MDA selected to study alternatives to protect Canadian space assets

On the same subject

• 

  January 15, 2020 | Local, Security

  RCAF still dealing with legal issues on new rescue aircraft name – military doesn’t know when it will be able to announce a name

  DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Updated: January 13, 2020 The RCAF is still working its way through various legal issues as it tries to come up with an official Canadian name for the Airbus C-295 aircraft, the service's new fixed wing search and rescue plane. The new name was supposed to be selected by November at the earliest and December at the latest. But now the RCAF says it doesn't know when it will announce a name for the planes. “The list of possible names for the CC-295 has been further narrowed down, and those names are currently undergoing legal, contractual, and trademark vetting,” RCAF spokesperson Major Jill Lawrence explained to Defence Watch. “Once the process is complete, and when appropriate, the RCAF will formally announce the new name. At this time, there is no anticipated date for that announcement.” No details were provided on the new shortlisted names. The RCAF first consulted the operational search and rescue community which came up with ten names, later narrowed down to five. After that, the public was asked to vote on the names. Around 33,000 people voted, according to Lt.-Col. Steve Neta, the director of RCAF public affairs. Another 1,600 comments were left on various RCAF social media sites. The RCAF then went back to its search and rescue personnel for more consultation. The RCAF published the five names being considered and an explanation for each name: CANSO II: Canso aircraft served with 11 RCAF squadrons during the Second World War. They operated from both coasts and were employed in coastal patrols, convoy protection and submarine hunting. After the Second World War, Cansos served with the RCAF in photo reconnaissance and search and rescue roles until they were finally retired in November 1962. GUARDIAN: A guardian is an entity that protects a community under a set of values. IRIS: Iris refers to the faculty or power of seeing. Iris was also the goddess of sea and sky in ancient Greek mythology. KINGFISHER: Found all across Canada, this bird patrols up and down rivers, constantly searching for prey. Within the First Nations of the Northwest, the kingfisher has long been recognized for its speed and agility, as well as its keen searching and hunting skills. A kingfisher was depicted on the 1986 Canadian five-dollar banknote in the “Birds of Canada” series. TURNSTONE: Turnstones are one of the migratory marvels of the Arctic bird world. They have been known to fly more than 1,000 kilometres (600 miles) in a single day. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/rcaf-still-dealing-with-legal-issues-on-new-rescue-aircraft-name-military-doesnt-know-when-it-will-be-able-to-announce-a-name

• 

  May 8, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

  Matt Gurney: Is it any wonder the U.S. is steamed at us over our fighter jet fiasco?

  Matt Gurney One can only imagine the astonishment in Ottawa when a letter arrived from Washington, reminding the Canadian government that military procurement projects are about procuring military equipment, not creating Canadian jobs. I like to imagine flabbergasted bureaucrats reading the letter over and over, before finally putting it down, rubbing their temples and musing aloud, “Don't the Americans realize how things are done here?” They do, it seems. And they don't like it. On Monday, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published a new report, “Catastrophe: Assessing the Damage from Canada's Fighter Replacement Fiasco.” The title tells you most of what you need to know about the tone of the report. Author Richard Shimooka recaps the long and embarrassing history of Canada's inability to properly replace our rapidly aging and slowly attritting fleet of almost-40-year-old CF-18 jets. The report mostly covers a story that's been oft-told, including here in the National Post. But it did break some news: apparently, Washington's frustration with Canada is boiling over, and it's not keeping quiet about it anymore. Shimooka recaps the long and embarrassing history of Canada's inability to properly replace our rapidly aging ... CF-18 jets Shimooka's report reveals the existence of two letters previously unknown to the public, sent last year by American officials to Canadian counterparts. The specifics of the complaints involve fairly legalistic and technical aspects of Canada's membership in the international consortium that helped finance the development of the F-35 stealth fighter. Suffice it to say that Canada, as a participating nation, gets access to a rock-bottom price for the fighter (meaning the same cost paid by the U.S. military) and Canadian firms have been part of the production of the planes from the very beginning. That's the deal. It's a pretty good one. But Canada wants a different deal. Specifically, it wants the same kind of deal it always insists on when buying military equipment from abroad. We want any foreign company we're purchasing equipment from to invest heavily in Canada, so that even a contract signed with a foreign supplier can be shown to have helped Canadian jobs, and the middle class, and those working hard to join it. Even this is only a second-best option, a procurement Plan B. Canadian politicians would much rather have stuff built in Canada by Canadians, no matter how much that ends up costing us in terms of cost overruns and delays. But when that's simply not possible, we'll settle for industrial offsets from foreign companies. You'll note that in the above paragraph on military procurement, there was very little emphasis on actually successfully procuring equipment for the Armed Forces. Ottawa is much too sophisticated for that kind of concern. The real action is in the jobs, the industrial benefits, the gigantic novelty cheques, the ribbon cuttings, the question period talking points and the partisan mailers crowing about all the money flowing to Canadian firms. That's what military procurement is really for, at least in the eyes of Canadian officials. That's why our national shipbuilding strategy was to first build out a shipbuilding industry and then build some ships, almost as an afterthought, when we could have bought them faster and almost certainly cheaper from an ally. The Americans, it seems, have had enough, and are threatening to pull the F-35 from consideration in Canada's upcoming program to select our next fighter. To their mind, Canada has already been offered an objectively good deal: access to one of the world's most advanced fighter jets at the same cost the U.S. military pays, and billions in industrial benefits. It's true that the F-35 program has been troubled, but most of those problems are now behind it. These jets are entering service in large numbers in the U.S. military and in allied forces, as well. The F-35 isn't perfect but it's available, now, and Canada has already paid the cost of entry to the club. Angling for a better deal than everyone else is getting, is a slap in the face to the Americans and all the other allied nations who are part of the process. Angling for a better deal than everyone else is getting, is a slap in the face to the Americans Now a cynic will say that it's just good business. There's nothing wrong with Canada trying to get the best deal for itself. In general, I have an open mind to this kind of argument. But Canada isn't a business. It's a country that has signed alliances and agreements with our democratic peers, theoretically in good faith. We have our own interests, to be sure, but we also have obligations. Canada's membership in the F-35 consortium does not obligate us to buy F-35s. We'd retain the industrial benefits even if we select another fighter. But certainly it obligates us to at least honour the agreement we've already made? The Liberals have never been keen on the F-35. Before the past election, they actually pledged to never purchase them, before realizing that that was an impossible pledge to keep if we actually intended to hold a fair and open competition to select the next plane. The prime minister himself once dismissively described the F-35 as a plane that didn't work, even as the United States was putting its first squadron into active service. Part of me wonders if the Liberals are deliberately structuring our selection process to make it impossible for the U.S. to sell us F-35s. That would certainly solve that particular problem for the Liberals. Alas, the more realistic answer is probably, as ever, the simplest one. The Canadian government is probably baffled that the Americans would object to us behaving as we always do. Military procurement in Canada isn't about procurement, or the military, or honouring our commitments to our friends. It's about political booty that can be flung around the country come election time. That's just the way we do things here. Why would that ever change? https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-is-it-any-wonder-the-u-s-is-steamed-at-us-over-our-fighter-jet-fiasco

• 

  December 7, 2018 | Local, Aerospace

  Pénurie de pilotes : le casse-tête des forces armées canadiennes

  Les conclusions du rapport du vérificateur général soulignant une pénurie de pilotes militaires au Canada résonnent particulièrement au Manitoba, où la formation initiale des pilotes des Forces armées canadiennes est donnée et supervisée. Un texte de Pierre Verrière Il est difficile de parler de l'Aviation royale canadienne sans évoquer le Manitoba. Pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les pilotes de tout le Commonwealth venaient y suivre leur formation avant d'être déployés en Europe. Depuis 1992, la troisième École de pilotage des Forces canadiennes située à Portage-la-Prairie, à une heure de Winnipeg, assure la formation de base des pilotes canadiens. Enfin, c'est à Winnipeg qu'est situé le quartier général de la 2e Division aérienne du Canada, responsable de l'instruction des pilotes. Or, ce sont justement ces pilotes qui font gravement défaut, selon le vérificateur général du Canada. Ce dernier met notamment l'accent sur les pilotes de chasse. Selon le vérificateur, il en manque plus du tiers pour satisfaire aux exigences opérationnelles. Parmi les raisons évoquées, on compte le rythme auquel les pilotes quittent l'aviation, qui est plus rapide que celui auquel elle peut en former de nouveaux. Entre avril 2016 et mars 2018, l'Aviation royale canadienne a ainsi perdu 40 pilotes de chasse qualifiés et en a formé seulement 30 nouveaux. Ce problème n'est cependant pas nouveau ni étranger pour les responsables de la formation des pilotes. Article complet: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1139188/penurie-pilotes-forces-armees-canadiennes-manitoba