Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship fleet to fully operational in 2025, says DND

Sur le même sujet

• 

  17 décembre 2020 | Local, Naval

  'Too much noise' on Canadian warship program - DND Deputy Minister admonishes industry executives

  David Pugliese • Ottawa Citizen Dec 14, 2020 • Last Updated 3 days ago • 6 minute read Defence industry executives have been told by a top bureaucrat to stop raising concerns about the controversial program to build a new fleet of warships that is now estimated to cost $70 billion and could go even higher. Company officials have been complaining to politicians and media outlets that the Canadian Surface Combatant project has fallen far short on its promises of creating domestic employment. Another company is in the middle of a lawsuit over the Canadian Surface Combatant or CSC, alleging the procurement was bungled. Federal lawyers are trying to limit the amount of information that can be disclosed in court about the project, with the next hearing to be held Jan. 13. Other industry executives have been warning politicians the rising price tag for CSC will jeopardize funding for other equally important military equipment projects. But Jody Thomas, deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, told executives Oct. 5 that they are hindering the project and she characterized their efforts as being those of sore losers. “I think there's still too much noise from unsuccessful bidders that makes my job and Bill's job very difficult,” she said, referring to Bill Matthews, deputy minister at Public Services and Procurement Canada. The CSC project would see the construction of 15 warships for the Royal Canadian Navy at Irving Shipbuilding on the east coast. Construction of the vessels, to replace the current Halifax-class frigate fleet, isn't expected to start until 2023. But the project has already faced delays and significant increases in cost as the price tag has climbed from an original $14 billion estimate to around $70 billion. In an email to this newspaper about Thomas's statement to defence executives, the DND noted that industry officials have the right to raise their concerns with politicians or turn to the courts if needed. “However, the Department of National Defence, including the Deputy Minister, works for Canadians,” the DND stated. “While we maintain close, positive working relationships with industry, our primary responsibility is to the Canadian taxpayer.” But Thomas's admonishment didn't surprise industry representatives; although they won't go on record with their names for fear of jeopardizing future military contracts, a number of executives point out that for years federal officials have tried to keep a lid on questions and concerns as well as information about the CSC. A review of past actions by the current Liberal and previous Conservative governments and internal documents obtained by this newspaper through the Access to Information law appear to support that view. Federal officials have on two occasions tried to stymie attempts by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to obtain details and budget outlines of the CSC project, as well as with other vessel construction programs under the government's National Shipbuilding Strategy. In 2019, officials with Public Services and Procurement Canada issued a directive that firms interested in maintenance work on the Canadian Surface Combatant program could not talk to journalists and instead must refer all inquiries to the department. That was the fifth such gag order on military equipment projects issued by government over a year-long period. In one case, Procurement Canada threatened to punish any firms who violated the gag order on the proposed purchase of a light icebreaker. That prompted one unnamed company to submit a question to the department on whether a government ban on talking to journalists was even legal, according to records. Industry executives pointed out last year the secrecy was not based on security concerns, but on worries the news media would be able to use the information to keep close tabs on the problem-plagued military procurement system. After this newspaper reported on the gag orders, Procurement Canada claimed last year it would no longer use such bans. Michael Byers, a professor at the University of British Columbia who has produced two studies on the troubled federal shipbuilding program, said government officials have repeatedly tried to limit the amount of information available on the CSC and other shipbuilding projects. “These projects are in serious trouble and when you have those problems, combined with politics, the pressure to keep things secret are very very high,” he explained. Federal officials appear to be concerned specifically about journalists who might be reporting on two particular ship projects; the CSC and the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships or AOPS. Both projects involve Irving Shipbuilding. Documents show Irving representatives and bureaucrats from Procurement Canada (then called Public Works) warned DND procurement official Ian Mack in April 2013 that CBC journalist Terry Milewski was working on a story about the high costs of the AOPS and the fact that other nations paid a fraction of what Canadian taxpayers were being charged for similar vessels. Six days after Mack sent his warning out to other bureaucrats, Milewski produced his report. In 2016, Public Works officials alerted Minister Judy Foote's office this newspaper was asking questions about the CSC. Foote's office, in turn, warned Irving representatives. In March 2019, the DND and Public Services and Procurement Canada warned Irving Shipbuilding this newspaper was asking questions about problems with welds on the AOPS. Documents show that after a series of questions were submitted by this newspaper to the DND, PSPC deputy minister Bill Matthews, DND deputy minister Thomas and Pat Finn, then DND's top procurement official, held a conference call with Irving President Kevin McCoy. McCoy briefed “Jody, Bill, Pat” about the company's plans to sue this newspaper if it “published anything that impugned our professional reputation.” There is no indication in the document that the bureaucrats raised any objections to the company's strategy. Thomas took no notes during the conference call, according to the department's Access to Information branch. Matthews responded to Irving's decision with a supportive email. “Welcome to my world,” Matthews wrote to McCoy. Matthews has declined requests to be interviewed by this newspaper. In an email, the department stated the deputy minister's comment was referring to the fact defence procurement “is a highly complex environment, in which we often face criticism about our processes and decisions.” DND confirmed to this newspaper that there had been minor issues with welding on the AOPS and the article was published. In May 2019, the Globe and Mail also reported federal officials alerted Irving the newspaper was seeking information from the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development about whether the French fry plant investment qualified as an industrial benefit for the Arctic ship project. After the Globe sent two emails to the department's media relations branch, the newspaper received a letter from a lawyer working for Irving. The letter threatened legal action if the article contained any allegations of improper conduct. Innovation, Science and Economic Development spokesman Hans Parmar stated in an email that Irving was told of the media inquiry as part of the department's policy to ‘'encourage transparency.'' At the time, Irving spokesman Sean Lewis said while the firm respects the work of journalists, in the case of the Globe and this newspaper the company threatened legal action because the news organizations “had highly inaccurate information that would cause our company, and the reputation of our hardworking employees, considerable reputational damage.” In the case of the Globe, Irving confirmed it had received the approximately $40 million industrial benefit credit for the French fry plant. The incident with the Globe and Mail also revealed bureaucrats at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had a system to alert Irving each time a journalist asked questions about AOPS. The department claimed it was required to do so according to its contract with Irving. However, that contract contains only a general reference to coordinating public communications. It is unclear whether the department has established a similar system for the CSC project. The department did not answer questions about how many times it has shared information about journalists with Irving officials. Asked about how many times Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has alerted Irving about journalists asking questions about shipbuilding matters, company spokesman Thomas Ormsby responded: “We do not discuss customer contracts.” https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/too-much-noise-on-canadian-warship-program-dnd-deputy-minister-admonishes-industry-executives

• 

  21 janvier 2020 | Local, Aérospatial

  F-35s Are Dead: The Sixth Generation of Fighter Aircraft Is On Its Way

  by Kris Osborn Key point: At this rate, the F-35 won't even see combat before its outmoded. It is also possible that the new 6th-generation fighter could use advanced, futuristic stealth technology able to enable newer, more capable air defenses. The air defenses of potential adversaries are increasingly using faster computing processing power and are better networked together, more digital, able to detect a wider range of frequencies and able to detect stealthy aircraft at farther distances. The Air Force has begun experimenting and conceptual planning for a 6th generation fighter aircraft to emerge in coming years as a technological step beyond the F-35, service leaders said. "We have started experimentation, developmental planning and technology investment," Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Acquisition, told Scout Warrior in an interview. The new aircraft, engineered to succeed the 5th-generation F-35 Joint StrikeFighter and explode onto the scene by the mid 2030s, is now in the earliest stages of conceptual development with the Air Force and Navy. The two services are now working together on early conceptual discussions about the types of technologies and capabilities the aircraft will contain. While the Air Force has not yet identified a platform for the new aircraft. The Air Force characterizes the effort in terms of a future capability called Next-Gen Air Dominance. While Bunch did not elaborate on the specifics of ongoing early efforts, he did make reference to the Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan which delineates some key elements of the service's strategy for a future platform. Fighter jets in 20-years may likely contain the next-generation of stealth technology, electronic warfare, sophisticated computer processing and algorithms, increased autonomy, hypersonic weapons and so-called "smart-skins" where sensors are built into the side of the aircraft itself. Some of these characteristics may have been on display more than a year ago when Northrop Grumman's SuperBowl AD revealed a flashy first look at its rendering of a new 6th-generation fighter jet. Northrop is one of a number of major defense industry manufacturers who will bid for a contract to build the new plane - when the time is right. While there are not many details available on this work, it is safe to assume Northrop is advancing concepts, technology and early design work toward this end. Boeing is also in the early phases of development of a 6th-gen design, according to a report in Defense News. The Navy's new aircraft will, at least in part, replace the existing inventory of F/A-18 Super Hornets which will start to retire by 2035, Navy officials said. The Navy vision for a future carrier air wing in 2040 and beyond is comprised of the carrier-launched variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, and legacy aircraft such as the EA-18G Growler electronic jamming aircraft. Also, around this time is when Navy planners envision its 6th generation aircraft to be ready, an aircraft which will likely be engineered for both manned and unmanned missions. Technologies are rapidly advancing in coatings, electromagnetic spectrum issues, artificial intelligence, maneuvering, superiority in sensing the battlespace, communications and data links, Navy leaders have said. Navy officials also add that the Navy is likely to develop new carrier-launched unmanned air vehicles in coming years as well. For instance, Northrop's historic X-47B demonstrator aircraft was the first unmanned system to successfully launch and land on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Analysts have speculated that as 6th generation developers seek to engineer a sixth-generation aircraft, they will likely explore a range of next-generation technologies such as maximum sensor connectivity, super cruise ability and an aircraft with electronically configured “smart skins.” Super cruise technology would enable the new fighter jet to cruise at supersonic speeds without needing afterburner, analysts have explained. As a result, super cruise brings a substantial tactical advantage because it allows for high-speed maneuvering without needing afterburner, therefore enable much longer on-location mission time. Such a scenario provides a time advantage as the aircraft would likely outlast a rival aircraft likely to run out of fuel earlier. The Air Force F-22 has a version of supercruise technology. Maximum connectivity would mean massively increased communications and sensor technology such as having an ability to achieve real-time connectivity with satellites, other aircraft and anything that could provide relevant battlefield information.The new aircraft might also seek to develop the ability to fire hypersonic weapons, however such a development would hinge upon successful progress with yet-to-be-proven technologies such as scramjets traveling at hypersonic speeds. Some tests of early renderings of this technology have been tested successfully and yet other attempts have failed. The Air Force Chief Scientist, Dr. Geoffrey Zacharias, has told Scout Warrior that the US anticipates having hypersonic weapons by the 2020s, hypersonic drones by the 2030s and recoverable hypersonic drone aircraft by the 2040s. There is little doubt that hypersonic technology, whether it be weaponry or propulsion, or both, will figure prominently into future aircraft designs. Smart aircraft skins would involve dispersing certain technologies or sensors across the fuselage and further integrating them into the aircraft itself, using next-generation computer algorithms to organize and display information for the pilot. We see some of this already in the F-35; the aircraft sensor fusion uses advanced computer technology to collect, organize and display combat relevant information from a variety of otherwise disparate sensors onto a single screen for pilots. In addition, Northrop's Distributed Aperture System is engineered to provide F-35 pilots with a 360-degree view of the battlespace. Cameras on the DAS are engineered into parts of the F-35 fuselage itself to reduce drag and lower the aircraft's radar signature. Smart skins with distributed electronics means that instead of having systems mounted on the aircraft, you would have apertures integrated on the skin of the aircraft, analysts have said. This could reduce drag, increase speed and maneuverability while increasing the technological ability of the sensors. It is also possible that the new 6th-generation fighter could use advanced, futuristic stealth technology able to enable newer, more capable air defenses. The air defenses of potential adversaries are increasingly using faster computing processing power and are better networked together, more digital, able to detect a wider range of frequencies and able to detect stealthy aircraft at farther distances. The new 6th-generation fighter will also likely fire lasers and have the ability to launch offensive electronic attacks. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35s-are-dead-sixth-generation-fighter-aircraft-its-way-114901

• 

  24 septembre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Want to Win Government Business? Don’t be too ‘Commercial-Centric’

  Governments may be open for business, but that doesn't mean doing business with a government is necessarily easy. Government procurement is complex - this is not by happenstance. The rules on public procurement stem from a number of sources including law (trade agreements, the common law and legislation) and policy. It can be a painful and costly learning curve for companies that want to sell goods and services to the country's largest buyers if they don't understand the rules. Government decision-makers are answerable to a very wide range of stakeholders, including the Canadian voters who put them in office and the Canadian taxpayers who fund their operations. In a public procurement, it's not just about getting the best deal – it is also about meeting the broader public interest and achieving long-term policy objectives. The Goal is to Promote Fairness Competition is the rule in public procurement because it offers a fair, open and transparent environment, and meets the public objective that all potential suppliers get a fair kick at the can to sell to government. This is important when you consider that, for example, the Department of National Defence is the largest Canadian purchaser of goods and services from the Canadian defence industry. Canada has implemented several trade agreements in the past few years, including the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) (which replaced the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)). Understanding how these agreements impact procurement is even more important for suppliers and their federal, provincial and territorial government customers, as well as for the municipal, academic, school and hospital (MASH) sector which may now be subject to trade agreements for the first time or subject to additional or new rules brought about by these new trade agreements. Prepare your RFP Response Team for a Long Haul Businesses must understand the processes that come into play in public procurements, such as the need to resource their RFP response team for a long period of time or the impact of failing to meet mandatory RFP requirements (disqualification from the procurement process). Learning to manage the length of time it takes to progress through a procurement cycle, and to navigate the processes, is a big challenge. In business, relationships matter, but developing a good working relationship with key decision makers in government departments or agencies can be difficult since government tends to have greater workforce mobility and people change in and out of roles frequently. Further, dealing with government means complying with lobbying law and conflict of interest rules. In many jurisdictions, discussions about procurement requirements outside of public solicitation processes is considered lobbying, as it is attempting to sell products or services to the government. Conflict of interest rules may also preclude certain people from doing business with government officials. Approaching public procurement with a "commercial-centric" view often leads to frustration. The federal government does understand "how business works," but there are still many aspects of a public procurement that are not (and cannot be) commercially focused, including those related to complying with applicable trade agreements, protecting the public interest, and serving policy objectives such as regional development and economic diversification. Companies participating in a public sector procurement process face unique compliance requirements that don't come into play with a typical private commercial transaction. Expect Heightened Security Requirements With the increasing attention being paid to cybersecurity and data protection, companies will find they are now subject to more stringent security requirements, including an increased requirement for product functionality and security control disclosure in advance of their products or services being accepted by government buyers. This level of disclosure can extend through to greater access to the underlying technology used so that the customer itself can test for, and understand, cyber-threat vulnerabilities. Whether this is your first foray into the world of government procurement – and you need to understand the rules of public procurement so that you can properly understand the RFP documents and the plethora of government policies – or you have a broader interest focused on influencing government policy and direction as it relates to your business or your industry, knowing how to best position your organization to take advantage of both possible routes is critical to a successful government procurement business. Waiting until you have lost a bid is too late to effect a change for your organization's benefit. Be Proactive with the Right Advice Regardless of your focus, knowing how the system works and how to best advocate for your interests is a crucial and part of any successful business plan. Working with a legal team that has knowledge and experience in all of these areas and can assist with strategic planning and approach from start to finish is critical to success. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4d2ced7d-7e1a-47f0-bf39-ced9b8a0b39d