Meggitt Defence Systems Canada eggitt Defence Systems Canada, formerly known as M Schreiner Target Services Canada (see below), has received sev- eral multi-year contracts to supply Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for use as targets to test and evaluate the AE- GIS weapons system. AEGIS forms the basis of sea-based, “missile defense” programs of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. (See sub- heading “AEGIS Combat System” p. 22, and sidebar, “U.S. using AEGIS to draw Allied Navies into BMD,” pp. 14-15.) Meggitt makes six different types of UAVs. At least one of these, the Vindicator Target System, is still in use for testing the AEGIS “missile For at least seven years, these Canadian targets have been defense” combat system. used to test and evaluate AEGIS weapons system, the back- This Meggitt product is a slow- bone of the U.S. Navy’s “missile defense” program. speed, winged vehicle about 2.7 meters 3 in length. It is described as a Target Control Station. It makes the tar- tracking systems.” “long-endurance, cost-effective, re- get drone move in “precise flight pro- The Vindicator II was used in coverable aerial target drone with a files” so called “test and evaluation (T&E) fully programmable digital autopilot that are exactly repeatable or vari- events” for AEGIS “missile defense” at the heart of its avionics package.”1 able to meet the exact requirements weapons systems on at least seven oc- Meggitt’s new and improved of individual weapons sensing and casions between 1999 and 2004. These Vindicator II has “an upgraded Flight Con- 3 - 1735 Brier Park Road NW. trol system with a 3 axis Medicine Hat AB T1C 1V5 vertical gyroscope.”2 Tel.: 403-527-4473 The vehicle’s flight Fax: 403-529-2629 path is controlled by Email: [email protected] Meggitt’s Universal Website: www.meggittcanada.com Formerly known as Schreiner Target Services Canada n October 2004, a interna- Saudi Arabia, Norway, Japan tional group of military com- and Singapore3 and it had sev- Ipanies based in England, eral multiyear contracts with called Meggitt PLC, reached an Canada’s military.4 agreement to purchase Schrein- Schreiner Canada’s new er Target Services Canada for owner, Meggitt PLC, operates in £2.9 million. Schreiner Canada was thus added to Meggitt’s North America, Europe and Asia, and touts itself as Defence Systems division. “the world leader in aerial free flying and towed targets, Schreiner Canada, the “Canadian Centre of Excellence electronic scoring and electro-mechanical launch and re- for Towed Targets and UAVs,”1 was a subsidiary of the Neth- covery systems.”5 erlands-based Schreiner Luchtvaart Groep BV. It was owned The products of Meggitt Defence Systems “are used by Canada’s CHC Helicopter Corp., in Vancouver.2 to support, train and evaluate armed forces and law enforce- Schreiner’s major export clients included the U.S., ment agencies worldwide.”6 References 1. Schreiner Cda website.
30 Press for Conversion! (Issue # 57) October 2005 “Letter of Appreciation” from the U.S. and missile firing exercises at the of the events.”8 Naval officer who was responsible for Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training On May 26, 2004, only a few that “missile defense” weapons test- Facility [Vieques, Puerto Rico] and weeks after Dematta wrote this glow- ing program. The letter, signed by Elliott Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons ing letter of thanks for Canada’s sup- Dematta of the Program Executive Of- Division range at Point Mugu, Cali- port, the FBO Daily announced that fice, Integrated Warfare Systems, De- fornia... February 2002 through the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center partment of the Navy, in Washington March 2003.”7 Weapons Division, intended to procure D.C., was addressed to Schreiner’s vice The letter goes on to reveal that Schreiner’s services for president and general manager, Robert this Canadian company had made a sig- “additional slow speed, low altitude, Palmer. This formal letter, dated May 5, nificant contribution to what was a first Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) tar- 2003, is now posted on the Meggitt PLC in the U.S. “missile defense” testing get services. These services are re- website. It reveals some additional de- program. Dematta revealed that these: quired in support of AEGIS test and tails about the AEGIS “missile defense” “tracking and missile firing events evaluation (T&E) events and opera- testing program in which Schreiner were the first time we have opera- tions for tracking and live missile- Canada participated. In his letter, tionally flown UAVs during our at- firing exercises. This contract modi- Dematta dished out some praise: sea test program. The responsive- fication shall be for approximately ten “I want to express our appreciation ness of your team, in meeting the (10) target deployments over a two- to the Vindicator UAV team for their many challenges presented in pre- year period of performance.”9 outstanding work in preparing for paring for these AEGIS Program firsts These tests, which will continue until and conducting the target tracking contributed greatly to the success the spring of 2006, have been con- ture uses of these new and improved weapons will likely “missile defense shield” to protect Americans and their al- bear no resemblance whatsoever to the now widespread lies. There is no reason why these “missile defense” weap- myths about a “missile defense shield” that will supposedly ons could not be used for offensive purposes is naïve. defend the American population. Therefore, arguments that critique U.S. “missile The tracking, targeting and firing systems of various defense” weapons systems because they have not been ter- American weapons are now being tested and enhanced un- ribly successful when fired at fast-moving, incoming mis- der the protection of an ex- siles, or that they can be tensive public relations Hidden behind the false flag of deceptive overwhelmed by decoys, scheme. The elaborate terms, like “missile shield” and “defensive,” are missing the point. pretext is that “missile Such arguments wrongly defense” weapons tech- there is a massive, weapons development and assume that the only pur- nologies are now being testing program. The language used to define pose of America’s “missile created and improved this program is designed to mislead people into defense” program is to upon in order to provide believing that its purpose is purely defensive. design and improve weap- the U.S. military with a “de- ons so they can target in- fensive shield” to heroi- What better ploy could be devised to garner coming missiles. Who cally protect the “home- public support for plans to spend hundreds of could possibly stop the land” from a ruthless at- billions on offensive weapons that might U.S. military from using tack by rogue states, or otherwise be recognised as excessive, their) newly-acquired perhaps by terrorists that “missile defense” weap- have gained possession of aggressive and totally unnecessary? ons to attack and destroy a few expensive, ballistic Perhaps using images of smiling children in whatever slow-moving or missiles. uniform saluting behind the U.S. flag? even stationary targets However, the real- are within their range? ity is that once a U.S. mis- One of the most im- sile system has been cre- portant roles of today’s ated or upgraded—using antiwar movement is to Canadian technology and expose the offensive reali- the convenient “missile ties of the massive, weap- defense” excuse—there ons development pro- will be no turning back. gram that is popularly There is no reason why known by the deceptive such high-tech, U.S. weap- term—“missile defense.” ons systems, once devel- To do this, we must avoid oped and/or improved, will the trap of using terms have to be used to fulfil the like “defense,” that are very specific—and thrown at us by war ad- farfetched—purpose of vocates when describing providing a supposed Photo: U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command website these weapons systems. October 2005 (Issue # 57) Press for Conversion! 31 ducted at the same three U.S. weapons Vehicle Systems, organized by Aviation defense” tests in which Schreiner’s tar- ranges: Barking Sands, Hawaii; Point Alberta. The event’s delegates were gets were used. We learn, for instance, Mugu, California and Wallops Island, described in the local Medicine Hat, that the purpose of these tests was to Virginia.”10 Alberta, paper as “a mix of military “verify radar tracking and confirm On October 5, 2004, Elliott brass, political figures, industry heavy- SM-2 [Standard Missile-2] intercept Dematta, whose “letter of appreciation” weights and international players.”11 capabilities against UAV and Helo praised Schreiner’s contribution to Dematta’s talk, called “Cana- [simulated helicopter] targets.”12 AEGIS “missile defense” testing, made dian Targets for U.S. Navy Test & We also learn that after the ex- a presentation at a three-day, military Evaluation” provides many additional tensive testing of seven different types trade show/conference on Unmanned details about the many “missile of UAVs, Canada’s Schreiner option Industry Canada’s Support for War and BMD hy are Canadian military products so inexpensive that they are often preferred by the Pentagon? Industry WThe answer can often be found in Canada’s cor- porate-welfare system. Canada Industry Canada, for instance, is proud of its gener- ous “investments” in Canadian war industries. The main In 2004, Ballistic Missile Defense artery through which the government pours public money topped Industry Canada’s (IC) list of into the coffers of military industries, is Industry Canada’s Technology Partnerships Canada program. Originally called “Strategic Business Opportunities.” the Defence Industry Productivity (DIP) program, it has given In October 2004, at an Alberta arms trade away literally billions of dollars to Canada’s war industries. show, Bryan Dalphy—IC’s “senior investment Another major government program to subsidise do- officer” for so-called “Defence Indus- mestic war industries is marketed under the guise of the Canada’s “Industrial and Regional Benefits [IRB] Policy.” tries”—promoted “Ballistic Missile Defence” This program was discussed at an Industry Canada presen- as the first item on a list of “Strategic Busi- tation during a military trade show/conference on Unmanned ness Opportunities.” Dalphy told the assem- Aerial Vehicles in October, 2004. (It was at this same event bled arms company reps to contact Lucie that Elliott Dematta, of the U.S. Navy’s Integrated Warfare Boily, Industry Canada’s “BMD Officer.” Systems’ Program Executive Office, passionately eulogized the role of Canadian target systems in conducting U.S. AE- future IRB contracts worth $15.4 billion. Not surprisingly, GIS weapons tests. See article above.) most of these “investments” are war-related and are dis- At that military trade show/conference, Bryan Dalphy, bursed through the Department of National Defence. the “senior investment officer” responsible for the so called Canada’s largest, war-related industries are currently “Defence Industries” portfolio at Industry Canada, gave a the main beneficiaries of IRB “commitments,” namely: Boeing, presentation called: “Canada’s Industrial and Regional Ben- General Dynamics Canada, Lockheed Martin, EH Industries efits [IRB] Policy.”1 He outlined the Canadian government’s and BAE Systems.3 generous role in supporting domestic military industries. The One thing that Dalphy, however, did not mention is crowning achievement of IC’s so called “investment” strat- that each of these war-related corporations, that are benefit- egy is the IRB program. In reality, this is a simply a govern- ing from the unwitting generosity of the Canadian taxpayer, ment program to subsidize Canadian military corporations. are foreign-owned. The first three are U.S.-owned, EHI is a Dalphy, however, described the IRB program in dif- British-Italian venture and BAE Systems is British. ferent terms, saying it is “Canada’s model of ‘industrial par- But, even if these and other war companies—that ticipation.’” He also noted the following points about it: receive billions in public funds—were domestically owned, • “Approved by Cabinet in 1986, the program uses de- such “investments” would still not provide much benefit to fence procurement to lever long-term industrial and re- Canadian society. The problem is not just that taxes are help- gional development. ing foreign capitalists, but that public monies are being wasted • Not a defence industrial base program, though largest on producing of weapons and other war-related hardware. proportion of benefits falls within the defence and aero- Canadian government subsidies should instead be space sectors. used to support sectors of the economy that are socially- • Generally IRBs are mandatory for projects over $100 mil- useful. If Canadian military industries were truly defending lion (Major Crown Projects), and discretionary in the $2 Canada, one could argue that such IRB “investments” do to 100 million range.”2 indeed support Canadian society. However, most of Cana- Dalphy’s “Snapshot of Current and Future IRB da’s military production is exported and most of it is feeding Projects” is most telling. He explained that “current IRB ac- the U.S. war economy. Rather than enhancing Canadian pub- tivities” include 24 projects with a total contract value of lic security, U.S.-led wars—that Canadian taxpayers are ena- $5.7 billion dollars. He proudly noted that there were also 24 bling and subsidising—while beneficial to large corporations, 32 Press for Conversion! (Issue # 57) October 2005 was finally chosen over its closest run- pretend to be a helicopter. The Vindica- other Canadian target, the Black Brant ner up, the Pioneer UAV13 which is pro- tor II/HRSS was used as a “Helo emu- rocket. It was created and built with gov- duced by Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. lator during Aegis T&E events” in June ernment assistance by Bristol Aero- and marketed in the U.S. by Pioneer 2000, March 2002, March and July 2003. space of Winnipeg, Manitoba. (See UAV, Inc. of Maryland.14 In addition to the three U.S. military “Bristol Aerospace,” Press for Conver- Dematta’s presentation also re- tests sites mentioned previously, these sion!, June 2005, issue 56, pp. 28-31.) veals some details about the Schreiner HRSS tests were also done in Virginia15 In his presentation, Dematta UAV’s that were equipped with Heli- at NASA’S Wallops Flight Facility in overflowed with praise for Schreiner’s copter Radar Signature Simulation 2003.16 (That was the location of “mis- Vindicator II targets, saying they “sat- (HRSS) unit, which allows the UAV to sile defense” weapons tests using an- isfied critical needs,” “were used in a are detrimental to the peace and security of Canadians. What’s more, Dalphy then informed attendees at this If instead of “investing” billions in war industries, arms trade show that the name of Industry Canada’s “BMD the Canadian government used public resources to support Officer,” was Lucie Boily. And, in case they wanted to scrib- job-creation programs that actually contributed to Canadian ble it down for future reference, Dalphy’s powerpoint pres- society, in sectors such as health, housing, education and entation included the name and email address of the govern- day care, etc., then the real benefits to Canadians would be ment’s official “BMD Officer,”