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

[dimsum]

Love the use of the word "Drone".  A Drone has its flight programed into it and it flies that program.  It has no ground controller to constantly monitor and fly its flight.  An "armed drone" would then be completely useless as it would only be able to effectively attack known fixed targets.  Predator is not a Drone.  It has a 'pilot' on the ground flying it.

Totally agree.  I've gotten so sick and tired of correcting people on that term that I gave up and just said "yeah, sure.  Drones."  The only thing that I'll add is it's not a "pilot" flying a Pred/Reaper; they are actual qualified (used to be Fighter, now any winged) pilots in the seat.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is this part of JUSTAS?

General Atomics and CAE probably just swagged the requirement for Ivison's Drones way back in May of last year......

San Diego, USA and Montreal, Canada,  May 25, 2011 – General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI), a leading manufacturer of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), tactical reconnaissance radars, and surveillance systems, and CAE today announced that the companies have signed an exclusive teaming agreement to offer the Predator® B UAS to meet Canada’s Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) needs.
.....
Under the program presently referred to as the JUSTAS program, the Canadian Government will establish a requirement to field and support interoperable, network-enabled UASs to provide ISTAR and all-weather precision-strike capabilities in support of its operations worldwide. ...

 

[GAP]

Ottawa considers high-altitude drones for Arctic surveillance
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 05/30/2012
Article Link

OTTAWA - The Harper government is considering a proposal to buy at least three high-altitude, unmanned aerial vehicles in what could be an attempt to salvage its Arctic sovereignty ambitions.

The pitch was made by U.S. defence contractor Northrop Grumman and involves modifying its existing Global Hawk drone, which can operate at 20,000 metres, to meet the rigours of flying in the Far North.

Many of the Conservative government's plans to establish a presence in the rapidly thawing region, including the construction of military icebreakers and the establishment of a deepwater port, are behind schedule.

The U.S. air force is considering selling some of its Global Hawks, which are still under construction, as part of military budget cuts.

"It's a capability that matches a need here in Canada," Dane Marlot, Northrop Grumman's director of international business development.

"The Arctic is an issue for Canada. It's also an issue for the United States. Unless you know what's going on there, you can't take any action."

He says any potential purchase would have to go through the Pentagon, but adds the proposal given to the Canadian government includes aircraft, ground stations, spares and in-service support.

Marlot declined to attach a price tag, but a source with knowledge of the file said the package could run between $150 million and $170 million for each drone, depending upon what kind of surveillance package the Royal Canadian Air Force wants.

The discussions are far enough long that the air force has made it clear that it would like to see servicing of the aircraft done by the military, as opposed to civilian contractors.

Bases have even been suggested, including Goose Bay, N.L., Montreal — or Comox, B.C.

Government insiders say Northrop Grumman has been very determined in its pitch, but no decision has been made.

The remote-controlled aircraft is capable of staying airborne for up to 35 hours, traversing the entire country and providing near real-time video to a ground station.

The Global Hawks differ from the more notorious MQ-1 Predators in that they are not armed and are used only for surveillance.

The air force wants more drones, but the program to acquire them has — like other military procurements— been sidelined.

Military planners have been on the verge of defining how unmanned aircraft fit into the country's defence strategy for the last couple of years, but scarce funds and rapidly changing technology has made it a frustrating endeavour.

How a purchase of three, or possibly up to five Global Hawks, would square with that long-standing program is unclear.

There is skepticism within National Defence, mostly because of the Global Hawk's enormous price tag. Even the country's top military commander, Gen. Walt Natynczyk, has publicly expressed doubts.

But politics may trump policy.
More on link

 

[a_majoor]

The story has surfaced again in the NP. Buying the drones is certainly better than doing nothing, but perhaps other alternatives should be considered as well?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/09/matt-gurney-when-rhetoric-fails-drones-could-help-canada-control-the-arctic/

Matt Gurney: When rhetoric fails, drones could help Canada control the Arctic
Matt Gurney  Jul 9, 2012 – 3:42 PM ET | Last Updated: Jul 9, 2012 3:47 PM ET

Reed Saxon/CP
The Global Hawk drone is unveiled at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009. The Harper government is considering a proposal to buy at least three high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles in what could be attempt to salvage its Arctic sovereignty ambitions.

Over the last several months, Northrop Grumman, a U.S.-based defence and aeronautics company, has been lobbying Canadian officials with an innovative proposal for safeguarding the sovereignty of our Arctic territory and the security of our northern coastal approaches. Northrop Grumman proposes to sell Canada modified Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles — drones — which would provide Canada with constant real-time monitoring capability over a huge swath of our territory that is currently only patrolled by any occasional flypast by an Air Force plane or by Canadian Rangers on snow mobiles.

The modified drones, dubbed Polar Hawks by the company, would be able to stay in the air for up to 30 hours at a time. They would be equipped with a variety of cameras and electronic sensors. Canadian military personnel would operate them remotely from anywhere in the country, staying in touch with the drones via satellite.

There would be technical and practical hurdles to overcome, including the difficulties in communicating with any vehicle, manned or otherwise, at extreme northern latitudes, and the Canadian military’s relative inexperience operating drones. The drones
Canada operated during the war in Afghanistan were much smaller machines, working in far less hostile environments, than what Northrop Grumman is envisioning. And cost would also be an issue — it could potentially run as high as $1.6-billion, a sum made all the more daunting by austerity-driven cutbacks already planned for Canada’s defence budget.

These are real concerns. But the plan has merit. The Conservative government has long talked up the importance of projecting Canadian authority into our far northern regions, but other than an annual military exercise, little has actually been done. The long-awaited Arctic patrol warships the Navy has been promised are still nowhere near completion, plans for new icebreakers are likewise going nowhere and a plan for a major military facility in Nunavat was reduced to a part-time facility made up of trailers, to be used only “as needed.” The Armed Forces simply don’t have the money to match the government’s lofty rhetoric. But if Canada is to be a credible Arctic power, it needs something to demonstrate its determination to assert control over its own territory.

The first step in controlling one’s own territory is knowing who is coming and going throughout it. Polar Hawk drones may not be cheap, but they are a realistic way for Canada to be aware of what’s happening in its very own distant backyard. If the government wishes to remain credible on issues of Arctic sovereignty, procuring drones or some other means of monitoring the far north is a necessary first step.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Hmmm....line of sight to a drone at 20 km altitude is ~600 km. Can those drones get reliable satellite coverage that high up?

 

[Occam]

Hmmm....line of sight to a drone at 20 km altitude is ~600 km. Can those drones get reliable satellite coverage that high up?

I think your geometry is a little off.  The higher a drone flies, the more likely it is going to be within the footprint of a geostationary satellite.  It's when they drop down low that they lose coverage at the poles.

 

[McG]

I think your geometry is a little off.  The higher a drone flies, the more likely it is going to be within the footprint of a geostationary satellite.  It's when they drop down low that they lose coverage at the poles.

I suspect the intent was to inquire if there is satellite coverage that far north ... given that a geostationary satellite would be sitting somewhere above the equator. 

 

[cupper]

I suspect the intent was to inquire if there is satellite coverage that far north ... given that a geostationary satellite would be sitting somewhere above the equator. 

Could use a high latitude Tundra orbit similar to Russian communications satellites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra_orbit

 

[GAP]

Cost of a satelite somewhere in the vicinity of 60-100 M.....the cost of the UAV's are insignificant ......

 

[jeffb]

Cost of a satelite somewhere in the vicinity of 60-100 M.....the cost of the UAV's are insignificant ......

If your numbers are accurate, and the article is accurate "...And cost would also be an issue — it could potentially run as high as $1.6-billion..." then it would seem that satellites are the less expensive option. However, the great source of Wikipedia says the fly away cost is only $100 million for the Global Hawk. The USAF procurement documents http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-072.pdf see pg. 4-103 (pg 271 in the pdf) shows the total cost of the entire program at around 1.1 billion and that is to acquire 61 airframes. These obviously don't track what Wikipedia is citing.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Satellites are a big issue.  A geosynchronous satellite is not much good above 70N- IIRC.

So, we could piggy back on US satellites (with all of the sovereignity and security issues that would create, if we were doing something up north they did not agree with).

We could launch our own polar orbit constellation.  We would need 3, plus a spare to maintain a constant comms link (again, IIRC).  That would run at least $ 1 billion, alone.

There is no easy way or cheap way to do this.

 

[Zoomie]

At 80N the satellite dish points parallel to the ground to communicate with the geostationary comm satellites over the equator. Same goes for Bell Xpress View TV. This is the furthest north that you can have dedicated satellite uplink capabilities with ground based assets. Hence the raison d'être for CFS Eureka.  With that in mind and taking into account better range at altitude, you could have a pretty good coverage area for unmanned aerial vehicles. Especially since the northwest passage is much further to the south than 80N. 

 

[Occam]

I suspect the intent was to inquire if there is satellite coverage that far north ... given that a geostationary satellite would be sitting somewhere above the equator.

That's why I said his geometry was off.  He was mentioning a figure for an airborne platform to the horizon, which is pointless when you're talking about an aircraft at 20 km altitude trying to talk to a satellite which is at 35,786 km altitude.

Satellites are a big issue.  A geosynchronous satellite is not much good above 70N- IIRC.

So, we could piggy back on US satellites (with all of the sovereignity and security issues that would create, if we were doing something up north they did not agree with).

We could launch our own polar orbit constellation.  We would need 3, plus a spare to maintain a constant comms link (again, IIRC).  That would run at least $ 1 billion, alone.

You can do it with two satellites (we're only interested in coverage over the Arctic)...and I believe you'll find that industry is already way ahead of us on this one, and wanting to know if we want in on it.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Thank-you Zoomie and Occam for coming in with clarification.

My point is: with UAVs, a lot of people underestimate the comms requirements and the control segment.

Neither are insignificant problems.

 

[dimsum]

Thank-you Zoomie and Occam for coming in with clarification.

My point is: with UAVs, a lot of people underestimate the comms requirements and the control segment.

Neither are insignificant problems.

Another factor that sometimes gets missed is the amount of personnel involved.  I've noticed that the USAF, RAAF and RAF have started referring to them as RPAs (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) instead of UAVs, partially to remind folks that there are aviators controlling it, and partially to highlight the fact that there is a significant human footprint involved in operating the aircraft.

*Disclaimer:  Total WAG in terms of numbers ahead.  Don't crucify me if I'm off in terms of how many people are in a maintenance crew*

I would suggest that an RPA squadron would require just as many people (if not more) than most squadrons.  With an endurance of, say 24 hours, they would need a min of 2 crews.  Also, let's assume that the squadron will have its own Int processing capability (as we did in KAF with Heron) and that maintenance would be in-house (not contracted.) 

Each RPA crew would be roughly 5 people, consisting of a Pilot, Sensor Operator, and 2-3 Int folks (again, based on Heron.)  So a min of 10 people would be involved for one 24-hour sortie to handle crew duty issues.  For continuous ops, there would likely be 2 aircraft (one to relieve the other) so 20 people "flying" at one time at a bare minimum.  Given how big Canada is, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect 2-3 flying at a given time (one per coast and one up north), requiring 4-6 RPAs in the air at certain times. 

Add to that the amount of people required to keep something like a Global Hawk (not a small airplane) running on the maintenance side, knowing that it is definitely a 24-hour operation.  So, factor in 3 crews for maintenance. 

Comms will be a huge issue, since the RPA is essentially useless without it.  So, probably an entire crew or 3 of comm techs (of various specialties.)  In addition, Admin, Execs, etc. would have to be factored in, like any other squadron. 

With so many people doing shift work, extra people will be needed to relieve crews as necessary for courses, leave, etc.  Maybe 25% more people to handle that....?

So, to summarize my total WAG, a 3-sortie RPA continuous operation (1 east coast, 1 west coast, 1 Arctic) would require about 120 people tied up in the aircrew alone, with a possible reduction in the amount of Int folks (but not by much, considering how busy they were in CHUD.)  Again a total WAG, but with a 15-person maintenance crew (?) that would mean 45 maintainers, bringing the total to 165.  Perhaps a bunch of comms folks would make it about 180-190 people.  With the others listed, this could quickly creep up, to the point that a squadron of 200+ or even 300 wouldn't be too far off the mark, using those figures and adding missions; imagine adding lines of tasking to support deployments and other operations.

Again, these numbers are total guesses based partially on what we used with Heron, and what may be required to keep 6 RPAs in the air at all times.  To put it all into perspective, the USAF has a current target of 60+ continuous sorties over Afghanistan, and because of this can't generate crews fast enough.  From the article (link below), it says that "About 168 people are needed to keep a single Predator aloft for 24 hours, according to the Air Force. The larger Global Hawk surveillance drone requires 300 people. In contrast, an F-16 fighter aircraft needs fewer than 100 people per mission." 

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/29/world/la-fg-drones-civilians-20111230 

To reiterate, before people pile on about how many people are required to operate a "drone", my point is that it doesn't take less people to operate an RPA squadron vice a manned one; if anything, it would probably require more.  They just happen to be on the ground. 

 

[George Wallace]

I would suggest that an RPA squadron would require just as many people (if not more) than most squadrons.  With an endurance of, say 24 hours, they would need a min of 2 crews.  Also, let's assume that the squadron will have its own Int processing capability (as we did in KAF with Heron) and that maintenance would be in-house (not contracted.) 

Each RPA crew would be roughly 5 people, consisting of a Pilot, Sensor Operator, and 2-3 Int folks (again, based on Heron.)  So a min of 10 people would be involved for one 24-hour sortie to handle crew duty issues.  For continuous ops, there would likely be 2 aircraft (one to relieve the other) so 20 people "flying" at one time at a bare minimum.  Given how big Canada is, it wouldn't be unrealistic to expect 2-3 flying at a given time (one per coast and one up north), requiring 4-6 RPAs in the air at certain times. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To reiterate, before people pile on about how many people are required to operate a "drone", my point is that it doesn't take less people to operate an RPA squadron vice a manned one; if anything, it would probably require more.  They just happen to be on the ground.

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.

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.

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.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

More in the Gobe today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article4398883.ece

A high-flying, long-endurance pilotless drone – dubbed the Polar Hawk – might fill Canada’s gaping hole in its ability to monitor what’s going on in the Arctic.

With a rapidly receding summer ice cap igniting a new rush to find, stake and exploit Arctic resources, and with ship traffic projected to rise dramatically through the Northwest Passage, there’s new urgency to concerns about the surveillance gap.

Currently Canada’s military presence in the Arctic consists of an occasional patrol by one of Canada’s aging Aurora aircraft and brief deployments of a pair of CF-18 warplanes to Inuvik. And none of Canada’s warships or submarines can operate in or under the ice.

That deficiency in Canada’s ability to maintain a surveillance presence in the Arctic is fundamental to the assertion of its sovereignty. Now Northrup Grumman, the U.S. military giant, thinks it has a novel answer – albeit it an expensive one.

It has proposed selling to Canada three, unarmed long-range and long-endurance Polar Hawks – a modified versions of the Global Hawk already used by the U.S. military for spy and surveillance missions.

Capable of 30-hour flights, a trio of Polar Hawks could provide a constant summer surveillance presence over the Canadian Arctic, operating out of a single base, such as Labrador’s Goose Bay, according to Northrop Grumman.

They could also provide coastal patrol in the Atlantic and Pacific, monitor forest fires and floods, and provide scientific and environmental sensing.

What can and can’t Polar Hawks do?

No more Tally Ho photos of Canadian warplanes closing on aging Russian Bear long-range bombers. While good for propaganda purposes and much loved by fighter pilots, the reality is that 21st-century sovereignty patrols aren’t really about challenging Cold War manned bombers.

The unarmed, pre-programmed Polar Hawks won’t – and can’t. In fact, they are designed to fly 10 kilometres up, way above commercial jets and the high winds that make smaller drones problematic to use in the Arctic. Any intercepts will still be done by Canada’s next fleet of warplanes, F-35s or something else.

Operating at high latitudes, close to the North Pole, presents special problems in terms of navigation, communication and data transmission. Global Hawks usually rely on data links to satellites orbiting over the equator but they can’t be sighted easily above the Arctic Circle because of the curvature of the globe.

Although NASA has flown its modified Global Hawks within 500 kilometres of the North Pole on ice surveys, additional communications links using low-orbiting Iridium satellites will be needed for Polar Hawks.

Northrop Grumman believes those links will make high-latitude risks manageable and, it claims, a Polar Hawk that loses all its communication links will still complete the pre-programmed mission and return to base, all without any human intervention.

Among the biggest hurdles: Canada’s military doesn’t even have a stated requirement for high-flying drones, let alone a budget. And some air force generals, most of them former fighter pilots, still regard pilot-less planes with disdain although that prejudice is disappearing the United States as drones prove their worth.

What would they cost?

Northrop Grumman won’t reveal the cost, claiming only that its 20-year proposal to provide, support and maintain a trio of Polar Hawks is comparable to other platforms, meaning new manned surveillance and patrol aircraft.

Still a look at what NATO, Germany and others are paying for small fleets of modified Global Hawks suggests the bill to Canada would be roughly $1.6-billion to buy and operate three Polar Hawks for two decades.

That’s a huge expense for a relatively small military like Canada’s with no experience in operating high-altitude, long-endurance spy planes, either manned or unmanned. A single crash – and a U.S. Navy version of a Global Hawk went down in Maryland last month – would have a massive impact on the whole program.

Northrup Grumman has teamed with Canadian aerospace and defence support provider L-3 MAS, which has a long history with the Canadian air force, to make a turn-key unsolicited bid to Ottawa.

Northrup Grumman would provide the Polar Hawks and the ground communications stations with L-3 MAS providing maintenance and support.

Because the Polar Hawks are covered by U.S. security and defence limitations, all missions would need to be commanded by a Canadian air force officer, although the actual military role might be minimal.

What civilian and military missions would be possible?

Although the Polar Hawk is primarily a military asset – and Northrop Grumman notes it could usefully have played a reconnaissance role over Libya during last summer’s air war alongside U.S. Global Hawks – the program is also being sold for its non-military versatility.

While Polar Hawks could find Russian or Chinese icebreakers poking around the edges of Canada’s contested Arctic claims, their sophisticated sensor packages could also measure ice area and thickness, detect oil spills, perhaps even count muskox and polar bears.

Details of the sensor packages, radar, high-resolution still and video cameras in both visible light and infrared, are classified. But it is evident from publicly available images that high-flying drones can detect and track individuals.

That sort of surveillance can be done through heavy clouds and during the long Arctic night in winter and delivered by streaming video and data links as well as stored onboard for later analysis.

In Canada, other government departments including Fisheries, the Environment, Energy and Northern Affairs might seek data collected by Polar Hawks.

So it looks like they're planning to use Iridium to fill in for any gaps in coverage to geo-stationary stellites. My original question (poorly phrased) was on how far away a ground station could operate a Global Hawk if they lost the uplink to the satellite.

 

[Loachman]

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 suggest that these numbers are barest minimum and would not cover sustained operations, and personnel requirements to cover sickness, leave, and courses have already been pointed out.

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.

I am sure that this guarantees poor focus on the part of the crews, plus a given number of maintainers can only provide a given number of serviceable airframes and a given mumber of analysts can only analyse a given amount of material.

US-based crews experienced difficulty operating over Afghanistan one day and Iraq the next etcetera, and in different areas in each country. It was/is disorienting.

Could one operating base, centrally located, also factor in on the reduction of personnel?

Yes, probably, but the above still applies. And the same amount of mission-related infrastructure is required regardless of how it is dispersed.

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.

Armed Predator and Reaper were operated by crews in KAF, as satellite delay was too great for engaging moving targets.

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.

One centrally-located airfield could assure significant transit time to and from patrol areas.

Sperwer missions lasted four to five hours and were surprisingly demanding. The same amount of time in a real cockpit is less fatiguing in my experience, and lack of stimuli/boredom is a factor as well. I cannot imagine longer shifts in any UAV without significant degradation in personal performance. Adequate rest between shifts is absolutely essential, and that requires adequate numbers of crews and stable shift schedules.

We started our tour with four crews and a mandate to fly one mission per day. We were bounced all around the clock, though, and had to have a crew on standby for short-notice launches.

Leave season dropped us to three crews for a few months, plus we lost one guy mid-tour to sickness and one later on for a higher-priority posting but managed to sustain three launches daily for about six weeks. We ended up with two crews for the last month and consistently did two launches nightly, however we had a fixed schedule through those periods.

We also did not have to worry about kids and school, grocery shopping, house maintenance and repairs, and all of the other usual life issues.

For all of its small size, Sperwer was the most expensive aircraft that the CF operated per flying hour for a variety of reasons, one of which was the number of people required to operate, maintain, and support it.

UAVs are not cheap, either in terms of money or PYs.

 

[GAP]

One centrally-located airfield could assure significant transit time to and from patrol areas.

Churchill

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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.
But it is fun, and informative, watching all the second guessing.