MQ-9 Guardian Gets New Maritime Capability

[Sub_Guy]

Folks who are complete dinosaurs about this (not saying you are) sound, to me, like Marshal Foch in 1911:  "Les avions sont des jouets intéressants mais n'ont aucune utilité militaire."  (Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value.)

I could be a Dino.

A few questions though.

Can the UAV operate silently?  Given my limited UAV training (none), I am of the opinion that it would always be broadcasting its position.  How would a UAV get around covert ASW procedures? Could it operate silently? 

Eventually I could see these operating from CVNs then calling in a delivery platform to drop the gift off.

 

[Baz]

UAV comes are LPI (low probability of intercept) directional.  The Global Hawks have bot a directional sitcom in the nose (that's what the bubbles for) and some of them have Ku Band directional TCDL.

The cost of bandwidth is enormous, and adding the extra ASW sensors will make it even more so.

What about an orbiting platform only carrying weapons for you.  It can be receive only. 

By the way most UAVs that are big enough for this wouldn't be active flown, they'd be way point to way point. ..that's how Global Hawk flies.

I think the future is both manned and unmanned, but the closet you get to a force the more useful small unmanned needs to be.  And they don't necessarily need to be flying... surface and subsurface are also in the works.

 

[George Wallace]

What about an orbiting platform only carrying weapons for you.  It can be receive only. 

Interesting suggestion.  A Drone would have its flight pre-programmed prior to take off.  It would fly on station as per its programming, with no two-way comms necessary until "Contact" or some other necessity.  I am sure that much like Cruise Missiles, the Drone's payload could lay dormant until "Contact" and then be programmed for the attack.  That communication would be from the operators to the munition, not necessarily to the Drone other than to release the munition.

 

[Old Sweat]

A Drone by definition is programmed for a specific mission. For example the Canadair CL89 drone we operated in the late-60s could be programmed to perform a number of turns and take some pictures at different stages during its flight. (Another casualty of force cuts, but it also was used by the Brits and the Germans.) It then flew to the retrieval point where the engine shut down and a parachute and inflatable cushion deployed on receipt of a signal from the ground. Other than that, it was a hands off operation.

A RPA or UAV is controlled by a remote operator, including being directed to launch weapons. A Drone could be directed to do this as well and it would also have to receive instructions on how to return to base as presumably the flight profile and duration would differ if its weapons were or were not used. Whether it still qualifies as a drone is moot.

 

[Kirkhill]

A Drone by definition is programmed for a specific mission. For example the Canadair CL89 drone we operated in the late-60s could be programmed to perform a number of turns and take some pictures at different stages during its flight. (Another casualty of force cuts, but it also was used by the Brits and the Germans.) It then flew to the retrieval point where the engine shut down and a parachute and inflatable cushion deployed on receipt of a signal from the ground. Other than that, it was a hands off operation.

A RPA or UAV is controlled by a remote operator, including being directed to launch weapons. A Drone could be directed to do this as well and it would also have to receive instructions on how to return to base as presumably the flight profile and duration would differ if its weapons were or were not used. Whether it still qualifies as a drone is moot.

Don't some of the UAVs bridge the gap in that they are semi autonomous?  I thought some of the time "George" was flying and the aircraft was in autonomous mode, some of the time they were directly flown from the ground and sometimes George (the autopilot for those of a certain vintage) had his flying instructions updated from the ground so that a new autonomous flight plan could be flown.

 

[Baz]

Don't some of the UAVs bridge the gap in that they are semi autonomous?  I thought some of the time "George" was flying and the aircraft was in autonomous mode, some of the time they were directly flown from the ground and sometimes George (the autopilot for those of a certain vintage) had his flying instructions updated from the ground so that a new autonomous flight plan could be flown.

I can only speak for Global Hawk... except for landing and take-off (which are also highly automatef) it is *always* on autopilot.  There is no stick, just a mouse.  You pass it flight plans, and alternate flight plans if it loses comms...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Id ask the same of the CP140

What is it about the 140 you think it is (1) not capable of finding and (2) given the appropriate ROE, attacking a boat?

Maybe there is something I've missed in my time on Sqn to date...

 

[Kirkhill]

I can only speak for Global Hawk... except for landing and take-off (which are also highly automatef) it is *always* on autopilot.  There is no stick, just a mouse.  You pass it flight plans, and alternate flight plans if it loses comms...

Thanks Baz.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There is an opportunity to ask the 'what could it do?' part of the question and also what would we WANT/LIKE it to do.

Just thoughts, the 'brainstorming' thing of throwing suggestions out at random:

- have 3 buoy fields out there when you are looking for something 'in a general area'.  That could be one nice fat field no?  Have MPA fly center, possibly 2 RPA(M)s flying outer monitoring.  ASOs on MPA can call up/command/control any/all buoys at any time.  If you go hot on one of the ends, MPA and RPA(M) switch places so MPA can do its thing.  The RPA(M) is a sensor platform only, no kill stores.  Sono deploy/monitor.  Add a lightweight MAD (I know people think MAD is going to the way-side, my recent experience says otherwise).  You then have 2 sensors to gain and maintain contact/Atk Cri while MPA is inbound.  I don't know much about how low-slow a modern RPA can fly but MAD altitudes would be nice.  300-500.  I would like to do some quick research to see if there is any kind of lightweight RADAR that would be even worth talking about but...no idea.  Just something to think about.  nice to be able to flood with RF on a deter type gig.

- MPA out farther, use RPA for closer to homeplate ops.  In our case, a must with no platform to launch/recover. 

- MPA open ocean, RPA 'choke points'.

Is there a possible benefit?  I see some, yes.  Of course I am in support of 'buy enough MPAs to do the job!" but..I am also a realist and I don't know if anyone, us included, can or will do that in the near future.

Forget kill stores I say, but that is also without spending time to find out the specs on what these things can carry and how much 1 or 2 fish would affect their on-sta, transit, all that stuff.

Government might buy into this as a 'cheaper' way to flush-out MPA Sqns and their caps; we may as well start asking the 'what can we do with this and what are we going to ask for bells and whistles'.  Far better to get something useful by having positive input?

Although, for Canada, even this discussion is an exercise in the 'not in my lifetime' file IMO.  8)

 

[Sub_Guy]

Although, for Canada, even this discussion is an exercise in the 'not in my lifetime' file IMO.  8)

Maybe.  But I think it'd be an easy sell.  Get rid of the CP-140 and pile on the UAVs.  Lets be honest almost everything we do with the CP-140 could be done with an UAV, everything except ASW.  Nobody gives a shit about ASW, it isn't sexy and it never makes the news.

I could see this under Trudeau, all part of a leaner more efficient military.  Not saying it'd be a good idea, but I could see it happening.

"When was the last time the CP-140 dropped a Torpedo in anger.. Oh never?  Yeah we don't need that plane..  Let's get UAV's!  Made in Canada (Quebec) of course.."

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe.  But I think it'd be an easy sell.  Get rid of the CP-140 and pile on the UAVs.  Lets be honest almost everything we do with the CP-140 could be done with an UAV, everything except ASW.  Nobody gives a shit about ASW, it isn't sexy and it never makes the news.

Personally I don't think a UAV can do what we do, the way we do it (read 'as good as we can').  They can't fly where we can, in the weather and conditions we can, carrying all the things we can.  It *could* be a "force-enhancer" for what MPA community folks do, but not in the immediate future.  IMO. 

I could see this under Trudeau, all part of a leaner more efficient military.  Not saying it'd be a good idea, but I could see it happening.

"When was the last time the CP-140 dropped a Torpedo in anger.. Oh never?  Yeah we don't need that plane..  Let's get UAV's!  Made in Canada (Quebec) of course.."

That is so possible it scared me to read it.  ;D

However, I am hoping someone will 'show them the light' if that idea ever starts gaining traction. 

 

[DonaldMcL]

What is it about the 140 you think it is (1) not capable of finding and (2) given the appropriate ROE, attacking a boat?

Maybe there is something I've missed in my time on Sqn to date...

I never said its not capable of finding it... and anything the "mighty" CP140 is capable of carrying could easily be adapted to any larger UAV. A torp that requires nothing more than a release point isn't exactly outside the realm of UAVs.

I think you're fooling yourself if you think MPAs days arent limited.

Plus, think of all the money the wing would save on box lunches... maybe we could have TWO torps for it!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Let's get UAV's!  Made in Canada (Quebec) of course.."

Naahhh! Even if you built a crippled of them, it would not be sufficiently good for the Canadian (read Quebec) aerospace industry. Sticking an MPA suite into a sexy C-Series jet however ...

 

[George Wallace]

...........

Plus, think of all the money the wing would save on box lunches... maybe we could have TWO torps for it!

Wishful thinking.  Unfortunately box lunches and torps are not under one common budget.    >

 

[Sub_Guy]

I think you're fooling yourself if you think MPAs days arent limited.

Care to share why you think that?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am interested, too...

 

[dimsum]

I never said its not capable of finding it... and anything the "mighty" CP140 is capable of carrying could easily be adapted to any larger UAV. A torp that requires nothing more than a release point isn't exactly outside the realm of UAVs.

I think you're fooling yourself if you think MPAs days arent limited.

Psst....it's LRPA these days, and their big expeditionary op is over land. 

Things are changing, but I don't think any of the Aurora guys/gals have any job fears for the next little while.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I cannot realistically see what the alternative to an LRPA, especially in ASW, might actually be.

 

[Kirkhill]

LRPA over land or UAV over land (or even Satellite over land) is one thing.

LRPA over sea or UAV or Satellite is another, but very similar, animal.

Are either the UAV or the Satellite effective at seeing under the sea?

I can see offloading CP-140 hours by adding UAVs and Satellites for surface surveillance and reconnaissance, both over land and sea.  But I can't see any credible alternative to the CP-140 for sub-hunting and for directed reconnaissance.

Now, if only the CP-140 were more attuned to the Harpoon missile.....as is the P-3 Orion. 

 

[DonaldMcL]

Care to share why you think that?

Cost of airplanes are going up, and there's really only two real competitors at this time to replace the Aurora (which isnt being replaced any time soon). Spare parts aren't something we have a luxury of.

The role of the MPA, which as Dimsum pointed out is now LRP, is changing has changed. There's nothing we're doing TODAY in real-world ops that couldnt be done better and more efficient with a UAV. Sensors, UAVs have us beat. Endurance and Range, beat. Weaponized? Beat. Sure the Aurora is fun to do fishing patrols with, but a UAV could do it cheaper.