Le Canada va acquérir une nouvelle flotte de 88 avions de chasse F-35

Sur le même sujet

• 

  14 novembre 2018 | Local, Aérospatial

  L3 MAS REMPORTE D'AUTRES CONTRATS INTERNATIONAUX SUR DES FLOTTES D'AVIONS F/A-18

  MIRABEL, Québec, 13 novembre 2018 – L3 MAS a aujourd'hui annoncé l'obtention de deux contrats à titre de fournisseur de soutien en service pour le compte d'exploitants de flottes d'avions F/A-18 internationaux. RUAG Aviation a récemment accordé à L3 MAS un contrat de modification préventive de la structure des ailes centrales, à des emplacements jugés à priorité élevée, sur les avions F/A-18 des Forces aériennes suisses (FAS). Ces modifications s'inscrivent dans le programme de remise en état structurale (SRP2) des F/A-18 et font partie de la stratégie visant à s'assurer que la flotte d'avions atteigne en toute sécurité sa durée de vie prévue. L3 MAS a aussi été choisie par l'entreprise Vertex Aerospace LLC, dont le siège social est au Mississippi, afin de réaliser des modifications et des réparations de troisième échelon sur trois avions F/A-18 de la NASA basés au centre de recherche Armstrong Flight Research Center (ARFC) de la Edwards Air Force Base, en Californie. L3 MAS effectuera tous les travaux sur les avions dans ses installations de Mirabel. « Nous sommes ravis de continuer à développer nos relations avec RUAG Aviation, le plus important fournisseur des FAS, et de compter la NASA (par l'intermédiaire de Vertex Aerospace LLC) parmi nos nombreux clients internationaux exploitants des flottes de F/A-18. Ces contrats constituent une preuve indéniable de la confiance que témoigne la communauté internationale de F/A-18 envers L3 MAS en tant que Centre d'excellence en avions de chasse », a affirmé Jacques Comtois, vice-président et directeur général de L3 MAS. « Notre entreprise bénéficie de compétences uniques et éprouvées, d'outils ainsi que d'un personnel expérimenté qui nous permettent d'offrir des services de classe mondiale et une valeur ajoutée aux exploitants d'avions de chasse. » L3 MAS est un chef de file mondial dans le développement et la mise en oeuvre de solutions structurales pour les F/A-18, ayant déjà exécuté des programmes structuraux majeurs pour l'Aviation royale canadienne et la Royal Australian Air Force, et assistant d'autres opérateurs dont les FAS, la Finnish Air Force, la US Navy et la NASA. À propos de L3 MAS L3 MAS, une division du segment d'affaires L3 ISR Systems, est le plus important intégrateur canadien de soutien en service (SES). L3 MAS offre des solutions innovatrices et intégrées qui couvrent l'éventail complet des activités de SES, notamment la gestion de flotte et la planification de la maintenance annuelle et son optimisation, la gestion du cycle de vie du matériel (GCVM), le soutien logistique intégré, les environnements d'information électroniques, l'ingénierie de systèmes, la gestion du matériel, la gestion de la configuration, les publications et la gestion de données. De plus, L3 MAS est reconnue pour ses activités de conception, de prototypage, de fabrication, de réparation et révision et de certification de composants aéronautiques. Le siège social de l'entreprise est situé à Mirabel, au Québec. Plus de 800 personnes sont employées dans les divers centres d'exploitation à travers le Canada. Pour en apprendre davantage sur L3 MAS, visitez le site Internet de l'entreprise au www.L3T.com/mas. À propos de L3 Technologies L3 Technologies est un chef de file novateur et agile qui fournit des systèmes globaux de RSR et des systèmes de communication en réseau et d'électronique destinés aux clients des secteurs militaire, de la sécurité intérieure et de l'aviation commerciale. L3, dont le siège social se trouve à New York, compte environ 31 000 employés à travers le monde et conçoit des technologies de défense et des solutions commerciales avancées en matière de formation des pilotes, de sécurité aérienne, de vision nocturne et d'EO/IR, d'armes, de systèmes maritimes et d'espace. L'entreprise a enregistré des ventes de 9,6 milliards de dollars en 2017. Pour en apprendre davantage sur L3, visitez le site Internet de l'entreprise au www.L3T.com. https://www.aeromontreal.ca/L3MAS-remporte-contrats-internationaux-F18.html

• 

  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

• 

  25 mai 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Defence procurement won't be so easy to cut in a time of COVID-19

  As governments around the world reassess national security, Ottawa could find it harder to delay plans for new ships, helicopters and fighter jets. Jeffrey F. Collins May 22, 2020 A few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the first signs of impact on Canada's defence procurement plans are showing. The government has been following an ambitious multi-decade blueprint, starting in 2010, to kick-start the domestic shipbuilding sector, but some yards have had to scale back their workforces under public health orders. What this means for the National Shipbuilding Strategy and its more than $85 billion (by my calculations) in ongoing and planned construction of large ships is as yet unclear. The $19-billion Future Fighter Capability project, designed to replace the four-decade-old CF-18 fighter with 88 new jets, could also be affected. Government officials were adamant until early May that the June submission deadline for bids remained unchanged — before granting a 30-day extension. But with industry and public sector workers largely stuck at home, it is difficult to see how even the new July deadline can be met. In earlier times of economic strain, Ottawa found defence spending an easy target for cuts. This time could be different, as governments around the world reassess what national security means and how best to achieve it. Heading into 2020, things were still looking up for the capital spending plans of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The Trudeau government's 2017 Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) defence policy had allocated $108 billion in capital expenditures over a 20-year timeframe, 2017-37. Then came the pandemic. There were more than a million job losses in March alone, and as of early May, the Parliamentary Budget Office was predicting a $1-trillion debt by 2021. Given the rapid drop in both domestic and global consumer demand, the price collapse in the country's key commodity, oil, and the accompanying decline in the Canadian dollar, the country is now in a recession for an unknown period. If past is prologue and the virus persists without a vaccine for the foreseeable future, the likelihood of the government delaying or cancelling projects or trimming its orders for ships and planes is growing. When faced with economic pains in the past, federal governments scaled back procurement plans. The staggering debt and deficit in the late 1980s and 1990s led the Brian Mulroney government to drop its ambitious bid to acquire up to a dozen nuclear submarines in 1989, a mere two years after announcing the project in the 1987 defence White Paper. In 1993 the Jean Chrétien government infamously scrapped the contract to replace the 1960s-vintage Sea King helicopter (at a cost of $478 million in penalties). The following year's defence White Paper outlined $15 billion in delays, reductions and cancellations to the DND's procurement budget; this was in addition to large-scale base closures and 20 percent reductions in both CAF regular force personnel and the overall defence budget. The ostensibly pro-military Stephen Harper Conservatives announced 20-year funding plans, as ambitious as the SSE, in the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy but deviated from them in the aftermath of the 2008-09 global recession. With a goal of returning to balanced budgets after $47 billion in stimulus spending, the Harper government delayed or cut over $32 billion in planned procurement spending and laid off 400 personnel from DND's procurement branch. Among the casualties was the army's $2.1-billion close-combat vehicle. There are several reasons why this pattern has repeated itself, but two stand out. First, defence is a tempting target for any government belt-tightening drive, typically accounting for a large share of discretionary federal spending. With most federal money going to individual citizens (employment insurance, pensions, tax benefits) and provinces (health and social transfers), there simply is little fiscal room left outside of defence. To remove money from these politically popular programs is to risk voter resentment and the ire of provincial governments. In short, when past federal governments confronted a choice between cutting tanks and cutting transfers, they cut the tanks. Second, Canada's geostrategic position has helped. Sitting securely atop North America in alliance with the world's pre-eminent superpower has meant, in the words of a defence minister under Pierre Trudeau, Donald Macdonald, that “there is no obvious level for defence expenditures” in Canada. Meeting the terms of our alliances with the United States and NATO means that Canada has to do its part in securing the northern half of the continent and contributing to military operations overseas, but generally in peacetime Ottawa has a lot of leeway in deciding what to spend on defence, even if allies growl and complain. Yet it is this same geostrategic position that may lessen the impact of any cuts related to COVID-19. Unlike the Mulroney and Chrétien governments, who made their decisions amid the end of Cold War tensions, or the Harper government, which was withdrawing from the combat mission in Afghanistan, this government must make its choices in an international security environment that is becoming more volatile. The spread of the virus has amplified trade and military tensions between the world's two superpowers and weakened bonds among European Union member states as they fight to secure personal protective equipment and stop the contagion at their borders. Governments worldwide are now unabashedly protectionist in their efforts to prevent the export of medical equipment and vital materials. As supply chains fray, pressures mount for each country to have a “sovereign” industrial capability, including in defence. In fact, the Trump administration has turned to the 1950 Defense Production Act to direct meatpacking plants to remain open or to restrict the export of health products (three million face masks bound for Canada were held up, then released). The pandemic is intensifying the Trump administration's skepticism of alliances and international institutions; in late March, there was even discussion of stationing US troops near the Canadian border (the plan was eventually abandoned). Smaller powers like Canada that have traditionally relied on American security guarantees will have to maintain their defence spending, or even increase it, as they try to strengthen old alliances and create new ones. As Timothy Choi, a naval expert at the University of Calgary, has told me, an irony of the pandemic is that it may see the National Shipbuilding Strategy become a “major destination for stimulus spending in times of recession.” Either way, by the time the pandemic subsides, Canadians may yet find out that there is indeed an “obvious level” to defence spending. This article is part of the The Coronavirus Pandemic: Canada's Response special feature. Photo: The Halifax-class navy frigate HMCS Fredericton in the waters of Istanbul Strait, Turkey. Shutterstock.com, by Arkeonaval. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2020/defence-procurement-wont-be-so-easy-to-cut-in-a-time-of-covid-19/