28 novembre 2019 | International, Autre défense

Canada has plenty to gain from upping its defence spending

COLIN ROBERTSON

Colin Robertson, vice-president and fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute

If we thought passage of the new North American free-trade agreement would get Donald Trump off our back, think again. We've been served notice that Canada has got to pony up more on defence and security. We should do so, not because the U.S. wants us to, but because it serves Canadian interests, especially in exercising Canadian sovereignty in our North.

The Trump administration is close to a deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on congressional ratification of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on trade. The possible changes to the agreement signed last November will not trouble Canada. Tougher labour and environmental standards enforcement – “trust but verify” – are aimed at Mexico. Another change would shorten the patent-protection period for new pharmaceutical drugs.

The USMCA could pass through Congress before Christmas. But even if the deal gets stuck, Mr. Trump's threat to rescind NAFTA is increasingly remote. The more Americans learned about NAFTA, the more they liked it, especially in the farming community and Mr. Trump needs their votes if he is to be re-elected next year.

A new trade agreement does not mean complacency about trade.

We're still paying tariffs on our lumber exports. Protectionism, especially in procurement, is endemic. We need to sustain the Team Canada effort with Congress, governors and state legislators. Rather than blame Ottawa, provincial premiers need to remind their neighbouring states why trade and investment is mutually beneficial. Premiers and governors should strive for a reciprocity agreement on procurement.

But if our trading relationship is shifting out of crisis mode, defence and security will take that space. Continued free riding by the allies, as the Trump administration sees it, is not an option.

With the end of the Cold War, Canada took the peace dividend and then coasted in our defence spending. But today's world is meaner with a rising China and revanchist Russia.

The Trudeau Government thought its defence policy – titled Strong, Secure, Engaged – and its promise of new warships, fighter jets and active missions in Latvia and Iraq, would suffice. Wrong. For Mr. Trump, the bottom line is the 2014 commitment by the governments of North Atlantic Treaty Organization member-countries to achieve spending of 2 per cent of gross domestic product on defence by 2024. Canadian spending, according to NATO, is currently 1.27 per cent. It is scheduled to rise to around 1.4 per cent by 2026-27, well short of the allies' pledge.

If we are going to spend more, then let's invest in northern sovereignty.

Brian Mulroney persuaded Ronald Reagan to tacitly acknowledge Canadian sovereignty through Arctic waters. Since then, the Americans have pressed us to exercise that sovereignty. Stephen Harper instituted Operation Nanook and he made annual summer visits to the North. But the promised Arctic base in Nanisivik, Nunavut, has never materialized. The promised icebreakers are still to be built.

In contrast to the American, Chinese and Russian policies, Canada's long-delayed Arctic policy framework, finally released in September, is sophomoric. It ignores both defence and security.

The Americans want us to collaborate in updating the postwar North Warning System. Jointly managed as part of our NORAD alliance, its replacement will be expensive. But it's also an opportunity for us to lead in the development of innovative space and underwater applications that would buttress our Arctic sovereignty. We can take inspiration from HMCS Harry DeWolf, the first of our offshore patrol ships. The largest Canadian warship built in 50 years, it is now afloat in Halifax harbour.

We are also an Indo-Pacific country. The almost year-old Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) gives us first-mover advantage over the U.S. in places such as Japan. But our Pacific partners expect us to demonstrate greater commitment to their security. This means more navy and air reach. Is our Pacific posture adequate? Does our capability, including our bases, meet the new threat assessments?

Managing the trade relationship with the Trump administration is hard. David McNaughton was the right ambassador for the Trudeau government's first term and its focus on trade. Mr. MacNaughton's outreach strategy needs to become a permanent campaign.

Our next ambassador will need demonstrated security chops in addition to political savvy. Handling defence and security is going to be really hard. But as a friendly ambassador, whose country faces the same challenge, observed at the recent Halifax International Security Forum, we Canadians are going to have to toughen up.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canada-has-plenty-to-gain-from-upping-its-defence-spending/

Sur le même sujet

29 avril 2019 | International, Aérospatial

Italy to buy drones to keep company alive, but the Air Force doesn’t want them
By: Tom Kington ROME — The Italian government said it will purchase the troubled P.1HH drone from Italy-based Piaggio Aerospace as it seeks to keep the firm afloat, despite an apparent lack of interest in the platform from the Italian Air Force. The Ministry of Economic Development announced April 24 the acquisition of four drones, which are unmanned variants of the firm's P180 business aircraft. Confirming the purchase, the Defence Ministry said the purchase would serve the “operational needs” of the Italian armed forces and protect the “strategic value” of the company, while strengthening Italy's credentials as a partner in the pan-European EuroMALE drone program. The Ministry of Economic Development added that future purchases would follow, with an industrial source telling Defense News another four drones would be bought. Piaggio Aerospace was placed in receivership late last year by then-owner Mubadala, an investment fund based in the United Arab Emirates, which also canceled its planned order of eight Piaggio P.1HH drones. One reported reason for Mubadala's decision was its impatience as Italy dragged its heels on promises to buy an enhanced version of the drone, preferred by the Italian Air Force and known at the P.2HH. As Italy's parliamentary defense commission dragged its heels on approving the P.2HH order last year, Mubadala pulled the plug on the firm, even as work on its order of P.1HH drones was nearing completion. The decision put hundreds of jobs at Piaggio in jeopardy and left the firm with incomplete P.1HH drones. In March, Italian Air Force chief Gen. Alberto Rosso told Italy's parliament he was not interested in buying them, adding to speculation the drone program was dead. But he appears to be have been overruled, as Italy's government seeks to save jobs at the company. The industrial source said the four drones set to be purchased by Italy for the Air Force, plus the further four to be bought in the future, would be those originally destined for the UAE. One drone that had already been delivered to the UAE could now be returned for delivery to the Italian Air Force. The source said €70 million (U.S. $78 million) will be spent by the Italian Defence Ministry to achieve flight certification for the drones, which is expected to take between 12 and 18 months. Maintenance work and construction of the P180 will also now continue. The deal will allow a revived Piaggio to avoid layoffs and to find an “industrial partner,” the Ministry of Economic Development said. That could be Italy's Leonardo, although CEO Alessandro Profumo this month told Defense News he was only interested in Piaggio's engine maintenance activity. https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2019/04/26/italy-to-buy-drones-to-keep-company-alive-but-the-air-force-doesnt-want-them
22 juin 2018 | International, Naval

Upgrading US Navy ships is difficult and expensive. Change is coming
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is looking at extending the life of its surface ships by as much as 13 years, meaning some ships might be 53 years old when they leave the fleet. Here's the main problem: keeping their combat systems relevant. The Navy's front-line combatants ― cruisers and destroyers ― are incredibly expensive to upgrade, in part because one must cut open the ship and remove fixtures that were intended to be permanent when they were installed. When the Navy put Baseline 9 on the cruiser Normandy a few years ago, which included all new consoles, displays and computer servers in addition to the software, it ran the service $188 million. Now, the capability and function of the new Baseline 9 suite on Normandy is staggering. The cost of doing that to all the legacy cruisers and destroyers in the fleet would be equally staggering: it would cost billions. So why is that? Why are the most advanced ships on the planet so difficult to keep relevant? And if the pace of change is picking up, how can the Navy stay relevant in the future without breaking the national piggy bank? Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager, understands this issue better than most. At this week's American Society of Naval Engineers symposium, Vandroff described why its so darn hard to upgrade the old ships and how future designs will do better. Here's what Vandroff had to say: “Flexibility is a requirement that historically we haven't valued, and we haven't valued it for very good reasons: It wasn't important. “When you think of a ship that was designed in the ‘70s and built in the ‘80s, we didn't realize how fast and how much technology was going to change. We could have said: ‘You know what? I'm going to have everything bolted.' Bolt down the consoles in [the combat information center], bolt in the [vertical launch system] launchers ― all of it bolted so that we could more easily pop out and remove and switch out. “The problem was we didn't value that back then. We were told to value survivability and density because we were trying to pack maximum capability into the space that we have. That's why you have what you have with the DDG-51 today. And they are hard to modernize because we valued survivability and packing the maximum capability into the minimum space. And we achieved that because that was the requirement at the time. “I would argue that now as we look at requirements for future ships, flexibility is a priority. You are going to have to balance it. What if I have to bolt stuff down? Well, either we are going to give up some of my survivability standards or I'm going to take up more space to have the equivalent standards with an different kind of mounting system, for example. And that is going to generate a new set of requirements ― it's going to drive design in different directions than it went before. “I suppose you could accuse the ship designers in the 1980s of failure to foresee the future, but that's all of us. And the point is they did what they were told to do. Flexibility is what we want now, and I think you will see it drive design from this point forward because it is now something we are forced to value.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/21/upgrading-us-navy-ships-is-difficult-and-expensive-change-is-coming/
18 mai 2021 | International, Naval

Navy Orders Coyote Sea-Skimming Targets from Northrop Grumman - Seapower
CHANDLER, Ariz.–Northrop Grumman Corp. has been awarded a production contract option for 18 additional GQM-163A “Coyote” supersonic sea-skimming target vehicles, the company announced in a May 14 release. This award represents the first of three options that can be exercised...

Toutes les nouvelles