26 Aug 2016: "Canada Buys Blackjack Unmanned Aircraft System from United States"
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,317
- Points
- 1,260
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?George Wallace said:
- Reaction score
- 4,738
- Points
- 1,160
Chris Pook 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...
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 5,975
- Points
- 1,260
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
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
- Reaction score
- 2,135
- Points
- 1,160
George Wallace said:
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
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,989
- Points
- 1,160
Welcome to Canada's first UAV Carrier
http://projectresolve.ca/website/?portfolio=davie
http://projectresolve.ca/website/?portfolio=davie
Colin P said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 8,324
- Points
- 1,160
Dimsum said:
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.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Not a simple question IMO.
- Reaction score
- 18,964
- Points
- 1,280
Chris Pook said:
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.
Chris Pook said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 8,324
- Points
- 1,160
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?"
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?"
- Reaction score
- 4,317
- Points
- 1,260
Similar threads
