20 juillet 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Why it is time for smart protectionism

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

Sur le même sujet

18 octobre 2018 | Local, Naval

Feds aiming to select preferred design for $60B warships by end of month
OTTAWA — Canada's most expensive military project is entering a critical new phase as the government is on the verge of picking its top design for the country's $60-billion fleet of new warships. Defence insiders say the government wants to select a design by the end of the month from among three options submitted by several of the largest defence and shipbuilding companies in the world. After that the government and Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding, which will actually build the 15 new warships, will sit down with the selected bidder to hammer out the final cost and other details. The stakes will be high for both sides, with hundreds of millions of dollars in play. There will also be pressure to make up for lost time on a project already running behind schedule even though whatever decisions are taken could have ramifications on the navy — and taxpayers — for decades to come. "That's part of the tension between moving quickly and making the right choice," said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. The new warships will replace the navy's 12 frigates and three destroyers, the latter of which have already been retired. They will be used for most of this century. Launched in late 2016, the design competition has been the subject of rampant lobbying and complaints by defence industry players, with numerous revisions to the original request for bids and several deadline extensions. That was despite defence officials and Irving having previously warned that time is of the essence when it comes to starting construction, and that they want to shave 18 to 24 months off the project. There have also been questions about Irving's role in the competition, and anger from some companies that British firm BAE was allowed to enter its Type 26 vessel despite the ship having never been built. BAE and U.S.-based defence giant Lockheed Martin partnered together to propose the Type 26 for the design competition, which is up against separate proposals from Dutch firm Alion and Spanish shipbuilder Navantia. A joint French-Italian design was disqualified because Paris-based Naval Group and Italian firm Fincantieri, who promised to build the warships faster and for less than anyone else, did not follow the established process for submitting proposals. One of the big questions heading into the negotiations will be how much the selected design needs to be changed to reflect the navy's needs and how much the navy will have to shift its requirements because changing the design will take more time and money. Irving has warned that it could be forced to lay off hundreds of employees because of a production gap if work on the warships isn't ready to start by the time it finishes building the navy's new Arctic patrol ships in 2021 or 2022. Government negotiators are also facing a battle over the amount of intellectual property that the top bidder will be required to hand over, which Ottawa wants so it can operate and maintain the vessels on its own after they are built. Companies had originally been told that the winner would be required to turn over the full blueprints, but after significant resistance, the two sides agreed that the matter would be negotiated before a contract is awarded. The government however warned that if the winning ship designer drives too hard a bargain on the intellectual property front they face the risk of officials pulling the plug on talks and moving on to the next company. Perry said that while there are many challenges ahead before a deal for a design is signed — and before any of the new warships actually get into the water — this is a critical step forward. "You can't dance until you pick a dance partner," he said. — Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter. Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/feds-aiming-to-select-preferred-design-for-60b-warships-by-end-of-month-250594/
25 octobre 2018 | Local, Aérospatial

An Investment in Capability
If you're planning to become hopelessly lost, my advice is to do it in Norway. That was the author's conclusion after Skies was invited to the Leonardo Helicopters facility in Yeovil, England, to fly the latest variant of the AW101 search and rescue (SAR) helicopter. The machine was brand new, pending delivery to Norway, but represented a configuration that Leonardo has proposed to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) as an upgrade for Canada's fleet of CH-149 Cormorant SAR helicopters. AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RCAF The CH-149 Cormorant entered RCAF service in 2002. While not an old airframe by Canadian standards, the subsequent evolution of the model has left our version somewhat dated, and Leonardo maintains that obsolescence issues are beginning to adversely affect operational availability Team Cormorant is an industry consortium composed of Leonardo Helicopters, IMP Aerospace & Defence, CAE, GE Canada and Rockwell Collins Canada. The group's unsolicited proposal to the Air Force is intended to guard against creeping obsolescence and ultimately to reduce the cost of operating the helicopter. Under Team Cormorant's proposal, the RCAF would also acquire a training facility with a modern full-mission simulator, likely to be installed at 19 Wing Comox, B.C. The machine on offer to Canada is an extensively upgraded version of the RCAF's existing airframe, based upon the AW101-612 configuration; 16 of which are destined for Norway under its Norwegian All-Weather SAR Helicopter (NAWSARH) program. Team Cormorant's proposal to Canada also seeks to take advantage of nine former VH-71 Kestrel airframes from the cancelled U.S. presidential helicopter program, acquired by the RCAF in 2011. These would be used to augment the Cormorant fleet from the current 14–widely acknowledged as inadequate for Canadian SAR requirements–up to potentially 21 machines. Enhanced fleet size would allow the RCAF to base the Cormorant at 8 Wing Trenton, Ont.; a move that would improve SAR capability in the vast Trenton SAR region. Compared to in-service CH-149 Cormorants, the upgrades on offer include new, more powerful, full-authority digital electronic-controlled (FADEC) General Electric CT7-8E turboshaft engines; a more modern Rockwell Collins cockpit and avionics suite; improved aircraft management system; and a newly designed, four-axis dual-duplex digital automatic flight control system (AFCS). The sensor package promises the biggest capability upgrade, and includes an electro-optical surveillance system; a multi-mode active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar; cell phone detection and tracking system; and marine automatic identification system (AIS) transponder receiver. AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPARISON In 2016, Skies dispatched me to fly the CH-149 Cormorant with RCAF's 442 Squadron at CFB Comox. It was an opportunity for this former Air Force CH-113/A Labrador SAR pilot to see first-hand how the Cormorant had changed the job I did decades ago in those same mountains. I recall that the Cormorant brought a lot of new technology to the SAR business, but the basic mission, like the mountains around us, was unchanged. After that flight, I reported: “Flying SAR was still a matter of cautious and skillful flying, using maps and looking out the window.” That experience left me with great regard for Air Force SAR crews and for the operational capability of the Cormorant, but also bemused to find that the business of searching still basically relied upon the “Mark 1 eyeball.” A flight in the latest variant of the AW101 was a terrific opportunity for a more contemporary comparison. The experience would demonstrate that leading-edge systems–particularly electro-optic sensor technologies–offer SAR capabilities that are as much a generational improvement over the current Cormorant as the Cormorant was over my beloved ol' Labrador. A CANADIAN FLIES A NORWEGIAN HELICOPTER IN ENGLAND Leonardo Helicopters test pilot Richard “Russ” Grant kindly offered me the right seat for our demonstration flight. Veteran flight test engineer (FTE) Andy Cotton served as sensor operator. Conditions were ideal, under a clear sky with a warm (24 C) gentle breeze along the century-old former-Westlands grass runway. Our test helicopter was the sixth production machine destined for Norway, operated by Leonardo under U.K. Ministry of Defence registration ZZ015. The helicopter's empty weight was 11,039 kilograms with much of its SAR interior yet to be fitted. Adding 2,000 kilograms of fuel (roughly half its 4,150-kilogram capacity) and three crewmembers brought the takeoff mass to 13,517 kilograms, which was well below the maximum allowable gross weight of 15,600 kilograms. The Cormorant that Skies flew with RCAF's 442 Squadron, although fully equipped for SAR with a standard fuel load of 2,400 kilograms and a crew of six, had a gross takeoff mass of 13,800 kilograms, which was below the maximum allowable gross weight of 14,600 kilograms. Direct comparison is difficult to establish, but the Norwegian machine is both heavier with installed systems and has more installed power than the CH-149, so the net result may be expected to be about the same operational power margin. Rapid dispatch can be facilitated by starting the auxiliary power unit (APU) while strapping in. Grant talked me through the engine starting procedure from memory. Air Force crews will use a checklist, but the procedure was quick and straightforward Engine controls consisted of three rotary knobs on the overhead panel in place of engine condition levers. I monitored the start, but Grant advised that in the event of a start-up malfunction the FADEC would shut down the engine faster than the pilots could react. We started the No. 1 engine first to power the accessory drive, providing hydraulic and electric power and bleed air. Starts of engines No. 2 and No. 3 were done simultaneously. Pre-flight checks and initialization of the aircraft management system (AMS, but think “master computer”) took Grant only minutes. Despite the functional similarity of the cockpit to the CH-149, the impression that I was amidst unfamiliar new technology was immediate. As ground crews pulled the chocks and busied themselves around the helicopter, the onboard Obstacle Proximity LIDAR System (OPLS, where LIDAR is light detection and ranging, since I needed to ask, too) annunciated their presence around the turning rotors. This system, which Grant described as being like the parking sensors in a car, provided a pop-up display and discretely-pitched audio cues depicting the range and azimuth to obstacles around the helicopter. Having come from a generation where we squinted into a landing light beam to guesstimate rotor clearance from obstacles, all I can say is, I want one! Full article: https://www.skiesmag.com/features/an-investment-in-capability
11 décembre 2020 | Local, Aérospatial

Icarus at the MRO&Defence Day
We are delighted to announce our participation in the Defence and Security Day on the 16th of December, a part of the International Aerospace Week 2020 event organized by Aéro Montréal where we'll present #Innovation in #Defence and our #multidomain #TacticalAirVehicle project, a supplementing and fully interoperable solution with 4+ and 5th Gen Aircraft. Please join us to discover details about aircraft platform which will enable us to redefine how #CostEffective #NextGen #C4ISR, #MPA, #AntiSubmarineWarfare and #CloseAirSupport will look like. https://www.aeromontreal.ca/defence-security-day-program.html

Toutes les nouvelles