The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Edward Campbell]

OK. Time perhaps to provide some people with an Arctic perspective, in layman's term and unclassified version (available to any one who researches it even superficially):

Satellite communication in the Arctic, especially the high Arctic is not the same easy-peasy one available in the South (and even in the South we can lose it in bad weather - see Videotron ads against Bell Satellite). It can still be pretty dicy at times. So for RPA's, you may have to rely on something closer. Best bet if UHF, but that means very short distances, and hence tonnes of towers to set up, man and maintain.

Moreover, with the magnetic North Pole smack in the middle of the North-West Passage, other navigation systems become unavailable. Those same magnetic currents that give us wonderful Auroras also play havoc with all sorts of electronics up there.

Finally, RPA's are good at looking down, but not so great at looking all around them at the horizon. Up in the Arctic, you can see the weather change drastically faster than you can say "HollydelabricamollyBatman!", and it is unforgiving even with humans present. Sorry. you just lost an expensive RPA.

Without wishing to derail the thread, that's the case for satellites in geostationary orbit. Satellites in non-geostationary orbits (low earth orbit or highly elliptical orbit, for example) can and do provide highly reliable communications in the very high Arctic ... but there's a price. A combination of business and technical/legal (agreements made in e.g. the International Telecommunications Union which have the force of treaty law) considerations mean that many LEOs must operate with only limited spectrum which means (relatively) narrow band channels. Service considerations may mean using a very large number of satellites (66 in the case of Iridium, for example) which means high costs, too.

There are good, effective ways to communicate into/out of and within the high Arctic, but they all cost money.

 

[Kirkhill]

6) What is the required role for the new fighters, just NORAD contribution, expeditionary, other??
    That's the government's decision

Isn't there an opportunity for the Government of the Day to be bloody minded here and, by selecting a particular aircraft, bind future governments to its policy?  If the GotD buys a purely "defensive"aircraft rather than a "multi-role" aircraft that may deny future governments the ability to participate in "offensive" activities.

To remedy the situation the future government would either have to buy an additional fleet of "offensive" aircraft or "multi-role" aircraft  to meet the taskings and be forced to defend themselves in the court of public opinion as spendthrift warmongers.

Buying a "defensive" aircraft would be a political play.  If the GotD decides that it wants to keep the nation's options open it will opt for either a "mult-role" aircraft or will not make a decision and rag the puck until the next election.

WRT the RPA / GPS / Nav / Comms issue.

That is why I am such a fan of the "many, small" solution rather than "one, big" solution.

A swarm of Scan Eagles and Integrators, flying autonomously - navigating by combinations of technologies (Inertial Navigation, Terrain Following, Celestial, Positioning relative to each other, updated by ground operators) - communicating by LOS Laser and UHF amongst themselves and with ground stations, RCN and CCG ships and RCAF aircraft - even transmitting power from UAV to UAV by LOS Laser - and relying on computing power to synthesize the incoming data into a common image much like a bug's eye, with the additional capability of focusing.  The Swarm becomes its own flying network of nodes supplying recce as well as comms support.

http://www.insitu.com/systems/scaneagle - for specs

http://www.insitu.com/systems/integrator - for specs

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2011/december/i_bds01.pdf  - Boeing Swarms

Laser power beaming keeps drone fully charged
19 Jul 2012
Lockheed Martin and LaserMotive remotely recharge a UAV's power source - indoors, for now.

  Link

 

[GR66]

How big a "swarm" of small platforms would you require to cover our territory?  Just the approaches to our territory?  Are we talking hundreds of mother ships and ground stations and thousands of small RPA's?  If one or two nodes in this network go down do you lose everything further down the command chain too?

 

[Kirkhill]

Start small and build.

And build in redundancy.

Start with programmes that only concern a specific Area of Operations.

Potential.

Surface stations - every settlement in the north and the AOPS and the Ice Breakers as well as the LRPs (not surface stations precisely I know).

ScanEagles and Integrators fly at altitudes up to 20,000 feet and have a comms range of 90 nm.  Post some high as relay nodes and surveillance and some fly low for recce. 

LOS for comms at 20,000 ft is approx 150 nm (distance to the horizon).  With an actual comms range of 90 nm a single surface node could support three relay nodes at 20,000 ft positioned at 120 degrees of arc and 60 nm from the ground station.  With second level relay then each of airborne relay nodes could communicate with 3 more relay nodes at 20,000 feet creating a network of 12 relay nodes distributed over a radius of 180 nm (minimum based on 60nm from Ground 1 to Relay 1 and Relay 1 to Relay 2 and Relay 2 to Ground 2 ) with a theoretical potential of 450 nm (maximum based on theoretical LOS).

That means 12 Integrators at 20,000 ft, on station for 24 hours (assuming no inflight power up) could supply surveillance and comms over an area of 600,000 to 650,000 sq mi (nautical)

Additional Benefits - both Ground 1 and Ground 2 could manage the swarm and update positions, relocate it to avoid weather, send additional UAVs up to provide targeted recce, provide duplication or maintenance reliefs.

The UAVs are cheap and should be treated as re-usable consumables that are going to spend most of their life in flight.  The rate of usage will be expensive but will trend downwards due to the number of units produced (similar to sonobuoys) but will be cheaper than LRPs (which should be husbanded for use alongside this capability), and satellites and can be redeployed after an EMP pulse drops the satellite comms and all flying UAVs (and aircraft).

 

[kev994]

I think you're underestimating the distances involved. If you have a look at the western arctic coast for example, from tuktoyutok the next place is Sachs Harbour at 215 NM, which is feasible? But then the next place is Alert at over 1100 NM unless you want to go into the middle of the arctic to Res Bay, but it is far from any coast.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you're underestimating the distances involved. If you have a look at the western arctic coast for example, from tuktoyutok the next place is Sachs Harbour at 215 NM, which is feasible? But then the next place is Alert at over 1100 NM unless you want to go into the middle of the arctic to Res Bay, but it is far from any coast.

We're dragging well off thread now -  perhaps a split?

And actually I do want to go to Res Bay - right in the middle of the passage and supported by two AOPS - one with ties to the Bering and the other to Baffin.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

has anyone flown UAV's in the arctic yet and how do they handle icing?

 

[Loachman]

Start small and build.... etcetera etcetera etcetera

This is all very nice until you factor reality into your proposal.

 

[Loachman]

has anyone flown UAV's in the arctic yet and how do they handle icing?

Icing is best avoided by flying above it, ie not in clouds above the freezing layer.

UAVs are generally useless above cloud. Very few, presently, have sensors capable of seeing through cloud. IR will not.

 

[Kirkhill]

In the spirit of mind games then.....

What if....

Forget surveillance and recce - howabout just nav and comms?

 

[Kirkhill]

has anyone flown UAV's in the arctic yet and how do they handle icing?

ScanEagle UAS Completes Arctic Search and Rescue Demonstration
Aug 11, 2015 | by Caroline Rees

Insitu, a designer and manufacturer of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), has conducted flight operations for the U.S. Coast Guard, launching its ScanEagle unmanned aircraft from Oliktok Point at the North Slope of Alaska.Insitu ScanEagleThe demonstration was part of the Coast Guard Research and Development Center’s Arctic Technology Evaluation 2015 Search and Rescue exercise (SAREX 2015), an event designed to evaluate unmanned technologies in remote area Search and Rescue (SAR) and simulate a collaborative response effort between government and industry entities to an offshore emergency. Other participants included ConocoPhillips, Era Helicopters, the Department of Energy, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North Slope Borough.

ScanEagle demonstrated Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) hub-and-spoke capabilities, launching from the shore and handing off control of the aircraft to operators aboard the USCGC HEALY. In flight, the platform provided persistent overwatch, delivering real-time imagery and proving its ability to maximize USCG maritime assets that routinely conduct operations in extreme Arctic conditions. ScanEagle also demonstrated its potential for other operations such as marine mammal surveying and ice floe and ice ridge mapping.

- See more at: http://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2015/08/insitu-demonstrates-arctic-unmanned-search-and-rescue-operation-for-u-s-coast-guard/#sthash.T6qHdBm3.dpuf

ConocoPhillips makes history with drone flight
Wesley Loy

Petroleum News
September 29, 2013


ConocoPhillips Alaska recently made aviation history with the first approved commercial use of an unmanned aircraft, or drone, in the United States.

The flight took place on Sept. 12 in remote airspace over the Chukchi Sea about 120 miles offshore from the village of Wainwright, the company said.

The drone is known as the ScanEagle, from Insitu Inc., a subsidiary of The Boeing Co. The Federal Aviation Administration in July cleared the ScanEagle and another drone model to fly commercially.

The aircraft is small, weighing about 40 pounds, and can fly up to 18 hours on a gallon and a half of fuel, ConocoPhillips said.

The aircraft was launched from the research vessel Westward Wind, managed and operated by Olgoonik Fairweather LLC. The FAA said four ScanEagle planes were aboard the boat, along with FAA inspector Jay Skaggs. The ScanEagle "zoomed off a catapult and into the rainy Arctic skies," completing a successful 36-minute flight, the FAA said.

The boat captured the aircraft and the mission was complete, the agency said.

The FAA said the flight is just the start of a plan, mandated by Congress, to establish permanent Arctic areas where small unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, can operate for research and commercial purposes. The plan includes developing protocols to operate the aircraft beyond line of sight.

The proposed Arctic flight areas are ideal because of the low population and low levels of air and ship traffic, the FAA said.

http://www.adn.com/article/20130929/conocophillips-makes-history-drone-flight

ScanEagle Streams Live, Stable Video to Tactical Operations Center, Troops in Arctic Exercise
by Gary Mortimer

BINGEN, Wash., Oct. 6, 2011 Insitu Inc. announced today that its ScanEagle unmanned aircraft system (UAS) delivered real-time video to Canadian Forces during the largest military exercise to date in the Far North.

Operation Nanook brought together Canadian Forces, its security partners and numerous federal, territorial and municipal governments to conduct sovereignty operations and security exercises in Canada’s Northwest Passage. The exercise focused around a major air disaster (MAJAID) simulation, during which ScanEagle provided overwatch to Canadian Forces.

The runway-independent ScanEagle UAS was deployed by Insitu and its partner ING Engineering to identify traversable ground routes, to watch for polar bear threats and to monitor day-to-day iceberg movements. Commanders in tactical operations centers (TOC) and troops on the ground received real-time, stable video.

During the exercise, Insitu and ING UAS operators launched and retrieved the aircraft. Handing control over to the Canadian Forces, the operators stood by to provide technical assistance as needed.

“Adverse weather conditions are typical of ScanEagle operations,” said Insitu Senior Vice President of Business Development Ryan Hartman. “Freezing temperatures, wind, whatever challenge our environment presents, we just work through it. Our standard is 99 percent mission-readiness with 30-minutes notice.”

Designed by Insitu Inc., a subsidiary of The Boeing Company, ScanEagle’s modularity allows for rapid technology upgrades, like the 2010 introduction of the daylight-quality mid-wave infrared imager payload, and the soon-to-be-released electronically fuel-injected heavy fuel engine that will improve reliability in extreme environments like the Arctic. Modularity also allows for rapid system reconfiguration, like adding another network node to beat line-of-sight challenges.

http://www.suasnews.com/2011/10/8957/scaneagle-streams-live-stable-video-to-tactical-operations-center-troops-in-arctic-exercise/

 

[Kirkhill]

Parthian shot.....

http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/UAV/uav_list/scaneagle.html

Unit cost of the scaneagle - <$100,000 apiece.

Cost of 4 scaneagles and a ground station (per Wiki right enough)

Each ScanEagle system costs US$3.2 million (2006).[1] A complete system comprises four air vehicles or AVs, a ground control station, remote video terminal, the SuperWedge launch system and Skyhook recovery system.

Above network approximately US$10,000,000 including flying nodes, three ground stations and launch and recovery systems.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We don't have the money for FWSAR, fighters, CMA, etc etc and we should take the little money we have and dump it into UAV fleets?

No.  I know there are people that think UAVs are the end-all, be-all.  They are not.  Maybe in 20-30 years, but not now and not for the cost to operate.  If you have to put something in the air and you have one option, you do not want your 'one egg' to be a UAV.  Especially if that egg is a 'wimp' in winds and icing.

You know, there are lots of 'ideas from airchairs' coming out in this thread, about fighters, about UAVs, about all things RCAF.  Yet, no one seems to want to listen to the (educated) opinions from those of us who are part of Air Ops.

I have been on flights where we stayed on-station and the UAVs had to run home to momma; that was in weather conditions our LRPA wouldn't blink an eye at.  Most current UAVs have 'a straws view' over an area limited by the FOV the payload operator is currently using.  A manned platform like the 140 has that, plus 4 blister windows, plus 3 sets of eyes on the flight deck.  The SA is literally almost 360' visual plus sensors.

There is no comparison, IMO.  UAVs are a tool in the toolbelt, nothing more.  They cannot do what something like a P-3/CP-140 or P-8 can do.  Full stop.

I'd like to see the weather and winds those flights were made in.  ^-^  Lets see what they do in 'freezing level - surface, overcast 1000 feet, visibility less than 2 SM, sea state 5+" environment.

 

[Kirkhill]

We don't have the money for FWSAR, fighters, CMA, etc etc and we should take the little money we have and dump it into UAV fleets?

No.  I know there are people that think UAVs are the end-all, be-all.  They are not.  Maybe in 20-30 years, but not now and not for the cost to operate.  If you have to put something in the air and you have one option, you do not want your 'one egg' to be a UAV.  Especially if that egg is a 'wimp' in winds and icing.

You know, there are lots of 'ideas from airchairs' coming out in this thread, about fighters, about UAVs, about all things RCAF.  Yet, no one seems to want to listen to the (educated) opinions from those of us who are part of Air Ops.

I have been on flights where we stayed on-station and the UAVs had to run home to momma; that was in weather conditions our LRPA wouldn't blink an eye at.  Most current UAVs have 'a straws view' over an area limited by the FOV the payload operator is currently using.  A manned platform like the 140 has that, plus 4 blister windows, plus 3 sets of eyes on the flight deck.  The SA is literally almost 360' visual plus sensors.

There is no comparison, IMO.  UAVs are a tool in the toolbelt, nothing more.  They cannot do what something like a P-3/CP-140 or P-8 can do.  Full stop.

I'd like to see the weather and winds those flights were made in.  ^-^  Lets see what they do in 'freezing level - surface, overcast 1000 feet, visibility less than 2 SM, sea state 5+" environment.

10 MUSD for the capability described is a pittance. You lot burn through that in boxed lunches. 

It is not much more than the cost of a single Bell 412.  http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Bell-412/202

Even if the network is grounded 30% of the time, or more likely has to adjust flying boxes, it is better than the capability we have currently.

And I have no doubt that big ships can loiter longer than little ships in worse conditions - so save the flying hours on the big ships for those times when the little ships can't get the job done.

And it is really comfortable in my armchair.  It is a lot like these ones.

 

[blacktriangle]

We don't have the money for FWSAR, fighters, CMA, etc etc and we should take the little money we have and dump it into UAV fleets?

No.  I know there are people that think UAVs are the end-all, be-all.  They are not.  Maybe in 20-30 years, but not now and not for the cost to operate.  If you have to put something in the air and you have one option, you do not want your 'one egg' to be a UAV.  Especially if that egg is a 'wimp' in winds and icing.

You know, there are lots of 'ideas from airchairs' coming out in this thread, about fighters, about UAVs, about all things RCAF.  Yet, no one seems to want to listen to the (educated) opinions from those of us who are part of Air Ops.

I have been on flights where we stayed on-station and the UAVs had to run home to momma; that was in weather conditions our LRPA wouldn't blink an eye at.  Most current UAVs have 'a straws view' over an area limited by the FOV the payload operator is currently using.  A manned platform like the 140 has that, plus 4 blister windows, plus 3 sets of eyes on the flight deck.  The SA is literally almost 360' visual plus sensors.

There is no comparison, IMO.  UAVs are a tool in the toolbelt, nothing more.  They cannot do what something like a P-3/CP-140 or P-8 can do.  Full stop.

I'd like to see the weather and winds those flights were made in.  ^-^  Lets see what they do in 'freezing level - surface, overcast 1000 feet, visibility less than 2 SM, sea state 5+" environment.

As you pointed out - we have no money. I don't think you have to worry about losing your flying seat unless you promote yourself out of it...

 

[a_majoor]

Isn't there an opportunity for the Government of the Day to be bloody minded here and, by selecting a particular aircraft, bind future governments to its policy?  If the GotD buys a purely "defensive"aircraft rather than a "multi-role" aircraft that may deny future governments the ability to participate in "offensive" activities.

To remedy the situation the future government would either have to buy an additional fleet of "offensive" aircraft or "multi-role" aircraft  to meet the taskings and be forced to defend themselves in the court of public opinion as spendthrift warmongers.

Buying a "defensive" aircraft would be a political play.  If the GotD decides that it wants to keep the nation's options open it will opt for either a "mult-role" aircraft or will not make a decision and rag the puck until the next election.

I will avoid the rest of the UAV/UCAV arguments since I see them as being complimentary to manned aircraft rather than replacements. WRT the argument for "offensive" vs "defensive" aircraft, the argument is actually rather moot since for the most part an aircraft is a "truck" which carries the sensors, weaponry and (in the case of a CF-35) the network routers. The USMC now has a kit which allows a C-130 to carry Hellfire missiles and attack ground targets, and the venerable AWACS can carry AAM's for some self protection after all the escorting fighters have been smoked. We have also seen or discussed various other conversions, some more probable than others, such as a re engined B-1B carrying a huge number of AAM's for long range patrols or to act as the "gunship" to shoot in an attacking formation. Conceptually, you could probably convert a F-15E into a "Sea Eagle" carrying Harpoon anti ship missiles and the sensor suite to successfully attack enemy ships off our coast.

In practical terms, these sorts of conversions are more of a testament to the basic versatility of the underlying airframe and the cleverness of the people who build or propose those solutions. Historians can look up WWII aircraft which started doing one role in 1939 and were fulfilling a completely different role in 1945 to see similar work arounds. The essential point is while you might be able to do something with an airplane, or a truck,  or a ship, (or even a guy in a green uniform standing on the ground) it does not necessary mean this is either the best solution or even a viable one. Repurposing CF-104 Starfighters as ground attack aircraft comes to mind....

The argument behind the CF-35 was not so much the "gee whizz" aspect of the here and now, but rather the long term potential of the platform and the systems associated with it. No matter how you slice it, there is only so much you can do with airframes designed in the 1970's to 1990's, and since they don't come with the sensor or networking capabilities of the CF-35, there is a hard upper limit to what you will ever be able to do with them. In actual practice, they may end up being bomb trucks carrying various smart munitions under the command and control of USAF F-35's which do have the networking and sensor capability to run the mission. How much credibility and "clout" we will have on the international stage as handmaidens unable to plan, orchestrate or execute missions on our own is going to be one of those other prices we will have to be willing to pay for not buying a new fighter.

 

[Loachman]

10 MUSD for the capability described is a pittance.

That amount alone will not buy you a capability, just some small toys.

You need to be able to get it to where you want it, and to support it in that location. That, especially in our Arctic, is not likely cheap or even feasible - note that these trials were carried out in the "better weather" periods. You need to man it. That means taking PYs away from something else, unless a government suddenly decides that increasing the size of the CF and its budget is a good political move.

There are a couple of us here who have direct experience with UAVs.

Some day, maybe, but not right now. You are grossly overestimating UAV capabilities and underestimating the technical and financial issues.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

As you pointed out - we have no money. I don't think you have to worry about losing your flying seat unless you promote yourself out of it...

I am not worried about my seat on the plane at all.  I don't have to even worry about training in the LRPA replacement circa 2030 because I will be CRA.

I am worried about all the people who think they understand what my plane does, and what a UAV can do and compare the 2 like they are the same and interchangeable.  I am worried about the people who do NOT understand that a UAV is not the best thing since sliced bread. 

 

[Underway]

I am not worried about my seat on the plane at all.  I don't have to even worry about training in the LRPA replacement circa 2030 because I will be CRA.

I am worried about all the people who think they understand what my plane does, and what a UAV can do and compare the 2 like they are the same and interchangeable.  I am worried about the people who do NOT understand that a UAV is not the best thing since sliced bread.

+1

After working with both UAV's and PA's I'll take the PA in almost every situation if I only get one option.  UAV straw view is enough to make it irritating.  Like you know... that time you were going to shoot a missile and some kid on a bike suddenly rolled into the picture of the UAV.  If that was a LRPA or Figher making that shot the kid would have been seen well before he was 20 m from the intended impact site.  Peripheral vision is an amazing thing.

As for UCAV's why am I thinking about a Bomark Missile argument right now... no we don't need your fighter aircraft cause these missiles are all that's required.... and while I'm at it do you want to buy a bridge?

 

[dimsum]

+1

After working with both UAV's and PA's I'll take the PA in almost every situation if I only get one option.  UAV straw view is enough to make it irritating.  Like you know... that time you were going to shoot a missile and some kid on a bike suddenly rolled into the picture of the UAV.  If that was a LRPA or Figher making that shot the kid would have been seen well before he was 20 m from the intended impact site.  Peripheral vision is an amazing thing.

As for UCAV's why am I thinking about a Bomark Missile argument right now... no we don't need your fighter aircraft cause these missiles are all that's required.... and while I'm at it do you want to buy a bridge?

.....I agreed with you up until the peripheral vision part.  If the fighter is using a Sniper (or other) pod, then the pilot has just as much peripheral SA during the attack run itself as an RPA - ie. not a lot.  I wouldn't bet that a pilot, even with 20/20 vision, would be able to spot a bike at 6 miles away. 

Also, the cameras on RPAs do zoom in and out.  Not going to go into details but it's not like the sensor operator is constantly only using max zoom and staring at the ground.  Huge advantages of RPAs include endurance - staring at the ground for hours on end pre-, and just as importantly, post-strike - and near-real time analysis and forwarding of information to higher. 

As for UCAVs, they aren't cruise missiles.  Obviously all theoretical at the moment, but crews are still needed, etc.