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

JUSTAS: the project to buy armed Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAVs

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
CBC is reporting that UAVs (type undetermined), will be responsible for aerial surveillance of Canada's arctic regions.

Thoughts?
 

Bane

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I approve of this measure as a good first layer in northern surveillance. I hope that this does not replace Mk1 surveillance, but merely allows crews to focus on those areas that call for it.  With the state of the Aurora program who knows, but I'm not an expert on artic or airforce anything.   
 

medaid

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think this is an interesting step towards advancement. It will give aerial support to the Ranger patrols on the ground, as well as other resources previously limited to only mannes aerial surveilance flights. Such as cost for flight crew's pay, AvGas and other cost factors.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
42
Points
560
A post at The Torch:

UAVs for Arctic surveillance?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/uavs-for-arctic-surveillance.html

Mark
Ottawa
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
165
Points
680
Is there a UAV capable of carrying all the sensing & real time processing ability of the Aurora?
Would a mixed fleet of manned aircraft & strategic UAV not be more comprehensive?
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
42
Points
560
MCG: See the USN's "Broad Area Marine Surveillance (BAMS) Program":
http://www.defense-update.com/events/2007/summary/auvsi07_51bams.htm

Mark
Ottawa
 

Greymatters

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Let me get this straight - they want to patrol a triangular zone around 4,200 km at the base by 1,800 km at the top, with a resource that can only fly about 200 km per mission?  If they are talking about doing this with the existing UAV assets Canada owns and operates, then its not the stupidest idea Ive ever heard, but it gets brownie points for being close.

It can be done, but to do it right with a UAV means buying something like the Global Hawk that can cover up to 100,000 km2 per day (although its ability to operate in Arctic climates is uncertain).  However, at a price tag in excess of 35 million each, plus all the training of staff, and a need for the construction of a northern airfield and operations center to run it from, its not exacly the most economic use of money.

 

medaid

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think to completely replace the manned aerial surveillance of the Arctics would be a poor decision. The UAVs could be used as an intermission patrol vehicle to substitute the lack of presence of the Aurora. So, instead of 1 Aurora patrol flight per month let's just say, you now have 1 scheduled Aurora flight per month, plus the UAV flying circles above the Arctic.  If the UAV detects something, then the Aurora could be mobilized, and or the Rangers could be dispatched for a on the ground eyeballing of the situation.

Does that sound feasible at all?
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
60
Points
530
Global Hawk is more than able to handle the mission, a bit pricey compared to the Reaper version of the Predator. I would think you could use Yellowknife or Whitehorse in the west and Alert in the east to control the UAV's.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
tomahawk6 said:
Global Hawk is more than able to handle the mission, a bit pricey compared to the Reaper version of the Predator. I would think you could use Yellowknife or Whitehorse in the west and Alert in the east to control the UAV's.

Ok....

So Global Hawk is up there and finds something.........now what ?

If that much touted underwater sound detection system locates a sub....what is Global hawk going to do about it ?
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
60
Points
530
When was the last time a maritime surveillance aircraft dropped ASW on a submerged sub ?
 
A

aesop081

Guest
tomahawk6 said:
When was the last time a maritime surveillance aircraft dropped ASW on a submerged sub ?

So what you are saying is that we will NEVER have to search, localize, track and attack a sub in our waters.......EVER ?
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ASW is dead....... Yeah that's it....... Never to be seen again.... No more submarines... 

I had read somewhere that UAV's can only be flown in restricted airspace, have they been cleared to ripped around pretty much any where?

For controlling the UAV's couldn't they be controlled from pretty much anywhere via satlink?  Or do we need to set up shop up north?
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Dolphin_Hunter said:
I had read somewhere that UAV's can only be flown in restricted airspace, have they been cleared to ripped around pretty much any where?

As far as i know they cannot fly "due regard", which is the conditions where most of our work is done when doing surveillance patrols.

For controlling the UAV's couldn't they be controlled from pretty much anywhere via satlink?  Or do we need to set up shop up north?

Funny thing about satelites and operating up north........doesnt always work out so good
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
60
Points
530
Isnt the area pretty well frozen in winter ? Perhaps the UAV and the underwater detection system can work in winter and a manned system when the water is open ?

Has the government decided not to replace the Aurora with a new aircraft ?
 
A

aesop081

Guest
tomahawk6 said:
Isnt the area pretty well frozen in winter ?

The whole premiss of the debate is because the arctic is melting and the waterways opening up for navigation.

The rest of your post clearly shows that ASW is not your area.......
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
60
Points
530
CDN Aviator said:
The whole premiss of the debate is because the arctic is melting and the waterways opening up for navigation.

The rest of your post clearly shows that ASW is not your area.......

I wondered when you would make that point. However, it wont preclude me from asking questions or making comments. I fully understand the value of ASW and the submarine threat isnt going away. I was trying to work within the Canadian premise of patroling the region with UAV's in conjunction with a planned underwater submarine detection system.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
tomahawk6 said:
I wondered when you would make that point. However, it wont preclude me from asking questions or making comments. I fully understand the value of ASW and the submarine threat isnt going away.

Fair enough, i'm just trying to make the point that you can do all the surveillance you want but it doesnt do you any good if you cannot act on the information should you decide to take that course of action.  UAVs, provided we can make them work up north, do not allow us to opose foreign submarines should we chose to do so. I'm also trying to answer your questions/comments with due regard to OPSEC and ASW makes that difficult.


I was trying to work within the Canadian premise of patroling the region with UAV's in conjunction with a planned underwater submarine detection system.

Most people on this site seem to think that this is all thats required.....UAVs and some form of SOSUS network, manned MPA be dammned. This notion is false and this is obvious by the recent decision by the CAF to look at a manned replcement for the CP-140.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
60
Points
530
I agree that a manned system is preferred. After all the USN has selected a 737 platform for their P-3 replacement although I am sceptical of the USN decision to go with a jet aircraft. Not a pilot as you point out but I would think your endurance is better with a turbo prop. :)
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
With all respect to the guys that do the work, but some of the hyperbole getting thrown around doesn't really advance the debate.  I think even the most ignorant civvie (myself included) recognizes that UAV's do not provide a complete solution.  The question becomes what do they do well and are there opportunities to integrate them into a larger surveillance and interdiction model the provide better northern security than we have now?

Without being privileged to know OPSEC information like i) Aurora under-ice anti-submarine detection capabilities;
ii)  Aurora patrol schedules (are they one a day, twice a week, once a month, or whatever); etc., much of the debate is restricted.

What I think we can agree on is we need a more constant footprint in the North and the more we can move to a 24/7 surveillance & interdiction model, the better.

With that in mind, we have two separate potential threats:
1) Surface Vessels passing through what we deem to be territorial waters.
2) Submarines passing through what we deem to be territorial waters.

Essentially, if we want to claim "sovereignty" over that waterway, then we need to be able to assert it.

Bluntly and as per a previous post I think that necessitates very visable demonstrations of power in that region, the most important being escorting heavy armed icebreakers for any surface vessel that wishes to traverse the waterway.  Only after the flow of surface vessels is controlled (which I believe to be a benchmark in our sovereignty claim) does ASW in the arctic in any way hit my priority screen.  (Of note, the importance of this investment is exactly why I haven't jumped on the SSK bandwagon due to the fact that with budget restrictions a new SSK purchase by its existance eliminates many other investments which I believe to be of greater importance).

RE:  UAV's like Global Hawk being weapons-free - I cannot fathom any UAV ever replacing manned aircraft in the armed interdiction role.  I think where they can play a significant role is in providing additional lower-cost patrols that otherwise we couldn't afford to execute.  In short, UAV's will never be a replacement - but instead a supporting asset.


Matthew.  :salute:
 
Top