(More….)

It has been doing this despite widespread criticism in South America of Israel over its occupation of Palestinian territories and support for Palestinian statehood.

The Hermes 900 is a larger ‘Predator sized’ version of the Hermes 450, and is capable of carrying a larger ‘payload’, including weapons.

The first South American country to purchase the Hermes 900 was Chile. Indeed, Chile was the first country anywhere outside Israel to purchase the Hermes 900. When Elbit announced last week that it had made another sale of the Hermes 900 in the Americas speculation was that the buyer was Mexico. Mexico already operates Hermes 450 drones. But now it appears certain that the purchaser was Colombia.

The $50 million sale will provide Colombia with only two Hermes 900 drones, which apparently is intended for use by the national police service (although the original press release stated that the drone was for ‘perimeter security missions’.

Colombia was one of the countries that helped to block the recent Palestinian statehood bid by stating its intention to abstain from voting.

It is uncertain how the Colombian police force will use a large drone capable of flying at very high altitudes, for long periods of time. Nor is it certain whether the sale will include a contract for training Colombian pilots to fly the drone, or where this training will take place. Finally, there is no indication at this time whether the Hermes 900 drones sold to Colombia will eventually be armed.

Montreal firm Presagis has announced a contract with Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. The amount of the contract was not announced. Presagis will provide a visual database for Elbit to use in its training centre for F-16 pilots. The ‘visualisation’ software will be based on Presagis’ product Vega Prime. Presagis has had an ongoing association with simulation for the F-16.

Presagis describes its core business as ‘modelling and simulation’ and ‘embedded graphics’. The company claims to have 1000 customers worldwide including arms companies BAE Systems, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.

Presagis has also sold its VEGA PRIME  product to Israeli Aerospace Industries, the Israeli government owned arms company.

Presagis actively markets its products to other arms companies and government departments. The company has provided products to the Israeli Air Force for training F-16 pilots.

The company also has a capability with respect to operator training for drone systems, although it is uncertain whether the company has sold any products for use in drones or drone operator training.

Presagis has a commercial link with Synergy of Tel Aviv, which appears to be a sales agent for Presagis. Synergy lists among its customers the Israeli arms companies Elbit Systems, IAI, Rafael, and others.

Synergy appears to be an enterprise of Synergy Integration of County Tyrone, Ireland.

Inititally expected to be in operation in June, 2010, Watchkeeper has been delayed and was under review by the government watchdog monitoring poor performance on contracts. But the government was able to help the contractors catch up by jettisoning or delaying one of the operational requirements for the drone.

In January 2012, however, there is still no sign of Watchkeeper being deployed. Aviation Week did not indicate why the programme was delayed, but attributed the news of the delay to an unnamed Ministry of Defense spokesman.

Watchkeeper was due in Afghanistan to replace drones leased from an Israeli company.

Watchkeeper has been criticised for being vastly overpriced. The billion pound price tag also supported an Israeli arms company, Elbit Systems, well known for providing services to the occupation forces in Palestine.

Watchkeeper was produced by a coventure between Elbit of Israel, and Thales of France.

Watchkeeper flying near Parc Aberporth, Wales

      Many people around the world are extremely troubled by the growing use of unmanned systems to launch attacks at great distances. Traditionally, one of the key restraints on warfare has been the risk to one’s own forces and, as the MoD themselves admit in their publication on UAV’s, if this restraint is taken away, unmanned systems may make war more likely. The way that unmanned drones have enabled a huge increase in targeted killing is also causing deep disquiet amongst legal experts and scholars. Of particular concern is the way that the CIA is using such unmanned systems to undertake extrajudicial killings in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia – countries with which the US is not at war.

     However, perhaps the greatest concern relates to what is seen as one of the most important capabilities or characteristics of drones – their ability to loiter over an area for hours or even days. Evidence is beginning to emerge that it is the persistent presence of UAVs sitting over remote villages and towns simply looking for ‘targets of opportunity’ that may be leading to civilian casualties.

(MORE…..)

While the introduction of drones has allowed some belligerant countries to introduce targeted killing and pervasive surveillance into conflict zones, drones also have the potential to democratise surveillance, as non state organisations are able to purchase simple drones which have sophisticated optical and communications technology. Small drones like the Osprey can stay aloft for as much as an hour and send back high definition images from far above the surface of the land, or the sea.

The SSCS has also used the drone in its campaign to protect bluefin tuna.

The Digital Journal.com reports, crediting the US Government Accountability Office, that ’238 drug smugglers and 4,865 undocumented immigrants’ have been apprehended using drones in the past six years (most or all of them along the Mexican/US border). The US GAO also reports that the US Department of Homeland security plans to increase the number of drones used in border patrol to 24 by 2016, budgets permitting. It isn’t clear how many would be deployed along the Canadian border.

The Digital Journal article also suggests that the drones have cost $20 million each and cost $3,600 per hour to operate. $240 million have been spent so far, not counting operating costs.

It isn’t clear how many drug smugglers and illegal immigrants have been apprehended entering the US from Canada, but the number is certainly small to non existent, suggesting that the US is paying a great deal of money to patrol the quiet Canadian border. To date I am not aware of a single report of a drone involved in the apprehension of a smuggler or an illegal immigrant along the northern border.

Because of the vast distances,  low population, and lack of cover, few smugglers or illegal immigrants would use any means of crossing the border that did not involve transportation, where they would be subject to inspection by ground based immigration officers. The overhead drone surveillance appears to be an expensive toy for the US Homeland Security force.

William Booth, writing in the Washington post, describes an incident where drone operators closely observed a citizen living near the border, from 15,000 feet, noting just how intrusive the technology is. Indeed the American Civil Liberties Union has begun a campaign to demand protection to be put in place to protect Americans from intrusive drone surveillance. Their very good report on the issue can be found here.

There appears to be no equivalent campaign in Canada. Perhaps there should be, as the American drones can send back sharp images of Canadian backyards from well within American airspace.

By that, it appears that the MOD means ‘drones’.

In a blizzard of bafflegab and meaningless remarks the Minister for Defence Equipment Support and Technology, Peter Luff, and several industry figures failed to illluminate exactly what the money would be used for, (although it certainly wouldn’t be used for schools or deficit reduction).

The UK drones strategy appears to be floundering. The British drones industry hasn’t produced commercial success in the face of Israeli and American competition, and now a range of drones are being manufactured in many places around the world. Apparently BAE now needs the public to pay for its research programmes in order to be persuaded to continue to research and develop drones.

The much vaunted Watchkeeper programme, rolled out a millenium ago (it seems) was touted as the means to kick start Britain into a leading role in the drones industry. Instead, £1 billion was spent on 54 drones based on an earlier Israeli drone, the Hermes 450.

Although MOD claims that the Watchkeeper is a much updated version of the Hermes 450, it remains to be seen whether the improvement is worth the premium. Certain elements of the Watchkeeper programme had to be postponed recently in order to bring that programme back into schedule.

In the mean time Elbit Systems, the owner of the Hermes 450 technology, has been setting up joint ventures around the world to produce drones, which undercuts the market for any possible Watchkeeper drone export from Britain.

The first units of the Watchkeeper drone are due to be deployed in Afghanistan in the first months of 2012, only a short time before UK troops are supposed to be withdrawn.

With 54 Watchkeeper drones, the UK will have one of the world’s larger MALE drones fleets, but without presently any new war theatres to deploy them in. Within a few months most of the 54 drones will be on standby, quietly depreciating.

Some other NATO countries, like Canada and Australia, leased MALE drones for their troops in Afghanistan and returned them when they were no longer needed.

These small drones have extremely good optical abilities and can remain aloft for several minutes. It wasn’t clear from reports whether the drone was being operated by security forces, by the media, or by someone else. Similar kinds of drones are sold and marketed by Aeryon Labs, of Canada.

This occurence is but the beginning of a wave of surveillance by minidrones that do not require licenses to fly in civilan airspace.

Anna Mulrine, of the Christian Science Monitor, reported recently in Alaska Dispatch.com, on the problem of unreliable drones.

One of the problems of drones is the long and complicated communication networks needed to control drones remotely, and their vulnerability to failure and disruption. Another problem is the two second delay that occurs in electronic signals from drone operators in the US to drone being used in Central Asia or the Middle East, and back again. (Much like the scene in a digital camera that changes after the shutter is pressed but before the picture is taken a drone operator is always two seconds behind what is happening where the drone is).

Blogger Jeffery Carr, has reported on studies by the US government that detail the reliability of drones. Drones are particularly vulnerable to disruption in satellite communications, and may be vulnerable to cyber attacks, which is the technique that Iran claims to have used to capture the American MQ-170 drone earlier this month.

David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen, re-reporting information published in the Christian Science Monitor describes an Iranian scientist who claims that Iran reprogrammes GPS coordinate and jams satellite communications to trick American drones into landing.

Interestingly, there have been no new drone strikes in Pakistan in the past month, though this is likely due more to the fallout of from the disintegrating relations with Pakistan than concerns over drones being captured.