CANADA AVIATION AND SPACE MUSEUM AIRCRAFT

SAGEM CU-161 SPERWER SERIAL CU161001

INTRODUCTION

Designed by a French company, SAGEM,1 the Sperwer (Dutch for Sparrow Hawk) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) system was comprised of aerial vehicles, a ground control station (GCS), a transportable hydraulic catapult and a ground data terminal (GDT) housed in a communications shelter carried on high mobility vehicles. The entire system could be transported in five C-130 Hercules aircraft and could operate from unprepared sites using a catapult launch and a combined parachute and airbag recovery system.

The overall system supported simultaneous control of two aerial vehicles, from a single GCS. Furthermore, several GCSs could control multiple missions, and could hand-over UAVs between each other. The ground station was equipped with advanced mission planning tools, including 3-dimension terrain modeling and flight path presentation on a geographical data system, image processing, interpretation and connection to command and control networks.

The Sperwer platform was primarily designed to carry a Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) payload, providing high resolution day and night imagery and target geo-location with an accuracy of 20 meters (65 ft 6 in).

In Canada, the Sperwer system was procured as an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) in support of ongoing Canadian Army operations in Afghanistan. In August of 2003, the Canadian Forces (CF) provided a battalion group and and brigade headquarters in support of a 12-month mission in Afghanistan (known as Op ATHENA). Their mission was to provide security and stability in the Kabul region and in order to provide “real time” situational awareness, the Army urgently acquired the Sperwer as a tactical UAV (TUAV) system. Designated, while in Canadian use, as the CU-161 Sperwer, the system was used in Afghanistan from October 2003 until April 2009. It was then declared as A Canadian Forces CU-161 Sperwer is catapulted from “surplus” and, on 11 August 2009, most of the remaining its launcher on a mission - (CF Photo) Canadian Forces (CF) Sperwer UAV air vehicles / assets that were still in flyable condition were sold to the French Government.

The Sperwer was the first UAV operated by the CF in combat and it paved the way for the use of future UAV systems, including the CU-170 Heron system which was also employed in Afghanistan.

Cover Photo Caption - CU161001 in front of the ex-King’s Palace in Kabul, Afghanistan. - (CF Photo)

1 / 35

The entire Sperwer system was designed to be modular and air transportable. At the top - a Ground Station on a portable trailer (left) and a Ground Data Terminal on a portable trailer (right). These were accompanied by a Platoon Maintenance Facility (centre left) and catapult launching system (centre right) shown in the compact transport position. Once in position, the launcher was unfolded as seen in the next image. The air vehicles were transported in containers on a portable trailer (bottom left) A deployable remote video terminal (bottom right) was also included. - (CF Images)

2 / 35

The entire Sperwer system was also designed to air transportable in five C-130 Hercules loads as depicted above - (CF Images)

3 / 35

Sperwer Design History 2

The Sperwer was originally developed to meet a late 1990s Dutch Army requirement for a tactical UAV. Its lineage is rather complex. While the SAGEM Crécerelle (Kestrel) was its immediate, direct ancestor, the shorter-range Sperwer UAV was, in fact, derived from the Meggit Defence Systems Banshee, a British target drone. Meggit also marketed a very similar design to the Crécerelle known as the Spectre. All of these earlier designs helped influence the delta-winged platform of the Sperwer tactical UAV.

The Crécerelle was intended as a low- risk battlefield reconnaissance platform. The Above - The Sperwer design owed much to the British-designed French 7th Artillery Regiment took the Crécerelle Meggitt Banshee, as seen here on its launcher. - (Finish Armed Forces image) to Macedonia, where they operated alongside Bundeswehr Luna Below - the SAGEM Crécerelle was the immediate predecessor the CL-289 and German to the Sperwer and the design similarities are apparent. - UAVs. While these operational trials were (SAGEM image) successful, they also showed the need for greater speed and range. The Sperwer design provided these requisite improvements and consequently replaced the Crécerelle in French service. After entering Dutch service, the Sperwer was not only been adopted by but also by , , Canada, and .

The Sperwer was fairly conventional for a modern tactical UAV. Its airframe design was constrained by the need to position turret- mounted sensors close to the UAV's nose. As a result, the Sperwer's powerplant was positioned in its tail, driving a 4-bladed, pusher-propeller. The Sperwer's small delta wings, angled twin tails, and simple rectangular fuselage-section all served to lower the vehicle's radar return signature. The Sperwer airframe was also designed to be compact in order to be as portable as possible.

The Sperwer possessed a 4.2 m (13 ft 9 in) span delta wing. Engine radiators were mounted on either side of the fuselage beneath each vertical The SAGEM Sperwer featured twin tails as opposed the tail. The use of liquid-cooling was somewhat singular fin on previous designs. - (SAGEM Image) unusual for a small 2-stroke UAV powerplant but it served to reduce engine noise, making the Sperwer harder to spot. The two-cylinder engine generated 48

4 / 35

kW (65 hp) at 6500 rpm, an impressive output considering its tiny 581 cc (35 cu in) displacement. Still, the surplus power of a Sperwer was marginal, severely restricting its “hot-and-high” performance. SAGEM consequently made improvements to subsequent variants.

The Sperwer's pneumatic rail-launcher was carried by a 10-tonne (22,000 lb) truck. The Sperwer sat in a cradle, which was propelled along an elevated rail to gain flying speed. The post-mission recovery was via a 117 m2 (1,259 ft2) parachute, which deployed from a hatch in the upper fuselage. The landing was further cushioned by airbags under each wing, as well as

The Sperwer’s engine. - underneath the fuselage. (Bombardier Image) The forward-fuselage airbag protected the Sperwer’s video sensor. This camera was mounted in a prominent ball-turret beneath the nose. Ground-based operators used a joystick to aim this video camera, generating live images. Alternatively, the camera could be locked onto a target while the Sperwer manoeuvered, or the Sperwer could be instructed to follow the camera's line-of-sight. A fixed, video camera in the Sperwer's nose also gave operators a forward-looking, wide- angle view of the flightpath.

SAGEM went on to develop a longer endurance model of original design (now called the Sperwer-B) distinguished by an This view of the front of the Sperwer clearly illustrates the ball turret and the forward-looking camera port. - (CF Photo) extended 6.2 m (20 ft 4 in) span wing. The Sperwer-B also has canard control surfaces which, like the extended wing, are derived from the turbojet -powered Sperwer HV (Haute Vitesse) variant.

Canadian Forces UAV Use 3 Prior to 2000, the CF had only sporadically experimented with various Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) during specific trials and exercises. By the turn of the century, however, UAS use had proliferated in other countries and the CF also embarked on rapid series of intensive trials and exercises. Operation (Op) ROBUST RAM was the first chance that DND had to experiment with some of these newer systems. This exercise took place in April 2002 at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Suffield, Alberta and involved the leasing and trial of three different systems: the Pointer (produced by AeroVironment), which was a mini-UAS, the CL-327 Guardian (produced by Bombardier), also The AeroVironment POINTER was a small, hand- launched UAV. - (CF Photo) better known as the “Peanut” UAS, and the I-Gnat

5 / 35

(produced by General Atomics), which was a medium- altitude, long-endurance UAS. Op ROBUST RAM therefore trialled a layered system of UAVs in an integrated fashion. During the exercise, the Pointer conducted 39 missions (totaling 15.9 flight hours). This platform operated at less than 152 m (500 ft) above ground level, and had an operational radius of less than 10 km (6.2 mi). By comparison, the CL-327 Guardian completed seven missions (totaling 15.3 flight hours), and flew at altitudes between 1,500 - 3,048 m (5,000– 10,000 ft) above sea level (ASL). And finally, the I-Gnat also flew seven missions (totaling 29.4 flight hours), at The Bombardier CL-327 GUARDIAN design was a altitudes up to a maximum of 4,572 m (15,000 ft) ASL. unique helicopter - like UAV design often referred to as the “Peanut” .- (US Navy Photo) Then, in June 2002, during the G-8 Summit Conference in Kananaskis, the CF was tasked to assist with security in an exercise known as Op GRIZZLY. As part of this operation, the CF again leased the I-Gnat UAV system, in order to provide an “overwatch capability”. The aircraft was limited to a 56 x 65 km (30 x 35 nautical mile) operating box around Kananaskis, and the CF established a Joint Airspace Coordination Centre to integrate the I-Gnat in with other airspace users.

The Op GRIZZLY, was immediately followed by yet another exercise known as the Pacific Litoral ISR Exercise (or PLIX). The PLIX exercise took place off Vancouver Island in July 2003. Flying from the airport in The General Atomics IGNAT was very similar in design to the much more famous Predator drone produced by Tofino, another leased medium-altitude, long-endurance the same company. - (CF Photo) UAS was tested. This time an Eagle UAS, manufactured by Aerospace Industries (IAI) was operated using line-of-sight data links. The Eagle was physically larger than the I-GNAT. This was also the first time, that the CF had operated a system over water. During the exercise, the operators noticed a vessel at sea illegally purging its bilge water. While not part of the exercise, the results of photographing this illegal activity were widely seen as validation of the utility of a UAS for off-shore monitoring activities.

All of this domestic experience set in motion and validated a requirement for a tactical UAV system to be deployed in support of ongoing CF operations in The IAI EAGLE on short final to Tofino, BC after an Afghanistan. In February 2003, the Director General of over-water mission on the west coast. - (CF Photo) Land Equipment Program Management embarked on discussions intent on a procurement to satisfy an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) in this regard. Beginning in August 2003, the CF was intending to provide both a battalion group and brigade HQ in support of a 12-month mission in Afghanistan (known as Op ATHENA). This particular mission was to provide security and stability in the Kabul region and, in

6 / 35

order to provide “real time” situational awareness, the Army urgently acquired a TUAV system. In a fast- track program, by May 2003, the Chief of Defence Staff had approved the acquisition and deployment of a TUAV system for Op ATHENA at a cost of approximately $30M.

By this point, however, there was still no accepted CF definition of a TUAV system. However, the mandatory system characteristics were described as a tactical UAV that would be capable of operating in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace. The following requirements were then suggested:

a. The system had to be capable of autonomous waypoint navigation and not require any piloting skills;

b. The UAV system had to be able to provide 8 hours on station at 50 km (27 nautical miles) per 24 hour period;

c. The UAV had to have a link-loss mode, so that the UAV would perform a series of maneuvers designed to re-establish data link contact;

d. The UAV, as a minimum, had to have an operational service ceiling of 3,048 m (10,000 ft) and ideally (i.e. desirable not mandatory) greater than 4,267 m (14,000 ft); and

f. The launch and recovery mode must not require an external pilot.

Besides the SAGEM Sperwer (offered by the Quebec-based Oerlikon-Contraves Company), the other two contenders for the Canadian TUAV project were the Elbit Silver Arrow - Hermes 450 UAV (left), also used for the British Watchkeeper program, and the AAI Shadow 200 UAV, which had been developed for a US Army requirement. - (CF Photos)

In August 2003, the CF announced a $33.8M contract with a Quebec-based company, Oerlikon- Contraves (now known as Rheinmetall Canada) for four CU-161 Sperwer TUAVs (increased later to six) with two ground control stations, one launcher, two ground data terminals, four remote video terminals, and three simulators, plus three generator trailers, and all associated training, and support. The CF attributed this new purchase to its previous UAV experiences but this choice was somewhat unusual since the Sperwer had not been among the systems involved in the 2002 Canadian Army trials at CFB Suffield. The systems were then delivered only 11 weeks after the contract was signed, and only five months after the UOR was originally approved.4

The original intent of the Army was to operate the system using artillery personnel with a minimum of additional training. But the selection of the Sperwer, and the plan to deploy it into combat operations,

7 / 35

immediately generated questions from within the Air Force as to the viability of this planned approach. While the Sperwer was intended to be mostly automatic with respect to its flight control, navigation, takeoff and landing modes, regardless of these features, there was still a requirement for specialist training with respect to both airspace awareness and the manual operation of the UAV for flight safety or tactical reasons. Either an appropriate level of training would have to be provided to Army UAV operators or it would necessitate the provision of Air Force personnel to operate (i.e. fly) the system. The need to integrate the UAV into the same military and civilian airspace as other coalition air assets also had to be addressed. At a minimum, this requirement meant the provision of an air liaison team to be embedded within the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC). This team had to be made up of personnel with an air operations background. In other armies, such as the US Army and US Marine Corps, this capability was provided by “in-house” by tactical UAV operators but these organizations had “indigenous” air element personnel which the Canadian Army lacked.

There were also flight safety concerns with respect to potential air platform loss or damage. For example, during Exercise ROBUST RAM, a CL-327 Guardian crash necessitated the dispatch of an Air Force flight safety investigative team.

In the end, all of these issues and others, would eventually require a change in the originally planned approach. The solution to these issues eventually became the formation of a joint unit in which the Air Force would ultimately acquire, maintain and operate the aeronautical platforms, while the Army provided the sensor operators and the operational direction.

CU-161 Sperwer Deployments 5

The Sperwer air vehicle was primarily designed to carry a FLIR payload, providing high resolution day and night imagery and target geo-location with an accuracy of 20 m (65 ft 6 in). Other payloads originally designed for Sperwer included Electronic Intelligence (ELINT), Communications Intelligence (COMINT), communications relay and Search and Rescue (SAR) packages, but Canada did not procure these modules. The aircraft was equipped with a digital J-band datalink (15 GHz) and IFF transponder (Mode 3C) and VHF relay for integration in controlled airspace.

As originally delivered to the CF, the Sperwer launcher (or LANS to its makers) was mounted on a six-wheeled Renault Kerax truck. Due to the rapid acquisition process, this Renault 10-tonne (22,000 lb) truck was acquired on loan from SAGEM. Subsequent Canadian Sperwer systems were launched and recovered using standard CF HLVW (Heavy Logistics Vehicle - Wheeled) trucks.

The Sperwer purchase was intended to provide I-STAR (Intelligence - Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance)

support for the International Stabilization The Renault Kerax truck launcher first used by the CF in Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan can be seen here in this image from 2003. - (CF Photo) first CF Sperwer detachment arrived in Kabul on 29 October 2003. This initial Sperwer

8 / 35

detachment consisted primarily of gunners from E-Battery of 2 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (RCHA) normally stationed at Petawawa, Ontario. The detachment also, however, included some Air Force personnel.

Prior to being dispatched to Afghanistan, CF personnel had trained both in France with the makers of Sperwer at SAGEM and at CFB Petawawa. After arriving in Afghanistan, the CU-161s were first tested to confirm their performance capabilities in theatre. In early November, these tests were performed amidst media reports of concerns about the ability of Sperwer to effectively perform at Kabul's 2,000 m (6,562 ft) density altitude. The first actual flight in theatre occurred on 06 November 2003. In the end, the CU-161's performance was judged to be just adequate for Kabul and the deployed unit then declared its Initial Operating Capability (or IOC) on 29 November 2003.

The overall environment including both the terrain and the density altitude would ultimately tax the CU-161 Sperwer system to its limit. The austere environment around Kabul can be seen in this image from the initial deployment in 2003. - (CF Photo)

The tasks for the Sperwer TUAV system included the following:

• Surveillance - over-flying specific areas to detect, recognize and identify emerging threats and/or monitor belligerent activities; • Reconnaissance - providing specific information on designated areas, routes and identified threats in both open and complex terrain. These assessments included route acceptability, mine threats and the disposition and intention of potentially hostile forces either by flying along programmed routes or by loitering over specific areas to investigate acquired contacts; • Security and Escort - providing an over-watch of friendly forces and warning of impediments to movement and / or potential threats. The system maintained radio contact with the supported force on the ground passing on information and receiving requests for additional reconnaissance as required; • Target Acquisition - acquiring targets, providing indirect fire support and conducting airborne forward air control missions; and

9 / 35

• Battle Damage Assessment - conducting post-op assessment of the impact on targets.

The initial impression of this new capability was highly favourable. The sensors on board the vehicle were deemed “excellent for the task” and met all of the Army’s surveillance and reconnaissance requirements. The overall system, however, also quickly ran into significant problems with reliability and other supportability issues. Within the first month, a number of the air vehicles had already been damaged and required major repairs. By mid-December, flying operations had to be halted and did not resume until mid-January 2004. There had been problems with the launchers, with vehicle equipment failures and with cracks were being discovered in both the UAV wings and on the launcher system itself. By mid-February, all four air vehicles originally acquired had either been severely damaged or completely destroyed. The damaged vehicles were consequently shipped back to SAGEM for repairs, and two more vehicles were quickly purchased.

This image from training in Afghanistan depicts the type of IR image available from the CU-161 Sperwer. - (CF Photo)

Subsequent assessments of the initial deployment, labelled the Sperwer TUAV as a “high risk” system with damage to the air vehicles being too frequent to be reliable.6 The consumption rate on spares was also very high and the launch and recovery systems were deemed to be “flawed”. The hard reality was that the Sperwer was a relatively “immature” system when it had been acquired. Other users (i.e. primarily the French, the Danes and the Dutch) had only accumulated approximately 650 hours of operation with 350 launches and recoveries in total, and they, too, had been experiencing vehicle reliability issues. The system simply did not live up to claims originally made by the manufacturer. A thorough review of all the issues identified better training needed for all involved and the CF made a series of “lessons learned” recommendations to improve the reliability and maintainability of the system

10 / 35

as a whole. The immediate operational benefits of a TUAV system, however, were clearly seen to outweigh any of the technical / reliability risks on further deployments.

The first four CU-161 Sperwer air vehicles that had been procured were quickly either heavily damaged or lost completely in series of accidents on take-off or upon landing. - (CF Photo)

One of first four CU-161 Sperwer air vehicles is seen here catapulting from its launcher in late 2003. - (CF Photo)

The subsequent deployments involved restructured TUAV Flights with a heavier emphasis on Air Force personnel to both operate and support the system. The Air Force also assumed responsibility for both the acquisition and the second and third-line support contracts for the system.

11 / 35

The First Air Force TUAV Flight Rotos 7

The Air Force’s assumption of the TUAV program was set in motion in 2005 with the decision to stand-up two Air Force led rotations (Roto 1 and 2) by May 2006. The latest requirement was to have a TUAV available for the Canadian Task Force (TF) conducting operations in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Following the Sperwer’s 2003 / 2004 deployment to Op ATHENA in Kabul, an agreement was struck to the effect that the Land Force (LF) would be the Force Employer while the Air Force would assume the responsibility of Force Generator for subsequent Rotos. This resulted in the assignment of the force generation task to 1 Wing, who then turned to its flagship unit, 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron (THS), to breathe to new life into the TUAV capability.

Roto 1 personnel first met on 05 May at CFB Valcartier, QC where their TUAV education commenced with the manufacturer, SAGEM, leading the ground school instruction. The reality of the need for a bilingual flight was evident when the six weeks of ground school was taught in French. Fortunately, a foreshadowing of Roto 1’s teamwork was evident when francophones helped anglophones through the technical jargon of the ground training. Following ground training, Roto 1 took a leave break and then rejoined in CFB Suffield at the beginning of August to commence flight training. Following the five weeks of flight training in Suffield, both Rotos packed up and transported their equipment to the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre (CMTC) in CFB Wainwright, Alberta. At CMTC, Roto 2 would complete their flight training and both rotos would undergo a formal validation for deployment.

When Roto 1 set foot in Afghanistan in February 2006, there was a lot of work ahead of them. Their quarters simply consisted of 200 man-tents, they had only the skeleton of a launch site and the key equipment would not be arriving for another month. Within this time-frame, Roto 1 personnel established local procedures with the other operators on Kandahar Air Field (KAF), a vacant gravel lot on the edge of KAF was transformed into a launch site, and the flight assisted with various guard and staff duties. When the equipment finally did arrive, the TUAV Flight was prepared. The first operational mission was then flown on 09 March 2006.

It became quickly apparent that the austere Afghan environment of hot temperatures and thin air density would restrict daytime operations. In the ensuing months, Roto 1 accomplished a lot including the successful deployment of forward detachments to support the Battle Group (BG) in the far reaches of their Area of Operations (AO), providing Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB), conducting convoy escort and overwatch missions, reconnaissance of routes and areas of interest, and battle damage assessments.

Roto 2 arrived in theatre on 02 August 06 with many challenges of their own. Its personnel, which included members from all three environments and ten bases from across Canada, had now been separated from their equipment for ten months, during which none had any hands-on time with the kit as it was all in theatre.

Following a brief two-week hand-over period, Roto 2 was at the helm of the TUAV operation. Operations in Kandahar and neighbouring Helmand province required reconnaissance and real time missions right away from the TUAV Flight. Selected Sperwer air vehicles had to be cannibalized to guarantee at least one UAV vehicle was always ready to support operations.

During this overall period, the TUAV Flight was a combination of Air Force and Land Force personnel, which included an Operations Section, a TUAV Section and a Support Section. The entire TUAV Flight consisted of 56 personnel with responsibilities as shown in the following diagram:

12 / 35

Notes:

AF = Air Force OC = Officer Commanding D/OC = Deputy Officer Commanding LF = Land Force MC = Mission Commander AVO = Air Vehicle Operator AV = Air Vehicle PO = Payload Operator 2IC = Second in Command LANS = Launcher Det Comd = Detachment Commander Ld = Lead

AVN Tech = Aviation Technician Maj = Major AVS Tech = Avionics Technician Capt = Captain ACS Tech = Aircraft Component Structures Technician MWO = Master Warrant Officer Int Op = Intelligence Operator WO = Warrant Officer LCIS Tech = Land Comm and Information Systems Technician Sgt = Sergeant Met Tech = Meteorological Technician MCpl = Master Corporal Rec Tech = Recovery Technician Cpl = Corporal SIG Op = Signal Operator Pte = Private AMEO = Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Officer MBdr = Master Bombardier Para Rigger / Packer = Parachute Rigger /Packer Bdr = Bombardier

13 / 35

A series of images from the 2005 training efforts at CFB Suffield in Alberta illustrating a typical start (with the catapult launch) and end to a mission (with the combination parachute and flotation bag landing system). - (CF Photos)

14 / 35

Roto 2 continued to not only execute those missions carried out by Roto 1 but expanded the TUAV capability. Communication techniques and UAV manoeuvre tactics were developed to better coordinate and facilitate fires and other kinetic effects. This led to the first-ever TUAV facilitated air strike and fire missions during actual combat operations. As well, simultaneous control of two separate air vehicles by one crew was field-trialled in theatre, which permitted a doubling of continuous UAV presence through the conduct of “relief-in-place” operations. They still continued, however, to battle spare parts shortages that affect serviceability rates.

A CU-161 Sperwer is shown here being safely recovered after a mission in Afghanistan. - (CF Photo)

Continued emphasis was also being placed on reviewing and developing tactics, techniques, and procedures, and at ensuring all lessons learned were passed onto future rotos, which were planned out to the end of the CF’s then current mandate of 2009.

Following these particular rotos, C-Flight of 408 THS also transformed themselves into an Operational Training Section (OTS) for the generation of all crews required to fill the future rotos in Afghanistan out to 2009, eliminating the need for the previous training by SAGEM. The first batch of students was trained in the spring of 2007 and roughly every six months thereafter.

Sustainability Issues

In 2005, the early sustainability assessments conducted on the Sperwer TUAV system by the Air Force suggested that the overall system was only marginally supportable. The planned deployments were only going to be possible by limiting the operation to Kandahar airfield. Consequently, efforts were undertaken

15 / 35

to boost the both number of air vehicles and the associated launchers and control systems to allow for both training at home and operational missions in theatre. Ten additional air vehicles were subsequently ordered, all of which had been delivered by end 2006.

CU-161 Sperwer air vehicles were lost in Afghanistan at a alarming rate. The above images depict just a few of those damaged or destroyed in operations. - (CF Photos)

16 / 35

Coincidently, due to a poor performance track record, the Danish military decided to dispose of its Sperwer systems and offered some their equipment for sale to the CF. The Air Force consequently acquired another 10 air vehicles and two complete sets of ground equipment from Denmark, commencing in 2007. 8 With the acquisition of these new spares, the intent was to maintain a maximum of seven air vehicles in theatre at one time. Additionally, to conduct training and CMTC support, the OTS was intended to maintain a further five air vehicles along with two complete sets of the ground control elements. The remaining spares and equipment then provided a rotable pool for a repair and overhaul cycle.

The replacement CU-161 Sperwer air vehicles purchased from Denmark were delivered in an overall grey camouflage scheme with black Canadian Forces markings. - (CF Photo)

Compare the pristine air vehicle in the preceding image with this one. CU161013 is seen here with evidence of repairs on the wings and a replacement (green) tail fin drawn from another vehicle. - (CF Photo)

17 / 35

In terms of air vehicles, ultimately, even this number of 26 airframes would prove to be insufficient and the Air Force went on to purchase a further five, some of which were procured directly from the French military.

The final CU-161 Sperwer mission flown in Afghanistan is seen here in this image from April 2009. - (CF Photo)

The CU-161 Sperwer System Legacy

In total, the CU-161 Sperwer tactical UAV system was used in combat operations in Afghanistan between October 2003 until April 2009, flying more than 1,300 missions in support of Canadian troops. The Sperwer was destined to be replaced by a more sophisticated leased UAV, known as the CU-170 Heron. The entire Canadian Forces Sperwer system was consequently declared as “surplus” to requirements and, on 11 August 2009, most of the remaining air vehicles / assets that were still in flyable condition were sold to the French Government.

The Sperwer has the distinction of being the first UAV operated by the CF in combat and it paved the way for the use of future UAV systems, including the CU-170 Heron system which was also employed thereafter in Afghanistan. The Sperwer system was definitely acknowledged to have serious deficiencies (65% of the fleet was written off and more than 80% of the air vehicle were seriously damaged at some point in their operations) 9 with resultant problems in reliability and supportability but all involved with the system acknowledge that it saved lives and the overall capability it brought to the battlefield was significant.

18 / 35

Canada Aviation and Space Museum Sperwer CU-161 CF Serial Number 161001

The Canada Aviation Museum (now CASM) officially accepted the CF’s Sperwer CU-161 serial number 161001 on 23 February 2010. Vehicle # 161001 was the first of 31 CU-161 Sperwer air vehicles to be operated by the CF in Afghanistan combat operations.

CU-161001 is seen here on the launch in front of the King’s Palace in Kabul in 2005. - (CF Photo)

Air vehicle serial number 161001 was first used for the initial training conducted in Canada beginning in September 2003 after the system’s rapid acquisition. This vehicle was then deployed to Afghanistan on 29 October 2003 with the UAV Troop of the 2 RCHA Regiment and it flew the first flight in theatre on 06 November 2003. Subsequently damaged while in service, it was repaired and returned to operational use in Kabul in April 2004. It then appears to be have been returned to Canada to Valcartier, QC with a returning troop deployment. It was subsequently used for further TUAV system training in CFB Suffield, Alberta beginning in September 2005.

Once again deployed to Afghanistan in 2006, air vehicle 161001 then suffered Category “B” (repairable) damage on 21 November when the landing air bags deployed prematurely shortly after a launch from Kandahar, rendering the vehicle incapable of sustained flight. The UAV impacted the ground approximately 250 meters (820 ft) from the launcher. Following further repair and re-introduction into active service in Kandahar, the vehicle again suffered further Category “B” damage on 01 November 2008, when the “engine-kill” button was inadvertently pushed during the launch sequence. The air vehicle was then again repaired.

19 / 35

CU-161001 is being prepped for another mission in this view. The ground control data terminal is in the background. - (CF Photo)

In this image, CU-161001 is being guarded following a return from a mission. The vehicle’s parachute is collapsed in the background. - (CF Photo)

20 / 35

In this image from 2005, at CFB Suffield, AB CU-161001 is being positioned on the launch catapult. The air vehicle is showing signs of repair including a replacement vertical fin and rudder. - (CF Photo)

CU-161001 is catapulted off on another training mission at CFB Suffield, AB in 2005. - (CF Photo)

21 / 35

The entire Sperwer fleet finally ceased operations in April of 2009 and was replaced by another (this time leased) UAS known as the CU-170 Heron. While the majority of the Sperwer systems were subsequently disposed of, CU-161 air vehicle 161001 was preserved for posterity.

One of the few surviving air vehicles, CU-161001 is preserved at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum. - (T.F.J. Leversedge Photo)

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 10

Designation: CU-161 Role: Target Acquisition & Surveillance TOS: 2003 SOS: 2010 No: 31 Manufacturer: SAGEM SA Powerplant: two-cylinder engine (made by Bombardier’s Austrian subsidiary, ROTAX) generating 48 kW (65 hp) at 6500 rpm Performance: Max Speed: 235 km/h (127 knots) Cruising Speed: 167 km/h (90 knots) Service Ceiling: 4,999 m (16,400 ft) Range: 150 km (93 miles) Dimensions: Span: 4.30 m (14 ft 1 in ) Length: 2.70 m (8 ft 10 in) Cost: $33.8M for 4 UAVs with 2 Ground Control Stations, 1 launcher, 2 Ground Data Terminals, 4 remote video terminals, and 3 simulators, plus 3 generator trailers, training, and support

22 / 35

THE AIR VEHICLE IN DETAIL

CU-161002 is shown here in detail. The relatively simple design, the compact engine installation, the wooden “pusher” propellers, the forward-looking nose camera and sensor turret are all readily apparent. - (CF Photos)

23 / 35

THE AIR THE LAUNCH / CONTROL SYSTEM IN DETAIL

The portability of the launch rail system mounted on a HLVW truck, the ground data terminal control (also truck mounted) and the launch control station are seen in the above images. - (CF Photos)

24 / 35

Once the CU-161 Sperwer was airborne, the air vehicle was controlled from a compact ground station mounted in a container as seen above. - (CF Photos)

25 / 35

CU-161 SPERWER FLEET DISPOSITION / SUMMARY

Primary References: A. http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/sperwer_detailed.html B. RCAF CU-161 Attrition Model - Tail Number Status document (unpublished)

Manufacturer Designation Name 161001 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Original Contract Order - August 2003 This is probably the first air vehicle used for initial training in France from September 2003. Deployed to Afghanistan on 29 October 2003, with the UAV Troop of 2 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery Regiment, Petawawa, Ontario. First public flight in Afghanistan on 06 November 2003. Operational in Kabul as late as April 2004. Believed to have returned to Valcartier, PQ in August 2004. Used for training at CFB Suffield, Alberta in September 2005. Category “B” damage near Kandahar, Afghanistan on 21 November 2006, when landing air bags deployed shortly after launch. Landed 250 metres from launcher. Investigation focusing on air bag control system, improvements being developed. Category “B” damaged again at Kandahar on 01 November 2008, appears engine kill button inadvertently pushed during launch. Finished in green (upper) and gray (lower) camouflage with black low visibility markings. Repaired for static purposes and now preserved at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa. 161002 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Original Contract Order - August 2003 Deployed to Afghanistan on 29 October 2003. Category “B” damage on 20 March 2004, near Kabul, Afghanistan. Was launched on operational mission, failed to climb above 50 feet AGL. Parachute deployed, but did not have time to inflate. Possibility of mis-set carburetor, and resulting power loss at high density altitude. Believed to have returned to Valcartier, PQ in August 2004. Used for training at CFB Suffield, Alberta in September 2005. Back in Afghanistan when it suffered Category “B” damage on 06 July 2006, when airbags deployed shortly after launch. Impacted ground 300 metres from launcher. Investigation focusing on possible failure and sand contamination in valve in airbag inflation system. Category “B” damage on 09 May 2008 at CFB Wainwright, Alberta. Propeller tip contacted launcher during launch, aircraft crashed 50 meters from end of launcher. Finished in green (upper) and gray (lower) camouflage with black low visibility markings. Survived operational use and eventually sold to France. 161003 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Original Contract Order - August 2003 Deployed to Afghanistan on 29 October 2003. Finished in green (upper) and gray (lower) camouflage with black low visibility markings. Written Off: 21 November 2003 - Category “A” damage suffered after engine failure and a "hard landing" near Kabul, Afghanistan. Crashed while performing test flight in Afghanistan, as part of granting of flight authority. Parachute failed to deploy at end of flight, turbulence may have played a role in parachute failure. Repaired to non-flying status and preserved at 1 Wing Museum in Kingston, ON.

26 / 35

161004 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Original Contract Order - August 2003 Suffered Category “B” damage after a training flight in Kabul on 12 November 2003. Suffered Category C damage on 30 June 2004, near Kabul, Afghanistan. Contact lost near end of night time operational mission. Recovered in emergency mode and landed in a residential area, lightly contacting a power line and coming to rest against the wall of a house. No obvious collateral damage and no injuries were experienced. Damage to the right wing and nose areas. Alternator positive cable found to have abraded on bolt due to incorrect clamp installation, causing short and total electrical failure. Subsequent investigation found several other maintenance anomalies, report stated "hastening of maintenance training in order to expedite theatre deployment of the UAV troop had a detrimental effect on maintenance quality assurance." Believed to have returned to Valcartier, PQ in August 2004. Suffered Category “C” damage on 10 October 2005 when parachute failed to disconnect in high winds. Suffered Category “B” damage on 15 November 2006 following an electrical failure and uncommanded recovery with damage post-landing. Finished in green (upper) and gray (lower) camouflage with black low visibility markings. Repaired and survived operational use to eventually be sold to France.

161005 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Amendment to original contract order. Deployed to Afghanistan on 29 October 2003. Finished in green (upper) and gray (lower) camouflage with black low visibility markings. Written Off: 19 January 2004 - The air vehicle sustained Category “A” damage after flying into terrain on training mission, near Kabul, Afghanistan. The operator was practicing autopilot recovery circuits, descent command was issued early on fourth practice approach circuit. The air vehicle impacted the terrain while in a descending final turn to the inbound track. 161006 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Amendment to original contract order. Last of first order for 6 airframes. Suffered Category “C” damage on 17 December 2003 due to misuse of wind data. Suffered Category “B” damage on a test flight on 06 December 2004 after landing outside the zone. Once again operational in Afghanistan by 2006. Suffered Category “D” damage on 06 May 2007 after an engine alternator failure. A successful emergency recovery was effected but the airframe was later stripped by locals. Finished in green (upper) and gray (lower) camouflage with black low visibility markings. Probably written-off but there is no formal record of this action.

27 / 35

161007 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Amendment to original contract order delivered in 2004. Replacement air vehicle, part of second batch ordered c. April 2004. Suffered Category “D” damage at CFB Cold Lake, Alberta on 01 May 2005. Air vehicle was being used to test maximum link range and recovery accuracy, when the vehicle suffered total electrical failure, resulting in automatic recovery. Category “C” damage on 14 October 2005, during training mission at Camp Wainwright, Alberta. Drifted after recovery parachute deployed, and landed in group of small trees, 288 meters from intended touch down point. Operated at that time by the TUAV Flight, made up of personnel from No. 408 (THS) Squadron and 5e Régiment d’artillerie légère du Canada. Suffered severe damage on 24 October 2006, when engine lost power shortly after launch from Kandahar airport. Carburetor had been replaced a few days earlier. Category “B” damage at Kandahar on 18 August 2008, when parachute did not fully deploy after normal mission. Finished in green (upper) and gray (lower) camouflage with black low visibility markings. Repaired and preserved at the RCAF Museum in Trenton, ON 161008 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Amendment to original contract order delivered in 2004. Replacement air vehicle, part of second batch ordered c. April 2004. Operational in Afghanistan by 2006.

Written Off: 22 November 2007 - Category “A” - Destroyed at Kandahar airport when parachute did not deploy during recovery sequence.

161009 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - delivered First air vehicle of third batch, ordered in December 2005, deliveries scheduled for mid-2006. Finished in overall gray camouflage with black low visibility markings. Written Off: 06 May 2006 - Category “A” - Destroyed when parachute did not deploy during recovery from an operational mission at Kandahar airport and was consumed by post-impact fire.

28 / 35

161010 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - delivered Part of third batch, ordered in December 2005, deliveries scheduled for early 2006 Written Off: 11 January 2007 - Category “A” - Destroyed when engine failed 30 kilometres from Kandahar airport due to fuel pump failure. Vehicle was stripped by locals. 161011 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - delivered. Finished in overall gray camouflage with black low visibility markings. Part of third batch, ordered in December 2005, deliveries scheduled for early 2006. Suffered Category “B” damage after the engine failed after launch due to fuel line problems. Repaired and survived further operational use to eventually be sold to France. 161012 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - delivered Part of third batch, ordered in December 2005, deliveries scheduled for early 2006 Written Off: 20 January 2006 - Category “A” - Destroyed when engine failed and a fire ensued. A successful emergency recovery was effected but the vehicle was stripped by locals. 161013 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - delivered Part of third batch, ordered in December 2005, deliveries scheduled for early 2006. Operational in Afghanistan by July 2006. Finished in overall gray camouflage with black low visibility markings.

Written Off: 09 October 2007 - Category “A” - Destroyed following an engine failure.

29 / 35

161014 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Part of third batch, ordered in December 2005, deliveries scheduled for early 2006. Finished in overall gray camouflage with black low visibility markings. Written Off: 24 January 2007 - Category “A” - Destroyed in a crash at Kandahar airport when controls froze during recovery operation after hurried operational launch. Post- accident investigation cited unofficial abbreviated check list being used, due to time pressures. 161015 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Probably one of the ex-Danish Sperwers, acquired second hand in September 2006. Written Off: 16 March 2007 - Category “A” - Destroyed following technical problems. A successful emergency recovery was effected but the vehicle was stripped by locals. 161016 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Operational in Afghanistan by December 2007, Finished in overall gray camouflage with black low visibility markings. Suffered Category “B” damage during a launch from Kandahar Airfield on 25 May 2008. Propeller was damaged during launch, foreign objects (tools) suspected on launch rail. Written Off: 14 March 2009 - Category “A” - Destroyed following problems with a temperature inversion. 161017 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Suffered category “B” damage near Kandahar, Afghanistan on 06 April 2008. Engine power dropped shortly after launch, crew initiated emergency recovery, but air vehicle hit ground before parachute and airbag fully deployed. Category “B” damage occurred again at Kandahar on 25 July 2008, ground station equipment faults resulted in a hard landing. Written Off: 25 October 2008 - Category “A” - Destroyed near Kandahar. Engine failure during routine mission lead to emergency landing off field. Airframe was scavenged by locals before being recovered. 161018 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Written Off: 08 April 2007 - Category “A” - Destroyed in when the air vehicle departed controlled flight while cruising en route to operational location. No parachute. Initial report cited alternator failure, resulting in automatic recovery sequence being started.

30 / 35

161019 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Operated at CFB Wainwright, Alberta in May 2007, during Exercise MAPLE GUARDIAN. Finished in overall gray camouflage with black low visibility markings.

Written Off: 05 March 2008 - Category “A” - Destroyed at Kandahar when air vehicle failed to climb after launch and struck piece of construction equipment 365 metres from launch site. 161020 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Written Off: 10 July 2007 - Category “A” - Destroyed in crash at Kandahar airport. Crew was performing manual recovery sequence, parachute began deployment at too low an altitude and the air vehicle was destroyed by impact. 161021 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Experienced category “C” damage at Kandahar airport on 03 July 2007. Piece of propeller left airframe shortly after launch, parachute did not fully deploy due to low altitude. Repaired and preserved at the RCA Museum in Shilo, MB. 161022 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Written Off: 05 May 2008 – Category “A” - Destroyed near Kandahar Airfield when engine lost power right after launch and the air vehicle struck ground at high speed 10 seconds after launch.

31 / 35

161023 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Written Off: 31 October 2007 - Category “A” - Air vehicle suffered Cat “A” damage at Kandahar airport when parachute did not deploy during recovery sequence. 161024 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Suffered Category “B” damage on 22 May 2008, near Kandahar Airfield. Air vehicle pitched down and struck ground shortly after launch, blocked pitot tube suspected. Repaired and preserved at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, ON. 161025 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Delivered late October 2007. Category “B” damage occurred on 27 March 2008, west of Kandahar airfield. Normal launch, but contact lost while transiting to operational area. Entered “safe mode” and damaged in parachute landing. Repaired and survived further operational use to eventually be sold to France. 161026 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Delivered in late November 2007. Finished in overall gray camouflage with black low visibility markings.

Written Off: 09 August 2008 – Category “A” - Damaged at 09:00 local near Kandahar Airfield. Pitched abnormally right after parachute deployed for normal landing, struck ground nose down with partially inflated parachute. Parachute mis-rigging suspected. Repaired and preserved at the Calgary Military Museum in Calgary, AB.

32 / 35

161027 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Delivered in late December 2007. Written Off: 18 March 2008 - Category “A” - Damaged at Kandahar, Afghanistan. Apparently lost control on launch, rolled left and pitched down, striking ground at high speed. Air vehicle later sold to France. 161028 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer Refurbished ex-Danish Sperwer, acquired second hand in September 2006. Delivered in late February 2008. Category “B” damage occurred during landing at Kandahar Airfield on 24 October 2008. Main parachute deployed too slowly and was not fully inflated when the air vehicle struck the ground. Repaired and preserved at the Heritage Museum in 14 Wing Greenwood, NS 161029 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Survived operational use to eventually be sold to France. 161030 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Written Off: 22 August 2008 – Category “A” - Destroyed near Kandahar after apparent engine failure in flight, emergency descent started. Aircraft reported burning on the ground shortly afterwards. Remains scavenged by locals, no recovery attempted. 161031 SAGEM CU-161 Sperwer 2006 - order placed Written Off: 06 November 2008 – Category “A” - Destroyed near Kandahar after engine failure during mission resulted in emergency descent from low altitude; comsumed by post impact fire.

CU-161 SPERWER SUMMARY

TOTAL NO. OF AIR VEHICLES: 31 NUMBER OF AIR VEHICLES WRITTEN-OFF (CAT “A”): 20 (65% of total fleet) NUMBER OF AIR VEHICLES SERIOUSLY DAMAGED (CAT “B”): 26 (84% of total fleet)

DISPOSAL:

NUMBER OF AIR VEHICLES SOLD TO FRANCE: 6 NUMBER OF AIR VEHICLES DONATED TO MUSEUMS: 7

MUSEUM DISPOSITION:

CU161001 - to Canada Aviation and Space Museum, Ottawa, ON CU161003 - to 1 Wing Museum, Kingston, ON CU161007 - to 8 Wing Trenton, Museum, Trenton, ON CU161021 - to RCA Museum, Shilo, MB

33 / 35

CU161024 - to Canadian War Museum, Ottawa, ON CU161026 - to Calgary Military Museum, Calgary, AB CU161028 - to 14 Wing Greenwood Military Aviation Museum, Greenwood, NS

NOTE (1) :

The information on these pages has been primarily assembled the referenced documents / sources but also from publicly available internet sources, Department of National Defense flight safety documents and press releases or articles in the trade journals (such as Jane's Defense and Flight International). In addition, some unpublished DND information was also kindly made available to the author by DND officials.

NOTE (2) :

Aircraft (or Air Vehicle) Damage Level (ADL) Categories: 11

The Canadian Forces ADL is a qualitative categorization system used to determine the level of damage sustained by an aircraft / air vehicle during an occurrence. The following damage level definitions are used to reflect the degree of damage:

Category “A” = Destroyed / missing: The aircraft has been totally destroyed, is assessed as having suffered damage beyond economical repair or is declared missing; NB - Aircraft totally destroyed are normally written off the inventory. Accidents with a lower ADL may also subsequently result in administrative write-off of the aircraft for reasons not directly related to the damage.

Category “B” = Very Serious: The aircraft has sustained damage to multiple major components;

Category “C” = Serious: The aircraft has sustained damage to a major component;

Category “D” = Minor: The aircraft has sustained damage to non-major components; and

Category “E” = Nil: The aircraft, including the power plant, has not been damaged.

LIST OF COMMON ABBREVIATIONS

AO Area of Operations CF Canadian Forces CFB Canadian Forces Base DND Department of National Defence FLIR Forward Looking Infrared HLVW Heavy Logistics Vehicle Wheeled IOC Initial Operating Capability Op Operation TF Task Force TUAV Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UAS Unmanned Aerial System UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UOR Urgent Operational Requirement VHF Very High Frequency

34 / 35

REFERENCES

! Books: !!! Leversedge, T.F.J. Canadian Combat and Support Aircraft, St. Catherines, !!! Ontario, Vanwell Publications, 2007. ! Newsletters: !!!408 Squadron Association Newsletter, 2006. !!!Observair, Ottawa Chapter Newsletter, CAHS, March 2010. Websites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAGEM_Sperwer http://www.casr.ca/bg-uav-cu161sperwer.htm http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/cu161/index-eng.asp http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/sperwer_detailed.html http://www.uavs.ca/outreach/HistoryUAVs.pdf

Acknowledgements:

Special thanks to Bill Upton both for his overall support and encouragement as well as supplying the title page in this history. Our thanks as well to the Canadian Forces for supplying both technical data and the bulk of the images used in this history. (2013)

END NOTES

1 SAGEM = Societé d’application générales de l’électricité et de la mécanique

2 This section is based primarily on the following two websites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAGEM_Sperwer & http://www.casr.ca/bg-uav-cu161sperwer.htm

3 Some of the information in this section is drawn from the following: A History of Unmanned Aviation in Canada. See:http://www.uavs.ca/outreach/HistoryUAVs.pdf

4 Information drawn from: http://www.casr.ca/bg-uav-cu161deployment.htm

5 This information is based primarily on an unpublished Canadian Forces document available to the author, titled “Op Athena CU-161 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) Concept of Operations (CONOPS) - 1 Canadian Air Division publication, November 2006.

6 Information drawn from an unpublished Air Force assessment of the Sperwer system following an analysis provided by the Directorate of Flight Safety.

7 This section is based primarily on the information in the 2006 edition of the 408 Squadron Association Newsletter. See: http://www.forfreedom.ca/newsletters/2006.pdf

8 See: http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/ Sagem_Defense_Securite_Transforms_Danish_UAVs_For_Canadian_Forces_999.html

9 These statistics are based upon a review of the information contained in the Sperwer Fleet Disposition Summary also included in this history.

10 See: Leversedge, T.F.J. Canadian Combat and Support Aircraft - Page 342.

11 Drawn from: A-GA-135-001/AA-001 Manual of Flight Safety for the Canadian Forces

35 / 35