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

[MarkOttawa]

Capabilities the US now has (and which we might approach with Project JUSTAS?)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/uavs-story-in-search-of-fuss.html

DARPA Contract Description Hints at Advanced Video Spying
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/19/AR2008101901572.html

Real-time streaming video of Iraqi and Afghan battle areas taken from thousands of feet in the air can follow actions of people on the ground as they dig, shake hands, exchange objects and kiss each other goodbye.

The video is sent from unmanned and manned aircraft to intelligence analysts at ground stations in the United States and abroad. They watch video in real time of people getting in and out of cars, loading trunks, dropping things or picking them up. They can even see vehicles accelerate, slow down, move together or make U-turns.

"The dynamics of an urban insurgency have resulted in a rapid increase in the number of activities visible in the video field of view," according to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Although the exploits of the Predator, the Global Hawk and other airborne collectors of information have been widely publicized, there are few authoritative descriptions of what they can see on the ground.

But some insights into the capabilities of the Predator and other aircraft can be drawn from a DARPA paper that describes the tasks of a contractor that will develop a method of indexing and rapidly finding video from archived aerial surveillance tapes collected over past years.

"The U.S. military and intelligence communities have an ever increasing need to monitor live video feeds and search large volumes of archived video data for activities of interest due to the rapid growth in development and fielding of motion video systems," according to the DARPA paper, which was written in March but released last month.

Last month, Kitware, a small software company with offices in New York and North Carolina, teamed up with 19 other companies and universities and won the $6.7 million first phase of the DARPA contract, which is not expected to be completed before 2011...

"Now with new full-motion video intelligence techniques, we are looking at people and their behavior in public," he said.

The resolution capability of the video systems ranges from four inches to a foot, depending on the collector and environmental conditions at the time, according to the DARPA paper. The video itself is also shaped by the angle to the ground from which it is shot, although there are 3-D capabilities that allow viewers on the ground to manipulate videos of objects so they can see them from different vantage points.

Systems also exist that allow tracking, moving-target detection of objects under forest or other cover and determination of exact geographic location. Development is underway of systems that allow recognition of faces and gait -- in other words, human identification.

Currently, because there are so many activities or objects to be watched for hints of suspicious behavior, "more analysts . . . watch the same, real-time video stream simultaneously," according to DARPA. "If any of the given activities or objects are spotted, the analyst issues an alert to the proper authorities."..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[thunderchild]

OK lets say that you do find a sub under the ice sheet with a uav, here is the problem if you want to sink it from the air first you have to get there with a MPA, second ice is hard how do you propose dropping a torpedo through the ice without the torpedo breaking up on the ice on impact.  It would seem to me that the best way to get that torpedo under the ice is with another sub, I'm not navy but it would seem to me that we need more than 3 Victoria class subs to patrol the whole Arctic, that works out to 1 sub on patrol, 1 sub returning from patrol and 1 sub on the way to relive the sub currently on patrol. This would not account for maintenance, training or providing submarine support for the other 2 coasts and foreign deployments.  I know we  have 4 subs but if I'm not mistaken they are all diesel electric, not suitable for under ice operations all year long. Let me know if I'm missing something.

 

[Greymatters]

In this day and age I think just tracking it would be more important than offensive force options...

 

[thunderchild]

and in this day and age if you are tracking it what do you do if you have to shoot at it if it shoots at you .. tell it to stop and invite it in for tea?  How well do you think that will work? (STOP!... OR I'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!)

 

[Strike]

and in this day and age if you are tracking it what do you do if you have to shoot at it if it shoots at you .. tell it to stop and invite it in for tea?  How well do you think that will work? (STOP!... OR I'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!)

Uhhm, with Hornets?  :

I can't believe I'm biting.

 

[aesop081]

and in this day and age if you are tracking it what do you do if you have to shoot at it if it shoots at you .. tell it to stop and invite it in for tea?  How well do you think that will work? (STOP!... OR I'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!)

Go back to playing PS3 .........

 

[TCBF]

Okay, this should drive you 'Arctic Dreamers' nuts:

1. Cdn Arctic SOSUS lines.
2. Recce sats in geo-stationary orbit over our arctic.
3. Conventionally armed (HE or darts) MRBMs capable of being launched from southern Canada into the arctic.
4. Long range undersea UVs.  Launch in Esquimault, patrol under the arctic ice, recover in Halifax.
5. Anti-submarine nets towed by Undersea UVs. Launch, position, go into dormancy, 'wrap' intruders, forcing them to surface.  Then see para 3 (above).

 

[medaid]

Well... Since we're just being silly now.

1 X BattleStar above the Arctic with a big frack off Maple Leaf painted on its hull.

Constant CAPs conducted by Vipers.

We retain the Arctic.

 

[TCBF]

- At least my ideas don't need people on them.  The big advantage of un-manned platforms over manned platforms is that when you turn off the engines on the un-manned platforms the whining noise stops.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

and in this day and age if you are tracking it what do you do if you have to shoot at it if it shoots at you .. tell it to stop and invite it in for tea?  How well do you think that will work? (STOP!... OR I'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!)

You mean if the sub shoots at the UAV? From under the ice?

Not busting your chops, just trying to figure out what you're saying.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You mean if the sub shoots at the UAV? From under the ice?

Not busting your chops, just trying to figure out what you're saying.

We have no idea what he is going on about at the best of times...

 

[thunderchild]

look my point is what good is it to track an unknown either under the ice or in the air if when god forbid the time comes to shoot at it you can't if you don't also have the ability to do so.

 

[TCBF]

look my point is what good is it to track an unknown either under the ice or in the air if when god forbid the time comes to shoot at it you can't if you don't also have the ability to do so.

- Guys got a point.  Even the Swedes used to depthcharge submarine 'contacts' in their waters.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

- Guys got a point.  Even the Swedes used to depthcharge submarine 'contacts' in their waters.

I think the issue is with Reply #63

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

OK lets say that you do find a sub under the ice sheet with a uav,

The question you need to ask is, how is the UAV tracking the sub from underneath that ice? Is there a MAD array small enough to be fitted on a UAV?

here is the problem if you want to sink it from the air first you have to get there with a MPA

Or you can have pairs of UAVs...one sesnor and the other a weapon carrier....
,

second ice is hard how do you propose dropping a torpedo through the ice without the torpedo breaking up on the ice on impact. 

And who ever said ASW in arctic waters or any other body of water was ever easy?

It would seem to me that the best way to get that torpedo under the ice is with another sub, I'm not navy but it would seem to me that we need more than 3 Victoria class subs to patrol the whole Arctic, that works out to 1 sub on patrol, 1 sub returning from patrol and 1 sub on the way to relive the sub currently on patrol. This would not account for maintenance, training or providing submarine support for the other 2 coasts and foreign deployments.  I know we  have 4 subs but if I'm not mistaken they are all diesel electric, not suitable for under ice operations all year long. Let me know if I'm missing something.

And had you done a search you would have seen subs, the numbers of subs etc has been discussed time and time again. Use the S-E-A-R-C-H!!!!

 

[aesop081]

look my point is what good is it to track an unknown either under the ice or in the air if when god forbid the time comes to shoot at it you can't if you don't also have the ability to do so.

We have the capability to do so now and will continue to have it for the foreseable future. I dont understand where you are getting this idea that introducing UAVs to the mix means we suddenly lose our capability to take lethal action. Have you been up north lately ?

 

[McG]

Okay, this should drive you 'Arctic Dreamers' nuts ... Recce sats in geo-stationary orbit over our arctic.

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

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The question you need to ask is, how is the UAV tracking the sub from underneath that ice? Is there a MAD array small enough to be fitted on a UAV?Or you can have pairs of UAVs...one sesnor and the other a weapon carrier....

For surveillance of submarines, I've suggested this before, but why not use a mini-SOSUS array in all the choke points with satellite upfeeds to a Canada Command (and if you can't hit them all, then focus on the primary routes you want to protect first).

Once you get a hit, THEN you deploy Aurora or P-8 or whatever.

Operating cost for the fixed array should be minimal as should set-up costs as long as you're using satellite feeds and not dropping wireline to each location.  In comparison, any active search system such as UAV's or MPA's are going to require higher average operating costs and most of the time will patrolling to find a whole lot of nothing (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).

Re: Uplink Maintenance - Re-route and re-schedule Ranger Sovereignty Patrols to hit each of the units on a timeline that fits the maintenance & battery swap schedule of the each satellite station.

I should add that off-the-shelf satellite phone systems designed for the arctic now run less than $5,000.00 USD.  Adding an encryption system to the signal before it goes to the phone should be easy.

Bottom Line:  If the model has merit, in military budget terms, it should be deployable fairly inexpensively as long as the bureaucrats don't make it overly complicated for no reason.


Matthew. 

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

For surveillance of submarines, I've suggested this before, but why not use a mini-SOSUS array in all the choke points with satellite upfeeds to a Canada Command (and if you can't hit them all, then focus on the primary routes you want to protect first).

Once you get a hit, THEN you deploy Aurora or P-8 or whatever.

Operating cost for the fixed array should be minimal as should set-up costs as long as you're using satellite feeds and not dropping wireline to each location.  In comparison, any active search system such as UAV's or MPA's are going to require higher average operating costs and most of the time will patrolling to find a whole lot of nothing (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).

Re: Uplink Maintenance - Re-route and re-schedule Ranger Sovereignty Patrols to hit each of the units on a timeline that fits the maintenance & battery swap schedule of the each satellite station.

I should add that off-the-shelf satellite phone systems designed for the arctic now run less than $5,000.00 USD.  Adding an encryption system to the signal before it goes to the phone should be easy.

Bottom Line:  If the model has merit, in military budget terms, it should be deployable fairly inexpensively as long as the bureaucrats don't make it overly complicated for no reason.


Matthew.  

Where does this obsession with submarines in the Arctic come from? It's a fricking myth no matter what the PMO says. Friendly subs travel by SUBNOTEs we issue, and the unfriendly ones can't do SFA up there anyway.

In any case, your proposal may have military merit. It doesn't have technical merit. 

SOSUS/IUSS don't have the proper algorithms to pull submarine noise out from the normal ice background. They will likely never have those algorithms, since the submarine noises are far quieter than the ice. Basically the signal to noise ratio is below detectability level for the sensors involved.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Where does this obsession with submarines in the Arctic come from? It's a fricking myth no matter what the PMO says. Friendly subs travel by SUBNOTEs we issue, and the unfriendly ones can't do SFA up there anyway.

In any case, your proposal may have military merit. It doesn't have technical merit. 

SOSUS/IUSS don't have the proper algorithms to pull submarine noise out from the normal ice background. They will likely never have those algorithms, since the submarine noises are far quieter than the ice. Basically the signal to noise ratio is below detectability level for the sensors involved.

Interesting....I didn't know that.

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


Matthew.