Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft

[Lumber]

As far as the E-7 radar is concerned, even the US are cutting orders. Because they are going space based based with their AEW&C. E-7 "are dead in the current anti air environment".

What?! You mean chaff can't defend against a any combination of active-RF , IR, and semi-active AA missiles? Was Tom Gun Maverick lying to me?

 

[GR66]

Are manned AEW&C aircraft "dead" in a NORAD context? Any meaningful air-launched attack against North America would have to be by bomber aircraft. An E-7 (or Global Eye) should be able to detect a non-stealthy bomber before coming within range of Air-to-Air missiles carried by any fighters escorting the bombers. That should allow stealthy NORAD fighters (F-35's or F-22's) to move in to engage the enemy aircraft.

The other airborne threat would be long-range cruise missiles either launched from bombers well back from Canadian airspace or from submarines. An airborne radar would aid in tracking the missiles for intercept by other AD platforms.

I can however see manned AEW&C aircraft being much more vulnerable in operations where they are being used in support of offensive operations where they need to get much closer to enemy AD platforms.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Should we really be basing our equipment decisions based on mimicking how the USSECDEF is actively undermining the defence capabilities of his own country all in the name of his supposed “warrior” lethality mantra.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Talking to my AC Op Sgt about it, his main concern is range, altitude, speed and air to air refueling. The sensors "are all pretty much the same at the end of the day" in his opinion. And he wasn't worried about the space internally either. The new radars are so small comparative to previous versions he told me that there is plenty of room inside any of those aircraft.

One mans opinion. At least as an operator.

I'm not one to especially argue with a subject matter expert, but it's fairly obvious that platforms like the E-7 have an advantage in internal volume for equipment and comfort of the crew. Given the inherent long range and long duration of these operations, it isn't just the mechanical endurance of the aircraft that needs to be considered, but also how to best keep your crew in tip top shape. Fundamentally, something like the GlobalEye which is a converted and crammed business jet is going to be inferior to a much larger aircraft like E-7.

I know that. I'm (along with @Good2Golf ) the radar nerd here on the forum. One person whom I work with was commenting on one aspect of the aircraft.

As far as the E-7 radar is concerned, even the US are cutting orders. Because they are going space based based with their AEW&C. E-7 "are dead in the current anti air environment" (quote from Pentagon). So the E-7 apparently isn't the only credible platform depending on your requirements, there are others.

As others have mentioned, the US Govt has been embarking on quite a number of questionable procurement decisions recently and chief among them is the cuts to the E-7. Putting all of their eggs in the space based basket is laughable and especially the talk about purchasing E-2D Hawkeye's for the USAF to replace the lost E-7 fleet. In the context of our NORAD and NATO uses, having the E-7 is from what all I've seen our best option especially as a satellite cannot realistically act as command & control nodes. E-7 has a fair bit of commonality with our P-8 order, and our allies in NATO and abroad. Canceling a proven platform and going all in on unproven, expensive and questionable space based assets isn't something we can or should be following in, as is many of their other politically motivated procurement woes.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Any meaningful air-launched attack against North America would have to be by bomber aircraft.

Cough! Cough! Ballistic missiles, cruise missiles.

 

[Underway]

What?! You mean chaff can't defend against a any combination of active-RF , IR, and semi-active AA missiles? Was Tom Gun Maverick lying to me?

It's not that. Its that the E-7 effective operational ranges are now likely within Chinese air to air missile ranges.

purchasing E-2D Hawkeye's for the USAF to replace the lost E-7 fleet.

As a backfill, not replacement. Yah I don't fully get the reasoning, but there is a lot of concern that China can hit AEW&C as well as tankers with their PL-21 missiles. As always contingent on use cases. NORAD usage for us is a different mission set.

Fundamentally, something like the GlobalEye which is a converted and crammed business jet is going to be inferior to a much larger aircraft like E-7.

Not very crammed at all actually. TI'm told the new equipment leaves a lot of space, and because of new advances in software you actually need less people to do the same job as in the E-3. I'm not going to argue third hand though. I've never been either bird nor worked in the field, so frankly don't know.

Here is my prediction.

AEW&C are going to be a political sacrifice to ensure we retain the F-35 order. We'll get more AEW&C using bombardier jets. Further orders of Bombardier jets will also be used for a Compass Call EW aircraft, which is the missing link in the RCAF air dominance plan right now.

 

[Good2Golf]

The days of single-aircraft/monostatic radar-based AEW are diminishing. Do you put billions of dollars into that specific capability, or assess the overall requirements space and see what the best solution is, or more accurately will be? This is especially true when one looks at the trend of countries to expand air ops to include space - Canada is no exception in this regard, btw. The idea that classic AEW need only graft a past capability onto a (relatively) new airframe is to fail to consider how object visibility in the electromagnetic spectrum has developed. Multi-static radar capabilities comprised of combinations or terrestrial, aerial and spaced-based transmitters and receivers, providing both energy source and survivability diversity, will increase in both number and integration. The future of AEW function augmented/furnished by space-based assets, will only increase. Additionally, diversification of the EM bands forming such a network, including non-conventional bands and segment of the EM spectrum will add further capability to the ability to ‘see everything.’ Think also IR(and UV)ST type capabilities. Hint, NASA FIRMS satellites s aren’t the only system looking out for thermal events in (or near ) the Earth’s surface.

Background information on multistatic radar concepts. Additional sources throughout the terrestrial-aerial-space regimes add to the accuracy and resiliency of a comprehensive radar network.

https://wipl-d.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/RCS_016_WIPL-D_Monostatic_Bistatic_Multistatic_Radar_Scenarios_2021.pdf

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm sure it would do wonders for retention as well. a town of 28,000 (21,000 in the urban area)

The town is pretty dope tbh. Bunch of good restaurants, shopping, a few breweries. Plenty of jobs available.

I would love a Whitehorse posting.

 

[Furniture]

The town is pretty dope tbh. Bunch of good restaurants, shopping, a few breweries. Plenty of jobs available.

I would love a Whitehorse posting.

Vancouver Island has all of that and more, yet people still feel "isolated" there because of a ferry ride.

The reality is, lots of Canadians have no interest in living away from major centres in southern Canada.

AEW&C are going to be a political sacrifice to ensure we retain the F-35 order. We'll get more AEW&C using bombardier jets. Further orders of Bombardier jets will also be used for a Compass Call EW aircraft, which is the missing link in the RCAF air dominance plan right now.

I can see this being the way we go as well. Since the CAF currently has zero AEW&C, any platform is a massive improvement, and I suspect the politicians will be quick to point that out if the mini-USAF leaders moan a bit too much about what they get.

 

[Rainbow1910]

As a backfill, not replacement. Yah I don't fully get the reasoning, but there is a lot of concern that China can hit AEW&C as well as tankers with their PL-21 missiles. As always contingent on use cases. NORAD usage for us is a different mission set.

I'm not sure how much reasoning is put behind it, given there seems to be a lack of proper reasoning within a lot of the US Administration and extending to the various clusters going on within procurement. I've heard just as many folks saying that EW, decoys, drone wingmen and next generation systems can still keep tankers and AEW&C relevant with proper implementation, I get the feeling this specifically is an extension of the nonsensical Golden Dome vacuum cleaner hoovering up money.

Not very crammed at all actually. TI'm told the new equipment leaves a lot of space, and because of new advances in software you actually need less people to do the same job as in the E-3. I'm not going to argue third hand though. I've never been either bird nor worked in the field, so frankly don't know.

Here is my prediction.

AEW&C are going to be a political sacrifice to ensure we retain the F-35 order. We'll get more AEW&C using bombardier jets. Further orders of Bombardier jets will also be used for a Compass Call EW aircraft, which is the missing link in the RCAF air dominance plan right now.

Not sure why those same advances don't apply to the E-7, given it fundamentally has a lot more space than its smaller Global 6500 based compatriots from the start. Same, I will defer to people who know better in this case lol.

I would bet you are correct in this situation, Bombardier was kicked under the bus for the P-8 procurement (rightfully so with their laughable proposal) and politics dictated that they had to get handouts someday. We're in an environment where that is even more likely, so it's basically a lock especially with Carney flat out promising in his campaign to do a domestically sourced AEW&C platform. I won't complain at the end of the day, a Global 6500 platform is still better than nothing.

 

[GR66]

The days of single-aircraft/monostatic radar-based AEW are diminishing. Do you put billions of dollars into that specific capability, or assess the overall requirements space and see what the best solution is, or more accurately will be? This is especially true when one looks at the trend of countries to expand air ops to include space - Canada is no exception in this regard, btw. The idea that classic AEW need only graft a past capability onto a (relatively) new airframe is to fail to consider how object visibility in the electromagnetic spectrum has developed. Multi-static radar capabilities comprised of combinations or terrestrial, aerial and spaced-based transmitters and receivers, providing both energy source and survivability diversity, will increase in both number and integration. The future of AEW function augmented/furnished by space-based assets, will only increase. Additionally, diversification of the EM bands forming such a network, including non-conventional bands and segment of the EM spectrum will add further capability to the ability to ‘see everything.’ Think also IR(and UV)ST type capabilities. Hint, NASA FIRMS satellites s aren’t the only system looking out for thermal events in (or near ) the Earth’s surface.

Background information on multistatic radar concepts. Additional sources throughout the terrestrial-aerial-space regimes add to the accuracy and resiliency of a comprehensive radar network.

https://wipl-d.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/RCS_016_WIPL-D_Monostatic_Bistatic_Multistatic_Radar_Scenarios_2021.pdf

View attachment 94400

Thanks for that.

Does there not remain a role for an airborne sensor like an AEW&C aircraft as a node within the ground/air/space sensor web, especially with the massive area we specifically need to cover? How expensive is a network of fixed location transmitters and receivers providing coverage across our air domain?

Say you were to combine the soon to be upgraded NORAD fixed site system as well as satellites with a couple of AEW&C aircraft providing additional mobile transmitters in areas of concern/interest with a number of F-35's acting as passive receivers? Would that be cheaper/more flexible than a greatly expanded network of land and space-based transmitters/receivers?

I guess another question is would you be better off having a larger fleet of less powerful transmitting aircraft (UAV's?) instead of a small handful of more powerful AEW&C aircraft?

 

[Good2Golf]

Thanks for that.

Does there not remain a role for an airborne sensor like an AEW&C aircraft as a node within the ground/air/space sensor web, especially with the massive area we specifically need to cover? How expensive is a network of fixed location transmitters and receivers providing coverage across our air domain?

Say you were to combine the soon to be upgraded NORAD fixed site system as well as satellites with a couple of AEW&C aircraft providing additional mobile transmitters in areas of concern/interest with a number of F-35's acting as passive receivers? Would that be cheaper/more flexible than a greatly expanded network of land and space-based transmitters/receivers?

I guess another question is would you be better off having a larger fleet of less powerful transmitting aircraft (UAV's?) instead of a small handful of more powerful AEW&C aircraft?

Good question.

There will be a lot more sensors in the forms of F-35s, other radar-carrying assets, a west-cost SPY-7 radar, over-the-horizon radar etc. Heck, we could put up a string of heliostats (stationary balloons) with radars has been done in the past.

All options to consider.

 

[GR66]

Good question.

There will be a lot more sensors in the forms of F-35s, other radar-carrying assets, a west-cost SPY-7 radar, over-the-horizon radar etc. Heck, we could put up a string of heliostats (stationary balloons) with radars has been done in the past.

All options to consider.

Which brings us back to this...

MQ-9B Airborne Early Warning Variant Could Fill Major Aerial Surveillance Gaps

The early warning MQ-9B is being pitched in carrier-based form to the Royal Navy, but could have wider appeal, including for land-based use.

www.twz.com

How many of these could you get for the price of an E-7?

From the article linked above:

Also, a single high-power transmitter is easier to locate, jam or destroy. On the other hand, it is difficult to successfully locate, jam or destroy a network of multiple transmitters and multiple receivers. It is certainly more desirable to operate a system with higher redundancy where possible failures of one component will not significantly degrade the whole system. This requires spatially distributed radar devices. Such spatial diversity is achieved in multistatic radar systems and allows different aspects of a target to be viewed simultaneously. For example, a multistatic system can process two signals scattered from a target in two directions. Perhaps the most important fact is that such a system can deal with stealth objects much more effectively than single monostatic or bistatic systems. Such system also has increased robustness to electronic countermeasures.

So a larger fleet of lower powered transmitters (along the lines of the MQ-9b AEW above) in place of a small fleet of high-power AEW&C aircraft transmitters? F-35's as the passive receiver nodes (no sense for a stealth platform to transmit).

Lot's to think about. The way things are changing you need to be careful not to buy into the platforms designed for the last conflict rather than what will work best in a future conflict.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I think the best solution as per usual is to have a varied fleet of various platforms (satellite, manned AEW&C, ground based nodes, fighter aircraft, AEW drones, etc) to all weave data into a shared picture, entirely dropping valued sections of the fleet entirely does not seem especially wise to me. At the end of the day, I don't think MQ-9B AEW variants are a replacement for a manned AEW&C platform but would serve as useful supplements.

 

[Good2Golf]

To both @GR66 and @Rainbow1910, MQ-9B(V)1 could conceivably be more Tx (and Rx) modes in a multistatic EM/RF surveillance system for sure.

GR66, yes, the F-35 absolutely could be other node (Rx or also Tx in peace time or if trying to demonstrate/signal to adversaries then sure, Tx in conflict as well) supporting the larger surveillance space.

As well, nothing stops Canada from procuring an AEWC2-lite solution like a SAAB radar on a Bombardier Global Express platform, but the scale of such a program doesn’t need to be as grand (or dependent) as replicating E-3As of olden days.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I think the best solution as per usual is to have a varied fleet of various platforms (satellite, manned AEW&C, ground based nodes, fighter aircraft, AEW drones, etc) to all weave data into a shared picture, entirely dropping valued sections of the fleet entirely does not seem especially wise to me. At the end of the day, I don't think MQ-9B AEW variants are a replacement for a manned AEW&C platform but would serve as useful supplements.

I tend to agree so long as your ability to generate sensor feeds doesn't exceed your ability to organize and analyse them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Are manned AEW&C aircraft "dead" in a NORAD context? Any meaningful air-launched attack against North America would have to be by bomber aircraft. An E-7 (or Global Eye) should be able to detect a non-stealthy bomber before coming within range of Air-to-Air missiles carried by any fighters escorting the bombers. That should allow stealthy NORAD fighters (F-35's or F-22's) to move in to engage the enemy aircraft.

The other airborne threat would be long-range cruise missiles either launched from bombers well back from Canadian airspace or from submarines. An airborne radar would aid in tracking the missiles for intercept by other AD platforms.

I can however see manned AEW&C aircraft being much more vulnerable in operations where they are being used in support of offensive operations where they need to get much closer to enemy AD platforms.

Or from Q-Ships in mid ocean. Or in harbour. Or from containers in transit mid-continent.
Or from drones of various sizes, capacities, ranges and intelligence.

COSCO headquarters is in Ocean Plaza in the Xicheng District in Beijing. It owns 1114 ships, including 365 dry bulk vessels, a container fleet with a capacity of 1,580,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU), and a tanker fleet of 120 vessels.

There are 2,968 container ships registered in China, representing a total capacity of 12,034.4 thousand deadweight tons (DWT). Additionally, over 70% of global container ship orders in 2024 are going to Chinese shipyards.

...

If the Chinese wanted to keep the Canadians out of the Pacific they could give us a bunch of mosquitoes to swat at home. They could do the same for the Yanks and Aussies.

 

[Kirkhill]

Vancouver Island has all of that and more, yet people still feel "isolated" there because of a ferry ride.

The reality is, lots of Canadians have no interest in living away from major centres in southern Canada.


I can see this being the way we go as well. Since the CAF currently has zero AEW&C, any platform is a massive improvement, and I suspect the politicians will be quick to point that out if the mini-USAF leaders moan a bit too much about what they get.

Re the Whitehorse situation:

Do we need "lots of Canadians"? Or can we manage with "The Few, The Proud"? Or even just the curious and adventurous willing to check a place out for a year or two?

Apparently 864,000 Canadians voluntarily isolate themselves from the mainland on Vancouver Island. 72,000 of them live in the Comox Valley.

Whitehorse had a population of 31,000 in 2021 and is estimated at 33,000 now with growth expected to continue to 35,000 by 2030.
Yukon's total population is 47,000.

Surely it is not too much to expect that out of a population of 40,000,000 we could sustain a unit of 400 in a place like Whitehorse on a mix of contracts? Locals and "visitors".

 

[Kirkhill]

To both @GR66 and @Rainbow1910, MQ-9B(V)1 could conceivably be more Tx (and Rx) modes in a multistatic EM/RF surveillance system for sure.

GR66, yes, the F-35 absolutely could be other node (Rx or also Tx in peace time or if trying to demonstrate/signal to adversaries then sure, Tx in conflict as well) supporting the larger surveillance space.

As well, nothing stops Canada from procuring an AEWC2-lite solution like a SAAB radar on a Bombardier Global Express platform, but the scale of such a program doesn’t need to be as grand (or dependent) as replicating E-3As of olden days.

I am going to pitch another option again. I already have my lid on.

The internal airspace of Canada is poorly covered by radar, civil and military. And the airport radars are strictly civil and, from what I have been led to believe previously, incompatible with military needs.

Why don't we upgrade the civilian network so that it can operate with military assets, including effectors like EW/DE/Missiles/Guns and aircraft? Work out the C2 issues and the handoffs. When you switch from local to national control. When you switch from passive to active.

 

[Good2Golf]

Why don't we upgrade the civilian network so that it can operate with military assets, including effectors like EW/DE/Missiles/Guns and aircraft? Work out the C2 issues and the handoffs. When you switch from local to national control. When you switch from passive to active.

Because it would be way too late in the game to get warnings at that point.