Wthen I started reporting on the Canadian military stopping hug about drone technology for Walrus, I was impressed by one conversation. Lt. Gen. Michael Wright spoke with a frankness and urgency that I don't usually encounter when covering protection and intelligence. Appointed commander Canadian Army In 2024, Lt. Gen. Wright was a central voice on how the nation's military must modernize to remain credible. During our conversation in June, he made a compelling case for using drones as the foundation for this renovation. There was a clarity to his sentences that seemed too important to be buried in a longer article: it deserved to appear on its own. What follows is that conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length.
To begin with, what is war? Ukraine taught us?
He reinforced several key principles. First, land and power are important. war dragged on for more than three years because neither side was able to muster the critical mass—troops, precision, and firepower—to break through. But technology also matters. And adaptation matters. And here I'm talking about drones, where we're seeing an incredibly fast pace of innovation. I've heard that it takes a maximum of four months before the technology is reintroduced. As the other side learns about your use of camouflage and camouflage, how you ensure you are not constantly being watched, or how you use electronic warfare to try to destroy drones, every time an offensive is launched or countermeasures are taken, the enemy quickly does everything possible to counter it.
How is the Canadian Army learning these lessons?
We support Operation Unitewhere do we train Ukrainian recruits and officers. This has been going on since 2015. After the 2022 invasion, we moved it to Latvia, Poland and the UK. We can hear directly from the Ukrainians about what they are learning on the battlefield, and I would say that over the last three years, our soldiers are increasingly learning as much from them as we are giving them. We now have a Lessons Learned Center where we collect and analyze information from the battlefield. But frankly, we need to accelerate the process of capturing these lessons and then communicating them throughout the Army so that they influence our doctrine – how we fight, how we operate, and our investments in equipment and technology.
Do you mean drones?
Yes, in particular, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems”, or UAVs, and, of course, anti-UAV capabilities. Offensive and defensive capabilities. They are a great example why do we pay so much attention not only the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, but also what our closest allies around the world are doing. This is very important for the modernization of the Canadian army. As I have said elsewhere, the army we have is not the army we need. We're working hard to get the capabilities we knew we needed years ago, but also to remain flexible enough to implement capabilities we didn't even know we'd need—capabilities we're learning about from Ukraine and elsewhere—and get them to our Soldiers quickly.
Can you just say something about what's currently available to soldiers in Canada for UAV systems and counter-UAS systems, and what you think you'll need in the future?
Yes, there is a gap between the systems we have and what the moment requires. We also need to speed up the way we acquire these systems. We currently have several ongoing offerings for small drones. Essentially a general purpose UAV. These are not the kind of drones that, if we were to get involved in a conflict, we would necessarily use. But I want to flood the zone. I want to infuse our force with drones to give soldiers hands-on experience and the ability to fly them, and to help them understand what it's like to operate under near-constant surveillance. Using Ukraine as an example, we see that many innovations come from the bottom up. So, I want the army to have as many drones as possible. I want Soldiers to become familiar with this technology and, more importantly, its potential. I want them to start thinking, “Okay, how would I use this?” But also: “How will this change the way I go out on patrol, knowing that the enemy also has this technology?”
Does this mean they will fall into the hands of Canadian Rangers?
Yes, absolutely. With the increasing number of events that will take place in Arcticwe will have to do a better job of integrating drones into our operations there. This is a great example of how we have experts who know the terrain, know the environmental conditions, and can help us determine, “Hey, what type of drone works best in the backcountry or the Arctic?”
Does “flooding the zone” represent a significant shift in the usually slow and difficult way of acquiring military equipment? Is it a little risky?
I would say it's different, but I think it's riskier if we don't get drones into the hands of our soldiers. We have smart soldiers, and they look at what is happening in Ukraine and say: “I wouldn't feel comfortable We're deploying in a situation right now where we don't have drones.”
And I understand that Latvia has brought benefits here.
Latvia acted as an accelerator. Last year, the Army released a series of so-called non-forecast operational requirements, or EORs. They are designed for needs that are beyond planned budgets or timelines. UORs theoretically allow us to quickly purchase equipment and put it into service. I'm talking about equipment such as loitering munitions or armed drones, as well as soldier man-portable UAV systems that can jam drones. This is all specific to Latvia, but over the past year I've been focused on making sure we eventually get the same equipment for the rest of the Canadian Army. While UORs can get equipment into theater faster, this does not work for units based in Canada. Therefore, it is important to find a way to bring the systems that we operationally use in Latvia to Canada so that soldiers can train on them. We really need to show our troops that yes, we are investing in what you need to do your job, whether it's uniforms, personal protective equipment, rifles, or in this case, drones.
My next question comes after reading some media reports about how the Ukrainian military is adapting, down to smaller and smaller units, to adopt drone capabilities. Do you feel the same way about the Canadian Army?
Yes, but it's actually more than that because we're reviewing the core principles of our structure for the entire Army, the Regular Reserve, the Canadian Rangers and even the civilians of our defense team. So, what I can say with some confidence is that the way we are structured now is not the way we will be structured in the future. And what we need to figure out is to ensure that people who need drones or anti-drone technology are equipped with them. Scout soldiers walking ahead. You probably want them to have drones. Infantry soldiers on the main battle line with weapons and tanks. Good thing they have drones too. But we are also thinking about replenishing supplies and ensuring the security of the rear. I think the best answer to this question is that it is difficult to imagine an organization on the modern battlefield that does not need drones. So what we're looking at is as we start acquiring more drones and using them to determine the future structure of the army – how exactly are we going to do that? Whether concentrated in specific units or distributed throughout the Army, I am clear that drones must be integrated into every aspect of our operations.
Is the Army so specialized that you have to go your own way when it comes to drones and counter-drone systems? Or are there ways to collaborate as the Air Force and Navy also develop their capabilities?
At this point I would say there isn't that much of a difference. Yeah, the Army looks at Army stuff, the Air Force looks at Air Force stuff, and navy looks at naval things. But the first small drones that we were able to acquire for the Army, we acquired from the Navy because they wanted to buy drones for their naval boarding teams – you know, the sailors that they send in rigid-hulled inflatable boats to board ships to inspect or seize them. What they were looking for was very similar to what we were looking for. Thus, we were able to achieve some savings in effort. Latvia is another place where we cooperate. The countermeasures UAVs we put there are used by both the Air Force and the Navy.
Do you think the Canadian Army will be able to leverage existing or future Canadian industrial capabilities to help with its drone and counter-drone systems?
I believe the answer is yes. But again, this is where the Army sets the requirements, and then it's up to the Assistant Deputy Minister and Public Services and Procurement Canada to find industry partners – no matter what country they're from. We send out a request, companies respond with what they can provide, and this process helps ensure that the Army does not show any favoritism. In fact, it is these organizations that determine which proposals meet the high-level mandatory requirements set by the Army. But we heard loud and clear from prime minister about his future “buy Canadian” intentions, and this is where whatever comes out of the new Defense Investment Agency will be interesting.
I know that some of the systems that we have purchased so far – the Reapers and the Til-2 drones – are all made by American manufacturers. And these are obviously good systems. We talk with the Air Force and NORAD about the importance of interoperability. Is there a similar calculation going on with the drones you have – do you need to make sure they're compatible with certain allies?
Compatibility? Absolutely, and there is no better example than the mission in Latvia because we work with many different countries there. But what we talk about in a lot of our projects (maybe not so much on drones or not yet) is interchangeability. Interoperability is ensuring that our system interoperates with theirs. Interchangeability means that if we fire a weapon and it fails, we can actually move to the country next to us – not the actual country, but their brigade – and have common equipment or units to continue the fight.
Are you thinking about how to educate Canadians at the highest level about how important drones and counter-drone systems are to the military and its future?
In fact, I'm going to suggest that we don't have to explain it to them, and I'll tell you why. On Father's Day, I called my father-in-law and heard the phrase: “Hey, why don't the Canadian Army have drones? Why don't you have enough drones? What are you doing to get these drones?” So, while I think it's absolutely important to educate as much as possible, drones are so common now that I actually think it's pushing the door open to some extent.
Do you have a feeling that young people will be much more attracted to military careers because they feel like it kind of fits in with their world of technological change?
As I said, Canadians in general are used to drones. I think young Canadians joining the Canadian Forces expect us to provide them with the modern technology they need. We are just finishing work on a document that will be adopted by the Canadian Armed Forces, called Tipping point 2025. Essentially, this proves why we urgently need to change. And one of our challenges is that we need to equip Canadian Army soldiers with their generation of technology.
