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

[Edward Campbell]

I would think that you are correct, in that we would need a fair number of people to operate these "Sqns", but I think that the numbers could be cut back from your estimate a bit with some efficient planning.  For instance you think/estimate that there would be four shifts required to fly two aircraft on one patrol area.  I would say that with some planning that could be cut to three, with an over lap of two shifts during the launch/recovery stage of the RPVs.  While one shift is launching a RPV and moving on Station, the other is landing a RPV.  Once that stage of the handover is done, there is only the need for another shift to fly on Station.  Only during the handover stage of a patrol would you have two shifts on overlapping schedules.  Other than that, you would have one shift on and two off.  No need for a fourth.

Nonsense. Sustained, 24/7, 365 day/year, year after year require 5:1 depth

I am sure that if you look at it, you would also be able to cut back on your other operators, analysts, maintainers, etc.  They would all be working with multiple aircraft, not dedicate solely to one airframe.

If anything Dimsum's numbers are consevative.

Could one operating base, centrally located, also factor in on the reduction of personnel?  Why not?  Afghanistan is an example.  Most of the operators were in the US.  Only the pers necessary to control the aircraft for the launch and recovery of the shorter range RPVs were in Afghanistan.  Global Hawk, if I am correct, was launched well outside of Afghanistan.  Once in the air, the control was passed to operators in the US.  Here, at home, with no threat, an airfield centrally located, could easily house all the pers necessary to fly these RPVs and monitor all of Canada's areas of responsibility and interest.

That's very situational ~ professionals plan for something near to the worst case.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm pretty sure that the military and the government has most of the bugs and logistics worked out.

While we've seen some pretty silly things from both, I doubt they just decided to go buy these things, stick them in a hanger and then try figure the manning, control, pers and props to make it all work. 

Lots of things happen well above our paygrade and purview.

One hopes....

 

[George Wallace]

Nonsense. Sustained, 24/7, 365 day/year, year after year require 5:1 depth

Fine.  I can go with that assumption.

If anything Dimsum's numbers are consevative.

I disagree.  As pointed out, we have other means covering both East and West Coasts, in all weather conditions, at the moment.  That would quite concievably do away with two thirds of his conceived requirements. 

As for my statement to them working with multiple aircraft, not dedicated to one airframe, let me clarify that:  No one Tail Number (I am talking about a RPV/UAV/RPA/whatever the term of the day is) requires four shifts of operators to fly it.  Multiple shifts will be required to fly that 'one' Tail Number over its flight.  Is there a requirement for four shifts?  I suggested that while one shift is flying it on Station, two are resting.  When it is time to land that aircraft, the shift on duty will take the aircraft off Station and land it, while concurrently another shift is getting another airframe into the air and on Station, leaving one shift still resting.  Once the outgoing shift has landed, the hand over done to the oncoming shift, they join the current shift in the rest cycle.  There is no requirement for a fourth shift.  The same could be said for the other SMEs that would be required for this/these Sqns.

Centralizing the airframes in one location cuts down on maint pers required. 

If alternate or forward locations are required, then of course you need more pers; but do those locations have to be at 100% manning or manned at all?

That's very situational ~ professionals plan for something near to the worst case.

True.  Plan for the worse case scenario.  I might bring up one CF organization that does just that, and not to the numbers that you and Dimsum suggest - CF Fire Fighters.  Just look how they set up their shift work.

Another clarification I'd like to make is that I am thinking of RPVs with long range/long loiter time capabilities; not shorter range/short loiter time RPVs that have been mentioned as being used in Afghanistan.  I am thinking about the type of RPV mentioned ref this article.

 

[aesop081]

I disagree.  As pointed out, we have other means covering both East and West Coasts, in all weather conditions, at the moment.  That would quite concievably do away with two thirds of his conceived requirements. 

This is an incorrect assessment in just about every way imaginable.

There is no requirement for a fourth shift.

US experience with 24/7 operation of Global Hawk says different. 

 

[George Wallace]

US experience with 24/7 operation of Global Hawk says different.

I will accept that.  Will we operate exactly the same as they, or will we do things differently as we find is the norm in most, if not all, our occupations?

Do you operate with the same amount of shifts as the Americans in your 'flying posn'?

 

[aesop081]

Do you operate with the same amount of shifts as the Americans in your 'flying posn'?

Relatively speaking, yes.

They are on a much larger scale but the ratios are similar.

 

[dapaterson]

One additional consideration:  To maintain 24/7 coverage of a location, two simultaneous crews are required, operating two aircraft:

Crew A is on station.

Crew B launches, transits, and arrives on station.

Crew A leaves station and returns for recovery.


Having only a single crew means only a single platform is operating, which means coverage gaps when the platform is transiting to and from the area of interest.

 

[Old Sweat]

Have we established that 24/7 UAV coverage is required? There may be other options including having the capability to launch 24/7, but not necessarily having a system on station.

 

[aesop081]

Have we established that 24/7 UAV coverage is required? There may be other options including having the capability to launch 24/7, but not necessarily having a system on station.

Of course there is. We have plenty of capabilities we do not operate 24/7. The capability to do so as needed is required and the force has to be structured to be able to operate 24/7, even if it is for a limited amount of time.

 

[George Wallace]

They are on a much larger scale ........

;D

Yes they are, and they are more specialized, often employing three to ten pers to do the same job that we employ one or two.

 

[Old Sweat]

Of course there is. We have plenty of capabilities we do not operate 24/7. The capability to do so as needed is required and the force has to be structured to be able to operate 24/7, even if it is for a limited amount of time.

Thanks. I think that is what I meant.

 

[Loachman]

One additional consideration:  To maintain 24/7 coverage of a location, two simultaneous crews are required, operating two aircraft:

Crew A is on station.

Crew B launches, transits, and arrives on station.

Crew A leaves station and returns for recovery.


Having only a single crew means only a single platform is operating, which means coverage gaps when the platform is transiting to and from the area of interest.

Presuming that whatever we buy has at least the same capabilities as simple, ancient, French Sperwer, then that is not entirely so as one crew can control two UAVs simultaneously, although one would be "inactive" and flying autonomously. This would cover the transit period.

Centralizing the airframes in one location cuts down on maint pers required. 

Not really, as "maint pers required" is driven by workload, ie number of airframes and flying rates, rather than location. Some other personnel savings may be expected by consolidating, however.

As we do not know what we will get, if we get anything, and what its capabilities and requirements really are, such speculation is not particularly valid anyway.

 

[aesop081]

Yes they are, and they are more specialized, often employing three to ten pers to do the same job that we employ one or two.

There is a difference between "often" and "always". Furthermore, how they structure their MOS has little bearing on this discussion.

 

[Loachman]

Yes they are, and they are more specialized, often employing three to ten pers to do the same job that we employ one or two.

I do not think that the difference in crew positions between our Auroras and their Orions varies by even the lower end of your range.

Reaper crews consist of two pers, and sometimes an analyst.

 

[aesop081]

I do not think that the difference in crew positions between our Auroras and their Orions varies by even the lower end of your range.

They require less dry sensor operators then we do ( 2 on the CP-140 and 1 on the P-3C), the rest of the crew is the same.

 

[George Wallace]

There is a difference between "often" and "always". Furthermore, how they structure their MOS has little bearing on this discussion.

Perhaps it does, as you brought up how the US does things.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Perhaps it does, as you brought up how the US does things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32C0eKRQVt8

;D

 

[dimsum]

After reading the replies, I should clarify a few things when I made up the numbers:

1.  I assumed one operating base (e.g. Winnipeg) in the centre of the country.  Multiple bases obviously add to the amount of pers required.
2.  If there were FOLs, they are temporary, although the US experience has been to station Launch and Recovery Teams whose sole job is to land and take-off the Reaper/GH in-theatre.  That will add another bunch of people into the mix.
3.  I assumed that at least initially, NAV CANADA (or any other agency) would be wary of letting an RPA transit autonomously for 4+ hours until being ONSTA, especially if it involves going through potentially-busy civilian airspace (e.g. Airways between Toronto and Vancouver)
4.  The idea of having 2 full crews per RPA is as Loachman said; the boredom and lack of sensory input is more pronounced on RPAs than manned aircraft.  When I was operating the Heron, we tried to switch off every 2 hours because of that.  To effect a true handover, at some point 3 crews have to be there (ie. Crew A, then B, then A, then C, then B, then C...etc.) as unlike a manned aircraft, the entire process is done while the mission is still running.

So, as E.R. Campbell has also stated, my numbers are conservative and really I should bump them up to account for the above considerations. 

 

[aesop081]

Perhaps it does, as you brought up how the US does things.

I sure did. The Mission Control element of an RQ-4 in the USAF consists of one pilot and one sensor operator. You can put all the "less specialized" Canadians you want in there, it will still take 2 people.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Wouldn't the Polar Hawk be patterned after the USN version (minus the crashing into Maryland part)? It's supposed to have a radar and other sensors as well. Don't they need to be watched, or does it just pass tracks instead of raw video?