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

[FJAG]

That can also be done via CEOTP or other means.

I think @SupersonicMax has a good point though - if the issue is actually training said folks, having more recruits in the front end isn’t going to solve the issue. There are currently no lack of Pilot recruits.

@FJAG: The US Army is the only service I know of using NCMs (not WOs) flying large-ish RPAS. The USN uses WOs or officers, the USMC will be using officers, and the USAF currently uses officers. On the sensor operator side, almost all use a type of AES Op equivalent except the RAF and RAAF, which use(d) a mix of NCMs and officers.

The WOs (actually CWOs) hold the command positions in platoons. None of the platoons have any officers. They appear only at the company level.

I just don’t know what we’re trying to solve…. There is a training capacity issue, not an interest in the trade issue. If we hire 500 prospective WOs next year, we still can’t train them.

The problem is that the training pipeline is too long. You can cut a minimum of four years (more if you take language instruction) out of the up front portion. With WOs you are training highly competent technicians and aren't out to build a senior staff officer or general.

Secondly the training itself is significantly shorter. A UAV pilot does not need the full pilot training program that any of the other streams need. I know, I know, the RCAF begs to differ.

We've gone through the pilot WO argument at great length a few years ago. I can't convince you and you certainly can't convince me.

 

[dimsum]

The WOs (actually CWOs) hold the command positions in platoons. None of the platoons have any officers. They appear only at the company level.


The problem is that the training pipeline is too long. You can cut a minimum of four years (more if you take language instruction) out of the up front portion. With WOs you are training highly competent technicians and aren't out to build a senior staff officer or general.

I don’t think most folks get 2nd language training anymore. It’s a bit of an issue because you get points for promotion, etc past Capt but many don’t have the course or test to get a profile.

Presumably some officers (in the leadership) would be RPA qualified as well, or would they be strictly admin/exec folks?

Secondly the training itself is significantly shorter. A UAV pilot does not need the full pilot training program that any of the other streams need. I know, I know, the RCAF begs to differ

The USAF RPA is significantly shorter. I don’t see why the RCAF one wouldn’t be as well - most of it could be done via simulators.

 

[dapaterson]

If you can train 50 people a year (made up number), and have 300 people awaiting training (also a made up number) shortening the pipeline by eliminating four years of Not Getting Caught does nothing.

It's the training system capacity that needs to be addressed first.

And, in an environment where there's increasing demand and pressure from the commercial side, capacity needs to be larger than the historic attrition rate (to say nothign of growing numbers of platforms that need more pilots).

 

[SupersonicMax]

The problem is that the training pipeline is too long. You can cut a minimum of four years (more if you take language instruction) out of the up front portion. With WOs you are training highly competent technicians and aren't out to build a senior staff officer or general.

The training pipeline isn’t too long. Its capacity isn’t large enough. The RMC/ROTP part isn’t where the bottleneck is at all. Hiring off the street won’t help that. DEOs also wait a long time for training.

Secondly the training itself is significantly shorter. A UAV pilot does not need the full pilot training program that any of the other streams need. I know, I know, the RCAF begs to differ.

It isn’t shorter and it needs the full pilot training program. To be allowed to conduct flight into non-segregated airspace, RPAS pilots will need to be winged pilots. This isn’t a Canadian self-imposed requirement but a NATO/ICAO one.

 

[dimsum]

It isn’t shorter and it needs the full pilot training program. To be allowed to conduct flight into non-segregated airspace, RPAS pilots will need to be winged pilots. This isn’t a Canadian self-imposed requirement but a NATO/ICAO one.

That is a very good point, and how the MQ-9B is different than the Reaper, Gray Eagle, etc.

Current RPAS (including Global Hawk) don’t fly in non-segregated airspace - either special corridors, restricted areas, or some other way of segregating it from other aircraft. The MQ-9B is supposed to fly in “normal” airspace, which requires specific qualifications.

 

[markppcli]

That is a very good point, and how the MQ-9B is different than the Reaper, Gray Eagle, etc.

Dont MQ-9 Reaper transit in the same air space on route to theatre?

Secondly the training itself is significantly shorter. A UAV pilot does not need the full pilot training program that any of the other streams need. I know, I know, the RCAF begs to differ.

Okay so what part of pilot training would you cut out ? Given that they will be flying in all air spaces what part would you get rid of.

I’ll be honest @FJAG in this thread we have two competing views, one is actually providing examples and while not data, the specifics of where training bottle necks are. You’re in the other camp and if you want to convince anyone you’ll have to be able to provide details of how’s and why’s your changes would benefit anyone.

 

[dimsum]

Dont MQ-9 Reaper transit in the same air space on route to theatre?

They are airlifted in boxes, then assembled in the airbase in/near theatre. When they fly from there to their operating area, it’s via some means of segregation.

The MQ-9B would be the first RPAS certified for actual flight in non-segregated airspace, alongside airliners and the like. Not sure if it’s been certified yet.

 

[Kirkhill]

Would it be fair to say that most military operations are conducted in "segregated airspace"?

Mortars, Howitzers, HIMARS, other assorted rockets, missiles, drones and UAVs generally seem to operate on the understanding that there will be no Air Canada flights in the vicinity.

If the Wings requirement is so that the RPAS can be threaded through the needle of the commercial skies then why not train operators to fly the vehicles in segregated conditions. You can then, either, upgrade operators to pilot status, commission them and give them wings, or take pilots and teach them how to become operators.

In the segregated space you need many operators for a short time (the duration of hostilities).
In the commercial space you don't need as many operators but you need them for longer shifts, perhaps even permanently on station.

Do the Air Traffic Control thing during peace time and in commercial space? One hour on, one hour off? A pilot could even switch out aircraft on his shift to maintain a permanently orbiting presence.

 

[markppcli]

Would it be fair to say that most military operations are conducted in "segregated airspace"?

Depends, I won’t speak outside of my fairly limited airspace box.

Mortars, Howitzers, HIMARS, other assorted rockets, missiles, drones and UAVs generally seem to operate on the understanding that there will be no Air Canada flights in the vicinity.

Most training areas are restricted air space. Remember when we were talking about drones, and air craft, and gun target lines all needing to be deconfliction snd you called it “red tape.” This is that shit, making sure all those air space users aren’t interfering with each other.

If the Wings requirement is so that the RPAS can be threaded through the needle of the commercial skies then why not train operators to fly the vehicles in segregated conditions. You can then, either, upgrade operators to pilot status, commission them and give them wings, or take pilots and teach them how to become operators.

So using pilots

In the segregated space you need many operators for a short time (the duration of hostilities).
In the commercial space you don't need as many operators but you need them for longer shifts, perhaps even permanently on station.

Do the Air Traffic Control thing during peace time and in commercial space? One hour on, one hour off? A pilot could even switch out aircraft on his shift to maintain a permanently orbiting presence.

A pilot handing off control to an operator once they’re in the box is a possible COA from the interview I heard on the Pilot Project. That still requires we have the pilots to get it there so how much your saving in manning is very questionable. Even if they’re swapping out air craft it’s still 1 pilot / operator on 1 A/C so what’s really gained.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Would it be fair to say that most military operations are conducted in "segregated airspace"?

Mortars, Howitzers, HIMARS, other assorted rockets, missiles, drones and UAVs generally seem to operate on the understanding that there will be no Air Canada flights in the vicinity.

If the Wings requirement is so that the RPAS can be threaded through the needle of the commercial skies then why not train operators to fly the vehicles in segregated conditions. You can then, either, upgrade operators to pilot status, commission them and give them wings, or take pilots and teach them how to become operators.

In the segregated space you need many operators for a short time (the duration of hostilities).
In the commercial space you don't need as many operators but you need them for longer shifts, perhaps even permanently on station.

Do the Air Traffic Control thing during peace time and in commercial space? One hour on, one hour off? A pilot could even switch out aircraft on his shift to maintain a permanently orbiting presence.

It may be so during an expeditionary deployment but for domestic operations, the aircraft will have to transit through non-segregated airspace.

Even in a Libya-like scenario where aircraft are based away from the AO, they will have to transit though civil airspace. Depending on where they operate from, they may or may not have segregated airspace to use.

 

[dimsum]

Would it be fair to say that most military operations are conducted in "segregated airspace"?

Mortars, Howitzers, HIMARS, other assorted rockets, missiles, drones and UAVs generally seem to operate on the understanding that there will be no Air Canada flights in the vicinity.

If the Wings requirement is so that the RPAS can be threaded through the needle of the commercial skies then why not train operators to fly the vehicles in segregated conditions. You can then, either, upgrade operators to pilot status, commission them and give them wings, or take pilots and teach them how to become operators.

In the segregated space you need many operators for a short time (the duration of hostilities).
In the commercial space you don't need as many operators but you need them for longer shifts, perhaps even permanently on station.

Do the Air Traffic Control thing during peace time and in commercial space? One hour on, one hour off? A pilot could even switch out aircraft on his shift to maintain a permanently orbiting presence.

That may work in an Afghanistan scenario but it wouldn’t work if we were using them for maritime or Arctic missions. Those are all within domestic (Canadian or another country), or oceanic airspace.

Also, if you have two sets of quals for your folks then you need to ensure there are enough of both types (accounting for leave, shifts, etc). It’d be easier just to have all trained up so anyone could take any mission.

As for the shifts, the crews (there is also a sensor operator and a Mission Int Coordinator in each Reaper crew) do swap out every few hours. The aircraft endurance is over 24 hours so it would be unrealistic to have just one crew in each aircraft.

 

[dapaterson]

It may be so during an expeditionary deployment but for domestic operations, the aircraft will have to transit through non-segregated airspace.

Even in a Libya-like scenario where aircraft are based away from the AO, they will have to transit though civil airspace. Depending on where they operate from, they may or may not have segregated airspace to use.

Even in countries in civil war / where all civil order appears to have collapsed, there are instances where ATC continued to squawk and talk, as that was their job.

 

[FJAG]

If you can train 50 people a year (made up number), and have 300 people awaiting training (also a made up number) shortening the pipeline by eliminating four years of Not Getting Caught does nothing.

It's the training system capacity that needs to be addressed first.

The training pipeline isn’t too long. Its capacity isn’t large enough. The RMC/ROTP part isn’t where the bottleneck is at all. Hiring off the street won’t help that. DEOs also wait a long time for training.

Apples and Oranges.

My issue deals with the wasted resources in running someone through a government funded education which does nothing to teach him the technical skills to do the job. It also deals with the individual's wasted time. There are numerous individuals quite capable of flying aircraft who do not wish to, or need to, go through a university education.

Of course the pipeline needs to be built to accommodate the training. In fact, by skipping out the university element, the pipeline and the recruiting effort can be much more reactive to changing circumstances. Right now the recruiting system has to match a training system capacity - as well as predicted manpower needs - four or five years out. If you cut out the university component then the recruiting and training system need to only synchronize several months out and thus can be much more responsive to meeting demand.

I’ll be honest @FJAG in this thread we have two competing views, one is actually providing examples and while not data, the specifics of where training bottle necks are. You’re in the other camp and if you want to convince anyone you’ll have to be able to provide details of how’s and why’s your changes would benefit anyone.

Sorry. I don't see it that way. All I see are arguments being advanced which are "This is the way we've done it. It works. Don't dare suggest we're wrong." Quite frankly, for me the proof is in the pudding. The US Army has been running a highly successful system using WOs for helicopters and now UAVs since at least Vietnam. This applies to many other skills as well. I personally find the prevailing CF attitude that you have to be a commissioned officer with a university education to do "x" as condescending.

What makes the WO system appealing is that you can run three separate career streams very efficiently. The first is the NCM stream where it takes time and experience to develop the leadership skills necessary to function as an efficient senior NCO. The second is an officer stream where it takes time and experience - and yes, even a university education - to develop the leadership and management skills to function at senior staff and leadership levels. The third, the WO stream allows for the rapid training of individuals - either straight off the street or from the NCM stream - in technical skills and to immediately reward them with a higher pay scale than the NCM in order to enhance retention. The bifurcated stream of officer and NCM is no longer good enough for many of the high tech skill sets we want to access - think cyber warfare for example.

One issue on the need to train to "full" wings standards. We're training these operators for war, or surveillance in restricted areas, not to be commercial pilots capable of landing at Chicago's O'Hare. There is no commercial air traffic over Ukraine. Training ranges are restricted. If our air force isn't smart enough to figure out how to design a system of training for UAV warrant officers than we've got a problem greater than juvenile call signs. Maybe all we need to do is contract all of our helicopter and UAV training out to the Americans.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Apples and Oranges.

My issue deals with the wasted resources in running someone through a government funded education which does nothing to teach him the technical skills to do the job. It also deals with the individual's wasted time. There are numerous individuals quite capable of flying aircraft who do not wish to, or need to, go through a university education.

Of course the pipeline needs to be built to accommodate the training. In fact, by skipping out the university element, the pipeline and the recruiting effort can be much more reactive to changing circumstances. Right now the recruiting system has to match a training system capacity - as well as predicted manpower needs - four or five years out. If you cut out the university component then the recruiting and training system need to only synchronize several months out and thus can be much more responsive to meeting demand.


Sorry. I don't see it that way. All I see are arguments being advanced which are "This is the way we've done it. It works. Don't dare suggest we're wrong." Quite frankly, for me the proof is in the pudding. The US Army has been running a highly successful system using WOs for helicopters and now UAVs since at least Vietnam. This applies to many other skills as well. I personally find the prevailing CF attitude that you have to be a commissioned officer with a university education to do "x" as condescending.

What makes the WO system appealing is that you can run three separate career streams very efficiently. The first is the NCM stream where it takes time and experience to develop the leadership skills necessary to function as an efficient senior NCO. The second is an officer stream where it takes time and experience - and yes, even a university education - to develop the leadership and management skills to function at senior staff and leadership levels. The third, the WO stream allows for the rapid training of individuals - either straight off the street or from the NCM stream - in technical skills and to immediately reward them with a higher pay scale than the NCM in order to enhance retention. The bifurcated stream of officer and NCM is no longer good enough for many of the high tech skill sets we want to access - think cyber warfare for example.

One issue on the need to train to "full" wings standards. We're training these operators for war, or surveillance in restricted areas, not to be commercial pilots capable of landing at Chicago's O'Hare. There is no commercial air traffic over Ukraine. Training ranges are restricted. If our air force isn't smart enough to figure out how to design a system of training for UAV warrant officers than we've got a problem greater than juvenile call signs. Maybe all we need to do is contract all of our helicopter and UAV training out to the Americans.

FJAG, you continue to misunderstand how RPAS pilots are qualified and why- perhaps deliberately, because this is your hobby horse.

This is not Canada being all goofy about RPAS pilots. At this current moment in time, rightly or wrongly, if you want to mix your RPAS into the ATC system in the Western world with other users, you need to have a qualified pilot at the helm who holds a valid IFR ticket.

Whether they are Officers or not is immaterial.

 

[dimsum]

One issue on the need to train to "full" wings standards. We're training these operators for war, or surveillance in restricted areas, not to be commercial pilots capable of landing at Chicago's O'Hare. There is no commercial air traffic over Ukraine. Training ranges are restricted. If our air force isn't smart enough to figure out how to design a system of training for UAV warrant officers than we've got a problem greater than juvenile call signs. Maybe all we need to do is contract all of our helicopter and UAV training out to the Americans.

But we aren’t necessarily only operating in restricted areas - such as the maritime or Arctic missions I mentioned. Those are not in restricted areas and for the maritime stuff, an RPA could forseeably be operating at the same altitude as airliners using the North Atlantic Tracks.

The thing with the US system is that right now, none of their RPAs are allowed to fly in non-segregated airspace. Meanwhile, the UK and we are looking at it with the MQ-9B. To be fair, the US and other countries are also looking at it as well - RPAS in the wide sense isn’t just the MQ-9B or even the MQ-25 Stingray (The USN tanker RPAS). They could eventually go into cargo, ASW, A2A, and other missions which would be in unsegregated airspace. Therefore, the Pilots would need to be qualified to fly in unsegregated airspace as well.

 

[markppcli]

Sorry. I don't see it that way. All I see are arguments being advanced which are "This is the way we've done it. It works. Don't dare suggest we're wrong."

I think you’ll agree that hyperbolic. What is infact being said is a whole sale reorganization of the RCAFs structures to mimic the US Army’s WO pilot program probably isn’t realistic for the CAF.

Quite frankly, for me the proof is in the pudding. The US Army has been running a highly successful system using WOs for helicopters and now UAVs since at least Vietnam. This applies to many other skills as well. I personally find the prevailing CF attitude that you have to be a commissioned officer with a university education to do "x" as condescending.

Because those pilots are going to go on to lead their squadrons and quite frankly they’ll end up using their degree with the admin and staff requirements if nothing else.

What makes the WO system appealing is that you can run three separate career streams very efficiently. The first is the NCM stream where it takes time and experience to develop the leadership skills necessary to function as an efficient senior NCO. The second is an officer stream where it takes time and experience - and yes, even a university education - to develop the leadership and management skills to function at senior staff and leadership levels. The third, the WO stream allows for the rapid training of individuals - either straight off the street or from the NCM stream - in technical skills and to immediately reward them with a higher pay scale than the NCM in order to enhance retention. The bifurcated stream of officer and NCM is no longer good enough for many of the high tech skill sets we want to access - think cyber warfare for example.

One issue on the need to train to "full" wings standards. We're training these operators for war, or surveillance in restricted areas, not to be commercial pilots capable of landing at Chicago's O'Hare. There is no commercial air traffic over Ukraine. Training ranges are restricted. If our air force isn't smart enough to figure out how to design a system of training for UAV warrant officers than we've got a problem greater than juvenile call signs. Maybe all we need to do is contract all of our helicopter and UAV training out to the Americans.

Training areas are indeed restricted air space. The transit to and from them is not. Even in Cold Lake with the range encompassing the base, you’re still going to have to maneuver around, and share air space with, a ton of other players in a way that small UAVs don’t.

 

[markppcli]

I just want to add that “well in Ukraine” is the new bringing up Hitler. If your argument hinges on it you’ve lost already.

 

[Kirkhill]

Spectrum of capabilities?








Black Hornet, DefendTex 40, Mavic 3, Malloy T650, V-Bat, AeroVironment Family, Watchkeeper, Gray Eagle, Sky Guardian, PHASA 35 (High Altitude Pseudo Satellite).

I get the need for a "Red Tape" Manager - AKA an Air Space Co-Ordinator - even for Corporals with Grenade Launchers.
I get the need for a proper pilot when sharing the skies with me and my family on my way to visit the relatives.

But on that spectrum of capabilities when does the operator switch from a Corporal to a Captain?

PS - this list is far from comprehensive and doesn't include HIMARS, NSMs, Heros or Kratos type UCAV/Drones. But the question still stands.

 

[Kirkhill]

I just want to add that “well in Ukraine” is the new bringing up Hitler. If your argument hinges on it you’ve lost already.

Well, at NTC...

Applying Ukrainian Lessons to US Army Training

Assuming the facts are right.... “The thing we struggle the most with is this business of a transparent battlefield,” said Brig. Gen. Curtis Taylor, head of National Training Center, or NTC, in California. “We've all got to learn how to operate in that context.” Back to Clausewitzian...

www.army.ca

“The thing we struggle the most with is this business of a transparent battlefield,” said Brig. Gen. Curtis Taylor, head of National Training Center, or NTC, in California. “We've all got to learn how to operate in that context.”

This lesson is among the many the NTC and its counterpart, the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), are learning from watching Ukraine and fielding their own experiments, the commanders of the two centers said.

 

[FJAG]

@dimsum @SeaKingTacco @markppcli I'll do this as a brief omnibus reply.

RPAS pilots is not my hobby horse but getting rid of the need for unnecessary training and education and rank structures is.

I'm cognisant of the fact that in the US the USAF and the US Army have split the flying profession so that each operates in the realm appropriate for it. I also know that the US Army's WO aviation pilot training program isn't simple - it takes some 12-18 months. It is not second rate training at all. What I'm saying is that flying an RPAS does certainly require extensive training, even for a WO, but not of the same nature or intensity as training a fighter pilot, a multi-engine pilot or even a helicopter pilot. The absence of people in the aircraft makes a difference albeit I agree that it may, in some circumstances, require handling it in non segregated airspace. For those pilots, regardless of rank, whatever qualification is required by international regulations should apply. That, however, doesn't mean every UAV pilot needs to be trained to that standard because we will need many pilots who will be operating in situations where it doesn't. The RCAF successfully advocated very hard to augmenting/replacing the NCM aircrew for Sperwer and later Heron in Afghanistan. What happens once we start ramping up UAV usage. How would we handle Bayraktars or their many equivalents? There are numerous classes of UCAVs out there now, some heavy, some light, they all need "piloting." At this point the crossover to army NCM pilots comes at the Blackjack which is rated a SUAV.

Let me be clear here. I know what RPAS is basically being considered for. I see a future far beyond RPAS with large numbers of lighter systems yet still in the TUAV and up range. Hopefully the CAF is seeing that too. We need to develop a multi-tiered approach on how to deal with those varying situations including how to use RPAS in sustained combat operations. If that includes having separate control teams for flying in non segregated airspace doing routine peacetime surveillance and other teams for flying in restricted combat zones then so be it. If these latter teams are not able to operate in non segregated airspace the way the US ones are now than so be it. My point simply is that I don't want to save commissioned officer pilots jobs. I want to see an easily maintained overarching UAV system that is capable of meeting combat requirements not merely peace time ones. Our current aircrew training system appears to have troubles meeting our peacetime needs. As we transition to less expensive UAV aircraft we ought to be obtaining more of them. If we continue to rely on the same pilot production system as now, we will simply not have enough aircrew to handle the load.

@markppcli - take a look at any flight tracker program and look at the airspace over Ukraine. It's empty of commercial traffic. As should be the airspace over any country having a conflict. We add military airspace coordination to all of those and can restrict space as needed. Hitler has nothing to do with this. It's a simple observation of fact. Ukraine lessons matter.