A
aesop081
Guest
:
I give up....i'm going back to my airplane. Let me know how it all works out.
I give up....i'm going back to my airplane. Let me know how it all works out.
RPAS (was JUSTAS): the project to buy armed Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAVs
- Thread starter Jammer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Matthew you can't just ignore one aspect of the Arctic for another. It has to be all or nothing. Yeah its great we can keep ships from violating our borders but to ignore the sub surface and air threat is just ludicrous.
As for your comment on hyperbole, once gets tired of people hinting that we do not know our jobs or that something that you may have a better idea of whats going on even though you might never hunted a sub in your life. Hence the frustration of Cdn Aviators post. One of his primary jobs is hunting subs....full stop! If he went in and started to tell the boys in the infantry forum that section battle drills are out to lunch because he knows a better approach, what do you think they are going to tell him?
As for your comment on hyperbole, once gets tired of people hinting that we do not know our jobs or that something that you may have a better idea of whats going on even though you might never hunted a sub in your life. Hence the frustration of Cdn Aviators post. One of his primary jobs is hunting subs....full stop! If he went in and started to tell the boys in the infantry forum that section battle drills are out to lunch because he knows a better approach, what do you think they are going to tell him?
- Reaction score
- 1,716
- Points
- 1,140
CDN Aviator doesn't want to loose his job (or refuses to believe he will one day 
) 
)
A
aesop081
Guest
SupersonicMax said:CDN Aviator doesn't want to loose his job (or refuses to believe he will one day
:
My job is rather secure either way thank you very much. Someone has to operate the UAV sensors.
B
Bandit1
Guest
It's 0158 here in Toronto, and I know I'm tired, but I don't think I misread when Matthew said that ASW isn't a priority. Matthew, with all due respect to you, the sub surface threat is one that not only is in existence now but has been since the innovation of the nuclear submarine oh so many years ago. There is plenty of video and photographic evidence which can be found in the main stream media that supports the fact that the subs of Russia and other countries have and continue to be present in what are recognized as our waters. As a result of this clear and obvious threat, it is of vast importance that we maintain a manned vehicle presence in the arctic.
Now, what would I use to protect our sovereignty? Here's how I see it working itself out.
The "Q" becomes home to a 3 ship of Aurora's responsible for our manned aerial presence in the area. We know that they and their crews are more than capable of looking after us along with the Hornets to help us sleep at night.
I would then purchase some Global Hawks, perhaps 4 of them (2 for each coast), and have them perform aerial surveillance for the coastal regions with the Aurora's being sent out should a threat be assessed to be significant. I know that there won't be an answer to this, but I'm basing the location of the Global Hawk's deployment based on the assertion that there is less of a tactical threat found on either of our shores than that which is present in our North. I could be wrong, and I'm willing to swallow my words if I am.
Eventually the Aurora's will need to be replaced or upgraded. I vote for upgrades which will give them a greater life span. I'm not convinced that the P8 is the answer to our MPA future, simply because of its range and time on station capabilities when compared to the Aurora. That, and I think that the sound of Alisons is much nicer. Realistically, however, with Australia recently jumping on board with their purchase of the Wedgetail (a Poseidon variant), I see Canada heading in the same direction in the not so distant future. Going along further with this prospect is that the US DoD will follow a program similar to the JSF, in that there would be involvement from nations which would be considered prospective users of the Poseidon, chiefly those who currently use the P-3 airframe.
Unlike P-3's used in other countries, however, our Aurora's pack a greater punch internally which, in my own opinion, would be hard to replace given the situations we find ourselves now using this amazing aircraft for.
Bandit
Now, what would I use to protect our sovereignty? Here's how I see it working itself out.
The "Q" becomes home to a 3 ship of Aurora's responsible for our manned aerial presence in the area. We know that they and their crews are more than capable of looking after us along with the Hornets to help us sleep at night.
I would then purchase some Global Hawks, perhaps 4 of them (2 for each coast), and have them perform aerial surveillance for the coastal regions with the Aurora's being sent out should a threat be assessed to be significant. I know that there won't be an answer to this, but I'm basing the location of the Global Hawk's deployment based on the assertion that there is less of a tactical threat found on either of our shores than that which is present in our North. I could be wrong, and I'm willing to swallow my words if I am.
Eventually the Aurora's will need to be replaced or upgraded. I vote for upgrades which will give them a greater life span. I'm not convinced that the P8 is the answer to our MPA future, simply because of its range and time on station capabilities when compared to the Aurora. That, and I think that the sound of Alisons is much nicer. Realistically, however, with Australia recently jumping on board with their purchase of the Wedgetail (a Poseidon variant), I see Canada heading in the same direction in the not so distant future. Going along further with this prospect is that the US DoD will follow a program similar to the JSF, in that there would be involvement from nations which would be considered prospective users of the Poseidon, chiefly those who currently use the P-3 airframe.
Unlike P-3's used in other countries, however, our Aurora's pack a greater punch internally which, in my own opinion, would be hard to replace given the situations we find ourselves now using this amazing aircraft for.
Bandit
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Ex-Dragoon said:
Ex, I'm not hinting any of you guys don't know your jobs. You've all forgotten more than most civvies will ever know.
My point is simply that getting caught up in the capabilities/failings of one platform vs another, there are times when we lose sight of the forest for the trees.
My assessment remains that there are multiple different debates occurring in one thread that need to be broken out.
First is a political one. Regardless of nuclear submarines transiting our arctic waterways, the first step towards asserting sovereignty remains controlling surface traffic. And since the political objective of establishing sovereignty supercedes our right to sink nuclear submarines transiting our waterway (if we don't have a certified right of ownership, we don't have a right to defend it), we have to use our limited budget to start there.
Second is the first military one which only becomes relevant in the arctic context after we've demonstrated, asserted and secured sovereignty on an international basis. From a military perspective, again I haven't seen anyone argue manned aircraft are obsolete. In sharp contrast, I think there's general agreement they're essential. The debate therefore is how do we transition from our current fleet and operations into the future given the developing capabilities of UAV's and how do we integrate all systems to provide the best mix of surveillance and interdiction capabilities. For those that have not read my previous posts on the topic which now go back a couple of years, I've advocated a layered approach to coastal and artic patrols. In a very similar model to what Bandit has just proposed, I've long advocated utilising lower-operating cost assets (unarmed where necessary) in the surveillance "hunter" role, and once detected begin vectoring in your "killer" armed assets.
Regardless, I sincerely wish you guys would not take everything posted by a civilian as a perceived slight against your knowledge or experience and take personal offence from it. Yes there are trolls out there, but they're very easy to identify. In 99% of non-troll cases (and 100% of cases involving me) insulting or demeaning you is never the intention. In this respect I honestly don't know what to say as I've seen it so many times on this forum from very many very smart people and each time I see it, it baffles me. I bluntly do not know if this is a military culture issue or not (this is not a criticism!). I can tell you from my private sector standpoint, there exists a constant state of objective criticism and group problem solving moving ever closer to wikinomics model than based on any type of hierarchy. In meetings, I run with CEO's, COO's, CFO's, etc., there is very little attachment to one's concept or model. Instead, everything is extremely fluid and blunt analysis is done without the emotional vesting that appears to exist in this environment.
I may be slitting my own throat but if my assessment does that, perhaps I've overstayed my welcome anyway.
Regardless, I'm the guy on the street who does walk up to you, salutes and says thank you for everything you do.
Best wishes, Matthew.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,079
- Points
- 1,160
Ref the idea of flying unmanned eyes & manned killers:
Do not forget some of the technical challenges. Transmitting live sensor feed from a UAV to a control station can demand a lot of BW. The more sensors (& the more data produced by those sensors) goes to more BW demands. At a certain point, some things have to be recorded and processed after the fact. One of the advantages of a crewed aircraft is that it has the potential to do real time analysis without the BW limitation. Without getting into current sensor capabilities (or potential capabilities for the future), this fact alone gives an argument not to put all the surveillance eggs into the UAV basket.
Do not forget some of the technical challenges. Transmitting live sensor feed from a UAV to a control station can demand a lot of BW. The more sensors (& the more data produced by those sensors) goes to more BW demands. At a certain point, some things have to be recorded and processed after the fact. One of the advantages of a crewed aircraft is that it has the potential to do real time analysis without the BW limitation. Without getting into current sensor capabilities (or potential capabilities for the future), this fact alone gives an argument not to put all the surveillance eggs into the UAV basket.
B
Bandit1
Guest
Matthew,
Firstly, the political means of asserting ones sovereignty isn't necessarily the control of surface traffic. I hate to get specific on you, but it is the control of ALL traffic, which includes submarines. The threat posed by subs, however, is significantly greater than the threat posed by the ships which traverse the region. Also, to bring something else to the discussion, the government is busy mapping the seabed to see what can be claimed as our land, and more importantly, the water that engulfs it.
With regards to your second point, I think that the reason some are dismayed with your comments are that there isn't enough focus paid on what lies beneath the surface. In not addressing that, you're not addressing what is already taking place as we type all this. You speak of the developing capabilities of UAV's and how they are to be integrated into the defence of what is, by all rights, a very large piece of our country. The thing is, you'll never be able to fit onto a UAV what is carried inside an Aurora. As such, the use of the Aurora is, in my opinion, more necessary than the control of what vessels are traversing the territory in question.
With regards to your final point - it isn't considered a slight. It simply shows that some people, in the opinion of others, don't think enough of the big picture before they make statements about what is and isn't necessary for the Forces. I speak with probably the same people that you do, and their one goal is to provide the Forces with what they need to get the job they define done. If you do say that you run with the people that you do, then they understand that there is never a one source solution to everything, rather it takes a multi-pronged approach to be able to handle any given scenario. That is why there are so many companies which are creating alliances with others in order to provide the best solution for the defence of the nation. You only have to look as far as the recent Halifax Class Modernization announcement. If I could offer some advice here - listen to the needs of the soldier first, understand their mandate second, and then come up with a solution to whatever the issue is that encompasses ALL plausible scenarios.
Bandit
Firstly, the political means of asserting ones sovereignty isn't necessarily the control of surface traffic. I hate to get specific on you, but it is the control of ALL traffic, which includes submarines. The threat posed by subs, however, is significantly greater than the threat posed by the ships which traverse the region. Also, to bring something else to the discussion, the government is busy mapping the seabed to see what can be claimed as our land, and more importantly, the water that engulfs it.
With regards to your second point, I think that the reason some are dismayed with your comments are that there isn't enough focus paid on what lies beneath the surface. In not addressing that, you're not addressing what is already taking place as we type all this. You speak of the developing capabilities of UAV's and how they are to be integrated into the defence of what is, by all rights, a very large piece of our country. The thing is, you'll never be able to fit onto a UAV what is carried inside an Aurora. As such, the use of the Aurora is, in my opinion, more necessary than the control of what vessels are traversing the territory in question.
With regards to your final point - it isn't considered a slight. It simply shows that some people, in the opinion of others, don't think enough of the big picture before they make statements about what is and isn't necessary for the Forces. I speak with probably the same people that you do, and their one goal is to provide the Forces with what they need to get the job they define done. If you do say that you run with the people that you do, then they understand that there is never a one source solution to everything, rather it takes a multi-pronged approach to be able to handle any given scenario. That is why there are so many companies which are creating alliances with others in order to provide the best solution for the defence of the nation. You only have to look as far as the recent Halifax Class Modernization announcement. If I could offer some advice here - listen to the needs of the soldier first, understand their mandate second, and then come up with a solution to whatever the issue is that encompasses ALL plausible scenarios.
Bandit
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Bandit1 said:
I think you just edited this out, but felt bound to reply to it. if you think that defending concepts is only a 'military thing', you are mistaken, and if you havent seen it in your work sector tehn youre fortunate. Attachment to one's ideas and theories and attacking anyone who disputes them is primarly a tactic of the academic world, not just the military world, and is also common in the private sector as well, especially when dealing with consultants.
B
Bandit1
Guest
Sir,
I was actually just using that as a guide when responding to Matthew's post found 2 above my own, in which he actually made that statement.
In response to your comment - I do feel that defending concepts isn't only a "military thing". I agree with you that attachment to one's ideas and theories and the attacking of anyone who disputes them is very rampant not only in business, but also, as you pointed out, in places such as the academic world. What used to be termed debate and entertained arguments from both sides is now becoming more and more an attack on the individual - something that I recently was confronted with when someone in one of my classes stood up and said that anyone who supports the Afghan mission is simply out to kill all Muslims from the world. Then he turned to me and stated "That includes you."
It's starting to get a lot colder in places nowadays...
Bandit
I was actually just using that as a guide when responding to Matthew's post found 2 above my own, in which he actually made that statement.
In response to your comment - I do feel that defending concepts isn't only a "military thing". I agree with you that attachment to one's ideas and theories and the attacking of anyone who disputes them is very rampant not only in business, but also, as you pointed out, in places such as the academic world. What used to be termed debate and entertained arguments from both sides is now becoming more and more an attack on the individual - something that I recently was confronted with when someone in one of my classes stood up and said that anyone who supports the Afghan mission is simply out to kill all Muslims from the world. Then he turned to me and stated "That includes you."
It's starting to get a lot colder in places nowadays...
Bandit
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Bandit1 said:
Ouch! That would make it quite personal, and I wouldnt blame you for responding in kind.
Ref the example, just wanted to clarify that its pretty much the same everywhere... its hard not to defend something youre passionate about and believe to be true.
Oh, no need to call me 'sir'.... I work for a living, etc....
B
Bandit1
Guest
Greymatters said:
Sir,
Everyone older than I or of any rank gets called Sir by me...I believe in showing respect, and I do so by using the correct terminology. With regards to responding in kind...while I wanted to affix him to a pole and drop a 2000lbs laser guided bomb on him, I've learned that it is much better to simply be nice to ones enemies while they dig themselves a deeper hole to rant and rave out of. After all, decking him would only prove his point that military types and supporters are only violent people bent on global domination...plus, revenge is a dish best served cold.
Back to the topic at hand...
CDN Aviator -> is it possible that the Aurora's sensor systems could be joined to any type of underwater tracking system such as the one that is being proposed by the Government in regards to this debate? And if so, could a UAV's systems also be adjusted to work with such a system as well?
I also think that there is another option here, in that we could join some of the new Cyclones up with the Aurora's. I realise that the Cyclones will never be Aurora's, but their presence on a Halifax Class ship could be used in some way shape or form given that multiple assets are going to be covering multiple layers of the area.
Edit -> On top of all that...is it time for a new Arctic air base? One that is fully functional and can house several units tasked for the sole purpose of protecting our North? Something that is different from the arctic warfare training base that is being proposed?
Bandit
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Matthew no one to my knowledge has or is asking you to leave, all we ask is careful how you bring your position across as that tends to be where the problem lies.
) can penetrate into the arctic archipelago.
that is dependant on how much ice is gone and how far a Halifax class(if they are still in commission
) can penetrate into the arctic archipelago.
B
Bandit1
Guest
Good point, so here is a question in return: can a Coast Guard ship handle a Cyclone?
I'm still in favour of creating a new Wing up there - something akin to a Navy/Coast Guard port with an airfield capable of handling Aurora's and a 5 ship of Hornets. This would also make it easier for our new Hercs to make cargo drops up there when the time comes.
Bandit
I'm still in favour of creating a new Wing up there - something akin to a Navy/Coast Guard port with an airfield capable of handling Aurora's and a 5 ship of Hornets. This would also make it easier for our new Hercs to make cargo drops up there when the time comes.
Bandit
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
It has already been done. This summer the Air Force quietly stood up the Inuvik FOL site and is planning to maintain a continuous presence there at least until spring of 2008, rotating squadrons of CF-18s from Cold Lake and tankers from Winnipeg. The newest C-17's first deployment was logistics support into Inuvik and it has been there several times since then.
From an Arctic base point of view, Inuvik is ideal. Almost right on the Arctic Ocean coast it is further west than Vancouver Island, only 200 miles from the Alaska border and 800 miles from Russian airspace. As well, the near airspace is thoroughly painted by several North Warning radar sites. Eielson AFB is only 450 miles away in Alaska so there is also the opportunity for mutual support on NORAD taskings. The real ace-in-the-hole, though, is its connection to the rest of the world with an all weather highway.
I don't see any reason it wouldn't work fine as a UAV base too.
-Arctic Observer
B
Bandit1
Guest
Thanks for that update Sir, I appreciate it! Seems like things have already been happening, and I'm so glad to hear about it!
Bandit
Bandit
A
aesop081
Guest
What is the point of the headline ?
The current UAV ( Sperwer) is being replaced by the Heron UAV contract for the remainder of the Afghanistan mission. JUSTAS is the UAV project that will bring a permanent UAV capability for the CF.
We need them wether or not we are in Afghanistan.
The current UAV ( Sperwer) is being replaced by the Heron UAV contract for the remainder of the Afghanistan mission. JUSTAS is the UAV project that will bring a permanent UAV capability for the CF.
We need them wether or not we are in Afghanistan.
- Reaction score
- 5,994
- Points
- 1,160
You only have to look to the source.
