UAV's and a Canadian carrier

[NCRCrow]

Nets, parachute, Fire Scout helo,expendable..........

I am looking for a multi-purpose Amphip, that will satifsy all the needs and have more of a utility value for everyone.

UAV's are a part of the puzzle, rely on them , of course not!

But a combination would be ideal. I like the JSS idea but Real time imagery in the Commander's hands is an invaluable resource.

Joint Operations with a high level of battlefield awareness, plus the capability to actually deliver the troops into theatre..safely

The JSS must be also be protected and a UAV to do ASUW Surpic or RCMP Drug interdiction would make this a poltical selling pont..which is our reality.

 

[NavyShooter]

I think that UAV's are starting to come of age, and there should be something in the way of a maritime element added for the Navy's Benefit.

How many ships are sailing now without an air-det?  Is it possible that in the absence of an airdet, one of the smaller UAVs could be embarked? 

You can fit a sea container into the Hangar, which would certainly provide enough space for a compartmentalized controlling system, (not sure how they run them, but surely the remote stuff can be fit into a sea container!)  then you have the flight-deck rigged with new nets to allow the capture of the UAV.

There would definitely need to be some consideration given to the salt water and such, as this is a very corrosive environment.  I would imagine though that it is less difficult than the sand/mountains of Afghanistan.  (I do recall the reliability issues that were encountered there.)

While the UAV would not be able to do many of the missions that a SeaKing does (SAR, ASW, Personnel transport etc) it would provide a Ship Without Air Det an increase in it's surveillance range with existing technology, and without huge costs.

The other UAV types that exist are not likely to be able to operate off a CPF Flight deck platform (except for possibly the helo UAV's) so to operate them we would have to get some sort of "Through-deck-Cruiser" or some such thing.  This would also require a shift in the political direction of the forces...as an Armed UAV is something that is likely to get involved in "Combat" and that's not something that was discussed much in the latest defence plans....

NavyShooter

 

[NCRCrow]

UAV's would also be cost effective tgts for tracking  purposes, which could exercise the Combat team at the direction of the Ship.

The   UAV simulation of Harpoon/EXOCET profiles, would eliminate the need for tasking fast air with short play times or expensive contractors. It would be a valuable trg tool as well as doing 360 maritime or amphib landing reconaissance.

I would like to see a Joint C4ISR/ Amphib lander, with the Navy sailing/defending the ship, airforce (AESOP's) flying the UAV's/HELO's and the army doing the landings with a comprehensive J Staff with the emphasis on data fusion (ELINT/IMINT/SIGINT). Giving the best overall picture based on tactical experience.

So the Land commanders can land the troops and we can support them effectively.

I feel like i am the only one defending the original post.

Better polish my boots for Navy League!

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I think though if we wanted a UAV carrier it would come at the expense of any amphib we are looking to get. While a UAV carrier would help with joint ops(as pointed out by NCRCrow) an amphib is more attractive to all 3 elements.

If you went with the new Schelde Enforcer-series LHD, don't you get both?

Link:  http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/



Matthew. 

 

[Infanteer]

Wow - I like those boats....

 

[NCRCrow]

I like the middile one

 

[Infanteer]

General Hillier, if you are reading this thread....

 

[winchable]

The one in the middle looks like the "Ocean" or "Albion"

That other two remind me of fish..

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Wow - I like those boats....

The best part is their modular design process and the options. 

M. 

P.S.  If anyone knows Hillier, by all means forward him the link.  I think this looks like an outstanding solution.  I should add that the Euro is likely to fall in the few months by as much as 25% which could make these significantly more affordable.

 

[a_majoor]

A bit of cold water:

The idea of having a capable UAV on each and every ship is similar to the idea of turboprop powered VTOL "Tail sitter" point defense interceptors which was in vogue for a short time in the 1950s. Although aircraft like the XFV-1 and XFY-1 were very small (about 30' tall X 30' wingspan), they still needed room for their hanger, plus the support personnel like the mechanics, armourers, flight controllers etc. More room was needed for the consumables and quarters for these people and more still for the consumables of the plane itself. In short, the "Pogo" could not be deployed on just any ship with a fantail or merchantman with a clear deck space, you either sacrificed a lot of ship space, grew the ship (ever wonder why a "Patrol Frigate" is 5000t displacement?) or went straight to an aircraft carrier of some sort. UAVs, although "small" aircraft, will be subject to many of the same considerations.

UAVs can do lots of wonderful things, no doubt, but I wonder if the limitations (especially if deployed on existing warships) would not outweigh the advantages. A UAV carrier would raise a lot of opposition in the political world, perhaps resulting in the carrier program being cancelled and UAV capability severely restricted, at least until such time that a land base can be secured.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

UAVs can do lots of wonderful things, no doubt, but I wonder if the limitations (especially if deployed on existing warships) would not outweigh the advantages. A UAV carrier would raise a lot of opposition in the political world, perhaps resulting in the carrier program being cancelled and UAV capability severely restricted, at least until such time that a land base can be secured.

Lets see....
1) Possible act as a system for a ships missiles to be guided to its target thus increasing accuracy, can be used for damaged assessment without risking a manned a/c
2) having a extra set of eyes out there thus getting more info to the commanders that may need it
3) economical over manned aircraft
Thats to name a few....whats the limitations??

 

[aesop081]

A bit of cold water:

The idea of having a capable UAV on each and every ship is similar to the idea of turboprop powered VTOL "Tail sitter" point defense interceptors which was in vogue for a short time in the 1950s. Although aircraft like the XFV-1 and XFY-1 were very small (about 30' tall X 30' wingspan), they still needed room for their hanger, plus the support personnel like the mechanics, armourers, flight controllers etc. More room was needed for the consumables and quarters for these people and more still for the consumables of the plane itself. In short, the "Pogo" could not be deployed on just any ship with a fantail or merchantman with a clear deck space, you either sacrificed a lot of ship space, grew the ship (ever wonder why a "Patrol Frigate" is 5000t displacement?) or went straight to an aircraft carrier of some sort. UAVs, although "small" aircraft, will be subject to many of the same considerations.

UAVs can do lots of wonderful things, no doubt, but I wonder if the limitations (especially if deployed on existing warships) would not outweigh the advantages. A UAV carrier would raise a lot of opposition in the political world, perhaps resulting in the carrier program being cancelled and UAV capability severely restricted, at least until such time that a land base can be secured.

Other than regurgitating flawed 1950's naval tactical thinking, do you have anything but the obvious to add ?  I'm quite certain that the USN did not see the deployement of pioneer UAV from the back deck of BBs as a limitation when it allowed them to do BDA and direct the fire of their 16 inch guns when they were firing them at iraqi position in 1991.

 

[NCRCrow]

I winning some people back over....heck it wasnt even my thread.

I like UAV's and I like data fusion and I like to see infantry deploying from Canadian amphibs.

Nothing compares to the USS Bataan Amphib Battle Group deploying into Pakistan from the GOO (OP APOLLO Roto 0)

Helo's, Harriers, LCAC's and all that good stuff, it made this Navy League cadet have a lump in his throat from the Bridge wing.

Maybe someday, us Canadians might do the same.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Lets see....
1) Possible act as a system for a ships missiles to be guided to its target thus increasing accuracy, can be used for damaged assessment without risking a manned a/c
2) having a extra set of eyes out there thus getting more info to the commanders that may need it
3) economical over manned aircraft
Thats to name a few....whats the limitations??

Off the top of my head:
Training + extra crew
Susceptible to Jamming and/or Hacking (yikes!)

Ask yourself what the limitations of unmanned ships or tanks might be ...

 

[48Highlander]

Off the top of my head:
Training + extra crew
Susceptible to Jamming and/or Hacking (yikes!)

Ask yourself what the limitations of unmanned ships or tanks might be ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be EASIER to train UAV pilots than regular pilots?  Wouldn't UAV's require LESS crew than regular aircraft?  As I remember, the US was working on making it possible for UAV's to "network" so that for the majority of a given mission they could fly themselves, and a human could therefore control multiple aircraft at once.  Plus you get rid of the pesky problem of pilots dying on you when a plane goes down, so you don't have to train new ones as often.  As for jammng and hacking...obviously there is some (pretty small) possibility for problems there, however, I doubt Osama and his buddies are up to the task of breaking military encryption protocols.  Might be a problem if you have to fight, say, China, but otherwise it's not something to worry about.

 

[Kestral]

First things first.  The JSS project:

First:  these ships are going to be complex enough without adding more features.  After reading some posts about the Multirole Kingston class ships I am more conviced that this project is going to have problems fitting:  fuel and dry good storage, a hospital, room for joint planning, lots of room for vehicles and men and room to operate utility helos on a single ship.

I would rather see this project produce more ships that are smaller but with specialize roles.  I.E. a dedicated AOR ships and a seperate Amphib ship/s.

Secondly:  The JSS will be, at best, a defensivly designed ship.  Check out the speed 21 knots, not 30 knots, it will not be able to keep up with the fleet during at sea combat operations.  It might be designed using civi ship building standards!

 

[aesop081]

Off the top of my head:
Training + extra crew
Susceptible to Jamming and/or Hacking (yikes!)

Ask yourself what the limitations of unmanned ships or tanks might be ...

I think maybe you need to rethink what you have just said.........

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Off the top of my head:
Training + extra crew
Susceptible to Jamming and/or Hacking (yikes!)

Why would you need extra crew when you could use one of the aircrew...off watch pilot or co-pilot?

Your next point..depends on what the controlling band and frequency is for the UAV... very hard to do.

 

[Kestral]

When it comes time to replace the Tribal class destroyers should be the right timeframe.  We will need air defense assets and to me it doesn't make sense to change some of the Halifax frigates over.

After the completion of the JSS project I think we will see new replacements for the DDs within a few years.  The new Micro Carrier will need a full-length flight deck, mainly for efficiency.  It simply makes more sense to launch aircraft from the bow and land them at the stern.  Once the aircraft is landed they get walked directly back to the bow for relaunching.  With two separated air decks, the aircraft need to be moved down an elevator, moved forward, brought up and elevator then relaunched.

The new Destroyer platform will be an offensivly-designed ship.  It will have the speed and armour (OK damage control systems) to be placed directly on the front lines.  So take this hull form and widen it (1:7 instead of 1:9), put a full-length flight deck on and remove darn near everything that doesn't involve the UAVs.  This will allow a much large number of UAVs to be carried.  Let the Maritime Helos be carried by the DD and FH's.

I think the politicians will like this idea.  It is cheap and hopefully effective Use 1 hull form and build 2 different types of ships -> Air Defense Destoyers and a Micro Carrier.

 

[aesop081]

When it comes time to replace the Tribal class destroyers should be the right timeframe.  We will need air defense assets and to me it doesn't make sense to change some of the Halifax frigates over.

After the completion of the JSS project I think we will see new replacements for the DDs within a few years.  The new Micro Carrier will need a full length flight deck.  Mainly for effinecy reasons.  It simply makes more sense to launch aircraft from the bow and land them at the stern.  Once the aircraft is landed they get walked directly back to the bow for relaucnhing.  (With a two seperate decks seperated by a tower, the aircraft need to be moved down an elavator, walked forward, brought up and elevator then relaunched.

The new Destroyer platform will be an offensivly designed ship.  It will have the speed and armour (OK damage control systems) to be placed directly on the front lines.  So take this platform and widen it (1:7 instead of 1:9), put a full length flight deck on and and remove darn near everything that doesn't involve the UAVs.  This will allow a much large number of UAVs to be carried.  Let the Maritime Helos be carried by the DD and FH's.

I think the politicians will like this idea.  It is cheap and hopefully effective

WTF ?