Canada’s Esquimalt navy base to receive four steel barges

On the same subject

• 

  January 15, 2020 | Local, Aerospace

  Unlike Finland, Canada nixes cold-weather tests, fly-off among competing fighter jets

  Finland, which is considering the same aircraft as Canada, for its new jet fleet, is requiring each competing aerospace company to provide two aircraft to test at low temperatures and in real world operating conditions. DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Updated: January 15, 2020 Canada won't conduct a fly-off between fighter jets competing to become the country's new warplane nor conduct testing to see how such aircraft perform under cold weather conditions. The decision not to proceed with such tests under Canada's $19-billion future fighter procurement program stands in contrast to Finland, which is considering the same aircraft as Canada, for its new jet fleet. Each competing aerospace company is required to provide Finland with two aircraft to test at low temperatures and be evaluated in real world operating conditions. Public Services and Procurement Canada has confirmed that Canada will not do any fly-offs among competing jet or tests for cold-weather operations like Finland has underway. “We do not have plans for an exercise of this nature,” stated department spokeswoman Stéfanie Hamel. Finland and Canada are considering the Boeing Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin F-35 and Saab Gripen. The Finnish Air Force is also testing the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, both of which pulled out of the Canadian competition because of worries the process was rigged to favour the F-35. Finland hopes to buy 64 aircraft. Canada will purchase 88 aircraft. Canadian aerospace industry representatives say the competing companies as well as allied air forces could provide Canada with results from tests they have conducted on the competing aircraft. Finland could have taken the same route but its procurement staff want to ensure the country is getting value for money since the project will cost around $14 billion. Finnish defence ministry program manager Lauri Puranen outlined in a blog post the extensive tests that will be conducted and the reasons for not relying on tests conducted by others. “The Finnish operating environment and operating methods may differ from other users' weather and lighting conditions,” Puranen stated. “Winter conditions affect the operation of the multi-function fighter and especially the performance of electro-optical systems, but possibly other active and passive systems as well.” The fighter jet candidates will be tested on the ground, in the air, and during takeoff and landing, he added. The testing of the competing aircraft is currently underway. Another series of tests involving the jets taking part in flight operations and a simulated lengthy war game will be conducted by the Finnish Air Force later this year. Finland expects to select a winner for the aircraft program in 2021. The planes, which will replace Finland's current fleet of F-18s, are expected in 2025. The Canadian government expects bids for its fighter jet program to be submitted by the end of March. A winning bidder is to be determined by early 2022. The first aircraft would be delivered to the Royal Canadian Air Force by 2025. Information about how Canada intends to evaluate the jets is limited. But Public Services and Procurement Canada has noted that technical merit will make up the bulk of the assessment at 60 per cent. Cost and economic benefits companies can provide to Canada will each be worth 20 per cent. Concerns have been raised by Lockheed Martin's rivals that the competition has been designed to favour the F-35. This newspaper reported last year the requirements for the new jets put emphasis on strategic attack and striking at ground targets during foreign missions. That criteria is seen to benefit the F-35. In addition, the federal government changed criteria on how it would assess industrial benefits after the U.S. government threatened to pull the F-35 from the competition. The Conservative government had previously selected the F-35 as the air force's new jet but backed away from that plan after concerns about the technology and growing cost. During the 2015 election campaign, Justin Trudeau vowed that his government would not purchase the F-35. But at the same time, Trudeau stated his government would hold an open competition for the fighter purchase. The Liberal government backed away from its promise to freeze out the F-35 and the aircraft is now seen as a front-runner in the competition as it has many supporters in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Many of Canada's allies plan to operate the plane. Canada is a partner in the F-35 program and has contributed funding for the aircraft's development. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/unlike-finland-canada-nixes-cold-weather-tests-fly-off-among-competing-fighter-jets

• 

  May 25, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Defence procurement won't be so easy to cut in a time of COVID-19

  As governments around the world reassess national security, Ottawa could find it harder to delay plans for new ships, helicopters and fighter jets. Jeffrey F. Collins May 22, 2020 A few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the first signs of impact on Canada's defence procurement plans are showing. The government has been following an ambitious multi-decade blueprint, starting in 2010, to kick-start the domestic shipbuilding sector, but some yards have had to scale back their workforces under public health orders. What this means for the National Shipbuilding Strategy and its more than $85 billion (by my calculations) in ongoing and planned construction of large ships is as yet unclear. The $19-billion Future Fighter Capability project, designed to replace the four-decade-old CF-18 fighter with 88 new jets, could also be affected. Government officials were adamant until early May that the June submission deadline for bids remained unchanged — before granting a 30-day extension. But with industry and public sector workers largely stuck at home, it is difficult to see how even the new July deadline can be met. In earlier times of economic strain, Ottawa found defence spending an easy target for cuts. This time could be different, as governments around the world reassess what national security means and how best to achieve it. Heading into 2020, things were still looking up for the capital spending plans of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The Trudeau government's 2017 Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) defence policy had allocated $108 billion in capital expenditures over a 20-year timeframe, 2017-37. Then came the pandemic. There were more than a million job losses in March alone, and as of early May, the Parliamentary Budget Office was predicting a $1-trillion debt by 2021. Given the rapid drop in both domestic and global consumer demand, the price collapse in the country's key commodity, oil, and the accompanying decline in the Canadian dollar, the country is now in a recession for an unknown period. If past is prologue and the virus persists without a vaccine for the foreseeable future, the likelihood of the government delaying or cancelling projects or trimming its orders for ships and planes is growing. When faced with economic pains in the past, federal governments scaled back procurement plans. The staggering debt and deficit in the late 1980s and 1990s led the Brian Mulroney government to drop its ambitious bid to acquire up to a dozen nuclear submarines in 1989, a mere two years after announcing the project in the 1987 defence White Paper. In 1993 the Jean Chrétien government infamously scrapped the contract to replace the 1960s-vintage Sea King helicopter (at a cost of $478 million in penalties). The following year's defence White Paper outlined $15 billion in delays, reductions and cancellations to the DND's procurement budget; this was in addition to large-scale base closures and 20 percent reductions in both CAF regular force personnel and the overall defence budget. The ostensibly pro-military Stephen Harper Conservatives announced 20-year funding plans, as ambitious as the SSE, in the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy but deviated from them in the aftermath of the 2008-09 global recession. With a goal of returning to balanced budgets after $47 billion in stimulus spending, the Harper government delayed or cut over $32 billion in planned procurement spending and laid off 400 personnel from DND's procurement branch. Among the casualties was the army's $2.1-billion close-combat vehicle. There are several reasons why this pattern has repeated itself, but two stand out. First, defence is a tempting target for any government belt-tightening drive, typically accounting for a large share of discretionary federal spending. With most federal money going to individual citizens (employment insurance, pensions, tax benefits) and provinces (health and social transfers), there simply is little fiscal room left outside of defence. To remove money from these politically popular programs is to risk voter resentment and the ire of provincial governments. In short, when past federal governments confronted a choice between cutting tanks and cutting transfers, they cut the tanks. Second, Canada's geostrategic position has helped. Sitting securely atop North America in alliance with the world's pre-eminent superpower has meant, in the words of a defence minister under Pierre Trudeau, Donald Macdonald, that “there is no obvious level for defence expenditures” in Canada. Meeting the terms of our alliances with the United States and NATO means that Canada has to do its part in securing the northern half of the continent and contributing to military operations overseas, but generally in peacetime Ottawa has a lot of leeway in deciding what to spend on defence, even if allies growl and complain. Yet it is this same geostrategic position that may lessen the impact of any cuts related to COVID-19. Unlike the Mulroney and Chrétien governments, who made their decisions amid the end of Cold War tensions, or the Harper government, which was withdrawing from the combat mission in Afghanistan, this government must make its choices in an international security environment that is becoming more volatile. The spread of the virus has amplified trade and military tensions between the world's two superpowers and weakened bonds among European Union member states as they fight to secure personal protective equipment and stop the contagion at their borders. Governments worldwide are now unabashedly protectionist in their efforts to prevent the export of medical equipment and vital materials. As supply chains fray, pressures mount for each country to have a “sovereign” industrial capability, including in defence. In fact, the Trump administration has turned to the 1950 Defense Production Act to direct meatpacking plants to remain open or to restrict the export of health products (three million face masks bound for Canada were held up, then released). The pandemic is intensifying the Trump administration's skepticism of alliances and international institutions; in late March, there was even discussion of stationing US troops near the Canadian border (the plan was eventually abandoned). Smaller powers like Canada that have traditionally relied on American security guarantees will have to maintain their defence spending, or even increase it, as they try to strengthen old alliances and create new ones. As Timothy Choi, a naval expert at the University of Calgary, has told me, an irony of the pandemic is that it may see the National Shipbuilding Strategy become a “major destination for stimulus spending in times of recession.” Either way, by the time the pandemic subsides, Canadians may yet find out that there is indeed an “obvious level” to defence spending. This article is part of the The Coronavirus Pandemic: Canada's Response special feature. Photo: The Halifax-class navy frigate HMCS Fredericton in the waters of Istanbul Strait, Turkey. Shutterstock.com, by Arkeonaval. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2020/defence-procurement-wont-be-so-easy-to-cut-in-a-time-of-covid-19/

• 

  December 11, 2019 | Local, Naval

  Defence Department Assistant Deputy Minister Chris Henderson to return to Canadian Coast Guard

  DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Chris Henderson, who is Assistant Deputy Minister for Public Affairs at the Department of National Defence, is heading back to the Canadian Coast Guard. Henderson came from the Coast Guard in October 2017 to fill the ADM PA job at DND. Henderson had been serving as Director General, National Strategies at the coast guard. Sources said Henderson has informed senior DND and Canadian Forces leadership that he will take over as ADM for Operations at the coast guard on Jan. 6. Henderson is a former Royal Canadian Navy officer who had served as a public affairs officer for around 20 years. In 2007, Henderson was appointed as DG, Public Affairs and Strategic Planning, a post he occupied for two years. After leaving DND public affairs Henderson was off to Canada Border Services Agency. Then in 2014 he was named Director General, Strategic Communications in the Privy Council Office during the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In that role, he oversaw a team of strategic communications specialists responsible for the coordination of all Government of Canada public communications. Henderson came into the ADM PA branch at a pivotal time. Many of the old guard public affairs officers were in the process of leaving the military, somewhat discouraged, because of being restrained by the Harper government in communicating with the public and journalists. Much of the communication with journalists was done via email statements. That, however, has not changed much. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/defence-department-adm-chris-henderson-to-return-to-canadian-coast-guard