Government approves Boeing's participation in upcoming fighter competition

On the same subject

• 

  May 6, 2020 | Local, Aerospace

  Federal government considering delaying acceptance of bids for new fighter jets

  David Pugliese • Ottawa Citizen Publishing date: 21 hours ago • 3 minute read The federal government is looking at once again delaying acceptance of bids on new fighter jets. The bids were originally supposed to be submitted in May 2019 but that was pushed back to March 30 this year. That deadline, in turn, was pushed back to June 30 at the request of the aerospace industry, Public Services and Procurement Canada announced in February. But now the department is once again evaluating a request from industry to further extend that deadline for the proposals, Procurement Canada spokesman Marc-André Charbonneau confirmed in an email to this newspaper. “We remain committed to providing members of the Royal Canadian Air Force with the fighter aircraft they need to do their jobs, and ensuring the best possible value for Canadians,” he added. “This procurement is a once in a generation opportunity to support the growth of Canada's aerospace and defence industries for decades to come.” If that happens it is unclear on how the current timetable for buying the fighter jets, to replace the CF-18 aircraft, might be affected. A winning bidder was to have been chosen in 2022. The first aircraft would have been delivered by 2025, according to the government's schedule. Industry representatives say they expect the bid submissions to be pushed back at least until the end of the summer. The federal government is focused on dealing with its response to the novel coronavirus pandemic and Public Services and Procurement Canada is deeply involved in setting up procurements of protective gear and medical supplies. It has also been difficult for companies to collect and provide the necessary classified information to the federal government that is needed for the bids. Much of that has to be delivered directly to government officials and cannot be transmitted over the internet because of the sensitivity of the information. The fighter jet competition was launched on Dec. 12, 2017 and at this point three aircraft are to be considered. Those include the F-35, the Super Hornet, and the Gripen. The program is expected to cost around $19 billion and will see the purchase of 88 new jets. Information about how Canada intends to evaluate the jets is limited. But Public Services and Procurement Canada has noted that technical merit will make up the bulk of the assessment at 60 per cent. Cost and economic benefits companies can provide to Canada will each be worth 20 per cent. But Canada won't conduct a fly-off between fighter jets competing to become the country's new warplane nor conduct testing to see how such aircraft perform under cold weather conditions, Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed earlier this year. Concerns have been raised by Lockheed Martin's rivals that the competition has been designed to favour the F-35. This newspaper reported last year the requirements for the new jets put emphasis on strategic attack and striking at ground targets during foreign missions. That criteria is seen to benefit the F-35. In addition, the federal government changed criteria on how it would assess industrial benefits after the U.S. government threatened to pull the F-35 from the competition. The Conservative government had previously selected the F-35 as the air force's new jet but backed away from that plan after concerns about the technology and growing cost. During the 2015 election campaign, Justin Trudeau vowed that his government would not purchase the F-35. But at the same time, Trudeau stated his government would hold an open competition for the fighter purchase. The Liberal government backed away from its promise to freeze out the F-35 and the aircraft is now seen as a front-runner in the competition as it has many supporters in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Many of Canada's allies plan to operate the plane. Canada is a partner in the F-35 program and has contributed funding for the aircraft's development over the years. It has already made its latest payment on that program. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/federal-government-considering-delaying-acceptance-of-bids-for-new-fighter-jets/wcm/2c331c83-e437-45d8-8d1c-9be59ccb7dc3/

• 

  September 22, 2022 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

  L3Harris resorts to cannibalizing parts amid chip shortage

  Defense execs call the computer chip shortage an "acute pain point" and "day-to-day" challenge.

• 

  July 28, 2020 | Local, Naval

  It's the mileage, not the years: Military says it plans to keep subs afloat past retirement dates

  Conservative critic says maintenance plan ignores fact that not everything on a submarine can be replaced Murray Brewster The Canadian navy has found a very creative way to keep its second-hand submarines afloat until the late 2030s and early 2040s — a plan that emphasizes maintenance over age in predicting how long the vessels can remain seaworthy. The plan — according to a newly-released briefing note prepared in the run-up to the release of the Liberal government's marquee defence policy — would not see HMCS Victoria decommissioned until the end of 2042, giving the warship over 45 years service in Canada. That estimate does not include the time the boat served with Britain's Royal Navy, which would add at least a decade to its working life. The retirements of the other submarines — HMCS Chicoutimi, HMCS Windsor and HMCS Corner Brook — would be staggered throughout the 2030s, with Windsor being the first to go in 2033. "The [Victoria Class Submarines] are a well-designed and solidly constructed class of modern conventional submarines that have had an unusual life since entering service with the [Royal Navy] in the early 1990s," said the August 2016 briefing analysis, recently obtained by Conservative Party researchers. "'While chronologically 20 years older, they have not been operated extensively during that time." The boats were first constructed for the Royal Navy in the 1980s, but Britain decided to sell them when the government of the day made the policy decision to operate only nuclear-powered submarines. One aspect of the Liberal defence policy, released in June 2017, that has puzzled military experts and opposition critics alike was its assumption that the submarines — which have had a tortured technical history that includes one fatal fire — will remain in service until at least the 2040s. The briefing note spells out in detail — and for the first time publicly — how the navy intends to squeeze more life out of boats it was supposed to start retiring in four years. It was originally envisioned, the briefing said, that the Victoria-Class submarines would retire one at a time, beginning in 2024. he report argues it is possible to operate the submarines beyond their expected working lives if the military assesses the "material state" of each boat rather than following "a simplistic calendar driven" evaluation of their operational condition. In others words, the report argues that what matters most is not how old the submarines are, but rather how hard have they been driven and how well have they been maintained. The submarines operate on what's called a "6-2 schedule" — six years of service at sea followed by two years of deep maintenance before returning to duty. The briefing note proposes that the boats do nine years of service and then go into a longer refurbishment of up to three years. The submarines would need a full life-extension overhaul in addition to the extended maintenance plan. As evidence to support the plan, the briefing note to senior defence officials pointed to a 2013 study of the Victoria-Class submarines — which said that "although there are numerous technical and supportability challenges, there was no single obstacle precluding a life extension of up to 12 years." 'Lower expectations' The briefing offers one note of caution, however: "It is reasonable to assume that operational availability will decrease as the submarine ages." The briefing note predicted higher maintenance and sustainment costs as the boats get older. To save money, it said, the navy might have to lower expectations of what the boats can do. The existing plan "assumed that there would be no relaxation of operational performance requirements, although in fact some discretion by the Operational Requirements Authority in this regard may be feasible as a cost saving measure," said the note. Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he was astounded by the plan to stretch out the operational life of the subs. He said he doesn't blame the naval planners who drew up the document — but he does hold the Liberal government accountable, arguing it must have ordered the Department of National Defence to give it some justification for putting off the purchase of new submarines. "It is ridiculous," Bezan said. "There was potential for some political direction on how this was written." Canada's submarine fleet spent 'zero days' at sea last year: government documents Canada's front-line frigates have suffered 10 fire and smoke incidents since 2018 In an interview with CBC News at the end of last year, the commander of the navy, Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, defended the plan to extend the life of the boats, saying he had full confidence in the "pretty resourceful and capable" submarine engineering community. The defence policy, he said, "directed us to operate and modernize" the submarine fleet and he's confident it can be done safely. "We know there is still excellent life in the Victoria-class submarine," McDonald told CBC News. "I've seen that personally as an outsider who has come into the program and taken a look at it." The focus of the subs' modernization project — which was in the early stages of being developed when the pandemic hit back in late winter — will be on survivability and making the submarines more livable for crew members. "We're going to be able to operate those boats into the 2030s, but to do that we have to continue with the routine investments we've made and modernize, as was directed" by the defence policy, McDonald said. Not everything can be replaced A series of assessments was conducted between 2008 and 2014. The defence department's naval board, which is charged with planning the future shape of the fleet, met in November 2014 to study the life expectancy of the second-hand boats. "While it is considered unrealistic to predict the material state of 40-year-old platforms, 20 years into the future, certain items such as the pressure hull and main motor will require additional monitoring and maintenance above the current regime, since unpredicted degradation in such areas may not be cost effective to repair and mitigate," said the 2016 briefing note. And that's the problem with the life-extension plan, said Bezan: some key parts of a submarine — such as the pressure hull and the engines — can't be upgraded. He also pointed to how the submarine fleet had "zero days at sea" in 2019 because all of the vessels were tied up for maintenance. The analysis, Bezan said, shows that the Liberal government should immediately begin looking for a replacement for the submarines — something the previous Conservative government was in the process of doing when it was defeated in 2015. The options that were discussed before the election, he said, included partnering with the Australians — who were in the process of acquiring their own submarine replacements — or buying an off-the-shelf design for inclusion in the federal shipbuilding strategy. None of those ideas got very far before the election, he added. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-navy-submarine-1.5665020