11 juin 2021 | Local, Naval

Military to build $65M facility at Hartlen Point to test new warship systems | CBC News

A $65-million facility to test new warships systems will be the only one of its kind in Canada, say military officials.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/warship-systems-test-facility-hartlen-point-1.6058990

Sur le même sujet

  • Russia’s Arctic Agenda and the Role of Canada

    16 avril 2020 | Local, Naval

    Russia’s Arctic Agenda and the Role of Canada

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 17 Issue: 51 By: Sergey Sukhankin April 15, 2020 05:24 PM Age: 14 mins New research (which includes two articles written by Russian experts) published by the prominent think tank the Canadian Global Affairs Institute has spurred interest and hopes in Russia's expert community about the possibility of normalizing ties between Russia and Canada through cooperation in the Arctic region (Russiancouncil.ru, April 3; Cgai.ca, accessed April 12). This cooperation could potentially be premised on two main pillars. First would be the mutual rejection of “internationalization” of the Arctic. Both Canada and Russia—for whom the Arctic region is an issue of foreign policy (Russiancouncil.ru, July 1, 2019) —feel ill at ease with the increasing involvement of non-Arctic states in the region, particularly, China. Russian information outlets noted the level of distress when the Chinese icebreaker Snow Dragon completed its first-ever voyage through the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Canada, accumulating “a wealth of experience for Chinese ships going through the Northwest Passage in the future” (Regnum, September 17, 2017; see EDM, October 3, 2017). Second, Moscow seeks to exploit regional frictions and disagreements between Canada and the United States (Pentagonus.ru, accessed April 10) to boost its own position/influence in the region. Russian sources recall the year 2010, when then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly challenged Canada's stance on the status of the Northwest Passage, which Ottawa considers part of Canadian territory (Foreignpolicy.ru, February 20, 2015). In the past, both the Russian tone and general assessment of Canada's role in the Arctic were denigrating, claiming Ottawa lacked agency. Perhaps the clearest expression of this sentiment came from the director of the Institute of Strategic Planning and Forecasting, Professor Alexander Gusev, who, in 2015, declared that “they [Canada] are only performing the role assigned by the US” (Odnako.org, March 30, 2015). After 2016, however, Russia dramatically changed its coverage of the US-Canadian dispute in the Arctic region, with Moscow increasingly employing reconciliatory rhetoric toward Ottawa and employing ever more assertive public diplomacy tools. One notable example of this new approach is Moscow's reliance on pro-Russian experts based in Canada. In 2016, speaking in Sochi, on the margins of that year's Valdai Club session, Professor Piotr Dutkiewicz (a former director of the Institute of European and Russian Studies at Carleton University, in Ottawa) stated, “[T]his area [the Arctic region] will be the first one where we will feel real changes in our relations... Arctic cooperation will become the focal point thanks to which our two sides [Canada and Russia] will be extending their areas of collaboration” (Izvestia, October 28, 2016). Moreover, as repeatedly stated by Federation Council member Igor Chernyshenko (a senator from Murmansk Oblast), the Arctic region could become a “bridge,” helping Canada and Russia overcome the existing difficulties in their bilateral ties. Last May, he announced, “[W]e invited them [the Canadian side] to return to a dialogue. We proposed holding a conference between Russian and Canadian universities in northwest Russia, maybe in Murmansk Oblast. They supported this idea” (TASS, May 25, 2019). Notably, the last such event was held in November 2014, in Canada, hosted by the aforementioned Carleton University. In addition to trying to foster bilateral academic ties, Russia's outreach to Canada on Arctic issues involves sustained information campaigns via RT and similar multi-language information outlets with international reach. In particular, Russian propaganda narratives routinely overemphasize the extent of current US-Canadian disagreements in the Arctic. At the same time, foreign-audience-facing Kremlin-linked media outlets underscore the allegedly negative role of President Donald Trump (and his policies toward Canada) in aggravating the existing disputes. RT widely claimed that “after Trump's inauguration, he began pressing Ottawa on economic issues and extended claims on Canadian possessions in the Arctic region.” It also highlighted US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo's remarks suggesting that “Russia is not the only country with illegitimate claims [in the Arctic] ...the US has a lasting dispute with Canada over its claims on sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. Finally, RT's propaganda reporting also relied on a statement by Pavel Feldman, the deputy director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Forecasts at the Moscow-based Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN). Feldman is quoted as saying, “[T]he US and Canada carry on a heated competition over the Arctic region; yet, publicly, these countries are trying to position themselves as partners” (RT, October 16, 2019). In recent months, this increasing Russian attention to Canada as an Arctic power and a key element of regional stability and order has started to be expressed at the highest levels in Moscow. Poignantly, President Vladimir Putin declared in a public address at the start of this year that Russia “is open to cooperation with Canada on the basis of mutual respect and consideration of each other's interest.” Putin added, “[O]ur countries are neighbors in the Arctic region and bear joint responsibility for the development of this vast region, for preservation of the traditional lifestyle of its native populations and the careful treatment of its brittle ecosystem” (Vzglyad, February 5, 2020). Such reconciliatory rhetoric should, however, be taken with a heavy dose of caution in Ottawa: from the earliest days of the Soviet Union, Moscow's stance on the Arctic region has been deliberately flexible and tightly premised on being able to demonstrate its military potential in the High North and to intimidate other regional players. The Russian Federation has increasingly undertaken the same policy course since 2014 (see EDM, April 9). Incidentally, on January 31, 2020, two Russian Tu-160 heavy strategic bombers approached Canadian airspace—maneuvers that the Russian Ministry of Defense explained away as “planned exercises” (Vpk.name, February 3). It is worth pointing out that the US North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is unable to identify and track Russian bombers of this type until they are close enough to launch missiles at targets on the continent. Furthermore, it is worth keeping in mind that, in fact, Russia (not the US) is Canada's direct competitor when it comes to territorial claims in the Arctic (the Lomonosov Ridge)—a point explicitly corroborated by Russia's Arktika 2007 expedition, which explored this disputed undersea area and famously planted a Russian flag at the North Pole, on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean (Izvestia, August 3, 2007). Lastly, it may be worth keeping an eye on one of the proposed amendments (soon to be officially adopted) to the Russian Constitution on the “prohibition of actions related to the alienation of Russian territory, or the propaganda thereof” (TASS, February 25). This amendment—reportedly drafted with predominantly Kaliningrad and Vladivostok in mind—is likely to also be applied to some Arctic territories that are of equally strategic interest to Canada. https://jamestown.org/program/russias-arctic-agenda-and-the-role-of-canada/

  • Snowbirds won't take flight as military investigators look into cause of crash

    3 août 2022 | Local, Aérospatial

    Snowbirds won't take flight as military investigators look into cause of crash

    There is no timeline for how long the aircraft will be on the sidelines, according to the Department of National Defence

  • U.S. threatens to pull F-35 from jet competition over industrial requirements

    7 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

    U.S. threatens to pull F-35 from jet competition over industrial requirements

    By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press OTTAWA — U.S. officials have threatened to pull the F-35 out of the competition to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's aging CF-18 fighters over the Liberal government's plan to ask bidders to re-invest some of the giant purchase contract in Canadian industry. The warnings are in two letters sent to the government last year and obtained by defence analyst Richard Shimooka. They were released in a report published Monday by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank. They say the requirement is incompatible with Canada's obligations as a member of the group of countries working together to develop the F-35 stealth fighter in the first place. While the re-investment requirement is standard for most Canadian military procurements, the U.S. officials note Canada agreed not to include it when it signed on as one of nine F-35 partner countries in 2006. Companies in those countries must instead compete for work associated with the plane — only companies from those countries are eligible, but they're supposed to compete on equal footing. The U.S. officials say conditions on bidders that would privilege Canadian companies will mean the F-35 won't be entered in the race. The F-35, which is built by Lockheed Martin, had been expected to go up against the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen and Boeing Super Hornet for an 88-plane procurement worth about $19 billion. French company Dassault pulled its Rafale from contention late last year. "In summary, we cannot participate in an offer of the F-35 weapon system where requirements do not align with the F-35 partnership," U.S. Vice-Admiral Mathias Winter, program executive officer for the Pentagon's F-35 office, wrote on Dec. 18. "Such an offer would violate (the F-35 agreement) and place the entire F-35 partnership at risk." In his letter to Paula Folkes-Dallaire, senior director of the fighter-jet program at Public Services and Procurement Canada, Winter asked for clarity by Jan. 31 as to the government's decision on the re-investment requirements. Winter's letter followed a similar one from Ellen Lord, the Pentagon's head of military procurement, on Aug. 31, 2018. In a statement, Public Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough's spokeswoman said the government has engaged in several rounds of discussions and exchanges with potential bidders, which included providing them with opportunities "to ask questions, raise concerns and provide suggestions. "Our government has been hard working to address as much of the supplier feedback as possible to ensure a level playing field and a fair and open competition with as many eligible suppliers as possible," added Ashley Michnowski. "This stage of the process is not yet complete, though is nearing its conclusion and a final (request for proposals) will be issued soon." The Pentagon's F-35 office did not return requests for comment. Stephen Harper's Conservatives first announced plans to buy 65 F-35s without a competition in 2010, but backed off that plan over questions about cost and concerns over the Defence Department's tactics in getting government approval for the deal. During the 2015 federal election campaign, Justin Trudeau's Liberals promised they would immediately launch an open and fair competition to replace the CF-18s, but not buy the F-35. The Trudeau government has since said the F-35 will be allowed to compete while officials had been expecting to finally launch that competition in the coming weeks. That the re-investment requirement remains unresolved is both surprising and unsurprising given defence experts have long warned it would be a significant obstacle to running a fair and open competition that includes the F-35. Canada, which has already contributed roughly $500 million over the past 20 years toward developing the F-35, could in theory quit as a partner country, but would have to pay more for the stealth fighters if the F-35 won the competition. Canada could also be on the hook for hundreds of millions more in development fees despite quitting the program, while Canadian companies would not be allowed to compete for work related to the aircraft. In a recent interview, the Department of National Defence's head of military procurement, Patrick Finn, said the government is trying to strike the right balance between military and economic priorities when it comes to the fighter-jet competition. "The feedback we're seeing from some suppliers some are quite content, some would like to see some more flexibility in other areas," he said. "So it's making all of that work, respecting (companies') strengths, keeping everybody in the competition and doing it in a way that brings the right capability to the air force for decades to come." —Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/05/06/ottawas-planned-fighter-competition-incompatible-with-f-35-obligations-u-s-3

Toutes les nouvelles