Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Release Elsie Initiative Barrier Assessment Identifying Barriers for Women in UN Peace Operations

On the same subject

• 

  January 9, 2020 | Local, Aerospace

  New air defences needed in wake of Iran attack, Canadian Army says

  BY LEE BERTHIAUME THE CANADIAN PRESS The launching of Iranian missiles against a base housing Canadian soldiers in Iraq has highlighted a long-standing deficiency for the Canadian Army: the inability to defend against air attacks such as aircraft, rockets and drones. Iran on Tuesday fired missiles at two military bases in Iraq, including one near the northern city of Irbil that has housed Canadian troops for more than five years as part of the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. No one was injured in the missile attack, which was in retaliation for the killing of Iranian Maj.-Gen. Qassem Soleimani by a U.S. drone last week. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed Wednesday that Canadian soldiers were at the base at the time of the Iranian attack. Canadian troops in Iraq and elsewhere are routinely deployed with allies who have what are called “ground-based air defences,” or GBADs in military parlance, which can include everything from missile interceptors and anti-aircraft guns to electronic jamming devices and lasers. But Canadian Army spokesperson Karla Gimby said the Iranian missile attack nonetheless demonstrated why a new air-defence system is one of the army's top procurement priorities. “Iran launching missiles underscores the need for militaries — and the Canadian military — to have GBADs,” Gimby said Wednesday, though she added: “It is too early to tell if recent events will impact the GBAD procurement timeline.” Successive Canadian Army commanders have raised the lack of air defences for front-line troops since the military retired the last of its anti-air weapons in 2012. However, efforts to acquire a new system have been stuck in neutral for years. The Department of National Defence is not expecting delivery of a new system until at least 2026, which is projected to cost between $250 million and $500 million. Officials have previously suggested that part of the problem is trying to figure out exactly what threats the system will be designed to counter, particularly given rapid advances in technology. In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, Canadian Army commander Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre referenced Iran's use of drones to attack Saudi Arabia's largest oil facility in September as one new airborne threat on the battlefield. “No army in history has gone to war with all of the resources that it wanted, all the capabilities that it wanted,” Eyre said. “That being said, GBAD is one of the ones that I am most concerned about because it is not just a capability shortfall, it's a capability gap. We don't have it.” When the Canadian military put away the last of its anti-air weapons in 2012, it was on the assumption that Canada and its allies would have air superiority in any battle and not have to worry about airborne attacks, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “The Taliban never had any of that kind of stuff. (ISIL) really didn't have any of that kind of stuff,” Perry said. “So we've been deploying in places where it hasn't been a problem.” The Iranian attack demonstrates the importance of Canadian troops on the ground being able to protect against airborne threats, he said. https://globalnews.ca/news/6382675/iran-attack-canadian-army/

• 

  September 25, 2019 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Opinion: After Major Mergers, What’s Next For Defense Market?

  By Byron Callan This year has shaped up as a record one in terms of the volume of major defense transactions so far announced. Considering deals of $100 million or more in announced value where defense is the primary factor, the 2019 total exceeds $61 billion. Of course, the largest single example is the Raytheon-United Technologies Corp. (UTC) merger. There are reasons to expect heightened activity in 2019 and 2020. Some reasons are known and others can be assessed, but one that does not appear to be affecting market expectations is the Raytheon-UTC deal. Since it was announced on June 9, the companies' share prices have declined from the June 7, close: Raytheon's by 4% and UTC's by 5.7%. The S&P 500 has been flat. However, share prices of peers have risen—General Dynamics is up 5.4%, L3Harris Technologies has increased 6.2%, Lockheed Martin and Leidos have climbed 7% and Northrop Grumman is up 14.4%. These price moves may be attributable to safe-haven seeking by investors who were spooked by global economic concerns and trade wars, but the budget deal reached by Congress also was a factor, as were July earnings reports. The price reactions, however, do not suggest that investors are particularly concerned about the impact of the competitive strength of the Raytheon-UTC union and its ability to take market share away from peers. Nor do they suggest that the deal will trigger a rush by defense-focused companies to merge with commercial ones. Were the latter to be the case, the price reactions may have been similar to Raytheon and United Technologies'. There have been other known developments that raise the question of what is next. Kaman Corp. sold its industrial distribution business for $700 million and will seek to redeploy that capital into engineering products businesses, some of which could involve defense. L3Harris signaled in June that it is undertaking a portfolio cleanup after the completion of the merger, and so there should be divestitures from that company. Textron announced in August that it was reviewing “strategic alternatives” for Kautex, which makes blow-molded fuel systems and other parts primarily for the automotive industry. Presuming that it leads to a sale of that business, Textron will have cash, some of which might be spent on defense. There are general factors as well that could spawn sector merger and acquisition activity in 2019-20. One of the biggest is the potential uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the 2020 U.S. elections. Buyers and sellers have to weigh a number of variables. If the current administration is reelected and control of Congress remains split at least through 2022, then it may be safe to assume that the status quo will continue. One variable within the status quo is how contractor portfolios could be affected by the ongoing efforts of the Pentagon to better align its programs with the National Defense Strategy. Like the Army's “night court” process, this may yet spawn a reassessment of specific programs and their future growth outlook. But if the status quo does not prevail, defense contractors could face a wall of uncertainties in 2020 and may choose to act before rather than after these uncertainties are clarified. First, they will have to assess which Democratic candidate could win the primary cycle and then the nomination. If it is a centrist candidate, the Defense Department spending outlook might not change all that much, although exports to some countries might be curtailed and there could be changes in some Pentagon budget priorities, particularly for nuclear forces modernization. A more progressive-leaning candidate might raise the risk of a more subdued defense budget outlook, particularly if fiscal resources are instead directed toward health care, infrastructure, student debt and other nondefense priorities. Second, there will have to be an assessment of whether a Democratic win of the White House could also flip control of the Senate to the Democrats. If there is a Democrat in the White House but a Republican majority in the Senate, the Senate could still check budgets or policies that may be detrimental to defense. It might also block efforts to roll back changes to tax laws made in 2017. A third variable to be assessed is the attitude of a new administration toward defense mergers and acquisitions, contractor financing and risk. A more progressive administration could look very differently at the structure and financial status of contractors. All these variables will lead to different analyses of current and future value in defense. Is it a good time to hunker down and wait to see what happens or to act in the time that remains in 2019-20 before investors and creditors draw their own conclusions? These uncertainties alone suggest that some will act in anticipation of a change rather than just wait and see. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-after-major-mergers-what-s-next-defense-market

• 

  November 3, 2017 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

  OEMs will invest in Canadian content if they have procurement program stability

  If the Canadian government is to inject billions of dollars into military procurement over the next decade and successfully deliver on dozens of major capital projects, the defence industry must play a critical role. When the new defence policy was released in June 2017, the Liberal government committed to increase the Department of National Defence (DND) budget from $18.9 billion to $32.7 billion by 2026-27 and provide up to $62 billion for the military over the next 20 years. Experience has shown, however, that increased spending can strain government and industry capacity to meet the requirements and schedules for multiple projects. Industry is up for the challenge providing it has predictability in the programs and the process, said Mike Greenley, president of Burlington, Ont.-based L3 WESCAM and a former chair of the board for the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). “Industry capacity to respond and surge is obviously greater the more horizon you can give it,” Greenley said at a recent Ottawa conference, hosted by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, examining the implications of Canada's Defence Policy: Strong, Secure, Engaged. Greenley–a former executive with General Dynamics and CAE and a veteran of many procurement programs–said large foreign and Canadian manufacturers would make the necessary investments in smaller Canadian companies and production capacity if they have confidence in the opportunity. “If we talk about these things far enough ahead of time, I think people will invest and have Canadian content ready,” he added. MGen Jean-Marc Lanthier, chief of program, said the new policy had generated almost four dozen projects, but he cautioned that the government and military could not succeed if “we don't tap into innovation.” One way to encourage early industry engagement might be to run competitions at the research and development (R&D) phase of certain projects, rather than waiting until after the statement of requirements (SOR) has been fully defined. “If [you wait] for the SOR and everyone fights to the death for that thing, then your ability to respond and scale up is obviously diminished because you are not going to believe in it until, for sure, you absolutely have [it],” Greenley stated. “Industry can do a lot more if they are engaged earlier.” As an example, he pointed to the process to replace the current fleet of CP-140 Aurora aircraft, which is undergoing a series of block upgrades to extend service life into the 2030s. If, as the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) has suggested, the goal is a Canadian-built maritime patrol platform with Canadian-developed anti-submarine warfare and other capabilities, “while we modernize the CP-140s today, we could run a competition tomorrow [to get] an industrial team together for next generation maritime patrol.” That would “allow things to happen easier and quicker, engage the whole base sooner, in addition to giving them stability” to survive a change in government or government priorities, he said. “We wouldn't normally do that in Canada. But to [earlier] points about how do you connect industrial capacity with innovation, with trying to get more done with less people with more money, we could [do it].” Defence policies rarely survive as economic blueprints beyond their first few years. In a panel on framing the government's challenge, several former senior public executives noted how quickly a shift in the domestic financial picture or international circumstances forced previous governments to change course. Still, current government officials were optimistic about the policy, noting it is still early days. Andre Fillion–chief of staff, Materiel, and a former RCAF officer who led the acquisition programs for the CC-177 Globemaster, CC-130J Hercules, CH-147F Chinook and CH-148 Cyclone–acknowledged that more certified project managers are needed, as are improvements to streamline the procurement process. An increase in contracting authority to $5 million would allow the Army, Navy, Air Force and special operations forces to directly manage about 80 per cent of DND's procurement projects, freeing up resources and staff for the larger, more challenging and riskier programs. The department will look more holistically at projects, factoring in infrastructure requirements, like hangars, when it acquires an aircraft, and it will place greater reliance on analytics using data to drive decisions on complex programs, said Jody Thomas, deputy minister of National Defence. The department also added two new associate deputy ministers with extensive experience in government and procurement. “We are restructuring the department to deliver,” concluded Thomas. https://www.skiesmag.com/news/oems-will-invest-canadian-content-procurement-program-stability/