanced air forces with last generation ASuW Missiles
4)  Self Defence from submarines  
5)  Amphibious Assualt Capability for 1000-man marine-equivalent battlegroup (and requisite logistics support)
6)  Helicopter Assault Capability for that same group (and requisite logistics support)
7)  Carrier-deployed Long-Endurance Reconnaissance UAV (Darkstar-Equivalent)
8 )  Carrier-deployed CAS (US Navy choice for UCAV X-45 or X-47 or JSF)
9)  Self Defence from modern navy with stand-off ASuW Missile Capability
10)  Self Defence from modern airforce with stad-off ASuW Missile Capability

Based on that, I would argue that with the combination of the Halifax-class, the Cyclones and the future upgrades priorities 1-4 are taken care of.

Priorities 5-10 are what you need to procure for and decide which priorities are worth the money.

In my opinion, because I believe UAV's/UCAV's will get exponentially better in the upcoming years, I would start with a single 22000 Schelde Enforcer LHD and add a light catapult specifically for UAV's/UCAV's and if I have limitations on when I can deploy based on 1/3 cycle then so be it.  The Canadian Armed Forces cannot be everywhere....but while we are deployed, I think we should have the best available equipment and my fear is going to a smaller LPD (or group of smaller LPD's) dramatically reduces the protection levels for the deployed land forces.  

The modified LHD addresses 5-8 (while an LPD would only be able to address 5 and maybe 6)

For priorities 9-10, I would contend you still need a proper escort destroyer.  Specifically I like the look of the Single-Ship Transition Program and would try to build 3 vessels to launch in concert with the new LHD group.

That's just me....


Matthew.  [dons blindfold, lights cigarette and awaits the inevitable....]   ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 May 2005)

You left out Mine Warfare Matt.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 May 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You left out Mine Warfare Matt.



Yes I did....thank you.  

Ex, you would know this.  Does anyone build a long-range Mine Sweeping Vessel?  

Most of the types I've ever seen have been short-ranged and intended for their own coastal waters only as opposed to long range littoral deployments.   ???

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 May 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Well then reverse the order or your argument.  In your ideal task force, what inherent capabilities do you want and what kit is necessary to provide those capabilities.
> 
> My list (based on presence of threat in likely areas of deployment) ...
> 
> ...



It makes sense to me that UAVs would be a useful tool for the Navy.  It makes sense to me that the capabilities of UAVs will expand greatly, though probably unevenly, in the years to come.  Maybe the day will come when JSFs will be replaced by UAVs for CAS for Amphibious Assault (and maybe even replace Super Hornets, et.al. for Blue Water operations and inland strikes), but already you are contemplating a ship for UAVs that replace aircraft that don't yet exist!

I honestly don't know enough to be making meaningful contributions regarding what _I_ think a Battle Group should include.  Nonetheless, (from a very big picture perspective) I can't see that building an "aircraft carrier" for "aircraft" that exist only in theory is a good idea (even financially, if nothing else).  Given the uncertainty of new and future technology, relying on it to provide solutions is spurious at best.

48th:  What if someone is _already _on the "inside" ... it's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again ... how many contractors are involved in this stuff?


----------



## 48Highlander (13 May 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You forget what ship based helos do then if you think it would be that easy for shore based aviation and UAVs to take over like that. I would love to see a pilot that was doing heli-ops in support of the ground pounders for the last couple of months be able to fly in and hunt down a submarine or for that matter be able to land on a pitching and rolling flight deck of a warship.



Aw hell, it's not like our Sea King are capable of doing much except crashing anyway 

You're right I wasn't thinking of the anti-sub role.  Not enough exposure to all-things-naval;  I'd heard of it but it didn't click.  My bad.

Then again, the US navy is looking into developing anti-sub UAV's....



			
				I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Nonetheless, (from a very big picture perspective) I can't see that building an "aircraft carrier" for "aircraft" that exist only in theory is a good idea (even financially, if nothing else).   Given the uncertainty of new and future technology, relying on it to provide solutions is spurious at best.



The aircraft don't just exist "in thory".  The DOD developed 11 different types of UAV's.  Check here for the different types.  As far as I know, 3 types of UAV's are currently in production by the US, with the other 8 being quite a bit more than just concepts.  In any event, at the very least your UAV carrier would have recconoisance and strike capability, while you work on producing new types of UAV's.  Doesn't sound like a bad deal.



			
				I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> 48th:   What if someone is _already _on the "inside" ... it's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again ... how many contractors are involved in this stuff?



Ofcourse, that's always the biggest worry.  Hell, what if the contractors who build our 521 and 522 sets threw in some sort of back door.  We don't have secure comms any more!  Better get rid of them and go back to smoke signals eh?

Or hell, what if the contractors working on the US strategic offensive systems put in some sort of back door for the KGB?

We can sit here and imagine these sorts of scenarios all day...but they're not a very good reason to give up on a peace of technology.  If you find that a contractor intentionaly made your UAV code insecure, use the UAV to insert a Hellfire up his anus, and then fix the code.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 May 2005)

> Aw heck, it's not like our Sea King are capable of doing much except crashing anyway
> 
> You're right I wasn't thinking of the anti-sub role.  Not enough exposure to all-things-naval;  I'd heard of it but it didn't click.  My bad.
> 
> Then again, the US navy is looking into developing anti-sub UAV's....



Sorry I think the air crews and the maintainers do a good job keeping the old lady working.
Ship-based helos do more then ASW, they also do SAR. I would like to see a UAV pluck sailors off a sinking freighter in the mid Atlantic.


----------



## NCRCrow (13 May 2005)

Dipping helos will be obsolete with the new generation of wire guided subsurface to air launched missiles.

Polyphem....or Triton

I just got back from the AWC in the UK, it has thrown a real wrench into ASW


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The aircraft don't just exist "in thory".  The DOD developed 11 different types of UAV's.  Check here for the different types.  As far as I know, 3 types of UAV's are currently in production by the US, with the other 8 being quite a bit more than just concepts.  In any event, at the very least your UAV carrier would have recconoisance and strike capability, while you work on producing new types of UAV's.  Doesn't sound like a bad deal.


None of them have anything close to the "combat capability" of a mid-1970's Harrier, let alone a JSF.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK there is exactly 1 type of UAV with exactly 1 type of strike capability (Hellfire missiles): is there a UAV with guns that has even reached the proof of concept stage?  Sure the technology will come ... eventually ...



> Ofcourse, that's always the biggest worry.  heck, what if the contractors who build our 521 and 522 sets threw in some sort of back door.  We don't have secure comms any more!  Better get rid of them and go back to smoke signals eh?


Isn't that what heppened in Yugo with the CF-18's?



> Or heck, what if the contractors working on the US strategic offensive systems put in some sort of back door for the KGB?
> 
> We can sit here and imagine these sorts of scenarios all day...but they're not a very good reason to give up on a peace of technology.


It was response to the "I can't see any shortcomings" comment (paraphrasing, well above) ... not a deal-killer in and of itself, but a shortcoming.  I'm just saying it's another reason UAVs are not a panacea: a force *multiplier*, not a force *replacement* (which I was trying to allude to earlier).



> If you find that a contractor intentionaly made your UAV code insecure, use the UAV to insert a Hellfire up his anus, and then fix the code.


There's always that!!!   :threat:


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 May 2005)

I'm swimming a bit out of my lane here, but I doubt that we can realistically replace NSHs with UAVs in the near future.  A manned helicopter is very versatile and I just don't think that UAVs are there yet.  I don't think that putting a UAV on our ships at the expense of the NSHs would be a good thing with the current technology.  Launching UAVs is one thing.  Recovering them at sea or a confined space is another.

Using them for "recce" and surveillance is of course a key UAV role.  Perhaps we'd be better served with some big ones (like Global Hawk) that we can deploy from Canada or some secure base to provide ISTAR support to a Canadian force (at sea or on land).  These would be controlled from afar but the imagery could feed to the ASC on the JSS (if it has one).  These could be complemented with some "micro" UAVs for the guys on the ground.  Perhaps large UAVs could be used for some of the traditional Martime Patrol Aircraft roles.

This isn't to say that UAVs do not/will not have a maritime application, just that I don't think that can replace maritime helicopters.  Using a UAV to transport troops to the beach kind of defeats the whole "unmanned" part of UAV, as does using it for search and rescue.

As for "battlegroups", I think that we need to manage our expectations here.  To truly project maritime power I think that you need aircraft carriers with fighters to both defend the force and give fire support to your marine force ashore.  This does not come "on the cheap" and we need to be realistic.  I think that we need to think coalition as opposed to some independent Canadian task force.  Our Navy has done an outstanding job fitting into coalition task forces and perhaps we just expand on this slightly.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 May 2005)

Just to refine my proposed LHD with light catapult, even in the original model UAV's wouldn't have made the majority the aircraft on board.

My wild-assed original guess of the onboard mix would've looked something like:
(10) H-92 Transport Version
(4) Recon UAV's
(4) UCAV's

After thinking about it though, I would actually propose something different.
(12) H-92 Transport Version
(6) Recon UAV's
(0) UCAV's

The model would switch eliminate CAS and instead replace it with a much improved artillery bubble.

A long range-short range mix of guided artillery being fed targetting information from those reconnaissance UAV's could made the UCAV unnecessary, at least within the area of exclusion the Canadian Forces would be trying to patrol/protect/conquer.

Ergo, instead of acquiring UCAV you procure:
Short Range:  LAV-III with 120mm Precision Mortar System
Mid Range:     LAV-III with new lightweight towed 155mm's the Marines just ordered
Long Range:   LAV-III chassis with HIMARS battery?

The sole remaining task a UCAV could perform that wouldn't be covered by a such a mix is an inland strike against a target not in range of that artillery umbrella and if you really want that capability it would probably be cheaper and more effective to build a dedicated land attack missile (SLAM-ER) into the new Destroyers.

Just another variable to toss into the discussion in case anyone is getting bored....



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 May 2005)

Why get SLAM-ER for our new surface combatabts when it would be cheaper for us to get Harpoon 2?


----------



## NCRCrow (13 May 2005)

lets get some nice guns and get back to NGS......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 May 2005)

Maybe the Dutch will sell us back our 5"54s.


----------



## NCRCrow (14 May 2005)

I would like to see Canada have a nice aggressive gun/helo destroyer like the Italian Vittorio Veneto.

I crossed pol on her in 94 (Sharp Guard) she had 8 x 76 mm OTO Melara Guns and even TESEO(Ottomat) and Standard as a long range air shooter. WOW!!!!

Bristling and aggressive. The Italy Navy are Gunnery gods! They did advanced surfirexs for 8 hours a day. With all 8 mounts and even the twin 40mms.

I was impressed and it had like 6 helos that worked and Nixie.

It was a dynamic platform for all disciplines of warfare.

Bella


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 May 2005)

The VV is more a crusier then destroyer and is on her way out. Last I heard she was due to pay off around '07-07 time frame and replaced by that new carrier coming in service.


----------



## NCRCrow (14 May 2005)

Destroyer/Cruiser...she still has firepower and versality..

I heard she already paid off


----------



## Navalsnpr (14 May 2005)

Can't comment on the the Navy and SAR out west, but as Ex-Dragoon indicated, out here on the East Coast, fishery/sovereignty patrols, the Sea King is well utilized as a SAR tool.... as well as the Hibernia platform. I've seen us do SARS out well beyond the 200 NM limit.


----------



## Kestral (14 May 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just to refine my proposed LHD with light catapult, even in the original model UAV's wouldn't have made the majority the aircraft on board.
> After thinking about it though, I would actually propose something different.
> (12) H-92 Transport Version
> (6) Recon UAV's
> ...



I think we are on the same page here.  Any LHD main role is not to be launching aircraft, it is to be delivering vehicles and troops to a combat zone.

Adding an additional UAV carrier could add to following types and numbers of aircraft.  
4+  recce propeller based UAVs
12+ multirole ground attack/fighter jet based UCAV

Remember this is on the 6000-ton hull, not the 28000-ton hull of a JSS!  This carrier should be able to put up the same number of UCAV as the rest of the fleet can provide helos.  

Most of the Navy is setup to be multirole platforms.  I can foresee 3 exceptions to this: Subs, Amphib Ships and the Carrier.

The main reason for going the dedicated carrier route is to maximize the number for aircraft.  More, more, more is better when it comes to aircraft.  Let us not have to relearn the lessons that other navies have already learned.  E.G.  Putting 8-inch guns on the USS Lexington or "Italy is one big unsinkable aircraft carrier" by Mussolini.  The flexibility of an aircraft carrier is in its aircraft not its hull.

Does the Carrier remove or make redundant the maritime helos or frigates that have their own helo decks?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  There are lots of things that those helos can do that a UAV simply can't.  Like SAR and moving men and materials.  It would always be best to maximize the capabilities of a PATROL type of frigates.  However you want to provide serious air cover and ground strike capabilities on the cheap, I believe a UAV Carrier is the only way to go.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 May 2005)

As a currently serving member of the Sea King community (and the "victim" of about 400 take-offs and landing at sea) I have followed this thread with some amusement.  There is no question in my mind that we are moving in the direction of UAVs at sea onboard ships.  The presence of a UAV(s) onboard need not preclude helos being there, too.  There is more than enough work for everyone! 

My concern is this: while launching a UAV at sea should be relatively straight forward, I do have concerns about recovering at sea, particularily in any kind of a sea-state.  We have trouble enough with 2 human pilots getting back onboard at times.  We will have to find a technological solution that is near perfect, even in rough seas.  This is something that has been glossed over in several posts as insignificant and I can assure that it is not. A crash on deck is not just a loss of an expensive UAV, it is also a potential damage control problem for the ship- not something taken lightly at sea.

We are going to see some interesting times, I think, if Gen Hillier can get us a large decked Amphib Ship.  I think it is the way to go, as well.

Cheers!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 May 2005)

> Dipping helos will be obsolete with the new generation of wire guided subsurface to air launched missiles.
> 
> Polyphem....or Triton
> 
> I just got back from the AWC in the UK, it has thrown a real wrench into ASW



NRCrow-

I disagree.  While it sucks some of the fun out of our currently one-sided arrangement that I like very much  , I'm not sure that it spells the end of dipping helos.  With a Low-frequency active array, or multi-statics, one could easily stay in contact and out of range of Polyphem.  When it comes time to attack- stay moving.  I would wish the CO of the sub good luck guessing when and where I will arrive from with my torpedo.

Luckily, these things only belong to the good guys- for now  

Cheers!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 May 2005)

Kestral said:


> Most of the Navy is setup to be multirole platforms.   I can foresee 3 exceptions to this: Subs, Amphib Ships and the Carrier.



Lets see:
Subs can be used for minelaying, survelliance, anti sub, anti surface, personnel recovery and deployment, patrol.Thats just off the top of my head.

Amphibs can be used for troop and vehicle recovery and deployment, command and control, hospital ships if given enough notice, salvage, evacuation of civillians.

Carriers besides their obvious function which makes them multirole due to their aircraft wings could be used as command and control, and pretty much as an amphib with the exception of vehicles.

I would say the above platforms are multirole as well wouldn't you.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (15 May 2005)

SeakingTacco,

I'm with you on the UAV recovery bit.  I'll vouch from some observations overseas that launching UAVs is one thing and recovering them is another!  I wasn't in the UAV Tp, but they were in my Coy.  Peforming a recovery at sea would be quite a trick.  I know a "Naval" UAV would be somewhat different than the one that we used, but I am still a little leary of trying to recover UAVs onto a small ship. 

Maybe a UAV version of the good'ol float planes that WWII battleships used to carry?  Perhaps an option for carrying a sensor package if not as a UAV strike fighter.  KLaunch with a catapult and recover on the floats.  To me the key UAV role is having a look over hostile ground so this might be a workable solution.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 May 2005)

Here is a pretty good article that deals with many of the issues wrt the UAV from 1995 and looking forward : 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/1995/wga.htm
Cheers


----------



## andpro (12 Jun 2005)

I like your ideas for a UAV carrier, and I would also like to see another Canadian carrier. But a carrier is a long way off, at least I hope so because it would be a waste of money at this time. What we need right now is new supply ships and replacements for our destroyers. I would also like to see an amphib or two that could support more joint forces missions.


----------

