December 18, 2018 | Local, Aerospace
David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
A Canadian military plan to boost the number of fighter pilots through a one-time push using allied training won't be happening, and instead the number of aviators will be increased gradually over the next seven years using the existing domestic system.
The plan to make use of allied training to increase the numbers of pilots to fly the interim fighter jets being acquired by the Liberals was outlined to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan in November 2016, according to documents obtained by Postmedia.
“Fighter pilot production would need to be increased above current numbers to fly the additional mission ready aircraft,” Sajjan was told as the number of jets in the military's inventory would be boosted. “This would be done by utilizing allied training capacity with a one-time investment.”
That initiative would allow Canada to have the needed pilots in place by 2023, the briefing added.
The push for more pilots was to coincide with the purchase of 18 Super Hornets from Boeing, a U.S. aerospace firm.
But that deal collapsed after a trade complaint and Canada is now buying 25 used F-18 aircraft from Australia.
A one-time push for allied training would no longer be needed. “As the Australian F-18 jets are very similar to our CF-18's, there will be no difference in training our pilots,” an email from the Canadian Forces noted.
“We will be using our existing pilots and growing their number gradually over the next five to seven years,” it added.
Last month Auditor General Michael Ferguson noted that the additional aircraft being acquired as an interim measure meant that the Canadian Forces “would need to considerably increase the number of trained pilots. National Defence is unlikely to be able to do so because pilots have been leaving the fighter force faster than new ones could be trained.”
Military aviators worldwide are being lured away from their jobs by the growing demand in the civilian aviation market for airline pilots.
But RCAF commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger told the Commons public accounts committee Dec. 3 that the main reason for Canadian pilots leaving had to do with family. “Certainly the feedback from those who are releasing is it's a question of family, challenges for their family,” Meinzinger said. “There's a dimension of ops tempo, work-life balance, predictability in terms of geographical location, and then typically fifth or sixth are comments about financial remuneration.”
Canada's main fighter bases are in Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que.
Meinzinger said there can also be issues with spouses finding employment in the locations where the pilots operate from. In addition, some pilots don't want to be transferred to desk jobs and want to continue with flight operations.
The specific number of fighter pilots the Canadian Forces is short of is considered secret.
In the email to Postmedia, the RCAF says it is looking at several ways to attract and retain fighter pilots “which include initiatives to make living and working in our organization the best it can be.”
“This includes looking at increasing the number of staff positions where pilots still get to fly and reviewing options of longer flying tours, which would provide our members with added stability, enable them to fly longer, and retains valuable experience at the squadrons to train or upgrade qualifications of junior members,” the RCAF added.
The RCAF also says it may consider sending its trained pilots to work with allied air forces to gain further experience if there is a need.
There have been problems, on and off, since the late 1990s with producing and retaining Canadian military pilots. Postmedia reported that the Canadian Forces had to send fledgling fighter pilots down to the U.S. between 2011 and 2013 because of ongoing issues, including the availability of training aircraft provided by civilian contractors at the flying training facilities in Moose Jaw, Sask., and Cold Lake.
That reduction in aircraft availability reduced the level of training, which in turn “negatively impacted the pilot production capability,” according to a briefing for then Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk.
April 6, 2022 | Local, Aerospace, Security
Canada wants to ensure that future air accident investigations are credible and transparent, including in conflict-of-interest situations.
October 7, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence
Alexander Panetta Biden, Trump have deep differences — and each could significantly impact Canada This story is part of a five-part series looking at how the policies of the two U.S. presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, differ when it comes to the major issues of interest to Canada, including energy, defence, trade and immigration. The old truism that elections have consequences is doubly apt for the United States, a country whose politics reach beyond its borders. It's certainly so for Canada. Specific policy issues in a U.S. election hold particular stakes for Canada, including energy and the environment, national defence, the border and migration and U.S. relations with China. In advance of the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 3, CBC will run stories on these five issues, and how they might play out if the winner is current President Donald Trump or his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden. Our first instalment examines one of the most striking differences between them: energy and the environment. If Biden wins Biden drew attention in Canada for promising to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, then doubling down on it. Rory Johnston, an energy analyst at Price Street in Toronto, said a president clearly has the legal power to revoke a permit. What's not clear to him is whether Biden would, in precarious economic times, actually cancel a big project, which would cost jobs and anger construction unions. The Democratic nominee has a sweeping environmental platform that goes far beyond that one pipeline pledge. For starters, he said he'd re-join the Paris climate accord on Day 1 of his presidency. Then he would convene, shame and potentially punish other countries that slack on their carbon emissions commitments. Within 100 days, Biden said he'd hold a global climate summit to push countries to join the U.S. in toughening their climate objectives. He said he would also demand a worldwide ban on government subsidies for fossil fuels. INTERACTIVE Will Biden or Trump be the U.S. president? These states will decide Biden also intends to grade countries on their performance. He promises a global climate change report, similar to the State Department's annual report on human rights and human trafficking. It would rank countries' performance in meeting their Paris commitments. If that doesn't work, he's threatening to wield the stick of trade tariffs. Biden said he wants to impose what he calls "carbon-adjustment fees," or perhaps quotas, on carbon-intensive products from countries that fail to meet climate and environmental obligations. It's not clear how many countries Biden would target. "We can no longer separate trade policy from our climate objectives," says Biden's platform. Canada is projecting a lowering of emissions but not nearly by enough to meet its Paris commitment. Implementing such a tariff could be tricky. To become embedded in U.S. law, it would have to get through Congress — and receiving the 51 to 60 per cent of votes required in the Senate would be a tall order. Some trade analysts believe such a tactic would also be illegal protectionism under international trade law unless the U.S. imposed a similar carbon tax domestically — also a tall order. However, other analysts say there's one tool Biden could use, which has become famous in the Trump era: declare carbon emissions a national security matter and apply the same trade weapon the current president used against foreign steel and aluminum. Any regulatory moves could face another hurdle in a more hostile Supreme Court. Speaking of the environment and trade, Biden is proposing a massive, $2 trillion green-infrastructure plan aimed at new transit, vehicles and a carbon-free power grid by 2035. Biden says the construction would be done by U.S. firms under Buy American rules. He would also re-establish policies from the Obama era that Canada has signed onto, from methane and auto regulations to an Arctic drilling ban. Gerald Butts, who was a former senior aide to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and worked on some of those agreements with the U.S, said Biden's climate policies go far beyond Obama's and reflect a growing recognition of the environmental threat. "Biden's plan would have been unthinkable for a presidential nominee for a major party even one cycle ago," said Butts, now vice-chair of the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group. Bob Deans, a spokesman for the political action committee of the Washington-based Natural Resources Defence Council, called climate change a defining issue for this election. "The American people are facing a stark choice in this election. Two completely different energy futures," Deans said. "We need to be reducing our reliance on oil and gas, not locking future generations into this climate nightmare." If Trump wins In his 2016 platform, Trump promised more oil drilling, more pipelines — and less regulation. He delivered that on several fronts. Just last month he announced a border permit for a multi-purpose rail project that, if built, could eventually ship Canadian oil through Alaska. Trump ditched a number of Obama's climate rules, and left the Paris Accord. (His pullout from the Paris agreement officially goes into effect the day after this year's election.) Trump hasn't published a platform for the next four years. His campaign website simply lists things he's done to slash regulations and promote fossil-fuel development. He's promising no major policy changes. "We would continue what we're doing," Trump told The New York Times, when asked about his overall second-term plans. As far as Canada is concerned, that means a continued commitment to the still-unbuilt Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry nearly one-fifth of the oil Canada exports to the U.S. each day. Johnston said that pipeline isn't, on its own, a make-or-break issue for the Canadian oilpatch, but it would help, he said. He said the oilsands likely need two pipelines completed over the next few years out of the three major projects underway — Trans Mountain to the Pacific Coast, the Line 3 expansion to the Great Lakes and Keystone XL to the Gulf of Mexico — to avoid the type of transportation bottlenecks that have previously devastated Canadian oil prices. "It's never ideal to be just at the limit of your [transportation] capacity," Johnston said. Even with the current president's support, Keystone XL faces challenges. The ground has been cleared for only 100 kilometres of pipe to be laid inside Canada. A border-crossing segment has been built, and 17 pump stations out of an eventual 36 along the route are under construction. That leaves the project about two years, many hundreds of kilometres and some legal and regulatory fights shy of completion. A Supreme Court decision this summer allowed a Montana ruling to stand, which forced the pipeline company to get permits for crossing waterways. Permit hearings were scheduled for late September in Montana and North Dakota. It's an uncertain moment for oil — and the financial stakes for Canada are considerable. It's Canada's top export to the U.S., in dollar figures; Canadian oil accounts for about half of U.S. oil imports, following years of growth. But energy giant BP projects that global oil demand has peaked. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects U.S. imports will flatten out and even decline a bit. That's happening as several automakers say they will keep building vehicles to the stricter emissions standards set in California — standards that are backed by Ottawa. California, the largest U.S. vehicle market, recently announced it planned to ban sales of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. Some of these changes in energy markets will proceed regardless of who's president. Johnston's own projection? Barring a sudden change in the market, Canadian oil production will grow a bit for two to five years, then plateau at similar levels for decades. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-issues-canada-environment-1.5746288
February 14, 2022 | Local, Aerospace
The federal government has officially launched a competition for the purchase of armed drones after nearly two decades of delays and discussion around whether Canada should buy the controversial weapons. A formal request for proposals was released Friday to the two companies shortlisted to bid on the $5-billion contract, which could see the Canadian Armed Forces launch a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles in the next few years. A formal contract is not expected for another year or two, while the first drone isn't scheduled for delivery until at least 2025, with the last to arrive in the early 2030s. The request does not say how many vehicles the government plans to buy, and instead leaves it up to the two companies to say how their bids will satisfy the military's needs while benefiting the Canadian economy. It does reveal the aircraft will be based at 14 Wing Greenwood in Nova Scotia and 19 Wing Comox in British Columbia, while the main control centre will be in the Ottawa area. Yellowknife is also identified as a forward operating location. The drone force will include around 240 air force members, with 55 in Greenwood, 25 in Comox and 160 in Ottawa. While delivery is still years away, the fact the military has reached even this point represents a major step forward after almost 20 years of work to identify and buy a fleet of UAVs to conduct surveillance over Canadian territory and support missions abroad. Aside from purchasing a small number of temporary, unarmed drones for the war in Afghanistan – all of which have since been retired – the military has never been able to make much progress on a permanent fleet. That was despite drones taking on an increasingly important role in militaries around the world. A report in the Royal Canadian Air Force Journal in late 2015 said 76 foreign militaries were using drones and another 50 were developing them. One major reason: no federal government had authorized adding drones as a permanent fixture within the military in the same vein as fighter-jet or helicopter squadrons until the Liberal government included them in its 2017 defence policy. The government and military say the unmanned aircraft will be used for surveillance and intelligence gathering as well as delivering pinpoint strikes from the air on enemy forces in places where the use of force has been approved. Some have previously criticized the decision to buy armed drones given concerns about their potential use in Canada and numerous reports of air strikes by other nations, particularly the United States and Russia, causing unintended damage and civilian casualties. The government has also said little about the scenarios in which force might be used, including whether drones could be deployed for assassinations. Officials have suggested they would be used in the same way as conventional weapons such as fighter jets and artillery. “While the (drones) will be a medium-altitude long-endurance system with a precision strike capability, it will only be armed when necessary for the assigned task,” the Defence Department said Friday. “At all times, employment of precision strike capability will adhere to the Law of Armed Conflict, as well as any other applicable domestic or international laws. Use of force will be applied following rules of engagement applicable to the CAF.”