CF seeking 3 or 4 manned fixed-wing ISR planes

[Eye In The Sky]

Speaking of RADAR, I'd heard there was going to be a multi-mode set on the MAISR platforms...not listed above.

 

[blacktriangle]

Not a RADAR SME, but I'd estimate that the listed features are not all inclusive.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not a RADAR SME, but I'd estimate that the listed features are not all inclusive.

Possible or might have been dropped off the desired kit list.  I have an RAF friend who did this stuff, and their platform didn't have an imaging RADAR...

Either way, glad to see this one moving forward.

 

[Gorgo]

So which squadron will fly them?  Or is a new squadron standing up?

 

[MarkOttawa]

One has one's doubts, esp. with this gov't:

WEAPONIZING MAISR, ARMED KING AIRS FOR CANADA
http://airsoc.com/articles/view/id/5b81f88a3d2d2ec0328b4567/weaponizing-maisr-armed-king-airs-for-canada

Mark
Ottawa

 

[YZT580]

What good does 3 aircraft do?  In order to sustain coverage you need at least 2 with a spare readily available.  There is your entire package.  One manpad causing even superficial damage and your response is severely limited.  As the attached article suggested, a minimum of 10 to 15 should be acquired.  3 is simply a waste of money IMHO

 

[Good2Golf]

What good does 3 aircraft do?  In order to sustain coverage you need at least 2 with a spare readily available.  There is your entire package.  One manpad causing even superficial damage and your response is severely limited.  As the attached article suggested, a minimum of 10 to 15 should be acquired.  3 is simply a waste of money IMHO

Would be interested to see your math in the mission analysis-based deduction leading to 10-15 aircraft.  Also interested to hear about how something doing I and S and R from a reasonably expected stand-off position would be tangling with enemy MANPADS close in with AD engagement ranges.  It would seem that your opinion of value, or lack thereof, differs from that of DND, Treasury Board, Finance, PSPC and PCO, to name a few GoC Departments/Agencies.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[CBH99]

Just to clarify, this purchase is more directed at supporting SOF than conventional operations?

If so, makes sense.  And that's the sense I got from the initial articles & concept a few years ago. 


Question though - is this the right road to go down?  Would a long endurance UAV (Newest version of Reaper or whatever it is) be better suited if it's for armed ISR coverage?

^^ I know the community has already thought this through and decided this was the road to go down.  Just asking for clarification.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'd say ideally  you'd have both, as they have different abilities.  We don't live in an ideal world though.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bumped with the latest from the Pentagon info-machine as of 20 Dec 2019 ...

... Textron Aviation Inc., Wichita, Kansas, was awarded a $37,166,034 firm-fixed-price Foreign Military Sales (Canada) contract to acquire three Beechcraft King Air 350ER aircraft, program management, pilot training and field maintenance training.  One bid was solicited via the internet with one bid received.  Work will be performed in Wichita, Kansas, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2021.  Fiscal 2020 Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $37,166,034 were obligated at the time of the award.  U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-20-C-0012) ...

 

[Gorgo]

Well, it's a start.  Most likely, 434 Squadron will get the aircraft.

 

[Good2Golf]

Well, it's a start.  Most likely, 434 Squadron will get the aircraft.

...or a detachment of 427.  It depends on whether the RCAF wants to chop another squadron OPCOM to CANSOF.

Regards
G2G

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Well, it's a start.  Most likely, 434 Squadron will get the aircraft.

Why 434 Sqn?

 

[dapaterson]

Yes, I also am curious about how / why 434 would be assigned these resources.  Frankly, from a core platform perspective, they'd be a better fit under 8 OSS.

But I agree with G2G that a single SOF squadron is the most likely outcome (unless someone in the light blue world decides that it would be better to have a second SOF Sqn, which would then require an intermediate SOF Air Formation and associated C2 positions...)

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/squadron/multi-engine-utility-flight.page?

 

[Zoomie]

Not going to 434 Sqn (former EW Sqn now OT&E) or 8 OSS.  It’ll be a tan asset.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Bumped with the latest from the Pentagon info-machine as of 20 Dec 2019 ...

Link is not working, in fact the whole "www.defense.gov" website is down.

I'm assuming this is just the continuation of the original contract awarded back in Oct 2018?

 

[dapaterson]

Not going to 434 Sqn (former EW Sqn now OT&E) or 8 OSS.  It’ll be a tan asset.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting they would or they should; only pointing out that it will be the same airframe (though likely employed somewhat differently...)

 

[The Bread Guy]

Link is not working, in fact the whole "www.defense.gov" website is down.

Working for me as of this post.  JUST in case, I've attached the text as well.

I'm assuming this is just the continuation of the original contract awarded back in Oct 2018?

I suspect it's follow-up of the same, too -- only there was a lot more $ involved in the initial 2018 State Dep't approval.

 

[Good2Golf]

Working for me as of this post.  JUST in case, I've attached the text as well.
I suspect it's follow-up of the same, too -- only there was a lot more $ involved in the initial 2018 State Dep't approval.

Not enough detail in the recent release regarding program details, vis a vis DoD/DoS budget allocated to the OEM, versus other integration elements that might not be included in that $37M figure.

Interesting to see it in the Army programs vice the Air Force programs. Gives indication as to the potential/likely configuration the exported assets will comprise.

Regards
G2G

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Working for me as of this post.  JUST in case, I've attached the text as well.
I suspect it's follow-up of the same, too -- only there was a lot more $ involved in the initial 2018 State Dep't approval.

Looks like it was my browser (Firefox); tried MS Edge and connected now problem.