Cutting-edge radar system for new frigates never used on warships, must be adapted

On the same subject

• 

  March 4, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  La France espère pénétrer le marché canadien de l’aéronautique et de la défense

  « En ce moment tout le monde regarde [...] le passage du CSeries à l'A220 chez Airbus », a déclaré, le 2 mars, le président du GIFAS, Éric Trappier, lors d'un point de presse en marge d'un événement réunissant 250 représentants du secteur des deux pays, France et Canada, qui se tenait à Montréal, dans le cadre de la mission industrielle du GIFAS au Canada. « C'est un métier difficile [où il faut savoir concilier les facteurs] techniques, commerciaux et financiers, a-t-il poursuivi. Ce n'est pas tout d'avoir des succès techniques. Il faut aussi pouvoir les financer. Et pour les financer, il faut pouvoir les vendre. » La mission du GIFAS espère notamment convaincre le gouvernement fédéral de ne pas toujours seulement regarder du côté des États-Unis lorsque vient le temps de faire ses dépenses militaires.

• 

  December 10, 2019 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Canada is rich - and cheap

  EUGENE LANG Eugene Lang is an adjunct professor at the School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, and a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “It's Canada, they have money,” Donald Trump said at last week's NATO summit. Most of what the U.S. President says is either exaggerated or false, but occasionally he sums up in a sentence what everyone knows to be true. After admonishing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the summit for Canada's failure to meet, or strive toward, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's defence-spending target of 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Mr. Trump pointed out an inconvenient truth. The President was saying Canada is rich and cheap. But just how rich is Canada? Among the Group of Seven -- a group of the richest countries in the world -- Canada enjoys the third-highest per-capita income and, since 2016, has led the G7 in economic growth. Canada also has the lowest net-debt-to-GDP ratio among those same seven countries, and the second-lowest national-government-deficit-to-GDP ratio. Which means, in essence, that Canada is the third-richest country in the G7 and the best in class with government finances. Successive governments in Ottawa have spent 20 years boasting about this strong national balance sheet to Canadians at every turn, and telling anyone abroad who would listen. This is why Mr. Trump knows that Canada does indeed have money. We are rich, at least compared with most other countries. But are we cheap? Canada spends about 1.3 per cent of GDP on national defence, tying us for fourth with Italy within the G7. Yet, Ottawa has never fully accepted the validity of the defence-spending-to-GDP measure. Both the Harper government – which signed the Wales Declaration, enshrining the 2-per-cent NATO target – and the Trudeau government have claimed input measures such as the GDP ratio don't tell the full story, and that output indicators are more meaningful. The defence output measure that is best understood is the extent to which a country's military is engaged in operations internationally. On that score, Canada looks terrible. We have fewer troops deployed abroad today on NATO, United Nations and other multilateral missions than in decades. To be sure, having influence internationally and carrying your fair share of global responsibility entails much more than the size or engagement of your military. Official Development Assistance (ODA), or foreign aid, is another important measure in this connection. Canada also ranks fourth among G7 countries in ODA as a percentage of gross national income (GNI). However, Ottawa is spending only 0.28 per cent, up slightly from 0.26 per cent last year, the lowest level this century. Fifty years ago, a World Bank Commission report, titled Partners in Development, recommended developed countries spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on aid. That Commission was chaired by Lester Pearson, former prime minister of Canada, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and a Canadian icon. Over the years, various Canadian governments have paid homage to Mr. Pearson's vision. Yet in the five decades since his report was published, Canada has rarely reached half of the Pearson target in any given year. Whether Ottawa likes or doesn't like input or output measures, or GDP or GNI ratios, doesn't really matter in the world of international politics. For better or worse, these are the indicators that are used to compare and assess the degree to which countries are living up to their obligations and responsibilities internationally. Imperfect as they are, these are measures of burden sharing. They are the statistics countries look at when considering whether Canada or any other country is pulling its weight globally. And on these measures, Canada looks middling at best, and bad at worst, by both international comparative standards. At the same time, we are among the world leaders in economic growth among developed countries, and we have held the gold medal in public finances for years. Rich and cheap, as it were. That was the essence of Mr. Trump's criticism of Canada this week at the NATO Summit. And foreign governments the world over know it to be true. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-is-rich-and-cheap/

• 

  January 8, 2019 | Local, Security

  Defence department still wounding anesthetized animals in ‘live tissue training’

  David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen The Defence Department has cut down on its use of rodents and pigs for research and experiments but says realistic instruction for its medical personnel still requires live animals to be wounded during training and later killed. In 2018 the department used 882 animals, such as mice, rats and pigs, for training and experimentation, down from the 4,000 animals used in 2009, according to figures provided by the Department of National Defence and government records obtained by Postmedia. The animals are used by Defence Research and Development Canada for assessment of emerging chemical and biological threats and by military personnel for what is known as “live tissue training,” according to a 2016 briefing for Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance. In such a scenario the animals are anesthetized and then wounded. Military medical staff treat the wounds in order to gain experience. After the training the animals are killed. “The Department of National Defence currently uses live tissue where necessary to provide advanced military medical training for specific operational requirements,” the department stated in an email to Postmedia. But the DND is trying to reduce the use of animals as much as possible by using different experimental techniques and making use of simulators that can replicate a human patient, according to the 2016 briefing note. That has allowed for the drop to 2,000 animals in 2015 from 4,000 in 2009, the documents noted. “The life-saving experiences, confidence and skills acquired by our young medical technicians using live tissue remain critical components of their curriculum,” Vance was told. Various animal rights groups have been trying over the years to convince the DND and Canadian Forces to stop any kind of testing on animals and to use the simulators instead. The Animal Alliance of Canada has an on-going letter-writing campaign to try to convince Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan to put an end to using animals. The organization noted that Canada is one of the few NATO nations that continues to use animals. Most NATO countries are using high-tech simulators which, unlike animals, accurately mimic human physiology and anatomy. In its response to Postmedia the DND stated that it is “actively working to assess and validate the effectiveness of simulation technologies as part of our objective to find equal or superior alternatives to live tissue training in casualty care training.” It noted that Health Canada regulations stipulate that new drugs or medical techniques can't be used on humans without going through pre-clinical trials “that scientifically test their efficacy and toxicity using non-human models.” The Canadian military has a long history of experimenting on animals, exposing them to various chemical and biological warfare agents and more recently developed weapons. In the 1980s the use of animals became controversial after details of a number of military experiments were made public. Monkeys were used at defence facilities in Suffield, Alta., for experiments involving nerve gas antidotes. In 1983 researchers at the University of Ottawa made headlines after their experiments for the DND on dogs became known. Twenty specifically bred beagles were exposed to high levels of radiation to make them vomit. They were then killed and their organs removed for study. The DND research was aimed at finding a cure for nausea. In 2012, Defence Research and Development Canada subcontracted testing of a new taser projectile to a U.S. university. The projectiles were fired at pigs, according to documents obtained by Postmedia outlining experiments on “conducted energy weapons.” That same year, a study in the journal Military Medicine revealed that Canada was only one of six NATO countries still using animals in its experiments. dpugliese@postmedia.com Twitter.com/davidpugliese https://nationalpost.com/news/defence-department-still-experimenting-on-animals-but-numbers-have-been-reduced