Project Noctua & the Heron UAV - Interim capability to support Afghanistan Ops

[karl28]

          I hope that this moves doesn't happen . I think having the UAV in service would still be beneficial to the military even after they are done combat operations in Afghanistan .  I don't see why you couldn't use them in border security patroles or even peace keeping operations should the need every arise to do that kind of mission again .

 

[Journeyman]

Quite often, "nice to have," or even "useful capability," gets trumped by "here's your budget."

 

[dapaterson]

A quick review of the information online would reveal several salient facts:

(1) Canada does not own the aircraft, but, rather, is renting.

(2) Canada is currently looking to buy other UAVs.


Thus, with contracts expiring in line with the move out of KAF, it's entirely logical that this UAV mission would end; just as it's entirely logical that the requirments for a UAV to patrol Canada's domestic airspace may well be different from the requirements in Afghanistan.

 

[aesop081]

          I hope that this moves doesn't happen .

It is happening.

I don't see why you couldn't use them in border security patroles

The RAAF crash in Suffield ( a Heron UAV) should tell you why it is not possible. Than and the fact that border patrol is not the military's job.


The MDA contract for the Heron is soon over and JUSTAS is delayed. Thats all there is to this story.

 

[OldSolduer]

Quite often, "nice to have," or even "useful capability," gets trumped by "here's your budget."

And that's what it comes down to.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The public will demand their peace dividend after the mission changes and I fear many things will be on the chopping block/pared back.  WRT the drone issue, I do hope they don't drag their feet too long on it as the skill set/personnel with experience will degrade sooner rather than later.  This is a capability that should not be lost to the CF as I am sure they will be wanting it again some day.

 

[aesop081]

I do hope they don't drag their feet too long on it as the skill set/personnel with experience will degrade sooner rather than later. 

From a payload operator point of view, i dont think the skill fade will be much of an issue. The skills required for them is inherent in thier trade.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think there may be many good reasons NOT to proceed in haste with the UAV projects in Canada.

The biggest one that I can think of is that since 2001 and there has been a massive revolution in aerial reconnaissance.  The militaries of the west have been pumping billions into what are effectively field trials of multiple technologies on multiple platforms and spending vast chunks of that in the software necessary to unclutter the picture and understand all those moving pixels.

Before 2001 the Air Forces and the Navies were leading the ISTAR field and it was all about AWACS, JSTARS, E8s, Nimrod Mk4, ASTOR and Aurora Upgrades.  Global Hawk was an esoteric technology and Predator was fighting for budget space as the poor cousin of Global Hawk.  Some folks were talking about Airships on the looney fringe.

In the middle of this the Air Force didn't want to know about dollars that flew but didn't need a pilot on board.  The Navy had always being reluctantly spending dollars on its aerial component and the Army wasn't allowed a look in.

Fast forward 10 years.....

The Air Force is dragged kicking and screaming into the UAV game.  The Navy is still about where it was.  Meanwhile the Army (as led by the US Army),
is leading the UAV run fielding all of the following:
radio controlled model aircraft
unpiloted small aircraft
piloted small aircraft
barrage balloons (tethered aerostats) of various dimensions
untethered Hybrid Air Vehicles that will stooge around at 20,000 feet for 3 weeks
GPS guided parachute systems
unmanned helicopters

And coming soon to skies near you -  the High Altitude Airship - operating at 60,000 feet for months.
And Predator has morphed into Reaper which also operates above 50,000 feet
And Global Hawk is still in service and expanding.

Meanwhile the sensor technology has expanded so that more can be seen from greater distances in greater detail more of the time, with different sensors operating on different wavelengths generating composite pictures that the human eye can't generate from the visible spectrum.  Thus Gorgon Stare......

And on the civilian front Radars and Lidar systems on satellites are mapping the Antarctic, detecting lakes and mountains, through kilometers of ice, while archaeologists are using the same technology to map out towns buried under forests for centuries and fields and sand dunes for millenia.


So ..... given all those moving pieces,  what do you want to order?

Enduring satellites?
Just in time satellites?  (recently I was reading about Canada considering building its own rockets)
High Altitude Airships?
Long Endurance Multipurpose Vehicles? (Hybrid Airships)
Global Hawk?
Reaper?
Rivet Joint partnerships?
P8 MPAs?
Aurora Upgrades?
F35s (with their recce capabilities)

And while on the recce subject, what are the implications for surface warship design when it costs a billion pounds (2 Bn CAD) to mount a gimballed radar on a 6000 tonne platform so as to see out to a horizon of 15 to 50 miles?  Why not post an HAA over the fleet like the Army does with JLENS and just downlink the surface picture generated using Gorgon Stare technology?  Your ship now needs a lap top and a USB cable plugged into your Mk41 VLS system to launch appropriate defensive measures.

So where do you want to spend your Buck and a Half?

 

[aesop081]

So ..... given all those moving pieces,  what do you want to order?
.....
P8 MPAs?
Aurora Upgrades?

And while on the recce subject

If these 2 aircraft were specialized surveillance aircraft, you could potentialy replace them with UAVs/Sattelites/whatever.

They are combat aircraft and their sensors are, first and foremost, designed to locate the target(s) so that the aircraft can destroy it, not ISR.

 

[dapaterson]

If these 2 aircraft were specialized surveillance aircraft, you could potentialy replace them with UAVs/Sattelites/whatever.

They are combat aircraft and their sensors are, first and foremost, designed to locate the target(s) so that the aircraft can destroy it, not ISR.

But their sensor suites also provdie a significant ISR capability that has to be included when defining your requirements.  We don't have the resoruces to build massive redundancy everywhere; if the Aurora community can provide a capability, no need to re-create it in the UAV community.

 

[aesop081]

  We don't have the resoruces to build massive redundancy everywhere; if the Aurora community can provide a capability, no need to re-create it in the UAV community.

I'm sorry, thats the point i should have made. Simply arguing that a UAV replacing  P-8/Aurora because a UAV can do surveillance better ( arguable) is ignoring that surveillance is not the P-8/Aurora's primary mission. We ( Canada) require both surveillance and combat mission capability, thus the Aurora upgrades are required regardless.

But this is all sidetrack.....

The MDA contract was for one purpose only and had pre-determined end date. Everyone knew that. JUSTAS is on hold, we knew that a while ago as well.

 

[MarkOttawa]

As for maritime patrol, an idea:

...Civilian maritime patrol Uppestdate
http://unambig.com/union-selfishness-and-new-air-force-aircraft/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[aesop081]

As for maritime patrol, an idea:

...Civilian maritime patrol Uppestdate
http://unambig.com/union-selfishness-and-new-air-force-aircraft/

Mark
Ottawa

An idea only suitable for domestic operations. We already use non-military assets for domestic maritime surveillance. Those are the Transport Canada Maritime Aerial reconaissance teams (MART) and Provincial Aerospace (PAL) who works for DFO as well as DND.

All this does not remove the need for an armed, military MPA.

[/derail]

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not going to argue what is the right solution.

I only indulged myself to point out that there are multiple overlaps in capabilities and while a few redundant levels of capability are useful we can't afford multiple levels.

There is always going to be a need for a despatchable capability to prosecute targets and deliver terminal effects (Reaper, P8, Aurora, F35).  Those platforms will also need to have their own sensor suite. 

But .....

Does it make sense to burn gas, wages and bearings to keep platform, sensors, crew and weapons in the air if all you want most of the time is just the sensor package?  You are stuck with having a platform to support the sensors but do you need to keep the crew and weapons aloft in order to maintain a 24/7 watch?

Isn't it better to husband your resources, keep your deployable platforms on the ground, so that they are available to go take a look at items of interest rather than burning avgas constantly patrolling empty seas?

Just thinking....

 

[aesop081]

Does it make sense to burn gas, wages and bearings to keep platform, sensors, crew and weapons in the air if all you want most of the time is just the sensor package?  You are stuck with having a platform to support the sensors but do you need to keep the crew and weapons aloft in order to maintain a 24/7 watch?

Kirkhill.........

Change  from "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle" to "Uninhabited Aerial System" and re-evaluate what you just posted above. I'm sure what i am trying to say will be clear to you.

Then evaluate that, idealy, you could benefit from having both platforms but can only afford one. Which one allows you to accomplish the majority of the effects you need ?

constantly patrolling empty seas?

You dont spend much time out there do you ??

 

[Kirkhill]

I spend no time out there.

I take your point that even uninhabited platforms require a manned ground station.  I believe that was your point?

Having said that: if we are to keep our approaches under surveillance do we have the wherewithal (money, materiel, manpower) to keep all of our approaches under surveillance on a 24/7 basis using manned platforms?  I don't believe that to be the case now or in the past.

Conversely we are approaching the point where we can keep large areas under observation with software alerting a duty operator to a moving target of interest somewhere in a large area.  Then it is a matter of getting a close and personal view.  Then it is a matter of dealing with any identified threats.

I will never argue against the need for combat systems.  I do, however, wonder how many fully capable combat systems we require versus how many sensor systems.  I don't see the need for a soldier for every policeman even when I see the need for soldiers to back up policemen.  Equally I don't see the need for an aircraft or a missile for every radar.  We have a radar picket that monitors dozens of radars (the North Warning System) but we only have 4 Canadian aircraft on the ground, as a Quick Reaction Force, available to go investigate what those radars turn up.

If we can elevate those radars (and add some decent EO devices) surely we can do the same for incoming surface vessels that we do for incoming aircraft.  And make your critical piece of the puzzle more productive than it is now.

I won't argue against the Aurora Upgrade, or the Aurora Replacement....I only ask if we have limited funds is it better to double up on the number of Auroras (or P8s) or is it better to take some portion of those funds and use them to fund an alternate sensor system that would make the remaining number of units more effective.

If it were up to me I think the layer between the satellites (which we have) and the Aurora (which we have) would be best handled by something like the High Altitude Airship (if they can get it to work) rather than Global Hawks or Reapers. 

The Hawks and Reapers don't really stay up that long and burn a lot of gas. They move too slow, or so it seems, to be an effective Quick Reaction Force over Canadian distances. And although the Reaper is armed I don't believe it is able to carry a sufficient load to cause a significant effect on a large surface vessel.

But, as you well know, I don't know that much about the technical aspects of the trade and so am better off not offering an opinion.

But then again, given the rapid rate of change out there, are there any professionals comfortable offering an "80% solution" that will give a service life of 20 years? 

 

[aesop081]

I take your point that even uninhabited platforms require a manned ground station.  I believe that was your point?

Not only manned ground stations but also maintenance crews, operations staff and everything else. Depending on the mode of operation, a launch and recovery unit at the site of operation is needed separately from those who operate it at a different location, thus nearly doubling the needs. If you want to do remote split operations, better be ready to pay for satellites and everything that comes with that. if you want to do line of sight operations, better be ready to build alot of ground stations, runways and deploy alot of people all over the country.

US military satellite time.......forget that.

to keep all of our approaches under surveillance on a 24/7 basis using manned platforms? 

Who says we need to ? You are making the broad assumption that we have no supporting functions such as intelligence or space based-assets to provide coverage as required.

Conversely we are approaching the point where we can keep large areas under observation with software alerting a duty operator to a moving target of interest somewhere in a large area.  Then it is a matter of getting a close and personal view.  Then it is a matter of dealing with any identified threats.

I have grown quite skeptical of what glossy brochures say software can do. Never underestimate the Mk1 eyeball and a trained and thinking operator.

We have a radar picket that monitors dozens of radars (the North Warning System) but we only have 4 Canadian aircraft on the ground, as a Quick Reaction Force, available to go investigate what those radars turn up.

Has anyone said they thought 4 aircraft was enough ? Are those 4 aircraft also required to deliver effects anywhere in the world at any time ?

If we can elevate those radars (and add some decent EO devices) surely we can do the same for incoming surface vessels that we do for incoming aircraft.  And make your critical piece of the puzzle more productive than it is now.

You would benefit from EW 101...........

or is it better to take some portion of those funds and use them to fund an alternate sensor system that would make the remaining number of units more effective.

And then what ? And that is making the assumption that what is done now is less than effective than what is required. Maritime domain awareness is one thing the Aurora does. Take that away and you still need all the Auroras we have (and then some). You also add a significant ammount of money ( the UAV itself, the crews and support, satellites to control them, etc...). You cant simply take Aurora funds away as the 18 we have are all required and all their YFR is needed, all for a marginal improvement in coverage ( and no capability to act).
 

And although the Reaper is armed I don't believe it is able to carry a sufficient load to cause a significant effect on a large surface vessel.

.....and it certainly not capable of handling subsurface contacts either.

But then again, given the rapid rate of change out there, are there any professionals comfortable offering an "80% solution" that will give a service life of 20 years?

Yup. 20-25 large MPA/MMA types in addition to a contracted UAS capability for deployments such as Afghanistan.

As for how this relates to the topic at hand, we needed UAVs so we got some for the operation. It has obviously been deemed that this is a capability we can put on hold. I don't necessarily agree but budgets being the way they are now its not surprising. If we go somewhere we once again need that capability, can we just go ahead and rent more ?

 

[Kirkhill]

 

[dimsum]

I had a feeling this was going to happen.  Transport Canada's restrictions on UAVs mean that at this moment, UAVs can't fly outside of Class F military airspace.  In the US (I believe), the Border Patrol UAVs are escorted by a chase plane.  The Heron crash in Suffield didn't help either.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was thinking more in regards to the tactical deployment of UAV. Maintaining a small detachment to continue to provide the resource for training and for any immediate deployment would be very useful and frankly the day of the UAV has come to stay for quite some time. Otherwise you are always either begging and borrowing or playing catch up.