November 12, 2018 | Local, Naval

Steel costs for sixth patrol vessel could be steeper

Ongoing steel and aluminum tariffs between the United States and Canada will not drive up costs for the first five Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, but could contribute to the final price tag for the sixth, the Department of National Defence says.

There have been tariffs in place on imports of Canadian steel and aluminum to the U.S. of 25 per cent and 10 per cent respectively since the end of May. In response, Canada implemented its own dollar-for-dollar duties on steel and aluminum being imported from the U.S. Both the American tariffs and Canadian countermeasures remain in place, even with a new tentative agreement to replace NAFTA.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed the signing of the new trilateral trade deal was not contingent on the lifting of those tariffs.

In an emailed statement, Department of National Defence spokesperson Ashley Lemire said these tariffs will not have an impact on the cost of the first five Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) being built by Irving Shipbuilding as part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Lemire said most, if not all, of the steel has already been purchased for these vessels and none of it comes from the U.S.

“As part of its contract with the Government of Canada, Irving Shipbuilding Inc. is responsible for the procurement of steel used for the construction of the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships,” Lemire said in an email. “Irving procured the majority of steel from a foreign supplier who sourced it from Europe and, to a lesser extent, from China. A small amount of steel was procured in Canada.”

Lemire said for the sixth AOPS, which the government confirmed plans to build last week, the department has planned and budgeted for the risk of increased steel and aluminum prices.

Earlier this week a DND spokesperson said buying a sixth AOPS will increase the cost of the $2.3 billion project by about $810 million. Of that, $250 million is set aside for “adjustments” — things like labour rates, inflation, and exchange rates.

Lemire said any additional steel costs will come from that $250 million fund.

David Perry, senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the materials needed to build a navy vessel are so specialized that it's not uncommon for governments to do advanced purchases

“There's a limited supply; you can't just go and call it up at the last minute kind of thing,” he said.

Perry said in the case of the AOPS, having a separate fund set aside for potential cost increases — rather than paying the company a higher contract price to assume all the liability for changes in commodity or labour prices — will likely save taxpayers money if costs do go up.

Ian Lee, associate professor at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business told The Chronicle Herald the federal government is lucky to have avoided any major increases with the AOPS.

But, Lee said, if the tariffs remain in place, they are likely to impact future builds either directly or indirectly.

“It's not going to affect the (AOPS) program but it's still a burden on the economy it's going to be passed on through the cost of doing business,” he said.

This is perhaps concerning given the most expensive build of the National Shipbuilding Strategy — the Canadian Surface Combatant — is on the horizon.

But how much that project would be impacted if tariffs remain in place is anybody's guess, Lee said.

“Historically governments have been very, very involved in the shipbuilding industry with subsidies, and offsets and that sort of thing, so it's hard to predict how it might affect future builds,” he said. “It's not a normal competitive market like the stock market or most commodities.”

That said, Lee said there will likely be a big push on the federal government's part to get the tariffs sorted ahead of the upcoming election.

“Generally speaking when you look at the trade agreements that have been signed in the last 10 or 20 years whether it was the original NAFTA, CETA or the TPP, one of the first things and most important things you do is reduce or eliminate tariffs,” he said,

“I think it's going to make it more difficult for Mr. Trudeau and his government to defend this in the fall 2019 election, that's why I think they're going to be working assiduously to try and remove them.”

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/steel-costs-for-sixth-patrol-vessel-could-be-steeper-257534/

On the same subject

August 15, 2018 | Local, Aerospace

Flight simulator's CEO says bigger U.S. armed forces budgets are a boon
MONTREAL – The head of flight simulator company CAE Inc. said Tuesday U.S. President Donald Trump's appetite for defence spending is a boon to the Montreal-based company, as newfound access to contracts tied to top-secret missions pave the runway for more revenue. “On the defence side, budgets continue to be on the rise worldwide, and in the U.S. they are at historical highs,” president and CEO Marc Parent told shareholders at an annual general meeting Tuesday. On Monday, Trump signed a $716-billion defence spending bill for 2019, an $82-billion increase from 2017 and a dramatic upswing from most Obama-era military budgets. CAE's acquisition of Virginia-based Alpha-Omega Change Engineering earlier this month opens the hatch to “top-secret missions,” mainly out of the U.S., Parent told reporters. An agreement between the U.S. government and a CAE subsidiary allows a proxy board made up of two American generals and a military contractor executive to oversee the high-security contracts, he said. “That opens up an extra $3 billion of potential market for us. So that brings our total addressable market in the world to $17 billion,” Parent said. As to what the classified missions involve, he said only, “You can speculate all day long.” Parent defended how CAE potentially stands to benefit amidst heightened military spending south of the border, more combative language from the White House and the creation of a new armed services branch focused on fighting wars in space. Full Article: https://www.680news.com/2018/08/14/flight-simulators-ceo-says-bigger-u-s-armed-forces-budgets-are-a-boon/
January 9, 2020 | Local, Aerospace

New air defences needed in wake of Iran attack, Canadian Army says
BY LEE BERTHIAUME THE CANADIAN PRESS The launching of Iranian missiles against a base housing Canadian soldiers in Iraq has highlighted a long-standing deficiency for the Canadian Army: the inability to defend against air attacks such as aircraft, rockets and drones. Iran on Tuesday fired missiles at two military bases in Iraq, including one near the northern city of Irbil that has housed Canadian troops for more than five years as part of the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. No one was injured in the missile attack, which was in retaliation for the killing of Iranian Maj.-Gen. Qassem Soleimani by a U.S. drone last week. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed Wednesday that Canadian soldiers were at the base at the time of the Iranian attack. Canadian troops in Iraq and elsewhere are routinely deployed with allies who have what are called “ground-based air defences,” or GBADs in military parlance, which can include everything from missile interceptors and anti-aircraft guns to electronic jamming devices and lasers. But Canadian Army spokesperson Karla Gimby said the Iranian missile attack nonetheless demonstrated why a new air-defence system is one of the army's top procurement priorities. “Iran launching missiles underscores the need for militaries — and the Canadian military — to have GBADs,” Gimby said Wednesday, though she added: “It is too early to tell if recent events will impact the GBAD procurement timeline.” Successive Canadian Army commanders have raised the lack of air defences for front-line troops since the military retired the last of its anti-air weapons in 2012. However, efforts to acquire a new system have been stuck in neutral for years. The Department of National Defence is not expecting delivery of a new system until at least 2026, which is projected to cost between $250 million and $500 million. Officials have previously suggested that part of the problem is trying to figure out exactly what threats the system will be designed to counter, particularly given rapid advances in technology. In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, Canadian Army commander Lt.-Gen. Wayne Eyre referenced Iran's use of drones to attack Saudi Arabia's largest oil facility in September as one new airborne threat on the battlefield. “No army in history has gone to war with all of the resources that it wanted, all the capabilities that it wanted,” Eyre said. “That being said, GBAD is one of the ones that I am most concerned about because it is not just a capability shortfall, it's a capability gap. We don't have it.” When the Canadian military put away the last of its anti-air weapons in 2012, it was on the assumption that Canada and its allies would have air superiority in any battle and not have to worry about airborne attacks, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “The Taliban never had any of that kind of stuff. (ISIL) really didn't have any of that kind of stuff,” Perry said. “So we've been deploying in places where it hasn't been a problem.” The Iranian attack demonstrates the importance of Canadian troops on the ground being able to protect against airborne threats, he said. https://globalnews.ca/news/6382675/iran-attack-canadian-army/
November 12, 2018 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land

Ottawa on track to invest less on new military kit than promised for second year
OTTAWA — For the second year in a row, the federal government is expected to spend billions of dollars less on new military equipment than promised because of a combination of good and bad news: cost savings on some projects and delays in others. The Trudeau government in 2016 released a new defence policy that included dramatic increases in spending on new aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles and other military equipment over the next 20 years. The investments are vital to replacing the Canadian Forces' fighter jets, ships and various other types of aging equipment with state-of-the-art kit. Yet while new budget documents filed in the House of Commons show the Department of National Defence has so far been given authority to spend $4 billion this fiscal year, the policy had predicted total spending of $6.5 billion. The department does have until March 31 — when the federal government's fiscal year ends — to make up the $2.5-billion difference, but its top civilian official, deputy minister Jody Thomas, admitted Thursday that a large shortfall is likely. Part of the reason is that the department expects to save about $700 million on various projects that ended up costing less than planned, Thomas told The Canadian Press following a committee appearance on Parliament Hill. “We've delivered things more efficiently than was anticipated and so we don't need the money,” she said. “And we can apply it to projects, either new projects or projects that have a cost overrun.” But delays moving some projects through the military procurement system have also caused their fair share of problems, Thomas said, and the department is expecting to have to put off $1 billion to $1.3 billion in purchases it had planned to make this year. “We'd like to (spend) $6 billion every year. Can I guarantee to you that we're going to do that? No, there's slowdowns in projects, there's slowdowns with suppliers, there's changes in scope. Things change,” she said. “I'm hoping to get it below $1 billion. I'm not committing to getting it to below $1 billion. ... We're driving projects to get it as low as possible and spend funds efficiently and effectively. We're not wasting money.” The government spent $2.3 billion less than planned last year. That was also largely because of delays in projects such as the government's multibillion-dollar plan to buy new warships, though also because some things ended up costing less than expected. The government does deserve credit for having increased investments in equipment to levels not seen since the height of the war in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “And if they can actually move as much as the deputy (minister) was saying, and they only leave $1 billion on the table, that will be the best year in the last several decades,” said Perry, who has previously warned that delays in the procurement system could derail the defence policy. “But there are a bunch of impacts from not being able to spend money on schedule. One is you don't have the actual gear to do what you want. And project budgets lose purchasing power when money is not spent on schedule. So it's not good to have delays.” https://windsorstar.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/ottawa-on-track-to-invest-less-on-new-military-kit-than-promised-for-second-year

All news