Andrew Sliwa is the Managing Director of Custom Prototypes, a Toronto-based company that blends cutting-edge design with precision fabrication in various industries.

Under his leadership, the company has gained international recognition, notably clinching the Advanced Finishing category at the 2018 AMUG Technical Competition with a stunningly accurate recreation of a Praetorian Guard helmet. Since its modest beginnings in 1995, when just two employees crafted handmade prototypes, Custom Prototypes has become a leader in advanced 3D printing technologies.

Sliwa’s dedication to innovation and quality has firmly established the firm’s reputation in the prototyping world.

Amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, his team has pivoted to developing state-of-the-art drones tailored for military applications, prioritizing extended range and AI-driven functionality. Beyond his technological ventures, Sliwa has become an outspoken voice on Canada’s defense spending, emphasizing the vital role of equipment manufacturing in supporting Ukraine’s resistance and highlighting technology’s transformative potential in shaping warfare’s future.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: To begin, could you share your name and the position you hold?

Andrew Sliwa: I manage Custom Prototypes based in Etobicoke, Ontario. I run a service bureau specializing in product development. We are a small manufacturing facility utilizing various short-run production processes, such as 3D printing, CNC machining, plastic vacuum forming, and more.

Since the war in Ukraine began, we decided to contribute to the war effort. We recognized that we were in a good position to develop drones.

Jacobsen: Given the situation in Ukraine and the expanding role of drone technology, how critical do you think it is to develop drones with extended range and increased payload capacities?

Sliwa: Drone warfare is fundamentally changing the battlefield. Drones have become incredibly effective tools. Most drones we see today are commercial models modified to carry payloads.

Operators can locate and destroy targets with FPV goggles. However, FPV drones typically have a limited range—they can travel up to about 20 kilometers, but maintaining a video link restricts their operational range.

Jacobsen: Is using drones as signal relays to amplify their operational range technically viable? What are the limitations and possibilities of this approach?

Sliwa: There have been attempts to use relay stations to extend drone range. However, this method has practical limitations.

For this purpose, we are developing a fixed-wing drone designed for longer distances and higher payloads. The technology we are integrating includes an AI chip programmed with flight loops and a target area map. This technology compares the map with real-time imagery from the onboard camera.

This makes the drone nearly independent of GPS and pilot input, which means it cannot be easily jammed. Additionally, flying at low altitudes makes it challenging to detect and intercept. This drone can cover distances of up to 200 kilometres.

It is primarily designed as a one-way attack drone, meaning it does not return. However, it can also be used for reconnaissance missions if needed. That’s the concept behind it.

Jacobsen: Your drones, which can travel up to 200 kilometers while carrying heavier payloads, clearly offer advanced capabilities. Could you elaborate on their costs and the specific advantages they offer over other models?

Sliwa: I do not want to discuss the cost of this drone because we are not at the point where we can accurately price it. Drones of this class, fully equipped with electronics and motors, typically cost around $100,000. Historically, these drones were developed as targets for military use, primarily for anti-aircraft defence training.

However, in Ukraine, drones of this kind are being repurposed to fly deep into Russian territory to destroy ammunition depots and other critical infrastructure. They sometimes launch 100 to 300 drones simultaneously, knowing that many will be intercepted by anti-aircraft systems or jammed.

The costs of deploying 300 drones are significant, but the potential payoff—such as destroying an ammunition depot the size of a city—is far greater than the cost of the drones.

Jacobsen: Shortly after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, on March 2nd, the United Nations General Assembly convened an emergency session. During this meeting, Resolution A/ES-11/1 was passed, strongly condemning Russia’s actions and calling for the withdrawal of troops from all occupied territories in Ukraine. How do you interpret the significance of this resolution in shaping global solidarity with Ukraine?

Sliwa: Wow, and you remember all that.

Jacobsen: The resolution received overwhelming support—141 votes in favor against only five opposed, with abstentions aside. Nations like North Korea, which eventually sent troops to support Russia, stood in opposition. The global response highlights a near-universal consensus backing Ukraine. For countries not aligned with this sentiment, are they, in your view, isolating themselves from the dominant international ethos? How does Canada’s role, largely providing financial and material support, exemplify this alignment?

Sliwa: That’s accurate. There’s a common belief that Canada sends money, but that’s incorrect. Canada sends equipment manufactured in Canada. The funds allocated go to Canadian companies that produce this equipment, which is then shipped to Ukraine. We don’t send cash alone; we send valuable equipment instead.

Jacobsen: Yes, I wouldn’t want to oversimplify it by saying Canadians give money—money alone isn’t a weapon you can fire.

Sliwa: That’s correct.

Jacobsen: For Canadians seeking clarity, what’s the simplest way to illustrate how their financial support contributes to practical outcomes in the war? Specifically, could you detail how such funds are helping manufacture affordable, locally produced Ukrainian defense equipment and why that approach matters?

Sliwa: Wow, that’s a political question. All decisions in support of Ukraine are political and based on debates and discussions. How much we allocate to defence has been a topic of debate for a long time. Canada doesn’t even meet its NATO spending commitments. As NATO members, we are supposed to allocate 2% of our GDP to defence.

So, 2%, but we are only at about 1.4%. Among NATO countries, we are among the lowest contributors. Most NATO countries pay their share, but Canada does not.

We feel secure simply being next to the United States and assume they will defend us if something happens. However, we fail to recognize that we share a border with Russia. Russia even planted a flag under the North Pole, claiming it as Russian territory.

How concerning is that? They claim the North Pole as their territory, yet we neglect our military. It doesn’t seem to be a priority for Canada, which is unpleasant.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Andrew.