October 18, 2018 | Local, Naval
OTTAWA — Canada's most expensive military project is entering a critical new phase as the government is on the verge of picking its top design for the country's $60-billion fleet of new warships.
Defence insiders say the government wants to select a design by the end of the month from among three options submitted by several of the largest defence and shipbuilding companies in the world.
After that the government and Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding, which will actually build the 15 new warships, will sit down with the selected bidder to hammer out the final cost and other details.
The stakes will be high for both sides, with hundreds of millions of dollars in play.
There will also be pressure to make up for lost time on a project already running behind schedule even though whatever decisions are taken could have ramifications on the navy — and taxpayers — for decades to come.
"That's part of the tension between moving quickly and making the right choice," said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
The new warships will replace the navy's 12 frigates and three destroyers, the latter of which have already been retired. They will be used for most of this century.
Launched in late 2016, the design competition has been the subject of rampant lobbying and complaints by defence industry players, with numerous revisions to the original request for bids and several deadline extensions.
That was despite defence officials and Irving having previously warned that time is of the essence when it comes to starting construction, and that they want to shave 18 to 24 months off the project.
There have also been questions about Irving's role in the competition, and anger from some companies that British firm BAE was allowed to enter its Type 26 vessel despite the ship having never been built.
BAE and U.S.-based defence giant Lockheed Martin partnered together to propose the Type 26 for the design competition, which is up against separate proposals from Dutch firm Alion and Spanish shipbuilder Navantia.
A joint French-Italian design was disqualified because Paris-based Naval Group and Italian firm Fincantieri, who promised to build the warships faster and for less than anyone else, did not follow the established process for submitting proposals.
One of the big questions heading into the negotiations will be how much the selected design needs to be changed to reflect the navy's needs and how much the navy will have to shift its requirements because changing the design will take more time and money.
Irving has warned that it could be forced to lay off hundreds of employees because of a production gap if work on the warships isn't ready to start by the time it finishes building the navy's new Arctic patrol ships in 2021 or 2022.
Government negotiators are also facing a battle over the amount of intellectual property that the top bidder will be required to hand over, which Ottawa wants so it can operate and maintain the vessels on its own after they are built.
Companies had originally been told that the winner would be required to turn over the full blueprints, but after significant resistance, the two sides agreed that the matter would be negotiated before a contract is awarded.
The government however warned that if the winning ship designer drives too hard a bargain on the intellectual property front they face the risk of officials pulling the plug on talks and moving on to the next company.
Perry said that while there are many challenges ahead before a deal for a design is signed — and before any of the new warships actually get into the water — this is a critical step forward.
"You can't dance until you pick a dance partner," he said.
— Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter.
Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
January 5, 2023 | Local, Naval
National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada noted in a statement sent Wednesday to this newspaper that the extra money was needed to deal with reduced labour availability, higher costs as a result of COVID protocols such as screening and cleaning, and price increases on transportation and spare parts.
August 20, 2020 | Local, Aerospace
SkyAlyne, a partnership between Canadian aviation and defence companies CAE and KF Aerospace, has officially unveiled its expanded team of strategic subcontractors to pursue the Royal Canadian Air Force's (RCAF) Future Aircrew Training (FAcT) program. SkyAlyne is a qualified supplier for the FAcT program. Canadian-based companies ATCO Frontec, Bluedrop Training and Simulation, Canadian Base Operators, Canadian Helicopters, and SERCO Canada will add considerable expertise, experience and Canadian content to SkyAlyne's bid. PAL Aerospace is a notable new addition to the SkyAlyne team, bringing unparalleled Canadian experience in airborne surveillance and intelligence operations, sensor operator training, mission systems development and aircraft modification capabilities. The SkyAlyne team collectively employs more than 14,000 Canadians and operates in every region of Canada — from coast to coast to coast. “We are pleased to officially announce our pan-Canadian team of experienced partners,” said SkyAlyne board chair Tracy Medve. “Our goal is to work with the Royal Canadian Air Force to continue providing a world-class aircrew training program built by Canadians for Canadians. These partnerships will strengthen SkyAlyne's position and help us move towards our objective to retain this crucial military capability in Canada.” As the only Canadian-founded and Canadian-based qualified supplier competing for the FAcT program, SkyAlyne has unique experience and expertise in military pilot and aircrew training specifically for the RCAF. SkyAlyne's parent companies – CAE and KF Aerospace – currently deliver all phases of pilot training for the Royal Canadian Air Force through the NATO Flying Training in Canada (NFTC) program based in Moose Jaw, Sask./Cold Lake, Alta., and the Contracted Flying Training and Support (CFTS) program based in Southport, Man., respectively. The subcontractors announced as part of the SkyAlyne team have extensive experience working with the RCAF. Most also currently support the existing training programs managed by CAE and KF Aerospace. “This agreement further ensures that the FAcT program benefits from the very latest Canadian expertise and innovation in aircrew training,” said SkyAlyne president France Hébert. “If selected, SkyAlyne will train the next generation of Royal Canadian Air Force airwomen and airmen while helping grow Canadian small- and medium-sized businesses as well as local and Indigenous communities. The selection of the SkyAlyne team would be a win-win for the Royal Canadian Air Force and for the Canadian aerospace industry.” https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/skyalyne-announces-pan-canadian-team-of-experts-for-fact-program
August 20, 2019 | Local, Aerospace
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