Canada to Spend $5.0Bil on AEW Aircraft

[ytz]

The MQ-9B SkyGuardian (GA’s name for it) or Protector (RAF’s name for it) hasn’t been produced yet. The RAF will be the launch customer in a couple of years.

It is similar to, but not exactly like, the MQ-9A Reaper. Some pretty significant tech differences.

The additional capability wasn't enough to stop Australia from cancelling. The reality is that non-stealthy drones have little value in the current threat environment and if we wanted drones to simply monitor the coasts and the Arctic, we should have bought something larger (more icing conditions capable) and given it to the Coast Guards.

Would have loved to see a purchase of the Mojave to actually provide real surveillance, reconnaissance and light attack at the Brigade/Division level. And then leave the main air force to focus on much larger UAS for Strat level work. But like so many things, we can't seem to address the Hi-Lo bifurcation of a lot of technology and get stuck with the mushy middle.

Also, at some point, we'll have to discuss incorporating CCAs into the mix with the F-35s and AEWs. Either way, the real value of the Sky Guardians, as I see it, is simply experience with operating MALE UAS and learning how to incorporate them into ops. But in terms of actual utility with the types of conflicts we deploy to today? Questionable.

 

[dapaterson]

The elephants in the room are bandwidth and the backend intelligence function. Sensors generate reams of data; it needs to be shared, stored and analyzed - otherwise, as is presently the case, you're drowning in data and starving for information.

 

[dimsum]

I think Canada has a business case for both Aircraft. They both provide complementing services. For most coastal surveillance a smaller aircraft can tuck away and hide easier than a larger one.
The problem is if we buy one and not the other we are loosing capability both domestic supply and also operational capability.

I think we should buy 14 GlobalEyes,
Currently the Coast Guard and Transport Canada operate and or lease 8 fixed wing surveillance aircraft. That gives them 8 patrol aircraft with a extremely capable surveillance capability. Then give 6 to the Canadian Airforce. we can crew off and on for Transport Canada/ Coast Guard.

Then buy 8-10 Wedgetails 2 for each coast and 4 spares/ international commitments.

We often mix Canadian Military ops with Coastal surveillance, give the full capability to the CG and TC to full fill their role of coastal surveillance. This way we can conduct combined ops and share training and experience.

For those who say we can not support multiple fleets we can and we do.

What TC NASP and PAL operate are very different than what the GlobalEye would give.

The GlobalEye and E-7 are AEW&C aircraft, which isn’t for “surveillance” - they are giant radars for yes, some early warning, but the “control” portion is the key. AEW&C and AWACS aircraft are designed to guide fighters to intercept, not just provide a radar picture.

Security requirements for crews aside (they wouldn’t be flying UNCLASSIFIED missions) which would be a no-go for having CCG or TC folks on missions, calling the GlobalEye or an E-7 a “surveillance aircraft” because it has a radar is about as accurate as calling the CP-140 Aurora a “surveillance aircraft” because it has an EO/IR camera, while forgetting that its real job is anti-submarine warfare with torpedoes, sonobuoys, etc.

 

[Infanteer]

calling the GlobalEye or an E-7 a “surveillance aircraft” because it has a radar is about as accurate as calling the CP-140 Aurora a “surveillance aircraft” because it has an EO/IR camera, while forgetting that its real job is anti-submarine warfare with torpedoes, sonobuoys, etc.

Shhh...don't disturb the experts and their procurement recommendations.

 

[dimsum]

The additional capability wasn't enough to stop Australia from cancelling. The reality is that non-stealthy drones have little value in the current threat environment and if we wanted drones to simply monitor the coasts and the Arctic, we should have bought something larger (more icing conditions capable) and given it to the Coast Guards.

If this is to be believed, it was due to funding commitments to the Australian Signals Directorate, not capability:

Aussies 'secretly cancel' $1.3B AUD drone deal; Nixing French subs may cost $5B - Breaking Defense

"Basically we have a five-and-a-half billion dollar budget provision, including about $3 billion spent to date, and potential costs within that envelope. So taxpayers will be up for five-and-a-half billion dollars and submarines that don't exist?" asked Sen. Penny Wong.

breakingdefense.com

The Aussies are also developing the Ghost Bat with Boeing, and will be operating the MQ-4C Triton.

As for us, the mission for the RPAS project (which became the MQ-9B) wasn’t just domestic surveillance. Expeditionary strike was one of the required mission sets, which took the Global Hawk, etc out of the running.

Would have loved to see a purchase of the Mojave to actually provide real surveillance, reconnaissance and light attack at the Brigade/Division level. And then leave the main air force to focus on much larger UAS for Strat level work. But like so many things, we can't seem to address the Hi-Lo bifurcation of a lot of technology and get stuck with the mushy middle.

The MQ-1C Mojave isn’t all that different than the MQ-9B in terms of size and role. The Mojave works in the US because the US Army also has a very large aviation domain, but the main differences (from wiki at least) are strengthened landing gear and modified wings for STOL. Maybe fuel too? I don’t think we’ll opt for it but the MQ-9B is also being trialled in a STOL-wing configuration.

All that to say that for the RCAF and other smaller air forces, getting the Mojave vs the MQ-9B isn’t materially that different for the use case.

Also, at some point, we'll have to discuss incorporating CCAs into the mix with the F-35s and AEWs. Either way, the real value of the Sky Guardians, as I see it, is simply experience with operating MALE UAS and learning how to incorporate them into ops. But in terms of actual utility with the types of conflicts we deploy to today? Questionable.

Spitballing here, but things like the MQ-9B still work as ISR platforms (with various sensors) and being missile trucks for things like F-35 or other 5th-gen fighters. I don’t see them deploying by themselves into a near-peer shooting war.

Either way, those types of UAS won’t neatly fit into the current mental model of “fighter/attack vs surveillance vs other” mission set - we (militaries writ large) have used them as attack platforms because they fire things at things that don’t fire back, but I suspect it won’t be that way indefinitely.

But absolutely yes, CCA is something to consider down the line.

 

[Good2Golf]

Either way, the real value of the Sky Guardians, as I see it, is simply experience with operating MALE UAS and learning how to incorporate them into ops. But in terms of actual utility with the types of conflicts we deploy to today? Questionable.

And that Canada may well (try to) employ the MQ-9B as a non-attritable asset and play things safe, so no deployments to Houthi MQ-9 shoot down land…

The elephants in the room are bandwidth and the backend intelligence function. Sensors generate reams of data; it needs to be shared, stored and analyzed - otherwise, as is presently the case, you're drowning in data and starving for information.

Ah, so you’re assuming (cynically, but perhaps correctly) that Canada wouldn’t hoist aboard the implementation of autonomous/augmentation technologies to enhance the effectiveness of smaller pools of trained personnel, thus continuing to push operator-intensive solutions that will likely not be reliably sustained for decades…

The GlobalEye and E-7 are AEW&C aircraft, which isn’t for “surveillance” - they are giant radars for yes, some early warning, but the “control” portion is the key. AEW&C and AWACS aircraft are designed to guide fighters to intercept, not just provide a radar picture.

What are the odds Canada doesn’t spec any such future aircraft with MADL?

 

[ytz]

If this is to be believed, it was due to funding commitments to the Australian Signals Directorate, not capability:

They redirected funding to the ASD because they saw a bigger threat and more value in investing in the Cyber domain that building up an UCAS capability that was not survivable in near-peer. And they aren't wrong. What is the point of having drones capable of dropping ordinance if they can't be deployed because of threat levels.

The Aussies are also developing the Ghost Bat with Boeing, and will be operating the MQ-4C Triton.

Exactly why I said this:

Also, at some point, we'll have to discuss incorporating CCAs into the mix with the F-35s and AEWs.

if we wanted drones to simply monitor the coasts and the Arctic, we should have bought something larger (more icing conditions capable) and given it to the Coast Guards.

You'll notice that the Aussies are developing the Ghost Bat substantially as a CCA and their Tritons are operated by a coastal/border surveillance agency. This is a model I think we should copy. Having a bunch of positions dedicated to operating a bunch of SkyGuardians which may never deploy is so painful....

The MQ-1C Mojave isn’t all that different than the MQ-9B in terms of size and role. The Mojave works in the US because the US Army also has a very large aviation domain, but the main differences (from wiki at least) are strengthened landing gear and modified wings for STOL. Maybe fuel too? I don’t think we’ll opt for it but the MQ-9B is also being trialled in a STOL-wing configuration.

All that to say that for the RCAF and other smaller air forces, getting the Mojave vs the MQ-9B isn’t materially that different for the use case.

The Mojave is a good bit smaller (7000 lbs vs 10 500 lbs), bit cheaper and most importantly a lot more robust. This allows for a reformulation of drone tactics into real supporting assets, possibly at the brigade level. We could even turn some of our TacHel squadrons into Mojave squadrons.

We're buying the SkyGuardians, in part for strat levels assets for coastal and Arctic surveillance, a role in which they are suboptimal. This is exactly like how we're trying to shoehorn the 295 in our SAR doctrine.

 

[ytz]

What are the odds Canada doesn’t spec any such future aircraft with MADL?

Requirement: Must be able to communicate with the F-35.

Contractor: We are giving you unsecured VHF radios.

 

[childs56]

How do you hide at 30k feet, I’m just curious.

didnt realize the aircraft had a minimum altitude it had to operate at. My mistake......

Not sure where you would find people or money for ththat.

TC and CG already lease/contract/operate at least 8 fixed wing surveillance aircraft. Add a vee dollars and give them a more capable platform.

Then have TC buy some GE’s.

kind of Ike the AOPS ship program, have the military buy some and talk on a few more for the other guys.

Can or should?

We already do have a multi fleet of various aircraft. Including some leased for specific missions.
Why not is really the question.

If you’re including NASP’s “Clifford the Big Red Dog” as part of those 8, then you’re being very generous with the “extremely capable surveillance capability.”

The context is they replace their current Aircraft with the GE and get a very capable platform.

What TC NASP and PAL operate are very different than what the GlobalEye would give.

I agree it would give them even more capability.

The GlobalEye and E-7 are AEW&C aircraft, which isn’t for “surveillance” - they are giant radars for yes, some early warning, but the “control” portion is the key. AEW&C and AWACS aircraft are designed to guide fighters to intercept, not just provide a radar picture.

It isn't their only job and or function. The sensors they have or can be installed can assist with surface surveillance, ice flow id pollution I sections etc. The things our Military currently gets called on to do.

Security requirements for crews aside (they wouldn’t be flying UNCLASSIFIED missions)

Whats the problem wirh flying classified missions?
TC and CG fly "classified" missions regularly. Some might be low Classification, they are still classified. I know some of the surveillance patrols they conducted out west were classified secret. Due to the nature of what they found and continued to observe.
we were and or are going to buy surveillance drones for the CG/TC why not an actual proper AC?

which would be a no-go for having CCG or TC folks on missions, calling the GlobalEye or an E-7 a “surveillance aircraft” because it has a radar is about as accurate as calling the CP-140 Aurora a “surveillance aircraft” because it has an EO/IR camera, while forgetting that its real job is anti-submarine warfare with torpedoes, sonobuoys, etc.
They are all surveillance missions... ones primary is subsurface missions, one is aerial and the other surface. They have a combination of some assets.

 

[childs56]

Shhh...don't disturb the experts and their procurement recommendations.

The sarcasm is funny, had me laughing. Had a few friends laughing. Then we realized it wasn't your sarcasm, it was the baby Yoda meme we looked at.

 

[Good2Golf]

Currently the Coast Guard and Transport Canada operate and or lease 8 fixed wing surveillance aircraft. That gives them 8 patrol aircraft with a extremely capable surveillance capability.

‘Currently’ … ‘extremely capable surveillance capability’

Which I call you out on…then you reply thusly…which needs ‘replacement’ to then be a ‘very (btw which sounds less than ‘extremely’) capable platform…

The context is they replace their current Aircraft with the GE and get a very capable platform.

So what is it?

Current Dash-8s are ‘extremely’ capable, but will downgrade to ‘very’ capable GEs in the future, once replaced? Your logic seems to be…inconceivable.

 

[childs56]

‘Currently’ … ‘extremely capable surveillance capability’

Which I call you out on…then you reply thusly…which needs ‘replacement’ to then be a ‘very (btw which sounds less than ‘extremely’) capable platform…



So what is it?

Current Dash-8s are ‘extremely’ capable, but will downgrade to ‘very’ capable GEs in the future, once replaced? Your logic seems to be…inconceivable.

You should use the entire quote not just a piece of it.
Lots of missed information has been passed on with partial quotes
I should have used "which" not "that".
That should have been "which" gives them 8 patrol aircraft with a extremely capable surveillance capability. Then give 6 to the Canadian Airforce

 

[dimsum]

You'll notice that the Aussies are developing the Ghost Bat substantially as a CCA and their Tritons are operated by a coastal/border surveillance agency. This is a model I think we should copy. Having a bunch of positions dedicated to operating a bunch of SkyGuardians which may never deploy is so painful....

Unless something changed drastically in the past few weeks, I’m not sure where you got the info that their MQ-4Cs will be operated by anyone other than the RAAF. The RAAF re-formed 9 Sqn specifically for that mission.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/mq-4c-triton

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2023-06-11/squadron-reforms-after-decades

The Mojave is a good bit smaller (7000 lbs vs 10 500 lbs), bit cheaper and most importantly a lot more robust. This allows for a reformulation of drone tactics into real supporting assets, possibly at the brigade level. We could even turn some of our TacHel squadrons into Mojave squadrons.

Since the Mojave is still a testbed (and more importantly, no one has bought it), the cost and robustness are yet to be fully determined. I acknowledge that it is potentially something to see - specifically how the US Army uses their MQ-1C Gray Eagle, but I’m not totally sure that it’s different enough than the MQ-9B to pursue both.

I also acknowledge that the MQ-9B itself isn’t operational yet, but there are at least 2 countries fronting orders.

We're buying the SkyGuardians, in part for strat levels assets for coastal and Arctic surveillance, a role in which they are suboptimal. This is exactly like how we're trying to shoehorn the 295 in our SAR doctrine.

Unless you’re talking about icing conditions, I’m not sure why an MQ-9B with maritime radar would be suboptimal for the maritime surveillance piece. The Arctic has its own challenges especially with GPS coverage, but that would equally affect a Global Hawk, Mojave, or anything else that relies on GPS.

 

[dimsum]

It isn't their only job and or function. The sensors they have or can be installed can assist with surface surveillance, ice flow id pollution I sections etc. The things our Military currently gets called on to do.

Please elaborate on what sensors you’re saying can assist with ice flow and pollution.

AEW&C aircraft primarily use a big air search radar. Their role is to act as essentially airborne ATC (in a way) to direct fighters and other aircraft to targets.

As far as I know, no AEW&C aircraft have EO/IR cameras or anything similar because that’s not the role.

Whats the problem wirh flying classified missions?
TC and CG fly "classified" missions regularly. Some might be low Classification, they are still classified. I know some of the surveillance patrols they conducted out west were classified secret. Due to the nature of what they found and continued to observe.
we were and or are going to buy surveillance drones for the CG/TC why not an actual proper AC?

AEW&C missions are unlikely to be classified Secret, because again, their main role is to direct fighters to targets.

The TC drone would have literally been a flying camera. Very different than AEW&C in terms of mission set, requirements, etc.

which would be a no-go for having CCG or TC folks on missions, calling the GlobalEye or an E-7 a “surveillance aircraft” because it has a radar is about as accurate as calling the CP-140 Aurora a “surveillance aircraft” because it has an EO/IR camera, while forgetting that its real job is anti-submarine warfare with torpedoes, sonobuoys, etc.
They are all surveillance missions... ones primary is subsurface missions, one is aerial and the other surface. They have a combination of some assets.

Yes and no.

To use an Army analogy, it’s like saying anyone from an infanteer to a tank commander to artillery to engineers is also conducting surveillance. While yes (because they can all happen upon enemy movements), that is a part (maybe a small part) of the possible realm of missions, not the main reason for their existence. The mission of the infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy. Armoured, arty, etc probably have similar statements.

The way your last point reads, it’d be like me trying to argue that all Cbt arms (plus others) role is surveillance too.

 

[Good2Golf]

You should use the entire quote not just a piece of it.
Lots of missed information has been passed on with partial quotes
I should have used "which" not "that".
That should have been "which" gives them 8 patrol aircraft with an extremely capable surveillance capability. Then give 6 to the Canadian Airforce

Just so you don’t miss the irony of the above highlighted portion of your attempt to chastise me for a fragmented approach…May I present a graphical highlight of your earlier wideband multi-user cut-snip-rebut/challenge taking “just a piece of it [others’ quotes]” approach.

So which is it? Quote the entirety of another user’s post (which you espouse for others) or quote a focused, relevant and referenced/linked portion so that others may follow up if they don’t feel they have enough information/backgriund (which you…look below…use quite regularly)?

 

[ytz]

Unless something changed drastically in the past few weeks, I’m not sure where you got the info that their MQ-4Cs will be operated by anyone other than the RAAF. The RAAF re-formed 9 Sqn specifically for that mission.

I stand corrected. I thought they were pushed to their border agency. But I guess it's the RAAF operating them to assist the border agency.

Since the Mojave is still a testbed (and more importantly, no one has bought it), the cost and robustness are yet to be fully determined. I acknowledge that it is potentially something to see - specifically how the US Army uses their MQ-1C Gray Eagle, but I’m not totally sure that it’s different enough than the MQ-9B to pursue both.

I also acknowledge that the MQ-9B itself isn’t operational yet, but there are at least 2 countries fronting orders.

Isn't the Mojave being developed with SOCOM input? In any event, Mojave is closer to this thing (that it is supposed to replace):

General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And they already have decent doctrine developed that could have given us a starting point.

I doubt we'll be using the SkyGuardians anything like that. My frustration here is that we are finally getting into the armed UAS game and we have basically procured something that's perfect for Afghanistan 2014. As opposed to how we would use drones for domestic frontier surveillance and support to ground forces during LSCO. We really should have gone with something like the Triton or Avenger for maritime and Arctic surveillance. But then we wouldn't be able to say we have armed drones. Ideally this is where we would have eventually picked up Mojaves (or something equivalent in that size and role).

Unless you’re talking about icing conditions, I’m not sure why an MQ-9B with maritime radar would be suboptimal for the maritime surveillance piece. The Arctic has its own challenges especially with GPS coverage, but that would equally affect a Global Hawk, Mojave, or anything else that relies on GPS.

The range and endurance and icing operations capabilities are really pushing it with the SkyGuardian up North. It really is a job for high end MALE or HALE UAS.

 

[dimsum]

I stand corrected. I thought they were pushed to their border agency. But I guess it's the RAAF operating them to assist the border agency.

Isn't the Mojave being developed with SOCOM input? In any event, Mojave is closer to this thing (that it is supposed to replace):

General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And they already have decent doctrine developed that could have given us a starting point.

“Buddy lasing” and stuff isn’t really a new thing though. I saw the video and the tactics aren’t groundbreaking (hence why I guess it’s allowed on YouTube). The MQ-9B could be used in that situation too - the US Army isn’t treating their MQ-1Cs as attritable assets.

I doubt we'll be using the SkyGuardians anything like that. My frustration here is that we are finally getting into the armed UAS game and we have basically procured something that's perfect for Afghanistan 2014. As opposed to how we would use drones for domestic frontier surveillance and support to ground forces during LSCO. We really should have gone with something like the Triton or Avenger for maritime and Arctic surveillance. But then we wouldn't be able to say we have armed drones. Ideally this is where we would have eventually picked up Mojaves (or something equivalent in that size and role).

The range and endurance and icing operations capabilities are really pushing it with the SkyGuardian up North. It really is a job for high end MALE or HALE UAS.

I gotta ask - are you involved in the project? You seem to have quite a bit of insight into the MQ-9B.

Stepping back a bunch, and I know this is super tangent-y, the Mojave is not an operational aircraft yet. Everything about it should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Now back to AEW&C…

 

[ytz]

“Buddy lasing” and stuff isn’t really a new thing though. I saw the video and the tactics aren’t groundbreaking (hence why I guess it’s allowed on YouTube). The MQ-9B could be used in that situation too - the US Army isn’t treating their MQ-1Cs as attritable assets.

Agreed. Nothing groundbreaking. But doctrinally developed to be substantially part of LSCO. Here's a hypothetical. If we had the SkyGuardians right now, would we be deploying a det to Latvia as part of our EfP? Here's where I have doubts. I think something a bit smaller and thought of more like a recce asset would be seen as more deployable in my opinion.

I gotta ask - are you involved in the project? You seem to have quite a bit of insight into the MQ-9B.

Not directly. But as part of the weapons enterprise have had input and insight.

 

[ytz]

Now back to AEW&C…

Kinda ties in. Gotta wonder how useful Reapers/Guardians will be when CCAs hit the line and can be controlled from AEW aircraft.

 

[Good2Golf]

Kinda ties in. Gotta wonder how useful Reapers/Guardians will be when CCAs hit the line and can be controlled from AEW aircraft.

…and it’s not gloves, toques or the Army PRes…