• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

UAVs....... hand me downs?

geo

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Anyone else catch this....

The Danish military is junking its $92-million aerial drone program after running into numerous technical problems and is now hoping to sell the troubled aircraft to Canada, which still plans to operate the system for its Afghanistan mission. The Danes pulled the plug on the Sperwer unmanned aerial vehicle, pictured, several weeks ago, and are now in negotiations with Oerlikon Aerospace, the Quebec firm which supplies the Canadian Forces with its drones. Two Canadian Sperwers were written off in crashes in Afghanistan, and the robot planes made headlines after a series of other malfunctions and incidents in 2003 and 2004 in Kabul.
 
MND Oconner could set a good president for his tenure by flat out refusing these flying pigs (to my limited access/understanding this equipment had marginally reliability in Astan).
 
(president = precedent)

If you want to look at the overview from the directorate of flight safety's crash reports on the TUAVs...http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/docs/Reports/fti_e.asp

From what I've read, it looks like most of it's problems have to do with Parachute deployment.

As for marginal reliability?... there's been arguments about who is best qualified & suited to fly em... at present, the Artillery have em. Are the AirForce better capable of keeping em up?
 
Thanks GEO, I should have done a spell check.  :p

Are there any of this model of UAV ( Sperwer ), still operational with the CF, or have they all crashed, become non-operational?
 
There are indeed still operational, and the airforce is deploying on this Roto with them (based on 408 Sqn along with some gunners from out east I believe).  They have been training with them for at least the past year.  The current edition of the Maple Leaf has two articles on it.

The Sperwer had a tough go in Kabul.  The conditions were extremely demanding.  The airframes became non-serviceable due to a variety of factors (very high launch pressures leading to damage, hard landings, and the two crashes).  We had two very small recovery zones and the terrain in the recovery zones was not forgiving.  

As one of the guys who was responsible for supporting the TUAV Tp during ATHENA Roto 0 (I was the AO of the ISTAR Company), if the Danish CDS had called me in Dec 03 with an offer for airframes I would have gladly accepted!

Cheers,

2B
 
Sat through my annual DFS flight safety breif yesterday and one of the subjects was the UAV crash of 30 june 2004.  First loss of contact was cause by loss of comunications with the UAV.  From what was explained to us , the prewer UAV is line-of-sight and the local terrain got in the way.  Crash was caused but an electrical cable that shorted out causing loss of power to the UAV.  When power was lost, the UAV automaticaly went into recovery mode and on landing impactied a local dwelling.

best i can remember from the breifing....it was a long one !!
 
Its been two years since I was involved, but in my recollection the Sperwer is indeed line of sight.  The Jun 04 crash was after my time there.

Although I was not in the UAV Tp, they were in my Company so I feel a certain loyalty and attachment to the program, especially to the gunners and airforce guys that came together to make it work.  There were problems, but they (we) did face huge obstacles.  The Sperwer did bring an excellent capability to the table.  It had an outstanding optics package and could deliver real-time imagery. 
 
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060209/cit/060209aw.htm

Denmark junks unreliable drones: Danes hope to sell trouble-prone craft to Canadian Forces

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Danish military is junking its $92-million aerial drone program after running into numerous technical problems and is now hoping to sell the troubled aircraft to Canada, which still plans to operate the system for its Afghanistan mission.

The Danes pulled the plug on the Sperwer unmanned aerial vehicle several weeks ago and are now in negotiations with Oerlikon Aerospace, the Quebec firm that supplies the Canadian Forces with drones.

Danish military officials, who tried to operate the Sperwer for several years, but were plagued by various malfunctions, cited the poor performance of the aircraft in Canadian hands as one of the reasons they decided to scrap their program. Two Canadian Sperwers were written off in crashes in Afghanis-tan and the robot planes made headlines after a series of other malfunctions and incidents in 2003 and 2004 in Kabul.

Despite the problems, the Canadian military recently announced it was spending another $15 million to buy more Sperwers for its new Kandahar mission. It had already spent $33 million for the purchase of the French-made aircraft.

If the deal between the Danes and Oerlikon goes through, the used Sperwers would be offered to the Canadian military so crews could be trained at home before being sent to Afghanistan. Air force spokes-man Capt. Jim Hutcheson said no one was available to discuss the Sperwer until next week.

But Bill Gelling, an aerospace consultant with Oerlikon, confirmed the firm is in discussions to buy some of the Danish equipment so the Canadian Forces would have enough to train with while its main fleet of drones is in Afghanistan.

There is no formal deal yet with the Canadian Forces and the negotiations with the Danes is an Oerlikon initiative.

Mr. Gelling said the Sperwers operated by Canada are different from those used by the Danes. They would have to be modified if the Canadian military decided to make use of them.

But the Sperwers have caused ongoing headaches for the Danish military, which acquired the drones in May 2001. Following a series of incidents, the Danish air force introduced a ban on flights for varying periods in 2003, 2004 and 2005. In June, military officials recommended the project be shut down.

Danish defence chief Gen. Jesper Helsoe justified the decision by noting the Canadian Forces lost several Sperwers in Afghanistan and is going through some of the same problems.

"The performance of the drones has been worse than expected," Defence Minister Soren Gade told a parliamentary committee several weeks ago. He cited "unresolvable technical problems" with the UAVs.

"They failed to operate in Iraq's desert heat and were unable to take off from high-altitude runways in Afghanistan," he said.

Sperwer is built by Sagem, based in France. Denmark turned down the company's offer of new upgraded models. Officials with Sagem said the drone sold to Canada is based on newer technology. Oerlikon acts as Sagem's prime contractor for the sale of drones to the Canadian Forces.

Mr. Gelling said Sperwer's performance with the Canadian military has improved substantially since its missions in Kabul. So far, there have been 165 flights in Canada and Afghanistan and only two of the aircraft have been destroyed in crashes, he said. Those incidents took place in the early days of operations in Afghanistan.

A 2004 Canadian air force investigation determined the Sperwer, while performing well once it got airborne, had problems in both takeoff and landing as well as various design flaws. It predicted the military would experience a "high vehicle attrition" in using the aircraft, noting that out of 36 initial launches in Afghanistan there were 14 incidents, including five accidents.

The UAVs were rushed into service in November 2003 without the proper support mechanisms in the place, officers also concluded. Since the army didn't have the capability to conduct repairs in the field, the damaged drones had to be sent back to the manufacturer's plant in France. At one point a series of crashes in early 2004 left the army without any UAVs, forcing it to rely on the German military for information provided by its aerial drones.

Other Canadian military officials blame the high altitude and winds in the Kabul area for Sperwer's poor performance.

The Canadian Forces plans to send Sperwers to Afghanistan shortly for its Kandahar operation
 
Yup, the Sperwer is definately Line of Site operations. One of the big probs we had in Kabul.
It will be interesting to see if they buy any stuff off the Dutch as the two systems are very different. Maint nightmare to say the least and now that the AF has the responsibility for them, I wonder if they will continue with it. Definately not what they had in mind for a UAV capability (not really our either...)
 
If we are serious about geting a usefull UAV force I think we should be looking to the states. perhaps the global hawk might be a good option. i also think that it might be benifitial to look into aquiring some of those new UACV that boeing is making. might be a good idea for a military short on people to have kit that doesnt require them.
 
ChopperHead said:
If we are serious about geting a usefull UAV force I think we should be looking to the states. perhaps the global hawk might be a good option. i also think that it might be benifitial to look into aquiring some of those new UACV that boeing is making. might be a good idea for a military short on people to have kit that doesnt require them.

Global hawk is not a tactical UAV.  More of a theatre level asset that a BG would not control.

Your lane is getting far.....
 
The Global Hawk is way to big and expensive for our Military (IMHO). I don't think they are even considering it.

We would be much better of getting something in the MALE category (such as the Predator B or the IAI heron). But I do agree that the US is the way to go Israel a very, very close second, maybe even a tie. That being said, they are theatre assets, not something for a BG or  bde level event in the places that we go. We need something of the Tactical UAV class or smaller (Small UAV and Mini UAV) and the Army is going towards that now that the AF have taken resp of TUAV and higher.
My pref would have seen us get the Shadow200, like the US Army. 1/3rd the people, 1/5 the veh requirement and about 1/3 the size. Less payload but similar performance and a way, way better track record. Also looks like a better future too.

UCAV....well, not my call, but i think it will be awhile before they get the technology and get over the autonomous nature of the engagement (even though there is a guy in the loop). I don't see the diff of bombing from 30K ft with a laser guided bomb from a manned platform or unmanned, but that is a sticking point for some people. However, in the end I don't think you will save on people that much. There still is a crew and they still reqr maint pers too.
 
Question: If LOS is one of the technical hurdles (operations in mountainous Afghan vs Manitoba), why not have a tethered balloon or blimp, to act as a poor mans relay/satellite feed?
 
Haha there is an idea. Actually I was thinking about that earlier for a different problem (extending the VHF ranges).

We can extend the range of the LOS by using another Air Vehicle. Essentially one flies over the camp (or half way there) and relays control of the further veh. This overcomes the LOS issue and lets us extend the range (90km to one bird then another 90km to the other). It takes a lot of trg and mission time under the belt of the operator because he is essentially operating two AV at once, bouncing back and forth. The Dutch (who have the SPerwer) don't do it til after the guy has had something like 50 Msn experience. Do not know if we will try it this time. Our guys have more experience now.

As for the balloon, SAGEM hasn't built one yet and would probably charge us an arm or a leg. Also I don't know if it is feasible or not due to the wind moving the balloon around. Should be possible though.
 
If I recall correctly, during the last summer Olympics in Athens, the Greeks used a unmanned high tech blimp to keep round the clock observation on what ever they wanted in a large area around Athens. Now this was not a relay station but the actual platform for the eavesdropping and camera equipment.

I am thinking that:
1. A blimp is cheaper to use than a conventional winged aircraft of similar lift potential.
2. The said blimp is not inhibited by high-altitude thin air, except for issues with high winds.
3. A blimp can stay on station for a longer amount of time especially if you build it with solar panels on its top surfaces to collect power for its electrical systems.

Just some ideas I have been reading about...
 
Yes, they have massive ability for payload and endurance. But like you said they have problems with winds (interestingly one of the probs of using for surv in the north), they present a big target, and they are pretty slow, which makes them tactically less then ideal. They would be good for things like camp security where you require long surveillance times and the belligerents know you are there. Or maybe at a static OP with the video going back to the ISTAR CC (or where ever) and the OP just keeps an eye one it. Send out a maint team once a week or so. That and using them as RRB would be good too.

Funny you should mention the Greeks using it for the Olympics. I didn't know that. I do know they too bought the Sperwer for use as security during the Olympics. Wonder if they ran into probs too and ditched it or couldn't make it work in time....
 
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001488.html

Blimps, Marines, Iraq, Relay.

Cheers. :)
 
Upon further thought I doughty that the blimp as the surveillance platform would work in As-tan.  High mountains afford a vantage point for a pot shot, and possibly the availability of light-AAA to the bad guys makes an inviting target for a large slow moving asset running a surveillance circuit.

I still like the idea of some sort of balloon tethered to the command location and floating at high altitude as a relay station.  I am not certain if an oscillating balloon from high winds is an insurmountable problem for keeping a comm carrier wave in sync with the surveillance platform.  

PS.  re "Blimps, Marines, Iraq, Relay." Thanks Kirkhill, exactly what I was dreaming of. 8)
 
aesop081 said:
Global hawk is not a tactical UAV.  More of a theatre level asset that a BG would not control.

Your lane is getting far.....

I just said the Global Hawk as a for instance. my main point was to look to the US for the UAV's.

We cant get the tunnle vison here again. what i mean is sure we might only need a small tactical UAV now but what would be wrong with aquiring some bigger theatre level assets? would it not be benificial to have an actaul UAV force and not just a handfull of small tactical drones? perhaps a combination of the larger and smaller ones and once the US can get the kinks out of the UCAV possibly pick up some of those as well.

While I may not be a pilot or a scientist im not an idiot. I can look and see that putting all our eggs in one basket is not a good thing. Diversifing our capabilities seems more logical.
I think UAV's are the defently the future and we need to jump on this before we once again get left behind and have to catch up.

UCAV looks very feasable option for us. We dont require a pilot so no worries about man power or the high cost of training. while I dont think they should be replacing manned fighters anytime soon if ever. they would go far to augment our airforce without having to train and pay pilots. so in the long run we save money, alot of money.

but I am completly out of my lane here and these are just my opionions but still they are valid points so dont dismiss them just cause of that. I would seriously like to know why if you dont agree. not just another your an idiot or something post.
 
Back
Top