Alex McColl: Don't send dud rockets to Ukraine

Everyone I interviewed wanted to support Ukrainians in their fight for freedom, they just wanted to send things that would be useful instead of accidentally dangerous.

A British Apache attack helicopter fires CRV7 rockets during fighting in Afghanistan. Photo: Staff Sergeant Mike Harvey/MOD

By: Alex McColl

Canadian parliamentary committees — and even the leader of the official opposition — are endorsing a request by the Ukrainian military to send that beleaguered country thousands of mothballed rockets that have not been adequately stored or maintained. The plan has received nothing but approval from Canadians; however, according to multiple sources I have interviewed, the rockets in question are probably useless. In a worst case scenario, a few could go off and hurt or kill the Ukrainians trying to jury rig them into a short-range rocket artillery weapon.

This is about Canada’s stockpile of expired CRV7 rocket motors, which were slated for environmentally responsible disposal twenty years ago. Despite this, these weapons are being requested by the Ukrainian military, which is desperate for any kind of munitions as the war with Russia drags on.

Last week, Global News reported that Ukraine believes around 8,000 of the 83,303 rockets still in the Canadian stockpile are in good condition with useful warheads, and that the solid fuel rockets “may still be safe, provided they had been stored properly and not exposed to moisture or contamination.”

However, multiple sources not authorized to comment on the record have confirmed directly to me that the expired rocket motors were not properly stored. An industry source confirmed that they have been kept in wooden crates without proper weatherproofing and in a facility without climate control. These expired rockets have experienced 20 years of Saskatchewan winter cold, summer heat, and all the condensation that comes with it.

According to one Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) officer I contacted, who asked to remain anonymous as they were not authorized to speak publicly, the storage situation was even worse: “They've been stored for destruction since 2005, and the storage facilities have flooded multiple times. We have maybe 1,200 warheads of various types left, though they're just as old. This just doesn't seem to make any sense.”

There also appears to be no firm consensus about how many warheads we even have to give to the Ukrainians. Everyone I asked about warheads had a different estimate about how many of these rockets were remaining, and no one had a confident answer. One source said they had no record of any warheads remaining, and that they were likely already disposed of via a separate contract.

Another was confident that most of the remaining rockets, made between 1990 and 1994, were well past the expiration date, and contained asbestos. Even without the risk of fires and explosions, there are respiratory health risks just from handling the rocket motors.

When asked to guess why Ukraine would even ask for them, one officer replied:

“I think this all stems from a basic misunderstanding of rocket vs. rocket motor, and people acting outside of the formal International Donor Coordination Centre (where the Armed Forces of Ukraine coordinates with partners including Canada) trying to do the right thing but just handing a huge gift to political parties who will use it to fight each other and do nothing for Ukraine. … Some well-intentioned soul must have seen the 2021 CBC article about the CRV7, passed it on to some other well meaning Ukrainian Canadians and then somewhere down the line they just got a letter put on [Ukrainian general] Budanov's desk to sign.”

My source concluded, “I don't know what Ukraine would want with them unless they think they have warheads.”

Everyone I interviewed wanted to support Ukrainians in their fight for freedom, they just wanted to send weapons that would be useful instead of potentially dangerous rocket motors that expired 20 years ago.

During the Cold War, the Canadian-made CRV7 was one of the best 70mm NATO rockets thanks to its powerful motor, high speed, and consistent accuracy. It was carried by NATO fighter jets and attack helicopters. In the early 1970s, it could outrange most Soviet short-range man-portable surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS), giving pilots an advantage in air-to-ground missions. Our pilots could shoot at the bad guys from far enough away that the bad guys couldn’t shoot back.

That was then. Today, surface-to-air weapons have advanced to the point where unguided rocket attacks are rarely worth the risk, which is why these rockets were retired 20 years ago.

One of the CAF officers I interviewed reached out again the next day to get in the final word. Here’s what I was told:

“In general, I'd say that the phase when donating from existing inventory was relevant ended in early 2023. Canada has donated many useful things, but focussed on what Canadian industry can provide, not what Ukraine desperately needs. Unarmed ACSVs and drone cameras are useful, but Ukraine needs predictable and reliable supplies of battle decisive munitions, most of all air defence missiles and artillery ammunition. The conversation Canada should be having isn't about rotten surplus, but how we support new production of key ammunition, ideally at home but ultimately whoever we can fund to get it to Ukraine fastest.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Alex McColl has a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of Calgary, where he wrote his capstone thesis, CF-39 Arrow II: A Swedish Solution to the CF-18 Replacement Problem, on military procurement.

---

The Line is entirely reader funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and wish to offer us a tip or a top up, please consider a donation today.

---

The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something:  lineeditor@protonmail.com