# Project Noctua & the Heron UAV - Interim capability to support Afghanistan Ops



## Ping Monkey

More good news...   



> Pullout by key U.S. manufacturer thins ranks of drone bidders
> STEVEN CHASE
> 
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> 
> May 8, 2008 at 4:44 AM EDT
> 
> OTTAWA — The world's top manufacturer of aerial drones is pulling out of a $93-million competition to supply surveillance equipment that Canada must acquire by next February as a condition of keeping soldiers in Afghanistan.
> 
> The move by U.S.-based General Atomics, which makes the well-known Predator drones, reduces the competition for the contract and could leave Ottawa hostage to only one possible supplier: Elbit Systems of Israel and its Hermes pilotless aircraft.
> 
> It will also make it more difficult for the Canadian Forces when it comes to interoperability with their U.S. partners in Afghanistan, because the Americans use General Atomics Predator drones for the same mid-level surveillance.
> 
> Under a Canadian Forces program called Project Noctua - Latin for owl - the military is in a hurry to lease pilotless surveillance aircraft for at least two years to help soldiers battle the Taliban in Afghanistan.
> 
> Internet Links
> Special Report: Canada's mission in Afghanistan
> The schedule is tight, even though the military has been trying to acquire drones ever since Canadian soldiers moved to Afghanistan's southern Kandahar province in 2005.
> 
> A January report on the future of Canada's war effort in Afghanistan prodded Ottawa to act on the drones by saying their acquisition should be one of the conditions for extending the country's military mission to 2011.
> 
> After a drawn-out debate, Parliament approved an extension of the mission in Afghanistan to 2011 from 2009, as long as allies supplied 1,000 soldiers to help Canada and the military acquired helicopters and drones by February, 2009.
> 
> Last month, however, General Atomics wrote to John Sinkinson, an official at Canada's Public Works Department, informing him that it won't bid on the deal.
> 
> Sources say the deal breaker for General Atomics is that Ottawa wants the drones by January, 2009 - just six months after the contract is signed, which it contends is not possible.
> 
> General Atomics also warned Ottawa that the stipulations it has placed on the tender would expose a contractor to an unacceptable level of risk, adding that it's hard to believe any company that accepted its terms could provide the professional support needed for the program, sources say.
> 
> In combination with a hurried timeline, the contract includes big penalties worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for missed deadlines.
> 
> Although Elbit and its partners plan to bid for the contract, it's not yet known whether a third company, Israel Aerospace Industries, might step forward.
> 
> The Department of National Defence declined to discuss the General Atomics withdrawal, referring questions to the Department of Public Works.
> 
> Public Works spokeswoman Lucie Brosseau said "it would be premature to speculate on how many bidders will apply and how many will qualify."
> 
> The call for bids closes May 20 and the contract is expected to be awarded by July.
> 
> The drones, also called unmanned aerial vehicles, are to be used for intelligence gathering, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080508.wdrones08/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


----------



## jzaidi1

Damnit,

No surprising though.  The rare moment when Canada is actually willing to pull the trigger relatively quickly on a purchase, we are slapped in the face with something like this.  Damned if you do and Damned if you don't.

J


----------



## tomahawk6

Top reasons for GA NOT to accept this contract.
1. 6 months delivery from contract signing
2. Unacceptable level of risk which would prevent professional support
3. Big penalties for missing timelines

Right now GA has all the business they can handle from DoD which might be a big concern.Although a deal might have been worked out for Canada to cut the line so to speak to acquire the UAV's ontime.The DoD budget for FY08 was $2.3b and is seeking $2.6b for FY09.This money is for a variety of UAV's but the emphasis is on the larger UAV's like Predator and the Army's Sky Warrior with their weapons carrying capability.

In review it now looks like a mistake for the government to make this a competitive bid.Had the CAF gotten its way they would have gone for the Predator and be done with it.I suppose the government could cancel the bid and make a deal direct with GA anyway.


----------



## cavalryman

One must keep in mind that Mr Weston is a polemicist, not a journalist.  He writes what he thinks (or, God forbid, he feels) rather than take the time to conduct objective research and report fact.  Whatever he states is the "truth", I take to be 180 degrees opposite to reality.  So what we get gear from the Israelis?  :  At the very least, the Israelis have a bit more experience in anti-insurgency ops than we do, and know what works.  Another slow news day at the Sun...


----------



## BrownTown

wouldn't having israelis on our side needlessly put our soldiers at risk? it _is_ a muslim country, and I don't think the locals would take too kindly to that. I could be entirely wrong, please don't tear me a new a**hole.


----------



## Shec

Greg Weston has just qualified for the "What's the Dumbest Thing You've Read Today?" thread.  

(With apologies to  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/76543.45/topicseen.html)


----------



## stegner

> One must keep in mind that Mr Weston is a polemicist, not a journalist.  He writes what he thinks (or, God forbid, he feels) rather than take the time to conduct objective research and report fact.  Whatever he states is the "truth", I take to be 180 degrees opposite to reality.  So what we get gear from the Israelis?



The issue is not the CF are buying Israeli equipment, it is that Israeli contractors may be used to operate the UAV's.   Given that Afghanistan is a Muslim country and not exactly known for being magnanimous to its Jewish citizenry and to Israeli this process may prove to cause some backlash.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It may be that contractor reps, Israeli contractor reps, perhaps even Jewish-Israeli contractor reps will have to go to Kandahar to support the systems - if we are, indeed, buying Israeli UAVs. (Is that decided, yet?)

How, pray tell, does one spot a Jew? Do they have funny hats and long, hooked noses?

I'm guessing that most contractor reps might stay inside the KAF perimeter and that those who might have to go "outside the wire" are unlikely to be wearing Star of David patches.


----------



## stegner

No of course not.  The Canadian Forces will have to inform the Government of Afghanistan that they have foreign contractors within sovereign Afghan territory.  The issue is not whether these folks will be in danger.   Israel is ostensibly as dangerous as Afghanistan and Israelis know how to handle themselves.  The issue is whether the use of Israeli contractors would cause some backlash diplomatically between Canada and Afghanistan.


----------



## Loachman

So who said that the company personnel who would manage the system would necessarily be Israelis, or even Jewish?

Should Afghans have any concerns about Judaism or Israelis, I'm sure that the company either already has non-Israeli/non-Jewish employees or can recruit some.

This should be a minor issue.

It is more important that the system performs better than what we currently have.


----------



## GAP

stegner said:
			
		

> No of course not.  The Canadian Forces will have to inform the Government of Afghanistan that they have foreign contractors within sovereign Afghan territory.  The issue is not whether these folks will be in danger.   Israel is ostensibly as dangerous as Afghanistan and Israelis know how to handle themselves.  The issue is whether the use of Israeli contractors would cause some backlash diplomatically between Canada and Afghanistan.



So then we should inform the Government of Afghanistan of all nationalities of all our personnel, just in case the might object?

Sounds like we could go out of our way to create an issue, or we can just deal with our Israeli contractors the same way we do all contractors to the Canadian Government


----------



## MG34

An unarmed UAV is about as useless as tits on a bull,regardless of who makes it. It's sad and pathetic that Canada,a country that had one of the world's greatest aerospace industries cannot now even produce a decent UAV.


----------



## stegner

> So then we should inform the Government of Afghanistan of all nationalities of all our personnel, just in case the might object?



They are not 'our personnel' they are contractors.  WE are guests of the Afghan government we are not invaders so yeah we have an obligation to inform them if we are using non-Canadian contractors.  Afghanistan is a sovereign country-so determined by the Supreme Court of Canada.       




> Sounds like we could go out of our way to create an issue, or we can just deal with our Israeli contractors the same way we do all contractors to the Canadian Government



In theory this sounds good.  In practice it might prove more difficult.    We are after all not in Canada and must abide by Afghan law, customs and sensitivities.  



> It is more important that the system performs better than what we currently have.



I fully agree.  



> So who said that the company personnel who would manage the system would necessarily be Israelis, or even Jewish?



Greg Weston.  

 However, Elbit one of the two Israeli firms, the finalists of the CF UAV competition has many affiliations and alliances.  From Wikipedia:



> ESA, the US office for Elbit, operates the following subsidiaries: IEI in Talladega, Alabama, Kollsman in Merrimack, New Hampshire, VSI in San Jose, California (a joint venture with Rockwell Collins), Talla-Com in Tallahassee, Florida and EFW in Fort Worth, Texas (the latter also serves as ESA's home office).
> In 2005 Elbit set up a joint venture company in the UK with Thales, UAV Tactical Systems Ltd (U-TacS), developing the British Army Watchkeeper WK450. Elbit's EFW subsidiary also
> operates a joint venture with Rockwell Collins, Vision Systems International (VSI).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbit_Systems


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Everyone needs to give their heads a shake.  MDA - a _Canadian_ company - is the contractor, not the Israelis.  MDA is submitting an Israeli system as the basis for its bid; it does not necessarily follow that we'd see Israelis on the ground in Kandahar or on any other Canadian mission where MDA's equipment would be used. 

Frankly, while I am annoyed we didn't buy Predator right off the shelf, this is a ridiculous non-issue.


----------



## stegner

> Everyone needs to give their heads a shake.  MDA - a Canadian company - is the contractor, not the Israelis.



Ahh ok.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Canadian company L-3 MAS is taking the actual lead on the Elbit side.
http://www.mas.l-3com.com/htm/main.asp?language=en
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?k=4607&id=a1694e18-8cfd-47af-9739-9f3ef6882341 

And note this (second link above):



> ...L-3 has joined forces with Elbit Systems Ltd. of Israel, which is already leasing Hermes 450 UAVs to British forces in Iraq...



Somehow I doubt there are any Israelis with the Brits in Iraq. More on leasing the UAVS for Afstan (Project NOCTUA), with the MERX "Letters of Interest (LOI) Notice" and requirements:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-loi-noctua-uav.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

I think this comment at a _Torch_ post says it all:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22793240&postID=127031520706718849&pli=1



> Note - The Canadian partners (Thales, MDA and L-3) for the UAVs have been fast and furious with job postings for retired Canadian Forces members in the various military base newspapers specifically offering employment with UAVs in Kandahar since early April.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## STA Gunner

MG34 said:
			
		

> An unarmed UAV is about as useless as tits on a bull,regardless of who makes it.



I disagree.  Being able to track a belligerent to his safe house can provide much more value than just hammering him with the one Hellfire that an UCAV can carry.  As an ISR platform, it is much more valuable in providing SA to commanders and soldiers on the ground.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Frankly, while I am annoyed we didn't buy Predator right off the shelf, this is a ridiculous non-issue.



Predator is unavailable for the forseeable future.  This project here is the interim lease until Predator can be purchased.  And I agree that this is a non-issue.

As for the contractors, we, the CF, do not have to beg permission of the host nation to allow certain contractors into theatre.  We've had Swedes, Norwegians, Australians, Americans, French, Indian, Nepalese, South African contractors (that I'm personally aware of) and it was not a diplomatic challenge to see if they can come into theatre.  However, that being said, typically, the contractors have to make their own way into theatre (Ariana airlines. anyone?) or the military has to make special arrangements to arrange it.

Personally, being involved with UAVs, and working with contractors, is going to be less of a heartache than integrating UAVs effectively into the ISTAR plan.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

STA Gunner said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Being able to track a belligerent to his safe house can provide much more value than just hammering him with the one Hellfire that an UCAV can carry.  As an ISR platform, it is much more valuable in providing SA to commanders and soldiers on the ground.



A UAV with offensive capability can do both well, no?  More options the better.


----------



## STA Gunner

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> A UAV with offensive capability can do both well, no?  More options the better.



It can be, under the right circumstances.  A UAV that can launch munitions requires runway to take off and land.  A smaller one that is used for ISR can be point launched and recovered.  A UCAV requires weapons handlers.  One without does not.  A UCAV takes hours to prep and get into battle.  A smaller UAV takes minutes and can direct other effects onto targets.

I just think that the blanket statement that unarmed UAVs are useless defeats the purpose of having them.


----------



## TCBF

- Well, if the HVT was H enough, The Model Airplane Club could always fly the UAV into him, right?  They all get flown into the ground eventually anyway...

 8)


----------



## Don2wing

The Germens have picked the Heron TP UAV:

System for Bundeswehr Programme SAATEG 
  
  
(Source: Rheinmetall Defence; issued June 2, 2008)
  
   
  

Rheinmetall and IAI have teamed to offer the Heron TP reconnaissance UAV for the German Army’s SAATEG program. (IAI photo)Rheinmetall Defence and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) have announced their new cooperation agreement on the marketing of the Heron TP UAV reconnaissance system for long-range operations in the Bundeswehr programme SAATEG (“imaging surveillance system for the depth of the deployment theatre”) during the Berlin Air Show ILA 2008. This programme has the task of contributing towards a comprehensive situational awareness within the scope of networked command & control, both over land and on the high seas or at the coasts. 

At present, the German armed forces do not yet have a MALE (Medium Altitude Long Endurance) drone system that can be deployed for missions abroad in all the corresponding environmental conditions worldwide and on a 24/7 basis. The key requirements for the new system are capabilities for wide-area, real-time surveillance and situation reconnaissance, target acquisition and battle damage assessment – including object and target tracking – as well as competence for precise identification. 

The German need must be met in the near-term, i.e. the initial operating capability (IOC) is already planned for 2010. 

For this programme, Rheinmetall Defence and IAI are offering the long-range UAV system “Heron TP” – an advancement of the proven Heron system. Heritage of more than 400,000 UAV flight hours and 30 years of operational experience by 35 customers were implemented in the design and the development of the Heron TP. 

The Heron TP incorporates the latest technologies to meet today’s operational needs of ISTAR forces. Designed as a Multi-payload, Multi-mission platform to answer the requirements of the Israeli Air Force, the HERON TP presents a versatile robust, “all weather “capable MALE UAV system which complies with the SAATEG requirements of the German Armed Forces. 

Developed in the framework of an Israeli Ministry Of Defence (IMOD) program several UAV’s were already manufactured and tested and it is ready now for serial production. 

The Heron TP system meets the requirements specified by the Bundeswehr without any restrictions and, in addition, offers a number of major advantages. In the sensor area, it is equipped with the latest technology and offers a high degree of mission flexibility and considerable growth potential – especially with regard to payload. As a result, the system will make a significant contribution to the safety of the German soldiers in the operational area. 

Rheinmetall Defence will be responsible for the complete ground infrastructure, ground control unit, interface to existing command & control infrastructures (“Germanization” of the system) and the entire logistics area. 

The companies Rheinmetall Defence and IAI have already been cooperating successfully for some time now in other areas, e.g. the Bundeswehr programme WABEP (“weapon system for standoff-capable engagement of single and pin point targets”) and for the conversion of Boeing 747 passenger planes to cargo aircraft. This strong alliance offers further opportunities for the advancement of a joint technology basis, amongst other things, in the field of unmanned flight systems and Airborne Systems. 


One of the most respected and best-known names in the international defence and security industry, Rheinmetall Defence is the defence technology arm of the globe-spanning Rheinmetall Group of Düsseldorf, Germany. Rheinmetall Defence has some 7,000 employees worldwide and generates annual sales of approximately EUR 1.8 billion. 

IAI is a major aerospace company and Israel’s largest industrial corporation, with more than 14,500 employees. As Architects of integrated UAV system solutions, MALAT is the leader of IAI’s UAV endeavor and is one of the world’s most experienced unmanned air vehicle system manufacturers. MALAT, through extensive international teaming, manages comprehensive system development, integration and manufacturing of UAV systems that fulfill the interoperability, commonality, and connectivity requirements that users anticipate. 

-ends


----------



## TrexLink

> *$100M contract for drones quietly awarded
> Controversy sparked over changes to tendering guidelines*
> 
> _Allison Lampert
> Canwest News Service
> Wednesday, July 16, 2008_
> 
> FARNBOROUGH, England - The federal government has quietly chosen the winner of a $100-million contract to supply critical unmanned drones to Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> However, the choice of the winner -- MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. and Israeli Air Industries Ltd. -- is sparking controversy in Canadian aerospace circles because the tendering guidelines were changed midway through the bidding.
> 
> While competitors were initially asked to demonstrate proof of past experience, that requirement was later dropped, industry sources said.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the tender was conducted in a "competitive and transparent way" and a winner would be announced shortly.
> 
> "The bidding process itself is meant to attract as many bidders as we can," said Mr. MacKay, while attending the Farnborough Air Show. "Obviously, this is a very important capability. The transportation of people and goods to various forward operating bases is a critical capability that we want to secure as quickly as possible."
> 
> Unmanned aerial vehicles are desperately needed to replace the Canadian Forces' aging Sperwar drones.
> 
> The UAVs are used in theatre to spy on insurgents. A key use is the tracking of improvised explosive devices -- the biggest killer of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
> 
> Miki Bar, special adviser to the CEO of Israeli Air Industries, said he was delighted with Canada's choice of his company's Heron UAV over the Hermes 450 drone put forward by L-3 Communications MAS (Canada) Inc. and Elbit Systems Ltd. of Israel.
> 
> Mr. Bar said Canada simply chose the better bid, which would provide around six UAVs. He wouldn't entertain speculation that the change in criteria benefited the Heron, which is used by Israel, India and Turkey.
> 
> A contract with Canada is a boon for Israeli Air Industries, which wants to increase sales in the North American market.
> 
> "I am not part of any speculation," he said. "We have a smart customer; they know what they want."
> 
> But rival Elbit said its chances were hurt since the company works with Thales U.K. supplying Hermes 450 drones to the British army in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> "We felt we had a very good solution for Canada. We are actually doing this in the U.K. where we are operating very successfully, so this was a disadvantage for us, to say the least," said Danny Israeli, Elbit vice-president of business development and marketing. "We are waiting for the Canadian government to debrief us as soon as possible."
> 
> "We are very disappointed," added L-3 MAS president Sylvain Bédard. "We are urging Elbit to keep all their options open."
> 
> Mr. MacKay couldn't explain the change in the bidding criteria.
> 
> "I don't get into the technical details," he said. "I leave that, obviously, to the experts in the air force and rely on their advice. There was a lot of technical requirements to be met. It was a competitive process. It was transparent. The information will be made available when all the contracts are announced."



Link to photos and specs:  www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/heron/Heron.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

It's just sad it's taken this long....


Matthew.   ???


----------



## Sub_Guy

New kit is always nice, although I would have liked to see the Predator sitting outside.


----------



## aesop081

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> New kit is always nice, although I would have liked to see the Predator sitting outside.



Predator was never going to happen. We got a decent one out of this deal and it was the one we all expected.


----------



## Sub_Guy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We got a decent one out of this deal and it was the one we all expected.



For sure, its actually exciting, it will be nice to have these things over there helping our fellow brothers/sisters out, should also prove beneficial for Sovereignty patrols.   

It is annoying though that every contract news article seems to have a negative headline attached to it.  Almost seems like the media wants to generate controversy with absolutely everything the military does.


----------



## dimsum

Interesting...new platform for Air Navs!  Now if they can only tell us where they will be based...  :


----------



## NCRCrow

CU-161 ALTAIR should have been the winner. 

Another SPERWER/LUNA disaster approaching...mark my words! (Dark days of my ISTAR time in Kabul)

Pay the big bucks! Have an established system such as the PRED B (parts/training/support)

my opinion of the Heron..Garbage and more waste of cash.


----------



## aesop081

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Pay the big bucks! Have an established system such as the PRED B (parts/training/support)



Let it go Crow. Canada couldnt have gotten the Pred-B even if it wanted to. Complete production is spoken for.


----------



## aesop081

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> should also prove beneficial for Sovereignty patrols.



Not likely, IMHO


----------



## Sub_Guy

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> CU-161 ALTAIR should have been the winner.
> 
> Another SPERWER/LUNA disaster approaching...mark my words! (Dark days of my ISTAR time in Kabul)
> 
> Pay the big bucks! Have an established system such as the PRED B (parts/training/support)
> 
> my opinion of the Heron..Garbage and more waste of cash.



Sure the name Heron isn't too great, but from what I am reading I can't really find any real negative points, but my experience level with UAV's is even less than that of the local geek at my local "The Source".  So I don't know what to look for when shopping for an UAV.

Way too early for me to form an opinion on it, I will await word from those who get hands on experience with it.  Or when I get hands on experience with it.

If we can get decent kit at a decent price then we should go for it.

Stupid question, are we getting the Heron 1 or Heron 2?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Interesting...new platform for Air Navs!  Now if they can only tell us where they will be based...  :



Not only ANavs.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> CU-161 ALTAIR should have been the winner.
> 
> Another SPERWER/LUNA disaster approaching...mark my words! (Dark days of my ISTAR time in Kabul)
> 
> Pay the big bucks! Have an established system such as the PRED B (parts/training/support)
> 
> my opinion of the Heron..Garbage and more waste of cash.



Please explain why you think that the purchase of the Heron UAV would be a disaster.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> For sure, its actually exciting, it will be nice to have these things over there helping our fellow brothers/sisters out, should also prove beneficial for Sovereignty patrols.



No.  There is another UAV project still on the books for the "permanent" UAV solution for the CF- one that will give service both overseas and in Canada.  This particular UAV is meant only to get us through Afghanistan.  Hopefully, by 2012-2014 we will have the final product on the ramp.


----------



## PuckChaser

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Pay the big bucks! Have an established system such as the PRED B (parts/training/support)



Preds or Reapers would have been awesome, however General Atomics (manufacturer of Pred) pulled out of the bidding process in May. Only link I could find was a registration required article at Canadian Defense Review. So even if we wanted Pred, like so many intelligence folks I worked with overseas, we can't buy them if the company won't sell them to us.

With our lack of air assets overseas, I think we should have held out for a platform that can carry some precision strike muntions. Reaper is invaluable for spot, indentify, kill of insurgents trying to do bad things to our troops overseas.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With our lack of air assets overseas, I think we should have held out for a platform that can carry some precision strike muntions. Reaper is invaluable for spot, indentify, kill of insurgents trying to do bad things to our troops overseas.



Correct me If I'm wrong, but I seem to remember a news conference awhile back where some seniormMilitary types said that there is* no way* the Cdn military will be arming their UAV assets?


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With our lack of air assets overseas, I think we should have held out



Our mandate in Afghanistan will be long over before we would get our turn for the MQ-9 reaper.


----------



## PuckChaser

The asset will still be useful after Afghanistan, I don't think we bought Leo2s just to get rid of them after we're done. Then again, governments have done odder things.


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think we bought Leo2s just to get rid of them after we're done.



NOCTUA is only intended to get us through Afghanistan. That is why the program is contractor-heavy. The furure UAV program for domestic and expeditionary operations is still in the works for after 2011.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Like Cdn Aviator just said, there are two UAV projects in the Air Force- NOCTUA and JUSTAS.

NOCTUA was just awarded and is only meant to really get us through the rest of Afghanistan.

JUSTAS will be the permanent addition of UAVs to the CF inventory.


----------



## PuckChaser

Ah ok, that makes much more sense now, thanks for the info!!!

Any news on whether the Pred system is still in for the JUSTAS contracts? I think we'd be horrible shortchanged if we didn't look towards that proven platform first, and compare it to others.


----------



## NCRCrow

lets rent some ARTHUR Shell tracking radars from the Norwegians for 2 years for 40 million a pop!

more garbage!

I wish the CF and the Government would just spend the money and do it right the first time.

Buy the PRED-B's, no need for more red tape BS and standing up two more organizations at Startop or 101. (JUSTAS/NOCTUA)

The money we waste not doing it right the first time.....MHP anyone?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Hfxcrow-

If only, in the real world, were it as simple as you imply it to be...


----------



## scas

So is this the one that transforms into coke cans?


----------



## GAP

Canada Contracts for Heron UAVs
10-Aug-2008 16:42 EDT
Article Link

Israel Aerospace Industries’ Heron is a large MALE UAV in the MQ-1 Predator’s Class. It is primarily used as a surveillance UAV over land and sea, and can be equipped with a number of modular radar, sensor, and even electronic intelligence packages. The 2006 war in Lebanon also demonstrated that they could be armed, if necessary. Heron currently serves in Israel (Heron 1 and Heron TP), India, Turkey, and in France as the SIDM/EuroMALE variant.

The UAV will also begin serving Canada in Afghanistan, under an arrangement that parallels Britain’s interim lease of Hermes 450 UAVs from the UTaCS consortium of Thales UK and Elbit Systems. In Canada’s case, the Ardea partnership that supplies and operates the UAVs involves Elbit’s rival IAI, and Canadian surveillance & aerospace firm MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.

MDA’s surveillance solution will be operational in Afghanistan before February 2009. The initial C$ 95 million (about $90 million) UAV operations and training contract will keep the Herons in service until early 2011, with a C$ 35 million option for an additional 3rd year. MDA release.

Canada has a JUSTAS program that includes UAVs in this class, just as Britain has its Watchkeeper UAV program. The Herons do fill the Phase 1 near-term MALE UAV requirements under JUSTAS, but the longer-term choices seem unlikely to be made until Phase 2. Meanwhile, MDA and IAI are promoting the Heron UAVs as a cheaper option for search-and rescue (SAR) and related surveillance tasks over Canada’s boreal forests and northern regions. A July 10/08 exercise in Suffield, Alberta involved the Heron UAV finding the wreckage of a ‘crashed’ Cessna, and coordinating the ‘rescue’ of Canadian MP Art Hangar. The Canadian Civil Air Search and Rescue Association attended and commented approvingly, and the Discovery Channel filmed the exercise
More on link


----------



## PuckChaser

Do the critics think we have all sorts of extra people to run Sperwers and the Herons? It'd be nice if we could run everything.


----------



## midget-boyd91

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do the critics think we have all sorts of extra people to run Sperwers and the Herons? It'd be nice if we could run everything.



Maybe they took the 'U' in UAV a bit too literal and thought they flew themselves?  :

Midget


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do the critics think we have all sorts of extra people to run Sperwers and the Herons? It'd be nice if we could run everything.



Of course.  Don't you remember Chretien's "Kinder, Gentler Army" where we were expected to become more technical than Combat Armsie..........We can put more technical geeks in the Field and forget all about those brutish Infantry types.    :


----------



## geo

Let,s face it, the sperwers were an earlier generation
The Heron is a new generation - time to put the old ones to bed & move on.


----------



## George Wallace

Besides



> Canada originally bought the Sperwer in 2003 and rushed it into service over a three-month period. In 2006, Denmark decided to sell off its Sperwers because of technical issues and problems in operating the aircraft, so Canada purchased them as well.
> 
> Some defence officials put the total cost of Canada's Sperwer project at about $400 million when the training of military personnel and other factors are considered.
> 
> There were a number of crashes involving the Sperwer, which drove up the costs to operate the system. Those crashes have been blamed on Afghanistan's extreme environment and a lack of experience among military personnel operating the drones.



They have been a bit of a problem since they were purchased.  

Perhaps we can sell them back to the French or the Dutch, who intend on using them in Afghanistan.  Even deliver them in Theatre.


----------



## geo

... write em off to learning experience.....


----------



## aesop081

1- There are not enough Sperwer left to make it a sustainable capability
2- We dont have the personel to man both
3- The Heron will be such a leap in capability that we dont need Sperwer


----------



## Loachman

The "some who are questioning" should come for a visit and get some blunt answers.


----------



## Wilfred828

The sad truth of the matter is that the Heron being leased is a fine reconnaissance asset, and a quantum leap beyond Sperwer, but it leaves much to be desired when it comes to the tactical support missions (strike coordination, close air support, convoy overwatch, etc.) that are the bread and butter of Predator and Reaper operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are the missions that bring the soldiers home safely. As is so often the case here in Canada, the requirement was castrated in order to allow Canadian companies with no experience supporting military UAV operations abroad to compete. A Canadian company got the contract, yes, but it is the Canadian soldier who will pay the price in blood.  And for those who think Predator and Reaper weren't offered to Canada, or weren't available, think again.  There were other options.


----------



## eurowing

Your opinion is based on what? Your profile is very blank and provides little insight to your credibility. 

Edit - I was in a rush.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> And for those who think Predator and Reaper weren't offered to Canada, or weren't available, think again.  There were other options.



Right.  :

Since I have actually spoken personally to the guys who make such decisions in our Air Force, I can state categorically that this is not some twisted plot to favour Canadian companies.  You get what you get when you are in a rush and don't plan ahead.  There weren't as many options as some might think.


----------



## KevinB

I fail to see the use of a non armed ISR asset -- mini subunit UAV's fine - but for larger ones - its pissing in the wind if your SurvOp sees Achmed and cant light his ass up.

  Great we know where a bomb is - fine thats nice - but I want to tail the cocksucker that put it there and waste him where he lives -- sometimes you cant get a DA team on station quick enough so - the Hellfire solution is the best way.


----------



## MG34

I agree 100% if the UAV is not capable of destroying the tgt it sees it is of no value to the ground forces, yes early warning is nice but a Hellfire or 2 is much better. Once again the CF drops the ball.


----------



## Ecco

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I fail to see the use of a non armed ISR asset -- mini subunit UAV's fine - but for larger ones - its pissing in the wind if your SurvOp sees Achmed and cant light his *** up.
> 
> Great we know where a bomb is - fine thats nice - but I want to tail the ********** that put it there and waste him where he lives -- sometimes you cant get a DA team on station quick enough so - the Hellfire solution is the best way.



Blowing the IED digger is a victory that will save a couple of soldiers.  Following the digger to his bomb-manufacturer, his network, and attacking the network with other assets will save hundreds of soldiers.  ISR is a weapon.


----------



## George Wallace

A minimum requirement should at the very least be a Laser Designator.  If it isn't/can't be armed, at least give it the capability of indicating tgts for precision guided wpns.


----------



## GAP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A minimum requirement should at the very least be a Laser Designator.  If it isn't/can't be armed, at least give it the capability of indicating tgts for precision guided wpns.



Excellent point...


----------



## Ecco

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A minimum requirement should at the very least be a Laser Designator.  If it isn't/can't be armed, at least give it the capability of indicating tgts for precision guided wpns.



Why ask for a Laser Designator when JDAM is faster/cheaper and much more readily available, without the requirement for a laser?


----------



## McG

MG34 said:
			
		

> ... if the UAV is not capable of destroying the tgt it sees it is of no value to the ground forces ...


You are right.  There is "no value" in the ability to see an ambush forward of a convoy, to observe an objective before the arrival of ground forces or to track enemy movement through the countryside.  :  You know that’s nonsense.

There is a very significant value delivered by having capable UAVs in the air contributing to the ISTAR process.  Sure, the ability to strike would be added value.  However, given the choice between a UAV that can only sense vs. absolutely nothing, are you going to suggest you would prefer the absolutely nothing?


----------



## George Wallace

Ecco said:
			
		

> Why ask for a Laser Designator when JDAM is faster/cheaper and much more readily available, without the requirement for a laser?



Because it can be used to guide in a JDAM, Excalibur, or any other type of Guided Wpn.  It would give a wide range of wpns that can be used or called in, as opposed to the one and only that it may carry.  A JDAM is a waste of munitions, money and overkill to use on a single man planting an IED, don't you think?


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Because it can be used to guide in a JDAM, Excalibur, or any other type of Guided Wpn.


JDAM & Excaliber require GPS location & not laser designator.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> JDAM & Excaliber require GPS location & not laser designator.



I stand corrected.  Include that in the sensor package. 

It really doesn't matter, what the UAV can carry as a wpn load, if the sensors are capable of transmittin tgt data to other wpns systems that can be used as required.  The most effective wpn can be called in, as opposed to the limited amount that may be carried on hard points on a UAV.  

Like I said, a JDAM is overkill for a single man laying an IED.  There are more economical means to tgt him that cause less collateral damage to pers and roads.


----------



## Loachman

Sperwer has been used in the direction of artillery and CAS.

A laser rangefinder is needed for more accurate target location. Sperwer lacks this, and therefore relies on computations involving GPS location of the AV and its altitude, the azimuth and elevation of the camera, and a digital terrain and elevation map. This gives pretty good information, but precision degrades with distance. The nice thing is that the error remains constant, though, and therefore the system works quite well for correction of artillery. A laser would tighten up the accuracy of the first round.

Correcting arty via Sperwer is actually rather slick, and unbelievably simple, quick, and precise compared to the traditional method.


----------



## GAP

It is the same as a forward observer watching the artillery impacts and adjusting from there.....but you are right, it depends on where the first on lands... ;D



> Like I said, a JDAM is overkill for a single man laying an IED.  There are more economical means to tgt him that cause less collateral damage to pers and roads


.  Yeah, but what overkill!!


----------



## Loachman

GAP said:
			
		

> It is the same as a forward observer watching the artillery impacts and adjusting from there



Nope. I've done that, from the ground and my Kiowa generally not much higher than the ground, but this is completely different.

Ten-figure grid is sent to the guns. Round lands, ten figure grid of impact is sent to the guns and correction made from that. Whatever CEP error exists in the first grid, ie 3472.698 mils at 143.674 metres is true for the second, so the correction includes that and the second adjustment round should be pretty much right on, subject, of course, to all of the other factors affecting rounds in flight.

No bracketting.


----------



## MG34

MCG said:
			
		

> You are right.  There is "no value" in the ability to see an ambush forward of a convoy, to observe an objective before the arrival of ground forces or to track enemy movement through the countryside.  :  You know that’s nonsense.
> 
> There is a very significant value delivered by having capable UAVs in the air contributing to the ISTAR process.  Sure, the ability to strike would be added value.  However, given the choice between a UAV that can only sense vs. absolutely nothing, are you going to suggest you would prefer the absolutely nothing?



In the case of an unarmed UAV, yes I would rather rely on close recce and stealth than having a noisy camera orbiting the position.
 Having the abilty to hammer a couple of Hellfires into the position and much less danger radius that artillery is an asset worth having .


----------



## GAP

Which brings up the question....just how noisy is the Heron UAV?


----------



## MG34

Also brings up the question how does an unarmed vehicle fix an enemy in position to allow other assets to spool up?


----------



## George Wallace

MG34 said:
			
		

> Also brings up the question how does an unarmed vehicle fix an enemy in position to allow other assets to spool up?



How does a FOO or a FAC or an OP fix an enemy?


----------



## McG

MG34 said:
			
		

> ... a noisy camera orbiting the position ...


So, your complaint is that all unarmed UAV are of "no value" because the one we are retiring is too noisy?  If the same is not true of the Heron, then you are being dishonest in your arguments and situating the estimate to give the answer you want.  What happens if we pull out your assumption that Heron is another snowmobile in the sky?  Given the choice of a silent UAV that can only sense vs. absolutely nothing, are you going to suggest you would prefer the absolutely nothing?


----------



## KevinB

The issue is why chose to tie your arms behind your back?

 Yes it is a capbility increase -- but having been around to see the advanatages of Mr Predator with Hellfire (some gomer was vaporized ahead of our MRAP) I would take being able to deal death rather than just sit around and watch.


  Like many decisions in the CF - it is being defended as a capabiltiy increase from what is currently in inventory - rather than being looked at as a deficiency from what is available to have.


Ecco -- as I said in my post -- sometimes you won't have a DA team around to go after the HVT's  - and no offence getting Osama's or whomever else's picture on camera does not make them any deader...
     There are places you cannot just launch a JDAM or 155mm strike -- the Hellfire is a much smaller payload.


----------



## aesop081

The Heron UAV deal was made because it was available to us in the timeframe we needed IOT replace the Sperwer. This is NOT the final UAV for the Canadian Forces. For all of you in the "well theres much better out there " crowd....well....yeah we know. But we needed something that was deliverable now...not 2 years from now.

Noisy ?

This is a MALE UAV.....not the skidoo we had up until now.


----------



## MG34

MCG said:
			
		

> So, your complaint is that all unarmed UAV are of "no value" because the one we are retiring is too noisy?  If the same is not true of the Heron, then you are being dishonest in your arguments and situating the estimate to give the answer you want.  What happens if we pull out your assumption that Heron is another snowmobile in the sky?  Given the choice of a silent UAV that can only sense vs. absolutely nothing, are you going to suggest you would prefer the absolutely nothing?



I only have experience with the current in service UAV, none of which are silent. If given the choice of a noisy flying camera or not, I will always take stealth, unless of course it can fire a Hellfire from 8kms away into the En ambush,compond,objective or whatever.
  I'm done here, no need to get into yet another pointless argument with you, have fun in your Ivory Tower.


----------



## aesop081

MG34 said:
			
		

> I'm done here, no need to get into yet another pointless argument with you, have fun in your Ivory Tower.



You would almost think this is a thread about kit........ :


----------



## Nfld Sapper

So that means no more flying lawn mowers?


----------



## aesop081

The Heron is a MALE UAV operating at up to 30 000 feet......you wont hear it. If you do it certainly wont be like the skidoo we have now.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

FEATURES
Multiple operational configurations 
Adverse weather capability 
Safe, reliable and easy operation 
Simultaneous use of four mission sensors 
Satellite communication for extended range (SATCOM) 
Redundant Automatic Takeoff and Landing (ATOL) systems for maximal safety 
Fully redundant, state-of-the-art avionics 
Retractable landing gear for greater sensor visibility 

SPECIFICATIONS

Endurance   > 24 hours 
Range   > 200 Km 
Altitude   30,000 ft 
Maximum Take-off Weight   1,150 Kg 
Maximum Payload Weight   250 Kg 
Wing Span   16.60 m 
Overall Length   8.50 m 
Power plant   Rotax 914 (115 hp) 
Speed   60-120 ktas 
    
Payloads
Electro Optical (EO), Infrared (IR), Laser Pointer (LP) 
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) 
Maritime Patrol Radar (MPR) 
COMINT and ESM capability 
Customer furnished sensor suites 
Communication relay package 
Integrated ATC Radio 

    
Datalinks
Direct Line-of-Sight (LOS) datalink 
UAV airborne data relay for beyond LOS missions 
Ground-based data relay for beyond LOS missions 
Satellite communication for beyond LOS missions


----------



## Bearpaw

Does the Heron have some payload capacity to carry 1 or 2 Fireball mortar rounds that could be dropped as guided bombs?  I think that would go a long way to satisfying MG34's and I-6's complaints.  Just an idea!

Bearpaw


----------



## geo

SPECIFICATIONS
Power plant   Rotax 914 (115 hp) 


Heh... ROTAX... by Bombardier


----------



## Nfld Sapper

geo said:
			
		

> SPECIFICATIONS
> Power plant   Rotax 914 (115 hp)
> 
> 
> Heh... ROTAX... by Bombardier



Yeah but made in Austria,

Bombardier-Rotax GmbH and Company KG
International subsidiary
Postfach 5, Welserstr 32, Gunskirchen, , Austria
()43 07246 601 0, 43 07246 63 70 fax, http://www.rotax.bombardier.com
Primary SIC: Internal Combustion Engines, Not Elsewhere Classified, Primary NAICS: Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing
Description: Manufacturing: Manufacture of two stroke and four stroke petrol engines


----------



## KevinB

AGM-114 hellfire only wieghs in at 108lbs for the LongBow Apache variant - a little less for others.

 In theory you could get a few and a targeting pod


----------



## Wilfred828

> The Heron UAV deal was made because it was available to us in the timeframe we needed IOT replace the Sperwer.



True and not true. The move to replace Sperwer began in earnest in 2005 during the first lease deal, which if it had gone through, probably would have been for the Heron as well. Going with another lease two years later that [perhaps not so] coincidentally reached the same conclusion was the end result of indecision and frequent redirection. In other words, a failure of both vision and leadership.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MG34 said:
			
		

> Also brings up the question how does an unarmed vehicle fix an enemy in position to allow other assets to spool up?



Just about every foot patrol we ran in downtown Belfast had an AAC Gazelle, with 2 x crewmembers in it, hovering overhead providing top cover. They didn't have weapons, just good observation skills. They were able to help deter dozens (according to the int weenies) of attacks on our patrols, and provided excellent coordination for any follow up/ hot pursuit required by ground units. I think many police forces use the same techniques with their helicopter assets.

IMO, UAVs would be even better in many ways because you can run them much longer, and for less $, than an observation helicopter. Unfortunately you can't take 'joy rides' in a UAV though...


----------



## MG34

I would bet even money that attackers would have been destroyed had the Gazelles been armed, and in a standby position waiting to be called in ,deterrence is no way to win a war.


----------



## Fusaki

> deterrence is no way to win a war.



Unless, of course, you're trying to deter the _next_ guy. >


----------



## daftandbarmy

MG34 said:
			
		

> I would bet even money that attackers would have been destroyed had the Gazelles been armed, and in a standby position waiting to be called in ,deterrence is no way to win a war.



Well, one purpose behind deterrence was to force the terrorists into patterns which could then be exploited by covert agencies. Of course, this also allowed us the opportunity to reintroduce the police to the population without fear of them getting zapped. Being good 'bad guys' the IRA targetted the police, wanting to make sure that the 'military occupation' continued for as long as possible, which in turn gave them more leverage for funding in the US, as well as garnering support from local populations (who they basically intimidated into compliance anyways). And of course the Protestant paramilitaries had similar goals.

Bottom line: more deterrance = less shooting = faster return to normalcy and what is paradoxically known as an 'acceptable level of violence'.

And a chopper hovering 1000ft overhead with a big honking flashlight when you're going down dark alleyways in sniper-land saved me a few changes of shreddies too.


----------



## McG

MG34 said:
			
		

> … deterrence is no way to win a war.


Of course, our doctrine (which bares remarkable resemblance to that of the Marines in a nation who’s military many would like to emulate) points out that counter-insurgency is not won through military means.  Rather, military means provide the stability/security that enable all the other government agencies the freedom to win.  To this end, if deterrence can contribute to stability (and save lives) then it does contribute to winning the counter insurgency war.    …. But that’s a tangent.  The Heron UAV was not bought to deter but to see.

Your previous argument in this thread (that a UAV with no ability to strike was of no value) was based on assumptions that were completely untrue (the Heron is not a noisy skidoo like the Sperwer).  When challenged on this you huffed & puffed and launched into the personal attacks while claiming to be done here (popped smoke & withdrew).  Despite that, you are back and still seem interested.  So, I will try again.  It seems you have either missed or ignored a rather important message that has been repeated in this thread:


			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is another UAV project still on the books for the "permanent" UAV solution for the CF- one that will give service both overseas and in Canada.  This particular UAV is meant only to get us through Afghanistan.  Hopefully, by 2012-2014 we will have the final product on the ramp.





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Canada couldnt have gotten the Pred-B even if it wanted to. Complete production is spoken for.





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Our mandate in Afghanistan will be long over before we would get our turn for the MQ-9 reaper.





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ... there are two UAV projects in the Air Force- NOCTUA and JUSTAS.
> 
> NOCTUA was just awarded and is only meant to really get us through the rest of Afghanistan.
> 
> JUSTAS will be the permanent addition of UAVs to the CF inventory.





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The Heron UAV deal was made because it was available to us in the timeframe we needed IOT replace the Sperwer. This is NOT the final UAV for the Canadian Forces. For all of you in the "well theres much better out there " crowd....well....yeah we know. But we needed something that was deliverable now...not 2 years from now.


It has also been pointed out (even in this thread) that Sperwer will not remain sustainable.  Neither Predator nor Reapor can be delivered now (and we have a need now), but they can (and still might be) delivered in a handful of years.  Heron (while it may only be the 70% solution) is available now.

So go ahead and insist that the final CF UAV should have the ability to strike (because it should have that ability).  However, don’t attack the current buy through pretending it was an option between Heron & something armed.  The troops in Afghanistan need something and the choice was to give them something that can see but not strike, or to give them nothing.


----------



## MG34

Gone to PM as you obviously don't understand what I am saying


----------



## Wilfred828

> Canada couldn't have gotten the Pred-B even if it wanted to. Complete production is spoken for.



Wow! I'm tired of seeing this. This statement is simply not true. Every year since 2006, the Americans have offered to make available a Predator or Reaper system, training, and in-theatre maintenance support alongside their operations at KAF. That includes yet another offer for Reaper earlier this year that would have had CF-flagged Reapers in KAF by the end of 2008, even before Noctua!  Senior DND leadership folded, thinking that the government wouldn't support the effort. That Predator/Reaper "weren't available" is used by some as an excuse to hide the fact that the Air Force was forced to compete the requirement instead of going for the sure thing through a Foreign Military Sales case.  -W


----------



## geo

I believe our politicos do not want an Offensive capable UAV...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

geo said:
			
		

> I believe our politicos do not want an Offensive capable UAV...



Agreed, that is NOT the type of kit a nation of peacekeepers uses!  :tsktsk:

It would be too "american" or something.


----------



## NCRCrow

like a Puffin being offensive on somebody's shoulder

offensive...yes


----------



## McG

Wilfred828 said:
			
		

> Wow! I'm tired of seeing this. This statement is simply not true. Every year since 2006, the Americans have offered to make available a Predator or Reaper system, training, and in-theatre maintenance support alongside their operations at KAF. That includes yet another offer for Reaper earlier this year that would have had CF-flagged Reapers in KAF by the end of 2008, even before Noctua!


Surprising position as all publicly available information seems to contradict you.  In fact (as seen at the start of this thread and here: http://www.casr.ca/doc-loi-noctua-uav.htm), the manufacture identifies its primary reason for not bidding the Predator was that the required delivery was too quick and the late penalties too expensive. 



			
				Wilfred828 said:
			
		

> Senior DND leadership folded, thinking that the government wouldn't support the effort.


Another bit that does not seem to fit the publicly available information.  In other threads (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60171.0/all.html) and over at CASR (http://www.casr.ca/doc-loi-noctua-uav.htm) all the information points to cabinet as the source of the decision to compete.  That’s a few levels above senior DND leadership.  In any case, if it is not possible for Predators to be made available on time through a competitive process, I cannot see how sole-sourcing would have made aircraft suddenly appear.  

I’m not familiar with you and you are relatively new to the site.  It makes it hard to judge credibility or assess what information sources you might be connected to.  If you’ve got a line on better information, than the people here connected to project staff, then maybe you’d like to share that source.  It could certainly change the direction of the discussion.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> AGM-114 hellfire only wieghs in at 108lbs for the LongBow Apache variant - a little less for others.
> 
> In theory you could get a few and a targeting pod


It may be feasible, but delivery would be pushed off for another 1-2 years as engineers & bureaucrats went about looking into electromagnetic compatibility, platform power budgeting, systems integration engineering, air worthiness, ammunition safety & suitability, and a handful of other tests & certifications.  In the end, Noctua could end-up delivering the 80% solution at the same time that Justas starts bringing online the 90-95% solution.



			
				MG34 said:
			
		

> Gone to PM as you obviously don't understand what I am saying


 After the PMs, I’m still not sure I understand and I don’t think that’s going to change.  You are not disputing that there may have been limited options and you in fact do not care which options were available at the time of the decision.  You feel we settled for the Heron, which you see as significantly below the capability required.  But, if Heron was the best option on the table to meet our needs now, what did we settle from?  Is the partial solution on time not better than the ideal solution after the fact? 

I do not agree that an unarmed UAV is useless, but do agree it is less useful.  On that premise, I cannot understand objecting to an unarmed UAV as a temporary band-aid solution if that UAV is the best option available at the time it is needed.


----------



## STA Gunner

MG34 said:
			
		

> I agree 100% if the UAV is not capable of destroying the tgt it sees it is of no value to the ground forces, yes early warning is nice but a Hellfire or 2 is much better. Once again the CF drops the ball.



Say that to the troops on the ground being overwatched by ScanEagle.  Unarmed, yet indispensible.


----------



## Wilfred828

Rule #1: never reveal sources who don't want to be quoted.

Only JUSTAS was killed by Cabinet in 2007.  There were high-level discussions (senior DND, even ministerial) about delivering a Reaper system to KAF by the end of 2008 through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case with the USAF. This would have been in addition to Noctua. The USAF said it was feasible for both kit and crew training, with the CF pitching up at Creech AFB (Nevada) to fly missions alongside the USAF and RAF. Collective training was out of the question, however. This effort was killed by senior DND leadership.  Competition was probably a factor in the decision as CH-47 and small UAV were both FMS or sole source, as was the total dollar figure of all the Manley Panel efforts, and God only knows what all else. In all fairness, though, we didn't (and don't) have the people to do both Noctua and a Reaper purchase for KAF.  

As for schedule, keep in mind FMS isn't a commercial contract. The USAF bent over backwards to help the RAF field Reaper in around 12 months and would have done the same for us, or better if they learned anything from their work with the Brits.


----------



## McG

You are now starting to paint an interesting picture.  If true, I'd be interested to know if "killed by senior DND leadership" was something that happened any lower than the MND's office.


----------



## GAP

doesn't matter....nobody here can change whats been decided, best to take advantage of a better system, even if it doesn't have all the bells, whistles, and bombs....


----------



## Good2Golf

Wilfred828 said:
			
		

> Rule #1: never reveal sources who don't want to be quoted.
> 
> Only JUSTAS was killed by Cabinet in 2007.  There were high-level discussions (senior DND, even ministerial) about delivering a Reaper system to KAF by the end of 2008 through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case with the USAF. This would have been in addition to Noctua. The USAF said it was feasible for both kit and crew training, with the CF pitching up at Creech AFB (Nevada) to fly missions alongside the USAF and RAF. Collective training was out of the question, however. This effort was killed by senior DND leadership.  Competition was probably a factor in the decision as CH-47 and small UAV were both FMS or sole source, as was the total dollar figure of all the Manley Panel efforts, and God only knows what all else. In all fairness, though, we didn't (and don't) have the people to do both Noctua and a Reaper purchase for KAF.
> 
> As for schedule, keep in mind FMS isn't a commercial contract. The USAF bent over backwards to help the RAF field Reaper in around 12 months and would have done the same for us, or better if they learned anything from their work with the Brits.



To say the above with any authority, you would have to work in 13NT (or somewhere even more influential).  I doubt this, as anybody working in 13NT would have the discretion to not discuss the issue in the manner you have done here.

A disgruntled individual from a company that was not the winning bidder for Noctua?  Someone from General Atomics who thought that a few more systems could have been pushed out the door and given the company more profits?  Some other option none of us have figured out yet?

In a nutshell, Heron replaces Sperwer....but you knew this already, didn't you?  It's hard to argue that the FIND portion of FIND, FIX, DESTROY will not be done much more effectively than with Sperwer, right?

Tell you what, if your so connected, Wilfred, why don't you stand up at the next P&P Committee meeting and convince Cabinet to buy Reaper and a gross of Hellfires on an FMS case?  

Have a nice day.

G2G


----------



## Wilfred828

?


----------



## McG

GAP said:
			
		

> ....nobody here can change whats been decided, best to take advantage of a better system, even if it doesn't have all the bells, whistles, and bombs....


Exactly, and even if there was an FMS options and if it was killed in DND below MND level, then I would suspect there are other factors involved than those presented.

All other things being equal, an armed UAV in operation is a much greater capability than an unarmed UAV in operation.  However, a capability is more complex than just that.  Even going beyond capability of the sensor payload, one must consider number of aircraft, number of control stations, number of feasable concurent flights, and reliability & availability (at the individual & aggregate levels).  

If there was an FMS option offering the 90% UAV platform that would only be available 40% of the time, then I still might lean toward the 75% UAV platform available 75% of the time.  Of course, this is speculative and the details to really make this comparison do not belong in the public domain (OPSEC). So, we'll never get into that informed discussion here.

In any case, the proof that armed UAV will eventually be purchased, to meet our long-term objectives, is now also in the news: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/79853.0.html


----------



## newfin

Looks like one of the Herons has arrived.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/IAI10158.xml&headline=Canadians%20Fly%20Israeli%20UAV%20in%20Afghanistan

I saw this on the main page at www.aviationweek.com


----------



## eurowing

You can google Heron UAV, look for Heron UAV on youtube and look here www.uavs.ca for info.  It is a capable platform.


----------



## geo

The thing I find interesting & impressive is it's being able to stay airborne 24 hours.....(per specs) While it can't provide an offensive edge on it's own, the eyes in the sky can provide guidance & targets for thosee weapon systems that are available.

A great leap forward from the Sperwer


----------



## newfin

If it can stay aloft for so long then why does the manufacturer say that it only has a 200 km range?


----------



## Loachman

Two-way communication with the ground station.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Deleted--moved here:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/67417/post-770191.html#msg770191

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

newfin said:
			
		

> If it can stay aloft for so long then why does the manufacturer say that it only has a 200 km range?



That's the transit to its on-station time.

It's not that it couldn't travel long distances...it could probably travel 1000km, but it would likely be able to spend only a few minutes on station before having to come home.

Endurance - transit - reserves = time on station.


----------



## Loachman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That's the transit to its on-station time.



See my previous comment. Even larger/more sophisticated UAVs than Sperwer have remarkably similar "ranges", under local control.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from ISR media...

*Israeli UAVs to fly in Afghanistan*
YAAKOV KATZ, Jerusalem Post online, 15/16 Dec 08
Article link







It plays a vital role in IDF operations in the Gaza Strip and in southern Lebanon, and in February the Heron Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) will make its debut in Afghanistan as the main surveillance drone for the Canadian Armed Forces, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Last month, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) supplied a number of Heron UAVs to the Canadian military for operations in Afghanistan. The Heron will replace a small French-built UAV that Canada has been operating in Afghanistan for several years.

The Heron was supplied to Canada under a $95 million contract signed in August. Canadian forces are currently committed to participating in operations in Afghanistan until 2011. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently called on Canada to extend its commitment due to the success NATO forces have had in the troubled region of Kandahar....

_More on link_


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Just caught on the radio that the first Canadian UAV has arrived in Afghanistan.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Just made it onto Canadian Press, too...


> Canada's soldiers have a new eye in the sky over Afghanistan.  New Heron pilotless spy drones have just arrived at Kandahar Airfield. Canadian Forces officials say the drones - also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs - will help reduce the risk of ambushes and roadside bombs.  The Air Force will use the tactical drones for intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance.  Canada is spending $95 million to lease the Herons for at least two years from B.C.-based MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates....



_(A bit) more on link_


----------



## Loachman

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Just caught on the radio that the first Canadian UAV has arrived in Afghanistan.



So what have I been suffering with for the last couple of months, then?


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> So what have I been suffering with for the last couple of months, then?



IAVs - Inadequate Aerial Vehicles.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile:

Russia Says It May Buy Remotely Piloted Spy Planes From Israel 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/world/europe/17russia.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Russia Says It May Buy Remotely Piloted Spy Planes From Israel
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/world/europe/17russia.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper



From my perspective, it doesn't make too much sense for Israel to sell the technology to the Russians..... 
Anything that was built into the drones will be taken apart & reverse engineered AND industrial / technical secrets would be shared by the Russians with Iran, Syria & any other country you might think of that is not too friendly with Israel.


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> From my perspective, it doesn't make too much sense for Israel to sell the technology to the Russians.....
> Anything that was built into the drones will be taken apart & reverse engineered AND industrial / technical secrets would be shared by the Russians with Iran, Syria & any other country you might think of that is not too friendly with Israel.



Geo,

Israel sells *export versions * of their stuff just like the Russians do.


----------



## geo

Yeah, yeah, I know.

Just doesn't make sense to me to sell to Russia - at a time where Russia is making friendly with the Syrians & Iranians.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Geo,
> Israel sells *export versions * of their stuff just like the Russians do.



Even with export versions you can extrapolate a lot of the vehicles capabilities.


----------



## aesop081

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Even with export versions you can extrapolate a lot of the vehicles capabilities.



Of course but thats only one part of the equasion. It is doubtful that any mission systems will be the same as what Israel uses and that is where the heart of any UAV lies.


----------



## geo

CDN Aviator,
I hear ya and I know where you are coming from but,
A friend of a friend - can be a friend BUT
A friend of an ennemy is seldom a true friend.... and is most often, an ennemy.

IMHO


----------



## tomahawk6

From ctv article:

Canadian Forces have begun deploying unmanned aerial drones in Afghan skies, which officials say will help save the lives of Canadian soldiers by improving their intelligence capabilities.

The drones are called Herons and are equipped with cameras that allow the Canadian military to spy on Taliban activities from high up above the ground.

The unmanned aircraft, which took to the skies last month, are piloted from the ground by soldiers like Capt. Peter Shirley.
"This aircraft will fly for quite a long time," Shirley told CTV News recently. "Over 24 hours on a full tank of gas."

The Heron replaces the Sperwer -- a French-made aircraft, used since 2003, that cannot fly for as long and which the military believes is too loud to be an effective tool for spying. The outdated aircraft are also costly to maintain and have a shortage of available parts.

By contrast, the Israeli-made Heron can cruise as high as 10 kilometres above the Earth and is known for its silent stealth.
Col. Christopher Coates, the commander of Canada's air wing, said the two types of drones are miles apart when it comes to their aerial capabilities.
"The Sperwer might be like a 1950s vehicle, just able to do the job and perform, whereas the Heron is definitely a 2000 model," Coates told CTV News.
Military officials will not say exactly how sophisticated the Heron's camera systems are, but they claim the newly-introduced drone can zoom in on the smallest of targets from 100 kilometres away.

While Heron units can be used to track the movement of Canadian Forces troops on the ground, the Canadian military is more excited about their ability to watch what Taliban troops are doing on Afghan roads.

This capability, achieved partially through the use of infrared sensors, is of particular benefit when Canadian Forces are trying to keep track of the planting of dangerous IEDs that put Canadian lives at risk.

"We're not going to be able to spot every IED with a Heron, but we're quite certain we're going to be able to make a difference," Coates said.
For now, the Herons do not have the capability to take out targets from the air, like the U.S.-favoured Predator drone.


----------



## geo

Ayup... watched the clip on CTV this morning.... Yeppers.... looking good.
No indication (or mention) that Israelis are used to fly or maintain the Herons.... 

Good addition to the range of tools now at out disposal.


----------



## Loachman

geo said:
			
		

> the clip on CTV .... looking good



Aahh, the omniscient and infallible MSM...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> Aahh, the omniscient and infallible MSM...



So young to be so cynical....  ;D


----------



## TN2IC

I would sooo take that to the nude beach...


----------



## Loachman

When a new "spy drone" manages to provide us hardened Sperwer operators with amusement for so long...


----------



## tomahawk6

Not sure why the CF didnt opt for the Heron 2 which can be armed.


----------



## geo

Am certain that ISI would be more than happy to upgrade our lease package for the "2" at some time in the future....


----------



## TN2IC

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Heron replaces the Sperwer -- a French-made aircraft, used since 2003, that cannot fly for as long and which the military believes is too loud to be an effective tool for spying.




Well.. can't be that bad, as a Herc? Or is it?


----------



## Loachman

It's not especially loud - it uses a snowmobile engine - but can still be heard at the relatively low altitudes at which we operate. And "can be heard" is not usually a good thing.


----------



## TN2IC

Loachman said:
			
		

> It's not especially loud - it uses a snowmobile engine - but can still be heard at the relatively low altitudes at which we operate. And "can be heard" is not usually a good thing.




Ah Bombardier...Tabernac!!!


----------



## eurowing

Loachman said:
			
		

> When a new "spy drone" manages to provide us hardened Sperwer operators with amusement for so long...



When you get back drop in the the Hangar.  We can have our oun meet and greet and if you haven't had a close up, I'll give you a tour.


----------



## GDawg

eurowing said:
			
		

> When you get back drop in the the Hangar.  We can have our oun meet and greet and if you haven't had a close up, I'll give you a tour.



I need to deploy again! I've always wanted to see UAVs up close.


----------



## Loachman

eurowing said:
			
		

> When you get back drop in the the Hangar.  We can have our oun meet and greet and if you haven't had a close up, I'll give you a tour.



I'd love to. We'll see what happens, but it sounds like our pace is going to be an obstacle.

But then, our pace may make it possible as well.


----------



## -rb

Loachman said:
			
		

> It's not especially loud - it uses a snowmobile engine - but can still be heard at the relatively low altitudes at which we operate. And "can be heard" is not usually a good thing.



Unless of course it's been tasked with a 'show of force' over enemy positions...something many of us were praying for, mostly due to the laughs we had as it sputtered over our heads! ;D

cheers, and have fun with the new kit!


----------



## Tow Tripod

Any AUV that does not have the capability to launch missiles is a waste of tax payers cas$. This is JUNK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Typical Canadian doctrine. Bring a knife to a gunfight. When are we going to learn to play in the bigs for real. Pathetic actually.

Tow Tripod


----------



## Loachman

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Any AUV that does not have the capability to launch missiles is a waste of tax payers cas$. This is JUNK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Typical Canadian doctrine. Bring a knife to a gunfight. When are we going to learn to play in the bigs for real. Pathetic actually.



As one who has a little more direct experience with these things, I shall disagree.

We would very much like to have the ability to zap targets of opportunity directly, but...

Carriage of weapons comes at a real cost: endurance. There is a trade-off between fuel (endurance) and weaponry, as weight is a major factor for anything that flies.

One of the strengths of UAVs is that very endurance, which generally far exceeds that of manned aircraft. Another is economy, and not just in terms of cost. Fuel has to be trucked in to KAF through a limited number of difficult routes, for example. This is challenge enough for geographical reasons, on top of which are frequent successful attacks on convoys. Nothing gets to KAF easily or cheaply or completely reliably.

Arming Predators and Reapers reduces their endurance dramatically, and neither carries a heavy weapon load. Once the single weapon or very small number of weapons have been employed, the launching UAV reverts to a pure ISTAR platform or goes home prematurely, leaving a gap in coverage.

Size of UAVs varies greatly. Many are too small to carry any form of weaponry, but those employing them (often front-line troops) do not think of them as "a waste of tax payers cas$" or "JUNK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - and that includes forces other than Canadian. The ability of troops in contact to see over a wall or on the roof of a building with their own hand-launched UAV can be of great value.

The US Armed Forces - "bigs" - employ a variety of UAVs that cannot be armed.

Unarmed UAVs, even small ones, can be and are used to direct and/or assist artillery, armed helicopters, and manned seized-wing aircraft quite effectively.

UAVs are not, today, replacements for existing platforms and weapons and should not be thought of as such. They are there to compliment them.

Everything and everyone has strengths and weaknesses, which is why we employ complimentary systems of all descriptions.


----------



## tomahawk6

When a UAV detects a target of opportunity manned aircraft can be summoned or the target can be handed off to artillery if it is in range. The nice aspect of an armed UAV is that the target can be struck immediately. There is always a tradeoff.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> When a UAV detects a target of opportunity manned aircraft can be summoned or the target can be handed off to artillery if it is in range. The nice aspect of an armed UAV is that the target can be struck immediately. There is always a tradeoff.



I presume that response time can be mitigated by having arty or CAS in direct support of the UAV mission.


----------



## Loachman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I presume that response time can be mitigated by having arty or CAS in direct support of the UAV mission.



Not done. There is no need, it could limit flexibility, and, besides, we support others rather than receive support.

We provide a live video feed to the pertinent HQs, and report specific things of interest or concern to them. The decision on what to apply, if anything, is made there.

If we are supporting troops on the ground, then there is generally Arty, CCA, or CAS available to them pretty quickly already and we will assist if necessary. If we are conducting an ISR mission, time is not likely to be a factor given the lengthy period for which we will watch something.


----------



## geo

Mr Plow said:
			
		

> Ah Bombardier...Tabernac!!!


Umm... what's the matter with them now ?
Rotax engines are used as snowmobile engines..... not designed for anything special - and there is no particular reason to slag em.


----------



## Galahad

Although Rotax does make snowmobile engines, the engine used in the Heron is a Rotax engine specifically designed for aviation purposes, and it is very common in light aircraft and other UAV's.


----------



## geo

Galahad.... think Mr Plow was slagging the Bombardier Rotax engine used in the Sperwer


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ah the flying lawn mower  ;D


----------



## Galahad

geo said:
			
		

> Galahad.... think Mr Plow was slagging the Bombardier Rotax engine used in the Sperwer



My mistake, I apologise.


----------



## Loachman

And our callsign is, because of this engine, "Skidoo".


----------



## geo

Loachman said:
			
		

> And our callsign is, because of this engine, "Skidoo".


... which would be an "inside" joke


----------



## STA Gunner

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> When a UAV detects a target of opportunity manned aircraft can be summoned or the target can be handed off to artillery if it is in range. The nice aspect of an armed UAV is that the target can be struck immediately. There is always a tradeoff.



And for anyone who has had Predator or Reaper support allocated to them, an armed UAV will be pulled off their task as a matter of first course to apply fires to another target.

It is a real harsh tradeoff.

However, when we were flying ScanEagle, we could by completely silent and gather up information on the target and develop much more intelligence which could lead to a larger strike later on.  This proved much more effective than striking the one guy with RPG the second we saw him.


----------



## McG

STA Gunner said:
			
		

> This proved much more effective than striking the one guy with RPG the second we saw him.


... or on many occasions even more effective that whacking the two guys with shovels planting bombs in the road.  They are easily replaceable to the enemy & it would be far better using them to develop more valuable targets in the depth of the bomber network.


----------



## geo

well.... looks like we have found a buyer for the old Sperwer UAVs.
All remaining UAVs, hulks & parts should be sold off in the near future...
Not sure if the sale will include the slingshot trucks or not but, if it results in a sale.... I say - throw the trucks into the deal


----------



## KevinB

MCG said:
			
		

> ... or on many occasions even more effective that whacking the two guys with shovels planting bombs in the road.  They are easily replaceable to the enemy & it would be far better using them to develop more valuable targets in the depth of the bomber network.



Sometimes...

Its also nice to put the fear into the would be planters that they can be targeted at will.

 As well in urban areas the UAV is not the be all end all, and elluding one can be done relatively simply.

At least the UAV can mark the hotspot and EOD can deal with it -- and friendly C/S can avoid or at least have prior knowledge.


----------



## Loachman

geo said:
			
		

> well.... looks like we have found a buyer for the old Sperwer UAVs.
> All remaining UAVs, hulks & parts should be sold off in the near future...
> Not sure if the sale will include the slingshot trucks or not but, if it results in a sale.... I say - throw the trucks into the deal



We are doing our level best to ensure that there will be as little left as possible.

Nobody wanted the Danish stuff except us, and that was much fresher back then. Who on earth would want our tired remains now?

We have absolutely _*brilliant*_ techs, the only reasons why we are able to provide our current level of service (over twice what we are established to do). _*They*_ should command a high price.

Anybody that buys this with the intent to operate it had better have %$&% magicians.

And if there truly is going to be a sale and that stops our (unofficial) plan to douse the one doing the final flight in fuel and igniting it just before flinging it into the night sky, there's likely to be a mini mutiny.


----------



## geo

Heh... 
The only hint I can provide is that the Sperwer won't have to be shipped very far & would be used by troops that already have something same or similar


----------



## KevinB

Kamikaze UAV?


----------



## geo

LOL... I'll pass on your suggestion if you like Kev.
Who knows - they may have bonuses for good suggestions


----------



## Loachman

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Kamikaze UAV?



This comes up at least once during each mission that my crew does - and probably the other crews as well.

It's a popular notion for a few reasons.


----------



## rampage800

Personally I'm glad Ski-Doo is going to greener pastures but I think then does everyone, to step in on the armed debate yea it would be nice if it was armed but lets not forget on the other hand that there are other agencies flying/controlling armed UAVs over there that have no intention of releasing any weapons nor are they authorized to. Lets not forget that not every person over there planting an IED needs/should be hit, alot of times theres more value in tracking the pers afterwards because no HVTs/MVTs are out there planting them themselves and if you already know where the IED is...................

Just a different perspective.


----------



## Sig_Des

Loachman said:
			
		

> This comes up at least once during each mission that my crew does - and probably the other crews as well.
> 
> It's a popular notion for a few reasons.



I'll be on the look-out for skidoo kamikaze instead of Skidoo touchdown from now on ;D


----------



## GaryM12

Wow. After finding this site and reading now for about a week I realise  that I know nothing about our UAV fleet.....:brickwall:...I guess working on the project, and being in the HHQ on UAV and being engaged in Noctua, Justas, Sperwer and Scan Eagle for the past three years I dont know anything. I want to thank a bunch of you for educating me, and the rest of you for your thought provoking (and educated) responses.


----------



## Strike

GaryM12 said:
			
		

> Wow. After finding this site and reading now for about a week I realise  that I know nothing about our UAV fleet.....:brickwall:...I guess working on the project, and being in the HHQ on UAV and being engaged in Noctua, Justas, Sperwer and Scan Eagle for the past three years I dont know anything. I want to thank a bunch of you for educating me, and the rest of you for your thought provoking (and educated) responses.



Not sure if you're being sincere or sarcastic here.  Considering this is your first post I don't know where the sarcasm would be coming from so I'm going to take that as sincere and give you the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## GaryM12

Strike said:
			
		

> Not sure if you're being sincere or sarcastic here.  Considering this is your first post I don't know where the sarcasm would be coming from so I'm going to take that as sincere and give you the benefit of the doubt.



Strike:
The funny thing about the written word is that one cannot hear inflection thereby not being able to deduce the level of sarcasm, which was my intent. While I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I am of the opinion that ones opinion need to be based on facts, not heresay or rumint. After reading 12 pages of posts about the noctua in particular and UAV's in general I have come to the opinion that there are those who posted up who havent got a F*&%ing clue what they are talking about. We have a new capability in the Air Force that is doing stellar work in support of the Army, and is bringing hurt to the bad guys on a regular basis, without being armed. It is a replacement for another UAV, that did stellar work also but wasnt the direction that we wanted to go in, therefore it was replaced. The follow on iteration (which wasnt reachable in the initial planning, therefore it was sidelined in favor of a contracted capability) will be an all out buy of a bunch of UAV's and the stand up of a UAV Sqn, circa 2014. The Noctua is an operational platform, the Scan Ealge is a tactical platform, each one having a distinct role to play. So again, I would like to thank those who educated themselves about the role UAV's have and will continue to play in the Air Force and CF, and for those who dont know whats going on, just ask. Maybe we can change your opinion.


----------



## Loachman

To avoid continuing on the wrong foot on which you set off, try dropping the sarcasm and being a little more diplomatic and explanatory - at least until people get to know you.

We can all benefit from that, and so, perhaps, can you.


----------



## GaryM12

Loachman said:
			
		

> To avoid continuing on the wrong foot on which you set off, try dropping the sarcasm and being a little more diplomatic and explanatory - at least until people get to know you.
> 
> We can all benefit from that, and so, perhaps, can you.




Roger that. In my own defence I am a Master Warrant Officer and havent had a sense of diplomacy for some time now, but I promise to try.  ;D


----------



## Loachman

Roger, and thanks.

The more input we have here, and the more accurate it is, the better the site is.

There are a few curmudgeonly people here already, so you'll probably fit in reasonably well.

We still expect people to play nicely, however.

Welcome aboard.


----------



## armyvern

GaryM12 said:
			
		

> Roger that. In my own defence I am a Master Warrant Officer and havent had a sense of diplomacy for some time now, but I promise to try.  ;D



Fear not; you are not alone.  8)

Welcome aboard.


----------



## X-mo-1979

BrownTown said:
			
		

> wouldn't having Israelis on our side needlessly put our soldiers at risk? it _is_ a Muslim country, and I don't think the locals would take too kindly to that. I could be entirely wrong, please don't tear me a new a**hole.



No.We already use Israeli mine clearing equipment on the Leopard1.

In regards to the Huron I am disappointed we got it.I never can understand why Canada decides to buy something that we need but make it a little less useful.

We killed many taliban with hellfires from American Pred's and reapers.
If your gonna have to call in other air assets from other countries to bomb what your Huron See's whats the point?And as for the flying skidoo it acted as a good deterrant.....for miles.And the flashing light on it was so bright it would light up our hides.No joke.

I know we already bought it.And I know it was most likely so the Canadian press wouldn't be able to say Canadians are using "killer drones" etc ad nausum.

However I believe its a purchase we will regret,if not already.


----------



## aesop081

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> No.We already use Israeli mine clearing equipment on the Leopard1.
> 
> In regards to the Huron I am disappointed we got it.I never can understand why Canada decides to buy something that we need but make it a little less useful.
> 
> We killed many taliban with hellfires from American Pred's and reapers.
> If your gonna have to call in other air assets from other countries to bomb what your Huron See's whats the point?And as for the flying skidoo it acted as a good deterrant.....for miles.And the flashing light on it was so bright it would light up our hides.No joke.
> 
> I know we already bought it.And I know it was most likely so the Canadian press wouldn't be able to say Canadians are using "killer drones" etc ad nausum.
> 
> However I believe its a purchase we will regret,if not already.



1- Its "Heron"...........not "Huron"
2- We didnt buy the thing..........

You want to critisize, that fine.make sure you have your facts properly lined up first.


----------



## Strike

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> And as for the flying skidoo it acted as a good deterrant.....for miles.And the flashing light on it was so bright it would light up our hides.No joke.



Bash on the Skidoo all you want but the truth is that it's noise was actually an asset by RC(S) and helped to develop a whole new set of tactics for UAVs when trying to determine how ROE applied in various situations.


----------



## X-mo-1979

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> No.We already use Israeli mine clearing equipment on the Leopard1.
> 
> In regards to the Huron Heron I am disappointed we got it.I never can understand why Canada decides to buy something that we need but make it a little less useful.
> 
> We killed many taliban with hellfires from American Pred's and reapers.
> If your gonna have to call in other air assets from other countries to bomb what your Huron See's whats the point?And as for the flying skidoo it acted as a good deterrant.....for miles.And the flashing light on it was so bright it would light up our hides.No joke.
> 
> I know we already bought it And I know it was most likely so the Canadian press wouldn't be able to say Canadians are using "killer drones" etc ad nausum.
> 
> However I believe its a purchase we will regret,if not already.


Gotcha.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Bash on the Skidoo all you want but the truth is that it's noise was actually an asset by RC(S) and helped to develop a whole new set of tactics for UAVs when trying to determine how ROE applied in various situations.



What do you mean?Instead of shooting them you could use less force by driving them away with the skidoo?I know it borders on OPSEC however I don't understand what your getting at.


----------



## Loachman

Absence of a weapon on a UAV is not a big deal, and this has been explained before.

Heron has some useful capabilities that Predator and Reaper lack.


----------



## McG

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You want to critisize, that fine. make sure you have your facts properly lined up first.


... and also (maybe) demonstrate that you've read some of the 172 posts prior to yours: build on the previous discussion instead of wasting everyone's time and taking the debate back to t = 0.


----------



## MarkOttawa

RAAF working with CF and MDA--One wonders if our media will notice, or if our goverment will make any announcement regarding what would seem a nice success for a Canadian company:

AIR FORCE TO BEGIN OPERATING ITS FIRST UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Faulknertpl.cfm?CurrentId=9448



> Minister for Defence, Senator John Faulkner, today announced that the Royal Australian Air Force has acquired Heron Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in close collaboration with Canadian Defence forces.
> 
> “This high resolution intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability will enhance the capability of Australian forces in Afghanistan,” Senator Faulkner said.
> 
> The Heron UAV is a one tonne aircraft capable of medium altitude, long endurance flights. Under Project NANKEEN, the Defence Materiel Organisation has signed a contract with Canadian company MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA) to lease Heron UAV services which will provide high resolution intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability.
> 
> The Australian Defence Force has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Canadian Forces which already operates Heron UAVs in Afghanistan [more here].
> 
> In July 2009 Royal Australian Air Force and Australian Army personnel undertook Heron training in Canada. These personnel have now been absorbed within the Canadian Heron UAV Detachment at Kandahar airfield conducting combat operations in support of ISAF [not, one imagines, how our government would put the role of our Herons].
> 
> This has meant the ADF has rapidly established its Heron capability by drawing on the Canadians’ operational knowledge, experience and facilities.
> 
> “The Australian Government greatly appreciates the assistance of the Canadian Defence Force in this project,” Senator Faulkner said...
> 
> Media Note:
> 
> Imagery is available at:
> http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2009/Sep/20090907/index.htm
> 
> A Heron fact sheet is available at:
> http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/HeronFactSheet.pdf  ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

Drone program to go on hiatus after Afghan mission
Article Link

The Canadian Press

Date: Tuesday Jan. 11, 2011 6:42 AM ET

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The military will ground Canada's spyplane program after the Afghan combat mission ends this summer.

The commander of the prop-driven CU-170 Herons, which operate out of Kandahar Airfield, said the Canadian Forces will disband his squadron once troops pull out of Kandahar.

Maj. Dave Bolton, the new and final commander of Task Force Erebus, said his team will then go on to other jobs within the military.

"There's a lot of very young people that were involved with this program," he said in an interview.

"There's probably going to be a hiatus of somewhere between two and five years. But those people will still be in the military, and those people will have this experience, and they'll be able to move forward with the yardstick when the time comes."

The Herons were leased as part of the independent Manley commission report to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan until 2011.

The vehicles, which are flown by controllers on the ground, help Canada and other members of the U.S.-led coalition keep watch over roads where insurgents are believed to be planting roadside bombs or planing ambushes.

The commander of Canada's air wing in Kandahar, Col. Paul Prevost, lauded the work of Task Force Erebus during a ceremony this week in which Bolton took over command of the drone squad. 
More on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems an odd move, UAV are here to stay and will still be needed for training and any other operations we didn't plan for but is dropped into the military lap. I worked on RPV trials in the 80's, my WO worked on the ones in the 60's. Bandaid solution seems to be the way.


----------



## dapaterson

The Heron was always intended to support the mission in Afghanistan only; there are other initiatives to acquire UAVs for Canada for the long term.


----------



## karl28

I hope that this moves doesn't happen . I think having the UAV in service would still be beneficial to the military even after they are done combat operations in Afghanistan .  I don't see why you couldn't use them in border security patroles or even peace keeping operations should the need every arise to do that kind of mission again .


----------



## Journeyman

Quite often, "nice to have," or even "useful capability," gets trumped by "here's your budget."


----------



## dapaterson

A quick review of the information online would reveal several salient facts:

(1) Canada does not own the aircraft, but, rather, is renting.

(2) Canada is currently looking to buy other UAVs.


Thus, with contracts expiring in line with the move out of KAF, it's entirely logical that this UAV mission would end; just as it's entirely logical that the requirments for a UAV to patrol Canada's domestic airspace may well be different from the requirements in Afghanistan.


----------



## aesop081

karl28 said:
			
		

> I hope that this moves doesn't happen .



It is happening.




> I don't see why you couldn't use them in border security patroles



The RAAF crash in Suffield ( a Heron UAV) should tell you why it is not possible. Than and the fact that border patrol is not the military's job.


The MDA contract for the Heron is soon over and JUSTAS is delayed. Thats all there is to this story.


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Quite often, "nice to have," or even "useful capability," gets trumped by "here's your budget."



And that's what it comes down to.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The public will demand their peace dividend after the mission changes and I fear many things will be on the chopping block/pared back.  WRT the drone issue, I do hope they don't drag their feet too long on it as the skill set/personnel with experience will degrade sooner rather than later.  This is a capability that should not be lost to the CF as I am sure they will be wanting it again some day.


----------



## aesop081

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I do hope they don't drag their feet too long on it as the skill set/personnel with experience will degrade sooner rather than later.



From a payload operator point of view, i dont think the skill fade will be much of an issue. The skills required for them is inherent in thier trade.


----------



## Kirkhill

I think there may be many good reasons NOT to proceed in haste with the UAV projects in Canada.

The biggest one that I can think of is that since 2001 and there has been a massive revolution in aerial reconnaissance.   The militaries of the west have been pumping billions into what are effectively field trials of multiple technologies on multiple platforms and spending vast chunks of that in the software necessary to unclutter the picture and understand all those moving pixels.

Before 2001 the Air Forces and the Navies were leading the ISTAR field and it was all about AWACS, JSTARS, E8s, Nimrod Mk4, ASTOR and Aurora Upgrades.  Global Hawk was an esoteric technology and Predator was fighting for budget space as the poor cousin of Global Hawk.  Some folks were talking about Airships on the looney fringe. 

In the middle of this the Air Force didn't want to know about dollars that flew but didn't need a pilot on board.  The Navy had always being reluctantly spending dollars on its aerial component and the Army wasn't allowed a look in.

Fast forward 10 years.....

The Air Force is dragged kicking and screaming into the UAV game.   The Navy is still about where it was.   Meanwhile the Army (as led by the US Army),
is leading the UAV run fielding all of the following:
radio controlled model aircraft
unpiloted small aircraft
piloted small aircraft
barrage balloons (tethered aerostats) of various dimensions
untethered Hybrid Air Vehicles that will stooge around at 20,000 feet for 3 weeks
GPS guided parachute systems
unmanned helicopters

And coming soon to skies near you -  the High Altitude Airship - operating at 60,000 feet for months.
And Predator has morphed into Reaper which also operates above 50,000 feet
And Global Hawk is still in service and expanding.

Meanwhile the sensor technology has expanded so that more can be seen from greater distances in greater detail more of the time, with different sensors operating on different wavelengths generating composite pictures that the human eye can't generate from the visible spectrum.  Thus Gorgon Stare......

And on the civilian front Radars and Lidar systems on satellites are mapping the Antarctic, detecting lakes and mountains, through kilometers of ice, while archaeologists are using the same technology to map out towns buried under forests for centuries and fields and sand dunes for millenia.


So ..... given all those moving pieces,  what do you want to order?

Enduring satellites?
Just in time satellites?  (recently I was reading about Canada considering building its own rockets)
High Altitude Airships?
Long Endurance Multipurpose Vehicles? (Hybrid Airships)
Global Hawk?
Reaper?
Rivet Joint partnerships?
P8 MPAs?
Aurora Upgrades?
F35s (with their recce capabilities)

And while on the recce subject, what are the implications for surface warship design when it costs a billion pounds (2 Bn CAD) to mount a gimballed radar on a 6000 tonne platform so as to see out to a horizon of 15 to 50 miles?  Why not post an HAA over the fleet like the Army does with JLENS and just downlink the surface picture generated using Gorgon Stare technology?  Your ship now needs a lap top and a USB cable plugged into your Mk41 VLS system to launch appropriate defensive measures.

So where do you want to spend your Buck and a Half?


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So ..... given all those moving pieces,  what do you want to order?
> .....
> P8 MPAs?
> Aurora Upgrades?





> And while on the recce subject



If these 2 aircraft were specialized surveillance aircraft, you could potentialy replace them with UAVs/Sattelites/whatever.

They are combat aircraft and their sensors are, first and foremost, designed to locate the target(s) so that the aircraft can destroy it, not ISR.


----------



## dapaterson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If these 2 aircraft were specialized surveillance aircraft, you could potentialy replace them with UAVs/Sattelites/whatever.
> 
> They are combat aircraft and their sensors are, first and foremost, designed to locate the target(s) so that the aircraft can destroy it, not ISR.



But their sensor suites also provdie a significant ISR capability that has to be included when defining your requirements.  We don't have the resoruces to build massive redundancy everywhere; if the Aurora community can provide a capability, no need to re-create it in the UAV community.


----------



## aesop081

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We don't have the resoruces to build massive redundancy everywhere; if the Aurora community can provide a capability, no need to re-create it in the UAV community.



I'm sorry, thats the point i should have made. Simply arguing that a UAV replacing  P-8/Aurora because a UAV can do surveillance better ( arguable) is ignoring that surveillance is not the P-8/Aurora's primary mission. We ( Canada) require both surveillance and combat mission capability, thus the Aurora upgrades are required regardless.

But this is all sidetrack.....

The MDA contract was for one purpose only and had pre-determined end date. Everyone knew that. JUSTAS is on hold, we knew that a while ago as well.


----------



## MarkOttawa

As for maritime patrol, an idea:

...Civilian maritime patrol *Uppestdate*
http://unambig.com/union-selfishness-and-new-air-force-aircraft/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> As for maritime patrol, an idea:
> 
> ...Civilian maritime patrol *Uppestdate*
> http://unambig.com/union-selfishness-and-new-air-force-aircraft/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



An idea only suitable for domestic operations. We already use non-military assets for domestic maritime surveillance. Those are the Transport Canada Maritime Aerial reconaissance teams (MART) and Provincial Aerospace (PAL) who works for DFO as well as DND.

All this does not remove the need for an armed, military MPA.

[/derail]


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm not going to argue what is the right solution.

I only indulged myself to point out that there are multiple overlaps in capabilities and while a few redundant levels of capability are useful we can't afford multiple levels.

There is always going to be a need for a despatchable capability to prosecute targets and deliver terminal effects (Reaper, P8, Aurora, F35).  Those platforms will also need to have their own sensor suite.  

But .....

Does it make sense to burn gas, wages and bearings to keep platform, sensors, crew and weapons in the air if all you want most of the time is just the sensor package?  You are stuck with having a platform to support the sensors but do you need to keep the crew and weapons aloft in order to maintain a 24/7 watch?

Isn't it better to husband your resources, keep your deployable platforms on the ground, so that they are available to go take a look at items of interest rather than burning avgas constantly patrolling empty seas?

Just thinking....


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Does it make sense to burn gas, wages and bearings to keep platform, sensors, crew and weapons in the air if all you want most of the time is just the sensor package?  You are stuck with having a platform to support the sensors but do you need to keep the crew and weapons aloft in order to maintain a 24/7 watch?



Kirkhill.........

Change  from "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle" to "Uninhabited Aerial System" and re-evaluate what you just posted above. I'm sure what i am trying to say will be clear to you.

Then evaluate that, idealy, you could benefit from having both platforms but can only afford one. Which one allows you to accomplish the majority of the effects you need ?



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> constantly patrolling empty seas?



You dont spend much time out there do you ??


----------



## Kirkhill

I spend no time out there.

I take your point that even uninhabited platforms require a manned ground station.  I believe that was your point?

Having said that: if we are to keep our approaches under surveillance do we have the wherewithal (money, materiel, manpower) to keep all of our approaches under surveillance on a 24/7 basis using manned platforms?  I don't believe that to be the case now or in the past.

Conversely we are approaching the point where we can keep large areas under observation with software alerting a duty operator to a moving target of interest somewhere in a large area.  Then it is a matter of getting a close and personal view.  Then it is a matter of dealing with any identified threats. 

I will never argue against the need for combat systems.  I do, however, wonder how many fully capable combat systems we require versus how many sensor systems.   I don't see the need for a soldier for every policeman even when I see the need for soldiers to back up policemen.  Equally I don't see the need for an aircraft or a missile for every radar.  We have a radar picket that monitors dozens of radars (the North Warning System) but we only have 4 Canadian aircraft on the ground, as a Quick Reaction Force, available to go investigate what those radars turn up.

If we can elevate those radars (and add some decent EO devices) surely we can do the same for incoming surface vessels that we do for incoming aircraft.  And make your critical piece of the puzzle more productive than it is now.

I won't argue against the Aurora Upgrade, or the Aurora Replacement....I only ask if we have limited funds is it better to double up on the number of Auroras (or P8s) or is it better to take some portion of those funds and use them to fund an alternate sensor system that would make the remaining number of units more effective.

If it were up to me I think the layer between the satellites (which we have) and the Aurora (which we have) would be best handled by something like the High Altitude Airship (if they can get it to work) rather than Global Hawks or Reapers.  

The Hawks and Reapers don't really stay up that long and burn a lot of gas. They move too slow, or so it seems, to be an effective Quick Reaction Force over Canadian distances. And although the Reaper is armed I don't believe it is able to carry a sufficient load to cause a significant effect on a large surface vessel.

But, as you well know, I don't know that much about the technical aspects of the trade and so am better off not offering an opinion.

But then again, given the rapid rate of change out there, are there any professionals comfortable offering an "80% solution" that will give a service life of 20 years?


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I take your point that even uninhabited platforms require a manned ground station.  I believe that was your point?



Not only manned ground stations but also maintenance crews, operations staff and everything else. Depending on the mode of operation, a launch and recovery unit at the site of operation is needed separately from those who operate it at a different location, thus nearly doubling the needs. If you want to do remote split operations, better be ready to pay for satellites and everything that comes with that. if you want to do line of sight operations, better be ready to build alot of ground stations, runways and deploy alot of people all over the country.

US military satellite time.......forget that.



> to keep all of our approaches under surveillance on a 24/7 basis using manned platforms?



Who says we need to ? You are making the broad assumption that we have no supporting functions such as intelligence or space based-assets to provide coverage as required.




> Conversely we are approaching the point where we can keep large areas under observation with software alerting a duty operator to a moving target of interest somewhere in a large area.  Then it is a matter of getting a close and personal view.  Then it is a matter of dealing with any identified threats.



I have grown quite skeptical of what glossy brochures say software can do. Never underestimate the Mk1 eyeball and a trained and thinking operator.



> We have a radar picket that monitors dozens of radars (the North Warning System) but we only have 4 Canadian aircraft on the ground, as a Quick Reaction Force, available to go investigate what those radars turn up.



Has anyone said they thought 4 aircraft was enough ? Are those 4 aircraft also required to deliver effects anywhere in the world at any time ?



> If we can elevate those radars (and add some decent EO devices) surely we can do the same for incoming surface vessels that we do for incoming aircraft.  And make your critical piece of the puzzle more productive than it is now.



You would benefit from EW 101...........



> or is it better to take some portion of those funds and use them to fund an alternate sensor system that would make the remaining number of units more effective.



And then what ? And that is making the assumption that what is done now is less than effective than what is required. Maritime domain awareness is one thing the Aurora does. Take that away and you still need all the Auroras we have (and then some). You also add a significant ammount of money ( the UAV itself, the crews and support, satellites to control them, etc...). You cant simply take Aurora funds away as the 18 we have are all required and all their YFR is needed, all for a marginal improvement in coverage ( and no capability to act).
  



> And although the Reaper is armed I don't believe it is able to carry a sufficient load to cause a significant effect on a large surface vessel.



.....and it certainly not capable of handling subsurface contacts either.




> But then again, given the rapid rate of change out there, are there any professionals comfortable offering an "80% solution" that will give a service life of 20 years?



Yup. 20-25 large MPA/MMA types in addition to a contracted UAS capability for deployments such as Afghanistan. 

As for how this relates to the topic at hand, we needed UAVs so we got some for the operation. It has obviously been deemed that this is a capability we can put on hold. I don't necessarily agree but budgets being the way they are now its not surprising. If we go somewhere we once again need that capability, can we just go ahead and rent more ?


----------



## Kirkhill




----------



## dimsum

I had a feeling this was going to happen.  Transport Canada's restrictions on UAVs mean that at this moment, UAVs can't fly outside of Class F military airspace.  In the US (I believe), the Border Patrol UAVs are escorted by a chase plane.  The Heron crash in Suffield didn't help either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was thinking more in regards to the tactical deployment of UAV. Maintaining a small detachment to continue to provide the resource for training and for any immediate deployment would be very useful and frankly the day of the UAV has come to stay for quite some time. Otherwise you are always either begging and borrowing or playing catch up.


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> would be very useful



When "very useful" meets "budget"..........





> and frankly the day of the UAV has come to stay for quite some time.



Yes, we know. I think the entire military knows this. Yet again, the Heron was contracted out as a result of the Manley report and for the current Afghan mission only. That contract is ending, as planned. Hopefuly, the JUSTAS project will be able to continue in the near future.


----------



## Container

We're running into issues in the police world right now with UAV's. There are some incredibly useful applications for us that we could get some serious leg work from but Transport Canada has thus far been uncooperative. I believe the OPP has been lobbying for change, unsuccessfully for three years now.

Not completely applicable but it underlines that its not as easy as "keeping the program" in Canada. 

And police "UAV's" are not nearly as complex, or for what i've seen, as large as the military ones (small though they be).


----------



## dimsum

UAVs can be fairly big.  Heron is about the size of a light single-engine plane (think Cessna 172).  Reaper is larger than that, and Global Hawk is...well, big.


----------



## aesop081

Container said:
			
		

> Transport Canada has thus far been uncooperative.



The RAAF crash in Suffeild has not made them more cooperative. One of the other Sgts in my section was on the Heron course there at the time and after TC said "no more UAVs", they had to go do their flying phase in Israel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Container said:
			
		

> We're running into issues in the police world right now with UAV's. There are some incredibly useful applications for us that we could get some serious leg work from but Transport Canada has thus far been uncooperative. I believe the OPP has been lobbying for change, unsuccessfully for three years now.
> 
> Not completely applicable but it underlines that its not as easy as "keeping the program" in Canada.
> 
> And police "UAV's" are not nearly as complex, or for what i've seen, as large as the military ones (small though they be).



As I mentioned elsewhere, TC took 25yrs to deal with hovercrafts, despite being one of the biggest users thereof in Canada. So grappling with UAV’s will take them a long time.

However are you sure it’s TC causing the issue or perhaps TSB?


_4.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 
4.1 Application 
1.	Transport Canada is responsible for the conduct of civil UAVs. As stated in section 102.01 of the CARs, these regulations do not apply in respect of

1.	military aircraft of Her Majesty in right of Canada when they are being manoeuvred under the authority of the Minister of National Defence, or

2.	military aircraft of a country other than Canada, to the extent that the Minister of National Defence has exempted them from the application of these Regulations pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Act (i.e. foreign military UAVs)

2.	In these cases, the operation of UAVs are not subject to the Canadian Aviation Regulations, but are subject to Military Flying Orders. Military operations being conducted in civil airspace require coordination with NAV CANADA and may require assistance from Transport Canada’s Aerodromes and Air Navigation branch. Where a UAV operator is a civil agency or person and the operation is being conducted in restricted military airspace, the operation will require a Special Flight Operations Certificate issued by Transport Canada, in cooperation with the Department of National Defence in the administration of that airspace.

3.	The staff instructions contained in this document apply to all civil applications to conduct unmanned air vehicle flight operations. In cross border operations, where the UAV pilot is in another state (e.g. control station is in the United States), the Certificate holder is still responsible for compliance with the regulations of the state in which the UAV is operating (i.e. Canada). _ 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/managementservices-referencecentre-documents-600-623-001-972.htm

edit: I don't see anything on the TSB report page either searched 2008 & 2009
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/index.asp


----------

