Cost of Canadian Coast Guard patrol ships jumps by $500 million in less than a year, MPs told

On the same subject

• 

  October 26, 2023 | Local, Land, Security

  Russia and China at war with Canada, says Gen. Wayne Eyre

  Canadian Forces considers China and Russia the country’s main threats – climate change barely acknowledged in new document

• 

  May 31, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

  Procurement minister defends rule change for F-35 as necessary for competition

  The Canadian Press, Lee Berthiaume OTTAWA — The federal procurement minister is defending the government's plan to loosen procurement rules for the F-35 stealth fighter in the face of questions and concerns from companies that make competing jets. Speaking at the annual Cansec arms-trade show Thursday, Public Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough insisted the move is needed for a robust competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18s. That competition is expected to result in a $19-billion deal for a new fleet of fighters. “The innovations and modifications we are adopting will enable participation from all eligible suppliers while applying the same rules to everyone on a level playing field,” Qualtrough said during a breakfast speech. “This is a complex process. As complex as any the federal government has ever conducted.” The government's plan involves lifting a long-standing requirement that companies legally commit to putting some of their contract money back into Canadian industry if they win a defence competition. The proposal followed U.S. complaints that the requirement violated an agreement Canada signed in 2006 to become one of nine partner countries in the development of the F-35, which is being built by Lockheed Martin. While partner countries can buy F-35s at a discount, they must also contribute money to the planes' development — in Canada's case, more than $500 million to date. Partners are also forbidden from requiring economic benefits as a condition for buying the plane. Companies in each partner country instead compete for contracts associated with the aircraft, with Canadian industry having won $1.5 billion so far. But representatives from Boeing and Saab, which make the Super Hornet and Gripen fighter jets, respectively, said Wednesday the previous policy worked well in ensuring defence contracts benefit Canada economically. And they warned abandoning the requirement that bidders commit to reinvesting in Canada could hurt the country's aerospace industry, which would in turn make it more difficult for the military to support its new jets. Industry sources say representatives for the Eurofighter Typhoon, the fourth aircraft expected in the competition aside from the F-35, Super Hornet and Gripen, have expressed similar sentiments. Qualtrough, offering the government's most extensive defence of the plan to date, insisted that despite letting bidders choose not to make contractual obligations to re-invest, the government is committed to ensuring the largest economic benefits possible. Under the new process, bidders can still guarantee that they will re-invest back into Canada if their jet wins the competition and get full points — which is the likely approach for Boeing, Saab and Eurofighter. Those like Lockheed Martin that can't make such a commitment will be penalized and asked to establish “industrial targets,” lay out plans for achieving those targets and sign a non-binding agreement promising to make all efforts to achieve them. “No one should misunderstand this: our government remains committed as strongly as ever to the (industrial benefit) policy in this competition,” Qualtrough said during her speech. “We're getting the fighter jet for the RCAF's needs, at the right price, and with the right economic benefits for Canadians.” The government has said it plans to launch the long-overdue formal competition to select Canada's next fighter jet in July, nearly four years after the Liberals were elected in 2015 on a promise to hold an immediate competition. Companies are expected to submit their bids next winter, with a formal contract signed in 2022. The first plane won't arrive until at least 2025. –Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/procurement-minister-defends-rule-change-for-f-35-as-necessary-for-competition

• 

  August 20, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

  Smol: Why Sweden is leagues ahead of Canada on fighter-jet technology

  With the election looming, the Liberal government has set in motion, at least on paper, its commitment to consider bids for the purchase of new fighter jets. Of course, how committed the government is to move ahead on its renewed commitment remains to be seen. Meanwhile, any Canadian truly committed to seeing a modern, well-equipped RCAF, supported by a capable military procurement program, should take special note of one of the top contenders to replace Canada's aging fleet of fighters: Sweden. This non-aligned country, approximately the size of Newfoundland and Labrador, with a population only slightly larger than that of Quebec, has not only succeeded in developing generations of fighter jets, but has seen impressive success in exporting them. Apart from Sweden, Saab's JAS 39 Gripen, the latest version released in 2016, is being used by the Czech Republic and Hungary within NATO. The governments of Brazil, South Africa and Thailand are also purchasing the aircraft. Other countries such as India, Botswana, Indonesia and the Philippines are seriously considering the Gripen. But instead of fretting about how much Canada's aging fighters stand to potentially be outdone by the air forces of the developing world, we should instead look squarely at how Sweden came to be a serious contender to arm and equip this country's emaciated airforce. We should instead look squarely at how Sweden came to be a serious contender to arm and equip this country's emaciated airforce. The answer lies in the national mindset of the two countries. Unlike Canada, and especially when it comes to defence, Sweden refuses to allow itself to fall into dependency status vis-à-vis Europe, NATO or any other military power. In other words, while they actively cooperate with NATO in the defence of Europe, they make it clear that the defence of Sweden is first and foremost a Swedish responsibility. It is why the Swedish army, navy and airforce use high-tech equipment, much of which is built by the Swedes themselves. It is why the Swedes supplement their advanced military technology with elaborate defence-in-depth war plans and civil defence policies. The manual, “If crisis or war comes,” has been recently mailed to every household in Sweden. By contrast, we Canadians have chosen a quasi-colonial mindset with respect to our defence, clearly reflected in our epically embarrassing procurement shortcomings and failures. For the last 60 years, beginning with the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, Canada has been falling into a pattern of dependency on the United States on all matters related to defence. Sweden, on the other hand, has remained committed to designing and developing much its own military aircraft, ships, submarines and army equipment. In the mid-1950s, both Canada and Sweden were working independently on their own advanced fighter aircraft. While Canada was working on the Arrow, the Swedish military and engineers were hard at work on the Draken, which came out the same year. The Draken had a similar delta wing design to the Arrow and was the first European-built fighter jet to break the sound barrier. But that is where the comparison ends; the two countries went on very different paths with respect to their airforces. Canada cancelled and destroyed its Arrow aircraft and took on second-rate Voodoo fighters from the United States. It is what we Canadians wanted, as no successive Conservative or Liberal government has since tried to “bring back the Arrow.” Sweden aggressively continued development of new fighter technology, replacing the Draken with the Viggen in the 1970s, while Canada continued to try to squeeze more life out of our then-aging fighter jets. In the 1980s, as Canada was finally taking on the U.S built F-18, Sweden was working on the first version of the modern Gripen. Of course, as had been well documented, the early Gripen had problems. But as with the Draken and Viggen, the Swedes, unlike Canada, stayed with their national fighter jet. Today, Canada can only dream what our military aircraft industry might have been like in 2019 if then-prime minister John Diefenbaker, with the tacit support of the opposition Liberals, had not cancelled the Arrow, accelerating our descent into military dependency on the United States and national impotence on military procurement. https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/smol-why-sweden-is-leagues-ahead-of-canada-on-fighter-jet-technology