Major (retired) F. Roy Thomas, MSC, CD, MA (RMC). 13 February 2020.
Without anti-drone assets should the RCN become a coastal navy operating under the umbrella of cheaper shore-based anti-drone assets? Or should Canada’s navy procurement include provision of at least one anti-drone warship for each coast, including the Arctic? After all, it seems that the anti-submarine warfare threat, and the unmanned underwater vessel (UUV) threat, may be best countered by RCN submarines and UUVs (if we ever acquire any). As a long retired Armoured officer, I would like to hear some naval voices on this question in Canadian Naval Review.
4 thoughts on “Drones and the RCN”
No need such asset. Navy treats drones (UAVs) in the same way as any other aerial objects. As long as it is detectable by shipboard sensors and within reach of weapons. The rest is simply assessment of hostile intent and decision making in accordance with the Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) doctrine and ROE. In my opinion, what RCN needs is an adequate inventory of own UAVs to support surveillance and reconnaissance.
Ex Sailor. The CDN NAVY already has a UAV capability in the form of the Skeldar-V200 UAV. So your thoughts are a little too late.
The RCN also operates the PUMA UAVs. What I would like to see is a squadron of UAVs such as the Polar Hawk Triton UAV based in several communities in the Arctic such as Iqaluit for coverage. Ships should have a dedicated anti-UAV system such as the Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) systems.
UAV drones are not only necessary but desperately needed to patrol our arctic waters. The Australians have already got this one right as they have acquired 6 Triton HALE UAVs from the US. Canada could have had this capability in the form of the Polar Hawk Triton UAV which was offered to Canada a few years ago but when nothing was heard from the Canadian Government, the offer was quickly withdrawn. Another capability lost!