News

Article by Marcia Mills and Paul Burbank Capital Perspectives Last Updated: January 3 2020 The issues surrounding defence acquisition took a backseat in the run up to the 2019 federal election. As noted by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, this occurred despite the fact that two of the largest defence procurements in Canadian history – the Canadian Surface Combatants (warships) project and the Future Fighter Capability Program (fighter jets) – are in active procurement mode, spending is falling short of forecast and roughly 70 per cent of the approved projects under the 2017 implementation of the Strong, Secure, Engaged Defence Policy have seen schedule delays 1. Canadian defence procurement is a many-layered affair. Spread across three departments and a central agency (the Department of National Defence; Public Procurement and Services Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development; and Treasury Board, respectively), the need to coordinate and align this much bureaucracy is often viewed as one of the significant problems in defence procurement. The two main political parties offered very different solutions to these issues during the election, but provided few details. The Platforms The Conservatives focused on the need to "de-politicize" the procurement process, which would in turn deliver greater value for money and better resources for the Canadian military. To accomplish this, new oversight mechanisms, both in Cabinet and in the Privy Council Office, would be created. 2 Major defence procurements are already subject to oversight by the Defence Procurement Secretariat, a Deputy Ministers Governance Committee and a Ministers Working Group. It is not entirely clear how additional layers of oversight would reduce delay and improve efficiencies, unless the new mechanisms replaced all or some of the current oversight layers. The Liberal platform included a portion on defence procurement that pointed to the creation of "Defence Procurement Canada," to ensure defence projects were delivered on time and with greater transparency. The structure of Defence Procurement Canada was not explained. A bit of speculation is now in order as to what this could mean for defence procurement. The New Cabinet The Liberals formed a minority government and announced their new Cabinet on Nov. 20. While the Ministers of Defence (Harjit Sajjan) and Innovation, Science and Economic Development (Navdeep Bains) remain the same, Treasury Board has a new President and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) has a new Minister – Jean-Yves Duclos and Anita Anand, respectively. Treasury Board President Duclos moves from a smaller, specific portfolio within Employment and Social Development Canada to now preside over one of the federal government's most powerful central agencies and cabinet committees. He will have a considerable role in ensuring effective financial management and government spending. Minister Anand is a new face in Cabinet and a first-time Member of Parliament for the riding of Oakville, Ont. She is assuming responsibility for, amongst other things, the two single largest purchasing organizations in the federal government (PSPC and Shared Services Canada (SSC)). Going Forward Defence procurement in Canada follows a general ebb and flow – resources are increased during times of conflict and are reduced in times of peace. Restructuring occurs in response to these influences, as well as perceived redundancies, desired efficiencies and the odd scandal or two. Various Minsters and departments have been responsible for defence procurement and production over the past 100 years, including boards or commissions set up during times of war. A new independent department for defence procurement would result in three different departments (SSC, PSPC and the Defence Procurement Canada) managing the vast majority of federal acquisition. This approach would be similar to the stand up of the Department of Defence Production in the '50s. The DDP had a short life. Established in 1951, it was expanded to become the central purchasing organization in 1963 as an interim measure, then disbanded in 1969 with the establishment of the Department of Supply and Services. The amalgamations of various entities continued until 1993, with the creation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services (a.k.a. PSPC). PSPC operates as a central purchasing agent for the government, with exclusive authority under the Defence Production Act to acquire defence supplies for DND. If Defence Procurement Canada is to exist as a departmental corporation or agency, the government would want to launch this new entity early in its mandate so that it can lay claim to any degree of efficiency or success achieved. If so, the new entity would likely remain within PSPC, as the Minister has existing statutory authority to create a supporting departmental corporation or agency under the Defence Production Act. Creating this entity outside of PSPC's current authority would require a significant reorganization of the public service and change to the operations of government of a magnitude greater than that required to establish Shared Services Canada – this would include deciding whether to maintain or decentralize the functions of defence procurement and defence production, as well as significant statutory amendments to provide or reduce, as required, the authority of all Ministers involved. Ministerial mandate letters, which were released in mid-December, shed no additional light on the specific operational structure or corporate identity that Defence Procurement Canada is expected to take. Notable in these letters, however, is a prevailing theme: Minister Anand has the clear responsibility for bringing forward options to Cabinet, but that effort will be supported by a host of respected, senior ministers, including Minister Sajjan (National Defence), Minister Jordan (Fisheries & Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard), and Minister Bains (Innovation, Science and Industry). As all of these Ministries are already involved in defence procurement, their continued support is not surprising. Throughout the history of defence acquisition and production in Canada, large-scale reorganization has been predicated by one of three events: war, post-war reconstruction or scandal. Absent one of these triggers, a minority government may have little appetite (or be able to drum up support from any other party) to stand up a wholly new department, or even a departmental corporation or agency within PSPC itself, on the basis of efficiency and economy alone, particularly in light of the on-going Phoenix debacle and the continued issues at Shared Services Canada. As no new Minister for Defence Procurement Canada was named in the new Cabinet nor were any Additional Ministers within PSPC named for defence or Defence Procurement Canada, it appears that, at least for now, any defence acquisition reorganization is likely to remain on the backburner. Marcia Mills is procurement counsel with the Fasken Ottawa office and has 20+ years of private and public sector experience. She provides clients with legal and strategic advice for all aspects of government procurement, as well as advice on government policies and procurement processes. Paul Burbank is an associate with the Fasken Ottawa office. He works with the Communications Law group to provide advice on telecommunications and broadcasting in Canada. Paul also works with Fasken's Government Relations and Political Law group on strategy and compliance matters. Footnotes 1 The Defence Procurement Outlook for Canada's 43rd Parliament by David Perry, The Global Exchange, 2019 Volume XVII, Issue III; Canadian Global Affairs Institute 2 Global News: With billions at risk, federal parties promise to fix defence, procurement

by Chris Thatcher; Skies Magazine Posted on December 24, 2019 When the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada in June released its blueprint for the next five years, Vision 2025: Charting a New Course, support for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) was one of its core themes. Small companies make up over 90 per cent of the sector and the report argued for greater government support to help them scale up, generate more jobs, and enhance their global competitiveness. That could include new funding to pursue digital business transformation, a reduction in the complexity of government contracting, and greater priority in the value propositions of prime contractors chasing defence procurements. “If our small- and mid-sized companies are left at risk, the negative impacts will be felt across Canada's aerospace industry as a whole,” according to the report, prepared by Jean Charest, a former premier of Quebec and deputy prime minister of Canada. Small companies are viewed as the prime creators of aerospace jobs and, in a sector buffeted by changing technology and new players, many may be more agile and better able to adapt than larger counterparts that must answer to corporate headquarters outside of Canada. But support from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and governments is essential to their survival, according to a panel of SMEs at the Canadian Aerospace Summit in November. There is no one-size-fits-all to helping SMEs scale up. Companies at different stages of growth require different types of support, they noted. But help with skilled labour shortages and easier access to government programs are common challenges for all. A solid position on a major platform is critical to initial success, but long-term growth requires diversification, observed Barney Bangs, chief executive officer of Tulmar Safety Systems. Located between Ottawa and Montreal in the small community of Hawkesbury, Ont., the company manufactures protective and safety equipment, associated components and in-flight training products. Traditionally, its focus has been 80 per cent defence — Tulmar has been a supplier to a military platform for over 25 years and benefitted from a strong aftermarket. In recent years, though, the company has sought a better balance between military and commercial customers. “As of last year, we were 65 per cent defence and 35 per cent (civilian) aerospace,” he said. Tulmar has also become more of what he called “a solution provider,” integrating components from other suppliers to provide an OEM with a final, certified piece of equipment such as an aircraft seat rather than just the safety harness or seatbelt. “We are doing more in-house and saving customer-costs for the OEM,” said Bangs. Diversification has also been a priority for Apex Industries, a machining, components, subassembly and structures manufacturer in Moncton, N.B. Twelve years ago, its aerospace business was five per cent defence and 95 per cent civil, much of it geared to Bell Helicopter and Bombardier. “We made a conscious effort to diversify into the military side a lot more,” said vice-president Keith Donaldson. “We are very conscious of not allowing our sales to go too high on one platform or with one customer.” Challenged by cost-savings pressures in commercial aviation contracts, military platforms offer a company like APEX “good visibility,” he said. However, militaries have long been trading quantity for technological superiority, meaning fewer platforms and a relatively short production cycle. And ramping up quickly with people and equipment to meet tight delivery schedules is a challenge for small businesses that need other options to justify and sustain the investment when the contract ends. “It is very tough for a SME like ourselves to invest.” However, defence procurement and government programs can go a long way to supporting the scale-up of SMEs, said Patrick Mann, president of Patlon Aircraft & Industries, a technical sales force for global manufacturers of custom components and systems. The scale-up program must be run by single entity within government committed to the Canadian SME community that would be “funded, independent and have the authority to make decisions.” Mann suggested coping what has worked well in other jurisdictions, noting the success of the United States Small Business Administration's set-aside program. “Within that, there is a small business innovation research program which has been highly successful in scaling up SMEs,” he said. The Vision 2025 report called for a federal scale-up program to “provide advice, coaching, networking, value proposition development and consortium-building support to incentivize growth and build capacity–helping firms expand their global footprints and giving them the means and maturity to support OEMs effectively.” The report recommended the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (OSME) within Public Services and Procurement Canada shoulder that responsibility. “Having OSME at the table as a contributor to the development of government procurement strategies and as a champion of small and medium-sized business interests will help ensure government policies and programs recognize the unique characteristics of small firms,” it stated. “We are a pretty good example of a scale-up of an SME using competitive bid government procurement as a mechanism,” said Mann. However, developments over the past 10 years such as single point of accountability and bundling, where multiple small contracts are combined in one larger procurement that is awarded to one contractor, have been “devasting” to smaller suppliers. “It has been a real issue for us. Again, it is an issue where (OSME) can play a role.” OEMs can bolster government programs by mentoring small companies within their supplier base on management and production processes, especially around digitization, added Donaldson. “OEMs have a lot of that knowledge ... [but] I don't think [they] do enough of that.” He and Bangs both cautioned that the ability to scale up will be contingent on resolving talent shortages. Developing and attracting skilled labour is a chronic problem affecting the entire sector, but it is particularly acute for SMEs in more remote locations that don't have the resources to recruit as widely or navigate the immigration system. “Before we launch a scale-up program with support for financing and working capital, we have to make sure we have our skills done first,” said Donaldson. However the Liberal government opts to respond to the Vision 2025 report, the value of investing in SMEs should be clear. Viking Air, KF Aerospace or IMP Aerospace & Defence were once small companies and are “now thriving global participants,” said Mann. “That is the reason why todays SMEs are an important part of our industry.”

By: Eric Lofgren In 2015, Congress passed middle tier acquisition, or MTA, authorities for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding. Lawmakers expected detailed guidance to follow shortly after. By June 2019, the Government Accountability Office found little clarity on documentation and authority. Congress reacted by threatening to withhold 75 percent of MTA funding in 2020 until the Pentagon released guidance. Dangle the purse strings and compliance follows. The undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, or USD(A&S), released Department of Defense Instruction 5000.80 on Dec. 30, 2019. The MTA guidance, however, is more likely to pump the brakes on rapid acquisition than propel it forward. Programs designated “middle tier” do not have to follow regulatory processes for requirements and milestone reviews. That can shave years off a program schedule. In return, the prototype must be completed — or system fully fielded — within five years. As of March 2019, there were 35 middle tier programs. The term “middle tier” is perhaps misleading considering nearly half of them exceed the cost thresholds for major weapon systems — roughly $200 million for prototyping or $1 billion for fielding. Many questions remained unanswered until the new policy. How big was a middle tier? What documentation does it require? What is the role of oversight and USD(A&S)? Authority For several years, acquisition authority had been delegated down to the services. While the services only managed 48 percent of major programs in 2014, the figure grew to 90 percent in 2019. DoDI 5000.80 reverses the trend. While the services can approve MTA for non-major programs, only USD(A&S) may approve major programs. Moreover, major programs have far more entrance documentation than non-majors, including approved requirements, an acquisition strategy and a cost estimate. The services may avoid some documentation by disaggregating major systems into multiple MTA programs. For example, two of the Navy's non-major programs are components to Standard Missile-6 Block 1B. The same is true of the Air Force's Airborne Warning and Control System. USD(A&S), however, can still disapprove any MTA program, whether major or non-major. With advisers from all around the Office of the Secretary of Defense, there will be will numerous potential veto points. Each official may extract concessions from MTA programs managed by the services. Even though 31 out of 35 MTA programs are rapid prototyping efforts, the undersecretary for research and engineering, or USD(R&E), has been relegated to a secondary position. All MTA authority rests with USD(A&S). Almost as an affront to USD(R&E), he was given control over a rapid prototyping fund that Congress stopped funding. The outcome reflects a broader weakening of USD(R&E). Congress has reacted negatively to the undersecretary's effort to move fast and reallocate funds to higher value uses. USD(R&E) may lose control of the Missile Defense Agency to USD(A&S). Documentation While MTA exempts programs from traditional requirements and milestone processes, documentation abounds. Each service must create its own requirements process with approval in six months. Joint service requirements are discouraged from using MTA pathways. MTA requirements, however, must still meet the needs determined by four-star generals in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commands. This may in effect bring the same approvals from the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process back into MTA. Many of the DoDI 5000.02 processes also apply. Still required are system analyses, sustainment plans, test strategies, cybersecurity, risk assessments, cost estimates and more. Contractors performing on MTA programs must still report cost data. No exemption was made for earned value management systems. Sidestepping many contract regulations — for example, with other transactions authorities — remains a separate process. Most importantly, Congress requires detailed justification in the budget for every MTA program. That means the services must start justifying MTAs at least two years in advance of funding receipt. Many of today's MTA programs spun off existing, budgeted line items. New programs may find a hard time finding funds. The present situation is reminiscent of the time David Packard attempted rapid acquisition between 1969 and 1971. A couple years later, new layers of bureaucracy descended. Similarly, MTA has built within it the seeds of another slow-paced bureaucratic order. Adm. Hyman Rickover's skepticism to the reforms nearly 50 years ago rings true today. As Rickover wrote to Packard in a memo: “My experience has been that when a directive such as the one you propose is issued, most of the effort goes into the creation of additional management systems and reports and the preparation of large numbers of documents within the Service to ‘prove' that the requirements of the directive are being met in order to justify funds for the Service. “So long as the bureaucracy consists of a large number of people who consider that they are properly performing their function of approval and evaluation by requiring detailed information to be submitted through the bureaucracy, program managers will never be found who can in fact effectively manage their jobs.” https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/02/too-many-cooks-in-the-dod-new-policy-may-suppress-rapid-acquisition/

By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. military in September ordered the largest stress test of its wartime sealift fleet in the command's history, with 33 out of 61 government-owned ships being activated simultaneously. The results were bad, according to a new report. In an unclassified U.S. Transportation Command report posted to its website, the so-called turbo activation revealed that less than half of the sealift fleet would be fully prepared to get underway for a major sealift operation in a crisis. “The relatively low ... Qualitative Mission Success Rate indicates the Organic Surge Fleet is challenged to be immediately available for a large-scale inter-theater force deployment without delays/impacts to force closure due to degraded readiness,” the report read. The Dec. 16 report confirms what senior military and transportation officials have been saying for years now: that the sealift fleet is in urgent need of recapitalization if it is to be relied upon to support a large-scale operation overseas. In a crisis, nearly 90 percent of all Army and Marine Corps equipment would be carried by ship. The Navy is on the hook to pay for recapitalization, but it has so far failed to land on a strategy to do so. Overall, 40.7 percent of the 61 ships operated by Military Sealift Command and the Maritime Administration were fully ready to support a major sealift operation. Sal Mercogliano, a merchant marine and current professor at Campbell University who closely follows these issues, said the major equipment casualties are the driving factor that is dragging down readiness. “You had 22 out of the 61 ships in either C-5 or C-4 condition,” Mercogliano said. “C-5 means that you can't even leave the dock; C-4 means you can leave the dock but you are not in any condition to sail any real distance. In my ballpark, that's non-mission capable. So right off the bat you lose 22 of the 61 ships. Then of the 33 that they activated, nine of them had issues. Three of them were C-4 level. “So when you add together the ones that had issues with the ones that couldn't be activated, they're saying you can only really count on about 40 percent of the fleet to active when they are aiming for 85 percent.” Ultimately, the degraded status of the sealift fleet means that combatant commanders won't be able to count on its capacity for logistics support, Mercogliano said. “If you are Indo-Pacific Command, or you are Central Command, and you are counting on a certain amount of square footage available to you, that's going to have huge ramifications,” he added. In recent testimony, INDOPACOM Commander Adm. Phil Davidson said as much, saying his operational plans depend on logistics support. “Clearly recapitalization of our sealift system is going to be critically important, as it's aging out and really has propulsion plants that [are] expiring in capability and our ability to maintain them,” Davidson said. “It's [a] risk to our troops and all of our people that are forward in the region if there is any delay in our ability to deliver the logistics in accordance with the [operation] plans.” Manning concerns In a November interview prior to the compilation of the final report, Maritime Administrator retired Rear Adm. Mark Buzby told Defense News that the test validated the data they had on ship readiness and the Maritime Administration's ability to crew the vessels, which he has long maintained is enough for initial activation but would suffer during a prolonged effort. “I think given the scale of the test, as we've been saying, we are OK for doing initial manning for our ships when they are activated,” Buzby said. “Something that we couldn't test in this fairly short-term activation was the follow-on aspect. “We believe we have plenty of manning to man up the ships initially, get them past the sea buoy and get them on the mission. But the problem is going to manifest itself four to six months down the line when some of them want to rotate. Who is going to be standing on the pier ready to take their place? That's where we have a problem. You just couldn't show that in this activation.” One of the primary issues has been, as Davidson intimated, that many of the plants in the Ready Reserve Force are steam-operated plants, which are all but nonexistent in the commercial world, so it is increasingly difficult to find qualified engineers. Finding steam engineers went well for the turbo activation, Buzby said, but it proved difficult and will only become more so as fewer opportunities to retain updated certifications become available. In a 2018 interview with Defense News, Buzby described a shortage of personnel that would affect the sealift fleet's ability to operate for an extended period of time. The Maritime Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, estimates it has 11,768 qualified mariners with unlimited credentials available to crew the Ready Reserve Force, a number that just exceeds the needed total of 11,678 to operate both the reserve and commercial fleets at the same time. But that comes with a catch: This service is entirely voluntary. “Maritime Workforce Working Group estimates that there are sufficient mariners working in the industry to activate the surge fleet if the entire pool of qualified United States citizen mariners identified by MWWG are available and willing to sail when required,” the report read. “This assumption is of paramount importance given the voluntary nature of mariner service.” Furthermore, that number is just what it would take to activate the ships and temporarily operate them. If the nation needed to sustain a large-scale effort, it would soon begin to falter. “We are about 1,800 mariners short for any kind of long-term sustainment effort,” Buzby said. “We believe we have enough today to activate all the ships we would need to activate. ... But anything less than an all-of-nation effort ... where everyone who went out to sea, stayed at sea, we start to run short of people as we rotate.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/31/the-us-military-ran-the-largest-stress-test-of-its-sealift-fleet-in-years-its-in-big-trouble/

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN The month of December saw movement on two major defence and security related equipment programs. The RCAF announced it accepted the first Fixed Wing Search and Rescue aircraft from Airbus even as the military tried to work out issues with technical manuals for the C-295 plane. “We will continue to work with Airbus to ensure the acceptability of remaining work, including revision of technical manuals, completing training for the initial RCAF crews and conducting initial operational testing and evaluation in Spain in the first half of 2020,” explained Department of National Defence spokesman Jessica Lamirande. “The aircraft will be flying in Spain by the spring of 2020 with the completion of qualification work and training for RCAF personnel. It will only fly in Canada when it arrives in mid-2020.” Seaspan Shipyards announced Dec. 10 that it completed the delivery of CCGS Capt. Jacques Cartier, the Canadian Coast Guard's newest Offshore Fisheries Science Vessel or OFSV. It is the second OFSV delivered by Seaspan, which was her sister ship, the CCGS Sir John Franklin. These two ships are the first large vessels delivered under the National Shipbuilding Strategy. More than 600 Canadian firms were involved in the project, reported Esprit de Corps military magazine. Equipped to support Fisheries and Ocean scientists in the collection and analysis of data on Canada's marine ecosystems and the impacts of climate change, the vessel features a full suite of modern systems, including high-tech fishing trawls and four science labs — a wet lab, a dry lab, an ocean lab and a control lab, Seaspan noted. The OFSV also has a deployable drop keel, loaded with a wide array of sensors to support the vessel's research mandate. The CCGS Capt. Jacques Cartier will also support search and rescue operations and environmental response. A third OFSV under construction at Seaspan Shipyards is structurally complete and on schedule to be delivered in August 2020, Seaspan added. In the meantime, Collins Aerospace Systems used the Dubai Air Show to highlight the fact that the new C-295 aircraft come equipped with the firm's state-of-the-art Pro Line Fusion flight deck, Esprit de Corps military magazine reported. That will significantly advance the capabilities of C-295 operators, according to Collins Aerospace Systems. The selection marks the first fixed-wing search and rescue platform to include Pro Line Fusion among its standard equipment. The Pro Line Fusion flight deck designed for the C-295 includes Collins touchscreen displays to provide a more intuitive interface for pilots to interact and customize their information on the flight deck; night-vision goggle capability; Head-Up Displays that enable the pilot to keep their eyes up for enhanced situational awareness; Enhanced Vision System (EVS) sensor that allows pilots to see in low-visibility conditions; overlaid weather radar that shows a graphical depiction of weather along the flight plan for easy viewing; Integrated Terrain Awareness and Warning System that enables high-resolution 3D obstacle depiction and enhances mission safety, and fully integrated Mission Flight Management Systems supporting Search and Rescue patterns, Computed Air Release Points and High Altitude Release Points. L3Harris Technologies delivered two F/A-18 Hornet aircraft to NASA in November after successfully completing depot-level modifications and repair work. The two aircraft were delivered to NASA by L3Harris Canadian Fighter Center of Excellence in Quebec. Vertex Aerospace LLC selected L3Harris to work on the NASA F/A-18 Hornet aircraft in 2018. As part of the scheduled maintenance work, L3Harris addressed structural modifications, while maximizing the availability of the aircraft for operational use. The work involved structural modifications to eliminate flight and landing restrictions. L3Harris has specialized in developing and implementing F/A-18 structural modification and life extension solutions, having already completed structural programs for the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force, and assisting other F/A-18 users, including the Swiss Air Force, the Finnish Air Force, and the U.S. Navy. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/industry-updates-new-search-and-rescue-aircraft-to-fly-in-canada-in-mid-2020-second-offshore-fisheries-science-vessel-delivered

Stolberg, Germany, December 19, 2019 – CAE today announced that CAE Elektronik GmbH has signed a contract with the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) to provide the German Navy with a comprehensive training solution for the NH90 Sea Lion helicopter. The German Navy is procuring a fleet of 18 NH90 Sea Lion helicopters to support search and rescue (SAR) operations and replace the venerable Sea King MK41 helicopter, which has been in operation for over 40 years for the German Navy. The German Navy NH90 Sea Lion training solution will be based near German Naval Airbase Nordholz, which is the home of the German Naval Air Command. “CAE has a long history supporting German naval aviation training at Nordholz on platforms such as the Sea King and Lynx helicopters as well as P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft,” said Niels Kröning, General Manager, CAE Elektronik GmbH. “We are honoured to be selected to continue this longstanding cooperation with the development of a world-class training solution for the NH90 Sea Lion helicopter.” Under terms of the contract, CAE will design and manufacture a suite of NH90 Sea Lion training devices for the German Navy, including: NH90 full-mission simulator capable of compliance to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Level D qualification, the highest for flight simulators; NH90 cockpit procedures trainer; NH90 operational tactics trainer for training rear-crew tactical coordinators (TACCO) and sensor operators, and capable of networking with the full-mission simulator to provide full-crew mission training; NH90 winch and hoist operator trainer, which will also be capable of networking to other NH90 training devices for full-crew training. In addition, CAE will construct an interim training facility just outside the main entrance to German Naval Airbase Nordholz and will provide on-site training support and maintenance services upon delivery. The new NH90 Sea Lion training system is expected to be operational by the second half of 2022. “This contract award for the German Navy NH90 Sea Lion further extends CAE's industry-leading position providing comprehensive training solutions for the enduring NH90 helicopter platform,” said Marc-Olivier Sabourin, Vice President and General Manager, Defence & Security International, CAE. “The German Navy will now join the German Army and other countries including Australia, the Netherlands, Qatar, New Zealand and others in partnering with CAE to provide the training systems and support required to prepare their NH90 aircrews.” The NH90 full-mission simulator for the German Navy will feature a range of CAE's core simulation technologies. These technologies include: six degree-of-freedom (DOF) electric motion system; high-performance vibration platform to replicate vibration cues critical to helicopter pilots; and a high-fidelity CAE Medallion-6000 image generator. The NH90 training devices will also feature the Open Geospatial Consortium Common Database (OGC CDB) architecture, an international standard for the creation of synthetic environment databases that has been adopted on a range of German Armed Forces training systems. About NSPA The NATO Support and Procurement Agency brings together in a single organization NATO's logistics and procurement support activities, providing integrated multinational solutions for its customers. NSPA acts as NATO's premier life cycle management (including acquisition) and services provider, effectively and efficiently delivering a broad spectrum of integrated capabilities for NATO, its nations and partners, including support to operations. About CAE CAE's Defence & Security business unit focuses on helping prepare our customers to develop and maintain the highest levels of mission readiness. We are a world-class training systems integrator offering a comprehensive portfolio of training centres, training services and simulation products across the air, land, sea and public safety market segments. We serve our global defence and security customers through regional operations in Canada; the United States/Latin America; Europe/Africa; and Asia-Pacific/Middle East, all of which leverage the full breadth of CAE's capabilities, technologies and solutions. CAE is a global leader in training for the civil aviation, defence and security, and healthcare markets. Backed by a record of more than 70 years of industry firsts, we continue to help define global training standards with our innovative virtual-to-live training solutions to make flying safer, maintain defence force readiness and enhance patient safety. We have the broadest global presence in the industry, with over 10,000 employees, 160 sites and training locations in over 35 countries. Each year, we train more than 220,000 civil and defence crewmembers, including more than 135,000 pilots, and thousands of healthcare professionals worldwide. www.cae.com Follow us on Twitter @CAE_Inc and @CAE_Defence View source version on CAE: https://www.cae.com/news-events/press-releases/cae-wins-contract-to-provide-german-navy-with-comprehensive-nh90-sea-lion-training-solution

By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON – The Department of Defense has sent a plan to the White House that would cut the construction of more than 40 percent of its planed Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyers in in fiscal years 2021 through 2025. In total, the proposal would cut five of the 12 DDGs planned through the so-called future years defense program, or FYDP. In total, the plan would cut about $9.4 billion, or 8 percent, out of the total shipbuilding budget, according to a memo from the White House's Office of Management and Budget to the Defense Department obtained by Defense News. The memo also outlined plans to accelerate the decommissioning cruisers, cutting the total number of Ticonderoga-class cruisers in the fleet down to nine by 2025, from a planned 13 in last year's budget. The Pentagon's plan would actually shrink the size of the fleet from today's fleet of 293 ships to 287 ships, the memo said, which stands in contrast to the Navy's goal of 355 ships. The 355 ship goal was also made national policy in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. The memo comes on the heels of a wave of rhetoric from the Navy and the highest levels of the Trump Administration that the goal remains 350-plus ships, and the memo directs the Pentagon to submit a “resource-informed” plan to get to 355 ships, though its unclear how that direction might affect the Navy's calculus with regards to destroyer construction. The document gives the Navy a degree of wiggle-room to try and redefine what counts as a ship. “OMB directs DOD to submit a resource-informed plan to achieve a 355-ship combined fleet, including manned and unmanned ships, by 2030,” the memo reads. “In addition to a programmatic plan through the FYDP and projected ship counts through 2030, DOD shall submit a legislative proposal to redefine a battleforce ship to include unmanned ships, complete with clearly defined capability and performance thresholds to define a ship's inclusion in the overall battleforce ship count.” Destroyers are built by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Maine and by Huntington Ingalls in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Each destroyer costs an average of $1.82 billion based on the Navy's 2020 budget submission, according to the Congressional Research Service. A Trump Administration official who spoke on background said the Navy's proposed plan to shrink the fleet is being driven primary from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and that OMB is strongly behind the President's goal of 355 ship. “OMB strongly supports 355 [ships] and is working with the Navy on it,” the official said. “OSD seems to be the most opposed to it.” A Navy spokesman declined to comment on the contents of the memo, saying it was related to a budget still in development and was “pre-decisional.” The military has a policy of refusing to comment on budget matters before they've been submitted to congress. The fate of the cruisers has been a nearly annual fight on Capitol Hill, as the Navy has tried desperately to divest themselves of the troublesome class, though this year's proposed cancellation of six cruiser modernization plans did not make a stir on the Hill. The cruisers themselves are the largest surface combatants in the Navy's inventory but have become increasingly difficult to maintain. Cruisers have 26 more vertical launch system, or VLS, cells per hull than their Arleigh Burke Flight IIA destroyer counterparts, and 32 more than the Flight I Burkes. Cruisers act as the lead air defense ship in a carrier strike group but as they have aged, the fleet has managed everything from cracking hulls to aging pipes and mechanical systems. The ships' SPY-1 radars have also been difficult to maintain, as components age and need constant attention from technicians. Last year, the Navy proposed canceling the modernization of Bunker Hill, Mobile Bay, Antietam, Leyte Gulf, San Jacinto and Lake Champlain in 2021 and 2022. The new proposal would accelerate the decommissioning of the Monterey. Vella Gulf and Port Royal to 2022, which would cut between three and seven years off each of their planned lives. The plan would also advance the decommissioning of the Shiloh to 2024, three years earlier that previously planned. The service's past efforts to shed the cruisers to save money repeatedly drew the ire of former House Armed Services Committee sea power subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes, R-Va., who didn't trust the Navy to keep the ships in service and therefore wrote clear language into several National Defense Authorization Act bills prohibiting the move. The Navy ultimately agreed to the so-called 2-4-6 plan in 2015, which allowed the service to lay up to two cruisers a year, for no more than four years and allow no more than six of the ships to undergo modernization at any one time. 'Making a Case' The 2030 deadline for 355 ships as mentioned in the OMB memo was first laid out earlier this month by acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly in a speech at USNI's Defense Forum. “[Three hundred and fifty-five ships] is stated as national policy,” Modly told an audience on Dec. 5. “It was also the president's goal during the election. We have a goal of 355, we don't have a plan for 355. We need to have a plan, and if it's not 355, what's it going to be and what's it going to look like? “We ought to be lobbying for that and making a case for it and arguing in the halls of the Pentagon for a bigger share of the budget if that's what is required,” The speech was followed by the President's National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien at the Reagan National Defense Forum saying that Trump was serious when he committed to a 350-ship Navy. “When President Trump says a 350-ship Navy, he means a 350-ship Navy, and not decades from now,” O'Brien said. Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer captain and analyst with the defense consultancy The Ferrybridge Group, said the plan to reduce the size of the fleet is a sign that the Defense Department isn't willing to put the resources required toward growing the fleet. “If what you are reporting is true, this is a sign of the tension between the grand desires for a much larger fleet and the modest resources being applied to the problem,” McGrath said. “There simply is no way to grow the fleet as it is currently architected while maintaining the current fleet at a high state of readiness with the given resources." McGrath said if 355 is still the goal, the Pentagon has to either dramatically restructure the fleet to switch out large surface combatants such as cruisers and destroyers with smaller, less expensive ships, or it has to change what's counted as a ship – both moves that have been signaled by the Navy in recent years. “This is why it's so hard to grow a Navy,” McGrath said. “You have to decide it's a national priority, you have to devote a lot of resources and you have to do it over a period of years. None of that has happened.” Dan Gouré , an analyst with the Arlington-based think tank The Lexington Institute and former Bush Administration Pentagon official, said trading existing force structure for unproven technologies such as unmanned ships that may pan out down the road is a classic Pentagon trap that rarely pans out. “It sends a bit of a chill up my spine to hear that the Navy may be considering cutting a bird in the hand for a theoretical eagle down the road,” Goure said. “That almost never works. I've been doing this long enough, 40 years of this, tell me when that's ever really worked.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/24/pentagon-proposes-big-cuts-to-us-navy-destroyer-construction-retiring-13-cruisers/

Murray Brewster Canada's new frigates are being designed with ballistic missile defence in mind, even though successive federal governments have avoided taking part in the U.S. program. When they slip into the water sometime in the mid- to late-2020s, the new warships probably won't have the direct capability to shoot down incoming intercontinental rockets. But the decisions made in their design allow them to be converted to that role, should the federal government ever change course. The warships are based upon the British Type 26 layout and are about to hit the drawing board. Their radar has been chosen and selected missile launchers have been configured to make them easy and cost-effective to upgrade. Vice-Admiral Art McDonald said the Lockheed Martin-built AN/SPY-7 radar system to be installed on the new frigates is cutting-edge. It's also being used on land now by the U.S. and Japan for detecting ballistic missiles. "It's a great piece, and that is what we were looking for in terms of specification," McDonald told CBC News in a year-end interview. Selecting the radar system for the new frigates was seen as one of the more important decisions facing naval planners because it has to stay operational and relevant for decades to come — even as new military threats and technologies emerge. McDonald said positive feedback from elsewhere in the defence industry convinced federal officials that they had made the right choice. "Even from those that weren't producing an advanced kind of radar, they said this is the capability you need," he said. The whole concept of ballistic missile defence (BMD) remains a politically touchy topic. BMD — "Star Wars," to its critics — lies at the centre of a policy debate the Liberal government has tried to avoid at all costs. In 2017, Canada chose not to join the BMD program. That reluctance to embrace BMD dates back to the political bruising Paul Martin's Liberal government suffered in 2004-05, when the administration of then-U.S. president George W. Bush leaned heavily on Ottawa to join the program. In the years since, both the House of Commons and Senate defence committees have recommended the federal government relent and sign on to BMD — mostly because of the emerging missile threat posed by rogue nations such as North Korea. Liberals reluctant to talk BMD The question of whether to join BMD is expected to form part of the deliberations surrounding the renewal of NORAD — an undertaking the Liberal government has acknowledged but not costed out as part of its 2017 defence policy. Missile defence continues to be a highly fraught concept within the federal government. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan made a point of downplaying a CBC News story last summer that revealed how the Canadian and U.S. militaries had laid down markers for what the new NORAD could look like, pending sign-off by both Washington and Ottawa. Asked about Sajjan's response, a former senior official in the minister's office said it raised the spectre of "Star Wars" — not a topic the Liberal government was anxious to discuss ahead of last fall's election. The current government may not want to talk about it, but the Canadian navy and other NATO countries are grappling with the technology. Practice makes perfect Last spring, a Canadian patrol frigate, operating with 12 other alliance warships, tracked and shot down a supersonic target meant to simulate a ballistic missile. A French frigate also scored a separate hit. For the last two years, NATO warships have practiced linking up electronically in defensive exercises to shoot down both mock ballistic and cruise missiles. A Canadian frigate in the 2017 iteration of the exercise destroyed a simulated cruise missile. At the recent Halifax Security Forum, there was a lot of talk about the proliferation of missile technology. One defence expert told the forum Canadian military planners have been paying attention to the issue for a long time. The frigate design is an important example. "I think what they've tried to do is keep the door open by some of the decisions they've made, recognizing that missile proliferation is a significant concern," said Dave Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "They haven't shut the door on doing that and I think that is smart." Opponents of BMD, meanwhile, have long argued the fixation by the U.S. and NATO on ballistic missile defence is fuelling instability and giving Russia and China reasons to co-operate in air and missile defence. Speaking before a Commons committee in 2017, Peggy Mason, president of the foreign and defence policy think-tank Rideau Institute, said the United States's adversaries have concluded that building more offensive systems is cheaper than investing in defensive ones. "The American BMD system also acts as a catalyst to nuclear weapons modernization, as Russia and China seek not only increased numbers of nuclear weapons but also increased manoeuvrability," said Mason, Canada's ambassador for disarmament from 1989 to 1994, testifying on Sept. 14, 2017. She also warned that "there would be significant financial costs to Canadian participation" in the U.S. BMD program "given American demands" — even prior to Donald Trump's presidency — "that allies pay their 'fair share' of the collective defence burden." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-ballistic-missile-defence-canada-1.5407226

Murray Brewster · The Canadian navy will take possession of two Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships in the new year — and it looks like they'll be spending as much time in the sunny south as they do in the Far North. Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, the commander of the navy, told CBC News recently that military planners see the ships playing a role in delivering disaster relief in the Caribbean, where hurricanes have been increasing in size and destructive power. "We can see a great opportunity to use this hurricane response as we go forward," McDonald said in a year-end interview. "Ironically, the Arctic offshore patrol vessel will find itself equally spending its time between our Far North and down south in support of our securing the continent." The first of the long-awaited patrol ships, HMCS Harry DeWolf, conducted sea trials a few weeks ago under the supervision of its builder, Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax. It's due to be handed over to the navy in the spring, McDonald said. Some members of the ship's inaugural crew took part in the shakedown to familiarize themselves with the new vessels. "We've completed our training and we're ready to take it," McDonald said. A second ship, HMCS Margaret Brooke, will be delivered to the navy in the fall. Irving's Halifax Shipyard originally was slated to deliver the Harry DeWolf in 2018, but the deadline was pushed ahead to the end of 2019 and then pushed again into 2020. That new timeline puts the date of delivery nearly five years after construction started. McDonald said there are always delays when the first ships in a new class of vessels are introduced and the navy is satisfied it will receive fully functional, capable ships. "We know that the lessons learned from tackling those production challenges, they're being folded into the second ship and into the third ship," he said. Major component blocks of the third ship are being assembled at the Halifax yard now, and company officials, speaking recently on background, said production has become exponentially more efficient since the completion of the second vessel. Steel for the fourth ship is being cut and shaped. The brainchild of the former Conservative government, the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships originally were pitched 15 years ago as three armed heavy icebreakers for the Far North. That morphed into a plan — originally pegged at $3.1 billion — to build eight light icebreakers. The number was cut to five (with the possible addition of a sixth) by the time the program got underway. A little more than a year ago, the Liberal government confirmed it would build a sixth ship for the navy and construct two others for the Canadian Coast Guard. Irving is the prime contractor for the navy's new frigate program; some expressed concerns that the company would be stuck with a gap in production between the frigates and the patrol ships. The addition of the three new ships promised by the Liberals all but closes that construction gap, company officials acknowledged. It also added $800 million to the program's revised $3.5 billion budget. CBC News recently was given access to the Harry DeWolf as contractors completed last-minute work. Compared with previous Canadian warships, its cabins and work areas are spacious and high-tech. McDonald said he believes the versatile design will make the ship useful, not only for sovereignty and security patrols, but also for research projects. "We can bring on scientists," he said. "We can bring on teams focused around missions that are larger than the navy as we go forward." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-frigates-irving-canadian-navy-1.5404650