Retour aux nouvelles

9 août 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

Canadian, U.S. military leaders agree on framework to retool Norad

By Murray Brewster

Military leaders from the U.S. and Canada have come to an agreement on the nuts and bolts retooling of Norad, CBC News has learned.

It is a milestone that could end up pitting the next government in Ottawa against both the Trump administration and perhaps even northern Indigenous communities at home.

Now over six decades old, the bi-national air and maritime defence command — and its associated airfields, radar stations and satellite network — has been in need of a major overhaul in the face of emerging threats, such as North Korean ballistic missiles and rapidly advancing cruise missile technology.

Word of the understanding comes as two Canadian CF-18s and two American F-22 Raptors intercepted two Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers, which pressed close to North American airspace, on Thursday.

The agreement of "what's in and what's out" of the new North American Aerospace Defence Command was struck a few months ago, said a defence source in Ottawa, who was granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Separately, the Canadian general who is the deputy commander of Norad confirmed the two countries are on the same page when it comes to the new framework needed to defend the continent, but cautioned there is still a lot of work and negotiation ahead over capabilities and what is affordable.

"We have established the operational requirements," Lt.-Gen. Christopher Coates in an interview with CBC News.

A bi-national panel is examining the specifications and make recommendations to both the Pentagon and the Department of National Defence in Ottawa.

Eventually, Coates said, each government will have to "determine whether or not those capabilities will be provided — or some other option" will be pursued.

And that is where things could potentially get messy, according to defence experts.

James Fergusson, of the University of Manitoba, one of the pre-eminent researchers on Norad, said the price tag will be substantial.

Replacing the North Warning System chain of radar stations, alone, could cost as much as $11 billion, he said.

The Liberal government has made much of saying its defence plans are fully costed, but it deliberately did not include the calculation for Norad modernization in its policy.

There will have to be some negotiation with Washington, even though the cost sharing formula (60-40 split between the U.S. and Canada) has long been established.

Steve Saideman, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said he can't see any Canadian government being anxious to open negotiations with the Trump administration, regardless of how long standing the arrangements might be.

U.S. President Donald Trump has long complained American allies do not pay their fair share of costs for the NATO alliance, and Saideman said it is not beyond the realm of possibility that government-to-government technical negotiations over Norad could devolve.

Fergusson disagreed.

If they argue over money, he said, it will likely involve environmental cleanup costs related to the existing, remote north warning radar stations.

When Norad abandoned its first chain of early warning sites — known as the DEW line — in 1993, the cleanup took 21 years and Canada was stuck with the $575 million bill.

More problematic, as far as Fergusson is concerned, is whether Norad's proposed new capabilities will affect northern indigenous communities, which — unlike the past — will rightfully expect to be consulted and have a say over what the military does with the land.

"When they [the Canadian and U.S. military] go up there in Northern Canada, now, they can't simply ignore the Indigenous people," said Fergusson, "And that's a political issue."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norad-canada-us-military-1.5240855

Sur le même sujet

  • The Liberals want to 'refresh' the shipbuilding strategy. What does that mean?

    15 août 2018 | Local, Naval

    The Liberals want to 'refresh' the shipbuilding strategy. What does that mean?

    Murray Brewster Recent comments by a parliamentary secretary had Irving asking for a public commitment to the strategy The federal government has been quietly debating a "refresh" of its marquee — but troubled — national shipbuilding strategy, federal documents reveal. A memorandum to the deputy minister of Finance, obtained by CBC News under access to information legislation, notes there was "tangible progress" in ship construction last year, but also references impending production gaps at the two designated shipyards: Irving-owned Halifax Shipyard and Seaspan in Vancouver. The size and scope of the "policy refresh" was not made clear in the heavily redacted memo, dated Jan. 23, 2018. Officials at Public Services and Procurement Canada were asked to explain, but did not produce a response by Tuesday evening. As recently as last week, government officials were insisting they were still committed to the strategy. Still 'broken'? During the last election campaign, the Liberals pledged to fix the "broken" procurement system and invest heavily in the navy. Conceived under the Conservatives but embraced by the Liberals, the national shipbuilding strategy has been plagued by delays and ballooning cost estimates in the building of both warships and civilian vessels. Critics have long complained it would be cheaper and faster for Canada to buy offshore from foreign competitors. It also remains unclear whether the build-in-Canada provision that is at the heart of the strategy is up for consideration in the reset. Much of the icebreaking fleet belonging to the coast guard is in need of replacement — a critical gap that led the government recently to set aside $610 million for the refurbishment of three commercial ships. Similarly, the navy has been forced to lease a replenishment ship because of delays associated with the Joint Support Ship program. Confidential sources in the defence community said the review is being driven partly by a yet-to-be completed assessment of the coast guard, which has — according to a 2015 statutory assessment — among the oldest coast guard fleets in the world. The retooled policy is expected to be ready this fall, the sources said, and will also encompass updated budget estimates and timelines for delivery. Last spring, CBC News reported the federal government had received a revised delivery schedule for vessels being constructed at Seaspan. But it refused to release it. The new timetable, which apparently forecasts delays outside of the company's control, is politically sensitive. It speaks to issues at the heart of the breach-of-trust case against Vice Admiral Mark Norman, the military's second-highest commander — in particular, the program's inability to deliver ships in a timely manner. Full Article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-shipbuilding-navy-refresh-1.4785465

  • Aircraft used by Snowbirds aerobatic team, on the go since 1963, will be kept flying until 2030

    14 mai 2018 | Local, Aérospatial

    Aircraft used by Snowbirds aerobatic team, on the go since 1963, will be kept flying until 2030

    An avionics upgrade is required if the planes are to continue flying in North American airspace, but it is unclear at this point what other work will also be needed to be done on the aging aircraft. The 55-year-old planes used by the Canadian military's iconic Snowbirds aerobatic team will be kept flying until 2030. Aircraft avionics will be modernized on the CT-114 Tutors to comply with upcoming aviation regulations and the life of the aircraft extended for another 12 years, according to April 2018 Royal Canadian Air Force documents obtained by Postmedia. The avionics upgrade is required if the planes are to continue flying in North American airspace. It is unclear at this point what other work will also be needed to be done on the aging aircraft. No information was available on what the modernization program will cost taxpayers. The planes have been in the Canadian Forces inventory since 1963 and have been used by the Snowbirds since 1971. The Tutors were supposed to have been retired in 2010, but that date was extended to 2020. This latest initiative would see the aircraft removed from the flight line when they are 67 years old. Aerospace firms will be consulted about the life extension program over the next two years, according to the documents. A request for proposals will be issued in 2021, aerospace industry officials meeting in Ottawa last month were told. “It is anticipated that equipment ordered would begin to be delivered in 2022,” the RCAF confirmed in an email to Postmedia. “Ultimately, the goal of the CT-114 Tutor Aircraft life extension project is to allow the RCAF to continue its Air Demonstration mission to highlight the professionalism and capabilities of its airmen and airwomen.” The RCAF is facing a dilemma with replacing the aircraft used by the Snowbirds. The federal government has indicated it wants the aerobatic team to continue operating and the Snowbirds are seen as a key public relations tool for the military. But some in the Canadian Forces have privately questioned spending money on the Snowbirds because they do not directly contribute combat capabilities to the air force. The Tutors were originally used as jet trainers for the RCAF, but that role has been transferred to other aircraft. Various military documents obtained by Postmedia show the back-and-forth debate on what to do with the Tutors. Replacing the Tutors would be expensive. In 2012 the Canadian Forces estimated it would cost $755 million to buy a new fleet of planes for the aerobatic team, according to documents obtained by Postmedia through the Access to Information law. A current replacement cost was not available. In 2008, the Canadian Forces examined options for replacing the Tutors in either 2015 or 2020. But officials decided on the 2020 date because of concerns about the cost of purchasing new planes. “Although extending to the CT114 to 2020 will be technically challenging, overall it can be achieved with minimal risk and at significantly lower cost when compared against a new aircraft acquisition,” a briefing note for then Conservative Defence Minister Peter MacKay pointed out in November 2008. That conclusion, however, was in contrast to an earlier examination of the aircraft. “Due to obsolescence issues, in the 2010 time frame, the Tutor will no longer be a viable aircraft for the Snowbirds,” an April 2006 briefing note for then-air force commander Lt.-Gen. Steve Lucas pointed out. In the past, the air force also examined leasing aircraft for the Snowbirds. In addition it looked at, but rejected, a suggestion to substitute CF-18 fighter aircraft for the Tutors. Using CF-18s would increase the ability of the Snowbirds to perform around the world, but reduce their availability for smaller venues in Canada that have runways too short to accommodate the jets, the air force concluded. As well, the CF-18s would be 20 times more expensive to operate than the Tutors. Thousands of Canadians every year watch the team perform, and the Snowbirds are a fixture at Canada Day celebrations and air shows across the country. “The Snowbirds also contribute more than any other Canadian performer to the success and viability of the billion-dollar air-show industry in Canada and North America,” according to Department of National Defence documents. http://nationalpost.com/news/aircraft-used-by-snowbirds-aerobatic-team-on-the-go-since-1963-will-be-kept-flying-until-2030

  • Will other firms withdraw from fighter jet competition leaving F-35 last plane standing?

    25 septembre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

    Will other firms withdraw from fighter jet competition leaving F-35 last plane standing?

    By DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Shortly before he retired, Pat Finn, the Department of National Defence's procurement chief, told this newspaper there was always a risk that some companies would drop out of the future fighter jet competition but that extra efforts had been made to ensure the process was fair. “We're not getting all kinds of signals that (companies are) losing interest” in bidding, Finn said in an interview July 23. On Aug. 30, the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence and Airbus Defence and Space informed the Canadian government of their decision to withdraw from Canada's future fighter competition. Airbus had been offering Canada the Eurofighter. At the time the Canadian Press news service reported the Eurofighter withdrawal was a surprise. It wasn't. For the last nine months the various competing firms, Boeing, Airbus and Saab have been sounding the alarm about how the fighter jet process is structured and their worry that it is stacked in favour of the Lockheed Martin F-35. The RCAF, which originally selected the F-35 as the CF-18 replacement before that selection was put on hold by the previous Conservative government because of cost and technical issues, came up with the new requirements. Industry representatives say these requirements highlight the strengths of the F-35 such as stealth and a first strike capability. The primary role of the new fighter jets is to protect North America, or so government officials have said. Lockheed Martin's industry rivals question how stealth and a first strike capability fit into that role. Representatives from Lockheed Martin's competitors have also made overtures to federal officials about their concerns about the procurement process but say they received little response. In early July Reuters news service reported that both Airbus and Boeing were considering dropping out. Airbus followed through on its concerns and as noted decided it wasn't worth competing because of how the process was designed. Last year the European firm Dassault informed the Canadian government it would not be competing in the competition. It had been planning to offer Canada the Rafale fighter jet. There were two key changes in the $19 billion procurement that caused Airbus to leave. One was the decision to change the industrial benefits needed for the program. Airbus was willing to outline and guarantee specific industrial benefits for Canada. That was the way previous defence procurements had worked. But that has been changed because of concerns the U.S. government raised for Lockheed Martin. U.S. officials had warned that the F-35 development agreement Canada signed years ago prohibits partners from imposing requirements for industrial benefits. Although Canada is a partner in the development of the aircraft that does not stipulate it is required to buy the F-35. But under the F-35 agreement, partner nations such as Canada are prohibited from demanding domestic companies receive specific work on the fighter jet. Instead, Canadian firms compete and if they are good enough they receive contracts. Over the last 12 years, Canadian firms have earned more than $1.3 billion in contracts to build F-35 parts. But there are no guarantees. The other problem that Airbus and Rafale faced was linked to the requirement that bidders need to show how their aircraft will integrate into the U.S.-Canada system to defend North America. Airbus would have been required to show how it planned to integrate the Eurofighter Typhoon into the U.S.-Canadian system without knowing the system's full technical details, the Canadian Press news service pointed out. Saab, which is offering Canada the Gripen fighter, could be facing the same problem. Boeing, which is considering offering the Super Hornet, would not have such a problem as its aircraft is being flown by the U.S. military. It is still unclear, however, whether Boeing or Saab will even continue in the competition. Bids must be submitted by the spring of 2020 but there is a growing sense among the defence industry that the F-35 will ultimately be selected as the new aircraft for the RCAF. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/will-other-firms-withdraw-from-fighter-jet-competition-leaving-f-35-last-plane-standing

Toutes les nouvelles