By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA — The Canadian Coast Guard's recent struggles resupplying northern communities and rescuing ice-jammed ferries appear set to continue despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's promise to spend $15.7 billion on "a complete fleet renewal."
That's because none of the 18 vessels the government announced last week that it plans to buy will be an icebreaker, meaning the coast guard will be forced to continue relying on its existing icebreaker fleet for the foreseeable future.
Many of those are nearing — or have already exceeded — their expected lifespans, which has resulted in breakdowns and other problems that have affected coast-guard operations, such as resupply runs and assisting ferries in winter.
Federal procurement minister Carla Qualtrough acknowledged on the sidelines of the annual Cansec arms-trade show this week "there's definitely a capability gap on icebreakers," but wouldn't say when it would be addressed.
Qualtrough instead indicated that any announcement on more ships for the coast guard would likely come after the government adds a third shipyard to the two that are already partners in the federal shipbuilding plan.
"There's definitely more ships coming," she said on Thursday. "It will really be dependent on how long it takes the third yard to get itself ready to build the kind of ships we need."
The search is expected to start in the coming weeks, but while many observers expect Davie Shipbuilding in Quebec City to emerge victorious, a senior government official maintained a decision is unlikely before October's election.
The government's planned $15.7-billion investment unveiled last week includes two Arctic patrol ships to be built by Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax and 16 so-called multipurpose vessels from Seaspan Shipbuilding in Vancouver.
But those vessels are what officials describe as "ice-capable," rather than icebreakers, meaning the coast guard will need to continue to rely on its existing fleet for many of its operations.
The icebreaker fleet did receive a boost on Thursday, when the Canadian Coast Guard officially welcomed the CCGS Molly Kool to its ranks after several months of conversion work at Davie.
The CCGS Molly Kool is the first of three second-hand icebreakers that Davie has sold to the government, which the coast guard has said it plans to use for the next 15 to 20 years to fill any gaps until replacements are built.
But while the government is spending millions to refit its current icebreakers, which are on average 35 years old, and keep them running as long as possible, the question remains when those replacements will arrive.
The only new icebreaker currently in the government's multibillion-dollar shipbuilding plan is the polar-class CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, which was expected in 2017 before various delays pushed it back to the next decade.
"We haven't built a coast guard-designed icebreaker since 1983. That was the last time," said Rob Huebert, an expert on the coast guard at the University of Calgary. "And anything we have bought is usually second-hand from industry."
The coast guard doesn't have clout in Ottawa, Huebert said, which has translated into a lack of long-term planning or investment by successive governments — except when there are political points to be scored.
And while the addition of a third yard to the federal shipbuilding plan should mean icebreakers will follow soon after, Huebert said it is all ad hoc and will simply lead to the same problems down the road.
"I get incensed by the fact that we do not have any form of a long-term coast-guard renewal for icebreakers."
Documents obtained by The Canadian Press warned more than a third of the coast guard's 26 large vessels, including its icebreakers, had exceeded their expected lifespans — and that many wouldn't survive until replacements arrived.
The fleet's advanced age was also already affecting the coast guard's ability to do its job, including reduced search-and-rescue coverage, ferry-service disruptions and cancelled resupply runs to Arctic and coastal communities.
—Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter
Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
19 décembre 2022 | Local, Naval
The new figures presented to the House of Commons provide a limited window into some of the spending so far on the Canadian Surface Combatant or CSC project.
17 décembre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial
by Kris Osborn (Washington, D.C.) Drone fighter jets, hypersonic attack planes, artificial intelligence, lasers, electronic warfare and sensors woven into the fuselage of an aircraft - are all areas of current technological exploration for the Air Force as it begins early prototyping for a new, 6th-Generation fighter jet to emerge in the 2030s and 2040s. While the initiative, called Next Generation Air Dominance(NGAD), has been largely conceptual for years, Air Force officials say current “prototyping” and “demonstrations” are informing which technologies the service will invest in for the future. “We have completed an analysis of alternatives and our acquisition team is working on the requirements. We are pretty deep into experimenting with hardware and software technologies that will help us control and exploit air power into the future,” Gen. James Holmes, Commander, Air Combat Command, told reporters at the Association of the Air Force Air, Space and Cyber Conference. Part of the progress with the program, according to Air Force Acquisition Executive William Roper, is due to new methods of digital engineering. “I have spent six months with our industry leaders and NGAD team looking at examples of applied digital engineering. I'm impressed with what they have done,” Roper. Digital engineering, as Roper explains it, brings what could be called a two-fold advantage. It enables weapons developers to assess technologies, material configurations and aircraft models without needing to build all of them -- all while paradoxically enabling builders to “bend metal” and start building prototypes earlier than would otherwise be possible. “The reward is more than the risk,” Roper said, speaking of the need to “try something different” and pursue newer acquisition methods which at times results in prototyping earlier in the process than the traditional process typically involves. The Air Force Research Laboratory has been working with the acquisition community on digital engineering techniques, often explored through modeling and simulation, for many years. “Digital engineering is another exciting area and we see the opportunity to accelerate the pace of moving things from the bench level of science and technology into a system, integrating concepts into an operational campaign model,” Tim Sakulich, Executive Lead for Implementing the Air Force S&T Strategy and Air Force Research Laboratory Lead for Materials and Manufacturing, told Warrior in an interview. Current work on a futuristic 6th-gen fighter - to come after and fly alongside upgraded F-35s -- includes development of stealthy drone fighters, hypersonic flight, lasers, new precision weaponry and advanced AI able organize targeting data in milliseconds. While all of these things are of course key parts of the equation, the Air Force Penetrating Counter Air/NGAD program is equally focused on information exchange itself as a defining element of future war. Such an approach, looking beyond isolated systems and weapons themselves, envisions expansive “networked” combat with war platforms operating as “nodes” in a larger warfare system of weapons and sensors working together in real time. “This approach is one that views military operations in terms of wholistic elements of an information-shooter-effector complex. That will require a lot more going into the design of the next generation of combat aircraft than how fast and far it can fly - or what the numbers of weapons it can carry,” Ret. Lt. Gen. David Deptula, former planner of the US air attacks in Operation Desert Storm and current Dean of the The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies , told Warrior Maven in an interview. The NGAD program, which traces its history to the Air Force's “Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan,” envisions the possibility of a “family of capabilities.” Holmes explained that this study began by examining more than 650 different ideas for 6th-Gen combat, which were then narrowed down to merely a few. Directed by the Air Force Chief of Staff, service weapons developers who worked on the study have been working in Enterprise Capability Collaboration (ECCT) teams designed to pursue next-generation air superiority. “We are moving into a future where aircraft need to be looked at as not just elements of their own, but as a system of information nodes - sensor - shooter - effectors. It is about creating an entire system of systems that is self-forming and self-healing with a greater degree of awareness than an adversary can achieve, and a much greater degree of survivability,” Deputla said. Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works and Boeing's Phantom Works are all among a handful of industry developers already working on prototype 6th Gen planes and advanced technologies - intended to align with key elements of the Air Force vision. The Air Force itself, while not yet decided upon a particular platform or fixed set of new technologies, is moving quickly beyond the conceptual realm into the active exploration of weapons, sensors, technologies and networks. “There are maybe two to three companies that can build high-performance tactical aircraft,” Roper said. Next-generation stealth technology is also of course a large focus of the technical equation. Newer radar absorbing coating materials, improved IR suppressants or thermal signature management, evolved radar-eluding configurations and acoustic reduction technologies offer a window into current areas of developmental focus. A 2013 Essay by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Science and Technology Committee discusses the evolution of advanced heat reduction technologies built into the “skin” of an aircraft. “To become low-observable in multiple spectrums, advanced skins manage a plane's heat distribution to foil radar, infrared, and thermal detection systems. These skins do this by distorting or eliminating heat distribution to restructure its thermal shape. They may also be able to heat up or cool down all parts of an aircraft's surface to perfectly match the surrounding atmosphere, making it virtually undetectable,” the report, titled “The Future of Combat Aircraft: Toward a 6th Generation Aircraft,” writes. The Air Force B-21 Raider, a new stealth bomber expected to emerge in the mid 2020s, is said by developers to incorporate a new generation of stealth - but very few details are available. Engine development is yet another area of major leap-ahead technological focus, according to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly report. Emerging “Variable Cycle Engines” introduce a third air stream into an engine, which can be controlled by the pilot, the essay explains. The new engines reportedly massively increase an aircraft's reach, fuel efficiency and speed. “By opening or closing the third air stream, the pilot can adjust the fuel intake of the jet engine and optimize its performance,” the report states. Fighter-jet launched laser weapons, expected to be operational by the mid 2020s, are of course part of the planning for 6th-Generation fighters. Targeting and sensor technology, coupled with advanced guidance systems, are progressing so quickly that ships, fighter jets and land assets can no longer rely upon an existing threat envelope. Simply put, all US military systems will increasingly become more vulnerable as enemies acquire more drones, high-speed fighter jets and longer-range precision weaponry - all enabled by AI-fortified long-range sensors and targeting technology. This includes the emergence of advanced enemy fighter jets, ships, ballistic missiles and weapons such as land-based anti-ship missiles, all further necessitating the need for information and combat awareness in warfare. The pace of advancement in computer processing speeds, miniaturization and AI also promise to bring new things to air combat. Algorithms able to instantly gather, compile and organize ISR data and perform real-time analytics will bring faster targeting and attack systems to fighters. AI-enabled real time analytics will, for instance, bring an ability to compare new sensor information against vast databases of relevant data in milliseconds. Information dominance, therefore, could among other things enable a fighter jet to both launch attacks and also function as an aerial ISR node. Operating as part of a dispersed, yet interwoven combat sensor network, a fighter could transmit combat relevant data to air assets, ground-based weapons, command and control centers, Navy ships and satellites. If a ship, ground or air commander has occasion to see or learn of an incoming attack at greater distance, he or she is obviously much better positioned to defend it. Perhaps, for instance, a medium-range ballistic missile attack is airborne, approaching land based artillery formations or a Carrier Strike Group - what might a Commander do? Should the attack be met with a ground-based interceptor, jammed with electronic warfare technology, hit with a laser or thrown off course in some other way? What if a fighter jet, configured to function as an aerial node in a larger interwoven combat network, were able to detect the approaching attack earlier in its trajectory? From beyond the horizon? Perhaps the jet might itself be positioned to attack, intercept or dismantle the approaching missile - or at least provide early warning to the weapons intended target. In this case, more “time” simply means more options to inform a commander's decision cycle. Referring to this emerging tactical complex as a “combat cloud,” Deptula posited that, for instance, an aircraft such as an F-35 could cue or alert an Aegis Navy Cruiser about an incoming attack, therefore offering ship-based radar, fire control and interceptor weapons a vastly improved envelope with which to take out an attack. Thus, an interconnected web of attack, targeting and information nodes can better sustain operations should one node be destroyed, and “sensor-to-shooter” time can be massively accelerated. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/think-f-35-impressive-then-6th-generation-fighters-will-blow-your-mind-105587
20 juillet 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
Put simply, Canadian governments have a responsibility to practise smart protectionism where the risks to Canadians' personal security and national security are high. Free trade is good economics. Protectionism is bad. Global supply chains are efficient. Favouring domestic goods, services and industries is inefficient. Canada has long adhered to these orthodoxies. And most of the time it makes sense to do so. However, through the COVID-19 pandemic, both the public and private sectors have seen weaknesses associated with heavy or total reliance on foreign sources and global supply chains for essential goods, notably personal protective equipment (PPE). As of June 2, for example, the Government of Canada had ordered close to 122 million N95 masks from international suppliers, yet 12 million had been received and 9.8 million of those failed Canadian standards. We are learning the hard way that foreign sources cannot necessarily supply the products we need in the time, quantity or quality required during a national or global emergency. China, as the dominant global producer of many of these PPE supplies, has become the focal point for an emerging debate around domestic control over certain goods, technologies, and services. A recent report from the Henry Jackson Society in the U.K., for example, has argued the “Five Eyes”—the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand—are far too reliant on Chinese sources for all kinds of strategically important goods, and that this is a threat to the national security of those countries. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, too, has warned that Canadian companies that produce certain critical technologies are vulnerable to foreign takeovers by entities with agendas hostile to Canada's interests. This is not just an issue with China, though. In Canada, we like to believe that in national or global crises we can rely on the U.S. or other allies for help. Canada, in other words, would be at or near the front of the line with allies. The COVID-19 pandemic, and the behavior of the U.S. and European countries, suggests this is naive. Italy, a founding EU member, requested and was denied face masks from the EU's stockpile at the peak of their COVID-19 outbreak. In April, a presidential executive order gave the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency the power to “allocate to domestic use” several types of PPE that would otherwise be exported. U.S. produced masks bound for Germany, a close American ally, were reportedly diverted back while in transit. Ultimately, Canada was exempt from the U.S. order, but this episode should tell us that global emergencies can lead to “home front comes first” attitudes, even among our closest allies. Fundamentally, the issue comes down to one of efficiency versus necessity. Sometimes, in some areas of the economy, security of supply is more important than efficiency. While this thinking is new to most companies and governments in Canada, it is not new to Canadian companies working in defence and national security. The Canadian defence industry has long highlighted the need for focused sovereign production and control in key national security capabilities—in part to ensure security of supply—as our allies in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere have been doing for generations. The argument has fallen largely on deaf ears. There seems to be a greater aversion in Canada to any kind of protectionism than among our more pragmatic allies. There is also a belief that Canada can always rely on obtaining critical supplies from the U.S., owing to both our close trading relationship and bi-lateral defence agreements dating from the 1950s that purport to establish an integrated North American defence industrial base. Canada puts too much faith in these beliefs, to our peril. While we can still hold free trade and integrated global supply chains as the goal, we also need to recognize that this view of the economy does not always serve our national interests. Put simply, Canadian governments have a responsibility to practise smart protectionism where the risks to Canadians' personal security and national security are high. Christyn Cianfarani is president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). The Hill Times https://www.hilltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/072020_ht.pdf