27 août 2020 | Local, Aérospatial

Remplacement des CF-18: une occasion d’économiser et de répondre aux Américains

OPINION / L'avion qui doit enfin remplacer nos CF-18 devrait être choisi dans les prochaines semaines. Débuté en 1997 (!), ce processus devrait permettre à nos Forces aériennes de recevoir leurs premiers nouveaux appareils à partir de 2025. Trois aéronefs sont en lice : le F-35 A de Lockheed-Martin, le F-18 E de Boeing, dit le Super Hornet, et le JAS 39 de SAAB, dit le Gripen. Mais comment les départager ?

Tout d'abord, rappelons que chacun de ces trois appareils répond aux exigences de nos Forces aériennes. Le gouvernement évalue les trois possibilités selon les critères suivants : 60 % pour les performances/caractéristiques techniques des avions, 20 % pour les coûts et 20 % pour les retombées économiques au Canada.

En ce qui a trait aux performances/caractéristiques, le F-35 est le seul des trois qui soit « furtif », c'est-à-dire qu'il est pratiquement invisible pour les radars ennemis. Par contre, son rayon d'action sur réservoirs intérieurs est limité et avec des réservoirs extérieurs, il perd beaucoup de sa furtivité. Étant l'appareil le plus récent, c'est celui qui dispose des systèmes électroniques les plus modernes. En fait, la principale faiblesse du F-35 réside dans le fait qu'il s'agit d'un avion extrêmement capricieux, qui est affecté par un nombre incroyable de problèmes techniques, dont plusieurs sont toujours non résolus à ce jour. Il en résulte qu'en moyenne, au moins 50 % des F-35 livrés ne peuvent voler, étant en révision/réparation. Ce taux de non-disponibilité est l'un des plus élevés de tous les avions militaires existants et on questionne fortement la capacité réelle de cet avion à livrer ses performances théoriques. Un bon exemple de cela est que, lors du dernier spectacle aérien de Bagotville, un des deux F-35 américains (qui n'ont pourtant présenté que deux courtes démonstrations de 15 minutes) est tombé... en panne ! Au niveau des performances/caractéristiques, le Super Hornet est supérieur à nos CF-18 actuels, mais inférieur au Gripen, qui est plus fiable que les deux autres. Cet appareil est aussi le plus rapide des trois, le plus maniable, celui qui a le meilleur rayon d'action et est le meilleur en termes de combat aérien. Par contre, la capacité du Gripen d'opérer avec les autres avions américains est questionnée. Pourtant, cet avion effectue régulièrement des missions conjointes avec ceux des autres pays de l'OTAN et il a été déclaré admissible à tous les appels d'offres de remplacement des CF-18. De plus, comme son coût d'acquisition/utilisation est de loin le plus bas des trois avions en lice, cela permet d'envisager que même en y ajoutant des frais d'adaptation au système d'interopérabilité du NORAD, il demeurera bien plus abordable que les deux autres.

Au niveau financier, voici le coût total, par heure de vol, des trois appareils en dollars canadiens : le F-35, 58 300 $, le Super Hornet, 17 800 $ et le Gripen, 10 500 $ (source Aviatia). L'avion suédois est donc près de six fois moins coûteux que le F-35...

Au niveau des retombées économiques au pays, le Canada est déjà un « partenaire industriel » du programme F-35. Cela signifie que plusieurs entreprises canadiennes (et québécoises) sont qualifiées comme fournisseur, à raison d'environ 2,6 millions $ par appareil. Au total, il a été estimé que 325 emplois seront ainsi créés au Canada (soit 9500 personnes/années en 30 ans). Le ministère de la Défense du Canada a affirmé à plusieurs reprises que faire partie du programme industriel F-35 ne nous oblige pas à acquérir obligatoirement cet avion. Cependant, en termes de retombées économiques canadiennes, il est utile de rappeler que depuis 2009, le F-35 est considéré par les Américains comme un appareil à technologie « sensible ». Cela signifie qu'une bonne partie de l'entretien qui est actuellement réalisé par nos militaires à Bagotville et à Cold Lake, ainsi que par l'entreprise qui a pris la suite de Bombardier à Montréal pour les CF-18 actuels, sera réalisé aux États-Unis dans le cas du F-35.

Environ 2500 militaires et civils sont actuellement employés au Canada à l'entretien des avions de chasse. Combien perdront leurs emplois, notamment ici dans la région, si le F-35 est choisi ? De plus, durant les 30 ou 40 ans où nous utiliserons le F-35, les Américains ne pourraient-ils par augmenter sensiblement ces coûts d'entretien une fois que nous serons dépendants d'eux ? Pour le Super Hornet, le même niveau de retombées économiques qu'avec l'actuel CF-18 est à prévoir, alors que le fabricant du Gripen a déjà annoncé que, contrairement au F-35 ou au Super Hornet, il s'engage à le produire dans une nouvelle usine au Canada.

Bien que théoriquement supérieur, le F-35 est donc un choix prohibitif en termes de coûts et hasardeux au niveau de la fiabilité ou du nombre d'emplois en entretien qui seront perdus au Canada. Le Super Hornet est un choix performant, beaucoup moins cher et plus fiable que le F-35. Le Gripen est de loin l'avion qui répond le mieux à nos besoins, au moindre coût et avec la fiabilité maximale.

En terminant, souvenons-nous que le Super Hornet est fabriqué par Boeing, la même compagnie qui a réussi à faire imposer des droits compensatoires de 219 % aux Série C de Bombardier destinées aux États-Unis. Cela a précipité la chute de la division aéronautique du fleuron québécois, tout en lui faisant perdre sept milliards $ (dont deux provenaient du gouvernement du Québec). Le Gripen de SAAB est d'origine européenne. Ne pas toujours être dépendant des Américains, ça aussi, c'est défendre la souveraineté du Canada!

Roger Boivin

Président de Groupe Performance Stratégique

https://www.lequotidien.com/opinions/carrefour-des-lecteurs/remplacement-des-cf-18-une-occasion-deconomiser-et-de-repondre-aux-americains-7015f0786a4fb446a03530adab548da5

Sur le même sujet

  • Comment: It’s time for us to start thinking about new subs

    8 juin 2020 | Local, Naval

    Comment: It’s time for us to start thinking about new subs

    A commentary by an adjunct professor in global affairs at the University of Prince Edward Island and a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute Deficits and debt are spiking, and the pandemic has overwhelmed treasury decisions. But, at some point soon, Ottawa needs to make a decision on whether to acquire a submarine replacement. It generally takes 15 years to procure new major capital equipment for the Canadian military, and the four existing Victoria-class diesel-electric submarines acquired secondhand from Britain in 1998 have a planned operational life to 2035. Overlaying this is the reality that the two sources of past Canadian sub buys, the British and the Americans, now operate nuclear-only undersea fleets. Past attempts at Canada going nuclear in the 1964 and 1987 defence white papers revealed that option as too costly and politically contentious. When then-defence minister Peter MacKay floated the idea again in 2011, it met opposition pushback, despite the advantages nuclear subs hold in being able to transit Arctic ice, and was quickly dropped. Even the price tag of a non-nuclear acquisition deterred the Trudeau government from including a replacement project in its 2017 Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy or the National Shipbuilding Strategy, a multi-decade attempt to provide the Navy and coast guard with built-in-Canada vessels. Instead, the government opted for an estimated $2.5-billion modernization project in the mid-2020s to keep the Victorias going to 2035. With no options for new or even second-hand buys from our two closest allies, consideration will have to turn to one of three options, one of which is to build overseas, preferably in collaboration with a country with similar requirements like Australia or Japan, or to build at home using one of the National Shipbuilding Strategy yards. Neither will be cheap. A 2003 Department of National Defence audit picked a $3-billion to $5-billion price tag for four brand new subs. That was 17 years ago. Of course, Ottawa could scrap the 100-year-old submarine service entirely as Denmark did in 2004 once the best-before date passes. However, going the Danish route would result in the loss of a vital capability that, by its very nature, is unknown to most Canadians. Subs, after all, work best when they are out of sight. What is known though are the headlines: the tragic 2004 fire aboard the HMCS Chicoutimi, the 2002 flooding in the HMCS Corner Brook and its grounding in 2011. Despite being purchased in 1998, years of sitting mothballed in British waters, the need to restart spare-part supply lines and to “Canadianize” the subs to our navy's operational standards meant that Victorias did not achieve full operational status until 2015. This year, it emerged that not one of the four subs actually went to sea in 2019 due to maintenance and repair issues. Yet beneath the surface, there is much to consider in renewing the capability. Canada's submarines, current and past, have provided our decision-makers with vital functions that few other countries possess. Submarines are known popularly for their weapons, but it is the combination of their very presence and intelligence and surveillance capabilities, including the ability to loiter for weeks undetected, that are their greatest assets. For a country with the world's longest coastline, bordering three oceans, submarines have proved instrumental in upholding Canadian sovereignty and strengthening critical alliances. A mere “notice of intention” to deploy an Oberon-class submarine altered the political calculus of Spain during the 1995 “Turbot War” off Newfoundland in Ottawa's favour. The Victorias regularly deploy to the Arctic during the summer months for covert surveillance missions. In the Caribbean, these subs participate in anti-drug monitoring. Further afield are the 100-day-plus missions in 2017-18 in the Mediterranean and East Asia. Working with NATO and Japanese allies, respectively, the subs were involved in training, counter-smuggling and counter-terrorism operations. In an attempt to boost familiarity with a complex and tense region, the Pacific deployment represented the first time a Canadian sub had deployed to Japan in 50 years. Tellingly, the subs are also up for consideration for deployment to monitor the enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea. Even before the onset of COVID-19, the Indo-Pacific was the scene of a naval arms buildup between major regional players, China, Japan, South Korea, India and Australia. Now, factor in the worsening tensions between Beijing and Washington. With Canada looking to uphold multilateral security norms and diversify trade relations, helping secure our own waters and those of allies will become more important, not less in the years ahead. Now is the time to consider a future replacement — a lot happens in 15 years. https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-it-s-time-for-us-to-start-thinking-about-new-subs-1.24147700

  • John Ivison: Canada is missing a crucial NATO exercise because our Air Force is up on bricks

    14 juin 2023 | Local, Aérospatial

    John Ivison: Canada is missing a crucial NATO exercise because our Air Force is up on bricks

    DND said the RCAF was unable to participate because 'many of our aircraft and personnel are currently committed to modernization activities'

  • Plan to buy more fighter jets puts Canada on hook for bigger share of F-35 costs

    31 janvier 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

    Plan to buy more fighter jets puts Canada on hook for bigger share of F-35 costs

    Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press OTTAWA -- Canada is being forced to shoulder a bigger share of the costs of developing F-35 fighter jets even though it has not decided whether it will actually buy any. Canada is one of nine partner countries in the F-35 project, each of which is required to cover a portion of the stealth fighter's multibillion-dollar development costs to stay at the table. Each country pays based on the number of F-35s it's expecting to buy. Canada has pitched in more than half-a-billion dollars over the last 20 years, including $54 million last year. But that amount was based on the Stephen Harper government's plan to buy 65 new fighter jets to replace Canada's aging CF-18s, which the Trudeau government has since officially increased to 88. Even though Canada has not committed that those 88 jets will be F-35s, the Department of National Defence says that change means it will have to pay more to remain a partner -- including about $72 million this year. "Canada's costs under the F-35 (partnership agreement) are based on an intended fleet size," Defence Department spokeswoman Ashley Lemire said in an email. "Canada changed its fleet size within the F-35 (agreement) from 65 to 88 aircraft to align with government decisions on the size of the intended permanent fighter fleet to be acquired through competition and the payment increased accordingly." As each partner contribution is determined annually, based on the overall cost of the F-35 development program for that specific year, Lemire said she could not provide details how much more Canada will have to pay. The F-35's development costs have been a constant source of criticism over the life of the stealth-fighter program, which Canada first joined under the Chretien government in 1997. The entire program is believed to have already cost more than US$1 trillion. The Trudeau government says it plans to keep Canada in the F-35 development effort until a replacement for the CF-18s is chosen -- partners in the development work can buy the planes at a lower price and compete for work associated with their production and long-term maintenance. Canadian companies have so far won more than $1.2 billion in contracts related to the F-35, according to the government. The F-35 is one of four planes slated to participate in the $19-billion competition that the government plans to launch this spring, the others being Boeing's Super Hornet, Eurofighter's Typhoon and Saab's Gripen. The competition isn't scheduled to select a winner until 2021 or 2022, meaning Canada will be on the hook for several more payments. The first new aircraft is expected in 2025 and the last in 2031, when the CF-18s will be phased out. F-35 maker Lockheed Martin says more than 350 of the stealth fighters have been delivered to different countries, while Israel became the first country to use the plane in combat last year when two of the jets struck targets in neighbouring Syria. Acting U.S. defence secretary Patrick Shanahan, a former Boeing executive, nonetheless criticized the program on Monday, saying it "has room for a lot more performance." "I am biased toward performance," he was quoted as saying when asked if he is biased toward Boeing. "I am biased toward giving the taxpayer their money's worth. And the F-35, unequivocally, I can say, has a lot of opportunity for more performance." https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/plan-to-buy-more-fighter-jets-puts-canada-on-hook-for-bigger-share-of-f-35-costs-1.4275372

Toutes les nouvelles