Contrat d’achat des F-35 | Les négociations entre Ottawa et Lockheed Martin sur le point d’aboutir

On the same subject

• 

  December 26, 2019 | Local, Naval

  Industry briefing questions Ottawa's choice of guns, defence systems for new frigates

  Murray Brewster The Department of National Defence has faced some tough, pointed questions about whether it has chosen the right radar, main gun and close air defence systems for the navy's new frigates, which will soon hit the drawing board. An unsolicited defence industry slide deck presentation, obtained by CBC News, questions each of those key components in the planned $60 billion modernization of the fleet. It was circulated earlier this year and put in front of the senior federal officials in charge of the program. The defence industry briefing presentation points out that the Lockheed Martin-built AN/SPY-7 radar system — an updated, more sophisticated version of an existing U.S. military system — has not been installed and certified on any warship. A land-based version of the system is being produced and fielded for the Japanese government. The briefing calls it "an unproven radar" system that will be "costly to support," and claims it comes at a total price tag of $1 billion for all of the new ships, which the undated presentation describes as "an unnecessary expenditure." Lockheed Martin Canada and British-based BAE Systems Inc. were chosen earlier this year by the Liberal government to design and help build 15 new warships to replace the country's existing patrol frigates — the backbone of the navy. Old guns, inadequate defence systems? The briefing raises concerns about DND's choice of a main gun for the frigates — a 127 millimetre MK 45 described by the briefing as 30-year-old technology that will soon be obsolete and cannot fire precision-guided shells. The briefing also singles out as inadequate the Sea Ceptor close air defence system, which is meant to shoot down incoming, ship-killing missiles. Given the Canadian government's past missteps with military procurement — buying used equipment or opting for developmental systems that take years to get into service — a defence expert said the caution being expressed by the industry now is legitimate, but in some respects it's coming years too late. "There's a risk anytime you try to do something new for the first time," said Dave Perry, an analyst who specializes in procurement at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. The navy struggled for years to get second-hand British submarines up to Canadian standards. The air force also sat on its hands while the manufacturer of the CH-148 Cyclone helicopters worked out all of the developmental bugs. The presentation, Perry said, essentially tries to re-litigate decisions made by federal officials over three years ago, when the government's request for proposals was mapped out. 'The ship has sailed' "This is calling into question whether the government set down [technical] markers in an appropriate spot or not," he said. "There is always the possibility that these issues can be revisited, but I think at this point the ship has sailed because a competition was run, it did produce a preferred bidder." The pressure to get the new frigate design right is enormous, given the enormous expense involved and the changing nature of warfare, Perry added. The briefing presentation apparently was circulated by a rival radar-maker which was not part of the bidding process. Federal officials declined to name the company. Raytheon Canada Ltd. and its U.S. parent are among the biggest electronics and radar manufacturers in the world. A request for comment sent to their international business division went unanswered last week. 'We did our homework' The concerns in the briefing were presented last summer to: Pat Finn, former head of materiel at DND; Andre Fillion, the assistant deputy minister of defence purchasing at Public Services and Procurement Canada; and Rear Admiral Casper Donovan, the navy's director general for "future ship capability." DND confirmed the existence of the briefing presentation but refused to say who received it or which defence contractor was pushing it. "It is not uncommon for companies to present unsolicited material to our department when they are unsuccessful in a competitive process," spokesman Andrew McKelvey said recently. "We do not comment on these unsolicited documents as they are provided outside the scope of our established procurement process." Both the department and the commander of the navy stand behind the decisions that were made and the systems chosen for the new frigate. "We did our homework. We talked to other navies. We engaged our allies," said Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, who added DND was aware of other options on the market. Delivering the warships on schedule and on budget in the mid-2020s is a constant preoccupation in the department, he said. He would not say whether the choice of radar system might mean a delay in delivery. A senior executive at Lockheed Martin Canada said the company's radar system is identical to one selected by the U.S. government and other countries. Much of the system's hardware, and some of its software, have been used on U.S. Aegis-type guided missile destroyers and cruisers. The difference between the radar system chosen for Canada's frigates and conventional systems is in its array: the Lockheed Martin system sweeps around and above the vessel, rather than only horizontally. "The work that remains is to integrate it into the ship and integrate it into the ship's combat system," said Gary Fudge, general manager and vice president of Lockheed Martin Canada. "We worked for two years with BAE during the proposal stage to optimize the ship design with this particular radar." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-gun-radar-canadian-navy-1.5405054

• 

  May 31, 2019 | Local, Aerospace, Security

  What does a DAR do?

  Michael Petsche Helicopters are pretty awesome devices. Even when you understand the physics of how they work, it's still a wonder that the combination of whirling bits and pieces can result in flight. These magnificent machines put out fires, string powerlines, erect towers, pluck people in distress from mountains, and save countless lives. But here's the thing: a brand new, factory-spec helicopter right off the production line can't do any of those things. Flip through the pages of any issue of Vertical, and in almost every photo, the aircraft has been fitted with some type of special equipment. A firefighting machine will have a cargo hook for the bucket, a bubble window, an external torque gauge, pulse lights and a mirror. A search-and-rescue aircraft will have a hoist. Air ambulances are filled with lifesaving equipment. And very little of that stuff comes directly from the airframe original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Instead, this equipment is in place thanks to supplemental type certificates (STCs). As the name implies, an STC is required for an installation that supplements the original aircraft type certificate. It needs to meet all of the same requirements as the aircraft that it's installed upon. Therefore, it must undergo the same kind of testing, analysis, and scrutiny that the aircraft does. How do regulatory authorities ensure that supplementary equipment meets the same standards as the aircraft they're designed to augment? Through people like me. I am a Transport Canada Design Approval Representative (DAR), also known as a delegate. A DAR does not actually work for Transport Canada, but is delegated to act on its behalf to make findings of compliance in a particular field of specialty — such as structures, avionics, or as a flight test pilot. To secure an STC, not only must a modification meet the same standards as the original aircraft, but it has to be shown not to degrade the safety of the aircraft. Let's take the firefighting helicopter as an example. The bubble window needs to be strong enough to withstand the aerodynamic loads in flight. In order to verify this, a structural test can be done on a test rig. However, the bubble window protrudes from the aircraft, resulting in extra drag. It could adversely affect how the aircraft behaves, or reduce climb performance, or have an effect on the pitot-static system. These are the sorts of issues that flight testing is meant to uncover. Similarly, if someone wants to upgrade an old GPS system to the latest and greatest model, testing must be done to ensure that there is no electrical interference between the new unit and any other existing systems on the aircraft. A big part of the STC process is determining just how you can prove that a modification meets the regulations. Does it need to be tested or is a stress analysis enough? Or is it a combination of the two — or another method entirely? And on top of that, which regulations are applicable? And furthermore, which version of the regulations needs to be applied? The rules for the Airbus H125, for example, are not the same as for the Bell 429. It's the role of the DAR (with concurrence from the regulator, in my case Transport Canada) to make these kinds of determinations. While the STC process is technically uniform, the scope can vary widely from one project to another. Changing a seat cushion or changing an engine type can both be STCs. The execution of a project can take many forms, and is dependent on a huge number of factors, including the DAR, the project scope, the resources available, and the end user. In my current role, I work largely on my own. The process typically begins with me submitting an application to open the project with Transport Canada. I prepare the documents and drawings, and witness and document any required testing. Then I compile it all and submit it to Transport Canada. Through all this, I will rely heavily on the end user to provide their insight and expertise — and their facilities. After all, it's their aircraft, and they are the ones who will ultimately be installing, using, and maintaining the STC kit — so it has to make sense to them. Whenever possible, I will have documents and drawings reviewed by the maintenance team to make sure that theory and reality align. Becoming a delegate How does someone become a delegate? In Canada, it begins with an educational requirement. You must have an engineering degree, or have, in the opinion of Transport Canada, equivalent experience. In other words, if someone has many years of applicable experience, they can be eligible to be a delegate, even if they do not have an engineering degree. A prospective delegate must also successfully complete the Aircraft Certification Specialty Course. This is a two-week intensive course that covers the ins and outs of aircraft certification: type certification, STCs, Change Product Rule and so on. And yes, there are exams! Next is a one-year working relationship with Transport Canada. The process for becoming a delegate is not uniform, with the one-year timeline more of a guideline than a rule. In my case, it took less than 12 months. Prior to beginning my process, I had the good fortune of working for a talented delegate for many years. He taught me how it “should be done.” I was given the opportunity to fly at 170 knots indicated airspeed in AStars pointed at the ground during flight tests; I snapped bolts while piling steel plates onto structures during structural tests; and I wrote numerous supporting reports for many kinds of STCs for many different aircraft types. My mentor is a (sometimes maddeningly) meticulous guy. Everything we did was thorough and correct. So, by the time I was presenting my own work to Transport Canada, it was evident that I already had a pretty firm grasp on the process. As a result, my delegation was granted before a full year. During the period while I was building my relationship with Transport Canada, my friends would ask if I had to accomplish certain specified milestones or achieve specific “levels.” The short answer is: not really. In fact, it's about building trust. It's almost counter-intuitive that in an industry with such strict regulations, granting delegation to someone is, to a large degree, based on a “warm, fuzzy feeling.” Ultimately, Transport Canada must have confidence in the delegate. Let's face it, we are in a business with tight schedules and high price tags. There can be a lot of pressure, financial or otherwise, to meet deadlines — and things can go wrong. Parts can fail under ultimate loading during a structural test. That cursed Velcro can fail the flammability test. And when these things happen, it can be the delegate that incurs the wrath of the angry operator who really needs to get his aircraft flying. Transport Canada must have the confidence that not only does the delegate have the technical knowledge and ability, but that they have the intestinal fortitude to stand firm under what can sometimes be difficult circumstances. There's the somewhat cynical axiom that the only way for an aircraft to be 100 percent safe is to never let it fly. I have heard many tales of woe and misery about people's dealings with Transport Canada and how the regulator was being “unreasonable” about X, Y, or Z. I'm of the opinion that these instances often stem from poor communication — on both sides. This is another area where the DAR can help. The DAR often acts as a liaison (or translator) between the operator and Transport Canada. Operators don't necessarily spend that much time studying design regulations. And similarly, Transport Canada engineers may not be fully familiar with the day-to-day challenges and obligations of aircraft operations. As a DAR, I speak the same language as Transport Canada. But I also spend a great deal of time in hangars, so I am also fluent in “aircraft operator.” This level of bilingualism can alleviate misunderstandings. And with a little strategic communication, everyone involved can be satisfied a lot sooner. Not surprisingly, communication and open dialogue between the DAR and the regulator is just as crucial. It has been my experience that Transport Canada wants to help get projects completed. They are aviation geeks, just like the rest of us, and they want to “Git ‘er done.” Because I have developed a solid relationship with Transport Canada, if ever I find myself struggling with something, I can call them and ask for guidance. Obviously it's not their job to fix the issue for me, but they are there to help. Whether they point me at an Advisory Circular that I wasn't aware of, or they draw from their own experience, 99 times out of 100, talking it through with them yields a solution very quickly. We all want to keep aircraft flying — safely. And we all have our different roles to play. As a DAR, I enjoy being the go-between for the regulatory world and the operational world. The challenge of getting them to work and play nicely together can be pretty fun — and a big part of accomplishing that goal requires earned trust and open communication. https://www.verticalmag.com/features/what-does-a-dar-do/

• 

  April 27, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Explainer: What the Canadian military is doing for Canadians during the pandemic

  Canadian Armed Forces members are mobilizing to help provinces and territories Emergencies are first handled by local authorities and municipal services such as firefighters, the police and medical professionals, but when first responders are overwhelmed, provinces and territories can request support from the federal government. After the request is approved, the federal government's response is managed by Public Safety Canada, who may ask the Canadian Armed Forces for help by stepping in under Operation LENTUS, the Canadian Armed Forces response to natural disasters in Canada. The same request process applies to the COVID-19 pandemic, only the CAF is responding under Operation LASER — the activation of Contingency Plan LASER “for the response to a pandemic of influenza-like disease.” Operation LASER consists of four phases. Phase one is pandemic preparedness, involving mitigation planning and monitoring of potential worldwide pandemic threats. Phase two, which began on March 2, is pandemic alert. This includes active monitoring of an evolving pandemic threat and implementing some restrictions. Phase three is the CAF's response to the pandemic. This means the CAF is able to deploy when help is requested and approved from a province or territory. Phase four is post-pandemic restoration, which is the resumption of CAF services and operations to normal levels. Phase one is also resumed. Since March 13 the CAF has been at phase three after the Chief of the Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance, approved the CAF response to the pandemic. Last month the federal government prepared 24,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces, a total of one quarter of their regular and reserve members, to deploy in the event that a province requested their support. Since then, Quebec has requested the CAF's assistance. The province specified that it needed medical personnel to help nursing homes struggling with outbreaks of COVID-19 and staff shortages. Quebec's request was approved by the federal government and CAF medical personnel have arrived at five nursing homes. On April 22, Ontario also requested help from the federal government and the CAF for their long-term care nursing homes, which was approved the following day. CAF medical officers must have completed a medical degree from an accredited university before applying to the Medical Officer Training Program (MOTP). Once completed and accepted into the MOTP, officers are trained within the military to ensure their performance follows under military policies and in environments abroad. This includes the completion of the Basic Military Officer Qualification in Quebec before they can complete the Common Health Services course, which is provided by the Defence Learning Network. They also attend the Canadian Forces Health Services Training Center in Borden, Ontario, where they “are introduced to the organizational structure and history of the Canadian Forces Medical Service and the unique circumstances of practicing military medicine.” Medical officers then can choose to either specialize their medical practice or acquire advanced training in several fields of medicine. CAF members are also helping process materials for Personal Protective Equipment at Public Health Agency warehouses across Canada. In Northern Canada, they are prepared to assist remote communities to combat outbreaks. The CAF has activated three Northern Saskatchewan Ranger Patrols, gathering firewood for residents during their winter season as the pandemic continues. https://runnermag.ca/2020/04/explainer-what-the-canadian-military-is-doing-for-canadians-during-the-pandemic/