CAE launches new virtual reality trainer

Sur le même sujet

• 

  7 octobre 2022 | Local, Terrestre

  Canadian Forces selects Sig Sauer P320 as its new pistol

  The Canadian military will be getting new pistols to replace its Second World War-era handguns.

• 

  17 décembre 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Matt Gurney: Supporting local industry shouldn't be the first consideration in military procurement

  Rather than worrying about where things are built, a better question is: will Canadian soldiers be properly equipped? That's all that matters Matt Gurney Dec 16, 2020 • Last Updated 22 hours ago • 5 minute read It is almost a truism in Canadian public policy: We are terrible at military procurement. You hear that often. I've said it often. But it really isn't true. We only think we're terrible at military procurement because we are confused about what we're trying to do. Our military procurements are not about actually procuring equipment for the military. They're about creating jobs and catapulting huge sums of money into key ridings across the country. Once you shift your perspective and look at it that way, you realize very quickly that our military procurement system is amazing. It bats a thousand. The problem isn't with the system. We've just labelled it badly. If it were called the Domestic Defence Industry Subsidy Program instead of our military procurement system, we'd all be hailing it as a shining example of a Canadian public policy triumph. This is terrible. It has cost us the lives of our soldiers, and probably will again. But it's undeniable. Canadian politicians, Liberals and Conservatives alike, have long had the luxury of seeing defence as a cash pool, not a solemn obligation. And they sure have enjoyed that pleasure. Two recent stories by my colleague David Pugliese for the Ottawa Citizen have explored this theme: Our efforts to replace our fleet of frigates with 15 newer, more powerful ships is turning predictably complicated. The 15 new combat ships are part of a major overhaul of the Canadian fleet, which was neglected for many years and now must be modernized all at once. In February of 2019, the government chose American defence giant Lockheed Martin to produce the ships in Canada, using a British design. (How Anglosphere of us.) Companies that weren't selected to be part of the construction or fitting out of the ships are unhappy, Pugliese noted, and aren't bothering to hide it, even though they've abandoned their legal challenges. The sniping has continued, though, with spurned industry figures talking to the media about problems with the program. Jody Thomas, deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, reportedly told industry leaders to knock it off. “There's too much noise,” she reportedly said, adding that it was making the job of getting the new fleet built “very difficult.” Some of Thomas's irritation is undoubtedly the automatic hostility to scrutiny, transparency and accountability that's far too common for Canadian officials — our bureaucrats are notoriously prone to trying to keep stuff tucked neatly out of public view. But some of what Thomas said is absolutely bang-on accurate: Defence industry companies know full well that the government mainly views military procurement as a jobs-creation program, so are understandably put out to not get what they think is their fair share. Some Canadian companies have designed and developed critical communication and sensor gear for modern warships, Pugliese noted. This gear was developed with taxpayer assistance and has proven successful in service with allied fleets, but was not chosen for the new Canadian ships. And this is, the companies believe, a problem. Why aren't Canadian ships using Canadian-made gear? It's a good question, until you think about it for a moment. Then you realize that the better question is this: will the Canadian ships be properly equipped? That's it. That's all that matters. Will the new ships be capable of doing the things we need them to do? If yes, then who cares where we got the gear? And if no, well, again — then who cares where we got the gear? The important thing isn't where the comm equipment and sensors were designed and built. It's that the systems work when our ships are heading into harm's way. Assuming we have many viable options to choose from, then there are plenty of good ways of making the choice — cost, proven reliability, familiarity to Canadian crews, and, sure, even whether it was made in Canada. But supporting the local industry needs to be the last thing on the list. This stuff is essential. The lives of our sailors may depend on it working when needed. Cost matters, too, of course, because if the gear is too pricey, we won't have enough of it, but effectiveness and reliability are first. Treating military procurement as just another federal jobs-creation program is engrained in our national thinking But we talk about them last. Because we value it least. There probably is some value in preserving our ability to produce some essential military equipment here in Canada. The scramble earlier this year to equip our frontline medical workers with personal protective equipment is instructive. In a war, whether against a virus or a human enemy, you can't count on just buying your N-95 masks, or your torpedoes and missiles, from your normal suppliers. Unless Canada somehow gets itself into a shooting war without any of our allies in our corner, any time we are suddenly scrambling to arm up, our much larger allies are probably also scrambling to arm up, and they'll simply outbid us. (See again our current efforts to procure vaccines for an example of this unfolding in real time.) But we aren't at war now, and we can buy the damn ships from anyone. To the government's credit, it seems to be doing this; the pushback against the program seems mostly rooted in the government's decision to let the U.S.-British consortium chosen to build the new ships equip them as they see fit. The program may well derail at some point — this is always a safe bet with Canadian shipbuilding — but insofar as at least this part of the process goes, we're doing it partially right. Yes, we're insisting on building the ships here, but we aren't getting picky about the equipment that goes into them. That's probably wise. But that's about as far as the wisdom goes. Treating military procurement as just another federal jobs-creation program is engrained in our national thinking. It would have been good if COVID had knocked a bit of sense into us and forced us to, at long last, grow up a bit. But no dice. Oh well. Maybe next time. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-supporting-local-industry-shouldnt-be-the-first-consideration-in-military-procurement

• 

  19 novembre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

  Boeing pitches guarantee of billions of dollars of work for Canadian firms if its Super Hornet is picked by Canada

  DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN U.S. aerospace giant Boeing is pitching its guarantee of billions of dollars of work for Canadian companies as well as keeping aircraft maintenance in country as it tries to convince the Liberal government to select a new version of the Super Hornet fighter jet. Boeing is hoping that new technology on the Super Hornet and its commitment to place as much as $30 billion of work with Canadian firms will result in it winning the competition to build 88 jets. The move comes as the NDP and aerospace unions are becoming more vocal about the need for Canada's fighter jet replacement project to pay major dividends for the economy. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh said last week he would be pushing that issue when Parliament returns and he hopes to have a discussion with the Liberal's new defence minister about how Canadian jobs can be created and sustained by the program. Boeing had been non-committal to the Canadian program as it reviewed the bidding requirements throughout the summer. But that changed last week when Boeing confirmed it was in the race. “We wouldn't be having this conversation if we didn't think we had a very realistic chance of winning,” Boeing executive Jim Barnes said in an interview with this newspaper. Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighter is considered the top contender in the project that will see the purchase of new jets at a cost of between $15 billion and $19 billion. Saab of Sweden is also in the competition, offering the Gripen fighter jet. The issue of guaranteed economic benefits for Canada could be a problem for the Liberal government, which under pressure from the U.S., changed the procurement rules to allow the F-35 to be considered. Because of the way the U.S.-led F-35 program is structured, Lockheed Martin cannot provide guarantees of any work for Canadian firms, a stance that in the past would have disqualified a company from bidding on a major defence acquisition. In early September, the union representing machinists in the aerospace industry warned that the changes made for Lockheed Martin would come at the expense of other firms offering guaranteed work for Canada's aerospace sector. In addition, the union is worried that if Canada were to purchase the F-35 then most of the key maintenance would be done in the U.S., putting in jeopardy 600 jobs at L-3 in Mirabel, Que. L-3 conducts maintenance on the Royal Canadian Air Force's current CF-18 fighter fleet. Barnes said Boeing was surprised about the change in the Canadian competition that lifted the need for guarantees on providing domestic firms with work equal to, or more than, the cost of the project. Boeing has L-3 on its fighter jet team as well as Peraton Canada Corp., CAE Inc., GE Canada and Raytheon Canada. Barnes said over the years the Canadian government has built up a capability to maintain its fighter jets at home by using those companies. “So we are leveraging that investment by the government of Canada,” he added. Boeing officials say they are confident in guaranteeing billions of dollars of work for Canadians as the company has an extensive presence in both military and commercial aerospace around the world as well as its own facilities in Canada. Lockheed Martin has countered that while there are no guarantees of work on the F-35 program, Canadian firms have picked up more than $1.3 billion in contracts on the project over the last 12 years. The amount of those contracts could significantly increase as more F-35s are delivered to the U.S. and Canada's allies, Lockheed Martin officials have noted. Boeing is offering what is known as the Block 111 Super Hornet, an advanced version of the existing aircraft. Earlier this year the U.S. Navy confirmed it is purchasing 78 of the aircraft which are equipped with a new computer, sensors and data links to boost the amount of information that can be received or transmitted. The aircraft also has satellite communications, which is important for Arctic operations, Boeing noted. Some stealth aspects have also been added and Boeing says it has been able to increase the life of the aircraft from 6,000 flight hours to 10,000 flight hours. It is also pitching the new Super Hornet as less costly to maintain. The aircraft costs about $18,000 U.S. an hour to operate compared to the F-35 which costs $44,000 U.S. The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin are working on reducing that F-35 cost. Bids for the Canadian program must be submitted by the spring of 2020, and the winner is expected to be determined by early 2022. The first aircraft would be delivered by 2025. Technical merit will make up the bulk of the assessment at 60 per cent. Cost and economic benefits companies can provide to Canada will each be worth 20 per cent. A trade dispute between Canada and Boeing over duties on Canadian-made civilian passenger jets prompted the Liberals to include in the fighter jet competition a clause that would consider any economic harm a company has done to Canada. Barnes said that clause is in the bidding documents. Boeing, however, does not see that as a problem for the company as it ultimately lost the trade dispute. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/boeing-pitches-guarantee-of-billions-of-dollars-of-work-for-canadian-firms-if-its-super-hornet-is-picked-by-canada