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

[aesop081]

as an aside, this could assist in lowering the hours added to the Aurora airframes and allow them to operate farther into the future which is a significant cost savings on its own).

No, No and......No

 

[TCBF]

geosynchronous satellites cannot be put over the arctic.  They would fall out of the sky.  It is physics.

- Perhaps I should have written: Active Geosynchronous Orbit.

"Surveillance satellites use active geosynchronous orbits to maintain position and track above a fixed point on the Earth's surface. They are directed by controllers on the ground."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit

 

[McG]

- Perhaps I should have written: Active Geosynchronous Orbit.

"Surveillance satellites use active geosynchronous orbits to maintain position and track above a fixed point on the Earth's surface. They are directed by controllers on the ground."

What you are referencing still requires orbiting of the earth and cannot be done by a satellite over either polar region.  Geostationary satellites, supporting communications in the north, are located in orbital planes which are more south than the areas supported. These orbital planes would not be well suited for a satellite intended to look down on & survey the land.

That being said, the concept you describe is theoretically possible but it has never been done because the technology is not sufficiently mature.  Do a search for "statite"

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Based on that information, what would you do if it were your call?

If I had to do it, and if the Global Warming crowd is correct, I'd establish a naval air base up there and patrol the NorthWest Passage with a mix of MPA and helos.

If the Global Warming crowd is wrong (and I think they are), you'd need SSN's.

 

[TCBF]

...  Do a search for "statite"

- Done.  Thank you.  I have now been introduced to "Orbital Mechanics."

 

[aesop081]

I have now been introduced to "Orbital Mechanics."

I was on the second period of day 1 of the Space Applications course at CFSAS when i was introduced to those words  :-\  It was at that point i got worried.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I have noticed throughout this thread that various posters chuck around satellite comms and control of UAVs like it is nothing.  I can assure you all (from my admittedly limited exposure to the problem), it is just about the biggest challenge.  Leaving aside the not inconsiderable aspects of bandwidth availability, security (both in terms of signal cryptography and the physical security and hardening against attack the ground control components like uplink sites), and cost of nationally owned satellites, there is the simple issue of physics which has only been hinted at.  If you want to reliably control a UAV above 70N, you cannot use a geosynchronous satellite- it will simply be below the horizon.  So what then?  You could go with fixed UHF antenna sites every 200kms (with generators and fixed dedicated fibre optic cabling back south), but just consider the logistics of that endeavour- we would be talking about between 50-100 dedicated comms sites, each with a harbour or airfield, scattered throughout the arctic- all requiring regular servicing.  Good luck.  The next option would be to launch our own DND satellites in a polar orbit.  IIRC my Space Apps course, you would need 3 satellites in orbit to guarantee 24/7 coverage.  You should also keep a 4th spare satellite on the ground to launch if required.  Consider that a satellite launch costs about $300 million...you are talking some serious buck here.  And then there is the question of launch facilities and capability...do we develop our own or hire rockets from the Indians...or Russians....or Chinese...or French...you see where this is going.

UAVs will have a part to play in the future of Canadian Sovereignty patrolling, but it is my prediction that the real high latitude work will be done by manned aircraft for the foreseeable future.

Cheers.

 

[KingKikapu]

Not to mention most satellite launches are done as close to the equator as possible.  It's cheapest to launch from there because of the oblate shape of the planet and the greatest tangential velocity kick, meaning less fuel is required to reach orbit. Considerably less actually.  Sadly, that option is not available for circumpolar regions if you want to stay in there, so start breaking out your wallets.  Also, there's no such thing as active geostationary satellites over poles.  Physically impossible.  Your fuel tank would be orders of magnitude larger than the satellite.  As for statite, the sail would need to be huge and the navigation would be pretty damn complicated.  Plus I don't imagine the equivalent of a giant neon sign bodes well for stealthy purposes (that is assuming you guys can't track enemy satellites with ease yet, which I suspect with advances in adaptive optics wouldn't be too hard at all).

 

[thunderchild]

so the problem is line of site, one satellite can't cover the area and any plan involving satellites is extremely expensive. Ground stations have limited range and need a massive amount of support and are limited to line of site. So how do we relay information to and from the UAV/UCAV in the Arctic, that is effective and affordable?  High altitude airborne command posts sound right. let the lashing begin I know its coming!

 

[Loachman]

High altitude airborne command posts sound right.

If you're going to go to the trouble of putting a manned aeroplane up there, why not just have it do the patrol and save the additional cost and complexity of the UAV?

let the lashing begin I know its coming!

Getting flinchy, are we?

 

[thunderchild]

I agree that the best option is a manned patrol aircraft with a strong sub surface patrol force. But that can't be done with only 10 rebuilt CP-140's, 3 2nd hand SSK not enough crews and no base of operations.  So why not do something like this,
-divide up the Arctic into patrol zones
-organize patrols into 1 control aircraft ,1 AWACS, 2-4 UAV/UCAV, 2 new MPA
-the control aircraft can coordinate with the new Arctic patrol ships and submarines.
-this would also provide a base for communication for the airforce's new fighter the army rangers and allow that a naval vessel will be where an UAV or MPA is not.

I'm not getting flnchy I don't mind somebody tearing my Ideas appart....it forces me to listen and learn more.  Then come back with a better idea. so have at it.

 

[McG]

For watching things on the ground and in the sea AWACS is the wrong platform.  You want J-STARS, CP-140, P-3 or that nature.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And let us not even get started on IFR certification of UAVs (which doesn't exist).  No problem you say- minor paperwork detail...yeah, until your UAV goes nose to nose with an A380 load of taxpayers on their way to Hamburg over Ellesmere Island.

And then there is the launch and recovery aspects of UAV- maybe from ice covered runways.  Which no one to my knowledge has ever tried to do. 

And no one to my knowledge has ever tried to fly a UAV into the type of winter weather we get up North.  They (currently) do not have deicing systems, amongst other things.

Again, us getting UAVs as a permanent capability is a good thing.  A panacea it is not.  Nor will it be cheap, either in dollars, infrastructure or PYs.

 

[aesop081]

But that can't be done with only 10 rebuilt CP-140's,

Why not ? Are you going to explain or just keep throwing random ideas around ? Ever been up north on a patrol ?

-organize patrols into 1 control aircraft ,1 AWACS, 2-4 UAV/UCAV, 2 new MPA

Why an AWACS ?

-the control aircraft can coordinate with the new Arctic patrol ships and submarines.

You dont have a clue what it takes for an aircraft to comunicate with a submerged submarine do you ?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

You dont have a clue what it takes for an aircraft to comunicate with a submerged submarine do you ?

A really long string attached to 2 cans  ;D

 

[medaid]

Message in a bottle?

 

[thunderchild]

VLF (Very Low Frequency)is needed to communicate with submerged submarines very bulky equipment and one very long antenna. The reason that I have said that 10 aircraft is not enough is due to the increased shipping activity requiring more surveillance that would occur in the arctic should it become passable to shipping.  This would be multiplied if there was any major oil development or resource development In mining. The other reason is that any future MPA would also have to contend with increased patrolling of our international limits. 

Awacs is required due to the fact that both pine tree line and dew line radars are old and require maintenance.  Having our own AWACS to fill these gaps should a radar fail would be wise given the return of Russian bombers flying patrols in the area, there is also the need to establish some kind of traffic control as the number of aircraft operating in the area would most certainly increase. This would also assist in SAR operations when needed.  Before you say it I know that NATO has E-3's with Canadian aircrew aboard, just answer this question any permanently based in Canada? 

Allotting 4 CP-140's to each coast with allowing for 1 extra airframe already pushes the aurora to it's limit given that the good ones are being taken apart to rebuild them, so you will have to limit air time just to make them last until the new MPA has be made operational, that could take 20 years if you use the Maritime Patrol Helicopter as an example. There is also the option of moving assets as missions require, if you have the airframes.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

VLF (Very Low Frequency)is needed to communicate with submerged submarines very bulky equipment and one very long antenna. The reason that I have said that 10 aircraft is not enough is due to the increased shipping activity requiring more surveillance that would occur in the arctic should it become passable to shipping.  This would be multiplied if there was any major oil development or resource development In mining. The other reason is that any future MPA would also have to contend with increased patrolling of our international limits. 

But....

VLF radio waves (3–30 kHz) can penetrate sea water to a depth of approximately 20 meters. Hence a submarine at shallow depth can use these frequencies. Even a vessel more deeply submerged might use a buoy on a long cable equipped with an antenna. The buoy rises to a few meters below the surface, and may be small enough to remain undetected by enemy sonar / radar.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

HF goes down to ~20 m. VLF goes down a lot farther than that.

However, the lower the frequency the lower the bandwidth. I really doubt you could effectively control a boat at HF, let alone VLF. There's also the matter of getting replies from the boat...they can't transmit at 20 m.

You also need a fairly large amount of equipment to handle VLF.

 

[aesop081]

there is also the need to establish some kind of traffic control as the number of aircraft operating in the area would most certainly increase.

When did air traffic control become a military problem ? You ever hear of NAV Canada ? Oh wait......increased IFR traffic in the North .......why would there be more than now ? Is Yellowknife becoming a hot tourist destination ?

Increased IFR traffic......UAVs...........havent we covered this already ?

Allotting 4 CP-140's to each coast with allowing for 1 extra airframe already pushes the aurora to it's limit given that the good ones are being taken apart to rebuild them, so you will have to limit air time just to make them last until the new MPA has be made operational, that could take 20 years if you use the Maritime Patrol Helicopter as an example. There is also the option of moving assets as missions require, if you have the airframes.

Are you seriously giving me lessons on MPAs ?

  Before you say it I know that NATO has E-3's with Canadian aircrew aboard, just answer this question any permanently based in Canada? 

USAF AWACS at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska and Tinker AFB in Oklahoma have Canadians onboard. If anything, i would say that those are more relevant to what we are talking about here.