Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft

[childs56]

South Korea New AEW&C program

South Korea Has Chosen Its Next Airborne Early Warning Radar Jet

South Korea will add the L3Harris Global 6500-based airborne early warning and control aircraft to its current fleet of four Boeing E-7s. South Korea will add the L3Harris Global 6500-based airborne early warning and control aircraft to its current fleet of four Boeing E-7s.

www.twz.com

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That is a funky looking Global 6500, especially the nose.

 

[Baz]

Before I say something which is probably meaningless, I will give my relevant experience. I was the surveillance officer at AGS-IO (Alliance Ground Surveillance Implementation Office, SHAPE, Belgium). At the time we were part of NAEWC FC (NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force Command). As the surveillance part of AGS (Global Hawk with MP-RTIP) was meant to do air ground battle management (ie JSTARS stuff) possibly in conjunction with NATO E-3s, I had plenty of interface with NATO E-3 drivers (including USAF and RAF), JSTARS guys, and even a E-2 bubba.

So I have a question: does Canada want AEW or AEW&C? Do they even know? And, for both of them, in what domains: just air, or air and maritime and/or land?

The reason is the C means control; ie, airborne battle management. Adding it means a completely different platform, or, for UAVs, extra radios, back haul, and crew force.

 

[Greene]

Before I say something which is probably meaningless, I will give my relevant experience. I was the surveillance officer at AGS-IO (Alliance Ground Surveillance Implementation Office, SHAPE, Belgium). At the time we were part of NAEWC FC (NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force Command). As the surveillance part of AGS (Global Hawk with MP-RTIP) was meant to do air ground battle management (ie JSTARS stuff) possibly in conjunction with NATO E-3s, I had plenty of interface with NATO E-3 drivers (including USAF and RAF), JSTARS guys, and even a E-2 bubba.

So I have a question: does Canada want AEW or AEW&C? Do they even know? And, for both of them, in what domains: just air, or air and maritime and/or land?

The reason is the C means control; ie, airborne battle management. Adding it means a completely different platform, or, for UAVs, extra radios, back haul, and crew force.

According to the procurement website, we are apparently looking for warning & control to cover air and sea: Airborne Early Warning & Control (Our North, Strong and Free) - Defence Capabilities Blueprint I'm not sure if that answers your question but that's my interpretation of project description.

 

[Baz]

According to the procurement website, we are apparently looking for warning & control to cover air and sea: Airborne Early Warning & Control (Our North, Strong and Free) - Defence Capabilities Blueprint I'm not sure if that answers your question but that's my interpretation of project description.

Thanks for the reference.

Given that, it doesn’t matter what radar you can stick into a UAV; the bigger piece is control. You need a robust Link and radio fit as well. Which means a lot of real time back haul connectivity.

And you still need the battle management crew force at either a distributed ground station or main operating base.

Is anyone even doing airborne battle management for the air mission by UAV yet? AGS is trying to do it for the air to ground mission, but I haven’t heard any particular success in that area yet. This isn’t surprising, given that the “ISR” types in NATO (read USAF Europe) didn’t understand the original requirement was for a “JSTARS.”

 

[ytz]

So I have a question: does Canada want AEW or AEW&C? Do they even know? And, for both of them, in what domains: just air, or air and maritime and/or land?

The reason is the C means control; ie, airborne battle management. Adding it means a completely different platform, or, for UAVs, extra radios, back haul, and crew force.

That's not how this is going to go. We have certain requirements which drive a certain solution here. Let's start with two operational ones:

1) AAR. Obvious requirement with the Arctic.

2) 360 coverage. To reduce operational complications.

You can guess who gets ruled out on those. Then there's the technical requirement:

3) No paper airplane.

Guess who wins?

If L3 can get a prototype to the Koreans before our RFP hits the street, they'll be able to get past #3. Other than that, you can imagine the furious political lobbying going on right now to try and get the RCAF to pass up #1 and #2.

Whatever we get, will be in line with what allies have. And if it's the Wedgetail, it'll be like the F-35, we'll jump in on the higher block to get past developmental software and have high commonality. I don't think the Wedgetail is even at a universal Block ii for software.

 

[Lumber]

Thanks for the reference.

Given that, it doesn’t matter what radar you can stick into a UAV; the bigger piece is control. You need a robust Link and radio fit as well. Which means a lot of real time back haul connectivity.

And you still need the battle management crew force at either a distributed ground station or main operating base.

Is anyone even doing airborne battle management for the air mission by UAV yet? AGS is trying to do it for the air to ground mission, but I haven’t heard any particular success in that area yet. This isn’t surprising, given that the “ISR” types in NATO (read USAF Europe) didn’t understand the original requirement was for a “JSTARS.”

Canada has a very top heavy military, and I don't mean that in the sense that we have too much brass and too much bureaucracy. I mean that in the sense that we have a high level of engagement, training, skill, participation, and technology, but in a very limited/narrow quantity. We don't have a lot of "ground troops" (in every element), but we have a lot of capability, desire, and willingness to lead/control/command those troops (or fleets, or squadrons).

I think that we could put an AEW&C aircraft to good use, because those who are assigned to it would be well trained and experienced, and Canada would be willing to employ them at the "front lines", they'd just be controlling/directing/warning other people's forces.

Now, that's my hope and belief. It's entirely possible that whoever is pushing for this is imagining that in a future conflict this AEW&C aircraft is supporting an entirely Canadian (or mostly Canadian) "battle group", which I think is just silly. They're having a similar problem in the Navy right now. They are looking at some of the new capabilities and even existing structure of the USN and trying to replicate them, ignorant of the fact (or ignoring it) that a lot of those capabilities and structures are only possible (or economical) because of the scale of the USN.

 

[ytz]

Canada has a very top heavy military, and I don't mean that in the sense that we have too much brass and too much bureaucracy. I mean that in the sense that we have a high level of engagement, training, skill, participation, and technology, but in a very limited/narrow quantity. We don't have a lot of "ground troops" (in every element), but we have a lot of capability, desire, and willingness to lead/control/command those troops (or fleets, or squadrons).

I think that we could put an AEW&C aircraft to good use, because those who are assigned to it would be well trained and experienced, and Canada would be willing to employ them at the "front lines", they'd just be controlling/directing/warning other people's forces.

Now, that's my hope and belief. It's entirely possible that whoever is pushing for this is imagining that in a future conflict this AEW&C aircraft is supporting an entirely Canadian (or mostly Canadian) "battle group", which I think is just silly. They're having a similar problem in the Navy right now. They are looking at some of the new capabilities and even existing structure of the USN and trying to replicate them, ignorant of the fact (or ignoring it) that a lot of those capabilities and structures are only possible (or economical) because of the scale of the USN.

This is just silly projection from the army on to the air force. That's not air forces work. And it's not how an AEW/C platform would be employed.

The base requirement is damn simple. The RCAF needs its own AEWC platform so that we stop relying so much on USAF E-3s domestically. Capability over and above that is a bonus.

 

[Baz]

That's not how this is going to go. We have certain requirements which drive a certain solution here…

That’s why I phrased it as a question… it was kind of my point. If you want an AEW&C aircraft then all the discussions about whether or not you can put an acceptable radar in a UAV become somewhat moot, because you need a battle management crew.

… and yes, you rapidly get to one solution…

Canada does not have the capacity to pioneer a unique solution here. The USAF is hedging they might be able move their battle management functions into a few centralized locations, like they did for ISR PED in the DGS. I’m not convinced that is a good idea in a peer on peer world, as that becomes a mighty tempting operational level target. One of NATO AWACS initial roles was as a gap filler for loss of either sensors or fighter control nodes.

 

[Baz]

This is just silly projection from the army on to the air force. That's not air forces work. And it's not how an AEW/C platform would be employed.

The base requirement is damn simple. The RCAF needs its own AEWC platform so that we stop relying so much on USAF E-3s domestically. Capability over and above that is a bonus.

Agreed. It’s depressing when you here NORAD briefs that go:

• CONR 56 fighters, 1 AWACS, 2 tankers
• ANR 8 fighters, 1 AWACS, 1 tanker
• CANR 4 fighters, 1 AWACS, 2 tankers

… but the CANR AWACS is parked in Oklahoma and the tankers in Maine and Washington.

 

[ytz]

....

 

[ytz]

Agreed. It’s depressing when you here NORAD briefs that go:

• CONR 56 fighters, 1 AWACS, 2 tankers
• ANR 8 fighters, 1 AWACS, 1 tanker
• CANR 4 fighters, 1 AWACS, 2 tankers

… but the CANR AWACS is parked in Oklahoma and the tankers in Maine and Washington.

True. That said, all you ABMs are going to be super happy when the squadron is stood up in North Bay and all those postings in OK, AK and GK get turned to NB. Or at least that's what my ABM buddies say.

 

[Baz]

True. That said, all you ABMs are going to be super happy when the squadron is stood up in North Bay and all those postings in OK, AK and GK get turned to NB. Or at least that's what my ABM buddies say.

Yeah, all the ABNs in CSprings, SHAPE and GK I interacted with certainly had an interesting set of postings under their belt.

It’s funny, in my role as the surveillance officer at AGS IO I fought to maintain battle management and sensor operator positions on the crew force, so they ISR types didn’t steal them. Not just air, but multi-domain. That was when Canada had walked away from GK, but I still tried to make the case for Canadians at Sigonella. I think it worked out well did get ISR and BM positions there.

 

[ytz]

That’s why I phrased it as a question… it was kind of my point. If you want an AEW&C aircraft then all the discussions about whether or not you can put an acceptable radar in a UAV become somewhat moot, because you need a battle management crew.

… and yes, you rapidly get to one solution…

Canada does not have the capacity to pioneer a unique solution here.

That's what I was getting at. We're not doing anything unique. The driving priority is replacing AWACS dependency. If we get something more. Great. But that will not be a hard requirement.

And this is all obvious. Keep in mind that every single project has to be tied to policy. Either ONSAF or SSE. If going outside or substantially beyond that, you're going to need policy cover from the very top. Unlikely that something like that happens in your community and you don't hear about it. (I'm assuming you're an ABM).

The USAF is hedging they might be able move their battle management functions into a few centralized locations, like they did for ISR PED in the DGS. I’m not convinced that is a good idea in a peer on peer world, as that becomes a mighty tempting operational level target. One of NATO AWACS initial roles was a a gap filler for loss of either sensors or fighter control nodes.

We aren't immune to the madness down south. And that SB-AMTI talk has creeped north. But at least we don't live in a world where Elon Musk can out rule NDHQ. Yet.

I know there's also the controlling from a box in a hotel room. One of my buddies did that on exchange at Shaw (Kingpin). It's a cool idea. And let's be honest, CBC2 is an extension of all this and we're definitely heading there. I don't think that invalidates having airborne battle management for NORAD though. Gotta give the Russians a giant airborne emitter to draw them in.

 

[Baz]

I have just enough experience with Air BM that when my company was trying to bid on a ground segment project I told them to go hire some Air BM SMEs, because we didn’t have any (I was the closest due to my NORAD time, but I was missile not air).

They didn’t, and they didn’t get to bid. Like everything else, no amount of “thinking out of the box” replaces years of experience. In our world, the only thing that does replace that is a much shorter period of actual combat experience.

And nope, not an Air BM. MH TACCO, which is a maritime BM, we just don’t call them that.