• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CF seeking 3 or 4 manned fixed-wing ISR planes

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
545
Points
940
Speaking of RADAR, I'd heard there was going to be a multi-mode set on the MAISR platforms...not listed above.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
545
Points
940
Spectrum said:
Not a RADAR SME, but I'd estimate that the listed features are not all inclusive.

Possible or might have been dropped off the desired kit list.  I have an RAF friend who did this stuff, and their platform didn't have an imaging RADAR...

Either way, glad to see this one moving forward.
 

Gorgo

Full Member
Reaction score
17
Points
230
So which squadron will fly them?  Or is a new squadron standing up?
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
86
Points
560
One has one's doubts, esp. with this gov't:

WEAPONIZING MAISR, ARMED KING AIRS FOR CANADA
http://airsoc.com/articles/view/id/5b81f88a3d2d2ec0328b4567/weaponizing-maisr-armed-king-airs-for-canada


RCAF%2BMC-12.jpg

Mark
Ottawa
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
229
Points
630
What good does 3 aircraft do?  In order to sustain coverage you need at least 2 with a spare readily available.  There is your entire package.  One manpad causing even superficial damage and your response is severely limited.  As the attached article suggested, a minimum of 10 to 15 should be acquired.  3 is simply a waste of money IMHO
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
3,378
Points
1,260
YZT580 said:
What good does 3 aircraft do?  In order to sustain coverage you need at least 2 with a spare readily available.  There is your entire package.  One manpad causing even superficial damage and your response is severely limited.  As the attached article suggested, a minimum of 10 to 15 should be acquired.  3 is simply a waste of money IMHO

Would be interested to see your math in the mission analysis-based deduction leading to 10-15 aircraft.  Also interested to hear about how something doing I and S and R from a reasonably expected stand-off position would be tangling with enemy MANPADS close in with AD engagement ranges.  It would seem that your opinion of value, or lack thereof, differs from that of DND, Treasury Board, Finance, PSPC and PCO, to name a few GoC Departments/Agencies.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
766
Points
1,090
Just to clarify, this purchase is more directed at supporting SOF than conventional operations?

If so, makes sense.  And that's the sense I got from the initial articles & concept a few years ago. 


Question though - is this the right road to go down?  Would a long endurance UAV (Newest version of Reaper or whatever it is) be better suited if it's for armed ISR coverage?

^^ I know the community has already thought this through and decided this was the road to go down.  Just asking for clarification.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
545
Points
940
I'd say ideally  you'd have both, as they have different abilities.  We don't live in an ideal world though.

 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
465
Points
1,230
Bumped with the latest from the Pentagon info-machine as of 20 Dec 2019 ...
... Textron Aviation Inc., Wichita, Kansas, was awarded a $37,166,034 firm-fixed-price Foreign Military Sales (Canada) contract to acquire three Beechcraft King Air 350ER aircraft, program management, pilot training and field maintenance training.  One bid was solicited via the internet with one bid received.  Work will be performed in Wichita, Kansas, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2021.  Fiscal 2020 Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $37,166,034 were obligated at the time of the award.  U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-20-C-0012) ...
 

Gorgo

Full Member
Reaction score
17
Points
230
Well, it's a start.  Most likely, 434 Squadron will get the aircraft.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
3,378
Points
1,260
Fred Herriot said:
Well, it's a start.  Most likely, 434 Squadron will get the aircraft.

...or a detachment of 427.  It depends on whether the RCAF wants to chop another squadron OPCOM to CANSOF.

Regards
G2G
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,134
Points
990
Yes, I also am curious about how / why 434 would be assigned these resources.  Frankly, from a core platform perspective, they'd be a better fit under 8 OSS.

But I agree with G2G that a single SOF squadron is the most likely outcome (unless someone in the light blue world decides that it would be better to have a second SOF Sqn, which would then require an intermediate SOF Air Formation and associated C2 positions...)

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/squadron/multi-engine-utility-flight.page?
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
121
Points
680
Not going to 434 Sqn (former EW Sqn now OT&E) or 8 OSS.  It’ll be a tan asset.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
67
Points
530
milnews.ca said:
Bumped with the latest from the Pentagon info-machine as of 20 Dec 2019 ...

Link is not working, in fact the whole "www.defense.gov" website is down.

I'm assuming this is just the continuation of the original contract awarded back in Oct 2018?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,134
Points
990
Ditch said:
Not going to 434 Sqn (former EW Sqn now OT&E) or 8 OSS.  It’ll be a tan asset.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting they would or they should; only pointing out that it will be the same airframe (though likely employed somewhat differently...)
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
465
Points
1,230
Retired AF Guy said:
Link is not working, in fact the whole "www.defense.gov" website is down.
Working for me as of this post.  JUST in case, I've attached the text as well.

Retired AF Guy said:
I'm assuming this is just the continuation of the original contract awarded back in Oct 2018?
I suspect it's follow-up of the same, too -- only there was a lot more $ involved in the initial 2018 State Dep't approval.
 

Attachments

  • defense.gov-gt US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE gt Contract.pdf
    85.9 KB · Views: 57

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
3,378
Points
1,260
milnews.ca said:
Working for me as of this post.  JUST in case, I've attached the text as well.
I suspect it's follow-up of the same, too -- only there was a lot more $ involved in the initial 2018 State Dep't approval.

Not enough detail in the recent release regarding program details, vis a vis DoD/DoS budget allocated to the OEM, versus other integration elements that might not be included in that $37M figure.

Interesting to see it in the Army programs vice the Air Force programs. Gives indication as to the potential/likely configuration the exported assets will comprise.

Regards
G2G
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
67
Points
530
milnews.ca said:
Working for me as of this post.  JUST in case, I've attached the text as well.
I suspect it's follow-up of the same, too -- only there was a lot more $ involved in the initial 2018 State Dep't approval.

Looks like it was my browser (Firefox); tried MS Edge and connected now problem.
 
Top