Boeing outlines $61B in Future Fighter benefits

Sur le même sujet

• 

  12 décembre 2017 | Local, Aérospatial

  Federal government to link ‘economic interests’ to bids for fighter jets

  DANIEL LEBLANC OTTAWA PUBLISHED 2 DAYS AGOUPDATED 2 DAYS AGO The federal government is vowing to make it harder for companies that harm Canada's "economic interests" to win major contracts, starting with the $26-billion competition to provide 88 new fighter jets to the Canadian Armed Forces. The new requirement will be fleshed out in coming months, with Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough acknowledging that it will include a mix of "objective and subjective elements." Officially, the new "economic impact test" will apply to all bidders in major competitions, with Ms. Qualtrough and Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains insisting the requirement complies with Canadian and international law. Still, the new test was quickly dubbed the "Boeing clause" as it comes in response to U.S.-based Boeing Co.'s unresolved trade dispute with Canada's Bombardier Inc. Boeing said last April that the Canadian plane maker used unfair government subsidies to clinch an important contract for 75 CS 100 planes to Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines at "absurdly low" sale prices. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the trade dispute will affect Boeing's future dealings with the government, which is now giving itself leverage to fight back in disputes with foreign companies. "Anyone can apply, but we've been very clear with this new policy: If there is economic harm to Canada, if there's an impact on Canadian jobs, if there's an impact to some of the key sectors in the Canadian economy, you will be at a distinct disadvantage," Mr. Bains said at a news conference. The new test was announced as the federal government confirmed it has cancelled plans to buy 18 new Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. The government is buying second-hand Australian fighter jets as an "interim" measure to help Canada's fleet of CF-18s to meet the country's international obligations. Defence analyst David Perry said the new economic impact test stands to create a new layer of complexity in military procurements that are already beset by delays. "If this is not a superficial, political assessment about whether or not the government of Canada likes this company or not, this will require bureaucratic time and effort to come up with a detailed assessment that will pass legal review," Mr. Perry said. Mr. Perry, a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, added that companies such as Boeing, which do billions of dollars of business and provide thousands of jobs in Canada, will be hard to box in specific categories. "Just coming down with some neat, clean assessment that says, on balance, this company is providing economic harm to Canada will be really difficult," Mr. Perry said. Boeing said that it is awaiting further details on the new economic impact test before deciding how to proceed on the upcoming competition for new jets. "We will review the Future Fighter Capability Project requirements for 88 jets, including the 'Boeing Clause,' and make a decision at the appropriate time," company spokesman Scott Day said. The federal government announced new details on the competition to replace Canada's fleet of CF-18s on Tuesday. A formal request for proposals is scheduled to be unveiled in spring, 2019, with a winning bidder announced in 2022. In addition to Boeing, other potential bidders include Lockheed Martin (F-35), Saab (Gripen), Dassault (Rafale) and Eurofighter (Typhoon). The opposition focused its attacks on the fact the government will be buying second-hand planes at an unspecified price instead of quickly launching a competition for new fighter jets. "We know these eighties-era jets are rusted out because a 2012 Australian report said corrosion was so bad that the number of active flying days had to be cut. This is not a bucket of bolts; this is a bucket of rusted-out bolts," Conservative MP Tony Clement said during Question Period. The government responded by blaming the Harper government for its failed attempt to buy F-35s without going to tenders. General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said the requirements for the full fleet of new fighter jets have been redrawn since the days in which only the F-35 could qualify. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-government-to-link-economic-interests-to-bids-for-fighter-jets/article37303772/

• 

  28 mai 2024 | Local, Terrestre

  Minister Blair to deliver keynote address at CANSEC

  The Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, will provide a keynote address at the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries’ (CADSI’s) annual defence industry tradeshow, CANSEC.

• 

  25 mai 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Defence procurement won't be so easy to cut in a time of COVID-19

  As governments around the world reassess national security, Ottawa could find it harder to delay plans for new ships, helicopters and fighter jets. Jeffrey F. Collins May 22, 2020 A few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the first signs of impact on Canada's defence procurement plans are showing. The government has been following an ambitious multi-decade blueprint, starting in 2010, to kick-start the domestic shipbuilding sector, but some yards have had to scale back their workforces under public health orders. What this means for the National Shipbuilding Strategy and its more than $85 billion (by my calculations) in ongoing and planned construction of large ships is as yet unclear. The $19-billion Future Fighter Capability project, designed to replace the four-decade-old CF-18 fighter with 88 new jets, could also be affected. Government officials were adamant until early May that the June submission deadline for bids remained unchanged — before granting a 30-day extension. But with industry and public sector workers largely stuck at home, it is difficult to see how even the new July deadline can be met. In earlier times of economic strain, Ottawa found defence spending an easy target for cuts. This time could be different, as governments around the world reassess what national security means and how best to achieve it. Heading into 2020, things were still looking up for the capital spending plans of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The Trudeau government's 2017 Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) defence policy had allocated $108 billion in capital expenditures over a 20-year timeframe, 2017-37. Then came the pandemic. There were more than a million job losses in March alone, and as of early May, the Parliamentary Budget Office was predicting a $1-trillion debt by 2021. Given the rapid drop in both domestic and global consumer demand, the price collapse in the country's key commodity, oil, and the accompanying decline in the Canadian dollar, the country is now in a recession for an unknown period. If past is prologue and the virus persists without a vaccine for the foreseeable future, the likelihood of the government delaying or cancelling projects or trimming its orders for ships and planes is growing. When faced with economic pains in the past, federal governments scaled back procurement plans. The staggering debt and deficit in the late 1980s and 1990s led the Brian Mulroney government to drop its ambitious bid to acquire up to a dozen nuclear submarines in 1989, a mere two years after announcing the project in the 1987 defence White Paper. In 1993 the Jean Chrétien government infamously scrapped the contract to replace the 1960s-vintage Sea King helicopter (at a cost of $478 million in penalties). The following year's defence White Paper outlined $15 billion in delays, reductions and cancellations to the DND's procurement budget; this was in addition to large-scale base closures and 20 percent reductions in both CAF regular force personnel and the overall defence budget. The ostensibly pro-military Stephen Harper Conservatives announced 20-year funding plans, as ambitious as the SSE, in the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy but deviated from them in the aftermath of the 2008-09 global recession. With a goal of returning to balanced budgets after $47 billion in stimulus spending, the Harper government delayed or cut over $32 billion in planned procurement spending and laid off 400 personnel from DND's procurement branch. Among the casualties was the army's $2.1-billion close-combat vehicle. There are several reasons why this pattern has repeated itself, but two stand out. First, defence is a tempting target for any government belt-tightening drive, typically accounting for a large share of discretionary federal spending. With most federal money going to individual citizens (employment insurance, pensions, tax benefits) and provinces (health and social transfers), there simply is little fiscal room left outside of defence. To remove money from these politically popular programs is to risk voter resentment and the ire of provincial governments. In short, when past federal governments confronted a choice between cutting tanks and cutting transfers, they cut the tanks. Second, Canada's geostrategic position has helped. Sitting securely atop North America in alliance with the world's pre-eminent superpower has meant, in the words of a defence minister under Pierre Trudeau, Donald Macdonald, that “there is no obvious level for defence expenditures” in Canada. Meeting the terms of our alliances with the United States and NATO means that Canada has to do its part in securing the northern half of the continent and contributing to military operations overseas, but generally in peacetime Ottawa has a lot of leeway in deciding what to spend on defence, even if allies growl and complain. Yet it is this same geostrategic position that may lessen the impact of any cuts related to COVID-19. Unlike the Mulroney and Chrétien governments, who made their decisions amid the end of Cold War tensions, or the Harper government, which was withdrawing from the combat mission in Afghanistan, this government must make its choices in an international security environment that is becoming more volatile. The spread of the virus has amplified trade and military tensions between the world's two superpowers and weakened bonds among European Union member states as they fight to secure personal protective equipment and stop the contagion at their borders. Governments worldwide are now unabashedly protectionist in their efforts to prevent the export of medical equipment and vital materials. As supply chains fray, pressures mount for each country to have a “sovereign” industrial capability, including in defence. In fact, the Trump administration has turned to the 1950 Defense Production Act to direct meatpacking plants to remain open or to restrict the export of health products (three million face masks bound for Canada were held up, then released). The pandemic is intensifying the Trump administration's skepticism of alliances and international institutions; in late March, there was even discussion of stationing US troops near the Canadian border (the plan was eventually abandoned). Smaller powers like Canada that have traditionally relied on American security guarantees will have to maintain their defence spending, or even increase it, as they try to strengthen old alliances and create new ones. As Timothy Choi, a naval expert at the University of Calgary, has told me, an irony of the pandemic is that it may see the National Shipbuilding Strategy become a “major destination for stimulus spending in times of recession.” Either way, by the time the pandemic subsides, Canadians may yet find out that there is indeed an “obvious level” to defence spending. This article is part of the The Coronavirus Pandemic: Canada's Response special feature. Photo: The Halifax-class navy frigate HMCS Fredericton in the waters of Istanbul Strait, Turkey. Shutterstock.com, by Arkeonaval. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2020/defence-procurement-wont-be-so-easy-to-cut-in-a-time-of-covid-19/