# Germany looking to sell costly, rarely used drone to Canada



## Dale Denton (24 Sep 2018)

Germany looking to sell costly, rarely used drone to Canada
https://apnews.com/661a25f7ec9144d9b9fcc7f1980e002d?utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter



> BERLIN (AP) — Germany is looking to sell a secondhand surveillance drone that has cost the country more than 700 million euros ($823 million) to Canada — without many core components it needs to fly.
> 
> A defense ministry reply to lawmakers from the opposition Left Party states that Germany has decided to “begin concrete negotiations with Canada for the sale of the Euro Hawk aircraft, two ground stations and possibly certain spare parts.”
> 
> The government response, dated Sept. 19 and obtained by The Associated Press, adds that Germany isn’t currently in talks with any other country or organization about the sale of the drone.



Maybe for NASP/Transport Canada flights to the North? Wouldn't need every part replaced, although I have no idea what i'm talking about with UAVs.

Thoughts? Bad or terrible decision if Canada bought it?


----------



## dimsum (24 Sep 2018)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Germany looking to sell costly, rarely used drone to Canada
> https://apnews.com/661a25f7ec9144d9b9fcc7f1980e002d?utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter
> 
> Maybe for NASP/Transport Canada flights to the North? Wouldn't need every part replaced, although I have no idea what i'm talking about with UAVs.
> ...



If it doesn't have all of those things required, it'd be a terrible idea.  Also, it'd need to be certified to fly in domestic airspace.


----------



## Sub_Guy (24 Sep 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> it'd be a terrible idea.



So what you are saying is, we can expect to hear that our new UAV Sqn will be based out of Goose Bay within the next few months?


----------



## blacktriangle (24 Sep 2018)

Goose Bay? Yep, that should help air crew recruiting/retention !!!


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Sep 2018)

Will someone explain, using little words for this old soldier, a few points:

a. how many vehicles does this involve;

b. is the launch and recovery capability deployable:

c. what is the airborne endurance; and

d, how vulnerable is it?


----------



## dimsum (24 Sep 2018)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Will someone explain, using little words for this old soldier, a few points:
> 
> a. how many vehicles does this involve;
> 
> ...



Not a lot of details, but it looks like one airframe and 2 Ground Control Stations (imagine half of a shipping container).  The launch/recovery would be deployable but the main GCS would probably be somewhere else.  

Euro Hawk, assuming it's the same as Global Hawk, has over 24 hours (probably more) flying at or above airliner altitudes.  At those altitudes, you'd need a good SAM to take it down.

As for Goose Bay, I'm assuming Dolphin Hunter was joking about the 2006-ish campaign promise by the Conservatives to re-invigorate GB by putting in a Battalion and a UAV Sqn there.  Logistically/financially/socially it would make no sense since the main operating base and mission crews can literally be anywhere (ahem Ottawa), and the launch/recovery units can go with the planes.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Sep 2018)

We're buying old and broken fighters, why not a broken drone missing pieces too? Would fit in with the Upholder purchase.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Sep 2018)

I assume a drone capability is already present within the CAF that we can build on, which means that (if we buy it) this would fit seamlessly into our current corporate strategy, logistics support program and doctrine, right?


----------



## blacktriangle (24 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I assume a drone capability is already present within the CAF that we can build on, which means that (if we buy it) this would fit seamlessly into our current corporate strategy, logistics support program and doctrine, right?



We already have plenty of drones. Just get off at Mackenzie King Station in Ottawa.


----------



## dimsum (24 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I assume a drone capability is already present within the CAF that we can build on, which means that (if we buy it) this would fit seamlessly into our current corporate strategy, logistics support program and doctrine, right?



 :rofl:

*snort*


----------



## dapaterson (24 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I assume a drone capability is already present within the CAF that we can build on, which means that (if we buy it) this would fit seamlessly into our current corporate strategy, logistics support program and doctrine, right?



Exactly!  The RCA already operates UAVs; clearly, they should subsume the RCAF's fledgling drone capability.  I mean, they already have NCMs flying, so they're ahead of the RCAF on that front...







Image source: https://defence.frontline.online/article/2007/6/1084-CF-Unmanned-Projects


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Sep 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> We already have plenty of drones. Just get off at Mackenzie King Station in Ottawa.



You, Sir, win the Internet for today  :nod:


----------



## dimsum (24 Sep 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Exactly!  The RCA already operates UAVs; clearly, they should subsume the RCAF's fledgling drone capability.  I mean, they already have NCMs flying, so they're ahead of the RCAF on that front...



They do, but the hand-thrown ones and Euro Hawk (wingspan of a 737) aren't in the same sport, let alone the same league.  The RCA's operators don't have to coordinate with ATC (not just local but wide-area terminal and centre), talk to other airplanes and fly under Instrument Flight Rules, which is an specific licence for civilian pilots.  They operate only in military airspace and have protected airspace specifically for that reason, while the RCAF ones would be flying amongst civilian traffic and dealing with ATC.

This is one of the reasons why the term "drone" is misleading; most people think of the quadcopters or hand-thrown ones, when there are different tiers based on size and endurance.  I guess it's analogous to everything painted green and mobile being called a "tank"   :nod:

ETA:  Below is a picture of a U-2 spy plane (left) and a Global Hawk UAV (right, with the white wings) for perspective.  The other boxy things in the centre and the top right are pickup trucks (prob Ford F-150 or so).






And to show the height of the Euro Hawk with person for scale:


----------



## dapaterson (24 Sep 2018)

Clearly, I forgot to add a  ;D smiley.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Sep 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> They do, but the hand-thrown ones and Euro Hawk (wingspan of a 737) aren't in the same sport, let alone the same league.  The RCA's operators don't have to coordinate with ATC (not just local but wide-area terminal and centre), talk to other airplanes and fly under Instrument Flight Rules, which is an specific licence for civilian pilots.  They operate only in military airspace and have protected airspace specifically for that reason, while the RCAF ones would be flying amongst civilian traffic and dealing with ATC.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why the term "drone" is misleading; most people think of the quadcopters or hand-thrown ones, when there are different tiers based on size and endurance.  I guess it's analogous to everything painted green and mobile being called a "tank"   :nod:



I think he was being tongue in cheek, but it's hard to tell sometimes with tornado survivors


----------



## dimsum (24 Sep 2018)

I argue (in real life) about this often enough that what I said and the pics I posted are practically "actions on".   :nod:


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Sep 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're buying old and broken fighters, why not a broken drone missing pieces too? Would fit in with the Upholder purchase.


One person's junk is another person's gold? Glass half full?  We'll buy this for sure, along with the Aus F18.
Even the USMC is playing junkyard dog these days!  https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/modern-day-marine/2018/09/24/from-boneyard-to-brand-new-outside-contractor-gives-new-life-to-h-53-helos/


----------



## CBH99 (24 Sep 2018)

The US is the all-time king of buying unneeded or unwanted military gear, just to keep politically important districts employed.


The US Navy only wanted 1 LCS this year, Congress authorized 3.  

Remember a few years ago, a big order of Abrams tanks purchased for the US Army that the US Army said they didn't need, nor want due to maintenance and storage issues.  

Yearly orders of Ah-64 Apache, Chinooks, Black Hawks/Sea Hawks, C-130J, Strykers, etc etc.... some of which the services openly state they "do not require".  They then try to sell off their older models, and help use that to pay for the constantly inflow of fairly new equipment.


The fact that the USMC had to salvage 2 old helicopters from a Boneyard after sitting in the elements for years is simple translation = guessing the factory that builds Sea Stallions isn't in a very important political district.  They should relocate their factory next to the LCS shipyards, the senators & congressmen from that district seem to have some say...???


----------



## FJAG (24 Sep 2018)

This is not junk that we want. This project--a Euro version of the Global Hawk--went badly off the rails for Germany. Conceived in 2001 by a Social Democrat and Greens coalition government it came to it's end when the aircraft basically failed to obtain certification to fly in Europe's airspace and other issues. It's an old (2013) airframe although hardly used. 

https://www.dw.com/en/the-euro-hawk-scandal-a-chronicle/a-16856113

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Sep 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> This is not junk that we want. This project--a Euro version of the Global Hawk--went badly off the rails for Germany. Conceived in 2001 by a Social Democrat and Greens coalition government it came to it's end when the aircraft basically failed to obtain certification to fly in Europe's airspace and other issues. It's an old (2013) airframe although hardly used.
> 
> https://www.dw.com/en/the-euro-hawk-scandal-a-chronicle/a-16856113
> 
> :cheers:



If it's European it will be demanding 8 weeks of paid vacation annually, as well as an automatic save from the USA in the event of a real war


----------



## Underway (25 Sep 2018)

I suppose it depends on how much you can buy it for.  If it come for a bag of pucks, then it might be worth it, as the rest of the expense will be to "refit it" up to whatever standards are needed to fly.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If it's European it will be demanding 8 weeks of paid vacation annually...



That’s 8-weeks of vacation not including “family month” (August), right? 

#EuropeanVacationwasntjustamovie ;D


----------



## dapaterson (25 Sep 2018)

Buy the ground stations for cheap, then buy a squadron's worth of MQ-4C Tritons (say 8 or so).  Three each for Comox and Greenwood, with two rotating out for extended overhaul periods at any given time.  Operators could be anywhere.

And keep the Euro model for spare parts.

Rough guess: the RCAF could do this for about $1.5B (acquisition); I have no idea what the operating costs would be, but I anticipate they would be lower than the equivalent YFR from an Aurora.  (Not to say that these would replace Auroras - they would be complementary).


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Sep 2018)

Another white elephant the CAF could be saddled with. Facepalm 🤦‍♂️


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Sep 2018)

Quick.  Let's make up a "capability gap" and take advantage of this limited time offer!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Sep 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Quick.  Let's make up a "capability gap" and take advantage of this limited time offer!



It is almost like you have seen this before, Max.


----------



## dimsum (25 Sep 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is almost like you have seen this before, Max.



 :nod:


----------

