24 juillet 2018 | Local, Naval

Bids to be submitted today for Canadian Surface Combatant – the countdown begins

DAVID PUGLIESE

The final bids are being submitted Friday by various consortiums for the Canadian Surface Combatant program.

The bids going in Friday involve the finalized portions of the bids on designs (the technical design bids were originally submitted in November but today marks the deadline for responses that deal with any questions the federal government may have had/changes needed to be made) as well as proposals for the financial elements for the project.

The new ships will be the backbone of the future Royal Canadian Navy.

The groups bidding include:

-Lockheed Martin Canada, who will be the prime on the team that includes BAE Systems, CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA, and Ultra Electronics. The team is offering the BAE Type 26 warship for the Canadian program. The proposal will include Lockheed Martin Canada's combat management system, CMS 330, which is currently on board the modernized Halifax-class frigates. A scaled down version of the system will be used on the Royal Canadian Navy's new Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship fleet. The United Kingdom is acquiring 8 of the Type 26 ships. Australia has also identified the Type 26 as the design for its future warship.

Gary Fudge, Vice President and General Manager, Lockheed Martin Canada Rotary and Mission Systems told Defence Watch that the group's bid was submitted earlier this week. He noted that the Type 26 would be excellent in an anti-submarine warfare role as it is designed to be extremely quiet. The vessel also has room to future modernization, unlike older designs, he added. The Lockheed Martin team, which is making $17 billion in value proposition commitments to Canada, will commit to spending billions in innovation across Canada's priority areas, including $2 billion in supplier development and $2 billion in research and development, and $200 million in advanced manufacturing, the company noted.

-Alion Science and Technology, along with its subsidiary Alion Canada, submitted their proposal based on the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate. “Our solution delivers an effective, affordable, production-ready 21st century naval capability to meet Canada's defence needs,” Bruce Samuelsen, Chief Operating Officer for Alion, said last year while promoting the firm's bid. The De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate is a proven NATO vessel, built by Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, with more than 10 years of operational excellence, the company added.

Alion's combat system solution is based on the world-class capabilities of ATLAS-Elektronik and Hensoldt Sensors. ATLAS brings an open architecture Combat Management System that readily accepts new and evolving technologies, the firm noted. Hensoldt's capability and experience in developing and fielding state-of-the art radars was central to meeting the unique Canadian requirements with a fielded, non-developmental radar, the Alion team added in an earlier news release. Other key suppliers include L3 Technologies Canada, Raytheon Canada Limited, DRS Technologies Canada Limited (DRS TCL) and Rheinmetall Canada Inc.

-Navantia of Spain is leading a team that includes Saab Australia and CEA Technologies. Its proposal is based on the F-105 frigate design, a ship in service with the Spanish navy. The design has also already been exported to Norway and Australia. Saab, which would provide the combat management system, has support on the CSC program from Lockheed Martin (Moorestown, New Jersey), General Dynamic Mission Systems – Canada, DRS Technologies Limited Canada, OSI Maritime Service and Rheinmetall Canada, according to Navantia.

The F-105 Anti-Submarine Warfare ship will incorporate Saab's 9LV Combat Management Systems, elements of which are in service on over 240 platforms in 16 navies across the globe, including Canada's own Halifax-class frigates, the company has said.

The budget for the Canadian Surface Combatant project is estimated by the federal government to be between $55 billion and $60 billion. That is a range but specific costs won't be known until contacts are signed and more details worked out. Fifteen warships will be built.

Pat Finn, assistant deputy minister for materiel at the Department of National Defence, told Defence Watch he expects a winning bid to be selected by the end of this year.

After that negotiations would start and a contract is expected to be signed sometime early 2019. If an agreement can't be reached then negotiations would begin with the group that came second in the competition.

About half of the cost of the surface combatant price-tag is for systems and equipment that will go on the 15 ships, according to federal documents obtained by Postmedia through the Access the Information law. “Approximately one-half of the CSC build cost is comprised of labour in the (Irving's) Halifax yard and materials,” the documents added.

Jean-Denis Fréchette, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, estimated the CSC program would cost $61.82 billion. He also warned that every year the awarding of the contract is delayed beyond 2018, taxpayers will spend an extra $3 billion because of inflation.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/bids-to-be-submitted-today-for-canadian-surface-combatant-the-countdown-begins

Sur le même sujet

  • Le gouvernement du Canada annonce l’attribution de contrats de recherche et développement à l’appui de la surveillance de l’Arctique

    4 février 2019 | Local, C4ISR

    Le gouvernement du Canada annonce l’attribution de contrats de recherche et développement à l’appui de la surveillance de l’Arctique

    Le 1er février 2019 – Ottawa (Ontario) – Défense nationale/Forces armées canadiennes Le ministère de la Défense nationale (MDN) investit dans la recherche et le développement en matière de défense afin de trouver des solutions novatrices aux défis de surveillance auxquels les Forces armées canadiennes (FAC) sont confrontées, particulièrement dans le Nord canadien. À l'appui de cet objectif, le député de York-Centre, Michael Levitt, a annoncé aujourd'hui, au nom du ministre de la Défense Harjit S. Sajjan, que le ministère de la Défense nationale, par l'entremise de Services publics et Approvisionnements Canada, a accordé deux contrats à Raytheon Canada Limitée et au laboratoire de vol spatial de l'Institut universitaire d'études aérospatiales de l'Université de Toronto (UTIAS SFL) dans le cadre de la Connaissance de la situation dans tous les domaines (CSTD) du programme de sciences et technologie (S et T), pour un total de 46,2 millions de dollars. Raytheon Canada Limited a obtenu un contrat de 31,2 millions de dollars pour la construction d'appareils électroniques d'émission et de réception destinés à une étude sur la détection radar à longue portée au-delà de l'horizon. Un contrat de 15 millions de dollars a également été attribué au UTIAS SFL pour le développement d'un prototype de microsatellite multifonctionnel équipé d'une technologie de détection de pointe pour la surveillance aérienne et maritime. Comme le souligne la politique de défense Protection, Sécurité, Engagement, l'aptitude à mener des travaux de pointe en recherche et développement dans le domaine des technologies relatives aux satellites et aux radars est essentielle au soutien des capacités des FAC, tout particulièrement dans des régions éloignées comme l'Arctique canadien. Les solutions de surveillance comme celles-ci améliorent notre accès à des renseignements précis et opportuns, ce qui permet aux FAC et à nos partenaires de mieux recueillir, comprendre et diffuser l'information et les renseignements, tout en appuyant notre capacité de mener des opérations couronnées de succès au pays comme à l'étranger. Ces systèmes appuieront la capacité du gouvernement du Canada d'exercer sa souveraineté dans le Nord, accroîtront la sensibilisation aux questions de sûreté et de sécurité et favoriseront une meilleure connaissance des activités commerciales et de transport dans l'Arctique canadien. De plus, les solutions trouvées dans le cadre de la CSTD du programme S et T contribueront aux efforts conjoints du Canada et des États-Unis pour moderniser des éléments du Commandement de la défense aérospatiale de l'Amérique du Nord (NORAD). Citations « Notre gouvernement comprend que la science et l'innovation sont cruciales pour relever certains de nos défis les plus complexes en matière de défense et de sécurité. Gr'ce à ces contrats, le ministère de la Défense nationale passe à l'étape suivante dans la résolution de nos problèmes de surveillance dans l'Arctique. Nous sommes fiers de nous associer à Raytheon Canada et au laboratoire de vol spatial pour continuer à produire des solutions novatrices visant à protéger le Nord canadien. » Honorable Harjit S. Sajjan Ministre de la Défense nationale Faits en bref Les microsatellites du UTIAS SFL en cours de développement offriront une détection et une identification rapides et ponctuelles de cibles de surface ou aériennes. On s'attend à ce que cela améliore la fiabilité des performances de détection et d'identification et entraîne l'amélioration de la connaissance de la situation pour les FAC et nos partenaires. Une fois le prototype terminé et testé avec succès, deux microsatellites supplémentaires seront construits pour créer une petite formation. Ceux-ci seront ensuite lancés à des fins de démonstration et d'essai. L'objectif principal du projet Raytheon est de démontrer la faisabilité de la technologie des radars à ondes ionosphériques pour la détection de cibles aériennes à toutes les altitudes au-delà de l'horizon du radar. Cela comprend la réflexion de signaux sur l'ionosphère vers une station de réception située au-delà de la ligne de visée. Une fois opérationnel, le système sera utilisé conjointement avec d'autres systèmes pour mieux comprendre l'effet des aurores boréales sur la détection de cibles au-delà de l'horizon. La CSTD du programme S et T vise à tirer parti de l'expertise scientifique et technologique novatrice d'autres ministères, du milieu universitaire, de l'industrie et d'autres alliés pour déterminer, évaluer et valider des technologies à l'appui de la surveillance aérienne et maritime, plus particulièrement dans le Nord. Gr'ce à un investissement quinquennal de 133 millions de dollars jusqu'en 2020, la CSTD du programme S et T appuie l'élaboration d'options pour mieux faire connaître les approches aériennes, maritimes de surface et souterraines du Canada, en particulier celles de l'Arctique. L'organisation scientifique et technologique de la Défense nationale, Recherche et développement pour la défense Canada (RDDC), est le chef de file national en S et T pour la défense et la sécurité. RDDC fournit à la communauté des S et T pour la défense, aux Forces armées canadiennes, à d'autres ministères et au milieu de la sécurité publique, les connaissances et la technologie nécessaires pour défendre et protéger les intérêts du Canada au pays et à l'étranger. Liens connexes Connaissance de la situation dans tous les domaines – Programme de S et T Protection, Sécurité, Engagement https://www.canada.ca/fr/ministere-defense-nationale/nouvelles/2019/02/le-gouvernement-du-canada-annonce-lattribution-de-contrats-de-recherche-et-developpement-a-lappui-de-la-surveillance-de-larctique.html

  • Fighter jet RFP released

    24 juillet 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

    Fighter jet RFP released

    Posted on July 24, 2019 by Chris Thatcher A formal request for proposals (RFP) to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fleet of CF-188 Hornets was released on July 23, launching the final phase of an intense competition for what will be the largest acquisition in recent Air Force history. The much-anticipated RFP had been expected in May, but was pushed back several months to allow procurement officials to asses changes to a draft version requested by several of the likely bidders. Valued at up to $19 billion, the future fighter project is seeking proposals for 88 advanced aircraft to replace an RCAF fleet of 76 Hornets that began entering service in the mid-1980s. Four suppliers have been qualified to submit bids: Sweden's Saab Aeronautics with the Gripen E; Airbus Defense and Space, under the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, with the Eurofighter Typhoon; Boeing with the F/A-18 Super Hornet; and Lockheed Martin with the F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. The latter two both have the support of the United States government. Proposals must be submitted by spring 2020–no date was provided in the government press release–but bidders will have at least two opportunities to confirm critical elements of their submission meet Canada's security and interoperability requirements. During industry engagements over the past two years, senior officers with the Fighter Capability Office have stressed the importance of Two Eyes (Canada-U.S.) and Five Eyes (Canada, U.S., United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand) interoperability. The fighter fleet is integral to both Canadian sovereignty and U.S. defence through the NORAD mission. French manufacturer Dassault Aviation withdrew from the competition in November 2018, citing the Two Eyes requirements as a restricting factor to any proposal. Bidders can provide their security offer for feedback by fall 2019, and then revise. They will also have an opportunity after the full proposals are delivered to address deficiencies “related to mandatory criteria,” Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) said in a statement. “[Bidders] will receive feedback from Canada so that they can address non-compliance. This approach has already been used for other large federal procurements and has proven to be successful in maintaining a high level of competition.” Though technical capability will account for 60 per cent of the evaluation, economic benefit to Canada will be worth 20 per cent, the highest weighting for economic return on any procurement to date. The final 20 per cent will be attributed to overall program cost. One reason for the delayed RFP was concern raised by Lockheed Martin over how the government's Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) policy would apply. Though 110 Canadian companies have received around US$1.5 billion in contracts for the F-35 program to date, the company is unable to offer the type of industrial offsets required by the ITB policy and believed it would be at a disadvantage. The government was reminded that, as a signatory of the Joint Strike Fighter Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development Memorandum of Understanding in 2006, it had agreed not to impose “work sharing or other industrial or commercial compensation ... that is not in accordance with the MOU.” Carla Qualtrough, minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, told defence executives at a trade show in May that changes had been made to the statement of requirements that would “ensure a level playing field” while “maintaining our government's policy objectives. “Every bid must still include a plan for ITBs equal to 100 per cent or more of the contract value. That doesn't change,” she said. “This procurement is a generational opportunity for the Canadian aerospace industry that will generate good middle-class jobs across the country. What will change is that it will be up to each supplier to decide whether they will also provide a contractual obligation for their ITBs.” Bidders will score higher if their ITB plan is backed with a contractual obligation, added Qualtrough. “This is a complex process. As complex as any the federal government has ever conducted. The field is comprised of very different entities – and dynamics. Conducting a truly open and fair competition among them is indeed a challenge,” she said. Mitch Davies, a senior assistant deputy minister at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, told CBC on July 23 that the ITB requirement had been structured so that companies could “make a compliant ITB offer that suits their circumstances,” but that Lockheed Martin could still be penalized for failure to meet certain contractual commitments. The competition is being monitored by an independent fairness monitor. In public statements, Lockheed Martin said it looks forward to participating in the competition, while other companies said they will review the RFP documents. The U.S. Air Force has been touring the F-35 in Canada this summer; it performed at the Bagotville Airshow in June and will be at the Ottawa-Gatineau airshow in early September. A spokesperson told Skies the fighter is “the most survivable aircraft and a generational leap ahead of any other fighter in production today. From a cost perspective, we've reduced production cost below $80 million,” which would be on par, if not below, other legacy aircraft. Over 400 aircraft have now been built, accumulating 200,000 flight hours. When the government re-launched the Future Fighter Capability project in late 2017, it also said the eventual evaluation would include an assessment of a bidder's “impact on Canada's economic interests,” a clause directed at Boeing for its then trade complaint against Montreal-based Bombardier. With the trade complaint since dismissed by U.S. International Trade Commission, Jim Barnes, Boeing's team lead for the Canada, told Skies in May the clause would not have “an impact on our competitiveness.” Boeing will likely bid the Block 3 variant of the Super Hornet, “the next evolution” that features advanced networking and data processing capabilities in a distributed targeting processor network with cockpit touch panel displays, and in an airframe that has been enhanced from 6,000 to 10,000 flight hours. “The baseline Super Hornet attributes, with the capability increases of the Block 3, is an ideally suited aircraft for NORAD and NATO operations,” said Barnes. “At this point in time, we think we have a very compelling offer to put on the table.” That offer could be bolstered by the continued interest in the aircraft by the U.S. Navy. Boeing has signed a multi-year contract for 110 Block 3 aircraft out to 2026, and is expected to convert as many as 442 Block 2 variants to the Block 3 configuration by 2033. “It is the perfect time for an international customer to procure the Super Hornet,” he said, noting that the ongoing U.S. Navy program will help maintain acquisition and lifecycle costs. Airbus Defence & Space has said from start of the competition that it would decide whether to submit a proposal once the final statement of requirements in the RFP was released. The Typhoon serves in a similar role to NORAD duty with the Royal Air Force, and has participated in numerous missions with U.S. aircraft. It is unclear how easily it could be incorporated into NORAD mission systems. However, Airbus has continued to strengthen its position in Canada, winning the fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft competition in 2016 and partnering with Bombardier on the C Series, now known as the Airbus A220. It now calls Canada it's fifth home country. “We are proud of our history as a longstanding partner to Canada, serving the country's aerospace priorities for over three decades. We welcome the new opportunities to support the Canadian Armed Forces, to provide skilled aerospace jobs across our country and to help safeguard Canadian sovereignty,” Simon Jacques, president of Airbus Defence and Space Canada, told CBC. While the Gripen E might be the dark horse in the competition, Patrick Palmer, Saab Canada's executive vice-president, told defence reporters in May the aircraft was designed to be easily upgradeable as technology changes–the avionics software is split so that flight-critical and tactical modules can be upgraded separately “without having to have a full aircraft recertified.” The jet has also evolved to ensure NATO interoperability and meet “the threats beyond 2025 – the threats we know today, the threats we don't know today ... in any contested airspace environment,” he said. More important for the NORAD mission, the Gripen was designed from the outset for Arctic operations, requiring minimal ground crew support and featuring the ability to operate from austere airstrips. PSPC expects to award a contract in 2022. The first aircraft will be delivered starting in 2025. https://www.skiesmag.com/news/fighter-jet-rfp-released/

  • An In-Service Support Opportunity

    5 mai 2020 | Local, Naval

    An In-Service Support Opportunity

    POLICY PERSPECTIVE by Ian Mack CGAI Fellow May 2020 DOWNLOAD PDF Introduction In the autumn of 2019, the federal government announced on www.buyandsell.gc.ca the creation of a discussion group to address in-service support for the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSCs). The objective of Canada's procurement is 15 warships and the project is in the early stages of modifying the design of the U.K.'s global combat ship (GCS), with the first Canadian ship delivery anticipated after 2025. It must be assumed that this discussion group formation is the first stage of industry consultation. The City-class Type 26 frigate design has been in development for over a decade and the first of eight U.K. Type 26 warships is now in production. BAE Systems won the contract for the design and construction work in the U.K. This design has been available for export under the moniker global combat ship, and both Canada and Australia have selected it – the latter intending to build nine Hunter-class frigates. While neither the Australian nor Canadian designs have been completed, the combat systems will apparently be quite different across the three nations. However, it is unlikely that the major platform design will change dramatically. If this assumption is correct, it could mean that the major equipment of the platforms of some 32 hulls would likely be substantially the same. And from an in-service support point of view, this clearly creates an opportunity for international co-operation wherever it makes sense. TOP OF PAGE Conventional Wisdom – International Programs There are indications that three-nation government-to-government meetings have taken place to exchange views on creating a user group during the acquisition activity. It would make sense to also explore a related arrangement for in-service support. Clearly, with the potential to support 32 equipment sets across the marine platforms, there are many opportunities for economies of scale which could reduce the costs for all three nations – for common design modifications, for spares through bulk buys, for depot-level maintenance with many more units, for common training of potentially two to four times individual nations' throughput/requirements and the like. Such synergies could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars in savings over the extended lives of these warships. But international programs are not always easy to establish and implement, for many reasons. Nations are very different. They place different priorities on defence matters so the simple co-ordination required to achieve timely agreements can be difficult. Governments also change and a falling-out between two nations can lead to reversals. Nations lose some of their autonomy in decision-making when they join such programs, which can be a major deterrent. And governments have approaches to contracting which are very different, so negotiations on behalf of multiple governments can become bogged down in disagreements as to what approaches nations will support. In a perfect world, Canadian and Australian officials might have included an option during the design selection competitions so that such international in-service support programs could have been enabled by adopting a number of mandatory attributes. Unfortunately, the variability in schedules driving Canada's and Australia's frigate programs, as well as the built-in challenges of running competitions, conspired against any detailed discussion of “what ifs”. Work share (or industrial benefits) is important – to the domestic industries and thus to governments that always care about high-value jobs of the sort one finds in defence-related work. Without doubt, companies in all three countries are already seeing dollar signs and/or may already have won certain rights during the competitions for selection. Hence, Australia and Canada would be unlikely to sign up if all the work is being done, say, in Europe because the bar to agree to collaborate for other reasons could be so high as to be a non-starter. And there could be a number of other challenging commercial issues related to such things as intellectual property that could affect the shape of work-share agreements. There are also many tactical issues. The three time zones are not conducive to ongoing dialogue; one should never underestimate the challenges of working across large distances. As simple as international meeting arrangements should be, one of the partners will not be able to make it at the 11th hour more often than one expects – much less the travel budget involved and/or the cost of personnel liaison/exchange programs between the countries. Canada's Treasury Board is frequently much more involved in expensive and long-term international contracts, routinely requiring the tedious achievement of annual approvals. Nations and organizations have different laws/regulations and standards respectively which must be synchronized upfront and as changes occur. And so it goes. One can conclude that, aside from international information exchange forums, complex business arrangements involving both governments and industries in international programs detrimentally impact a nation's autonomy in decision-making and often offer fewer economic benefits. They are not for the faint of heart. TOP OF PAGE Conventional Wisdom – The Opportunity If one were to consider an international three-party in-service support (ISS) program for common platform major equipment/systems which would leverage BAE Systems as the common ISS agent, wouldn't there be potentially significant benefits to Canada? On the face of it, one must assume that the answer is “maybe” and this is worth exploring. In reviewing this option from a Canadian perspective, it would be appropriate to assess the ISS outcomes against the four sustainment pillars as now mandated for inclusion in the business cases driving Department of National Defence (DND) ISS procurement decisions: performance (operational readiness), value for money (price at or below the market rate), flexibility (adaptable and scalable to accommodate change in operational tempo and available budgets) and economic benefits (jobs and economic growth for Canadian companies). As mentioned earlier, international programs often render economic benefits much more elusive. However, in terms of performance, flexibility and value for money, there is no doubt that the potential exists to see maximum return on investment. In the case under review, BAE Systems is reported to be the second largest Western defence contractor and therefore should be able to wield the clout that comes with it when dealing with major equipment system manufacturers (OEMs). And of course, the supplemental impact must also be understood and catered to – BAE Systems can choose to be difficult in any business arrangement without significantly affecting its bottom line. With respect to contractual response to major equipment and systems performance (which contributes to technical readiness), a client with a large work share is more likely to get attention for initiatives to maintain and improve performance than will smaller clients. This would be important in this case because the three navies operate in significantly different environments around the world with the concomitant variations in some performance requirements. As well an OEMs' failure to address the concerns of three allied navies could result in being blacklisted by BAE Systems when procuring equipment/systems for new ship designs, while timely and effective contractual response could lead to future opportunities. Low performance achievement could also deliver a much more significant blow to an OEM's reputation if more than one navy is impacted detrimentally – witness the Boeing scenario with the 737 Max. This can be important, as select foreign OEMs have essentially ignored Canada before when Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) equipment has suffered performance shortfalls. From a performance perspective, an international ISS program with BAE Systems at the centre could be a plus. In terms of providing adaptability and scalability, the presence of a number of clients can allow reductions in the demand for various services by one client (e.g., facing a budget downturn) to be picked up by another on an interim basis. Alternatively, the need for a surge in support by one navy (e.g., facing major unforeseen operations) may be easier to address by diverting some degree of effort from other clients. Only in the case where all clients are experiencing a similar variation in demand will such flexibility be jeopardized; but such a challenge can equally accrue whether in an international support program or not. Therefore, on balance, there can be greater flexibility in traditional circumstances for an international program, but there are limits. Value for money should be a strong argument for an international collaboration, if only because of economies of scale when considering, in this case, a fleet of 32 ship sets instead of eight, nine or 15 – and that is as-fitted, with spares increasing the overall numbers of common units of equipment. As an ISS client agent with much more maintenance, repair work and spares demand for an OEM, there would be greater interest in keeping multiple navies happy with the prices paid and the requirement over time to see support costs reduced. International programs frequently benefit by pooling spare units and ownership by OEMs, such that the number required (and hence the costs) are lower and risks to availability can be somewhat mitigated. Instead of each nation addressing emerging technical issues separately, sharing the costs should make it cheaper for all. So too are there potential benefits for OEM infrastructure, as top-notch physical plant and software assurance against cyber-attack are much more affordable to all concerned. Hence, the conventional wisdom is that such an international in-service support program should offer a better return on investment in terms of greater performance at lower costs, as well as the possibility for greater scalability to adapt to variations in demand for services. But as mentioned earlier, this comes typically with the potential for fewer economic benefits for Canada – clearly an important consideration. TOP OF PAGE Unique Considerations of the Case at Hand In exploring a possible international program for the U.K., Australia and Canada to leverage their selection of the same basic platform design and designer (BAE Systems), it is useful to accept the conventional wisdom but explore additional factors that should be weighed in a sustainment business case. What follows is a potpourri of additional considerations worthy of study. It is useful to address what could be included in the term “in-service support”. Based on common equipments and systems, it could include design agent services, maintenance, spares, training and documentation within an integrated data environment, to name the most important few. Nations could also select from among these options for hybrid arrangements. Near the top of the list for CSC is the fact that it is under the umbrella of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). The strategy specifically prevents the NSS shipyards from providing a single day of in-service support once they are delivered to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) unless such shipyards win those rights through a competitive procurement process. This is unique – a departure from past approaches in Canadian government shipbuilding – and quite frankly considered to be imprudent. In the very early days of a new class of complex ships, the prime contractor (often the build shipyard and/or designer) usually provides as a minimum a number of years of ISS. The shipbuilder typically has the best expert knowledge that exists for the initial years of services, along with the relationships and a degree of leverage with the major equipment/systems' OEMs. Normally, an in-service support bridging contract is awarded concurrent with the ship construction contract. Often, the prime contractor is then awarded a long-term ISS contract. There is a story as to why ship maintenance support for vessels delivered under NSS departed from the norm (there is always a story), and confirmation should be obtained as soon as possible that the earlier decision is reversible, to allow the business case to include all options. Related to the former paragraph, Canada has relatively recently awarded a contract to Thales for support services for the Arctic offshore patrol ships and the joint support ships. Although these ships have yet to be turned over to the RCN, one would expect that even at this early stage many lessons have been learned which should be taken into account when conducting the business case, such as whether the knowledge was/is available to support first-day-under-power with the RCN. BAE Systems is at the heart of the potential international program. From the internet alone, one observes that, among other classes of Royal Navy (RN) ships, BAE Systems manages design, equipment maintenance and ship modifications for the RN's Type 45 destroyers. It therefore would be important to ask the RN how well their approach is working and to explore the details of the existing contract, infrastructure arrangements, innovations introduced and performance to date. This would be a bellwether to the likelihood that the RN would be at least interested in an international support program for their Type 26 frigates in terms of capability and customer-focused cultural flexibility at BAE Systems. And if they have misgivings and/or if Australia is not interested, the international program option may be eliminated from the business case. One would expect that all three nations would support the generation of their own business cases and compare conclusions before making decisions. Earlier, I offered the assumption that the platform systems are likely to employ the same major equipment systems, but that the combat systems are unlikely to be common. But to overstate the obvious, warships are not like layer cakes – they do not have separate top and bottom halves. The three naval variants being procured are exceptionally integrated and complex super-systems. Therefore, in-service support must address both sets of major equipment/systems – platform and combat systems. BAE Systems is the overall combat systems integrator for the Type 26 frigates destined for the RN and an obvious choice to deliver in-service support. Lockheed Martin Canada is the equivalent for the CSC. And BAE Systems Australia is partnered with Lockheed Martin Australia and Saab Australia to deliver the combat system integration for the Hunter-class frigates. Therefore, an international – almost-whole-of-ship – ISS solution might even offer significant economic benefits to all three nations. This could create challenges based on the proverbial “too many eggs in one basket”, and certain safeguards would be required. It is worthwhile to note an anomaly in Canada's case regarding the construction of these warships. BAE Systems is responsible for building all of the ships in question in the U.K. and Australia, but Irving Shipbuilding is responsible under NSS to construct the CSCs. One should never underestimate the shipbuilder's knowledge when dealing with a complex seagoing vessel, and a sole platform-related focus on BAE Systems alone would, in the Canadian case, be a deficit in any international program. Irving Shipbuilding's contribution should therefore be considered in the business case for Canada. Should the business case be strong, there is an argument that a directed contract to an Irving-BAE partnership for in-country platform in-service support would make sense and be in the public's interest. As mentioned earlier, although this was prohibited under the original terms of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, it could be waived in this instance for those warships that will be the backbone of Canada's maritime defence for 30 years. It would provide significant economic benefits as well. There is clearly the significant potential of operational value to such an arrangement, in addition to strong performance supporting day-to-day readiness. The three nations are on three different continents, and all three navies pursue global deployments. The availability of full ISS in or within the reach of Canada, the U.K. and Australia provides significant benefits to all three navies over their 30-year lives when breakdowns occur far from home port. The business case should take into account the fact that the U.K. may export the global combat ship design more broadly in the world. If an international consortium delivering in-service support were in place, it could become an important selling feature for potential buyers of the GCS. This undoubtedly could enhance value for money, flexibility and performance for the three plank owner nations. And from a Canadian perspective, as the nation with the largest stake in the game at 15 warships, we should be able to significantly influence the contractual arrangements with current and future parties to the international program. A typical and expensive part of the life cycle of warships is midlife conversions. Combat systems in particular require modernization to employ new technologies designed to address new threats. These are extremely complex endeavours. Once again, the degree of value for money through life could be even greater, depending on the degree of commonality of the equipment upgrade options selected. And the very fact that Canada would see opportunities worth considering as fully developed options would in itself offer potential cost benefits that would otherwise be unlikely to occur. As part of the business case analysis, it would be useful to study the commercial marine industry examples of international in-service support. Large ship operators and OEMs are very experienced in working across national and client boundaries to deliver economical services. Any business case should capture the pros and cons more broadly in the commercial business sector as well. There could be a benefit as part of an international program in terms of the people required. As the proverb goes, many hands make light work. Since the launch of what was then termed the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, Canada's marine HR challenges within government have become more pronounced. An international program could lighten the load while expanding the experience base for involved government and naval personnel in tackling the demands of supporting as complex a platform as the CSC. It would be important to understand the challenges surrounding the governance in the broadest sense. Though not at all unique, governance would likely need to be structured to address three separate functions – the integrated supplier-client engagement, the clients' government-to-government activity and industry-to-industry supplier co-ordination. While not uncommon when contracting for goods and services for complex systems, the international aspects, length of the arrangement and the ever-increasing volatility in the marketplace are noteworthy. With such complexity and the constantly changing stakeholders involved over 30 years, the mechanisms for a strong and appropriate relationship alignment would be critical to long-term success. When dealing with a high degree of complexity in an international program such as this, the business case needs to assess the likelihood that the collaboration can be created and maintained in terms of the critical enabling relationships. In the factors highlighted here and as with any business case, the importance of comparing the international program solution with what seems to be the more recent and typical Canadian in-service solution resulting from a competitive procurement cannot be underestimated. Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships and Joint Support Ships In-Service Support (AJISS) is the latest Canadian example and must be carefully analyzed even at this early stage to determine the prognosis for achieving the desired outcomes. Again, engagement with allies to assess their experience with single-nation support scenarios would be important in establishing the right comparators to enable coherent business case recommendations. It would be prudent to consider the long view as part of the business case – including such things as the likelihood that nations would retire their warships at different times or even opt out of the international ISS program long before end-of life. While much can change, an early appreciation and understanding of various scenarios and the related risks would be important. As a final point, such complicated business case assessments are never easy. After assembling the assumption set and the criteria analysis, and after negotiating “les grandes lignes” of a contractual agreement, it would be important to avoid the common pitfall of allowing one or two pros or cons to dominate the decision-making. Too often, the complexity that defies the “kiss principle” leads to rejection of otherwise optimum solutions. But at the end of the day, one must accept that it will be a judgment call. TOP OF PAGE Concluding Material Under the five-year-old Defence Procurement Strategy, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is responsible for leading the industry engagement that launches defence procurement processes. More recently, the ISS procurement strategies have been based on the results of the sustainment initiative business case led by DND. At virtually every opportunity over the past decade, I have emphasized the importance of managing expectations. In every discussion with industry, it behooves those leading the CSC in-service support exploration activity to include the possibility of an international program solution. To eliminate that option without study would be both shortsighted and inexcusable. Also, failing to repeatedly ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the potential for such an outcome would lack transparency and be disingenuous. When the RCN's readiness to deliver operational capability is at stake, along with billions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars for CSC in-service support over 30 years, it matters. And an international in-service support program for the new frigates of Canada, the U.K. and Australia is an important option worth considering. TOP OF PAGE About the Author After a 38 year career with the Royal Canadian Navy, Ian Mack (Rear-Admiral Retired) served for a decade (2007-2017) as the Director-General in the Department of National Defence responsible for the conception, shaping and support of the launch and subsequent implementation of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, and for guiding the DND project managers for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, the Joint Support Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatants. He also had responsibility for four vehicle projects for the Canadian Army until 2015. Since leaving the government, he has offered his shipbuilding and project management perspectives internationally. Ian is a longstanding Fellow of the International Centre for Complex Project Management. He also is allied with Strategic Relationships Solutions Inc. He is married to Alex, and has three grown children. With few accommodations for impaired mobility, he remains active. Upon retirement, he founded a small business, Xi Complexity Consulting Inc. in Ottawa Canada. TOP OF PAGE Canadian Global Affairs Institute The Canadian Global Affairs Institute focuses on the entire range of Canada's international relations in all its forms including (in partnership with the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy), trade investment and international capacity building. Successor to the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI, which was established in 2001), the Institute works to inform Canadians about the importance of having a respected and influential voice in those parts of the globe where Canada has significant interests due to trade and investment, origins of Canada's population, geographic security (and especially security of North America in conjunction with the United States), social development, or the peace and freedom of allied nations. The Institute aims to demonstrate to Canadians the importance of comprehensive foreign, defence and trade policies which both express our values and represent our interests. The Institute was created to bridge the gap between what Canadians need to know about Canadian international activities and what they do know. Historically Canadians have tended to look abroad out of a search for markets because Canada depends heavily on foreign trade. In the modern post-Cold War world, however, global security and stability have become the bedrocks of global commerce and the free movement of people, goods and ideas across international boundaries. Canada has striven to open the world since the 1930s and was a driving factor behind the adoption of the main structures which underpin globalization such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and emerging free trade networks connecting dozens of international economies. The Canadian Global Affairs Institute recognizes Canada's contribution to a globalized world and aims to inform Canadians about Canada's role in that process and the connection between globalization and security. In all its activities the Institute is a charitable, non-partisan, non-advocacy organization that provides a platform for a variety of viewpoints. It is supported financially by the contributions of individuals, foundations, and corporations. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Institute publications and programs are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Institute staff, fellows, directors, advisors or any individuals or organizations that provide financial support to, or collaborate with, the Institute. https://www.cgai.ca/an_in_service_support_opportunity

Toutes les nouvelles