16 juin 2020 | Local, Naval

Ottawa awards $2.4B contract to finish building navy's supply ships

The decision signals the project won't be delayed by pandemic-driven deficit spending

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jun 15, 2020 2:45 PM

The Liberal government has awarded a $2.4 billion contract to finish the overall construction of the navy's long-awaited supply ships.

Today's announcement moves forward a Joint Support Ship program over a decade-and-a-half in the making. It also appears to signal the federal government remains committed to its multi-billion shipbuilding program despite record levels of pandemic-driven federal deficit spending.

The contract, with Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards, is for the construction of two replenishment vessels, Public Services and Procurement Canada said in a statement.

Now that the construction deal has been signed, the overall price tag of the program — including design — is expected to be $4.1 billion, up from an earlier estimate of $3.4 billion.

Seven years ago, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) predicted the cost would end up where it has — an estimate that was roundly criticized and dismissed by the Conservatives, who were in power at the time.

"The government announcement today did not have a whole ton of detail, so it's hard to do an exact comparison, but I certainly think that PBO estimate from a long time ago has held up pretty well over time," said Dave Perry, an expert in defence procurement and vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

The first supply ship is to be delivered in 2023, and the second vessel is supposed to arrive two years later.

The yard started construction on certain portions of the first ship in 2018, while final design work was still underway — something that alarmed and even baffled some defence and shipbuilding experts.

'Business as usual'

With the federal deficit expected to swell to over $252.1 billion because of COVID-19 relief measures, many in the defence community had been speculating that existing spending plans for the supply ships would be curtailed or scaled back.

In a statement, federal Public Services Minister Anita Anand suggested the Liberal government is committed to staying the course.

"This contract award is yet another example of our ongoing commitment to the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which is supporting a strong and sustainable marine sector in Canada," she said.

Perry said he takes it as a sign the Liberals intend to proceed with their defence construction plans in the face of fiscal and economic uncertainty.

"It is an indicator that, despite being business under some very unusual circumstances, it is still government business-as-usual under COVID," he said.

In the same government statement, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan pointed out that an enormous amount of preparation work has been done already and he's pleased the project is moving forward.

"An impressive amount of work has already gone into the construction of these new ships, and I look forward to their arrival in the coming years." said Sajjan.

Construction during COVID-19

A senior executive at Seaspan said work to adapt the design from the original German plan (the Canadian ship is based on the German Navy's Berlin-Class replenishment vessel) was completed last year and work on the superstructure of the first Joint Support Ship — started in 2018 — has been proceeding apace, even through the pandemic.

"It is well advanced," said Amy MacLeod, the company's vice-president of corporate affairs. "We are ready to continue. We're very, very happy with the quality of the ship, the progress of the ship, the momentum that we have and the expertise we have gained."

The shipyard did not pause construction due to the pandemic — but it did have to figure out ways to carry on under strict physical distancing rules.

"We, like everybody else, had to understand how to run a business in a pandemic," said MacLeod. "We made a lot of changes on how we build our ships."

Turnstiles to enter and exit the yard were eliminated and the company went high-tech with a "heat map" that shows where everyone is working and how much space there is between individual workers.

"And where we couldn't ensure appropriate social distancing because of COVID, we stopped that work."

Perry said the gap between the construction of the two supply ships worries him to a degree. Seaspan intends to construct an ocean science vessel for the coast guard under a plan agreed to with the Liberal government in 2019.

Any delay or hiccup in the construction of that ship could mean the delivery of the second naval vessel is pushed back even further, Perry said.

Extending the navy's range

News of the contract will come as a relief to the navy.

Having replenishment ships to refuel and rearm frigates would allow the navy to deploy entire task groups to far-flung parts of the world.

"With these warships, the Royal Canadian Navy will be able to operate with even greater flexibility and endurance," said Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, commander of the navy.

"These ships will not only form part of the core of our naval task groups, they also represent a vital and strategic national asset that will enable the Navy to maintain its global reach and staying power."

A tortured history

It was 1994 when the replacement program was first discussed. The deficit-slashing years of that decade meant the plan was shelved.

Resurrected in 2004, the Liberal government of former prime minister Paul Martin hoped to have the ships in the water by 2008 to replace the three-decade-old supply ships the navy had been operating.

Faced with cost estimates well over what they had expected, the Conservative government of former prime minister Stephen Harper shelved the Liberal plan on the eve of the 2008 federal election.

More than five years later, the navy was forced to retire both aging supply ships after one of them was crippled by a devastating fire.

The absence of replenishment capability led the Harper government to lease a converted civilian supply ship from a private company, Federal Fleet Services, which operates out of the Davie Shipyard in Levis, Que.

That plan led to a political and legal scandal when the former commander of the navy, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, was accused of leaking cabinet secrets related to the plan. The Crown withdrew the charge a year ago after a protracted pre-trial court battle.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supply-ship-navy-seaspan-1.5612770

Sur le même sujet

  • What does a DAR do?

    31 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Sécurité

    What does a DAR do?

    Michael Petsche Helicopters are pretty awesome devices. Even when you understand the physics of how they work, it's still a wonder that the combination of whirling bits and pieces can result in flight. These magnificent machines put out fires, string powerlines, erect towers, pluck people in distress from mountains, and save countless lives. But here's the thing: a brand new, factory-spec helicopter right off the production line can't do any of those things. Flip through the pages of any issue of Vertical, and in almost every photo, the aircraft has been fitted with some type of special equipment. A firefighting machine will have a cargo hook for the bucket, a bubble window, an external torque gauge, pulse lights and a mirror. A search-and-rescue aircraft will have a hoist. Air ambulances are filled with lifesaving equipment. And very little of that stuff comes directly from the airframe original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Instead, this equipment is in place thanks to supplemental type certificates (STCs). As the name implies, an STC is required for an installation that supplements the original aircraft type certificate. It needs to meet all of the same requirements as the aircraft that it's installed upon. Therefore, it must undergo the same kind of testing, analysis, and scrutiny that the aircraft does. How do regulatory authorities ensure that supplementary equipment meets the same standards as the aircraft they're designed to augment? Through people like me. I am a Transport Canada Design Approval Representative (DAR), also known as a delegate. A DAR does not actually work for Transport Canada, but is delegated to act on its behalf to make findings of compliance in a particular field of specialty — such as structures, avionics, or as a flight test pilot. To secure an STC, not only must a modification meet the same standards as the original aircraft, but it has to be shown not to degrade the safety of the aircraft. Let's take the firefighting helicopter as an example. The bubble window needs to be strong enough to withstand the aerodynamic loads in flight. In order to verify this, a structural test can be done on a test rig. However, the bubble window protrudes from the aircraft, resulting in extra drag. It could adversely affect how the aircraft behaves, or reduce climb performance, or have an effect on the pitot-static system. These are the sorts of issues that flight testing is meant to uncover. Similarly, if someone wants to upgrade an old GPS system to the latest and greatest model, testing must be done to ensure that there is no electrical interference between the new unit and any other existing systems on the aircraft. A big part of the STC process is determining just how you can prove that a modification meets the regulations. Does it need to be tested or is a stress analysis enough? Or is it a combination of the two — or another method entirely? And on top of that, which regulations are applicable? And furthermore, which version of the regulations needs to be applied? The rules for the Airbus H125, for example, are not the same as for the Bell 429. It's the role of the DAR (with concurrence from the regulator, in my case Transport Canada) to make these kinds of determinations. While the STC process is technically uniform, the scope can vary widely from one project to another. Changing a seat cushion or changing an engine type can both be STCs. The execution of a project can take many forms, and is dependent on a huge number of factors, including the DAR, the project scope, the resources available, and the end user. In my current role, I work largely on my own. The process typically begins with me submitting an application to open the project with Transport Canada. I prepare the documents and drawings, and witness and document any required testing. Then I compile it all and submit it to Transport Canada. Through all this, I will rely heavily on the end user to provide their insight and expertise — and their facilities. After all, it's their aircraft, and they are the ones who will ultimately be installing, using, and maintaining the STC kit — so it has to make sense to them. Whenever possible, I will have documents and drawings reviewed by the maintenance team to make sure that theory and reality align. Becoming a delegate How does someone become a delegate? In Canada, it begins with an educational requirement. You must have an engineering degree, or have, in the opinion of Transport Canada, equivalent experience. In other words, if someone has many years of applicable experience, they can be eligible to be a delegate, even if they do not have an engineering degree. A prospective delegate must also successfully complete the Aircraft Certification Specialty Course. This is a two-week intensive course that covers the ins and outs of aircraft certification: type certification, STCs, Change Product Rule and so on. And yes, there are exams! Next is a one-year working relationship with Transport Canada. The process for becoming a delegate is not uniform, with the one-year timeline more of a guideline than a rule. In my case, it took less than 12 months. Prior to beginning my process, I had the good fortune of working for a talented delegate for many years. He taught me how it “should be done.” I was given the opportunity to fly at 170 knots indicated airspeed in AStars pointed at the ground during flight tests; I snapped bolts while piling steel plates onto structures during structural tests; and I wrote numerous supporting reports for many kinds of STCs for many different aircraft types. My mentor is a (sometimes maddeningly) meticulous guy. Everything we did was thorough and correct. So, by the time I was presenting my own work to Transport Canada, it was evident that I already had a pretty firm grasp on the process. As a result, my delegation was granted before a full year. During the period while I was building my relationship with Transport Canada, my friends would ask if I had to accomplish certain specified milestones or achieve specific “levels.” The short answer is: not really. In fact, it's about building trust. It's almost counter-intuitive that in an industry with such strict regulations, granting delegation to someone is, to a large degree, based on a “warm, fuzzy feeling.” Ultimately, Transport Canada must have confidence in the delegate. Let's face it, we are in a business with tight schedules and high price tags. There can be a lot of pressure, financial or otherwise, to meet deadlines — and things can go wrong. Parts can fail under ultimate loading during a structural test. That cursed Velcro can fail the flammability test. And when these things happen, it can be the delegate that incurs the wrath of the angry operator who really needs to get his aircraft flying. Transport Canada must have the confidence that not only does the delegate have the technical knowledge and ability, but that they have the intestinal fortitude to stand firm under what can sometimes be difficult circumstances. There's the somewhat cynical axiom that the only way for an aircraft to be 100 percent safe is to never let it fly. I have heard many tales of woe and misery about people's dealings with Transport Canada and how the regulator was being “unreasonable” about X, Y, or Z. I'm of the opinion that these instances often stem from poor communication — on both sides. This is another area where the DAR can help. The DAR often acts as a liaison (or translator) between the operator and Transport Canada. Operators don't necessarily spend that much time studying design regulations. And similarly, Transport Canada engineers may not be fully familiar with the day-to-day challenges and obligations of aircraft operations. As a DAR, I speak the same language as Transport Canada. But I also spend a great deal of time in hangars, so I am also fluent in “aircraft operator.” This level of bilingualism can alleviate misunderstandings. And with a little strategic communication, everyone involved can be satisfied a lot sooner. Not surprisingly, communication and open dialogue between the DAR and the regulator is just as crucial. It has been my experience that Transport Canada wants to help get projects completed. They are aviation geeks, just like the rest of us, and they want to “Git ‘er done.” Because I have developed a solid relationship with Transport Canada, if ever I find myself struggling with something, I can call them and ask for guidance. Obviously it's not their job to fix the issue for me, but they are there to help. Whether they point me at an Advisory Circular that I wasn't aware of, or they draw from their own experience, 99 times out of 100, talking it through with them yields a solution very quickly. We all want to keep aircraft flying — safely. And we all have our different roles to play. As a DAR, I enjoy being the go-between for the regulatory world and the operational world. The challenge of getting them to work and play nicely together can be pretty fun — and a big part of accomplishing that goal requires earned trust and open communication. https://www.verticalmag.com/features/what-does-a-dar-do/

  • Cyber-warfare could be entering a new and alarming phase, ex-CIA analyst tells MPs

    7 février 2019 | Local, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Cyber-warfare could be entering a new and alarming phase, ex-CIA analyst tells MPs

    Murray Brewster · CBC News Online attacks on Canada's financial system could become far more destructive as more militaries around the globe get involved in cyber operations, a security expert and former CIA analyst told a House of Commons committee Wednesday. Christopher Porter, the chief intelligence strategist for the cyber security company Fireeye, Inc., testified that as NATO countries share their expertise on how to defend against and defeat online threats, "major cyber powers outside the alliance" will likely do the same. The consequences, he said, could be dire. The West's imposition of sanctions on "some countries" has in the past been met with denial-of-service attacks on financial services websites, he said — attacks that have only been disruptive. "In the future, they may respond with destructive attacks aimed at permanently disabling financial services or altering data in ways that undermine trust in the global financial system, such as by delaying or impairing the trustworthy settlement of collateralized government debt," Porter said. "For countries sufficiently sanctioned and therefore increasingly outside that financial system anyway, there is little incentive not to do so during a confrontation." Where the threat comes from He did not name the countries he believes pose an imminent threat, but North Korea, Russia and Iran are widely known to possess sophisticated cyber capabilities and — in some cases — loose associations with groups of private hackers. The Commons public safety committee is studying security in the financial sector. Wednesday's hearing focused on online threats. "I am gravely concerned about the militarization of cyber operations," said Porter, who spent nearly nine years at the CIA and served as the cyber threat intelligence briefer to White House National Security Council staff. "(The) proliferation of cutting-edge offensive cyber power, combined with an increased willingness to use it with minimal blowback and spiraling distrust, has set the stage for more disruptive and destabilizing cyber events, possibly in the near future." The cyber espionage threat Canada faces is still "moderate," said Porter, but his organization has noted at least 10 groups from China, Russia and Iran that have targeted Canada in the last few years. His grim assessment was echoed by another private sector expert who appeared before the committee. Jonathan Reiber, head of cybersecurity at Illumio, an American business data center, said most of Washington's efforts to get everyone to step back from the cyber-warfare brink have gone nowhere. He also suggested that online militarization was inevitable. "Adversaries have escalated in cyberspace, despite U.S. efforts at deterrence," he said. The United States, Canada and other western nations must take a more aggressive stance to deter cyber aggression by "defending forward" and conducting offensive cyber operations to disrupt hacking, Reiber said. The Liberal government's defence policy, released in June 2017, gave the Canadian military permission to conduct those kinds of operations. "Nation states have the right to defend themselves in cyberspace just as they do in other domains," Reiber said. Mutual defence Determining the point at which a online attack provokes a real world military response is something that NATO and many western countries have been grappling with over the last five years. The alliance has a mutual assistance clause, known as Article 5, which requires NATO nations to aid an ally under attack. Liberal MP John McKay, head of the public safety committee, asked whether NATO's decision-making mechanisms are nimble enough to keep pace with cyber attacks. Porter said he believes the system is sound. The challenge, he said, is to get all allies on the same page. "I think a bigger issue is who is going to call for such a response and under what circumstances," he said. "In the States, I think, you're always waiting for a cyber Pearl Harbour destructive event." Such a massive attack is still less likely than a series of smaller events, he said, "a death by a thousand cuts" that might not rise to the level of provoking allies. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyber-warfare-could-be-entering-a-new-and-alarming-phase-ex-cia-analyst-tells-mps-1.5008956

  • Davie, troisième partenaire de la Stratégie nationale de construction navale «d’ici Noël»

    10 novembre 2022 | Local, Naval

    Davie, troisième partenaire de la Stratégie nationale de construction navale «d’ici Noël»

    Sans en dévoiler la date exacte, le ministre fédéral de la Santé et responsable de la région de Québec, Jean-Yves Duclos, a annoncé mercredi que Chantier Davie Canada sera le troisième partenaire de la Stratégie nationale de construction navale (SNCN) «d’ici Noël».

Toutes les nouvelles