25 avril 2023 | Local, Autre défense
Giant ammunition dump to be built on farm originally expropriated for JTF2
The installation could have as many as 26 buildings, but the scope of the project is still being worked out by National Defence.
17 décembre 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
Matt Gurney: Supporting local industry shouldn't be the first consideration in military procurement
Rather than worrying about where things are built, a better question is: will Canadian soldiers be properly equipped? That's all that matters
Matt Gurney
Dec 16, 2020 • Last Updated 22 hours ago • 5 minute read
It is almost a truism in Canadian public policy: We are terrible at military procurement.
You hear that often. I've said it often. But it really isn't true. We only think we're terrible at military procurement because we are confused about what we're trying to do. Our military procurements are not about actually procuring equipment for the military. They're about creating jobs and catapulting huge sums of money into key ridings across the country.
Once you shift your perspective and look at it that way, you realize very quickly that our military procurement system is amazing. It bats a thousand. The problem isn't with the system. We've just labelled it badly. If it were called the Domestic Defence Industry Subsidy Program instead of our military procurement system, we'd all be hailing it as a shining example of a Canadian public policy triumph.
This is terrible. It has cost us the lives of our soldiers, and probably will again. But it's undeniable. Canadian politicians, Liberals and Conservatives alike, have long had the luxury of seeing defence as a cash pool, not a solemn obligation. And they sure have enjoyed that pleasure.
Two recent stories by my colleague David Pugliese for the Ottawa Citizen have explored this theme: Our efforts to replace our fleet of frigates with 15 newer, more powerful ships is turning predictably complicated. The 15 new combat ships are part of a major overhaul of the Canadian fleet, which was neglected for many years and now must be modernized all at once. In February of 2019, the government chose American defence giant Lockheed Martin to produce the ships in Canada, using a British design. (How Anglosphere of us.) Companies that weren't selected to be part of the construction or fitting out of the ships are unhappy, Pugliese noted, and aren't bothering to hide it, even though they've abandoned their legal challenges.
The sniping has continued, though, with spurned industry figures talking to the media about problems with the program. Jody Thomas, deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, reportedly told industry leaders to knock it off. “There's too much noise,” she reportedly said, adding that it was making the job of getting the new fleet built “very difficult.”
Some of Thomas's irritation is undoubtedly the automatic hostility to scrutiny, transparency and accountability that's far too common for Canadian officials — our bureaucrats are notoriously prone to trying to keep stuff tucked neatly out of public view. But some of what Thomas said is absolutely bang-on accurate: Defence industry companies know full well that the government mainly views military procurement as a jobs-creation program, so are understandably put out to not get what they think is their fair share.
Some Canadian companies have designed and developed critical communication and sensor gear for modern warships, Pugliese noted. This gear was developed with taxpayer assistance and has proven successful in service with allied fleets, but was not chosen for the new Canadian ships. And this is, the companies believe, a problem. Why aren't Canadian ships using Canadian-made gear?
It's a good question, until you think about it for a moment. Then you realize that the better question is this: will the Canadian ships be properly equipped?
That's it. That's all that matters.
Will the new ships be capable of doing the things we need them to do? If yes, then who cares where we got the gear? And if no, well, again — then who cares where we got the gear? The important thing isn't where the comm equipment and sensors were designed and built. It's that the systems work when our ships are heading into harm's way. Assuming we have many viable options to choose from, then there are plenty of good ways of making the choice — cost, proven reliability, familiarity to Canadian crews, and, sure, even whether it was made in Canada.
But supporting the local industry needs to be the last thing on the list. This stuff is essential. The lives of our sailors may depend on it working when needed. Cost matters, too, of course, because if the gear is too pricey, we won't have enough of it, but effectiveness and reliability are first.
Treating military procurement as just another federal jobs-creation program is engrained in our national thinking
But we talk about them last. Because we value it least. There probably is some value in preserving our ability to produce some essential military equipment here in Canada. The scramble earlier this year to equip our frontline medical workers with personal protective equipment is instructive. In a war, whether against a virus or a human enemy, you can't count on just buying your N-95 masks, or your torpedoes and missiles, from your normal suppliers. Unless Canada somehow gets itself into a shooting war without any of our allies in our corner, any time we are suddenly scrambling to arm up, our much larger allies are probably also scrambling to arm up, and they'll simply outbid us. (See again our current efforts to procure vaccines for an example of this unfolding in real time.)
But we aren't at war now, and we can buy the damn ships from anyone. To the government's credit, it seems to be doing this; the pushback against the program seems mostly rooted in the government's decision to let the U.S.-British consortium chosen to build the new ships equip them as they see fit. The program may well derail at some point — this is always a safe bet with Canadian shipbuilding — but insofar as at least this part of the process goes, we're doing it partially right. Yes, we're insisting on building the ships here, but we aren't getting picky about the equipment that goes into them. That's probably wise.
But that's about as far as the wisdom goes. Treating military procurement as just another federal jobs-creation program is engrained in our national thinking. It would have been good if COVID had knocked a bit of sense into us and forced us to, at long last, grow up a bit. But no dice. Oh well. Maybe next time.
Sur le même sujet
-
-
20 septembre 2021 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
Canada caught off guard by new security pact between U.S., Australia and Britain
ROBERT FIFEOTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF STEVEN CHASESENIOR PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER OTTAWA PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 17, 2021 The Canadian government was surprised this week by the announcement of a new security pact between the United States, Britain and Australia, one that excluded Canada and is aimed at confronting China's growing military and political influence in the Indo-Pacific region, according to senior government officials. Three officials, representing Canada's foreign affairs, intelligence and defence departments, told The Globe and Mail that Ottawa was not consulted about the pact, and had no idea the trilateral security announcement was coming until it was made on Wednesday by U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The defence ministers from the U.K. and Australia reached out to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan to inform him of the decision shortly before the late-afternoon announcement. Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau received a call from his Australian counterpart. Daniel Minden, a spokesperson for Mr. Sajjan, said Ottawa had been kept in the loop on talks between the countries. One of the Canadian officials referred to the pact as the new “Three Eyes” and said it's clear that Canada's closest allies consider Ottawa to be a “weak sister” when it comes to standing up to China. The Globe and Mail is not identifying the officials because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Three Eyes is a reference to what is becoming a smaller club within the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance, which includes the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The Five Eyes pact dates back about 75 years. Members share signals intelligence gleaned from intercepted communications, as well as military intelligence and intelligence gathered directly from human sources. The new trilateral alliance, dubbed AUKUS, after the initials of the three countries, will allow for greater sharing of information in areas such as artificial intelligence and cyber and underwater defence capabilities. The U.S. and U.K. have also agreed to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines, which would allow it to conduct longer undersea patrols. Australia will become only the second country, after Britain in 1958, to be given access to U.S. nuclear propulsion technology. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday played down Canada's exclusion from the Indo-Pacific security deal, saying it is merely a way for the U.S. to sell nuclear submarines to Australia. Speaking to reporters in Montreal, Mr. Trudeau said Canada will still have access to defence and intelligence sharing as a member of the Five Eyes alliance. “We continue to be strong members of the Five Eyes,” he said. “This is a deal for nuclear submarines, which Canada is not currently or any time soon in the market for. Australia is.” Retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who once commanded the Royal Canadian Navy, said Canada should have been part of this defence pact, which he described as a “somewhat unprecedented” trilateral arrangement. He said he was surprised to hear Mr. Trudeau play down the pact as merely a submarine purchase deal. “I think it's misleading and concerning ... I would like to believe he was poorly briefed by his staff,” Mr. Norman said. The retired naval flag officer said that, if Mr. Trudeau was fully briefed, “he doesn't understand what is going on internationally and he doesn't understand what the significance of an arrangement like this is as it relates to international security.” He said the agreement goes far beyond access to U.S. submarine technology. “This is about accessing both current and emerging technologies, from cyber and artificial intelligence, to acoustics and underwater warfare – a whole range of very important strategic capabilities.” Mr. Norman said Canada has many national interests in the Indo-Pacific – including trade, promoting the rule of law and democracy, and countering China's aggressive behaviour and posturing – but he suspects close allies do not take Canadian defence commitments seriously. “I don't think our allies think we are serious when it comes to defence. I think they have concerns not just about our defence expenditures, but also the extent to which our [international] commitments are both lasting and meaningful,” he said. Stephanie Carvin, a former national security analyst and an associate professor of international relations at Carleton University, said the U.S.-U.K.-Australia defence pact is the latest evolution of military and intelligence co-operation between those three countries. “Three Eyes is very real,” Prof. Carvin said. “Australia is strategic in making its presence known in Washington, arguably much more than Canada despite it being geographically closer.” She said Canada not being a part of the new agreement is consistent with the country's low engagement in the Indo-Pacific. “We haven't been part of a military alliance in the Pacific since the Korean War. And the government has never addressed the question of if this is still the correct security posture.” The leaders of the Conservative and New Democratic parties criticized Mr. Trudeau for Canada's exclusion from the pact. AUKUS, they said, could put added pressure on China to respect international norms and rein in its expansionism. “This is another example that Mr. Trudeau is not taken seriously by our friends and allies around the world,” Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole told reporters at a campaign stop on Thursday. “Canada is becoming more irrelevant under Mr. Trudeau.” Mr. O'Toole said he would seek to join the new Indo-Pacific security arrangement if the Conservatives are elected on Monday. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, speaking to reporters on Thursday, questioned whether Mr. Trudeau had given serious thought to the importance of the new trilateral pact while preoccupied with campaigning. By joining this arrangement, Canada could have ratcheted up pressure on China to free Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, Mr. Singh said. “The pact seems like a potential avenue to add more pressure [on China]. Canada was absent. Another reason why this election should not have been called,” Mr. Singh told reporters. The U.S., U.K., Australia and Indo-Pacific countries have been growing alarmed about how Beijing is rapidly modernizing its armed forces and increasing its military presence in the disputed waters of the South China Sea and the East China Sea. China reacted harshly to the new partnership. The three countries are “severely damaging regional peace and stability,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian. White House spokesperson Jen Psaki defended the U.S. decision, saying “we do not seek conflict with China.” Instead, she said, this is “about security in the Indo-Pacific.” The submarine deal also represented a blow for France, because Australia intends to tear up a $40-billion agreement to buy French conventional submarines. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian called the loss of the deal a “stab in the back.” Speaking at a news conference after meetings between the U.S. and Australian foreign and defence ministers in Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said France remains a “vital partner” in the Indo-Pacific region. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadian-government-surprised-by-new-indo-pacific-security-pact/
-
13 février 2019 | Local, Aérospatial
Les premiers F-18 australiens usagés arriveront au Canada dans les prochains jours
Ottawa commencera à prendre possession des avions de chasse d'occasion australiens dès la mi-février, a appris Radio-Canada. Deux F-18 sont attendus à la base de Cold Lake en Alberta. Et tout indique que le reste des 25 appareils achetés par le Canada sera livré... par avion. Un texte de Marc Godbout La livraison commencera le 16 février, confirment des sources proches du dossier. C'est quelques semaines plus tôt que prévu. Deux des F-18 australiens que doit recevoir le Canada se trouvent au Nevada, aux États-Unis. Les chasseurs participent à un entraînement aérien et se poseront par la suite à Cold Lake. La Défense nationale ne veut pas dévoiler la date de leur arrivée au pays, mais confirme que les deux appareils sont dans la région de Las Vegas. Les deux premiers appareils devraient arriver ce mois-ci. Ils devraient être intégrés aux opérations plus tard cette année. Ashley Lemire, ministère de la Défense nationale Une fois à la base de Cold Lake, les deux avions de chasse de l'Australie seront confiés au Centre d'essais techniques de l'Aviation royale canadienne pour y subir des évaluations. Ils seront par la suite reconfigurés. Et 18 appareils viendront compléter la flotte actuelle de CF-18, les autres seront utilisés pour des pièces de remplacement et la formation des mécaniciens et des techniciens. Livraison par avion? Selon nos informations, le scénario privilégié par Ottawa pour apporter ces avions de chasse au Canada n'est pas de les faire voler de leurs propres ailes, mais de les transporter à bord d'un avion-cargo. Des sources ont indiqué à Radio-Canada que la Défense nationale souhaite « très sérieusement » noliser un appareil Antonov qui peut transporter deux appareils à la fois. Les avions de chasse seraient livrés à Mirabel, où se trouvent les installations de l'entreprise L3 MAS qui devra assurer l'entretien des F-18 australiens. Faire voler ce type d'avion de chasse coûte au minimum 30 000 $ de l'heure. Les placer dans un Antonov permettrait d'éviter, par exemple, de nombreux ravitaillements en carburant entre l'Australie et le Canada. Mais cette solution serait-elle plus rentable? Le ministère de la Défense nationale refuse de confirmer quoi que ce soit. « La méthode de livraison pour les autres aéronefs doit encore être confirmée », précise Ashley Lemire, dans une réponse écrite. « Les livraisons d'avions restants d'Australie auront lieu à intervalles réguliers jusqu'à la fin de 2021 », ajoute-t-elle. Dans la capitale australienne, Canberra, on ne veut rien dévoiler. « Les conditions de vente des aéronefs et des articles associés, y compris les informations sur les aéronefs et les calendriers de livraison, sont traitées à titre confidentiel », explique le ministère de la Défense. Plus tôt dans son mandat, le gouvernement Trudeau avait opté pour une solution provisoire, soit l'achat de 18 nouveaux chasseurs Super Hornet de Boeing. Mais dans la foulée du conflit commercial entre le géant américain et Bombardier, Ottawa avait plutôt opté pour la solution australienne. Le programme coûtera 500 millions de dollars, dont 90 millions pour l'achat des appareils. La saga inachevée En campagne électorale, les libéraux de Justin Trudeau avaient voulu se dissocier du plan conservateur d'acquérir les coûteux F-35. Dans leur programme, ils s'étaient engagés à « lancer immédiatement un appel d'offres ouvert et transparent pour remplacer les CF-18 ». Or, le gouvernement n'a toujours pas demandé officiellement aux grands joueurs de l'industrie de soumissionner pour livrer les 88 nouveaux avions de chasse. Il ne devrait enclencher cette étape qu'au printemps, à quelques mois des élections, de sorte que le Canada n'aura pas de nouveaux chasseurs avant au moins 2025. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1151514/avions-f-18-australie-canada-cold-lake-appareil