UAV's and a Canadian carrier

[Cloud Cover]

WTF ?

Well put.

 

[Kestral]

Whoa, sorry guys.  I went back and cleaned up it just a little

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

As far as I can tell, the idea of a "dedicated" UAV Carrier is a white elephant: if you want to go to the time and expense of building a smaller (~escort) Carrier, why wouldn't you build one with combat aircraft?  Are we seriously discussing a 15,000t "Recce ship"?

OR, why would you want to push helos off the decks of other ships, in favour of aircraft that would reduce your SAR, ASW, etc. capability (and would require additional crew and training in the case of having both helo + UAV)?

OR, why would you build an Amphibious Assault Ship with no CAS capability whatsoever?

I can see how incorporating a few UAVs into a battle group would make some sense, but this looks to me to be more of a solution in search of problem than anything else ...

I still think that Jamming and Hacking should be a legitimate concern against any techincally-competent enemy.

 

[Kestral]

There is no reason that a UAV can't be a combat capable aircraft.

They could fire air-air missles, air-ground missles, air-sea surface missles...

 

[48Highlander]

There are deffinitely combat capable UAV's.  While we're daydreaming, why not build missile-frigates that can carry UAV's?  That way you have recconoisance and two types of strike capabilities on one ship.

 

[Kestral]

Why not just use the UAV to launch cruise missles?

The Americans have come to the conclusion that it is easier to use a re-usable launch platform (ie planes) to launch cruise missles.   This way the missles can be smaller (thus take up less room) and it can also extend their range....

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

There is no reason that a UAV can't be a combat capable aircraft.

They could fire air-air missles, air-ground missles, air-sea surface missles...

Let's compare "combat capable": the biggest, latest and greatest UAV (Global Hawk) carries max. 3,000 lbs of ordinance (and you would need something pretty close to a full-sized carrier to launch it) ... an "old-tech" Harrier carries 5,000 lbs + 2 X 30MM cannons ... which would you rather have on your side?

To even get close the development costs would be unimaginable (for Cdn, defense budgets, anyway).

 

[48Highlander]

Let's compare "combat capable": the biggest, latest and greatest UAV (Global Hawk) carries max. 3,000 lbs of ordinance (and you would need some thing pretty close to a full-sized carrier to launch it) ... an "old-tech" Harrier carries 5,000 lbs + 2 X 30MM cannons ... which would you rather have on your side?

To even get close the development costs would be unimaginable (for Cdn, defense budgets, anyway).

It all depends on what you're looking for man.  An M1A1 Abrams carries quite the punch, but you probably don't wanna use it if you're trying to sneak up on 2 or 3 guys sitting in a trench.  The HMG fires 12.7mm rounds, but we give riflemen a 5.56mm rifle.  Bigger isn't always better.  I know you flyboys are very protective of your toys (and goddamn I mis flying) but relax, noboy is advocating taking them away from you.  UAV's have uses for which they're better suited than regular aircraft, and vice vera; for the best effect you want to have both available.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I still think that Jamming and Hacking should be a legitimate concern against any techincally-competent enemy.

Jamming maybe, but probably not hacking through a brute force attack because the wireless data encryption keys can be changed for every mission if need be, just like the one time encryption pads. Spoofing and overloading the rx might be a problem if the host platform is located near shorelines with multiple sites for tx. Instructions for manoeuvring the bird might not be received correctly, in which case the bird would revert to a pre-programmed flight path and and rtb.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

It all depends on what you're looking for man.  An M1A1 Abrams carries quite the punch, but you probably don't wanna use it if you're trying to sneak up on 2 or 3 guys sitting in a trench.  The HMG fires 12.7mm rounds, but we give riflemen a 5.56mm rifle.  Bigger isn't always better.  I know you flyboys are very protective of your toys (and goddamn I mis flying) but relax, noboy is advocating taking them away from you.  UAV's have uses for which they're better suited than regular aircraft, and vice vera; for the best effect you want to have both available.

That's kinda my point: with the $$$ spent on a UAV-only carrier, you would be trading-off a lot of other capability ... taking helos off the ship, you'd be losing it completely.

Jamming maybe, but probably not hacking through a brute force attack because the wireless data encryption keys can be changed for every mission if need be, just like the one time encryption pads. Spoofing and overloading the rx might be a problem if the host platform is located near shorelines with multiple sites for tx. Instructions for manoeuvring the bird might not be received correctly, in which case the bird would revert to a pre-programmed flight path and and rtb.

Don't kid yourself: as it stands, AirSnort (for one example) can hack 128-bit wireless encryption in under a second!  (and that's only what a total "non-nerd" dork like me knows about) ...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Can you give an example the last time a UAV was jammed or hacked?

 

[Kestral]

The communications problems MUST have been resolved or the US never would have even considered building UAVs.  I don't know what the solutions are, but even if I did know I wouldn't tell

In regards to the weight of ordinance that a UAV can carry , I_AM_JOHN_GALT, points out some good problems.

The Carrier would be flying in a battle fleet, not alone.  It would provide the UAVs, the battle group provides the large helos.  If given the choice between 1 Harrier and 1 UAV (say a even a predator type), yes I would choose the Harrier.  What about 1 Harrier vs 2+ Predators.  Or what about 1 Predator vs no air support at all?

I would refer him to http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/ and http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/rq-1_predator.pl

The newer X-45C can carry up to 2000 Kilos of ordinance.

However I don't know the dimensions of these aircraft.  Can they fit in tiny a carrier?  Can they be launched from a tiny catapult?  Can they be recovered at sea?  Will the US sell us some?  Can Canada afford to buy them?

 

[48Highlander]

That's kinda my point: with the $$$ spent on a UAV-only carrier, you would be trading-off a lot of other capability ... taking helos off the ship, you'd be losing it completely.

Agreed, losing helos on ships would be bad.  However, we already have ships which can carry helos, and none that can carry UAV's.  And considering that the army has helos, and can deploy them from ground bases, and also considering the fact that UAV's are a lot smaller (therefore a ship could carry more of them) and more in tune with the type of support ground troops require, I'd say we could afford to build the next generation of ships without helo capability if it meant we'd get UAV's.

Don't kid yourself: as it stands, AirSnort (for one example) can hack 128-bit wireless encryption in under a second!   (and that's only what a total "non-nerd" dork like me knows about) ...

Well first off, it takes much longer than a second.  Airsnort monitors transmission packets and uses them to figure out the encryption key.  That means that breaking the encryption depends on the ammount of traffic flowing through the network.  The method relies on a flaw in the way that the 802.11 protocol is designed, rather than being able to "brute force" a 128 bit key.  Considering that UAV's wouldn't be using the 802.11 protocol, Airsnort wouldn't work, and similar methods might or might not be effective.  Secondly, 128 bit encryption is old news.  Even civilian applications these days are more and more using 4096bit encryption.  Proprietary military protocols would probably use an even longer key for encryption, and the actual transmission method would (I would hope) be more secure than a civilian protocol.  So a hostile power would, first, have to figure out the properties of the transmission protocol being used, second, figure out a weakness in that protocol, and third, assuming they've found a weakness, monitor the transmissions long enough to gather sufficient packets to help them break the encryption.  All in all, they'd be better off shooting rounds randomly into the sky and hoping they hit the damn thing.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Agreed, losing helos on ships would be bad.  However, we already have ships which can carry helos, and none that can carry UAV's.  And considering that the army has helos, and can deploy them from ground bases, and also considering the fact that UAV's are a lot smaller (therefore a ship could carry more of them) and more in tune with the type of support ground troops require, I'd say we could afford to build the next generation of ships without helo capability if it meant we'd get UAV's.

I don't think our thinking is really that far apart: a number of smaller UAVs makes a lot of sense (as I mentioned above) ... larger ones, with yet-to-be-developed "combat capability" anywhere close to existing technology would have to be as big as manned aircraft.

Well first off, it takes much longer than a second.  Airsnort monitors transmission packets and uses them to figure out the encryption key.  That means that breaking the encryption depends on the ammount of traffic flowing through the network.  The method relies on a flaw in the way that the 802.11 protocol is designed, rather than being able to "brute force" a 128 bit key.  Considering that UAV's wouldn't be using the 802.11 protocol, Airsnort wouldn't work, and similar methods might or might not be effective.  Secondly, 128 bit encryption is old news.  Even civilian applications these days are more and more using 4096bit encryption.  Proprietary military protocols would probably use an even longer key for encryption, and the actual transmission method would (I would hope) be more secure than a civilian protocol.  So a hostile power would, first, have to figure out the properties of the transmission protocol being used, second, figure out a weakness in that protocol, and third, assuming they've found a weakness, monitor the transmissions long enough to gather sufficient packets to help them break the encryption.  All in all, they'd be better off shooting rounds randomly into the sky and hoping they hit the darn thing.

Well, I'm not a security expert, but I know for a fact that AirSnort can break 128-bit encryption in under a second (once packages have been gathered): I pointed this out not as a direct threat to UAVs (they couldn't possibly work on 802.11), but rather to illustrate a 'big picture' truism: no system, no matter how well secured, is 100%.  Most people accept that 128-bit encryption is pretty darn secure, but any idiot can download something like Phlak and gain control of almost any system they can get their hands on.

Can you give an example the last time a UAV was jammed or hacked?

No: it has probably never happened.  But how often has it been tried?  And "never has" is nothing like "never could".  I hope I'm being paranoid, but sometimes paranoid works.

 

[NCRCrow]

Anything that can emit RF energy can be hacked/jammed.

But the probability of a data link being jammed is remote , due to the high level of energy needed to barrage jam a wide area. (thats alot of white noise)

It also gives up the enemy position as they are now transmitting RF modulation.

To spot jam the UAV u would need to point it at the moving UAV, catch the right TX/RX freq and hammer it, while keeping the UAV in an almost fire control solution. (Good Luck-thats one powerful jammer)

And if it is being jammed , I am sure the UAV Command link is freq agile and will work through it.

 

[48Highlander]

Well, I'm not a security expert, but I know for a fact that AirSnort can break 128-bit encryption in under a second (once packages have been gathered): I pointed this out not as a direct threat to UAVs (they could possibly work on 802.11), but rather to illustrate a 'big picture' truism: no system, no matter how well secured, is 100%.   Most people accept that 128-bit encryption is pretty damn secure, but any idiot can download something like Phlak and gain control of almost any system they can get their hands on.

In my younger years I used to be quite the "security expert"  At one point I had complete control of over 2000 computers all over the world, so I know just how easy it can be to defeat normal security measures.  Recently I gained administrator access to a huge chunk of the Bell Canada network quite by accident while attempting to help an employee install an anti-adware program.  However, the modern fear of "hacking" is totaly blown out of proportion.  Most hacking techniques depend on user and adminiastrator incompetence rather than a flaw in the technology.  As an example of that, I once worked as a security guard at AECL Canada, the crown corporation responsible for designing nuclear reactors.  They had very complex security measures in place, however, I know that within a few days I could have had access to their entire network if I chose to do it.  All I had to do was break the password on a workstation computer (very easy to do), "break" the computer, install a key-logging program, and then wait for a network administrator to show up and fix the computer.  Very simple procedure, but in the entire sequence of event, I'm not really breaking any of the more complex encryption methods of the network; all I really have to do is exploit the weakest point at very stage, which in turn enables me to move one step higher.  Most hackers these days depend exactly on these types of methods, because encrpytion and security methods have evolved to the point that a direct attack is usualy impossible.

Now, keeping that in mind, try to imagine what it'd be like trying to take over a piece of technology which you've never been exposed to before, which uses proprietary communication protocols which you have to figure out from scratch (or if you're lucky, get your intelligence agencies to steal the specifications for), and which doesn't envolve human users at any level which could be helpful to you.  I don't know how to effectively describe the difficulty of such a prospect to you, but it would be damn difficult.  To make it easier for you to visualise, think of an automechanic sitting in front of an aircraft carrier and trying to figure out how it works.  Certainly not an impossible task, but extremely difficult.

So, excluding user incompetence, any succesfull hack in our day depends entirely on a flaw in the operating systrem or the trasnmission protocol.  Either of those would require our "enemies" to have access to the original code which we used to program either the UAV's or the control mechanism.  Assuming they got the code, they could still spend months or years going through it without finding an exploitable weakness.  And even assuming they found it, we'd quickly realize that we're losing control of our UAV's, and we'd employ our own programmers to patch the code ASAP.  So, worst case scenario, if they were DAMN good, they could take control of one or two UAV's before we figure out what they were doing, and fixed it.

Like I said, they'd be better off firing randomly into the sky and hoping they hit something.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Agreed, losing helos on ships would be bad.  However, we already have ships which can carry helos, and none that can carry UAV's.  And considering that the army has helos, and can deploy them from ground bases, and also considering the fact that UAV's are a lot smaller (therefore a ship could carry more of them) and more in tune with the type of support ground troops require, I'd say we could afford to build the next generation of ships without helo capability if it meant we'd get UAV's.

You forget what ship based helos do then if you think it would be that easy for shore based aviation and UAVs to take over like that. I would love to see a pilot that was doing heli-ops in support of the ground pounders for the last couple of months be able to fly in and hunt down a submarine or for that matter be able to land on a pitching and rolling flight deck of a warship. Ask someone like Sam69 its not easy. Ask someone like Duey if they could just come in and hunt down a sub just at a snap of your fingers. Pull back guys you are starting to talk out of your lanes.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

As far as I can tell, the idea of a "dedicated" UAV Carrier is a white elephant: if you want to go to the time and expense of building a smaller (~escort) Carrier, why wouldn't you build one with combat aircraft?   Are we seriously discussing a 15,000t "Recce ship"?

OR, why would you want to push helos off the decks of other ships, in favour of aircraft that would reduce your SAR, ASW, etc. capability (and would require additional crew and training in the case of having both helo + UAV)?

OR, why would you build an Amphibious Assault Ship with no CAS capability whatsoever?

I can see how incorporating a few UAVs into a battle group would make some sense, but this looks to me to be more of a solution in search of problem than anything else ...

I still think that Jamming and Hacking should be a legitimate concern against any techincally-competent enemy.

Well then reverse the order or your argument.  In your ideal task force, what inherent capabilities do you want and what kit is necessary to provide those capabilities.

My list (based on presence of threat in likely areas of deployment)
1)  Self Defence from small vessels (suicide bombers equivalent to the USS Cole attack)
2)  Self Defence from coastal patrol vessels with ASuW Missiles
3)  Self Defence from unadvanced air forces with last generation ASuW Missiles
4)  Self Defence from submarines 
5)  Amphibious Assualt Capability for 1000-man marine-equivalent battlegroup (and requisite logistics support)
6)  Helicopter Assault Capability for that same group (and requisite logistics support)
7)  Carrier-deployed Long-Endurance Reconnaissance UAV (Darkstar-Equivalent)
8 )  Carrier-deployed CAS (US Navy choice for UCAV X-45 or X-47 or JSF)
9)  Self Defence from modern navy with stand-off ASuW Missile Capability
10)  Self Defence from modern airforce with stad-off ASuW Missile Capability

Based on that, I would argue that with the combination of the Halifax-class, the Cyclones and the future upgrades priorities 1-4 are taken care of.

Priorities 5-10 are what you need to procure for and decide which priorities are worth the money.

In my opinion, because I believe UAV's/UCAV's will get exponentially better in the upcoming years, I would start with a single 22000 Schelde Enforcer LHD and add a light catapult specifically for UAV's/UCAV's and if I have limitations on when I can deploy based on 1/3 cycle then so be it.  The Canadian Armed Forces cannot be everywhere....but while we are deployed, I think we should have the best available equipment and my fear is going to a smaller LPD (or group of smaller LPD's) dramatically reduces the protection levels for the deployed land forces. 

The modified LHD addresses 5-8 (while an LPD would only be able to address 5 and maybe 6)

For priorities 9-10, I would contend you still need a proper escort destroyer.  Specifically I like the look of the Single-Ship Transition Program and would try to build 3 vessels to launch in concert with the new LHD group.

That's just me....


Matthew.  [dons blindfold, lights cigarette and awaits the inevitable....]  ;D

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You left out Mine Warfare Matt.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

You left out Mine Warfare Matt.

Yes I did....thank you. 

Ex, you would know this.  Does anyone build a long-range Mine Sweeping Vessel? 

Most of the types I've ever seen have been short-ranged and intended for their own coastal waters only as opposed to long range littoral deployments.  ???

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.