Budget officer says used Australian fighter jets will cost Canada over $1 billion — far more than DND claimed

On the same subject

• 

  May 25, 2020 | Local, Land

  Supacat and Soucy team to offer composite rubber tracks for UK armoured fleet upgrades

  21 May 2020, Leading high mobility military vehicle developer, Supacat, with operations in Devon, UK, and Melbourne, Australia, signed a Teaming Agreement in March 2020 with Soucy International Inc., the Quebec, Canada, based global leader in Composite Rubber Tracks (CRT) for defence equipment. The teaming offers Soucy's market leading, high performance Composite Rubber Track systems to meet the requirements of the UK armed forces, and others, to upgrade their new and legacy armoured fleets from Steel Track to Composite Rubber Tracks. The integration and support for Soucy tracks could be provided by Supacat, an established prime contractor to both the UK and Australian MoDs, thus securing high value jobs within local supply chains. Supacat's OEM engineering capability and experienced field support teams would ensure the long-term sustainment of vehicles fitted with Composite Rubber Tracks and a commitment to support troops in peacetime and during operations. Soucy has been in the vanguard of Composite Rubber Track development to not only match but surpass the performance of steel track systems in all measurable areas, from mobility and traction to cost per Km. Soucy provides defence tracks up to a GVW of 50mT and continues developing compounds for higher GVW. Soucy tracks are approved by military forces worldwide and it has supplied Composite Rubber Tracks for platforms such as M113, Warthog, Bronco, BVS10, BAE Systems MPF, CV90 and Redback, with many more in development. The value of the UK armed forces' requirement is estimated at £500m in track sales over 25 years but deliver potential savings to the UK MoD of £330m from just four platform configurations transitioned to Composite Rubber Tracks, based on current track mileage allocations. For the UK MoD, the Soucy – Supacat teaming enables it to acquire global market leading technology through an innovation led British SME and level up employment into South West England; and post Brexit, to further the UK – Canada trade partnership in helping Soucy expand its presence in the UK to create new job opportunities. Other armed forces in Europe are planning upgrades but acceptance onto some of the British Army's larger fleet is key to the UK-Canada team. Composite Rubber Tracks reduce the noise and vibration levels generated by steel that impact the health of both vehicle system and user. They significantly improve crew safety, durability and system life while lowering fuel and life cycle costs. Rubber tracks also benefit programmes with weight restrictions, such as the Mobile Fires Platform (MFP). Nick Ames, CEO of Supacat parent SC Group said, "We are delighted to be teamed with the world leading rubber track manufacturer, Soucy. We have had experience with tracks over the years for both military and civil applications, most notably the RNLI Launch and Recovery System. This teaming takes our exposure to rubber tracks to a new level and we look forward to working with Soucy on bringing the undeniable benefits of rubber tracks to the relevant UK and Australian vehicle fleets in the coming months and years ensuring the economic benefits are retained in both countries”. Normand Lalonde said, ‘' This teaming agreement between Soucy and Supacat is directly linked to the global positioning strategy of Soucy. It will allow us to enhance our value proposition offer of CRT to the UK MOD and to the different European and Australian armies while supporting local employment. It will allow the Armies to capitalize greatly on the benefits brought by the CRT helping them to increase their operational capabilities. Soucy is very honored to work with Supacat, both companies have the same values.'' https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industry/supacat_and_soucy_team_to_offer_composite_rubber_tracks_for_uk_armoured_fleet_upgrades.html

• 

  November 19, 2019 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Military Procurement: What the New Cabinet Can Learn From Australia

  By Lee Harding The Liberal government announced its new cabinet on Nov. 20—the very same day the Canadian Global Affairs Institute hosted its annual event on the topic of military procurement. Given that an overhaul in that area is sorely needed, Canada can learn a lot from Australia, Ian Mack wrote in a recent report for the institute. Mack is uniquely qualified to make that assessment, having worked with both governments in their process of awarding contracts for military sea vessels. While he believes both countries had an acceptable result, his report, titled “Another Way to Buy Frigates,” suggests the Canadian approach adds work, balloons costs, and delays success. The re-elected Trudeau government should take note. The Liberals proposed significant changes to Canada's defence procurement system during the election campaign, but it will be a tall order to change this process. The land down under is isolated in a less secure part of the globe, without a nearby superpower like the United States to watch its back. So if Australia is far more diligent about defence than Canada, it might be due to necessity. The last time Canada had a proper and comprehensive white paper on defence was 1994. Australia has had three in the 21st century. Australia's effectiveness goes from the top down, something Canada knows nothing of. As Mack explains, “Canada, uniquely among its allies, has multiple government departments and central agencies significantly involved in the minutiae of its major military procurement projects.” These include Defence; Treasury Board; Finance; Public Services and Procurement; Justice; Innovation, Science and Economic Development—and even more. Meanwhile in Australia, the minister of defence is responsible for all aspects of navy shipbuilding. This includes setting operational and technical requirements, securing funds, developing a plan to benefit domestic industries, and satisfying the legal aspects of procurement. Each country had a project management office of roughly the same size, but Canada's was, frankly, less competent. Australia's office had many knowledgeable contractors working alongside the Department of Defence, whereas Canada's team had many from the public service and armed forces with “little or no applicable experience or knowledge,” according to Mack. “In Canada, significant effort was expended on regular reporting to layers of senior governance,” he says in the report. But it was paperwork and process for its own sake, and impractical in its effect. “Despite the onerous reporting demands, only a few key decisions were rendered and rarely in a timely manner. The opposite was the case in Australia.” In seemingly every aspect of development, Canada made things rigid, complicated, and fragmented, while Australia made them flexible, cohesive, and collaborative. Canada made stand-alone contracts for each sequence of the process. Australia worked with contractors to establish “end-to-end accountability.” Canada's initial request for proposal included hundreds of technical requirements that bidders had to prove. Australia had few mandatory requirements, but worked alongside bidders to explore their respective proposed solutions. In Canada, the intellectual property, liabilities, and insurance requirements were debated at length and only decided hours before the request for proposal was made. Hundreds of criteria got a numerical score, and the sum of all scores won the bid. Canada was “preoccupied” about a public appearance of fairness and avoiding lawsuits. (Nevertheless, the controversy over former Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and complaints from Irving Shipbuilding over the bid for a navy supply vessel shows it failed at this.) Shipbuilders bidding in Australia were confident of a fair system without any of those things. The department did not announce its evaluation criteria, nor was the evaluation report the only factor. Instead, the department stated its objectives and worked collaboratively with three potential bidders in their respective approaches. In Mack's words, this left “the competition to be more about assessing apples, oranges, and bananas” than about tallying up numerical scores. Mack says he could not make the Canadian system work like Australia's because the procurement, request for proposals, and resulting contracts were done outside of the Department of National Defence. At the time, he was “simply unaware of the intricacies of the Australian approach” because he hadn't yet been exposed to it. Regardless, he had already surmised that Canadian bureaucrats “did not want changes to their tried and true ways of doing business” and clung to “adherence to prescriptive and traditional methodologies.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/military-procurement-what-the-new-cabinet-can-learn-from-australia_3150065.html

• 

  September 18, 2017 | Local, Aerospace, C4ISR

  Press Release - Government of Canada Awards Drone Airspace Management System Contract to Kongsberg Geospatial

  PSPC awarded a contract to Ottawa-based Kongsberg Geospatial for an emergency operations airspace UAV tracking system. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/09/prweb14704092.htm