Lets Talk Briefly About The Canadian Deep Sensing and Electronic Warfare Aircraft (CDSEA)
Opinion
The RCAF is probably both the ultimate winner and loser of the recent defence mania sweeping the country.
On the one hand, the RCAF had already managed over the last three years, and before the current Carney government, to secure most of their major projects with contracts signed. The F-35, P-8, MQ-9B, the A330, FACT; all of which were already done and dusted before the current government existed.
For the RCAF, they came into the last year just trying to make sure that they could actually get things delivered. Add on a good year of additional projects, especially in space with things like ESCP-P and DESSP moving along, and you have a service that was already well on the way to recapitalization and rebuilding.
Then, of course, we had to hit them a bit in the knees to check their ego. Of all the branches, the Air Force is the one that gets yelled at the most for their American choices. This has mainly revolved around the F-35, but others like the P-8 have also been called into question.
HIMARS? No one really cared. River-class? The Navy has managed to justify CDC as a safe platform while also making zero cuts or any real changes to the future destroyers. The Army and Navy, evidently, don't get nearly as much public or political hate for their choices.
I don't really care myself; everyone knows that, but I do find it a bit funny how selective some people can be, and how much ire goes into a single platform. While the Army was busy last year working on Army Mod, and the Navy soon presents their new fleet mix, the RCAF has been trying to build its next suite of major projects.
AEWC is one, where the Feds have stepped in and told the RCAF that they're going with GlobalEye; something that surprised everyone, including Saab, who were apparently caught off guard, and L3Harris, who is absolutely pissed off. Like, really pissed; evidently, Boeing just said gg and moved on.
So that does beg the question: what projects are the next major ones for the RCAF? They've managed to move through a lot of them very quickly, and the service is already going through a major recapitalization.
We aren't going to go through all of these, though; nor, sadly, is this a big Air Force project gossip piece. Instead, we're going to be focusing on the newest major project to get the bump up: the Canadian Deep Sensing and Electronic Warfare Aircraft, or CDSEA.
Not to be confused with CDC, the corvette. This is the other CDSEA; both are pronounced the same way. Why? Because it's funny. That's why. I certainly would name two projects of completely different standing the same just to mess with people. I would do it with three or four projects.
This is a project that I don't think has ever been mentioned elsewhere, save by me in Friday's newsletter. I wanted to give it its own dedicated post, despite how new of a project it is, because I find it very interesting, and it could be tied to something I have wanted to see for a long while.
Usually, I save projects until they're relatively developed. The Canadian Deep Sensing and Electronic Warfare Aircraft is not that. It is, as of now, about as developed as a scribble on a napkin. It has no real information but the basics to go off of. Nevertheless, I do want to briefly highlight its existence.
The Canadian Deep Sensing and EW Aircraft will provide the RCAF with an Airborne Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) and advanced Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft capable of multi-domain deep sensing and stand-off electronic attack.
CDSEA will be a globally-deployable platform capable of supporting the CAF both domestically and internationally. Again, as of now, no numbers, timelines, or rumored platforms are known; however, I am told the project is a high priority for the RCAF, up there with things like NtACS, FFLIT, and IAMD.
While the primary focus will be the provision of a new fleet dedicated to providing advanced sensing and EA capabilities, several options to provide the RCAF with the ability to detect and influence the electromagnetic spectrum will be investigated on top of it.
That could include augments or upgrades to existing platforms, such as the MQ-9B Guardian, P-8, or the future CF-35 fleets. All of which could carry various payloads in support of SIGINT or ELINT operations.
The MQ-9B, especially, already has pods like SOAR that could be rapidly acquired to help augment. For those who don't know, the Scalable Open Architecture Reconnaissance (SOAR) pod is a wing-mounted Electronic Warfare and Intelligence pod system designed to provide the MQ-9B SkyGuardian with a native Electronic Warfare capability.
SOAR provides long-range, standoff detection and geolocation of enemy radar and communication emissions from over 200 nautical miles away. Its sensor suite integrates both Communications Intelligence (COMINT) and Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) to cover a broad spectrum of frequencies (specifically Radar ESM Bands 1 through 5 and Communications ESM A through J Bands) with sub-degree tracking accuracy.
SOAR supports real-time remote operations, secure onboard data storage up to TS//SCI levels, and multi-platform cooperative geolocation.
Additionally, the pod is capable of cross-cueing with the drone’s onboard optical and radar sensors and features advanced electronic warfare capabilities; this includes the ability to passively detect, mimic, and return false signals to adversary receivers.
The MQ-9B is often highlighted by the RCAF as one of its future workhorse platforms. The availability of pods like SOAR, among others, gives the RCAF the option of rapidly onboarding and scaling different payloads and capabilities without the need for refit or upgrades. Plug-and-play is the term many use; I don't think it's quite the most accurate, but it stands.
Speaking of the MQ-9B, though, CDSEA could also include additional complementary autonomous systems, such as CCA tied to existing fleets, or smaller systems like the TB2 that we've all been hyping over the last week. Hint hint.
Right now, the basis for CDSEA (the platform we look to as an example) is likely to be the EA-37B Compass Call. The desire for EA on top of sensing is surprisingly something we don't always see; many people separate the roles, such as the Aussies.
The Turkish HAVA SOJ is similar in concept and on a 6500 chassis; as are the Koreans with the Electronic Warfare Aircraft (Block-I) program. Both have similar requirements to us, though both go about it in different ways. The HAVA is utilizing a traditional underbelly canoe to integrate systems, while the Koreans are utilizing conformal antenna arrays integrated along the fuselage flanks, like the AERIS-X AEW aircraft they are acquiring from L3, and like Compass Call.
ASELSAN is developing the sensor suite for the Turks, while LIG Nex1 is developing it for the Koreans; both are indigenous systems. Funny enough, with both in the news, I'm sure eventually we will hear some discussions on what potential collaboration on this front might look like.
I should note that, on the Korean front, the aircraft is very much in early development. So those of you jumping on Korean should make note that they're looking at the 2035 timeline, which might or might not align with us; we just don't know really.
At the least, they're examples I would expect we could look at with some concept of what we would like. I also wouldn't be surprised to see L3 and BAE offer a Bombardier-based variant of the Compass Call. They have a concept, it'scalled CROW. It does exist. It utilizes the same concept as AERIS-X
There is also the domestic angle, to allow Canadian industry to try and take on such a project domestically, with primarily Canadian suppliers.
In this case, it is an area I believe we could support development on, though it will require government effort and significant investment. EW aircraft are notoriously difficult developments, and insanely complex. Integrating things like complex jammers and SIGINT equipment is a monstrous exercise in maximizing the SWAP-C capabilities of a platform.
Modern platforms are increasingly looking at a software-defined approach to EW, which requires internal systems capable of processing and manipulating vast swaths of the electromagnetic spectrum in real-time. That also means having the ecosystem to further improve upon that software; something that in these conversations, in many when we talk about 'blocks' of aircraft and such, often goes amiss.
One also needs the support and capability to keep up in the areas of machine learning, native AI development, and native integration with existing platforms. All of which take time, investment, and significant commitment to domestic industry, which is why I believe the collaborative approach, or at least sticking with developed systems, is far more likely here than a native, all-Canadian development.
Still, I would hope industry could still benefit from this project in a significant but reasonable way. Right now, it's too early to tell exactly the platform we are looking at, and who might be able to take a lead or at least provide here.
For numbers, I couldn't tell you; that is on the RCAF. 4-6 is an initial guess for me; it could be higher, it could be lower. I really can't say what it would be. Unlike AEWC, which has a clear continental mandate, CDSEA is very much positioned as both a domestic and expeditionary capability from the onset.
CDSEA is not a replacement or supplement for AEWC, though I expect both of them to utilize the 6500 airframe. While GlobalEye could have a native SIGINT/ELINT capability if we wanted (it's advertised), the two platforms are inherently designed to work in tandem with each other, and as different layers of the RCAF's continental strategy.
Yes, an AEWC platform can scoop up electronic intelligence, but its primary job is surveillance and battle management command and control. Same as it could do maritime surveillance. At the end of the day, GlobalEye is marketed as a multi-mission aircraft, but that isn't always an advantage or a good thing.
They do not have the bandwidth to simultaneously conduct deep, complex electronic warfare or untangle a dense web of hostile electromagnetic signals. Being a jack of all trades, master of none doesn't work in high-end, peer-to-peer conflict when it comes to this stuff, which is why we can't really upgrade a platform like GlobalEye to this role, ignoring that the EA requirement adds a significant burden to the already tapped-out SWAP-C margins.
Both tackle two separate areas of concern. AEWC is primarily tasked with supporting wide-area domain awareness and BMC2; CDSEA is tasked with persistent electronic support measures (ESM), communications intelligence (COMINT), and non-kinetic electronic attack.
While they can support each other, neither can do or is expected to do as the other does, which is why the RCAF is pursuing a separate project for this capability. They both work to create an all-domain picture of our continental environment.
That includes both Arctic and polar over-the-horizon radars, the future Space-Based Air Moving Target Indicator satellite constellation, CROSSBOW, future upgrades to the Northern Warning System, ground and space-based optical capabilities, and DESSP. Jesus, there is so, so much going on, and we barely talk about most of them publicly!
That's just the RCAF. That isn't even everything. Look at all we are doing, trying to create an Arctic-centered all-domain awareness capability from seabed to space, across the electromagnetic spectrum. That isn't just a fun tagline to throw in papers.
Look at all the cool things we want to do… Stuff like this gets me hyped. I love talking about plans, about concepts. I live for these kinds of niche capabilities and how they fit. If only the public knew. I feel if we did better to highlight the cool things, to show the concept and explain the plans, that maybe people would better understand why we're spending so much money here.
It isn't that plans and ideas don't exist; it never is, really. The concept is there for people who put things together. CDSEA, at its core, provides the RCAF the capability to participate and manipulate in the electromagnetic environment. That is what it is at a fundamental level. It gives the RCAF a dedicated platform to do so, on top of augmented capabilities through other platforms.
It also builds my Global 6500 dream fleet. I want 30+ of those fuckers running around. I want them scattered from coast to coast to coast. Give me CDSEA; give me BACN; give it all to me. I want the RCAF to have the support fleet that only RTS players could dream of spamming in.
CDSEA is one of those projects you just kinda highlight. It's a niche concept few think of, but they play a very critical role in the layered scheme of things. It is a capability that, before, I don't think would ever exist. I don't think the concept would have been on the books even three years ago.
I like to believe it is a sign of changing times, where we can afford and are encouraged to pursue even specialized, unique capabilities over a limited selection of cores. It's unfunded, yes; it is new, yes. But I like to believe that the fact it's given a chance to live, to try and justify itself, is something important to take solace in.
Maybe that's just me; I don't know, but that's the kind of attitude I want to have with these things, and I encourage others to try and think the same.
Nice article Noah.
Btw...Global TV interviewed Gen Tom Lawson yesterday and he absolutely trashed GlobalEye. Not a positive word to say about it. I thought it was so bad I had to check his biography to see if he was a Boeing shill.
OK. Let’s talk. Background: Line backseater in the Voodoo where we spent most of our day training vs adversaries attacking our radar and radio systems. We learned to use procedures and counter EW techniques. Moved on to instructional tour which included air combat vs fighters, various Flag exercises, working with USN’s Top Gun and USAF FWS. CF-18 squeezed me out of front line fighters, moved into dedicated EW role with 414 Sqn flying Falcon stand-off jamming, EW Voodoo and ET-33 with pods. Also squeezed in being qualified as a USAF EWO, training on the RC-135 ISR, F-4G Wild Weasel and EF-111 Raven EW systems (all in simulator cockpits).
Post flying: EW project management to modify Challenger aircraft with EA and ISR capability to support training of Air Force and navy; then moved to air staff responsible for Air Force EW projects. Final tour heading the Air Force unit responsible for programming all fleets’ EW systems with mission data files (MDFs). Supported CC-130H tanker ops during NATO air denial ops and CF-18 during ops over Kosovo. Support included updating MDFs in between missions to respond to Serbian SAM threat changes. Development of ECM techniques and RWR s/w included real world testing vs threat radars, working with 410 Sqn CF-18s as well as rigorous testing in our classified, shielded lab in the CF EW Centre in Ottawa.
So…CDSEA. In a biz jet. I love the Global 6500. Glad to see it enter the inventory to replace the Challenger and begin our AEWC role. But as for conducting EA in a hostile environment…it’s a needed capability. For years I kept an image of one of our CF-18s taxing out of Aviano for Kosovo, with an EA-6 Prowler taking off on the background. Our jets did not fly without the Prowlers on station. A Prowler abort was a mission abort. EA in support of combat operations requires stand-off-jamming (SOJ) as well as stand-in-jamming (SIJ). SIJ is a none player for a Global 6500 CDSEA. SOJ is problematic if there is an airborne threat, or a long range SAM that forces the CDSEA to orbit at too far a range, or not at all if enemy fighters are a player. The Global 6500 just isn’t agile enough or fast enough to defend itself in a high threat environment. For those missions, the CDSEA could be a CF-39 with pods. The reason EA is difficult to integrate into a biz jet is the heat generated by the power sources. Notice how they get around that problem with the Growler. The power generators are integral to the ECM pod, driven by a propeller, not internal where heat dissipation is a significant design challenge. This was our findings when trying to make the Challenger an EW platform. The engineering solution was to strip insulation from the aircraft so that the heat would be drawn from the aircraft interior through the skin of the aircraft. For an operational aircraft, that would make it an ideal IR target.
On the other hand is there a naval threat off of Canada’s coast and no enemy fighter escort? There the CDSEA can soak up electrons for the EWDB and possibly provide SOJ if it can truly stand-off outside of the naval SAM threat range. So I see a passive ISR mission for the Global 6500, but EA? Not so much.