# MQ-9 Guardian Gets New Maritime Capability



## dimsum (30 Sep 2015)

Interesting.



> General Atomics Aeronautical Systems has introduced a new sonobuoy capability for its MQ-9 Guardian maritime UAV which, alongside a number of other developing technologies, could make it a contender to help fill the UK’s maritime patrol gap.



http://www.uasvision.com/2015/09/28/mq-9-guardian-gets-new-maritime-capability/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2015)

"_While a requirement for a maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) acquisition has yet to be released from the UK government, the developments that General Atomics is incorporating into the MQ-9 suggests that it will look to offer a modified Guardian to complement a manned MPA that is expected to be procured_."

Very interesting actually.  My mind is already thinking about how a RPA (Maritime) could be used...oh the possibilities...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Oct 2015)

I agree with EITS here: As a complementary airframe working with a manned MPA, you would get avery nice increase in capability.

But on its own, I don't think a MQ-9 could carry too many of those sonobuoys.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Oct 2015)

There are smaller size ones than the ones the 140 carry;  not sure what the capability is for that specific airframe but a sono load gets heavy pretty quick, more so if you are loading active.

If you traded off fuel for sono's, of course you'd be cutting your on-sta time;  I am sure they'd find a decent balance.


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Oct 2015)

Torps?  SAR (SKAD)?  


I am not sold on an UAV doing ASW, I'd rather have more manned aircraft.  All the UAV is good for is dropping sonobuoys.  No weapons = ******* useless. 

So you find a sub?  Then what? 

I doubt a mixed UAV, fixed wing fleet for ASW would be cheaper in the long run.  UAVs have a purpose, hunting subs is not one of them, not now.    Sure a UAV can remain onsta for a while, but how long did it take to get to that point?


----------



## dimsum (3 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I doubt a mixed UAV, fixed wing fleet for ASW would be cheaper in the long run.  UAVs have a purpose, hunting subs is not one of them, not now.    *Sure a UAV can remain onsta for a while, but how long did it take to get to that point?
> *






Were you referring to the speed?  Open source info says that a Reaper, since it's a turboprop, has a max speed of 260kt and cruise at 169kt for ~14 hours.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> [/color]
> 
> Were you referring to the speed?  Open source info says that a Reaper, since it's a turboprop, has a max speed of 260kt and cruise at 169kt for ~14 hours.



Would that mean that a good place for a launch and recovery site would be close to the surveillance area?  

Say, for example, you wanted to keep the Grand Banks, the Labrador Sea, Davis Strait, Hudson Strait, the Labrador Sea and the approaches to the Eastern Arctic generally, under surveillance, then some place like,  oh....I don't know.... Happy Valley would make a good station?

Too bad Canada isn't Australia. But at least we're not bothered with spiders.


----------



## dimsum (3 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Would that mean that a good place for a launch and recovery site would be close to the surveillance area?
> 
> Say, for example, you wanted to keep the Grand Banks, the Labrador Sea, Davis Strait, Hudson Strait, the Labrador Sea and the approaches to the Eastern Arctic generally, under surveillance, then some place like,  oh....I don't know.... Happy Valley would make a good station?
> 
> Too bad Canada isn't Australia. But at least we're not bothered with spiders.



I'd propose St. John's, preferably in an annex of the Crowsnest.   >

But yes, with the mission crews and Int analysis somewhere central, near a joint HQ of some sort *nudge nudge wink wink Ottawa/Leitrim*


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2015)

How about move the Analysis to the Crowsnest and phone in the Int?


----------



## dimsum (3 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How about move the Analysis to the Crowsnest and phone in the Int?



I like where your head's at!


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> [/color]
> 
> Were you referring to the speed?  Open source info says that a Reaper, since it's a turboprop, has a max speed of 260kt and cruise at 169kt for ~14 hours.



I am not convinced a loaded Reaper would come close to these specs.   I get it, a Reaper used in conjunction with a MPA for ASW does sound sexy and there are probably a few people "pounding it" to that thought.  I just don't think an UAV is suitable for ASW.   Not yet.


----------



## DonaldMcL (4 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> So you find a sub?  Then what?



Id ask the same of the CP140


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Oct 2015)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Id ask the same of the CP140



Set condition 1 rig for MAD, crew this will be an attack run.

Let's not forget what our mission is when it comes to ASW.   
Send those pieces of crap to the bottom.


----------



## DonaldMcL (4 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Set condition 1 rig for MAD, crew this will be an attack run.
> 
> Let's not forget what our mission is when it comes to ASW.   Send those pieces of crap to the bottom.



I think we need new/better torpedoes for that, no?


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Oct 2015)

Depends.  As long as the sub doesn't achieve his mission, then that's good.

We can disable most submarines out there and we would damage the larger boats to point they'd be so loud that it would only be a matter of time before someone finished them off.


----------



## Baz (4 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Let's not forget what our mission is when it comes to ASW.
> Send those pieces of crap to the bottom.



Although they've changed the wording, doctrinally "the aim of ASW is to deny the enemy effective use of his submarines."  If that can easily achieved with localize and avoid so much the better.

The best place to destroy a sub is alongside with 500 lbs 'o lovin'. 

The best ASW weapon at sea is another sub... if you can cue them so much the better.

However, I agree that a long range land based weapons delivery platform is also part of the mix.  Doesn't necessarily look like an MBA of old though.


----------



## dimsum (4 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I am not convinced a loaded Reaper would come close to these specs.   I get it, a Reaper used in conjunction with a MPA for ASW does sound sexy and there are probably a few people "pounding it" to that thought.  I just don't think an UAV is suitable for ASW.  * Not yet. *



Exactly.  But, as I say whenever someone says "UAVs are unsuitable for xyz", UAVs/RPAs really have only been used widely from the late 90s onwards - folks are still coming up with new roles for them as the technology is evolving.  

Folks who are complete dinosaurs about this (not saying you are) sound, to me, like Marshal Foch in 1911:  "Les avions sont des jouets intéressants mais n'ont aucune utilité militaire."  (Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value.)


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> ....
> However, I agree that a long range land based weapons delivery platform is also part of the mix.  Doesn't necessarily look like an _*MBA*_ of old though.



I knew those things were weapons of mass destruction!   > (Sorry - Go back to your discussion)


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Exactly.  But, as I say whenever someone says "UAVs are unsuitable for xyz", UAVs/RPAs really have only been used widely from the late 90s onwards - folks are still coming up with new roles for them as the technology is evolving.
> 
> Folks who are complete dinosaurs about this (not saying you are) sound, to me, like Marshal Foch in 1911:  "Les avions sont des jouets intéressants mais n'ont aucune utilité militaire."  (Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value.)



How fast could a CF-18 hustle a pair of Mk 46s out to a target if they were co-based with the UAVs?  Could it manage a Mk 48 on the centre line?


----------



## Baz (4 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Could it manage a Mk 48 on the centre line?



Best of my knowledge, there's no air drop kit for a 48...

I was in a 3rd year poli-sci cure on maritime strategy at Dal and one of the normal (there were two actual serving maritime guys there) suggested loading up 52s with buckets of sunshine (nuclear depth charges) a d carpet bombing them.  One way to get 'error done...


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Folks who are complete dinosaurs about this (not saying you are) sound, to me, like Marshal Foch in 1911:  "Les avions sont des jouets intéressants mais n'ont aucune utilité militaire."  (Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value.)



I could be a Dino. 

A few questions though.

Can the UAV operate silently?  Given my limited UAV training (none), I am of the opinion that it would always be broadcasting its position.   How would a UAV get around covert ASW procedures? Could it operate silently?  

Eventually I could see these operating from CVNs then calling in a delivery platform to drop the gift off.


----------



## Baz (4 Oct 2015)

UAV comes are LPI (low probability of intercept) directional.  The Global Hawks have bot a directional sitcom in the nose (that's what the bubbles for) and some of them have Ku Band directional TCDL.

The cost of bandwidth is enormous, and adding the extra ASW sensors will make it even more so.

What about an orbiting platform only carrying weapons for you.  It can be receive only.  

By the way most UAVs that are big enough for this wouldn't be active flown, they'd be way point to way point. ..that's how Global Hawk flies.

I think the future is both manned and unmanned, but the closet you get to a force the more useful small unmanned needs to be.  And they don't necessarily need to be flying... surface and subsurface are also in the works.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> What about an orbiting platform only carrying weapons for you.  It can be receive only.




Interesting suggestion.  A Drone would have its flight pre-programmed prior to take off.  It would fly on station as per its programming, with no two-way comms necessary until "Contact" or some other necessity.  I am sure that much like Cruise Missiles, the Drone's payload could lay dormant until "Contact" and then be programmed for the attack.  That communication would be from the operators to the munition, not necessarily to the Drone other than to release the munition.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Oct 2015)

A Drone by definition is programmed for a specific mission. For example the Canadair CL89 drone we operated in the late-60s could be programmed to perform a number of turns and take some pictures at different stages during its flight. (Another casualty of force cuts, but it also was used by the Brits and the Germans.) It then flew to the retrieval point where the engine shut down and a parachute and inflatable cushion deployed on receipt of a signal from the ground. Other than that, it was a hands off operation. 

A RPA or UAV is controlled by a remote operator, including being directed to launch weapons. A Drone could be directed to do this as well and it would also have to receive instructions on how to return to base as presumably the flight profile and duration would differ if its weapons were or were not used. Whether it still qualifies as a drone is moot.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> A Drone by definition is programmed for a specific mission. For example the Canadair CL89 drone we operated in the late-60s could be programmed to perform a number of turns and take some pictures at different stages during its flight. (Another casualty of force cuts, but it also was used by the Brits and the Germans.) It then flew to the retrieval point where the engine shut down and a parachute and inflatable cushion deployed on receipt of a signal from the ground. Other than that, it was a hands off operation.
> 
> A RPA or UAV is controlled by a remote operator, including being directed to launch weapons. A Drone could be directed to do this as well and it would also have to receive instructions on how to return to base as presumably the flight profile and duration would differ if its weapons were or were not used. Whether it still qualifies as a drone is moot.



Don't some of the UAVs bridge the gap in that they are semi autonomous?  I thought some of the time "George" was flying and the aircraft was in autonomous mode, some of the time they were directly flown from the ground and sometimes George (the autopilot for those of a certain vintage) had his flying instructions updated from the ground so that a new autonomous flight plan could be flown.


----------



## Baz (4 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Don't some of the UAVs bridge the gap in that they are semi autonomous?  I thought some of the time "George" was flying and the aircraft was in autonomous mode, some of the time they were directly flown from the ground and sometimes George (the autopilot for those of a certain vintage) had his flying instructions updated from the ground so that a new autonomous flight plan could be flown.



I can only speak for Global Hawk... except for landing and take-off (which are also highly automatef) it is *always* on autopilot.  There is no stick, just a mouse.   You pass it flight plans, and alternate flight plans if it loses comms...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Oct 2015)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Id ask the same of the CP140



What is it about the 140 you think it is (1) not capable of finding and (2) given the appropriate ROE, attacking a boat?

Maybe there is something I've missed in my time on Sqn to date...


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> I can only speak for Global Hawk... except for landing and take-off (which are also highly automatef) it is *always* on autopilot.  There is no stick, just a mouse.   You pass it flight plans, and alternate flight plans if it loses comms...



Thanks Baz.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Oct 2015)

There is an opportunity to ask the 'what could it do?' part of the question and also what would we WANT/LIKE it to do.

Just thoughts, the 'brainstorming' thing of throwing suggestions out at random:

- have 3 buoy fields out there when you are looking for something 'in a general area'.  That could be one nice fat field no?  Have MPA fly center, possibly 2 RPA(M)s flying outer monitoring.  ASOs on MPA can call up/command/control any/all buoys at any time.  If you go hot on one of the ends, MPA and RPA(M) switch places so MPA can do its thing.  The RPA(M) is a sensor platform only, no kill stores.  Sono deploy/monitor.  Add a lightweight MAD (I know people think MAD is going to the way-side, my recent experience says otherwise).  You then have 2 sensors to gain and maintain contact/Atk Cri while MPA is inbound.  I don't know much about how low-slow a modern RPA can fly but MAD altitudes would be nice.  300-500.  I would like to do some quick research to see if there is any kind of lightweight RADAR that would be even worth talking about but...no idea.  Just something to think about.  nice to be able to flood with RF on a deter type gig.

- MPA out farther, use RPA for closer to homeplate ops.  In our case, a must with no platform to launch/recover.  

- MPA open ocean, RPA 'choke points'.

Is there a possible benefit?  I see some, yes.  Of course I am in support of 'buy enough MPAs to do the job!" but..I am also a realist and I don't know if anyone, us included, can or will do that in the near future.

Forget kill stores I say, but that is also without spending time to find out the specs on what these things can carry and how much 1 or 2 fish would affect their on-sta, transit, all that stuff.

Government might buy into this as a 'cheaper' way to flush-out MPA Sqns and their caps; we may as well start asking the 'what can we do with this and what are we going to ask for bells and whistles'.  Far better to get something useful by having positive input?

Although, for Canada, even this discussion is an exercise in the 'not in my lifetime' file IMO.   8)


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Although, for Canada, even this discussion is an exercise in the 'not in my lifetime' file IMO.   8)



Maybe.  But I think it'd be an easy sell.  Get rid of the CP-140 and pile on the UAVs.  Lets be honest almost everything we do with the CP-140 could be done with an UAV, everything except ASW.  Nobody gives a shit about ASW, it isn't sexy and it never makes the news. 

I could see this under Trudeau, all part of a leaner more efficient military.  Not saying it'd be a good idea, but I could see it happening.

"When was the last time the CP-140 dropped a Torpedo in anger.. Oh never?  Yeah we don't need that plane..  Let's get UAV's!  Made in Canada (Quebec) of course.."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Maybe.  But I think it'd be an easy sell.  Get rid of the CP-140 and pile on the UAVs.  Lets be honest almost everything we do with the CP-140 could be done with an UAV, everything except ASW.  Nobody gives a shit about ASW, it isn't sexy and it never makes the news.



Personally I don't think a UAV can do what we do, the way we do it (read 'as good as we can').  They can't fly where we can, in the weather and conditions we can, carrying all the things we can.  It *could* be a "force-enhancer" for what MPA community folks do, but not in the immediate future.  IMO.  



> I could see this under Trudeau, all part of a leaner more efficient military.  Not saying it'd be a good idea, but I could see it happening.
> 
> "When was the last time the CP-140 dropped a Torpedo in anger.. Oh never?  Yeah we don't need that plane..  Let's get UAV's!  Made in Canada (Quebec) of course.."



That is so possible it scared me to read it.   ;D

However, I am hoping someone will 'show them the light' if that idea ever starts gaining traction.


----------



## DonaldMcL (5 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What is it about the 140 you think it is (1) not capable of finding and (2) given the appropriate ROE, attacking a boat?
> 
> Maybe there is something I've missed in my time on Sqn to date...


I never said its not capable of finding it... and anything the "mighty" CP140 is capable of carrying could easily be adapted to any larger UAV. A torp that requires nothing more than a release point isn't exactly outside the realm of UAVs.

I think you're fooling yourself if you think MPAs days arent limited.

Plus, think of all the money the wing would save on box lunches... maybe we could have TWO torps for it!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Let's get UAV's!  Made in Canada (Quebec) of course.."



Naahhh! Even if you built a crippled of them, it would not be sufficiently good for the Canadian (read Quebec) aerospace industry. Sticking an MPA suite into a sexy C-Series jet however ...


----------



## George Wallace (5 Oct 2015)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> ...........
> 
> Plus, think of all the money the wing would save on box lunches... maybe we could have TWO torps for it!




Wishful thinking.  Unfortunately box lunches and torps are not under one common budget.    >


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Oct 2015)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> I think you're fooling yourself if you think MPAs days arent limited.



Care to share why you think that?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Oct 2015)

I am interested, too...


----------



## dimsum (5 Oct 2015)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> I never said its not capable of finding it... and anything the "mighty" CP140 is capable of carrying could easily be adapted to any larger UAV. A torp that requires nothing more than a release point isn't exactly outside the realm of UAVs.
> 
> I think you're fooling yourself if you think MPAs days arent limited.



Psst....it's LRPA these days, and their big expeditionary op is over land.  

Things are changing, but I don't think any of the Aurora guys/gals have any job fears for the next little while.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Oct 2015)

I cannot realistically see what the alternative to an LRPA, especially in ASW, might actually be.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2015)

LRPA over land or UAV over land (or even Satellite over land) is one thing.

LRPA over sea or UAV or Satellite is another, but very similar, animal.

Are either the UAV or the Satellite effective at seeing under the sea?

I can see offloading CP-140 hours by adding UAVs and Satellites for surface surveillance and reconnaissance, both over land and sea.  But I can't see any credible alternative to the CP-140 for sub-hunting and for directed reconnaissance.

Now, if only the CP-140 were more attuned to the Harpoon missile.....as is the P-3 Orion.


----------



## DonaldMcL (6 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Care to share why you think that?



Cost of airplanes are going up, and there's really only two real competitors at this time to replace the Aurora (which isnt being replaced any time soon). Spare parts aren't something we have a luxury of.

The role of the MPA, which as Dimsum pointed out is now LRP, is changing has changed. There's nothing we're doing TODAY in real-world ops that couldnt be done better and more efficient with a UAV. Sensors, UAVs have us beat. Endurance and Range, beat. Weaponized? Beat. Sure the Aurora is fun to do fishing patrols with, but a UAV could do it cheaper.


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Oct 2015)

Then I dare ask why countries like the US and China are investing in new manned MPAs?

Even the UK recognized the strategic gap and is scrambling to get back in the MPA game.

It has also been pointed out that there is nothing that can replace it out there for ASW, nothing.

The P3 airframe is old, but there are many nations still flying it, I don't think we will see our parts supply chain dry up any time soon.  

Almost 2,000 hours on a CP-140, time spent on useless fisheries patrols 0.


----------



## dimsum (6 Oct 2015)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> Cost of airplanes are going up, and there's really only two real competitors at this time to replace the Aurora (which isnt being replaced any time soon). Spare parts aren't something we have a luxury of.
> 
> The role of the MPA, which as Dimsum pointed out is now LRP, is changing has changed. *There's nothing we're doing TODAY in real-world ops that couldnt be done better and more efficient with a UAV.* Sensors, UAVs have us beat. Endurance and Range, beat. Weaponized? Beat. Sure the Aurora is fun to do fishing patrols with, but a UAV could do it cheaper.



I'll have to disagree.  Right now, there is no UAV that has an anti-ice/de-ice system, therefore no UAV is really cleared for IFR flight - even in the article itself, the Guardian (and presumably Triton as well) are in the process of getting those things, but not yet.  The sensors may be as good as an Aurora (I'm on the fence as to whether they're better, and probably bordering on OPSEC anyway) but satellite datalink, which you would definitely need in any fleet we'd use up north, etc. is definitely not cheap.  Same with crews - UAVs still need crews and the massive Intelligence Analyst "tail" to actually do their job properly thanks to the terabytes (or more?) of FMV and other sensor data that need to be processed near-real time, and there are articles about how the amount of people required is much more than what the USAF, etc originally envisioned. 

In case anyone is thinking I'm waffling between whether manned or UAV is the way of the future, I'm not.  I believe that UAVs will, in time, replace manned aircraft in most respects (I'm on the fence about airliners).  However, as far as LRPA are concerned, UAVs just aren't there yet technically, specifically $ involved in their ops and all-weather capability, and I don't think an USN equivalent of an AESOP on a P-8 really has to worry about his/her job prospects until their 20 years are up.


----------



## DonaldMcL (6 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The P3 airframe is old, but there are many nations still flying it, I don't think we will see our parts supply chain dry up any time soon.



Tell that to the supply system.


----------



## Baz (6 Oct 2015)

I have to agree with the others.

The  Libya role is a stop gap for ISR (better done with a UAV; anytime you have backhand you're better off we a UAV).  However, the "SCAR" role is interesting.

CP-140s don't do fishpats. .. better done (and is done) by a contracted company for DFO.  They also do a great job of general maritime surveillance.  But they aren't deployable.

Long range Naval surveillance... better off with a UAV, hence Triton.

The future of MH (especially in the American context, as they do tie to the ship a lot)... UAV.  Still need a manned platform for some things like littoral maneuver and lift.  And yes, more than just me think we may have bought the wrong platform for 10-20 years out... but MH UAVS aren't there yet.

But as soon as you want to do battle management in a larger platform... manned.  And have them control other UAVs to remove risk and cover more area.  That was the original idea of NATO AGS  (well to be precise, middle idea... the original was just get JSTARS).

What I think MPA should evolve into is a multi-role battle management platform, high altitude, Air, surface, sub-surface, and ground, controlling UAVs for specific roles ( like a throwaway MAD and torpedo sled that can be released for the kill).  Sort of MPA, AWACS, and JSTARS all in one... which makes the P-8 my choice and add the wedge tail radar.

Edited for Samsung 's autocorrect. ..


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Oct 2015)

For those folks who like MAD

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/01/bae-subhunting-drone.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2015)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> I never said its not capable of finding it... and anything the "mighty" CP140 is capable of carrying could easily be adapted to any larger UAV. A torp that requires nothing more than a release point isn't exactly outside the realm of UAVs.



Getting that 'release point' isn't such an easy thing to do.  It's not "oh I think there is a sub there, drop the weapon and let's see what happens".  



			
				BobSlob said:
			
		

> Cost of airplanes are going up, and there's really only two real competitors at this time to replace the Aurora (which isnt being replaced any time soon). Spare parts aren't something we have a luxury of.



This the road the RAF went down, and is now trying to do a 3-point turn and reverse their direction on.  Note the original article, the RPA is being looked at as a add-on not the main platform.  It seems even the vendor doesn't believe it can provide the total solution for the RAF.   :2c:



> The role of the MPA, which as Dimsum pointed out is now LRP, is changing has changed. There's nothing we're doing TODAY in real-world ops that couldnt be done better and more efficient with a UAV. Sensors, UAVs have us beat. Endurance and Range, beat. Weaponized? Beat.



I am not familiar with your experience, or what you'd base a statement like this on but I have to respectfully say you are *very, very incorrect*.  Even in a '140, the BEST sensor on certain tasks is a body in the window with a pair of standard army-issued binos (during daylight).     

I am talking about the Reaper here, and I've spent some time talking with Reaper folks on their own turf, in their GCS and their ramp and talking caps and lims.  I've worked the same airspace as them.  



> Sure the Aurora is fun to do fishing patrols with



DISAGREE.  And you just confirmed you've never flown on the SGOD before  >

BTW, outside of OP IMPACT the 140 is doing 'more than FISHPATs'.  I don't mean this to sound like an arse, but I don't think you know what jobs are being done as much as you think you do.  You say "we" a lot when talking about the LRP community, but if you were embedded in the 'crew room' knowledge of our community, I think you'd have a much different opinion.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> For those folks who like MAD
> 
> http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/01/bae-subhunting-drone.html



I am firmly a believer in a MAD.  I was before _actually_ using it, but after actually using it I am sold.  If MAD can help you get A-C faster, and it can, why not?  Better to have and not need, than need and not have.  Wet and dry working together makes sense to me.

So, after all the "the P8 doesn't need MAD!" articles and comments I've read, they are now getting a MAD cap back.   ;D  They could have spent $8 mill on new MADs for the P8 and always had it with them  ^-^.  _The MAD instrument-equipped HAAWC ALA drone will add to the new P-8A's ASW capabilities_. 

Side note - I wonder what they are doing to get buoy drops close at those higher altitudes.


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Oct 2015)

MAD works for us, a P8 will burn through gas much quicker at 300 feet.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good sensor.   I always feel there's doubt in tube when we are tracking and there hasn't been a MAD call, it gives the crew that warm and fuzzy.


----------

