RPAS (was JUSTAS): the project to buy armed Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAVs

[dimsum]

Another reason to place the capability under 2 Wing?

Question - if RPAS will be used for Arctic and maritime surveillance of domestic areas, should it still be under 2 Wg? My understanding of 2 Wg is that it has assets that will only be used in expeditionary missions, not domestic ones.

For example: CP-140s are used for both expeditionary and domestic missions, but they don't fall under 2 Wg. Similarly, CF-18s are under 3 and 4 Wg. Why would RPAS be any different?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I can't believe this thread was started nearly 15 years ago. Amazing how little can be accomplished in so much time

 

[daftandbarmy]

I can't believe this thread was started nearly 15 years ago. Amazing how little can be accomplished in so much time

I dunno... it's up to 20 pages now

 

[Kirkhill]

Question - if RPAS will be used for Arctic and maritime surveillance of domestic areas, should it still be under 2 Wg? My understanding of 2 Wg is that it has assets that will only be used in expeditionary missions, not domestic ones.

For example: CP-140s are used for both expeditionary and domestic missions, but they don't fall under 2 Wg. Similarly, CF-18s are under 3 and 4 Wg. Why would RPAS be any different?

I don't know that answer. There are experts in the field.

The eJPALS control system for managing the airspace, if acquired, seems to be, to this layman, a match with 2 Wing's expeditionary role. The next question is: is the North an expeditionary environment?

If so does the RCAF need a STOL UAS? Or is it something that might come in useful? Or is it an unnecessary luxury it can't afford?

Conversely, if the aircraft is going to spend most of its life over water should it go to 14 and 19 Wings with dets being attached to 2 Wing when required?

ie, Is it a tactical or an operational asset?

 

[dimsum]

dets being attached to 2 Wing when required?

From my understanding, air task forces do not become attached to 2 Wg when deployed.

2 Air Expeditionary Wing is basically the "first to go" for a deployed ops HQ, to set up for the actual Air Task Force HQ.

 

[Kirkhill]

From my understanding, air task forces do not become attached to 2 Wg when deployed.

2 Air Expeditionary Wing is basically the "first to go" for a deployed ops HQ, to set up for the actual Air Task Force HQ.

So more like a Theatre Activation role than a continuing operational one?

 

[Good2Golf]

Question - if RPAS will be used for Arctic and maritime surveillance of domestic areas, should it still be under 2 Wg? My understanding of 2 Wg is that it has assets that will only be used in expeditionary missions, not domestic ones.

For example: CP-140s are used for both expeditionary and domestic missions, but they don't fall under 2 Wg. Similarly, CF-18s are under 3 and 4 Wg. Why would RPAS be any different?

The B-GA-401-001/FP-001 Figures 2.4 and 2.5 apply.

Unless of course, we don’t follow our doctrine.

 

[Kirkhill]

Separately, I was thinking more about the STOL capability and what it might mean in the Arctic. And it applies to the MORGUNZ debates as regards the MCDVs and the AOPSs.

If the MCDVs and the AOPSs have persistent top cover from something like the MOJAVE/REAPER/PREDATOR/PROTECTOR is the onboard requirement for GUNZ'n'MSLZ as great?

And if a Flight of UAS's could refuel and rearm in places like Alert, Eureka, Resolute and Nanisivik in all weather how would that impact the need for onboard helicopters and UASs?

If the PROTECTOR solution were adopted would they return to COMOX and GREENWOOD or would they operate out of FOLs like INUVIK, IQALUIT and GOOSE BAY?

Personally I can see a number of advantages for being able to operate further forward even if the vehicle is not fully optimized for the long range mission.

It would certainly play into the "kinder-gentler" image that our politicians seem most comfortable with. The surface image is that of the kindly local "Bobby" unarmed. But always capable of deploying "the Bolt from the Blue".



The Air Det's command center.

 

[CBH99]

I can't believe this thread was started nearly 15 years ago. Amazing how little can be accomplished in so much time

Ahem…


“This is an incorrect assessment of the tasks accomplished within the timeframe stated.

During the last 15 years, we have allowed RPA technology to progress significantly, resulting in RPA systems that are safer, more efficient, more reliable, and can employ more advanced sensors, cameras, data systems, and weapons.

We also positioned ourselves in such a way that these advancements were made at 0 cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

When we do sign a contract to acquire the aircraft, the Canadian Armed Forces will be acquiring a platform that is among the best in the world - and one that is significantly more advanced and reliable than if we had acquired the aircraft at the beginning of the project.

Canadians should take comfort in knowing that their Canadian Forces supported an entire R&D cycle in a way that respects the Canadian taxpayer, and will result in Canada being one of only a few countries in the world to field such an advanced system at such an affordable cost.”


There. PR folks, feel free to copy & paste. I’ll wait for my cheque in the mail.

 

[dimsum]

Personally I can see a number of advantages for being able to operate further forward even if the vehicle is not fully optimized for the long range mission.

It would certainly play into the "kinder-gentler" image that our politicians seem most comfortable with. The surface image is that of the kindly local "Bobby" unarmed. But always capable of deploying "the Bolt from the Blue".

I'm not sure how the "kinder-gentler" image would be different if the RPAS was launched/recovered forward or far away. The MQ-1/9 series of RPAS fly high - people on the ground aren't going to see or hear them.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ahem…


“This is an incorrect assessment of the tasks accomplished within the timeframe stated.

During the last 15 years, we have allowed RPA technology to progress significantly, resulting in RPA systems that are safer, more efficient, more reliable, and can employ more advanced sensors, cameras, data systems, and weapons.

We also positioned ourselves in such a way that these advancements were made at 0 cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

When we do sign a contract to acquire the aircraft, the Canadian Armed Forces will be acquiring a platform that is among the best in the world - and one that is significantly more advanced and reliable than if we had acquired the aircraft at the beginning of the project.

Canadians should take comfort in knowing that their Canadian Forces supported an entire R&D cycle in a way that respects the Canadian taxpayer, and will result in Canada being one of only a few countries in the world to field such an advanced system at such an affordable cost.”


There. PR folks, feel free to copy & paste. I’ll wait for my cheque in the mail.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure how the "kinder-gentler" image would be different if the RPAS was launched/recovered forward or far away. The MQ-1/9 series of RPAS fly high - people on the ground aren't going to see or hear them.

Not about "kindler-gentler" RPAS but rather "kindler-gentler" boats. The fact that the people being confronted by the boats are unaware of the available aerial support is all to the better. No need to tell them that they're in the sniper's sights.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not about "kindler-gentler" RPAS but rather "kindler-gentler" boats. The fact that the people being confronted by the boats are unaware of the available aerial support is all to the better. No need to tell them that they're in the sniper's sights.

As to the issue of being able to refuel and rearm in close proximity to point of use - that only becomes critical if the weaponry is being used, or the sensor pods need changing out to meet variable requirements.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

As to the issue of being able to refuel and rearm in close proximity to point of use - that only becomes critical if the weaponry is being used, or the sensor pods need changing out to meet variable requirements.

Not sure I agree. Transit distances/ times from MOB / FOL to op area might be a factor, as will number of serviceable airframes in situations where there is a need for persistent presence, conduct hot handovers, etc.

My experience working with (as in sharing airspace with) RPAS is they are slow, and strong winds and weather can significantly reduce their ability to conduct ops. Long transits thru areas with lots of weather can mean deviations, adding more time to transit/ONSTA times.

 

[dimsum]

Update:

Ottawa launches long-awaited competition for armed military drones

OTTAWA — The federal government has officially launched a competition for the purchase of armed drones after nearly two decades of delays and discussion around…

nationalpost.com

 

[Good2Golf]

Update:

Ottawa launches long-awaited competition for armed military drones

OTTAWA — The federal government has officially launched a competition for the purchase of armed drones after nearly two decades of delays and discussion around…

nationalpost.com

 

[kev994]

“Some have previously criticized the decision to buy armed drones given concerns about their potential use in Canada and numerous reports of airstrikes by other nations, particularly the United States and Russia, causing unintended damage and civilian casualties.”

What do they think fighters do?

 

[dimsum]

“Some have previously criticized the decision to buy armed drones given concerns about their potential use in Canada and numerous reports of airstrikes by other nations, particularly the United States and Russia, causing unintended damage and civilian casualties.”

What do they think fighters do?

There's a weird disconnect. We obviously know there's little difference, but for some reason everyone gets up in arms over a pilot flying an RPAS firing a missile, vs a pilot in a fighter firing a missile.

The fighter pilot is also looking through a SNIPER pod or similar, so it's literally two different types of aircraft flying high, staring at a camera, then pressing a button.

 

[CBH99]

“Some have previously criticized the decision to buy armed drones given concerns about their potential use in Canada and numerous reports of airstrikes by other nations, particularly the United States and Russia, causing unintended damage and civilian casualties.”

What do they think fighters do?

Is it just the way my mind read this, or does the author attempt to convey that they could be used in Canada?

Editors at National Post… where art thou?


(The people who have concerns about RPA dropping bombs are the same people who would disband the military altogether, disarm/defund the police, etc and who’s input doesn’t remotely matter… my 2 cents)

 

[kev994]

Is it just the way my mind read this, or does the author attempt to convey that they could be used in Canada?

Editors at National Post… where art thou?


(The people who have concerns about RPA dropping bombs are the same people who would disband the military altogether, disarm/defund the police, etc and who’s input doesn’t remotely matter… my 2 cents)

That’s what it says. But I think they mean spying on Canadians. Because that’s not boring.