# 26 Aug 2016: "Canada Buys Blackjack Unmanned Aircraft System from United States"



## The Bread Guy (27 Aug 2016)

From the info-machine, out late yesterday afternoon (also attached if link doesn't work for you) ...


> _*National Defence Puts U.S. Navy Technology to Work Protecting Canada and Its Allies*_
> 
> August 26, 2016 – Gatineau, Que.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2016)

Here is a photo of the Blackjack, with a person for size reference:







Can someone tell me how it *might* relate to this discussion/question?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Aug 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is a photo of the Blackjack, with a person for size reference:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ERC:  cf https://army.ca/forums/threads/111619/post-1339743.html#msg1339743


----------



## dimsum (27 Aug 2016)

From what little I can see, it looks like a similar arrangement to the Scan Eagle (and built by the same company).  So, if SE doesn't work on the MCDVs, I doubt Blackjack will either.

ETA:  From Wiki, it uses the same launch/recovery system.  

Also, interesting that 4 Arty Regiment is now "General Support", not Air Defence.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2016)

Sorry, all, I was really thinking of this question:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, but ... assuming that I'm right and that there is a valid operational requirement for a mixed, balanced fleet that includes several small combatants, say in the 1,500 ton range: is the UAV a suitable replacement for (not adjunct at) the helicopter?
> 
> (I know I'm "situating the appreciation," but I was in Ottawa for a long time so I learned that's how policy is made.)



My (current) sense is that there is no political will to expand the financial envelope of the national shipbuilding strategy and it, as funded, cannot provide more than, say, about 10-15 combatant vessels but we, the RCN seems to say, need 20 to 25. If that's the case we need to find money for eight to 12 small combatants and _I'm guessing_ that UAVs are cheaper to install operate and maintain on a small combatant than are helicopters.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 Aug 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sorry, all, I was really thinking of this question:
> 
> My (current) sense is that there is no political will to expand the financial envelope of the national shipbuilding strategy and it, as funded, cannot provide more than, say, about 10-15 combatant vessels but we, the RCN seems to say, need 20 to 25. If that's the case we need to find money for eight to 12 small combatants and _I'm guessing_ that UAVs are cheaper to install operate and maintain on a small combatant than are helicopters.



Mr. Campbell,

As mentioned, the black jack is a larger version of the Scan Eagle (and was formerly known as the integrator). It utilizes a larger pneumatic launcher (the Mk IV vs the Scan Eagle Mk III) and a larger Sky Hook recovery system (due to the larger size and greater impact of the system). The launcher and skyhook would be too large for a MCDV, and there was discussion as to whether a halifax class frigate would fit both, though someone in the navy could speak to that element.

Great system though- it takes the advantages of the Scan Eagle (Runway independent, light, cheap to use) and upgrades the sensor packages which were always the Scan Eagle's greatest limitation (The EO and IR/FLIR were never the equivalent of higher level UAS from the TUAV-HALE/MALE).


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Aug 2016)

Is this a replacement for the SPERWER that we were using in Afg?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is this a replacement for the SPERWER that we were using in Afg?



No, this is the replacement for the Scan Eagle SUAS and will be employed with the 4th Arty Regiment, GS.


----------



## dimsum (27 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is this a replacement for the SPERWER that we were using in Afg?



Technically, the replacement for Sperwer was the Heron, which we stopped leasing in 2011.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell,
> 
> As mentioned, the black jack is a larger version of the Scan Eagle (and was formerly known as the integrator). It utilizes a larger pneumatic launcher (the Mk IV vs the Scan Eagle Mk III) and a larger Sky Hook recovery system (due to the larger size and greater impact of the system). The launcher and skyhook would be too large for a MCDV, and there was discussion as to whether a halifax class frigate would fit both, though someone in the navy could speak to that element.
> 
> Great system though- it takes the advantages of the Scan Eagle (Runway independent, light, cheap to use) and upgrades the sensor packages which were always the Scan Eagle's greatest limitation (The EO and IR/FLIR were never the equivalent of higher level UAS from the TUAV-HALE/MALE).



Is it that the MCDV is too small or that the layout is not compatible with gear mounted on wheels?

Suppose the launcher and the recovery mast were "permanently" mounted to the vessel  - the launcher up in the bows or above the wheelhouse and the recovery mast on the starboard wing by the existing crane?

As in this case.


----------



## dimsum (27 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is it that the MCDV is too small or that the layout is not compatible with gear mounted on wheels?
> 
> Suppose the launcher and the recovery mast were "permanently" mounted to the vessel  - the launcher up in the bows or above the wheelhouse and the recovery mast on the starboard wing by the existing crane?
> 
> As in this case.



I haven't seen the new launcher, but mounting something forward of the bridge would cause problems with the armament (fields of fire, etc.)  I think the issue would be trying to mount both on the sweepdeck - if it's larger, it may just not fit.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Aug 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the new launcher, but mounting something forward of the bridge would cause problems with the armament (fields of fire, etc.)  I think the issue would be trying to mount both on the sweepdeck - if it's larger, it may just not fit.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OhWgvlCcgo


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Aug 2016)

Excuse my ignorance, but my wife and I visited HMCS Goose Bay a few weeks back when she was on a port visit to Johnstown just east of Prescott, ON. Anything is possible, but I can't see the launcher being mounted forward because it would restrict whatever weapon replaces the boffin. Similarly, I am not sure there is the space to mount a launcher aft. What also bothers me is providing storage and maintenance space with easy access to a launch and/or recovery area.

My apologies to all, but that was my impression and during the tour I did consider fitting a UAV system.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is it that the MCDV is too small or that the layout is not compatible with gear mounted on wheels?
> 
> Suppose the launcher and the recovery mast were "permanently" mounted to the vessel  - the launcher up in the bows or above the wheelhouse and the recovery mast on the starboard wing by the existing crane?
> 
> As in this case.



The only spot where the Scan Eagle/Black Jack could be launched and recovered would be the aft deck. The problem with a MCDV (and any navy pers please feel free to correct me... I sailed on a MCDV many many years ago as an AB) is that the ship deck has little space for the new launcher and skyhook and nowhere to store them in rougher seas. The Halifax class have hangers where the equipment can be stored when not in use- so when they launch the skyhook is safely stowed in the hanger and vice versa.

The UAS can recover and launch as long as it is done into the wind. The GCS and software will auto correct the course for recovery based on many hits/second on the GPS (one on the skyhook, one on the UAS) to ensure that speed and direction are such that it hits the rope with a wing at a low enough speed to recover. The ship just needs to be sailing into the wind or within the safe landing parameters of the UAS (which I believe was around 20km/hr cross winds with a Scan Eagle... stand to be corrected on that since I deployed with the Scan Eagle 6 years ago and haven't touched it since).  

So, if there was proper storage for the Skyhook, Mk IV launcher, the UAS crates, etc than it could fly from a MCDV. However, the limitation is that you would be unable to move the launcher or skyhook, limiting recover/launch of the UAS and making the chance of collision more significant.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Aug 2016)

I believe Messrs Pook and Campbell are suggesting that, for the next generation of coastal defence vessels, this should be a consideration.

While not in the plans now (at least none of the plans that are public or even widely known within the navy), it remains that the MCDV's are at their mid-life at about 20 years of age. so in about five to ten years, the matter of  their replacement will come up.

At that point, in view of their actual use as opposed to the originally contemplated one, I suspect that we would be looking at slightly larger vessels (probably in the 1200 to 1500 tons range) with greater speed (likely in the 20 to 25 knots) similarly armed. Basically, a small OPV.

It is easy to conceptualize such a ship having some form of small landing pad/small hangar combination at the stern. It is also easy to conceptualize such hangar to be too small for a helicopter, but big enough to have a small "rail" crossing system so a UAV launcher of sort can be cross-decked to the middle of the landing pad and turned into any direction to catapult. such permanent system would not need "wheels" as it would be mounted on the track. Similarly, the deployable recovery mast could then be mounted permanently on the side of the hangar for hydraulic deployment and retraction as need be. In such a system, most of the electronics and controls for  the UAV would be located in the ops room or the bridge, as the case may be.

That is easily feasible for a UAV such as the Blackjack, and for surveillance of Canadian waters or constabulary duties, would be a great force enhancer for the vessel.

In fact, even though they are doing this with a "small helicopter" type UAV, the French Navy is doing exactly that on their FNS ADROIT OPV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_Yy0aaXoE4

BTW: The person "flying" the UAV is equivalent to one of our PO1. Would we be so daring in Canada, or insist on a LT from the Air Force to "fly" the thing?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I believe Messrs Pook and Campbell are suggesting that, for the next generation of coastal defence vessels, this should be a consideration.
> 
> While not in the plans now (at least none of the plans that are public or even widely known within the navy), it remains that the MCDV's are at their mid-life at about 20 years of age. so in about five to ten years, the matter of  their replacement will come up.
> 
> ...



Black Jacks, like Scan Eagle's will be flown by Gnr-MBdr (AB-MS) with a Sgt acting as the detachment commander/mission commander. So, there is no requirement for an officer to fly and the Troop Commander generally acts in a planning/advisement role to the ship's Captain (in the naval sense).

I do agree that the next generation of MCDV would be beneficial to have the capability of having UAS flown from them and there are a host of UAS that could be utilized (that aren't necessarily the Black Jack). However, the MCDV isn't really a feasible platform as the launcher and skyhook are too large for it's deck and there's no storage for the equipment. In Afghanistan we had a large platform to site the launcher and recovery system, far larger than a MCDV deck.



Naval Black Jacks will always be limited in the number of AV's that can be launched at any time. In Afghanistan we were able to have 3 x Scan Eagle fly as we had 4 x GCS (3 x GCS for the AV, 1 x GCS for the launch and recovery). On a ship you'll be limited to 1 which could be a limitation, but is definately better than nothing.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .....it remains that the MCDV's are at their mid-life at about 20 years of age. so in about five to ten years, the matter of  their replacement will come up.


We will establish a program office, likely near the still-running Sea King and FWSAR replacement offices.  Once they design a cool logo, they'll set to the important work -- how can this benefit Davie Shipyard and Bombardier.....

        op:      /cynic


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Once they design a cool logo ...


Done!


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2016)

Just one comment more.

About Army types looking at stowing stuff in ships.  

Sailors seem to manage to figure out how to pack an incredible amount of gear into a tight space.  For starters they look up and check for bulkheads and deckheads to which things can be attached.  And they are more inclined to stow gear when not in use.  Another common characteristic I have seen is padeyes welded to the deckheads so that gear can be moved by an overhead route.  Just saying - sailors seem to be more aware of the full 3D space and how it might be exploited.

That was brought home to me by buddies in the fishing industry.  Our installation manuals with instructions for mounting machines on shore plants were blissfully ignored - especially when it came to working clearances.

Sidebar:  Working with centrifuges - the manual says that the centrifuges are supposed to be laser leveled.  I have since come to doubt the necessity of such an instruction having seen them operate in Sea State 5 and greater and in flat calms while the ship was trimmed down by the head and heeling to starboard.

The UAV capability should definitely be part of the future MCDV/OPV design.

 :cheers:


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Done!



I see a lot of RCR VOTs going in.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Done!



Keeper - saved to my desktop.   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see a lot of RCR VOTs going in.


That's the closest to a "seal" I can do on the web site I typically used - it DOES channel the "RCR Star" doesn't it?


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> About Army types looking at stowing stuff in ships.
> 
> Sailors seem to manage to figure out how to pack an incredible amount of gear into a tight space.  For starters they look up and check for bulkheads and deckheads to which things can be attached.  And they are more inclined to stow gear when not in use.  Another common characteristic I have seen is padeyes welded to the deckheads so that gear can be moved by an overhead route.  Just saying - sailors seem to be more aware of the full 3D space and how it might be exploited.



Have you seen what can be stored in a AFV/LAV6? Even in my Bison, every space that was useable, was used. Hard Army types definitely are used to filling that 3D space...


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Have you seen what can be stored in a AFV/LAV6? Even in my Bison, every space that was useable, was used. Hard Army types definitely are used to filling that 3D space...



Yah, but sailors did it first and better!    [  :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2016)

Continuing the warship UAV derailment  :highjack:  what about the _Elbit_ Skylark C for the _Kingston_ class ships?

If we procure a fleet of corvettes because we need 20+ ships but the NSPS will only fund 15 then I'm confident that the naval architects can come up with a solution that either carriers our new helicopter or has an appropriate UAV. But until someone makes that decision we have the _Kingston_ class and if it will need to be life extended into the 2040s then maybe a "mini-drone" can be fitted and add some capability.

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




                                            _ If it will fit on what looks like a glorified RHIB then I cannot imagine that a MCDV is too small_


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OhWgvlCcgo



It appears that the launch rail could be modified to a extendable rail and then add in a hinge and pin system to fold it in half. Single use only, actual use may void the warranty!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Nov 2016)

Welcome to Canada's first UAV Carrier

http://projectresolve.ca/website/?portfolio=davie


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Nov 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Welcome to Canada's first UAV Carrier



Scaneagle has been flying off Halifax class for a while now, and I expect Blackjack will follow suit both with Halifax class and the replacement ships.

Honestly, the SUAV projects (both Scaneagle and Blackjack) have been a bit of a success story, especially when compared to many of our other procurements.


----------



## dimsum (25 Nov 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Honestly, the SUAV projects (both Scaneagle and Blackjack) have been a bit of a success story, especially when compared to many of our other procurements.



Agreed.  While the RCAF is dithering (for whatever reason) on the JUSTAS program, the Army/Navy have just sat in the shadows and done the job.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Agreed.  While the RCAF is dithering (for whatever reason) on the JUSTAS program, the Army/Navy have just sat in the shadows and done the job.



Maybe the JUSTAS mission should be handed over to this mob:

http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/

Give the satellite OPs on routine patrol their own recce capability to conduct timely investigations and fill in gaps in the coverage created by time, space and circumstances.  And leave it out of the military's hands entirely.

The military then becomes a client but the service can be employed internationally as a domestic, a strategic and a diplomatic asset.


----------



## dimsum (25 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Maybe the JUSTAS mission should be handed over to this mob:
> 
> http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/
> 
> ...


. 

If the only mission was surveillance, maybe.  However, one of the main caveats was a targeting and strike capability.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2016)

In which case we buy some for the civvies to fly unarmed and some for the uniforms to fly armed.  Do you need a uniform to fly a UAV?  Or even launch a Hellfire?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2016)

Not a simple question IMO.


----------



## dimsum (26 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> In which case we buy some for the civvies to fly unarmed and some for the uniforms to fly armed.  Do you need a uniform to fly a UAV?  Or even launch a Hellfire?



I think that would start delving into LOAC and other legal matters.  I, for one, would be a little hesistant to use a civie, even one with security clearance, to fire weapons - imagine the crapstorm that would happen if Mr. So-and-So was at the controls when the wrong target got hit instead of Capt (or Sgt) So-and-so.  

Also, using that line of thinking, when do you switch from the civies to the uniforms if a situation starts looking like it'll be going kinetic?  Does it mean there's a "standby" crew of uniformed pers in that case?  If you're suggesting a completely separate fleet, then do we hand off to another UAV when things are looking like they'll go kinetic?  How would any of those situations save on pers or airframes?

Those are just easy examples off the top of my head - I'm sure it can go much murkier.


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Do you need a uniform to fly a UAV?  Or even launch a Hellfire?



The CIA would argue that you do not, and that they have fifteen years of operational experience proving that a uniform is not required to conduct UAV reconnaissance/strike missions.

Of course, just because the CIA does it doesn't mean that CSIS will or should do it. But uniforms aren't made of magic fabric -- leadership, training, equipment and policy are the key elements of a UAV operation, not how the operators are dressed.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Nov 2016)

I see the legal points - going the CIA/Blackwater routes is not a preferred outcome.

I was thinking more along the lines of the risk factors, mean the risks that the "flyers" take: flyers meaning in this case any or all of: the pilot in the cockpit, the operator in the control centre or the mission programmer.

Surveillance by satellite can augmented by UAVs, either loitering or tasked to conduct a site-specific reconnaissance without having to put Gary Powers at risk.  All of that, I think, could be kept in civilian hands.  

You're right.  It does make sense to keep the armed missions under military control and performed by uniformed personnel.  But where are those personnel located, and what risks are they undertaking?

Some locations I can think of include:

On an open hillside
In the back of a LAV
In a Griffon
In a Frigate
In a CP-140
In an F-35
In a SeaCan in an undisclosed location
In Ottawa.

If I understand the modern connected world then somebody on or in any of those platforms can get imagery from all of the other platforms, plus unmanned ones, and launch weapons, on their own volition, from any other location.  That assumes permissions of course but that is a matter of "may I?" and not "can I?"


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jul 2019)

Necro-bump with the latest ....


> Insitu was awarded a $390.4 million contract to supply Blackjack drones for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy, as well as Blackjacks and smaller ScanEagle unmanned air vehicles, for three foreign allies.
> 
> The contract, announced Friday by the Department of Defense, covers 63 RQ-21A Blackjack attrition air vehicles for the U.S. military branches, plus six RQ-21A unmanned aircraft systems and 17 Blackjack air vehicles for Canada, Poland and Oman under foreign military sales. The contract also includes 93 ScanEagle unmanned aircraft systems "in various configurations,"
> 
> ...


More @ link


----------

