30 mai 2024 | Local, Aérospatial

Exclusive: To help Airbus, Macron pressed Canada to ease Russia titanium sanctions

Sur le même sujet

  • Scheer rolls out an ambitious defence agenda, but critics ask: Where's the money?

    8 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

    Scheer rolls out an ambitious defence agenda, but critics ask: Where's the money?

    Murray Brewster · CBC News A little joke used to make its way around the Harper Conservative government every time National Defence presented Andrew Scheer's former boss with the bills for new equipment — about how Stephen Harper would emit an audible 'gulp' of alarm when they crossed his desk. Scheer, in the first of a series of election-framing speeches for the Conservatives, pledged yesterday to wrap his arms around Canada's allies, take the politics out of defence procurement, buy new submarines, join the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and expand the current military mission in Ukraine in an undefined way. What was absent from the Conservative leader's speech — a greatest-hits medley of road-tested Conservative policy favourites, blended with jabs at the Trudeau government's record — was an answer to the first question his supporters usually ask on these occasions: How are you going to pay for it? Deficit hawk or defence hawk? The Liberals have set the federal government on course to increase defence spending by 70 per cent by 2027. The cost of what Scheer is proposing — submarines and missile defence — would have to be shoehorned into that framework somehow. Either that, or he'd have to radically redesign the current defence spending program. Scheer's speech was greeted with raised eyebrows by more than one defence sector observer. "When he starts talking about deficits, you can kiss all that goodbye," said Stephen Saideman, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University. "In other speeches, he talked about being a deficit hawk. That would have real implications for the defence stuff." The Harper government increased defence spending during the Afghan war and made a series of promises to revitalize the military, but ended up cutting its budget and postponing projects in order to eliminate the deficit. 'Harper all over again' Saideman said Scheer's speech did not offer an ironclad guarantee that he'd avoid doing the same thing, and was even inaccurate in its characterization of the Liberals' record on defence spending. A full half to two-thirds of the defence and foreign policy vision Scheer laid out, he said, was "Harper all over again" — but with some surprising differences. His embrace of allies was much warmer than it was with the previous Conservative crowd, which tended to look upon NATO with a jaundiced eye. "I will reinvigorate Canada's role in the alliances we share with our democratic allies. This includes existing alliances like NORAD, NATO, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie and the Five Eyes, but it will also include overtures to India and Japan," Scheer said. He also pledged a Conservative government would do more in Eastern Europe. "This will include expanding upon the current missions to support Ukraine and providing Ukraine's military with the equipment they need to defend their borders," said the Conservative leader. Scheer didn't say in his speech what he wants Canada to do in Eastern Europe that it isn't doing now — short of putting combat troops on the front line of Ukraine's breakaway eastern districts, or selling offensive weapons to Kiev. Scheer did promise to take the lead on a potential United Nations peacekeeping mission, a proposal that has been out there in the international community for months and has largely gone nowhere. Other ideas that often go nowhere filled out the rest of Scheer's speech — like the promise of a fix for the Canadian military's complex, cumbersome system for buying equipment. Politicians are to blame, Scheer said. "Military procurement in Canada is hyper-politicized, to our detriment," he said. "By playing politics with these matters, governments have diminished the important responsibility to adequately and expediently equip the Armed Forces." To accept that argument, one must set aside his party's favourite rallying cry during the politically blistering F-35 debate of half a dozen years ago: If you don't support the plane, you don't support the troops. Politics-free procurement? Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia defence policy expert, said removing politics from procurement decisions would be a fantastic step forward, one that could save taxpayers boatloads of money by doing away with pet projects and regional interests. "It's an admirable goal, but he would be the first prime minister ever to take the politics out of defence procurement," he said. "So, I'm skeptical about whether he would actually do so ... I take that statement with a very large grain of salt." The absence of a clear fiscal pledge also troubles Byers, who noted that replacing Canada's Victoria-class submarines with either German or Swedish-built boats would be expensive. So would participation in ballistic missile defence, which has various levels of participation from research and development all the way up to anti-missile radar and batteries. It is, he said, all about the dollars. "I think that when we talk about defence spending and defence budgets, we have to talk about real money going out the door in terms of signed contracts," said Byers. "And neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have been able to deliver much in the way of signed contracts for the last 20 years." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-rolls-out-an-ambitious-defence-agenda-but-critics-ask-where-s-the-money-1.5127028

  • FrontLine: Who's Where?

    29 octobre 2018 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    FrontLine: Who's Where?

    DND Ombudsman, Management & Program Consultants, L3 Technologies, Ultra Electronics, CAF/NATO. https://defence.frontline.online/article/2018/5/10562-Who%27s-Where%3F

  • Fighter RFP delayed again pending official review of industrial benefits policy

    31 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

    Fighter RFP delayed again pending official review of industrial benefits policy

    by Ken Pole Shortly before Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced on May 29 that a formal request for proposals (RFP) to supply 88 new Canadian fighter jets would be delayed again — this time to mid-July — two potential contenders said that a proposal to scrap the customary industrial benefits element of the procurement is problematic. Jim Barnes, director of Business Development in Canada for Boeing Defense, Space & Security and Roger Schallom, the company's St. Louis-based vice-president of International Business Development, along with Patrick Palmer, vice-president and head of Sales at Saab Canada Inc., expressed their common concern during briefings at CANSEC, the annual Ottawa trade show organized by the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). Boeing's contender to replace the RCAF's legacy fleet of CF-188 Hornets is the F/A-18 Super Hornet, while Saab's is the JAS 39 Gripen (the company had a full-scale replica parked front-and-centre outside CANSEC's main entrance). The other contenders are Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and Airbus Military's Eurofighter Typhoon. Barring any further hiccups in a program fraught with political indecision and already years behind the original schedule, the RFP process overseen by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is expected to lead to two finalists being chosen next year with a view to making a final selection in 2022. The government had been expected to issue its RFP by May 31 after years of indecision, but that latest deadline in the troubled procurement was postponed as officials at DND, PSPC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada review the industrial benefits element. “This is proof that your feedback is heard and acted upon,” Sajjan told the CANSEC audience. The proposed industrial benefits change was disclosed earlier this month by Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), an Ottawa-based think tank. He said in a report published by the MLI (May 6) that the Canadian government was yielding to pressure from the United States by changing the long-established requirement that companies bidding for contracts agree to investing an equivalent amount in Canada. The fighter procurement, including in-service support, is expected to cost at least $18 billion. Shimooka cited letters from U.S. officials that indicate “resentment and distrust towards the government of Canada had grown, particularly within the U.S. Air Force.” The letters evidently focused on the “significant strategic and economic benefits that have already been accrued from being part of the JSF program.” However, he added, the letters also contained “an implicit (but clear) threat that Canada could be kicked out of the program if Ottawa continues with its current policy of trying to obtain guaranteed industrial benefits that, by their very nature, are not allowed under the JSF Program. . . . There was a complete lack of logic of Canada's policy, which seemed to ignore basic facts about membership in the JSF program, including clear advantages in cost and capability that the F-35 provided.” In his CANSEC briefing, Barnes admitted to having been “surprised by the recommended changes” in the shift in the long-standing requirement. “That policy's been in place for decades and it's been very successful for Canadian industry,” he replied, questioning what he called the government's decision to “accommodate a competitor.” Schallom added that adhering to the historic requirement for direct industrial offsets, rather than simply offering “non-binding” bidding opportunities on future contracts, would be better for Canada's economy over the expected 30 years or more of the new fighter program. “You're probably missing out on $30 billion-plus in guaranteed work.” Saab's Palmer echoed that position 30 minutes later, saying that he is concerned that the “non-binding requirement may not necessarily give Canadians the best value over the long term,” but, “until we see the final RFP (request for proposals), I'll reserve final judgment.” However, when asked how Saab had responded formally to the proposed change on industrial benefits, he said, “We've asked them for some more information as it relates to the specifics of how items are going to be measured,” but had “definitely indicated that it doesn't necessarily encourage the best solution for Canada at the end of the day.” https://www.skiesmag.com/news/fighter-rfp-delayed-again-pending-official-review-of-industrial-benefits-policy

Toutes les nouvelles