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

[dimsum]

It really shouldn't be that hard to put up some GPS and comms satellites above the arctic...

Those are generally in Geosynchronous orbit so they don’t need to move relative to the Earth. Putting satellites to cover the poles means that they do move, then fuel, orbits (LEO, HEO, MEO) come into play, etc.

Huff duff in reverse.

HF is the answer to all radio woes.

Radio isn’t the issue. More likely the issue is that you need low-latency and high bandwidth even up north for flying the thing, as well as using the sensors, targeting, and potentially firing weapons since the crews are several thousand km away in Ottawa.

Couldnt they revert to ground stations when out of GPS range?

Assuming they have to be put in line of sight distances, that means a lot of stations to cover all of the Arctic, which is especially hard if maritime missions are included.

 

[KevinB]

Those are generally in Geosynchronous orbit so they don’t need to move relative to the Earth. Putting satellites to cover the poles means that they do move, then fuel, orbits (LEO, HEO, MEO) come into play, etc.

You can put them in Geosynchronous orbit around the arctic circle. You don’t need it straddling the Pole, and run several in a Polar Orbit - which also would help with the below.

Radio isn’t the issue. More likely the issue is that you need low-latency and high bandwidth even up north for flying the thing, as well as using the sensors, targeting, and potentially firing weapons since the crews are several thousand km away in Ottawa.


Assuming they have to be put in line of sight distances, that means a lot of stations to cover all of the Arctic, which is especially hard if maritime missions are included.

 

[Kirkhill]

Assuming they have to be put in line of sight distances, that means a lot of stations to cover all of the Arctic, which is especially hard if maritime missions are included.

Doesn't that depend on altitude? If cruising at 35,000 ft the horizon is something like 230 statute miles. Beacons at Alert, Eureka and Resolute would overlap at that altitude.

How about the High Altitude Pseudo Satellites for comms and nav?

 

[dimsum]

You can put them in Geosynchronous orbit around the arctic circle. You don’t need it straddling the Pole, and run several in a Polar Orbit - which also would help with the below.

My mistake - GPS are in MEO orbits.

GPS.gov: Space Segment

Information about the space segment of the Global Positioning System (GPS)

www.gps.gov

Still, at really high latitudes, there are coverage limitations.

How about the High Altitude Pseudo Satellites for comms and nav?

I’m not sure any are operational yet. A bunch are being tested, but generally at lower latitudes.

…I mean, unless Balloongate counts

 

[Good2Golf]

…as well, on the avionics side of things, INS takes a very long time to align from a cold start…”Come back tomorrow, it should be finished by then.”

 

[Fabius]

Anyone have any idea why this is being effectively kicked back until 2028 due to worries about northern weather?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mq-9-reaper-drone-canadian-forces-1.7005625

Because we are who we are. If we were serious we would buy a MQ-9 fleet and the backbone systems needed off the shelf, stand up the units and start building operational experience while also concurrently working with industry to optimize an MQ-9 for high Arctic and integrate Canadian systems as needed.

Then in 2028 either expand the fleet with the off the shelf MQ-9s deploying overseas as needed leaving the Arctic ones to cover continental defence, or move the older ones into war stock or any number of other options.

Instead for what I am sure is a combination of items; in no particular order, cost, institutional inertia, CAF politics, GoC politics, bureaucratic bias for process over result, unimaginative thinking, personnel shortages, fear of committing to anything that is not 100% guaranteed to be the right decision, we won’t.

 

[dimsum]

Because we are who we are. If we were serious we would buy a MQ-9 fleet and the backbone systems needed off the shelf, stand up the units and start building operational experience while also concurrently working with industry to optimize an MQ-9 for high Arctic and integrate Canadian systems as needed.

Then in 2028 either expand the fleet with the off the shelf MQ-9s deploying overseas as needed leaving the Arctic ones to cover continental defence, or move the older ones into war stock or any number of other options.

Instead for what I am sure is a combination of items; in no particular order, cost, institutional inertia, CAF politics, GoC politics, bureaucratic bias for process over result, unimaginative thinking, personnel shortages, fear of committing to anything that is not 100% guaranteed to be the right decision, we won’t.

I would guess that “GoC abhorring sole source purchases” is high on that list after the FWSAR experience.

 

[Kirkhill]

I would guess that “GoC abhorring sole source purchases” is high on that list after the FWSAR experience.

I know it would be too much to ask in the real world but wouldn't it be nice if the screw ups just got filed under "stuff happens" and things proceeded to the next project?

It strikes me that this business of learning how to manage large scale projects is akin to a driver learning how to drive while being constantly told how by a bunch of back seat drivers. Sometimes you just have to trust the learner to find their own rhythm. Once that is established then you can start course correcting.

We, Canadians, have been out of the procurement business for so long that we have neither qualified drivers nor an understanding of what is necessary to train them. It costs money to train good managers and the bigger the projects the more money it costs. Swapping managers every two years on an ongoing project where everybody is trying to come to terms with the nature of the job does not seem to me to be a useful strategy.

Somebody, some individual, has to be responsible for a given project through the life of the project. At least until the first warranty claims come in.

 

[Good2Golf]

I would guess that “GoC abhorring sole source purchases” is high on that list after the FWSAR experience.

C-17 and C-130J were sole-source, IIRC, and CH-147F was ‘single bidder compliant,’ but wasn’t the CC-295 selected over the C-27 in a competitive process?

 

[lenaitch]

From the GoC's perspective, UAVs ('drones') sounds so aggressive and can't be massaged into a peacekeeping operation. Besides, it earns no votes.

 

[GK .Dundas]

C-17 and C-130J were sole-source, IIRC, and CH-147F was ‘single bidder compliant,’ but wasn’t the CC-295 selected over the C-27 in a competitive process?

Now you know better than to ask questions like that...

 

[Spencer100]

From the GoC's perspective, UAVs ('drones') sounds so aggressive and can't be massaged into a peacekeeping operation. Besides, it earns no votes.

Bingo!

 

[dapaterson]

They

C-17 and C-130J were sole-source, IIRC, and CH-147F was ‘single bidder compliant,’ but wasn’t the CC-295 selected over the C-27 in a competitive process?

I believe they were both ACAN, not sole source, as there was only one possible source of supply (A400 was not in production).

 

[dimsum]

From the GoC's perspective, UAVs ('drones') sounds so aggressive and can't be massaged into a peacekeeping operation. Besides, it earns no votes.

It totally can.

“RPAS will allow RCAF aircrews to remain safe while performing ISR for UN peace operations”

The fact that the project hasn’t died likely means that the current GoC sees some value in it.

 

[Good2Golf]

They

I believe they were both ACAN, not sole source, as there was only one possible source of supply (A400 was not in production).

Yes(ish), but ACAN is just the Advanced Contract Award Notification, not the basis of procurement selection. It doesn’t mean there wasn’t an unrestricted/open competition for the approved requirement specifications, not that other suppliers didn’t have the opportunity to contest an intent to award. Leonardo contested the MHLH ACAN for Chinooks, but the contest wasn’t upheld since the EH-101 couldn’t lift the M777 howitzer…a very reasonable requirement for a helicopter supporting the Army…hence Single-Compliant Bidder basis upon which MHLH ACAN was announced in support of Chinook. ACP-S (Airmobility Capability Project - Strategic), aka C-17, had similar operational specification requirements that precluded other suppliers, and no other supplier contested the intended award to Boeing.

 

[Fabius]

Interesting article on a MQ 9A flying over the Canadian Arctic to the 78th parallel in 2021.

MQ 9A in the Canadian Arctic

Here a USAF MQ 9B tested in Alaska, AF stating it’s capable of pole to pole operations in 2023.

MQ 9B in Alaska

Somehow I don’t believe the Canadian reasons for the MQ 9 delay having much to do with the Arctic.
Maybe Canadian C2 infrastructure to support the MQ9 operations but not the platform itself in an off the shelf configuration.

 

[dapaterson]

Interesting article on a MQ 9A flying over the Canadian Arctic to the 78th parallel in 2021.

MQ 9A in the Canadian Arctic

Here a USAF MQ 9B tested in Alaska, AF stating it’s capable of pole to pole operations in 2023.

MQ 9B in Alaska

Somehow I don’t believe the Canadian reasons for the MQ 9 delay having much to do with the Arctic.
Maybe Canadian C2 infrastructure to support the MQ9 operations but not the platform itself in an off the shelf configuration.

There is a difference between a transit using a low bandwidth connection and operations on station, which requires more bandwidth which may or may not be available from inmarsat.

The USAF article is extremely light on details.

 

[Good2Golf]

Interesting article on a MQ 9A flying over the Canadian Arctic to the 78th parallel in 2021.

MQ 9A in the Canadian Arctic

Here a USAF MQ 9B tested in Alaska, AF stating it’s capable of pole to pole operations in 2023.

MQ 9B in Alaska

Somehow I don’t believe the Canadian reasons for the MQ 9 delay having much to do with the Arctic.
Maybe Canadian C2 infrastructure to support the MQ9 operations but not the platform itself in an off the shelf configuration.

I mean, sure it works for the Alaskan segment of the North Pole, but the Canadian segment is….wider?

 

[Fabius]

There is a difference between a transit using a low bandwidth connection and operations on station, which requires more bandwidth which may or may not be available from inmarsat.

The USAF article is extremely light on details.

That may be true but that’s not the platform but the C2 infrastructure to back it is it not? If it’s the infrastructure is limited in Arctic capacity but the platform is fine, delaying the platform doesn’t make sense when it can be effectively used in the rest of the Country.

 

[dimsum]

Interesting article on a MQ 9A flying over the Canadian Arctic to the 78th parallel in 2021.

MQ 9A in the Canadian Arctic

Here a USAF MQ 9B tested in Alaska, AF stating it’s capable of pole to pole operations in 2023.

MQ 9B in Alaska

Somehow I don’t believe the Canadian reasons for the MQ 9 delay having much to do with the Arctic.
Maybe Canadian C2 infrastructure to support the MQ9 operations but not the platform itself in an off the shelf configuration.

The MQ-9B isn’t the Reaper, it’s either the SkyGuardian (GA name) or the Protector (RAF name). The MQ-9A is the Reaper.

The USAF isn’t operating MQ-9B - no one is as of yet. The launch customer will be the RAF.

Protector RG Mk 1 (MQ-9B)

See more from the Royal Air Force

www.raf.mod.uk