Author Topic: 26 Aug 2016: "Canada Buys Blackjack Unmanned Aircraft System from United States"  (Read 19646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 421,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,152
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
From the info-machine, out late yesterday afternoon (also attached if link doesn't work for you) ...
Quote
National Defence Puts U.S. Navy Technology to Work Protecting Canada and Its Allies

August 26, 2016 – Gatineau, Que.

The Government is dedicated to building a more agile, better-equipped military, while ensuring the best value for Canadians.

The Government of Canada announced today that it is buying an existing unmanned aerial surveillance system, through a government-to-government contractual arrangement (U.S. Foreign Military Sales program) with the U.S. Government. The contract, which is valued at US$14.2 million, includes initial training.

The RQ-21A Blackjack is a small unmanned aircraft that will provide the Canadian Army with persistent, real-time intelligence through aerial surveillance and reconnaissance. It is a critical component of the Land Force Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance program. The system will be used for surveillance purposes only and will offer imagery and communication capabilities to help give soldiers an operational advantage in all environments. It will allow Army commanders to immediately identify threats, to take time sensitive decisions, and to respond quickly.

Canada is the first foreign military to acquire the system from the U.S. Navy. The system includes five unmanned aircraft, two ground control stations and one launch and recovery system. Each aircraft is capable of providing surveillance coverage of over 100 km for over 12 hours.

The Blackjack is produced by Boeing Insitu, based in Bingen, Washington. Once delivered to the Canadian Army in 2017, the system will be based out of Canadian Forces Base Gagetown and operated by the 4th Artillery Regiment (General Support).

Quotes

    “Buying innovative and proven defence technology directly from our allies is just one of the many ways in which the Government of Canada is able to deliver the right equipment to the Canadian Armed Forces at the best value for Canadians.”
    The Honourable Judy M. Foote
    Minister of Public Services and Procurement

    “The Blackjack aerial surveillance system will provide the Canadian Armed Forces with modern, sophisticated technology that will give commanders the situational awareness they need to conduct missions effectively. We are pleased to work cooperatively with the U.S. government and the U.S. Navy to bring this leading-edge technology to Canada.”
    The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan
    Minister of National Defence

Quick Facts

    The Canadian Armed Forces requires rapid access to relevant information about the environment in civil or military situations, and only a family of unmanned aircraft vehicles can meet the diverse intelligence demands of a modern battlefield.
    The RQ-21A Blackjack is a runway independent system that can carry multiple payloads, which makes it a flexible, multi-mission platform that could be used on foreign operations, and that could be called upon by the government to support domestic operations such as a G8 Summit or even a natural disaster.
    The system was procured through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program with the U.S. Government.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 487,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,397
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?

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
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?

ERC:  cf https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,111619.msg1339743.html#msg1339743
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,376
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
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.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2016, 13:29:20 by Dimsum »
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 487,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,397
Sorry, all, I was really thinking of this question:


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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,706
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,114
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).

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 922,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,198
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Is this a replacement for the SPERWER that we were using in Afg?

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,706
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,114
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.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,376
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
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. 
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
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.





"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,376
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
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. 
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,595
  • Crewman
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
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 219,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,853
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.

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,706
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,114
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.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,691
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?

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,706
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,114
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?

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.


Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 555,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,178
.....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.....

        :pop:      /cynic

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 421,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,152
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Once they design a cool logo ...
Done!
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
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:




"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,595
  • Crewman
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 421,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,152
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
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?
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 922,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,198
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
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...

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
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!    [:D  :cheers:
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 487,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,397
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
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 41,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,176
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!!
Living the lean life

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 32,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 720
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.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,376
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
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.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,376
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
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.
.

If the only mission was surveillance, maybe.  However, one of the main caveats was a targeting and strike capability.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
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?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 225,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,899
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Not a simple question IMO.
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,376
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
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.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 32,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 720
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.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
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?"

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 421,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,152
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Necro-bump with the latest ....
Quote
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,"

The deal will include training, testing and engineering, operations support, maintenance and other services, Pentagon said.

Eight-three percent of the work will be performed at Insitu's plant in Bingen, Wash., with 5 percent at various locations into the continental United States and 12 percent outside. Work is expected to be completed in June 2022 ...
More @ link
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter