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

[The Bread Guy]

This from MERX:

The Canadian Forces (CF) has a need to field and support interoperable, network-enabled Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to provide Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR), Target Acquisition, and all-weather precision strike capabilities in support of CF operations worldwide. The objective of this Request for Information (RFI) is to share with Industry CF UAS requirement and seek feedback from Industry on potential options to meet CF needs and associated capability, schedule and cost. This is the first step of an Industry Engagement process where the JUSTAS project will be seeking initial input on availability of technology, ability for industry to deliver and cost estimates for the initial acquisition of the required UAS capability .... This is not a bid solicitation, and no contract will result from this RFI ....

More in the MERX bid package here (Google Docs)

 

[The Bread Guy]

Wanted:  Engineers for JUSTAS  “The Department of National Defence (DND) requires the services of four (4) Senior Engineers for services within the Joint UAS Surveillance Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS) Project ….” – more “who does what” details in bid package excerpt (11 pages) here.

 

[dimsum]

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=09ab61a2-14b8-4d56-9374-f8fd558c888f&sponsor=

2 questions: 

1:  When did the Ottawa Citizen break the story?  I try to keep up with Canadian military news but completely skipped this.
2.  I'm surprised that a paper based in Edmonton would be so anti-CF.

 

[Journeyman]

I didn't read it as anti-CF; rather it pointed out the realities of defence economics (stuff is expensive and so if not justified becomes an easy target for cuts) as well as noting that air attacks on human HVTs is a divisive topic.
      :dunno:

 

[dimsum]

I didn't read it as anti-CF; rather it pointed out the realities of defence economics (stuff is expensive and so if not justified becomes an easy target for cuts) as well as noting that air attacks on human HVTs is a divisive topic.
      :dunno:

Off topic, but this is a bone of contention for me.  From a political/strategic point of view, what is the difference in targetting someone via CF-18 or UAV, especially if both are using Precision Guided Munitions (Hellfire, GBU, JDAM, etc)?  All have a person somewhere (or in the case of most UAVs, multiple people somewhere) looking through a camera of some sort.  Like every other type of strike, JTACs have a hand in it as well. 

I believe that the argument that "hitting people with a Reaper is bad, but hitting the same people with a GBU dropped via Sniper pod off a fast jet is better" is ridiculous, given the above reasons.  If anything, the loiter time of an armed UAV will allow for longer time for the crews to check for potential civ casualties, collateral damage, etc.

 

[aesop081]

what is the difference

Public perception. People have come to believe that UAV strikes are nothing other than assassination campaigns, not tools of legitimate combat.

 

[Journeyman]

From a political/strategic point of view, what is the difference.... 

I tried to explain, but got "PM could not be sent to 'Dimsum' as their inbox is full!" 

 

[Baz]

Like every other type of strike, JTACs have a hand in it as well. 

That's not strickly true.  JTACs normally are only involved in the presence of friendly troops, ie for tactical action (thus Joint TACTICAL Air Controller), such as Close Air or Battlefield Interdiction.

For Operational Strike (like Libya), targetting is done in a targetting cell within the JFACC; the Targetteers are Intelligence Officers.  That's why what Canada did with JTACs onboard the CP-140 was innovative; you could say it broke new ground.  The US does it with JSTARS, NATO is looking at doing it with AWACS, which is why they controlled a Scan Eagle:
http://www.aco.nato.int/page272203947.aspx

There is a "discussion" within NATO between tactical and operational targetting, and at a higher level between ISR information to the edge or to the center.  This shouldn't be a surprise, becuase that discussion goes all the way back to Normandy and the use of Strategic Air for tactical support, with no real answer to this day if it was successful.

 

[dimsum]

Baz, thanks for the clarification.  Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's not strickly true.  JTACs normally are only involved in the presence of friendly troops, ie for tactical action (thus Joint TACTICAL Air Controller), such as Close Air or Battlefield Interdiction.

For Operational Strike (like Libya), targetting is done in a targetting cell within the JFACC; the Targetteers are Intelligence Officers.  That's why what Canada did with JTACs onboard the CP-140 was innovative; you could say it broke new ground.  The US does it with JSTARS, NATO is looking at doing it with AWACS, which is why they controlled a Scan Eagle:
http://www.aco.nato.int/page272203947.aspx

There is a "discussion" within NATO between tactical and operational targetting, and at a higher level between ISR information to the edge or to the center.  This shouldn't be a surprise, becuase that discussion goes all the way back to Normandy and the use of Strategic Air for tactical support, with no real answer to this day if it was successful.

And on the subject of "trees falling in the forest and making noise"..... Did the Libyan strikes ever happen?  Apparently there are those that believe the Operational level of combat doesn't exist.

Sorry Baz - no disrespect meant to you.  Your point was clearly and cogently made, even for this civilian.

I just couldn't resist a dig at others.  ;D >

Cheers.

 

[hagan_91]

Link removed in accordance with site owner policy.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[MarkOttawa]

Spiegel Online, silly piece:

"'Humane' Drones Are the Most Brutal Weapons of All

The German military is considering the purchase of combat drones. But we should not allow ourselves to be seduced by the idea that an unmanned aircraft is a humane weapon. On the contrary, they expose the true nature of war in all its brutality..."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/essay-on-german-plans-to-acquire-combat-drones-a-848851.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Not totally silly, penultimate para:

"Drones are a smart weapon, but also an insidious one, because the ethics surrounding their use are so complicated. Nevertheless, the Bundeswehr could be taking the right step if it acquires armed drones. But they cannot be used to hunt down terrorists. Germany is a country based on the rule of law and one which does not have the death penalty. As such, it should not get involved in remote-controlled executions. Unmanned aircraft make sense as support for ground troops during combat operations [and many other types of strike missions]. Apart from that, the future of security policy belongs to the robots, and it would be wrong to ignore this development."

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dimsum]

http://www.startribune.com/nation/165867156.html

Interesting. 

 

[Privateer]

Can anyone provide me with a link to the documents referred to in the following quote from this article: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canadian-military-spend-1-billion-unmanned-armed-drones-181629244.html:

According to a report in the Ottawa Citizen, the Harper government recently approved a military 'request to aerospace firms' to provide details about the types of drones now available in the marketplace.

The 'request' pointed out the need for the unmanned aircraft to operate in the Arctic. The aircraft should also be able to carry precision-guided munitions, the government said.

"This capability will allow the CF [Canadian Forces] to fill critical deficiencies," industry officials were told in the request for information sent to them July 23.

According to DND documents, the military intends to spend around $1 billion on the project.

Specifically, the "request" and/or the "DND documents".  I've seen spin put on this in the media, and I'd like to read the actual documents. 

I tried searching the forum, but couldn't find anything. 

Thanks in advance.

 

[PuckChaser]

We have "What's Canada buying" threads here kept up by Milnews.ca, that should have those bid documents. They come from MERX.

 

[Privateer]

I looked through the "What's Canada buying" threads for August, July, and June 2012, and I didn't see it.  That's when I posted this thread.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Did a quick search on MERX of the key phrases used in the story, but no joy.  That said, the original story talks about documents shared with industry, so they may not have appeared publicly via MERX - happy to hear from anyone who knows MERX better than I do on this, though.

Will continue to hunt & will share anything I find.

 

[dimsum]

I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember seeing something about it around the March/April timeframe, which sticks out in my mind b/c that was about the time I got posted OUTCAN and was getting questions about our future program from my co-workers.

 

[Privateer]

OK, I looked at MERX (thanks for the tip!), and this is probably the basis for the report: http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24BL-293-23008&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=PAGE3&rowcount=29&lastpage=3&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=2&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=YL4hVGPyNRebH8gt6UpFWg%3d%3d

JUSTAS PROJECT-REQUEST FOR INFORMAT(ION)

But there aren't any documents provided, or links to any more detail (such as the "$1 billion" reference).  Am I stuck there, or is there a place I can look for more detail?

Thanks again for the help.