# Predator Purchase Cancelled



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Apr 2007)

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=dea75e57-fe60-42d9-9c02-725e7e1cdd9e


 Friday » April 20 » 2007 
  
Tories kill sole-source DND contract
$500-million deal for aerial drones from U.S. firm cancelled over optics
  
A Journalist
Citizen Special 


Friday, April 20, 2007


A Defence Department plan to award a sole-source contract to a U.S. firm for aerial drones has been scuttled by the Harper government because of concerns over the optics of ministers pushing through yet another multimillion-dollar deal without competition.

The department wanted to purchase the Predator unmanned aircraft as part of a $500-million program for the surveillance of Canada's coasts as well as for use in Afghanistan, defence sources said.

Under DND's plan, there would have been no competition for the deal and a British Columbia company's proposal to provide the military with drones would have been sidelined in favour of that provided by a U.S. firm.

The timing of the Defence Department plan couldn't have been worse. It was presented last month to Public Works Minister Michael Fortier and other ministers the day after Auditor General Sheila Fraser publicly questioned the government's decision to purchase billions of dollars of military hardware over the last year without any competition.

Cabinet ministers balked at the drone proposal and told military officials they would need to come up with more solid reasons why a $500-million program would go to a firm without competition.

The Harper government has faced continuing criticism for its plans to direct billions of dollars worth of contracts to specific companies, bypassing the more traditional process of allowing firms to compete for such lucrative equipment deals.

Opposition members of Parliament, including Liberal Denis Coderre, Dawn Black of the NDP and Jack Layton, leader of the NDP, as well as Alan Williams, the former senior bureaucrat in charge of equipment purchases for the Defence Department, have raised questions about whether Canada is getting good value using such a non-competitive process to purchase more than $8 billion in new aircraft and helicopters. They argue that competition gets the right equipment at a good price and with maximum benefits to Canadian industry.

Bloc Quebecois MPs, including leader Gilles Duceppe, have questioned whether the contract arrangements have penalized Quebec's aerospace and defence industry.

The government, however, counters that the equipment is needed quickly and there is no time for what could be a drawn-out competitive process.

The Harper government has been relying on a process called an advance contract award notice to direct contracts to specific companies.

Mr. Fortier and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor have denied the advance contract process is a form of sole-source contract. Under the process, the government identifies the specific product from a company that it believes will meet its needs. Other firms are allowed to put forward a case for their products, but defence industry officials readily acknowledge that the process is, in reality, awarding a contract without any competition.

The auditor general has said that advance contract awards are not competitive.

The Defence Department wanted to use the process to buy the Predators from General Atomics in the U.S., which has teamed with General Dynamics of Ottawa.

That proposal would have shut out a competing bid from the B.C. firm MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, which has joined forces with an Israeli company.

Defence officials, however, are not giving up on the Predator and are readying another pitch for the government. The military prefers the Predator, since it is in wide use with U.S. forces.

Defence Department spokeswoman Krista Hannivan said the drone program remains a requirement for the Canadian Forces and it is currently in the development and approval stage.

"Interdepartmental discussions are ongoing in order to determine the best approach for DND, government and Canadians," she said.

Ms. Hannivan said it would be inappropriate to provide further details about the project at this time.

Sources say the failure of the Defence Department's proposal to the government last month on the purchase of the Predator could have been because of poor timing. On the same day, ministers approved the purchase of used Leopard 2 tanks -- a $650-million deal with few industrial benefits for Canadian companies, since the vehicles are being purchased from the Dutch government while other tanks are being borrowed from Germany.

The ministers, however, were reluctant to approve another $500-million deal that would have seen much of the spending directed to a foreign firm.

But some in the Canadian Forces and the defence community believe that since Canada is at war in Afghanistan, the previous methods of contracting for equipment should be altered. Military officials, they argue, know what equipment is best and industrial benefits for Canadian firms should be secondary.

The Defence Department wants the unmanned aircraft operating by the summer of 2009. At least 10 drones would be purchased, though the figure could go as high as 18. The program would also include ground stations and necessary support systems.

In the past, MacDonald Dettwiler officials have highlighted the fact that their aerial drone would carry some of the same types of sensor systems that the company built for the military's Aurora patrol planes. That could provide savings for the Defence Department in regards to training and the supply of parts.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007








Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.


----------



## hoist-monkey (20 Apr 2007)

:'(
I hope this doesn't mean the Predator or whatever we decide to get goes into procurement limbo.


----------



## Scotty Hortonville (20 Apr 2007)

> The timing of the Defence Department plan couldn't have been worse. It was presented last month to Public Works Minister Michael Fortier and other ministers the day after Auditor General Sheila Fraser publicly questioned the government's decision to purchase billions of dollars of military hardware over the last year without any competition.
> 
> Cabinet ministers balked at the drone proposal and told military officials they would need to come up with more solid reasons why a $500-million program would go to a firm without competition.
> 
> The Harper government has faced continuing criticism for its plans to direct billions of dollars worth of contracts to specific companies, bypassing the more traditional process of allowing firms to compete for such lucrative equipment deals.



It is amazingly difficult to seek competition for specific operational material when normally there is one company that makes it.  I can testify to this from a training perspective when working with the Vindicator Drone, there is only one company in the world that makes the props for the darn thing, hard to seek competition to buy them when there is only one. 



> Opposition members of Parliament, including Liberal Denis Coderre, Dawn Black of the NDP and Jack Layton, leader of the NDP, as well as Alan Williams, the former senior bureaucrat in charge of equipment purchases for the Defence Department, have raised questions about whether Canada is getting good value using such a non-competitive process to purchase more than $8 billion in new aircraft and helicopters. They argue that competition gets the right equipment at a good price and with maximum benefits to Canadian industry.
> 
> Bloc Quebecois MPs, including leader Gilles Duceppe, have questioned whether the contract arrangements have penalized Quebec's aerospace and defence industry.
> 
> The government, however, counters that the equipment is needed quickly and there is no time for what could be a drawn-out competitive process.



Actually I see the point here, why buy equipment that has been battle tested, respected and deemed to be the exact niche equipment to fill a deficiency?  Why not not pay the "wheel re-invention engineers" thrice wat we pay for the kit? It is the Canadian way.

And the last time I checked Bombardier didn't make UAVs...

Sorry for the apparent rant of a barely used account, but I was looking over my spouse's shoulder, CdnArtyWife, and she said I should figure out my password and say something.

So wrt relying on Israelis for UAVs, they haven't necessarily pulled their weight with what we got from them already....

While home now on HLTA let me say that buying the Preds would be one of the smartest things we could possibly do, having seen them used to "Find, Fix, and Strike" firsthand.  Just sayin'.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Apr 2007)

Scotty Hortonville said:
			
		

> And the last time I checked Bombardier didn't make UAVs...



Actually Canadair had a very competitive first generation drone program.  It was a joint Canadian / German program (their partner was Dornier) and the CL-89 and CL-289 were purchased by the Germans, French, Brits and I believe the Spanish.  This was followed by the CL-227 or flying peanut.  The programs were both being phased out around the time of the purchase of Canadair by Bombardier IIRC.

Canada, although it paid for much of the development costs of this technology (rememeber that Canadair was a Crown Corporation at one time) never purchased the 89/289 as it had no weapons systems that could make use of the range (like MLRS) and only purchased a limited quantity of 227s.

Dave
(Whose Dad was Deputy Program Mgr of 289...)


Editted for egregious grammatical error


----------



## Armymedic (21 Apr 2007)

It is too bad that our military's operational capabilities are determined by which way the political winds blow...

A group of Preds, with 2-5 satellite comms lines would have opened a whole operational and intelligence window for the CF. 

We could patrolled over areas of the artic,
we could have done overland search and rescue,
we could have live feeds for our commanders to watch operations....

It is sad. Now we remain tied to whatever capability the US has...perhaps that we should throw in the face of the detractors.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2007)

Lets not get too wrapped around tha axle about this. While the Predator is a great piece of kit (and I can say this with total confidence), it is not the be all and end all. If you read the article it says the need is for long range surveillance of Canada's coasts and arctic. Ladies and gentlemen, the Predator is NOT the best platform for that  sort of surveillance, we should be looking at something much more capable like "Global Hawk".

Predator is a great tactical/operational surveillance drone, and the armed version is a big bonus. I can see many places Predator could be useful, but there are other companies which make similar products (check out the inventory of the IAF, for example), so we should be looking long term and for the best possible deal.

That said, we need to crack on with the program, I am sure various vendors will be more than happy to offer a very fast track program with short delivery time-lines.


----------



## Scotty Hortonville (21 Apr 2007)

a_majoor I agree with your points with some caveats-

1) The Global Hawk would be more ideal for Coastal Surveillance, but are we set up strategically and doctrinally to operate something of this magnitude?

2) The Predator (or something similiar) is much needed in A-Stan, the capacity and reliabilty of the Sagem Sperwer falls short of the mark, plagued by a number of issues.

3) Has been my experince in the UAV world that vendors with short deliery timelines have fallen disastrously short of their optimistic promises. In my opinion only we spend too much time reinventing the wheel on these things instead of buying and operating something we know works.


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Apr 2007)

As I read the story I found myself shaking my head in disgust ,it never fails give a politician a choice between actually doing good and just looking good and they will choose looking good every time.
How's that song lyric go again? "Meet the new Boss ,same as the old Boss.Liberal, Conservative ...is there really any difference?


----------



## Flip (21 Apr 2007)

As far as I understand..........

The predator is still a possibility. Just the the process is changed.

I think after the C-17s ,Chinooks, Leopard 2s etc the conservatives are throwing
the opposition a bone on something that isn't as pressing a need as the others.

Look 10 months into the future, I suspect the predators are still there.

( opinion only )


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2007)

Scotty Hortonville said:
			
		

> 1) The Global Hawk would be more ideal for Coastal Surveillance, but are we set up strategically and doctrinally to operate something of this magnitude?



If we are contemplating UAV surveillance assets then we had better get our ducks in a row so we can use these assets effectively. Since Canada has the longest coastline in the world, as well as a vast expanse of uninhabited arctic to cover, we need a vehicle with the longest legs for effective coverage.



> 2) The Predator (or something similiar) is much needed in A-Stan, the capacity and reliabilty of the Sagem Sperwer falls short of the mark, plagued by a number of issues.



Agree totally. I am working in KAF and have nothing but praise for the Predator



> 3) Has been my experince in the UAV world that vendors with short deliery timelines have fallen disastrously short of their optimistic promises. In my opinion only we spend too much time reinventing the wheel on these things instead of buying and operating something we know works.



There are other vehicles currently in production or in service we should look at. If it turns out the Predator wins, then we get the Predator without the whining and snivelling.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> If we are contemplating UAV surveillance assets then we had better get our ducks in a row so we can use these assets effectively. Since Canada has the longest coastline in the world, as well as a vast expanse of uninhabited arctic to cover, we need a vehicle with the longest legs for effective coverage.



The basic structure for employement of a UAV like Global Hawk is already in place. Surveillance of the Canadian maritime AOR is the responsability of MARCOM through RACE(A) and RACE(P) on either coasts.  The taskings for the CP-140 to go and do MPAT's come from those channels. The actual mechanics of the employement of the airframe would have to change but he basic concept of operations at the HQ level remains the same.  The admiral on the west / east coast decides when and where, RACE issues the tasking orders to the Wing controlling the air asset ( Global hawk) and the Aviation unit executes the mission.

When not employed by MARCOM, the asset reverts back to direct 1 Cdn Air Div control for assignment to other missions as needed.

To sum up, take the curent framework, remove the CP-140 and insert UAV, and carry on as normal.


----------



## hoist-monkey (21 Apr 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Heron
http://www.defense-update.com/products/h/Heron-UAV.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-uav-justas-eagle-1.htm

Links to the Mcdonald-Dettwiler/IAI drone.

I can't find out if it can be armed like the MQ-9 Reaper (Predator B).


----------



## Northernguardian (21 Apr 2007)

CDN Aviator said:

 "To sum up, take the curent framework, remove the CP-140 and insert UAV, and carry on as normal."

Since when can a UAV do ASW? A drone with a camera can't see underwater. Is there MAD on the drone, sonos, acoustics? 

The predator is a great tool on the battlefield, and we should have them now. But to think that you can replace a CP-140 with a UAV doesn't make sense to me. Carry on as normal? I was under the impression that ASW was a major role of the CP-140.

In case you haven't heard, the Chinese will have more subs than the USA by 2011. Russia just launched the first of their new Borei class nuclear subs on April 15th. Your drones better be good, cause ASW is going to be very very important in the future.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Apr 2007)

Northernguardian said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator said:
> 
> "To sum up, take the curent framework, remove the CP-140 and insert UAV, and carry on as normal."
> 
> ...




 :

Where did i say i wanted UAVs to do ASW ?

Is it realy necesary to send out a fully kitted-out CP-140 to go ID tankers and container ships out in the AOR ?  Would it not be more efficient to send out a UAV like Global Hawk, that doesnt require a crew of 10 to go out for 10 hours, 1500 miles from base, in order to accomplish the routine patrol mission.  We already use PAL to do some of this mission and their King Air is not ASW capable.

In light of the recent cuts in CP-140 YFR, would it not make more sense to use those hours more wisely for ASW training, rather than routine patrols  ?

I dont know who you are, what you do, or what your experience is, but after 1000 hours in the CP-140, i'm well aware of its missions, what i need to be good at them and the threat we face


----------



## cameron (21 Apr 2007)

While I believe in fair competition and giving everyone a chance, someone needs to point out to certain opposition politicians that if the CF hadn't been so badly neglected in the past, then the current administration won't need to use the sole source acquisiton system to bring urgently needed capabilities to the field.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2007)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I always thought that good military procurement started with a users requirement being met by whatever type of equipment.



Thats not the Canadian way......... :


----------



## HItorMiss (22 Apr 2007)

First thing we ask is...

1. Is it built in Quebec?
2. Is it built anywhere else in Canada?
3. If not in Canada can the patent be sub contracted to a manufacturer in Canada?

You see where this is going LOL


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2007)

Here, reproduced from today’s _National Post_ under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act is a signed editorial by Sen. Colin Kenny: 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=978d3587-5d92-46df-9de2-f74de4945bcf



> Canadians should do right by our soldiers
> 
> *National Post*
> 
> ...



I am not so bold as to drift out of my lanes and discuss the relative merits of one UAV over another but:

1.  I agree fully with Sen. Kenny that the existing defence procurement system “is so bogged down in Byzantine procedure and interfered with by outside interests that, even if the right equipment is purchased, it is often outdated by the time it is finally put to use.”

2.  I understand that reforming the system must be a major, government-wide process which will upset – infuriate – many Canadian political and business interests. Only a majority government which is not beholden to the (*partially but importantly* Québec based) aerospace and defence industry and which is not afraid of alienating the civil servants in a few key Eastern Ontario/West Québec ridings can afford, early in its mandate, to undertake the process.

Until real, necessary reform can be undertaken selected sole-source procurements are the best answer – until the government-of-the-day loses its courage in the face of ill-informed, contrived media outrage.


----------



## GAP (13 Jul 2007)

I think the government-of-the-day has already lost its courage in the face of ill-informed, contrived media outrage. They are gunshy of the media, and are showing it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jul 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think the government-of-the-day has already lost its courage in the face of ill-informed, contrived media outrage. They are gunshy of the media, and are showing it.



+1....sadly.

I expected more "stones" from Mr. Harper.



Matthew.   ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jul 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> +1....sadly.
> 
> I expected more "stones" from Mr. Harper.
> 
> ...



Still I believe he has more stones then the two alternatives in Dion and Layton.


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Jul 2007)

Bottom line, no predators for the troops


----------



## geo (13 Jul 2007)

Heh, the predators are politicians


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jul 2007)

If they can provide sustained flight, and watch, over the routes driven by our guys. If they could spot and fire on the insurgents burying IEDs on those routes. I think their purchase is more than justified. Perhaps that's the selling point that the CF has to push.


----------



## geo (14 Jul 2007)

WRT the Sperwer, I was under the impression that they had managed to get the bugs out of the system and that they were providing a good accounting of themselves these days... 


http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/sperwer.htm

Sperwer Operators:
The system is currently in use with the Canadian, which deployed the system in Afghanistan. It is also used by the Swedish (dubbed UGGLAN), Dutch forces, and was recently acquired by the Greek Army. A derivative of the Sperwer - System de Drone Tactique Intermediare (SDTI) is also in operation with the French Army. It entered service in 2003 as a replacement for Sagem's Crecerelle system. According to some reports, Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia are also interested in this system. The Sperwer was first deployed to Afghanistan in 2003 as part of the ISAF. Since March 2006 the UAV is back in Afghanistan for operations in the Kandahar region.

Canada Order More Sperwers
Canada procured SPERWER TUAVs in 2003 to meet requirements for Operation ATHENA, Canada's contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. In in Decembert 2005 Canada announced the procurement of five additional Sperwers at a cost of C$15 million covering attrition, maintaining system availability throughout the vehicle's repair and turn-around time. The UAVs were delivered in early 2006 by Oerlikon-Contraves Canada, acting as Canadian prime contractor for France's SAGEM. Following the deactivation of the Danish Army Sperwer unit, Canada acquired the Danish systems, which will reinforce its UAV fleet. The Danish systems will be standardized by Sagem to the Canadian configuration (ground station and aerial vehicles).




May 17, 2007


The CU-161 Sperwer reached the 1,000 hour mark on March 28.  
 http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?cat=114&id=3289

By Major Mark Wuennenberg

The Canadian Forces CU161 Sperwer, Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV), reached a major milestone during its current deployment to Kandahar, Afghanistan.  On March 28, 2007 the TUAV Flight, now in its 3rd rotation, surpassed the 1000-hour mark. This occurred while conducting a night operation in support of  Canadian RECCE troops.  During this flight, Capt James Atwood, Bdr Jim Aucoin and Bdr Michael May conducted an overwatch mission in the Nalgham region southwest of Kandahar.


The CU161 provides the Canadian Battle Group with a day/night, thermal imaging system able to cover large distances without putting soldiers lives at risk.  The system has been so successful that it has converted many sceptics.  In a speech to the TUAV flight personnel LCol Lavoie, a recent Canadian Battle Group commander, stated that he was very happy to see the TUAV flight exceed his expectations.  He praised the personnel for directly saving the lives of his troops and credited the TUAV system with assisting in the reduction of the number of enemy to the tunes of hundreds.


As one of the Air Force capabilities deployed directly to Kandahar Airfield, the TUAV flight is unique in that personnel from both the Air Force and the Land Force make up its composition.  The current ROTO comprises 56 personnel with the majority of the Air Force personnel from 403 HOTS (CFB Gagetown) and the Land Force personnel mainly coming from 4 Air Defence (AD) Regiment (Moncton).


----------



## cameron (14 Jul 2007)

What I consider even worse than the army not having UAV's is not having UCAV's to make up for their lack of attack helicopters.


----------



## geo (14 Jul 2007)

Uhhh... we do have UAVs..... TUAVs to be more precise.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Jul 2007)

This is interesting....


Matthew.    



> Robot Air Attack Squadron Bound for Iraq
> Jul 15, 1:59 PM (ET)
> By CHARLES J. HANLEY
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (16 Jul 2007)

Hmmm.... shades of the Terminator's attack drones.


----------



## GAP (16 Jul 2007)

Is Canada going to consider these, or are they going to stick to rubber band windups?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Jul 2007)

Duct tape, helium baloons, digital camera with a good zoom lens, GPS  and one politician.

Canada's answer to the Predator, once we contract out and get the bidding started...

It might cost a few dollars to fly all the useless politicians over to Afghanistan but it would be well worth it!!  We'd also be getting more use out of them than what they do now!


----------

