Why the CF do not have Predator UAVs for Afstan

Sen. Colin Kenny rounds up the usual suspects:

Consider Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), unoccupied aircraft that the military can send up into the sky to conduct reconnaissance, or even -- in some armed manifestations -- to strike at the enemy.

Canada has been using Sagem Sperwer tactical UAVs to conduct reconnaissance in Afghanistan. Manufactured in France, the Sperwers are outdated, surpassed by the Global Hawk, a high-altitude, long endurance vehicle, and the Predator, a medium-altitude long endurance vehicle. Both are U.S.-made. The Global Hawk is designed for reconnaissance; the armed Predator is designed for both reconnaissance and interdiction.

Comparing the Sperwer to these aircraft is a bit like comparing a Second World War Spitfire to an F-18 fighter jet.

In Afghanistan, the Sperwers have proven themselves somewhat unreliable and difficult to operate in winds and dust and heat. They are also prone to hard landings on return. Repairs aren't always possible...

...Why, if we value our troops the way our bureaucrats, politicians and journalism say we do, are we satisfied to equip them on the cheap?

Here are three reasons: Canadian bureaucracy, Canadian politics and Canadian journalism [emphasis added].

First, bureaucracy. There are numerous checks and balances on government spending in all departments. Unfortunately the dragged-out purchasing procedure that might make sense in many departments often makes little or no sense when it comes to making what should be urgent purchases in the Department of National Defence (DND).

If you wish to mire yourself in what the senate committee on national security and defence dubbed "the ponderous pace of procurement" at DND, visit the committee's Web site at www.sen-sec.ca and check out pp. 109-117 of the report Wounded: Canada's Military and the Legacy of Neglect. What you will discover is that the purchase of any major piece of military equipment 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procedure and interfered with by outside interests that, even if the right equipment is purchased, it is often outdated by the time it is finally put to use.

Secondly, government: The "new" Conservative government has on several occasions done what our committee has been recommending for years. It has not, so far, mustered the courage to go out and buy the UAVs that everyone knows are light years ahead of the Sperwers in terms of range, flight time, durability, reliability and capacity to deliver near-real-time intelligence that can help protect our troops from roadside bombs.

And why would a government get cold feet about going out and making quick purchases of equipment that its vulnerable troops are in such dire need of?

Could it be because the Canadian news media (egged on by the Auditor-General of Canada as well as opposition parties in Parliament) has attempted to eviscerate it each and every time it has had the guts to go out and buy the particular piece of equipment that the military urgently needs to protect our troops?

In this case, DND wanted to purchase the aforementioned Predator as one component of a $500-million program for the surveillance of Canada's coasts down the road, as well as for immediate use in Afghanistan.

It is one of journalism's Ten Commandments that putting contracts up for bid is always in the public interest, so when a sole-sourced contract goes out, morally outraged headlines are sure to follow. No need to stop and think that this means there will be no reliable UAVs for our troops as long as they are in Afghanistan.

Wouldn't it make sense to purchase some modern UAVs now to save lives and limbs on this very dangerous Afghanistan mission, and use more traditional bidding procedures to secure UAVs for the important but less urgent role of coastal protection?..