UAV's and a Canadian carrier

[I_am_John_Galt]

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) ...

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. ...

That's just me....


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

It makes sense to me that UAVs would be a useful tool for the Navy.  It makes sense to me that the capabilities of UAVs will expand greatly, though probably unevenly, in the years to come.  Maybe the day will come when JSFs will be replaced by UAVs for CAS for Amphibious Assault (and maybe even replace Super Hornets, et.al. for Blue Water operations and inland strikes), but already you are contemplating a ship for UAVs that replace aircraft that don't yet exist!

I honestly don't know enough to be making meaningful contributions regarding what I think a Battle Group should include.  Nonetheless, (from a very big picture perspective) I can't see that building an "aircraft carrier" for "aircraft" that exist only in theory is a good idea (even financially, if nothing else).  Given the uncertainty of new and future technology, relying on it to provide solutions is spurious at best.

48th:  What if someone is already on the "inside" ... it's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again ... how many contractors are involved in this stuff?

 

[48Highlander]

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.

Aw hell, it's not like our Sea King are capable of doing much except crashing anyway

You're right I wasn't thinking of the anti-sub role.  Not enough exposure to all-things-naval;  I'd heard of it but it didn't click.  My bad.

Then again, the US navy is looking into developing anti-sub UAV's....

Nonetheless, (from a very big picture perspective) I can't see that building an "aircraft carrier" for "aircraft" that exist only in theory is a good idea (even financially, if nothing else).   Given the uncertainty of new and future technology, relying on it to provide solutions is spurious at best.

The aircraft don't just exist "in thory".  The DOD developed 11 different types of UAV's.  Check here for the different types.  As far as I know, 3 types of UAV's are currently in production by the US, with the other 8 being quite a bit more than just concepts.  In any event, at the very least your UAV carrier would have recconoisance and strike capability, while you work on producing new types of UAV's.  Doesn't sound like a bad deal.

48th:   What if someone is already on the "inside" ... it's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again ... how many contractors are involved in this stuff?

Ofcourse, that's always the biggest worry.  Hell, what if the contractors who build our 521 and 522 sets threw in some sort of back door.  We don't have secure comms any more!  Better get rid of them and go back to smoke signals eh?

Or hell, what if the contractors working on the US strategic offensive systems put in some sort of back door for the KGB?

We can sit here and imagine these sorts of scenarios all day...but they're not a very good reason to give up on a peace of technology.  If you find that a contractor intentionaly made your UAV code insecure, use the UAV to insert a Hellfire up his anus, and then fix the code.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Aw heck, it's not like our Sea King are capable of doing much except crashing anyway

You're right I wasn't thinking of the anti-sub role.  Not enough exposure to all-things-naval;  I'd heard of it but it didn't click.  My bad.

Then again, the US navy is looking into developing anti-sub UAV's....

Sorry I think the air crews and the maintainers do a good job keeping the old lady working.
Ship-based helos do more then ASW, they also do SAR. I would like to see a UAV pluck sailors off a sinking freighter in the mid Atlantic.

 

[NCRCrow]

Dipping helos will be obsolete with the new generation of wire guided subsurface to air launched missiles.

Polyphem....or Triton

I just got back from the AWC in the UK, it has thrown a real wrench into ASW

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The aircraft don't just exist "in thory".  The DOD developed 11 different types of UAV's.  Check here for the different types.  As far as I know, 3 types of UAV's are currently in production by the US, with the other 8 being quite a bit more than just concepts.  In any event, at the very least your UAV carrier would have recconoisance and strike capability, while you work on producing new types of UAV's.  Doesn't sound like a bad deal.

None of them have anything close to the "combat capability" of a mid-1970's Harrier, let alone a JSF.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK there is exactly 1 type of UAV with exactly 1 type of strike capability (Hellfire missiles): is there a UAV with guns that has even reached the proof of concept stage?  Sure the technology will come ... eventually ...

Ofcourse, that's always the biggest worry.  heck, what if the contractors who build our 521 and 522 sets threw in some sort of back door.  We don't have secure comms any more!  Better get rid of them and go back to smoke signals eh?

Isn't that what heppened in Yugo with the CF-18's?

Or heck, what if the contractors working on the US strategic offensive systems put in some sort of back door for the KGB?

We can sit here and imagine these sorts of scenarios all day...but they're not a very good reason to give up on a peace of technology.

It was response to the "I can't see any shortcomings" comment (paraphrasing, well above) ... not a deal-killer in and of itself, but a shortcoming.  I'm just saying it's another reason UAVs are not a panacea: a force multiplier, not a force replacement (which I was trying to allude to earlier).

If you find that a contractor intentionaly made your UAV code insecure, use the UAV to insert a Hellfire up his anus, and then fix the code.

There's always that!!!  :threat:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'm swimming a bit out of my lane here, but I doubt that we can realistically replace NSHs with UAVs in the near future.  A manned helicopter is very versatile and I just don't think that UAVs are there yet.  I don't think that putting a UAV on our ships at the expense of the NSHs would be a good thing with the current technology.  Launching UAVs is one thing.  Recovering them at sea or a confined space is another.

Using them for "recce" and surveillance is of course a key UAV role.  Perhaps we'd be better served with some big ones (like Global Hawk) that we can deploy from Canada or some secure base to provide ISTAR support to a Canadian force (at sea or on land).  These would be controlled from afar but the imagery could feed to the ASC on the JSS (if it has one).  These could be complemented with some "micro" UAVs for the guys on the ground.  Perhaps large UAVs could be used for some of the traditional Martime Patrol Aircraft roles.

This isn't to say that UAVs do not/will not have a maritime application, just that I don't think that can replace maritime helicopters.  Using a UAV to transport troops to the beach kind of defeats the whole "unmanned" part of UAV, as does using it for search and rescue.

As for "battlegroups", I think that we need to manage our expectations here.  To truly project maritime power I think that you need aircraft carriers with fighters to both defend the force and give fire support to your marine force ashore.  This does not come "on the cheap" and we need to be realistic.  I think that we need to think coalition as opposed to some independent Canadian task force.  Our Navy has done an outstanding job fitting into coalition task forces and perhaps we just expand on this slightly.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just to refine my proposed LHD with light catapult, even in the original model UAV's wouldn't have made the majority the aircraft on board.

My wild-assed original guess of the onboard mix would've looked something like:
(10) H-92 Transport Version
(4) Recon UAV's
(4) UCAV's

After thinking about it though, I would actually propose something different.
(12) H-92 Transport Version
(6) Recon UAV's
(0) UCAV's

The model would switch eliminate CAS and instead replace it with a much improved artillery bubble.

A long range-short range mix of guided artillery being fed targetting information from those reconnaissance UAV's could made the UCAV unnecessary, at least within the area of exclusion the Canadian Forces would be trying to patrol/protect/conquer.

Ergo, instead of acquiring UCAV you procure:
Short Range:  LAV-III with 120mm Precision Mortar System
Mid Range:    LAV-III with new lightweight towed 155mm's the Marines just ordered
Long Range:  LAV-III chassis with HIMARS battery?

The sole remaining task a UCAV could perform that wouldn't be covered by a such a mix is an inland strike against a target not in range of that artillery umbrella and if you really want that capability it would probably be cheaper and more effective to build a dedicated land attack missile (SLAM-ER) into the new Destroyers.

Just another variable to toss into the discussion in case anyone is getting bored....



Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Why get SLAM-ER for our new surface combatabts when it would be cheaper for us to get Harpoon 2?

 

[NCRCrow]

lets get some nice guns and get back to NGS......

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Maybe the Dutch will sell us back our 5"54s.

 

[NCRCrow]

I would like to see Canada have a nice aggressive gun/helo destroyer like the Italian Vittorio Veneto.

I crossed pol on her in 94 (Sharp Guard) she had 8 x 76 mm OTO Melara Guns and even TESEO(Ottomat) and Standard as a long range air shooter. WOW!!!!

Bristling and aggressive. The Italy Navy are Gunnery gods! They did advanced surfirexs for 8 hours a day. With all 8 mounts and even the twin 40mms.

I was impressed and it had like 6 helos that worked and Nixie.

It was a dynamic platform for all disciplines of warfare.

Bella

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The VV is more a crusier then destroyer and is on her way out. Last I heard she was due to pay off around '07-07 time frame and replaced by that new carrier coming in service.

 

[NCRCrow]

Destroyer/Cruiser...she still has firepower and versality..

I heard she already paid off

 

[Navalsnpr]

Can't comment on the the Navy and SAR out west, but as Ex-Dragoon indicated, out here on the East Coast, fishery/sovereignty patrols, the Sea King is well utilized as a SAR tool.... as well as the Hibernia platform. I've seen us do SARS out well beyond the 200 NM limit.

 

[Kestral]

Just to refine my proposed LHD with light catapult, even in the original model UAV's wouldn't have made the majority the aircraft on board.
After thinking about it though, I would actually propose something different.
(12) H-92 Transport Version
(6) Recon UAV's
(0) UCAV's

The model would switch eliminate CAS and instead replace it with a much improved artillery bubble.

I think we are on the same page here.  Any LHD main role is not to be launching aircraft, it is to be delivering vehicles and troops to a combat zone.

Adding an additional UAV carrier could add to following types and numbers of aircraft. 
4+  recce propeller based UAVs
12+ multirole ground attack/fighter jet based UCAV

Remember this is on the 6000-ton hull, not the 28000-ton hull of a JSS!  This carrier should be able to put up the same number of UCAV as the rest of the fleet can provide helos. 

Most of the Navy is setup to be multirole platforms.  I can foresee 3 exceptions to this: Subs, Amphib Ships and the Carrier.

The main reason for going the dedicated carrier route is to maximize the number for aircraft.  More, more, more is better when it comes to aircraft.  Let us not have to relearn the lessons that other navies have already learned.  E.G.  Putting 8-inch guns on the USS Lexington or "Italy is one big unsinkable aircraft carrier" by Mussolini.  The flexibility of an aircraft carrier is in its aircraft not its hull.

Does the Carrier remove or make redundant the maritime helos or frigates that have their own helo decks?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  There are lots of things that those helos can do that a UAV simply can't.  Like SAR and moving men and materials.  It would always be best to maximize the capabilities of a PATROL type of frigates.  However you want to provide serious air cover and ground strike capabilities on the cheap, I believe a UAV Carrier is the only way to go.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

As a currently serving member of the Sea King community (and the "victim" of about 400 take-offs and landing at sea) I have followed this thread with some amusement.  There is no question in my mind that we are moving in the direction of UAVs at sea onboard ships.  The presence of a UAV(s) onboard need not preclude helos being there, too.  There is more than enough work for everyone!

My concern is this: while launching a UAV at sea should be relatively straight forward, I do have concerns about recovering at sea, particularily in any kind of a sea-state.  We have trouble enough with 2 human pilots getting back onboard at times.  We will have to find a technological solution that is near perfect, even in rough seas.  This is something that has been glossed over in several posts as insignificant and I can assure that it is not. A crash on deck is not just a loss of an expensive UAV, it is also a potential damage control problem for the ship- not something taken lightly at sea.

We are going to see some interesting times, I think, if Gen Hillier can get us a large decked Amphib Ship.  I think it is the way to go, as well.

Cheers!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Dipping helos will be obsolete with the new generation of wire guided subsurface to air launched missiles.

Polyphem....or Triton

I just got back from the AWC in the UK, it has thrown a real wrench into ASW

NRCrow-

I disagree.  While it sucks some of the fun out of our currently one-sided arrangement that I like very much  , I'm not sure that it spells the end of dipping helos.  With a Low-frequency active array, or multi-statics, one could easily stay in contact and out of range of Polyphem.  When it comes time to attack- stay moving.  I would wish the CO of the sub good luck guessing when and where I will arrive from with my torpedo.

Luckily, these things only belong to the good guys- for now 

Cheers!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Kestral said:

Most of the Navy is setup to be multirole platforms.   I can foresee 3 exceptions to this: Subs, Amphib Ships and the Carrier.

Lets see:
Subs can be used for minelaying, survelliance, anti sub, anti surface, personnel recovery and deployment, patrol.Thats just off the top of my head.

Amphibs can be used for troop and vehicle recovery and deployment, command and control, hospital ships if given enough notice, salvage, evacuation of civillians.

Carriers besides their obvious function which makes them multirole due to their aircraft wings could be used as command and control, and pretty much as an amphib with the exception of vehicles.

I would say the above platforms are multirole as well wouldn't you.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

SeakingTacco,

I'm with you on the UAV recovery bit.  I'll vouch from some observations overseas that launching UAVs is one thing and recovering them is another!  I wasn't in the UAV Tp, but they were in my Coy.  Peforming a recovery at sea would be quite a trick.  I know a "Naval" UAV would be somewhat different than the one that we used, but I am still a little leary of trying to recover UAVs onto a small ship.

Maybe a UAV version of the good'ol float planes that WWII battleships used to carry?  Perhaps an option for carrying a sensor package if not as a UAV strike fighter.  KLaunch with a catapult and recover on the floats.  To me the key UAV role is having a look over hostile ground so this might be a workable solution.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Cloud Cover]

Here is a pretty good article that deals with many of the issues wrt the UAV from 1995 and looking forward :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/1995/wga.htm
Cheers