December 18, 2018 | Local, Aerospace

Feds going ahead with plan to buy used jets, says Defence minister

Nothing will make the government reconsider its controversial plan to buy 25 second-hand, 30-year-old fighter jets as a temporary stopgap for its fleet, says Canada's minister of National Defence.

“For us, (cancelling the purchase is) not even in the picture at all, because it would be absolutely irresponsible if we don't try to fill this capability gap,” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told iPolitics in an interview. “We have to invest.”

When they came to power, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals deferred a plan to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets, deciding instead to buy a much smaller number in the interim.

They first sought to purchase 18 new Super Hornet jets built by American manufacturer Boeing, before canning that plan about a year ago as trade tensions between the countries boiled over. An announcement followed that Canada was buying 18 used F-18s from Australia to supplement its existing CF-18 fleet, which dates from the early 1980s, and was due for replacement after about 20 years.

Over the summer, the government announced it would buy seven jets from Australia for parts. The Liberals had set aside $500 million for this purchase, but the final cost is still unclear.

Since the announcement to purchase Australia's old planes, Sajjan has faced harsh criticism from opposition members who call the plan unacceptable, especially after a damning report from the auditor general of Canada less than a month ago.

Yet when asked if the purchase could be stopped, Sajjan replied, “Why would you want to stop it?”

One answer to that — cherrypicked from the auditor general's report — is that under the current plan, Canada will not meet its commitment to NORAD and NATO, which government officials, including Sajjan and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have cited as a major reason for the government's decision to buy the planes.

The auditor general also casts doubt on the viability of the government's interim fleet because of a shortage of technicians and pilots capable of maintaining and flying the jets.

“National Defence expects to spend almost $3 billion, over and above existing budgets, without a plan to deal with its biggest obstacles to meeting the new operational requirement,” says the report.

“We know it's going to take time,” Sajjan said, “but at least we're investing in the problem so we can finally get rid of it.”

National Defence doubled down on its current plan following the auditor general's report, saying it's seeking approval of “a number” of upgrades to keep Canada's CF-18 fleet in the air until 2032. It also says it will increase the number of technicians and pilots in the fighter force, even though it identified the shortage as far back as 2016.

The first jets to replace the existing CF-18s, and those the government is buying from Australia, will arrive in 2025. A yet-to-be-chosen future fleet of 88 fighter aircraft are supposed to be fully operational by 2031, and last until the year 2060.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/12/17/feds-going-ahead-with-plan-to-buy-used-jets-says-defence-minister/

On the same subject

January 28, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

CAE awarded contract by GA-ASI to develop synthetic training system
CAE announced on Jan. 24 that the company has been awarded a contract from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) to develop a comprehensive synthetic training system for the United Kingdom's Protector RG Mk1 remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) program. The Protector will be operated by the Royal Air Force and is the U.K.-specific variant of GA-ASI's certifiable MQ-9B SkyGuardian RPAS, which can meet the most stringent certification requirements of aviation authorities. Under terms of the contract, CAE will design and develop a comprehensive synthetic training system that will include desktop and high-fidelity mission trainers specific to the Protector RPAS. The high-fidelity Protector mission trainers will be based on GA-ASI's certifiable ground control station (CGCS) and will be the first simulators developed for this advanced CGCS. CAE will also provide brief/debrief and scenario generation stations as part of the overall synthetic training system. “We are pleased to continue our global training partnership with GA-ASI to support the U.K. Protector program,” said Gene Colabatistto, CAE's group president, defence and security. “Protector will offer a new level of capability in an unmanned air system and will require well-trained aircrews. We will leverage developments we have made over the past several years creating the highest fidelity training devices for the Predator family of remotely piloted aircraft to produce a world-class synthetic training system for the Protector program.” Initial deliveries of the synthetic training system will be targeted for delivery in 2020 to RAF Waddington, the hub of U.K. Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) that will be the main operating base for the Protector. “MQ-9B SkyGuardian, which Protector is based on, represents the next-generation of remotely piloted aircraft capabilities, including longer endurance and automatic take-off and landing,” said David R. Alexander, president, aircraft systems, GA-ASI. “The Protector synthetic training system will play a key role helping the Royal Air Force develop skilled aircrews, and we are pleased to collaborate with CAE as our training partner on this critical program.” https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/cae-awarded-contract-by-ga-asi-to-develop-synthetic-training-system
March 10, 2023 | Local, Other Defence

Ottawa fast-tracks weapon purchase as military commanders warn of numerous other gaps
OTTAWA ? Defence Minister Anita Anand promised to fast-track the purchase of several weapon systems for Canadian soldiers in Europe on Thursday, even as senior commanders painted a stark picture of the numerous other challenges facing the Canada's mi
November 5, 2019 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

A new Defence Procurement Agency – Would it solve anything?
By Brian Mersereau Defence Watch Guest Writer During the recent federal election, the issue of considering a new Defence Procurement Agency or DPA surfaced again. The Liberals made such an organization part of their defence platform this time around as part of their plan to improve military procurement. While positive outcomes could result from a new organizational structure, simply installing one will not in and of itself create an efficient procurement model. It most certainly will not address in any substantive manner why taxpayers pay far too much to acquire the defence capabilities Canada needs to protect our sovereign interests in a world that has become increasingly unstable in recent years. It appears that, in many cases, Canada pays more per unit of capability to satisfy its defence needs than most of its allies. Unfortunately, though quite logically, this phenomenon has effectively shrunk the size of our armed forces as the number of platforms we can afford to acquire continues to dwindle due to high costs. While this approach can create short-term jobs, they are ultimately unsustainable since there is no international market for our higher-priced solutions. This is not the direction in which Canada should be headed. Before Canada decides to move ahead with a new procurement agency, it should assemble a “smart persons” panel or forum to thoroughly review the existing system and establish the mandate and objectives of whatever type of organization results from said review. Such a review group must be composed of people from the public and private sector with significant experience, not skewed with staff whose procurement experience primarily consists of exposure to the Canadian “way”. During this review, the panel must examine various issues which are currently perceived to be an impediment to the efficiency of Canada's procurement system. Based on my own years of experience on both the buy and sell sides of the procurement equation, the following areas merit some serious thought: Organizational Structure The fewer individuals, departments and oversight committees with their fingers in the “procurement pie”, the quicker and more coherently things will get done. Even at today's interest rates, time really is money for all involved in the process. Adding more time to a schedule for another management review quite often has a negative impact. While I understand governance and oversight committees have their place, their overinvolvement can produce negative outcomes if mandates are not absolutely clear and if individuals on these committees have limited experience with respect to the issue at hand. Risk Canada's ongoing method for defence procurement is that it will not assume any risk on their side of a contract. If Canada insists the private sector must accept all risk, the private sector will so oblige – but at a significant price and to the detriment of schedules and timelines. As contract prices necessarily increase, so do governments costs to manage the contract. In reality, the most efficient procurement solution for Canada would see some elements of risk managed by the buyer, rather than entirely borne by the seller. More consideration needs to go into balanced risk-sharing formulas. Process Canada has an extremely hands-on procurement process for major systems during the competitive phase, as well as during the implementation of the contract. Even in this digital age, Canada hamstrings its own progress with the sheer degree of detail and bureaucracy it requires; unbelievably, freight trucks are still required to deliver proposals. It seems as though, on occasion, the buyer thinks it knows more about designing and engineering the defence systems Canada needs than the actual designers and engineers for whom it is a primary occupation. Requirements of little or no consequence are painstakingly spelled out in the greatest of detail. Such an approach has a tremendous impact on the amount of time consumed by both the buyer and seller, again driving up costs and extending schedules. Less “hand holding” by the customer must be seriously considered. Sole Source In the procurement world, “sole source” is often viewed as a dirty phrase. Frequently, Canada attempts to run competitions in scenarios where the chances of achieving any meaningful savings or benefits related to competition are low at best. This takes years and drives costs higher at no measurable gain for the buyer. The parameters of when and under what circumstances Canada should move directly to a sole source should be thoroughly reviewed. Significant resources are being wasted managing nearly meaningless processes. Skills Canada's internal skill set for managing large, complex defence procurements does not appear to be adequate. As a result, it turns more and more often to the expertise of external third parties in order to keep up with large private sector firms at the negotiation table from a knowledge and experience standpoint. While there will always be a need for some third-party expertise, project managing many external suppliers in the negotiation phase – each of whom have their own agendas – only further complicates the already convoluted procurement process. Canada would be much better off with an enhanced internal core staff. If Canada takes the time to review the appropriateness of some form of DPA model, it must cast the net wider and review other critical aspects of the procurement process – or else any organizational changes will inevitably succumb to the systematic inertia of the overall process. A failure to do so means Canada will continue struggling mightily to stand-up the level of defence and security necessary to secure its citizens in an increasingly turbulent world. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/a-new-defence-procurement-agency-would-it-solve-anything

All news