Canada plans to buy four new Airbus tankers, requests proposal

On the same subject

• 

  October 31, 2022 | Local, Other Defence

  Military attrition has hit its highest level in 15 years, warns briefing prepared for generals

  The briefing acknowledged the military is facing a “workforce crisis”.

• 

  January 18, 2018 | Local, Aerospace

  U.S. isn’t worrying about Canada and missile defence, says Obama adviser

  By Tim Naumetz. Published on Jan 11, 2018 4:49pm Canadians don't have to wring their hands over whether the country should sign on to the U.S. ballistic missile defence system, says a former top defence adviser to President Barack Obama. Washington is paying more attention to bigger Canadian defence issues such as the long-delayed acquisition of a fleet of new modern fighter jets, Lindsay Rodman, former director of defence policy and strategy for Obama's National Security Council, said in a Canadian interview streamed earlier this week. Rodman, a temporary U.S. expatriate who now is an international affairs fellow at the University of Ottawa, said in a podcast interview with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute that the missile defence question is not a major issue in U.S. military and security circles. “The question of ballistic missile defence has been really surprising to me since I came to Canada a little over a year ago now,” Rodman said in the interview with Global Affairs institute vice-president David Perry. “It is just not on the forefront of anyone's mind in the United States, but it is one of the first things that any Canadian wants to talk to you about the U.S. American alliance,” said Rodman, an attorney who also served in the Pentagon as Obama's senior adviser for international humanitarian policy. “The U.S. is much more concerned with just making sure that NORAD is healthy, that the NATO alliance is healthy, that our homeland defence is being well supported, and we know that we don't depend on Canada for ballistic missile defence. “We do depend on Canada's fighter capability in terms of how we've planned our North American defence, so making good on the promises that Canada has made is going to be more important than new promises that Canada could make in the future, which would be something like ballistic defence.” The Global Affairs Institute offered the podcast up earlier this week, but the interview was recorded on Dec. 18, the same day U.S. President Donald Trump released his administration's first national security strategy. It was only two years after President Obama released his second national security strategy, which Rodman said should have been in place for four years under the normal U.S. four-year cycle for renewing national security and military strategies. While explaining U.S. views on Canadian defence positions — particularly the first Canadian defence strategy released by the Trudeau government last June — Rodman told Perry that while Canada's overarching defence positions have rarely diverged after a change of government, Trudeau's new personal and political approaches to Canada's role in the world may have made a difference. “I would say that Justin Trudeau, just by nature of his international sort of celebrity status, brought a new cachet to Canada, and that's pretty useful,” she said. “Certainly, being in Canada now and learning the ins and outs about the political system a little bit more, I can appreciate the nuances in Canada's position much better.” Canada's new defence policy specifically ruled out Canadian involvement in U.S. ballistic missile defence, even after the topic had been raised multiple times in four months of cross-country consultations that preceded the defence review in 2016. Still, by last December, even Trudeau signalled that the government has not yet ruled the possibility out, and several military experts have advocated Canada's participation in a series of House of Commons and Senate committee hearings. “For a very close ally like Canada, the most important thing is interoperability,” said Rodman. “We not only depend on Canada to potentially help us out in the world, but in terms of our homeland defence there's no one we depend more on than Canada. We really need everything to be interoperable.” The most important question facing the government as it slowly moves toward a 2025 target for acquiring a fleet of 88 new fighter jets could be how the most sophisticated warplane in the world — the Lockheed Martin F-35 strike fighter — fares as it goes through a competition that will decide which aircraft Canada will buy. Interoperability with U.S. warplanes has been a central part of the argument favouring the F-35 acquisition for Canada. https://ipolitics.ca/2018/01/11/u-s-isnt-worrying-canada-missile-defence-says-obama-adviser/

• 

  May 8, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

  Trump may have given Trudeau the excuse he needs to ditch the F-35 once and for all

  David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen The defence and aerospace industry is abuzz about the letters the U.S. government sent to Canada over the upcoming competition to acquire a new fleet of fighter jets to replace the RCAF's CF-18s. In short, the Trump administration has given an ultimatum to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government. If Canada insists that industrial and technological benefits must come from the outlay of $19 billion for a new fighter jet fleet then Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet is out of the race. Full stop. The U.S. argument is that because Canada is a partner in the F-35 program it cannot ask Lockheed Martin to meet specific industrial benefits for a Canadian competition if the F-35 is selected. Under the F-35 agreement, partner nations are prohibited from imposing requirements for industrial benefits as the work is determined on the best value basis. In other words, Canadian firms compete and if they are good enough they get work on the F-35 program. Over the last 12 years, Canadian firms have earned $1.3 billion U.S. for their work on building F-35 parts. The U.S. had boldly stated it cannot offer the F-35 for the Canadian competition if there are requirements to meet for set industrial benefits. But that ultimatum could seriously backfire on the Trump administration. Trudeau and the Liberal government has never been keen on the F-35 (Trudeau campaigned against purchasing the jet). There have also been a number of negative headlines over the last year outlining the increasing maintenance costs for the F-35s, not a good selling point for the jet. The U.S. ultimatum may have just given Trudeau a way out of his F-35 dilemma, particularly if the prime minister can say that it was it was the Americans themselves who decided not to enter the F-35 in the Canadian competition. Trudeau will also be able to point to the other firms ready and keen to chase the $19 billion contract. Airbus, a major player in Canada's aerospace industry, says it is open to producing its Eurofighter Typhoon in Canada with the corresponding jobs that will create. Boeing, which has a significant presence in Canada, will offer the Super Hornet. Saab has also hinted about building its Gripen fighter in Canada if it were to receive the jet contract. To be sure, if the U.S. withdraws the F-35 from the competition, retired Canadian military officers and the defence analysts working for think-tanks closely aligned with the Department of National Defence be featured in news reports about how the Royal Canadian Air Force will be severely hindered without the F-35. Some Canadian firms involved in the F-35 program may complain publicly about lost work on the F-35 program but companies tend not criticize governments for fear they won't receive federal contracts or funding in the future. There will be talk about how U.S.-Canada defence relations will be hurt but then critics will counter that U.S. President Donald Trump used national security provisions to hammer Canada in ongoing trade disputes. And let's face it. Defence issues are rarely a factor in federal elections or in domestic politics. The Trump administration, which is not the most popular among Canadians, may have just given Trudeau a political gift. https://nationalpost.com/news/national/defence-watch/trump-may-have-given-trudeau-the-excuse-he-needs-to-ditch-the-f-35/wcm/08b1313f-81eb-4adc-9ebf-b54ffc19c2c7