31 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial
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.”
27 septembre 2021 | Local, Aérospatial, C4ISR
The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) plans to upgrade some of its ageing Boeing CF-18A Hornets with Raytheon Technologies’ APG-79(V)4 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars.
31 octobre 2018 | Local, Aérospatial
DANIEL LEBLANC Canada has modified the mandatory specifications for its next fleet of fighter jets to make it easier for European manufacturers to qualify for the $26-billion contract and foster more competition among five qualified bidders, federal officials said. Under the previous Conservative government, the requirements for the fighter jets could be met only by the Lockheed-Martin F-35 fighter jet, a stealth aircraft developed by an international coalition of countries including the United States, Britain and Canada. To allow for a competition, the current Liberal government asked National Defence to revise the requirements to allow more companies to qualify for the contract. In a briefing this week, federal officials said the government will give bidders additional leeway to meet the requirements, including those related to Canada's obligations with the United States as part of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). In particular, the requirements for secure communications between Canadian and American aircraft and other military assets were modified to give all potential bidders additional time to meet them. The changes are especially useful to European bidders (Dassault Aviation of France, Sweden's SAAB Aeronautics and British-based Airbus Defence), given that U.S.-based Lockheed-Martin and Boeing already play key roles in the U.S. military. “We obviously have NATO and NORAD commitments, with NORAD probably being the bigger one, which means we have significant security requirements that are Canada-U.S.,” said Pat Finn, the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at National Defence. When federal officials will analyze the various bids, he said, they will not automatically disqualify an aircraft that is unable to immediately meet the security requirements. “We can't have an aircraft that doesn't meet it, but what we've done is we've created the test in a different way ... If your proposal, your aircraft, cannot meet [a requirement] today, we are not saying automatically that you're out; but you have to tell us what is your solution to meet it, at what price and what schedule,” he said on Monday. The federal government said on Monday it was giving six weeks to interested bidders to provide comment on the draft request for proposals (RFP), which lays out all federal requirements for the fighter jets. The formal RFP is scheduled to be released in May, which will mark the launch of the official competition. One expert said American companies still have an advantage over their European rivals. “Whatever aircraft we obtain has to be fully, seamlessly interoperable at the highest levels with the American Air Force and the rest of the U.S. defence establishment, which is going to be tougher for Europeans to do than it would be for the Americans,” said Dave Perry, vice-president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “There's way to do that, but it would also imply additional cost and integration risk." Mr. Perry added he is puzzled by the federal government's assertion that Canada can remain a member of the F-35 development program, while insisting that Lockheed-Martin abide by the federal policy that calls on the winner of the competition to provide regional benefits equal to the full value of the contract. “The most economically efficient way to buy the [F-35] Joint Strike Fighter is to do so as a member of the partnership,” he said. “However, as a condition of being a member, you have to say that you won't apply offsets. I don't really know how the government is squaring those circles at all.” Conservative MP Rob Nicholson said the acquisition process for the new aircraft remains confusing more than three years after the Liberal took office. “The bottom line should be what is best for our Air Force and get on with it,” he said. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-changes-requirements-for-new-fighter-jets-to-help-european/
6 février 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
The delivery dates for new or upgraded equipment, some of which is needed urgently, have been pushed several years into the future by Lee Berthiaume OTTAWA — The Department of National Defence has identified delays in more than 100 planned military purchases and facility upgrades, most of which have flown under the radar as attention has focused on the government's problems buying new fighter jets and warships. While some of the schedule setbacks revealed by the Defence Department are relatively minor, others are significant, with the delivery dates for new or upgraded equipment — some of which is needed urgently — pushed several years into the future. Those include new engineering vehicles and machine-guns for the army, new drones for the navy to hunt mines and satellite hookups for its submarines, and upgrades to the air force's aging fighter-jet and surveillance aircraft fleets. More than half the list of 117 delayed projects is infrastructure projects on military bases, including health facilities, maintenance and storage hangars, armouries and ammunition depots. The list was produced by the Defence Department and recently tabled in the House of Commons in response to a request from the official Opposition Conservatives. Federal officials have to get better at setting “predictable” schedules when it comes to purchasing new equipment, Troy Crosby, whose job as assistant deputy minister of materiel is to oversee procurement at the Defence Department, acknowledged in an interview. Yet Crosby believes much of the frustration around military procurement is the result of unrealistic expectations born of a lack of understanding and appreciation for how the system, which is dealing with more projects than at any time in recent history, actually works. “The complexity of what it takes to bring a new piece of equipment into service is extraordinary, and early, early, early in a process, when we don't even know what it is we're going to buy or from where, there's a lot of uncertainty around those schedules,” he told The Canadian Press. “I think people will understand ... you can't nail a date down to a month in a year specifically. And then if you're two days late or two months late or what have you, are you really late or was there just an amount of uncertainty around those schedules to begin with?” As an example, Crosby pointed to the delayed delivery of new search-and-rescue airplanes, where the air force has been wrangling with the manufacturer Airbus over the level of detail that must be in the aircraft's technical manuals before the military will accept the planes. “Three years into the contract, we're behind 18 days,” he said. “That's not a failure. If the standard is perfection, will defence procurement ever be not broken? I'm not sure. I think you're holding us to a pretty amazing standard.” At the same time, Crosby noted that the air force's Buffalo and Hercules airplanes, which have been performing search-and-rescue missions in Canada for decades, continue to operate despite being long past their replacement dates. “Do we want to get (the Forces) even better equipment so they can be even more effective at the job using modern technology? Yes,” said Crosby. “But the Buffalo and those (search-and-rescue) crews are delivering for Canadians now. So I wouldn't want to leave the impression there that suddenly these capabilities don't work.” Yet there have been several examples in recent years of the military either doing without because equipment got too old to use or the government investing taxpayer dollars to keep old gear going longer than anticipated. Those include the navy having been without destroyers for the past few years, the government spending nearly $700 million to lease a temporary supply ship and plans to spend more than $1 billion to keep CF-18 fighters from the 1980s flying to 2032. While some of those problems were caused by political dithering or mismanagement, they nonetheless underscore the real cost of delays. The list of delayed projects produced by the Defence Department included brief explanations for why each procurement has been delayed. Some, such as the purchase of new machine-guns, related to problems with industry and fell outside government's control. Others were afflicted with unforeseen technical issues and many of the delays were the result of “detailed schedule analysis” by government officials, suggesting the original timeframes were unrealistic or otherwise inaccurate. There were also several delays, such as a plan to upgrade the sensors and weapons on the air force's Griffon helicopters, attributed to a shortage of procurement staff and other internal government resources. Despite the delays, Crosby said he felt military procurement is “in a good place,” listing the recent delivery of new armoured vehicles and trucks for the army and the pending arrival of new Arctic patrol ships for the navy and the search-and-rescue planes for the air force. “A lot is moving out,” he said. “There's a lot of movement.” Conservative defence critic James Bezan, however, suggested the delays were the result of Liberal government mismanagement. “The Trudeau Liberals continue to dither and delay when it comes to procuring new equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces,” he said in an email. “It is clear that the Trudeau Liberals repeatedly fail when it comes to procuring and upgrading equipment for our military heroes.” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's press secretary Floriane Bonneville defended the Liberals' record on procurement. “Overall, 90% of procurements are delivered within their planned scope and budget,” she said in a statement. “Our defence plan, Strong, Secure, Engaged, helps build strong, healthy communities and secures well-paying middle class jobs for Canadians. From boots to ships, we will continue to ensure Canada's military is well-equipped for the task at hand.” https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/more-than-100-military-procurements-facing-delays-defence-department-246478/