7 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

Trump administration claims Ottawa's jet procurement plan is unfair to F-35, says report

Murray Brewster · CBC News

The Trump administration fired two warning shots last year over the Liberal government's long-delayed plan to replace Canada's CF-18 fighters, saying the procurement process discriminates against the Lockheed-Martin-built F-35 stealth jet, according to a new academic report.

The study by a researcher at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI) cites leaked Pentagon letters written last summer and late fall to officials at Public Services and Procurement Canada.

The report, released Monday, largely blames the Liberal government for the delays in the procurement, while making only a passing reference to the inability of the former Conservative government to deliver on the same program.

The report's major revelation involves the leaked letters — which are expected to inflame the debate over the nearly decade-long on-again, off-again plan to replace the air force's 1980s-vintage CF-18s with modern warplanes.

The source of the Pentagon's irritation is a federal government policy that insists defence manufacturers deliver specific industrial benefits to Canadian companies.

Canada accused of angling for better deal

That's not how the F-35 program is structured. Countries that participated in the development of the stealth jet — as Canada did — pay an annual fee to remain part of the program, which gives domestic aerospace companies in those countries the right to bid on F-35 work.

The U.S. undersecretary for defence acquisition and sustainment wrote to Canada's assistant deputy minister of defence procurement in Public Services and Procurement Canada last summer to complain about the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) policy.

Ellen Lord warned the policy runs contrary to the F-35 participation agreement and accused Canada of trying to leverage a better deal than its allies.

"This text basically stated that Canada had signed the [Memorandum of Understanding] clearly understanding these provisions and could not now try to renegotiate a better deal," said the Aug. 31, 2018 letter, leaked to MLI researcher Richard Shimooka.

Lord went on to say the current procurement process "would be fundamentally and structurally prejudicial to any F-35 bid."

The point was hammered home when former U.S. Vice-Admiral Mathias Winter, in charge of the Joint Program Office overseeing F-35 development, wrote to Canada's head of future fighter development at Public Services.

After reviewing the federal government's draft request for proposals, Winter wrote that the F-35 would not be able to participate given the way the system is structured now.

"Fundamentally, the F-35 program is different from Foreign Military Sales or Direct Commercial sales procurements," said the Dec. 18, 2018 letter.

"The current [Future Fighter Capability Program] does not allow the F-35 to participate in a fair and open competition that recognizes the special nature and distinct advantages of the partnership."

Lockheed-Martin is one of four manufacturers that plan to bid on the fighter jet replacement program. Several defence and defence industry sources told CBC News in a story published last month that the full tender was expected to be released at the end of May, with final bids to be delivered by the end of the year.

There is considerable uncertainty about the timeline, however, because of questions and disputes about the project's industrial expectations.

"A delay is inevitable," said one defence industry source on Monday.

With the release of the letters, the institute's analysis peels back the curtain on perhaps the most contentious of the disputes: how to reconcile the existing F-35 benefits package with the federal government's standard procurement model.

Lockheed-Martin would not confirm whether the issues raised in the letters remain active concerns, but sources within both the defence industry and the federal government say there is an ongoing dialogue.

The U.S. defence giant, in a statement, said it did not commission the report but acknowledged it had provided "factual information to several think tanks in Canada" about its various programs.

The company said the structure of the F-35 program means it is the U.S. defence department that does all of the talking.

"We continue to provide our feedback to the U.S. government, which leads all government-to-government discussions related to the Canadian fighter replacement competition," said Cindy Tessier, head of communications for Lockheed Martin Canada.

She touted the $1.25 billion in contracts already awarded to Canadian companies because of the F-35 program and said the potential is there for more work once the fighter aircraft reaches full production in a few years.

"As a valued current partner on the program, Canadian industry has the opportunity to produce and sustain components and systems to a fleet that is expected to grow to more than 4,000 aircraft," she said.

A spokeswoman for Public Services Minister Carla Qualtrough did not address the Pentagon letters directly, but did say the government has engaged in continuous dialogue with potential bidders as it sought feedback on the proposed tender.

"The approach is inherently designed to encourage continuous supplier engagement," said Ashley Michnowski. "We do this so that suppliers are able to make informed business decisions.

"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."

The process is not yet complete, although it is nearing its conclusion and a final request for proposals will be issued soon, she added.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-administration-claims-ottawa-s-jet-procurement-plan-is-unfair-to-f-35-says-report-1.5125009

Sur le même sujet

  • Opinion: How To Assess Defense Prospects For The Future

    10 octobre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Opinion: How To Assess Defense Prospects For The Future

    Byron Callan During upcoming earnings conference calls, expect some defense contractors to again state that they are well-positioned in high-priority programs and markets that fully align with customer priorities. In addition, planners and analysts are going to be asking a lot more questions about contractor positioning and the outcome of the 2020 U.S. election. Who will be best positioned if President Donald Trump is reelected or if there is a Democrat in the White House in 2021? On the first assertion of “well-positioned,” to a degree it is axiomatic. Defense requirements are validated, so by that very process, they take priority over emerging and yet-to-be-funded requirements. However, if one accepts the premises that Defense Department budgets may be flat for a multi-year period and that demand signals for security are going to rise, the sector will be entering a far more dynamic period in the 2020s than the past 4-5 years. Instead of being “well-positioned,” a broader set of filters may need to be applied. Posture may be a better way to assess contractor outlooks. There are five attributes on which this may be assessed. 1. The priority and relative safety of programs matters both in U.S. and international markets. But that needs to be assessed and reassessed against changed defense needs. Today's major programs of record are likely to change. If there is doubt on that issue, a reading of the U.S. Marine Corps Commandant's Planning Guidance released last July may dispel notions that the next 10 years are going to be stable and predictable. 2. One contractor can disrupt others through new product and service offerings or even a new business model. Examples of the former include Boeing's T-X/T-7 aircraft, which, if evolved into a fighter/attack aircraft, may be good enough for some missions. Kratos' Valkyrie is another example, which could affect demand for manned combat aircraft. On the latter, the Pentagon now intends to purchase launch services instead of expendable launch vehicles. Where else might these sorts of “as a service” models be applied? 3. The pipeline of bid opportunities: There are some large programs that are in competition and for which decisions are pending. The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, Long-Range Standoff, Army aviation and ground-vehicle modernization and Navy FFG(X) programs are some of the larger ones that could be decided, but there also are classified ones and swaths of opportunity in unmanned systems, hypersonics, software for data and artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. International opportunity also clearly matters in assessing how a contractor is postured. 4. The ability to execute within cost and schedule is essential. Human capital, technology application and risk, contracting and supply chain management are critical attributes. This also will tie into the bid pipeline and the degree to which a contractor is postured to pursue new opportunities or if the contractor will have challenges managing its current portfolio of products and services. From the outside looking in at contractors, this attribute may be difficult to measure. Open job position data can be sketchy, but it is one metric to consider. Performance on current programs is another. 5. Contractor culture will be critical in the 2020s. One aspect of culture is how well a contractor anticipates potential changes in defense and security needs. Another is how receptive company leaders are to positioning or repositioning to capitalize on those changes. There will not be solid metrics here, although there are plenty of good questions to ask. In order to anticipate change, contractors are going to have to be wired to understand when and where change is occurring. This has to allow perspectives that may differ from the consensus view to reach leaders so they can assess whether ideas are worth pursuing or if there is a threat to be addressed. Part of this posture entails a willingness to create top cover and breathing space for conflicting views. There will be a natural tendency of company leaders to continue to exploit current business models and protect major products and services. There will likely be very strong pressure from shareholders to sustain or increase operational margins and cash flow and stay within current business lanes. Posture, however, may also include a willingness to take some short-term or even intermediate-term pain and risk in order to better position for the future. Innovation is an overused term these days, and it may be like former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's assertion on obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Be that as it may, contractors must dedicate time to innovation every week in order to achieve it. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-how-assess-defense-prospects-future

  • Canada buying gasoline, sniper rifles and radios for Ukraine | CBC News

    21 avril 2023 | Local, Terrestre

    Canada buying gasoline, sniper rifles and radios for Ukraine | CBC News

    Canada is buying gasoline and sniper rifles for Ukraine ? part of the?latest military assistance package announced Friday?by Defence Minister Anita Anand at a meeting of allies in Europe.

  • Invitation de Raytheon

    23 novembre 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Invitation de Raytheon

    Raytheon Canada will be hosting a Canadian Industry Day for companies interested in opportunities to become a supplier/subcontractor to Raytheon Technologies. In consideration of current and upcoming Industrial and Technological Benefit (ITB) obligations in Canada, Raytheon Technologies is looking for potential second-source suppliers for current and upcoming US and International programs. This virtual Industry Day will be hosted via Zoom, on Wednesday November 25, 2020 from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm EST (9 am MST). If you are not familiar with Canada's ITB program, here is a link to the Government of Canada website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/086.nsf/eng/home Companies with capabilities within the following general categories are invited to register for and attend this Webinar: Metal parts – manufacturing and machining of steel and aluminum Mechanical Assemblies – similar to oilfield equipment in level of complexity Electronic components, wires, harnesses Power supply and electronic cabinets Missile components Motor assemblies (rockets/missiles) Electronic assemblies Circuit Card Assemblies Injection Molding Hydraulic parts and components Thin Film Alumina Portable/Small Battery technology (including alternative power/solar) Mechanical Engineering/Support/Testing Environmental Testing (Ruggedization of design for extreme temperatures) Shelters – including heating and cooling, power supply Generators Hydraulic truck mounted cranes Simulation and Training The Industry Day will include presentations from Raytheon Canada and Raytheon Technologies. An overview of Raytheon Technologies, details on potential opportunities, and the process by which interested companies will be reviewed and selected to bid on any future opportunities will be provided. If your company has any of the capabilities listed above and you wish to participate in the Industry Day, please register at the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_ewlCKRpATjCF5TNe8WVbGQ Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defence company that provides advanced systems and services for commercial, military and government customers worldwide. It comprises four industry-leading businesses – Collins Aerospace Systems, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon Intelligence & Space and Raytheon Missiles & Defense. Its 195,000 employees enable the company to operate at the edge of known science as they imagine and deliver solutions that push the boundaries in quantum physics, electric propulsion, directed energy, hypersonics, avionics and cybersecurity. The company, formed in 2020 through the combination of Raytheon Company and the United Technologies Corporation aerospace businesses, is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts

Toutes les nouvelles