Back to news

February 24, 2021 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Canadian Defence Marketplace by CADSI - One week to benefit from the early bird price !

Canadian Defence Marketplace is a new and innovative global platform bringing industry and government leaders together for virtual business-to-business and business-to-government meetings on May 6, 2021, and November 4, 2021.

https://www.canadiandefencemarketplace.ca/

On the same subject

  • An In-Service Support Opportunity

    May 5, 2020 | Local, Naval

    An In-Service Support Opportunity

    POLICY PERSPECTIVE by Ian Mack CGAI Fellow May 2020 DOWNLOAD PDF Introduction In the autumn of 2019, the federal government announced on www.buyandsell.gc.ca the creation of a discussion group to address in-service support for the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSCs). The objective of Canada's procurement is 15 warships and the project is in the early stages of modifying the design of the U.K.'s global combat ship (GCS), with the first Canadian ship delivery anticipated after 2025. It must be assumed that this discussion group formation is the first stage of industry consultation. The City-class Type 26 frigate design has been in development for over a decade and the first of eight U.K. Type 26 warships is now in production. BAE Systems won the contract for the design and construction work in the U.K. This design has been available for export under the moniker global combat ship, and both Canada and Australia have selected it – the latter intending to build nine Hunter-class frigates. While neither the Australian nor Canadian designs have been completed, the combat systems will apparently be quite different across the three nations. However, it is unlikely that the major platform design will change dramatically. If this assumption is correct, it could mean that the major equipment of the platforms of some 32 hulls would likely be substantially the same. And from an in-service support point of view, this clearly creates an opportunity for international co-operation wherever it makes sense. TOP OF PAGE Conventional Wisdom – International Programs There are indications that three-nation government-to-government meetings have taken place to exchange views on creating a user group during the acquisition activity. It would make sense to also explore a related arrangement for in-service support. Clearly, with the potential to support 32 equipment sets across the marine platforms, there are many opportunities for economies of scale which could reduce the costs for all three nations – for common design modifications, for spares through bulk buys, for depot-level maintenance with many more units, for common training of potentially two to four times individual nations' throughput/requirements and the like. Such synergies could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars in savings over the extended lives of these warships. But international programs are not always easy to establish and implement, for many reasons. Nations are very different. They place different priorities on defence matters so the simple co-ordination required to achieve timely agreements can be difficult. Governments also change and a falling-out between two nations can lead to reversals. Nations lose some of their autonomy in decision-making when they join such programs, which can be a major deterrent. And governments have approaches to contracting which are very different, so negotiations on behalf of multiple governments can become bogged down in disagreements as to what approaches nations will support. In a perfect world, Canadian and Australian officials might have included an option during the design selection competitions so that such international in-service support programs could have been enabled by adopting a number of mandatory attributes. Unfortunately, the variability in schedules driving Canada's and Australia's frigate programs, as well as the built-in challenges of running competitions, conspired against any detailed discussion of “what ifs”. Work share (or industrial benefits) is important – to the domestic industries and thus to governments that always care about high-value jobs of the sort one finds in defence-related work. Without doubt, companies in all three countries are already seeing dollar signs and/or may already have won certain rights during the competitions for selection. Hence, Australia and Canada would be unlikely to sign up if all the work is being done, say, in Europe because the bar to agree to collaborate for other reasons could be so high as to be a non-starter. And there could be a number of other challenging commercial issues related to such things as intellectual property that could affect the shape of work-share agreements. There are also many tactical issues. The three time zones are not conducive to ongoing dialogue; one should never underestimate the challenges of working across large distances. As simple as international meeting arrangements should be, one of the partners will not be able to make it at the 11th hour more often than one expects – much less the travel budget involved and/or the cost of personnel liaison/exchange programs between the countries. Canada's Treasury Board is frequently much more involved in expensive and long-term international contracts, routinely requiring the tedious achievement of annual approvals. Nations and organizations have different laws/regulations and standards respectively which must be synchronized upfront and as changes occur. And so it goes. One can conclude that, aside from international information exchange forums, complex business arrangements involving both governments and industries in international programs detrimentally impact a nation's autonomy in decision-making and often offer fewer economic benefits. They are not for the faint of heart. TOP OF PAGE Conventional Wisdom – The Opportunity If one were to consider an international three-party in-service support (ISS) program for common platform major equipment/systems which would leverage BAE Systems as the common ISS agent, wouldn't there be potentially significant benefits to Canada? On the face of it, one must assume that the answer is “maybe” and this is worth exploring. In reviewing this option from a Canadian perspective, it would be appropriate to assess the ISS outcomes against the four sustainment pillars as now mandated for inclusion in the business cases driving Department of National Defence (DND) ISS procurement decisions: performance (operational readiness), value for money (price at or below the market rate), flexibility (adaptable and scalable to accommodate change in operational tempo and available budgets) and economic benefits (jobs and economic growth for Canadian companies). As mentioned earlier, international programs often render economic benefits much more elusive. However, in terms of performance, flexibility and value for money, there is no doubt that the potential exists to see maximum return on investment. In the case under review, BAE Systems is reported to be the second largest Western defence contractor and therefore should be able to wield the clout that comes with it when dealing with major equipment system manufacturers (OEMs). And of course, the supplemental impact must also be understood and catered to – BAE Systems can choose to be difficult in any business arrangement without significantly affecting its bottom line. With respect to contractual response to major equipment and systems performance (which contributes to technical readiness), a client with a large work share is more likely to get attention for initiatives to maintain and improve performance than will smaller clients. This would be important in this case because the three navies operate in significantly different environments around the world with the concomitant variations in some performance requirements. As well an OEMs' failure to address the concerns of three allied navies could result in being blacklisted by BAE Systems when procuring equipment/systems for new ship designs, while timely and effective contractual response could lead to future opportunities. Low performance achievement could also deliver a much more significant blow to an OEM's reputation if more than one navy is impacted detrimentally – witness the Boeing scenario with the 737 Max. This can be important, as select foreign OEMs have essentially ignored Canada before when Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) equipment has suffered performance shortfalls. From a performance perspective, an international ISS program with BAE Systems at the centre could be a plus. In terms of providing adaptability and scalability, the presence of a number of clients can allow reductions in the demand for various services by one client (e.g., facing a budget downturn) to be picked up by another on an interim basis. Alternatively, the need for a surge in support by one navy (e.g., facing major unforeseen operations) may be easier to address by diverting some degree of effort from other clients. Only in the case where all clients are experiencing a similar variation in demand will such flexibility be jeopardized; but such a challenge can equally accrue whether in an international support program or not. Therefore, on balance, there can be greater flexibility in traditional circumstances for an international program, but there are limits. Value for money should be a strong argument for an international collaboration, if only because of economies of scale when considering, in this case, a fleet of 32 ship sets instead of eight, nine or 15 – and that is as-fitted, with spares increasing the overall numbers of common units of equipment. As an ISS client agent with much more maintenance, repair work and spares demand for an OEM, there would be greater interest in keeping multiple navies happy with the prices paid and the requirement over time to see support costs reduced. International programs frequently benefit by pooling spare units and ownership by OEMs, such that the number required (and hence the costs) are lower and risks to availability can be somewhat mitigated. Instead of each nation addressing emerging technical issues separately, sharing the costs should make it cheaper for all. So too are there potential benefits for OEM infrastructure, as top-notch physical plant and software assurance against cyber-attack are much more affordable to all concerned. Hence, the conventional wisdom is that such an international in-service support program should offer a better return on investment in terms of greater performance at lower costs, as well as the possibility for greater scalability to adapt to variations in demand for services. But as mentioned earlier, this comes typically with the potential for fewer economic benefits for Canada – clearly an important consideration. TOP OF PAGE Unique Considerations of the Case at Hand In exploring a possible international program for the U.K., Australia and Canada to leverage their selection of the same basic platform design and designer (BAE Systems), it is useful to accept the conventional wisdom but explore additional factors that should be weighed in a sustainment business case. What follows is a potpourri of additional considerations worthy of study. It is useful to address what could be included in the term “in-service support”. Based on common equipments and systems, it could include design agent services, maintenance, spares, training and documentation within an integrated data environment, to name the most important few. Nations could also select from among these options for hybrid arrangements. Near the top of the list for CSC is the fact that it is under the umbrella of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). The strategy specifically prevents the NSS shipyards from providing a single day of in-service support once they are delivered to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) unless such shipyards win those rights through a competitive procurement process. This is unique – a departure from past approaches in Canadian government shipbuilding – and quite frankly considered to be imprudent. In the very early days of a new class of complex ships, the prime contractor (often the build shipyard and/or designer) usually provides as a minimum a number of years of ISS. The shipbuilder typically has the best expert knowledge that exists for the initial years of services, along with the relationships and a degree of leverage with the major equipment/systems' OEMs. Normally, an in-service support bridging contract is awarded concurrent with the ship construction contract. Often, the prime contractor is then awarded a long-term ISS contract. There is a story as to why ship maintenance support for vessels delivered under NSS departed from the norm (there is always a story), and confirmation should be obtained as soon as possible that the earlier decision is reversible, to allow the business case to include all options. Related to the former paragraph, Canada has relatively recently awarded a contract to Thales for support services for the Arctic offshore patrol ships and the joint support ships. Although these ships have yet to be turned over to the RCN, one would expect that even at this early stage many lessons have been learned which should be taken into account when conducting the business case, such as whether the knowledge was/is available to support first-day-under-power with the RCN. BAE Systems is at the heart of the potential international program. From the internet alone, one observes that, among other classes of Royal Navy (RN) ships, BAE Systems manages design, equipment maintenance and ship modifications for the RN's Type 45 destroyers. It therefore would be important to ask the RN how well their approach is working and to explore the details of the existing contract, infrastructure arrangements, innovations introduced and performance to date. This would be a bellwether to the likelihood that the RN would be at least interested in an international support program for their Type 26 frigates in terms of capability and customer-focused cultural flexibility at BAE Systems. And if they have misgivings and/or if Australia is not interested, the international program option may be eliminated from the business case. One would expect that all three nations would support the generation of their own business cases and compare conclusions before making decisions. Earlier, I offered the assumption that the platform systems are likely to employ the same major equipment systems, but that the combat systems are unlikely to be common. But to overstate the obvious, warships are not like layer cakes – they do not have separate top and bottom halves. The three naval variants being procured are exceptionally integrated and complex super-systems. Therefore, in-service support must address both sets of major equipment/systems – platform and combat systems. BAE Systems is the overall combat systems integrator for the Type 26 frigates destined for the RN and an obvious choice to deliver in-service support. Lockheed Martin Canada is the equivalent for the CSC. And BAE Systems Australia is partnered with Lockheed Martin Australia and Saab Australia to deliver the combat system integration for the Hunter-class frigates. Therefore, an international – almost-whole-of-ship – ISS solution might even offer significant economic benefits to all three nations. This could create challenges based on the proverbial “too many eggs in one basket”, and certain safeguards would be required. It is worthwhile to note an anomaly in Canada's case regarding the construction of these warships. BAE Systems is responsible for building all of the ships in question in the U.K. and Australia, but Irving Shipbuilding is responsible under NSS to construct the CSCs. One should never underestimate the shipbuilder's knowledge when dealing with a complex seagoing vessel, and a sole platform-related focus on BAE Systems alone would, in the Canadian case, be a deficit in any international program. Irving Shipbuilding's contribution should therefore be considered in the business case for Canada. Should the business case be strong, there is an argument that a directed contract to an Irving-BAE partnership for in-country platform in-service support would make sense and be in the public's interest. As mentioned earlier, although this was prohibited under the original terms of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, it could be waived in this instance for those warships that will be the backbone of Canada's maritime defence for 30 years. It would provide significant economic benefits as well. There is clearly the significant potential of operational value to such an arrangement, in addition to strong performance supporting day-to-day readiness. The three nations are on three different continents, and all three navies pursue global deployments. The availability of full ISS in or within the reach of Canada, the U.K. and Australia provides significant benefits to all three navies over their 30-year lives when breakdowns occur far from home port. The business case should take into account the fact that the U.K. may export the global combat ship design more broadly in the world. If an international consortium delivering in-service support were in place, it could become an important selling feature for potential buyers of the GCS. This undoubtedly could enhance value for money, flexibility and performance for the three plank owner nations. And from a Canadian perspective, as the nation with the largest stake in the game at 15 warships, we should be able to significantly influence the contractual arrangements with current and future parties to the international program. A typical and expensive part of the life cycle of warships is midlife conversions. Combat systems in particular require modernization to employ new technologies designed to address new threats. These are extremely complex endeavours. Once again, the degree of value for money through life could be even greater, depending on the degree of commonality of the equipment upgrade options selected. And the very fact that Canada would see opportunities worth considering as fully developed options would in itself offer potential cost benefits that would otherwise be unlikely to occur. As part of the business case analysis, it would be useful to study the commercial marine industry examples of international in-service support. Large ship operators and OEMs are very experienced in working across national and client boundaries to deliver economical services. Any business case should capture the pros and cons more broadly in the commercial business sector as well. There could be a benefit as part of an international program in terms of the people required. As the proverb goes, many hands make light work. Since the launch of what was then termed the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, Canada's marine HR challenges within government have become more pronounced. An international program could lighten the load while expanding the experience base for involved government and naval personnel in tackling the demands of supporting as complex a platform as the CSC. It would be important to understand the challenges surrounding the governance in the broadest sense. Though not at all unique, governance would likely need to be structured to address three separate functions – the integrated supplier-client engagement, the clients' government-to-government activity and industry-to-industry supplier co-ordination. While not uncommon when contracting for goods and services for complex systems, the international aspects, length of the arrangement and the ever-increasing volatility in the marketplace are noteworthy. With such complexity and the constantly changing stakeholders involved over 30 years, the mechanisms for a strong and appropriate relationship alignment would be critical to long-term success. When dealing with a high degree of complexity in an international program such as this, the business case needs to assess the likelihood that the collaboration can be created and maintained in terms of the critical enabling relationships. In the factors highlighted here and as with any business case, the importance of comparing the international program solution with what seems to be the more recent and typical Canadian in-service solution resulting from a competitive procurement cannot be underestimated. Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships and Joint Support Ships In-Service Support (AJISS) is the latest Canadian example and must be carefully analyzed even at this early stage to determine the prognosis for achieving the desired outcomes. Again, engagement with allies to assess their experience with single-nation support scenarios would be important in establishing the right comparators to enable coherent business case recommendations. It would be prudent to consider the long view as part of the business case – including such things as the likelihood that nations would retire their warships at different times or even opt out of the international ISS program long before end-of life. While much can change, an early appreciation and understanding of various scenarios and the related risks would be important. As a final point, such complicated business case assessments are never easy. After assembling the assumption set and the criteria analysis, and after negotiating “les grandes lignes” of a contractual agreement, it would be important to avoid the common pitfall of allowing one or two pros or cons to dominate the decision-making. Too often, the complexity that defies the “kiss principle” leads to rejection of otherwise optimum solutions. But at the end of the day, one must accept that it will be a judgment call. TOP OF PAGE Concluding Material Under the five-year-old Defence Procurement Strategy, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is responsible for leading the industry engagement that launches defence procurement processes. More recently, the ISS procurement strategies have been based on the results of the sustainment initiative business case led by DND. At virtually every opportunity over the past decade, I have emphasized the importance of managing expectations. In every discussion with industry, it behooves those leading the CSC in-service support exploration activity to include the possibility of an international program solution. To eliminate that option without study would be both shortsighted and inexcusable. Also, failing to repeatedly ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the potential for such an outcome would lack transparency and be disingenuous. When the RCN's readiness to deliver operational capability is at stake, along with billions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars for CSC in-service support over 30 years, it matters. And an international in-service support program for the new frigates of Canada, the U.K. and Australia is an important option worth considering. TOP OF PAGE About the Author After a 38 year career with the Royal Canadian Navy, Ian Mack (Rear-Admiral Retired) served for a decade (2007-2017) as the Director-General in the Department of National Defence responsible for the conception, shaping and support of the launch and subsequent implementation of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, and for guiding the DND project managers for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, the Joint Support Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatants. He also had responsibility for four vehicle projects for the Canadian Army until 2015. Since leaving the government, he has offered his shipbuilding and project management perspectives internationally. Ian is a longstanding Fellow of the International Centre for Complex Project Management. He also is allied with Strategic Relationships Solutions Inc. He is married to Alex, and has three grown children. With few accommodations for impaired mobility, he remains active. Upon retirement, he founded a small business, Xi Complexity Consulting Inc. in Ottawa Canada. TOP OF PAGE Canadian Global Affairs Institute The Canadian Global Affairs Institute focuses on the entire range of Canada's international relations in all its forms including (in partnership with the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy), trade investment and international capacity building. Successor to the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI, which was established in 2001), the Institute works to inform Canadians about the importance of having a respected and influential voice in those parts of the globe where Canada has significant interests due to trade and investment, origins of Canada's population, geographic security (and especially security of North America in conjunction with the United States), social development, or the peace and freedom of allied nations. The Institute aims to demonstrate to Canadians the importance of comprehensive foreign, defence and trade policies which both express our values and represent our interests. The Institute was created to bridge the gap between what Canadians need to know about Canadian international activities and what they do know. Historically Canadians have tended to look abroad out of a search for markets because Canada depends heavily on foreign trade. In the modern post-Cold War world, however, global security and stability have become the bedrocks of global commerce and the free movement of people, goods and ideas across international boundaries. Canada has striven to open the world since the 1930s and was a driving factor behind the adoption of the main structures which underpin globalization such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and emerging free trade networks connecting dozens of international economies. The Canadian Global Affairs Institute recognizes Canada's contribution to a globalized world and aims to inform Canadians about Canada's role in that process and the connection between globalization and security. In all its activities the Institute is a charitable, non-partisan, non-advocacy organization that provides a platform for a variety of viewpoints. It is supported financially by the contributions of individuals, foundations, and corporations. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Institute publications and programs are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Institute staff, fellows, directors, advisors or any individuals or organizations that provide financial support to, or collaborate with, the Institute. https://www.cgai.ca/an_in_service_support_opportunity

  • Remarks by Minister Anand for the CDAI Ottawa conference on security and defence - a Canadian Armed Forces ready for tomorrow

    March 16, 2023 | Local, Other Defence

    Remarks by Minister Anand for the CDAI Ottawa conference on security and defence - a Canadian Armed Forces ready for tomorrow

    Speech Members of the Diplomatic Corps, Senators, Members of the House of Commons, General Eyre, Members of the Canadian Armed Forces, Distinguished guests from around the world. Good morning. Bienvenue. And welcome to Ottawa. I would like to sincerely thank Executive Director Youri Cormier and everyone at CDAI for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. Friends, we gather today at an inflection point. The international rules that have preserved peace, stability, and democracy for decades are under direct threat, as Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine enters its second year. Putin thought that Kyiv would fall. He thought he could use this winter to conquer Ukraine. He thought that Europe would freeze in the dark.  And he thought that NATO would fracture. But he was wrong. The NATO alliance has only become stronger. Winter in Ukraine is almost over. Amidst the rubble, spring flowers are beginning to bloom in Ukraine. And, the Ukrainian flag continues to fly overhead. In the face of Putin’s imperial illusions, the strength, hope, resilience and determination of the Ukrainian people are inspiring the world. Canada has stood in solidarity with Ukraine from the beginning. We have committed over one billion dollars of military aid for Ukraine – including, most recently, eight Leopard 2 main battle tanks, over 200 armoured vehicles, and a NASAMS air defence system. We have trained thirty-five thousand Ukrainian personnel under Operation UNIFIER, And earlier this week, we announced that we are extending Canadian training of Ukrainian sappers in Poland through to October and deploying an additional team of Canadian Armed Forces medical personnel to Poland, where they will train Ukrainian forces in advanced tactical medical skills. And I would like to recognize General Wayne Eyre, our Chief of the Defence Staff, who has just returned from visiting our personnel deployed on Operation UNIFIER. Thank you, Chief, for your leadership. We are also supporting Ukraine by deploying the Royal Canadian Air Force to Prestwick, Scotland, a hub from which our aviators have transported over seven million pounds of Ukraine-bound military aid within Europe, from Canada, and on behalf of our Allies and partners. Their unwavering dedication is exemplified by their motto – Can’t stop, won’t stop – and that’s a motto that we believe in too.But let’s be clear: while Ukraine’s fight for freedom and sovereignty remains the focus, the security challenges do not end with Europe. China is an increasingly disruptive global power. It increasingly disregards international rules and norms, and it is making large-scale investments to establish its military capabilities. As China continues to militarize that region, it is also challenging navigation and overflight rights, and it has engaged in coercive diplomacy. Canada must, and will, unapologetically defend our national interests, as we outlined in our Indo-Pacific Strategy. In order to respond to global challenges like these, and protect Canadian interests both at home and abroad, we need to build a Canadian Armed Forces ready for tomorrow – and this is what I’m here to discuss. How do we ensure that we are ready for tomorrow? We start with our people, who must be protected, respected, and empowered to serve when they put on their uniform every day. As such, my top priority continues to be meaningful, durable, and robust culture change across our institution. Culture change is a team effort, and I salute the many culture change champions here today. Being ready for tomorrow also involves recapitalizing. And we are focused on providing the Canadian Armed Forces the equipment that they need to do their jobs and defend Canada. As part of our Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy, we have committed to increasing our military spending by more than 70% in nine years. Last year, and as the world changed before our eyes, we knew we needed to go further. That’s why, through Budget 2022, we added eight billion dollars in new defence spending over five years. With these investments, we are modernizing our capabilities across all domains – and this is a definite priority for me as Minister. We are signing contracts, finalizing procurements, moving faster, and pushing harder, to deliver our personnel the materiel, resources, and equipment that they need to do their jobs and protect Canada. And, ultimately, we are building a Canadian Armed Forces that will be ready for tomorrow. Let me start with the Air Force. We’re ensuring that the Royal Canadian Air Force is ready for tomorrow. As I announced in January, Canada is acquiring a new fleet of eighty-eight F-35 fighter jets. These state-of-the-art aircraft are the best fighters for Canada, and they will solidify our ability to protect Canada for decades to come. Our investments in the Royal Canadian Air Force include not only aircraft, but also the infrastructure required for these aircraft at both the Cold Lake and Bagotville bases. That’s not all. One of our Air Force’s most important missions is the protection of the North American continent – and that’s why, in June 2022, we announced Canada’s plan to modernize NORAD, backed by an investment of 38.6 billion dollars over the next two decades. This plan invests in: Arctic and Polar Over-the-Horizon radar, C2, air weapons, infrastructure, research, and development. And, as we make these investments, we will work hand-in-hand with Indigenous and Northern partners, to ensure that the economic benefits are shared from coast to coast to coast. And at sea? We’re building a Navy that’s ready for tomorrow. We continue the work of delivering a new fleet of 15 Canadian Surface Combatants for our Navy, with the project now in its design phase and construction expected to begin next year. This is the largest modernization of our naval fleet in decades, and it will ensure excellent interoperability with our allies. On land, we are building a Canadian Army that’s ready for tomorrow. We are equipping the Canadian Army with a new and modern fleet of 360 Armoured Combat Support Vehicles, replacing the current LAV II Bisons and M113 Tracked LAV fleets. This fleet will serve as ambulances, mobile repair and vehicle recovery vehicles, as well as engineer support vehicles and command posts, for both domestic and international operations. But, we know that there are several crucial capabilities that we need to move ahead with – faster. Canada’s largest foreign military deployment is on NATO’s eastern flank, in Latvia, and our troops must have the equipment that they need to protect themselves and do their jobs. And that is why today, I am delighted to share with you that we are proceeding with three procurements as Urgent Operational Requirements – or UORs. Through this accelerated procurement mechanism, we will rapidly deliver the following equipment for our Canadian Armed Forces. First: Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missile systems – capable of providing targeted strikes against armoured threats. This project will provide PAXM systems including missiles, simulators and associated support to empower the Canadian Armed Forces with training and the capability to effectively destroy main battle tanks. Second: a Counter Un-crewed Aerial System capability, to provide protection against hostile un-crewed aerial vehicles – and this capability, too, will help protect our personnel deployed in Europe. And third: a short-range Air Defence System, which will also be capable of defeating attack aircraft and Class 1 un-crewed aerial systems in the context of the Canadian-led, enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group in Latvia. Today, I am delighted to announce that we are proceeding with three procurements as Urgent Operational Requirements. Through this accelerated procurement mechanism, we will rapidly acquire the following: Anti‑Tank Guided Missile systems, a Counter Un-crewed Aerial System capability, and a short‑range Air Defence System. These projects will better equip our Canadian Armed Forces members deployed on NATO’s Eastern Flank with the capabilities that they need. Canada’s leadership of the NATO Battle Group in Latvia demonstrates our unwavering commitment to the Alliance. And these new capabilities will further bolster the security of Allied troops under Canadian command on NATO’s Eastern Flank.           As we continue to equip our people in the traditional domains, we must also be laser-focused on emerging domains like space – and we must ensure that we are ready for tomorrow. Last summer, I ordered the creation of 3 Canadian Space Division. This reorganization of the Canadian Armed Forces serves to facilitate decision-making on matters related to the protection of Canadian assets in space. It will help us observe and attribute irresponsible behaviour in space and allow us to continue to establish common standards of responsible behaviour. It also allows Canada to further its collaboration with partnered and allied armed forces such as France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Germany. Space is crucial to our national security. Canada uses military and civilian assets in space, including GPS and communications systems. If those assets are threatened by adversaries, we risk losing our cell phone services, our banking, our internet, and our navigation systems. It is critical that we are aware of what’s happening in the space domain, so that we can monitor adversaries, support our allies, and safeguard our interests. Today, I have some exciting news to share in this regard. I’m thrilled to announce that we have awarded a contract for a new agile microsatellite designed, built, and operated in Canada. Thanks to a Federal investment of 15.8 million dollars, the Redwing Space Domain Awareness Microsatellite project, will monitor objects orbiting the earth, to help reduce future risks to Canada’s space infrastructure from space debris or human-caused interference. Design, manufacturing and operations will be led by Magellan Aerospace in Winnipeg, Manitoba. And, ground stations will be located in Inuvik, Northwest Territories and Happy Valley Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador. When launched in late 2026, this research and development satellite system will identify and help to reduce risks to Canada’s space infrastructure from space debris and human-caused interference. Why does space domain awareness matter? In November 2021, Russia decided to fire a missile into one of its own old satellites as part of its anti-satellite weapons testing. The over fifteen hundred pieces of debris generated by the strike are contributing to the pollution of the low-earth orbit and endangering our assets. Countries like Russia are demonstrating recklessness in the space domain – but Canada, for its part, will always act responsibly in space. And finally, but no less importantly, let me touch on the cyber domain. The cyber domain is here to stay. It will shape the conflicts of today and tomorrow, and Canada will remain ready to protect itself, now and tomorrow. Last winter, we saw Russia disrupt the Viasat KA-SAT Satellite internet service, which rendered critical infrastructure for Internet and communications inoperable in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe. Canada have the capabilities to help our allies and partners in Europe, and we are doing so. In support of Ukraine, we provide cyber intelligence and threat analysis, cyber security, and are engaged in cyber operations. Outside of Ukraine, we have been supporting Latvia with a Cyber Task Force since last year – to help protect our Allies, and protect our NATO Allies against aggression in the cyber domain. Friends, that is what we are doing in five crucial domains to build a Canadian Armed Forces ready for tomorrow. And to help us in these efforts, we are updating our 2017 Defence Policy to better reflect our rapidly changing world. It is critically important that we get this right, which is why we have been engaging stakeholders across Canada, as well as our Allies and partners, to inform our way forward. Today, we’re launching public consultations with all Canadians on our Defence Policy Update – or DPU. We have launched a new digital platform where Canadians can learn more and share your ideas for the DPU – and I invite you all to contribute online. We want to hear from you on how to recruit and retain talented Canadians, how to create sustainable cultural change, how to meet the needs of Canadians in the event of a natural disaster, and much more. This consultation process also includes targeted discussions with: Indigenous and Northern communities and leaders, who are integral partners in safeguarding Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. NATO Allies, Five Eyes partners, and other like-minded countries. And of course, Canadian industry representatives, defence and security companies, national security experts and scholars . Our Canadian defence industry is innovative, dynamic, and bold. You engineer the impossible. And you help us maintain a strategic edge over our competitors. So, we see you as key partners in our work to modernize. We must also remember that Canada’s economic prosperity is fundamentally linked with our national security. Therefore, we must ensure the stability of our supply chains, and uphold our resiliency by strengthening our ties to our closest partners. Our investments will provide tremendous economic opportunities for Canadian businesses and workers. And by working together, I am confident that we can address the threats of today and anticipate those of tomorrow. Friends, We are at an inflection point in the history of conflict. And that is why there is an urgent to build a Canadian Armed Forces ready for tomorrow. For much of history, a military’s effectiveness was characterized by a steady accumulation of strength – simply having a bigger arsenal. However, today’s era of military competition is also defined by speed, agility, and interoperability. In a changing world, we are ensuring that our military has what it needs for tomorrow. The urgent procurement of Portable Anti-Tank Guided Missile systems, a Counter-UAS capability and a short-range Air Defence System will strengthen our abilities in the traditional domains of conflict. And, for emerging domains like space, the Redwing Microsatellite contract award announced today will enhance our awareness and reduce risks to Canada’s assets in space. We know, to stay agile, we must be prepared to push back against threats in all domains, sometimes all at once. Let me conclude by addressing our military members directly: You are at the heart of our work to protect Canada. And we are acting quickly to give you the tools you need to do your job. Modernization involves not just the members of our military, but our industry partners, our friends in academia and think tanks, Indigenous partners, and Canadians. National security is a team endeavour. And we are all part of Team Canada. Together, we will build a Canadian Armed Forces ready for tomorrow. I wish you all a productive conference, and I look forward to hearing more about your important, forward-thinking conversations. Thank you. Merci. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2023/03/cdai-ottawa-conference-on-security-and-defence---a-canadian-armed-forces-ready-for-tomorrow.html

  • Canadian government to spend estimated $800M more to keep aging CF-18s in fighting shape

    January 15, 2020 | Local, Aerospace

    Canadian government to spend estimated $800M more to keep aging CF-18s in fighting shape

    OTTAWA — The federal government is planning to invest hundreds of millions of dollars more to ensure Canada's aging CF-18s can still fight while the country waits for replacement jets, which were originally expected years ago. The extra money comes after the federal auditor general warned in late 2018 that Canada's fighter jets risked being outmatched by more advanced adversaries due to a lack of combat upgrades since 2008 and will result in new weapons, sensors and defensive systems for the fleet. Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger estimated the added cost will be around $800 million, which is on top of the $3 billion the government has already set aside to extend the lives of the CF-18s and purchase 18 secondhand fighter jets from Australia. “Canada has a history of upgrading their fighter aircraft,” Meinzinger said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press. “It's a consequence of the fact that over time, threats ... advance as technology advances.” The air force did not initially plan any upgrades to the CF-18s' combat systems after 2008 because it expected to retire the last of the fleet by 2020, when a new fleet of jets was to have taken over. Instead, thanks to how successive governments have managed — or mismanaged — the jet file over the past decade, a competition to select a new fighter for the air force is only now underway. Even then, the last CF-18 isn't scheduled to be retired until 2032. The air force “imagined perhaps transitioning the fighter force a little bit earlier,” Meinzinger acknowledged, which is why the need to invest in the CF-18s' combat systems wasn't taken — or even apparent — earlier. “Because we anticipate flying the aircraft longer, this is why we're doing what we're doing to ensure we've got at least parity with the threats that we would see over that timeline before we can transition to the new fighter,” he added. The federal auditor general flagged concerns with the combat effectiveness of Canada's CF-18s in a report in November 2018, warning that the planes “will become more vulnerable as advanced combat aircraft and air defence systems continue to be developed and used by other nations.” The auditor general also found that even though the Department of National Defence had decided to invest money into the CF-18s to keep them flying past 2020, it “removed upgrades to combat capability,” in part because of “cost concerns.” Documents obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act show the auditor general's office initially wanted to say the fleet was “not fully capable for combat.” But defence officials said that could “compromise operational security” and suggested toned down language. “We've got an excellent capability,” Meinzinger said when asked about the state of the fleet. “The fighter force has got an outstanding reputation globally. They stand the watch 24/7, 365 under the NORAD rubric. ... I don't want Canadians to be worried about where we're at today.” The U.S. Marines are looking at keeping their F-18s — upon which the CF-18 is based — in the air until the 2030s, and Meinzinger said the two forces are working together to identify the best ways to do that. “We've made it a priority and we're moving as fast as we can to get it delivered,” he said. “Obviously our intent is always to ensure that we're making the investments such that we believe that we've got at least parity against the threats that we would face.” https://nationalpost.com/news/air-force-to-spend-hundred-of-millions-more-to-keep-cf-18s-fighting-fit

All news