Canada has second thoughts about costly F-35 Lightning

O Canada, land of "peace, order and good government." Land of compromise and polite politics. Land of turmoil over whether to buy the F-35.

 

As in the United States, the fighter plane has become a rancorous political issue. What once looked like a sure buy of 65 planes has been bogged down by infighting and un-Canadian vitriol, and the purchase is on hold while Canadian officials consider whether to buy another plane.

 

The F-35 Lightning II is a U.S. plane, made by a U.S. company for the U.S. military. But if the cost for U.S. taxpayers is going to come down to levels that make the plane affordable in the long term, the Pentagon is depending on foreign governments to buy the F-35 as well.

 

From the beginning of the program, Defense Department officials signed up eight international partners, including Canada. Since then, they've crossed the globe looking for additional foreign government customers with some success. Japan and Israel have agreed to buy some of the planes, while South Korea appears likely to make the F-35 its next fighter jet as well.

 

But as Canada shows, not everyone is sold on what has become the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history. In addition to being a symbol of power, might and mind-bending technology, the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has, to some, come to represent waste and unwieldiness — in the United States and abroad.

Many thought that by now Canada would have decided whether to buy the planes — a move that would help drive down costs in the nearly $400 billion program — or instead force the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, to compete for its business. But it's now unclear when that will happen.

 

Some fear that if nations such as Canada balk, there could be questions about the long-term affordability of the program. Meanwhile, Boeing, one of Lockheed Martin's fiercest competitors, has pounced on what it sees as an opportunity in Canada and other countries to tout its F/A-18 Super Hornet as a proven, affordable alternative.

 

 

Facing budget constraints, Italy and the Netherlands have already curtailed the number of F-35s they said they plan to buy. Denmark is holding a competition that would pit the F-35 against other fighters. Meanwhile, the production line at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas, plant has been limited to a little over 30 the past two years, as tightened U.S. budgets and technical problems have forced the Pentagon to significantly slow its procurement as well.

 

"The program is stuck in low production rates and high costs," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry for the Teal Group. "The production rates are low because costs are high and costs are high because production is low."

 

Currently, the plane's so-called "flyaway cost," which doesn't include research and development, among other things, is approximately $110 million apiece for the Air Force's model, the company says. But Lockheed and Pentagon officials say it could be lowered to less than $80 million by the end of the decade. Lockheed and some of its subcontractors are investing $170 million to reduce the price.

 

Still, the Government Accountability Office recently said that affordability "remains a significant concern" and that "the program is likely to be challenged" to meet cost reduction goals.

While ramping up production would bring the per-plane cost down, it would be unwise to build too many too soon because not all of the necessary testing has been done on the aircraft, said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

 

Additional testing will inevitably reveal problems that need to be fixed, which then cost money to repair, he said. For years, critics of the program, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have said that the United States should never have committed to buying the plane while it was still being developed, saying it violated one of the basic rules of airplane acquisition: "fly before you buy."

 

"It gets to the fundamental tension within the JSF — you want to buy more of them because the quicker we buy them, the cost will come down," Harrison said. "But the faster we buy them, that just increases the concurrency in the program. We're buying planes that haven't completed testing and are going to require modifications."

 

The slowed production rate could have another consequence he said.

 

"One of the concerns has been as we've reduced the production rate, people have floated the idea of cutting back on the number of planes the U.S. is going to buy. Then you spook the allies."

But with the relatively large numbers of aircraft the United States plans to buy, he said, "the fate of the program is up to us, not them." Though the Pentagon initially planned to buy 2,852 planes, it has for years remained consistent with its commitment to buy 2,443. Britain, which plans to buy 138 planes, the most of any other nation, also said its confidence in the program remains strong even though the F-35 was grounded after a recent engine fire and missed its international debut at a pair of air shows in England last month.

 

And at a recent "rollout" event in Fort Worth, Australian and U.S. officials celebrated the anticipated delivery of its first two planes. During the ceremony, Air Marshal Geoff Brown, chief of the Royal Australian Air Force, called the F-35 a "revolution" and said it will cause a "step change in the way we prepare for and conduct operations into the future."

 

Lockheed Martin officials are confident that more countries will sign on in the years to come as the need to replace their fighter fleets becomes more urgent. The F-35 is designed to supplant several different legacy aircraft, from the F-16 to the F/A 18 and the A-10.

 

"This is the airplane that's going to replace all those airplanes and create a capability for the next 50-plus years," said Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed Martin's vice president of international strategy and business development.

 

Replacement of the F-16 alone creates a huge market for the F-35, he said. More than 4,500 F-16s have been built, and nearly 30 countries use the aircraft.

 

And while not all of those F-16s will be replaced, "the potential is significant," he said.

 

Potential customers are one thing. Signed contracts are another.

 

It initially appeared as if Canada was definitely going to buy. Defense officials praised the F-35's speed and stealth. At a news conference announcing the purchase to buy 65 F-35s in 2010, then-Defense Minister Peter MacKay called it "the best that we can provide our men and women in uniform."

 

But two years later, the government put the acquisition on hold after an auditor general's report suggested the government misled Parliament, saying that key costs over the course of the fleet's life were much higher than previously stated.

 

Liberals attacked the conservative government. John McKay, a member of Parliament, called it "deceit and incompetence at the highest levels." Another member, Ralph Goodale, wrote that the "F-35 fiasco exposes dishonesty and incompetence."

 

As a result, the Harper administration, while denying it misled Parliament, put the purchase on hold and appointed a National Fighter Procurement Secretariat to ensure the Canadian military acquires the right plane.

 

But Goodale thinks that the government will put off any decision until after the upcoming elections. "This is a hot potato for them," he said. "Their process up to now has been terribly flawed, and they have very little public support for how they've gone about this."

 

The cost has been a big issue, and there was also "concern here in some circles that the F-35 was the anointed choice without having gone through the formality of a competitive process," said Martin Shadwick, a Canadian defense analyst and a professor at York University.

 

Still, he said, "My personal anticipation is that we'll still buy."

 

But Boeing is doing everything it can to change minds.

 

"We certainly believe the Super Hornet is very well-suited for the unique environment and geographical challenges faced by the Royal Canadian Air Force," said Howard Berry, Boeing's F/A-18 international business development team leader. "We continue our battle rhythm. We continue to engage our political colleagues on both sides of the aisle."

Canadian Forces quest to obtain unmanned aerial vehicles – 10 years and counting

The Canadian military’s almost decade-long quest to buy unmanned aerial vehicles has been partly hung up by an internal debate about whether the air forces needs one — or two — different fleets of drones, the Canadian Press news service has reported.

 

A series of internal briefings, stretching back over two years, show that military planners were forced to go back to the drawing board in early 2013 after consultations determined what the country wants to accomplish with the remotely piloted planes might be too broad for just a single type of aircraft, the news service noted.

 

The military expects the drones to not only provide surveillance at home and abroad, but also carry weapons, such as Hellfire missiles, for precision strikes during overseas missions, the Canadian Press reported added.

 

The CP report dovetails into an article that I had in May. In that article, I reported that the Canada military hopes to have a fleet of drones fully operating by 2023.

 

But even that 2023 date is tentative as the government still has to approve the project to buy the unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as UAVs.

 

More from that article:

 

Military staff privately acknowledge that the plan to buy the pilotless aircraft to conduct surveillance off the country’s coasts, in the Arctic and on overseas missions, has fallen behind schedule because of a lack of money and lack of personnel to staff the new squadron.

 

At the time, the RCAF declined an interview on UAVs. Air force spokesman Maj. James Simiana stated in an email that “this project is still pre-definition phase and pre-Government announcement.”

 

But in an April 10 presentation in Ottawa, Col. Phil Garbutt told industry representatives that the project is still a priority and one of the “Big 5” the air force wants to push in the future. He noted the RCAF hopes for the first UAVs to be available for operations in 2021 and that all drones, personnel and infrastructure would be in place by 2023.

 

Details of Garbutt’s presentation were provided to the Citizen.

 

But industry representatives privately question whether that timetable will be kept, noting there has been little movement on the project, estimated to cost more than $1 billion.

 

In his presentation Garbutt acknowledged the dates for the project, dubbed the Joint Unmanned Surveillance Targeting and Acquisition System (JUSTAS), were “notional.”

 

The first of the UAVs were supposed to be operating starting as early as 2010. That was then pushed back to early 2012 and again changed to 2017 by military officers as they dealt with ongoing delays to the project.

 

In 2012 the Citizen reported the RCAF had determined it needed 369 people if it wanted to create a new squadron for unmanned aircraft as promised by Harper. Finding those individuals was a problem, according to the military.

 

Canada has operated UAVs previously. During the Afghan war, the government approved the lease of Israeli-built UAVs from MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates in Richmond, B.C. Those unarmed aircraft operated out of Kandahar airfield.

 

During the Libyan war in 2011, senior Canadian defence leaders pitched the idea of spending up to $600 million for armed drones to take part in that conflict.

 

Documents obtained by the Citizen showed that military leaders saw the Libyan war as a possible way to move the stalled JUSTAS program forward. According to a briefing presented to then Defence Minister Peter MacKay, they pointed out the purchase of such aircraft for the Libyan conflict could kick-start their larger drone project.

 

The war, however, was in its final stages when the briefing was provided and the proposal didn’t get approval from the Conservative government.

 

The Canadian Press report has further details:

 

One briefing, prepared for former associate defence minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay in early 2013, says five of eight companies that responded to a request for information in the fall of 2012 proposed a mixed fleet.

 

The documents show the federal government was prepared to spend to up $3.4 billion to buy and service military drones over 20 years, but those numbers are being revisited because of the delay.

 

With the political firestorm over the F-35 stealth fighter in mind, the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office, told the military it wanted to see three viable, “fully costed options.”

 

The documents, obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information legislation, also show that the air force has tried and failed six times since 2005 to acquire either a permanent fleet of drones or temporary capability.

 

It did succeed in getting a small fleet of Israeli-built Herons for operations in Kandahar, but that was only because the Manley commission, which examined the war in Afghanistan, made it a condition of Canada’s continued involvement.

 

The leased aircraft were handed to the Australians following the end of Canada’s Kandahar deployment in 2011.

 

Drones are becoming ubiquitous not only in many modern militaries, but commercially.

 

The fact National Defence hasn’t been able to get its act together shouldn’t be surprising given the budget restraints imposed on it, said University of Ottawa defence analyst Philippe Lagasse.

 

The air force’s budget and expectations for replacement aircraft are often directed toward single fleets and having industry come back to say expectations don’t match the technology must have thrown officials for a loop.

 

“Should it be going faster? Sure,” said Lagasse. “Is it easy to do? No.”

 

It is hard to move faster when National Defence has been saddled with so many competing projects and no overarching policy guidance, he added.

 

A rewrite of the government’s defence strategy has been in a holding pattern before cabinet since late last fall.

 

The newly released documents underscore the importance of drone technology, describing it as a “critical enabler” without which surveillance of the country’s vast expanses “will be less effective.”

 

The absence of unmanned aerial vehicles is also being keenly felt as the military looks at other nations and sees what it could be doing — especially on the domestic front where it has been called upon to deal with the aftermath of floods and storms.

 

“Had a (UAV) capability existed it would have been utilized in most, if not all, recent natural disasters,” said an April 2013 slide presentation drawn up by the project management office.

HMCS Windsor won’t meet year-end timetable

Tests around Halifax are going well, but the progress of one of Canada’s four submarines will still be set back by several months due to a faulty generator, according to the Royal Canadian Navy.

HMCS Windsor has been undergoing tests around Halifax for months and can sometimes be spotted moving through the harbour.

Its 40- to 45-person crew spends much of its time at sea doing a variety of tests, including full dives.

“To date, all conducted sea trials have gone well. We’ve successfully completed them,” said Rich Feltham, commander of Maritime Operations Group 5.

But the navy will still miss its target of having three fully operational submarines by the end of the year.

Windsor is supposed to complete testing, including torpedo firing, this fall. But it will have to go into a few months of maintenance to replace its generator, Feltham said.

That will push completion into 2014.

HMCS Victoria had been docked since 2005 but was declared operational last year. It is based out of British Columbia.

HMCS Chicoutimi is still undergoing extensive work. It is the most infamous of the submarines, after catching fire during its maiden voyage in 2004. One navy officer died as a result. The Defence Department is trying to have the Chicoutimi ready to start operations by the end of this year.

When three submarines are working properly, the navy will consider the fleet to be fully operational, or in a “steady state.” The plan is to have three submarines functioning at any given time while one undergoes a two-year break for refits and repairs.

HMCS Corner Brook is not expected to be fully functional until 2016 after running aground last year.

The submarines have been a huge disappointment after being bought at the seemingly discounted price of $750 million from the British navy in 1998. Since they started sailing in 2003, Canada’s submarines have jointly been at sea for 1,131 days, as of the end of April.

That works out to about $663,000 per day a submarine has sailed, based on just the initial cost. The years of work the submarines have required would raise that significantly.

A recent report by the Laurier Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives questions whether Canada should cut its losses and scrap the whole program.

But people in government continue to defend the program. They say it is a useful deterrent for Canada to have functional submarines, and allied partners like training with Canada because the diesel submarines are quieter than some newer nuclear models.

Canada - Sea King helicopter replacement hits a new snag

The decades-long project to replace Canada's 50-year-old Sea King helicopters has hit another snag, with the government now hiring an independent expert to study whether helicopter-maker Sikorsky is even capable of delivering a replacement as promised.

CBC News has learned that Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose has gone outside government and hired a consultant to study Sikorsky's work, and Canada's contract, to determine whether it's even possible for the U.S. helicopter giant to deliver the aircraft Canada ordered.

The details of the hire — or the review — are not publicly available and Ambrose's office has yet to provide more information, but Ambrose herself offered the news after questions from the CBC about Sikorsky and its contract.

"I have employed the services of an independent consultant and contractor to undertake a review of the ability of this company to deliver this to the government," Ambrose said.

The Defence Department's maritime helicopter project is the successor to the failed procurement of 50 EH-101 helicopters promised in 1992 by former prime minister Brian Mulroney. That program was cancelled in 1993 as part of an election promise made by Jean Chrétien.

For years, the program lay dormant as Canada's Sea King helicopters slowly gathered wear and tear.

In 2004, Sikorsky won a formal contract to provide 28 new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters to Canada.

The initial contract was worth $1.8 billion for aircraft, and an additional $3.2 billion for 20 years of maintenance and support.

Missed deadlines

Delivery was to begin in November 2008, but it never did. The deadline slipped, and then slipped again.

In 2010, Canada agreed to accept six interim helicopters with lesser capabilities than those ordered by DND, provided Sikorsky agree to deliver "fully compliant" helicopters beginning in June 2012.

So far, only four helicopters have been delivered — all of them interim, and none of them meeting even those lower "interim" standards, said Ambrose.

"I am very disappointed in Sikorsky," she told CBC News. "They have not met their contractual obligations to date. They have missed every deadline and every timeline in the delivery of even the interim maritime helicopter, never mind the fully compliant maritime helicopter."

With the Sea Kings now about to enter their 50th year of service, and maintenance costs soaring, the military is desperate for some form of new maritime helicopter.

The Royal Canadian Air Force realizes the procurement process is slow, and unless the military is able to begin training on some variant of the Cyclone it won't be ready to fly the new helicopters when they finally start arriving.

Now, CBC News has learned Public Works is refusing to allow the military to accept delivery of those four interim helicopters, because they allegedly aren't up to standards.

"The bottom line is that they have not met their contractual obligation," Ambrose told the CBC. "The interim helicopter does not meet the requirements of the air force, so we are not going to take delivery of a helicopter that is not compliant."

Sikorsky seems to be sensitive to Ambrose's criticisms, though it's not clear what it intends to do about it.

"We appreciate the minister's concerns and, consistent with our past practice, will not comment on any discussions we are having with the Canadian government," Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said by email. "The program itself is among the most sophisticated ever conducted by Sikorsky, and it continues to move forward."

Regardless, the 4½-year delay continues to have an effect on military plans.

The air force is already working on how to keep flying its Sea Kings for years more. And that has consequences for the Royal Canadian Navy, too, affecting the long-planned upgrade of its Halifax-class frigates.

The upgrade is necessary to extend the life of the vessels, and naval planners had intended to use that lengthy work period to upgrade the ships' helicopter facilities.

The Cyclone is larger and heavier than the Sea King, and the landing decks and hangars need to be upgraded.

But with no deadline in sight for delivery of the final version of the Cyclones, the navy is planning to keep some of its frigates fitted for Sea Kings. That will necessitate a further refit for the ships, once the Cyclones actually arrive.

Canada’s submarine fleet needs to start from scratch

Defence Minister Peter MacKay blames the Liberals for Canada’s troubled fleet of second-hand Victoria-class submarines. It was the Liberals who purchased the four British-made vessels for the suspiciously low price of $750-million in 1998. Yet it was none other than MacKay himself who, 10 years later, persuaded his Conservative colleagues not to scrap them. It was MacKay who signed taxpayers up for another $1.5-billion worth of refits and repairs, thereby throwing good money after bad.

It was apparent long before 2008 that the submarines were deeply flawed. The diesel engines were designed for railroad locomotives and not the rapid stops and starts required of submarines. There were defects in the torpedo tubes, making it possible for both the inner and outer doors to be open at the same time, even while the subs were submerged. The subs were mothballed in saltwater for four years before Canada bought them, and years more before we took possession. They suffered serious corrosion — the diving depth of HMCS Windsor is now restricted due to rust damage on the hull.

Shortly after Canada took possession, 1,500 litres of saltwater spilled into HMCS Corner Brook because of a malfunctioning Submerged Signal Ejector — a device that is used to deploy decoys while submerged. HMCS Victoria experienced serious problems with its cooling system. And a deadly fire broke out on HMCS Chicoutimi when seawater entering through an open hatch caused an electrical short in wiring that had just one layer of waterproof sealant, instead of the three layers the construction specifications had required. In 2004, the electrical system on Victoria was destroyed when the submarine was hooked up to an on-shore electric supply. The Halifax Chronicle Herald reported that the Navy spent about $200,000 after the accident “to buy old technology that mirrors what the sub’s British builders used” – equipment that one of the Navy’s own “electrical technologists” said “probably goes back to the ‘60s.”

In 2007, Windsor entered a refit that was supposed to take three years but ended up taking six. Documents obtained by the CBC later explained that every system had major problems. Spare parts are also difficult to obtain.

It was in this context that MacKay pushed for the $1.5-billion refit and repair contract, a move rendered all the more perplexing by the fact that, by 2008, the submarines were already between 15-19 years old. This meant that the most one could hope for from the vessels, after their refits, was a single decade of service.

 Which is not very long when you consider that, for the same amount of money, Canada could have procured between 3-4 brand new diesel-electric submarines based on proven designs from France or Germany.

  

Chicoutimi has been out of the water since the fire in 2004, and will remain in dry dock until at least the end of this year

Today, five years after the $1.5-billion contract, MacKay insists the situation is improving. Which is true, if going from horrendous to bad counts as an improvement. Corner Brook was damaged in an accident in 2011 and put out of action until 2012. It is scheduled to return to dry dock for three years in 2014. In December 2012, a defect was discovered in one of Windsor’s two diesel engines, which resulted in the submarine having to operate on just one engine. This put the sub on limited duty. She will be taken out of service later this year so that the engine can be replaced. Chicoutimi has been out of the water since the fire in 2004, and will remain in dry dock until at least the end of this year. Victoria, which emerged from six years in dry dock in 2011, is scheduled to return there for three years in 2016.

According to the Department of National Defence, Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines have accumulated a total of just 1,131 days at sea in the decade since 2003 — about 30 days per submarine per year. It’s time to stop throwing good money after bad. If Canada wants to maintain this capability, we need to start from scratch.

Canadian Navy announces designs for new ships, says the military has placed its future in industry’s hands

The head of the Royal Canadian Navy delivered a poignant reminder Wednesday that the fate of Canada’s military is in industry’s hands as he announced that a design for new resupply ships has been chosen.

The relationship between National Defence and defence companies has been turbulent recently following problems with a number of high-profile procurement projects, including the F-35 stealth fighter, armoured vehicles for the army and search-and-rescue aircraft.

Some of these issues have originated within National Defence and other federal departments, others have been industry’s fault. The result, however, has been the same: delays, cost overruns, and project cancellations or resets.

 Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison said "The Royal Canadian Navy has placed its future in a very real way into your hands."

Speaking to a room full of defence company representatives during a major arms-trade show in Ottawa, Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison noted that the huge opportunity inherent in the Conservative government’s promise to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in Canadian military equipment over the next two decades.

“If we are to collectively succeed, it will be because we enter into this great enterprise in a genuine spirit of strategic trust and co-operation, of frank and honest dialogue and respect,” he said.

Maddison appealed to industry representatives to look beyond their own interests and do the right thing for the country and Canada’s men and women in uniform.

“The Royal Canadian Navy has placed its future in a very real way into your hands,” he said. “The same applies to the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole.”

“We have done so with great optimism and confidence in your ingenuity, your creativity, and your shared determination to succeed. We’ve done so knowing that you have that sense of mission and purpose, which surpasses the fates and fortunes of the firms that employ you.”

He said this is particularly true for the government’s $35-billion national shipbuilding plan, which is emerging as one of the most complex military procurements in Canadian military history.

Maddison, who retires in just over three weeks, said the three major naval projects — new armed Arctic patrol ships; replacements for the navy’s aging destroyers and frigates; and new resupply vessels — are proceeding.

In particular, he revealed that a design had been chosen for the resupply vessels, also called joint support ships, in late April following an in-depth comparison between two options “based on capability, cost and risk.”

The joint support ships were the subject of a Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report at the end of February, which warned the project could cost more than $1 billion more than the government had budgeted. The government refuted the PBO’s findings.

Maddison would not reveal what design had been selected for the vessels, nor could he say when the joint support ships will be built thanks to a scheduling conflict with the Coast Guard’s new polar icebreaker, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker.

The joint support ships are desperately needed to replace the navy’s two 45-year-old resupply vessels, which were supposed to have been retired in 2012 and have become environmentally unsound and prohibitively expensive to maintain.

But they are expected to be ready for construction at the same time in 2017 as the Canadian Coast Guard’s new polar-class icebreaker, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, and the Vancouver shipyard responsible for both projects can only handle one project at a time.

Maddison said there is an “urgent” need to replace both the resupply ships and Coast Guard’s existing heavy icebreaker, the 40-year-old CCGS Louis St-Laurent.

“So the sequencing decision that’s going to be made is, you know, is JSS built first or is the polar (icebreaker) built first,” he said. “So we’ll see how that goes.”

The navy commander could not say whether the navy would still be able to afford the new joint support ship design that had been chosen if construction was delayed in favour of the icebreaker.

He also warned that he did not see the navy’s existing resupply vessels lasting past the end of this decade, though he was confident National Defence would be able to “find a way to innovatively mitigate any capability gap that opens.”

Canada - Feds face tough choice as naval resupply ships, icebreaker on collision course

The Canadian Coast Guard is also designing a new polar-class icebreaker, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, to replace its existing heavy icebreaker, the Louis S. St-Laurent (pictured), which is due to be retired in 2017.

 The Harper government is going to have to decide whether resupplying Canada’s navy or Arctic sovereignty is more important thanks to a looming collision at a Vancouver shipyard.

The Royal Canadian Navy is designing new joint support ships to replace its 50-year-old resupply vessels, which were supposed to have been retired in 2012 and have become environmentally unsound and prohibitively expensive to maintain.

The Canadian Coast Guard is also designing a new polar-class icebreaker, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, to replace its existing heavy icebreaker, the Louis S. St-Laurent, which is due to be retired in 2017.

But while both are expected to be ready for construction at the same time, the Vancouver shipyard slated to build them can only handle one project at a time.

This scheduling conflict was acknowledged in a recent Defence Department report tabled in Parliament, which noted that “the Joint Support Ship and the Polar Icebreaker are progressing on a very similar schedule such that they both could be ready for construction at the same time.”

The report goes on to say the first joint support ship will be delivered around by 2018, “assuming JSS is not delayed by the initial Coast Guard projects and the Polar Icebreaker program.”

Any delay in replacing the navy’s existing resupply vessels could be potentially devastating for the maritime fleet because new ships are needed immediately, while delays undercut the purchasing power of the $2.6 billion set aside for the project.

This was underscored by a Parliamentary Budget Office report in March that found it could cost as much as $4.13 billion to replace the resupply ships and not $2.6 billion, in large part because of delays already incurred.

Yet delaying construction of the $800-million John G. Diefenbaker could cause its own problems as it could leave the Coast Guard without significant icebreaking capabilities as the Louis St-Laurent is already slated to be decommissioned before the Diefenbaker comes online.

Deciding which project has priority will likely be a political decision — and the government has not yet figured out how to address the competing timelines.

“A decision has not yet been made,” Public Works spokeswoman Lucie Brosseau said in an email. “The (National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy) secretariat, working together with the Department of National Defence and Canadian Coast Guard, is currently developing the framework for the sequencing decision for the JSS and the Polar Icebreaker projects.”

Vancouver shipbuilder Seaspan Marine, which owns the shipyards where the vessels will be built, did not respond to inquiries.

Conference of Defence Association analyst David Perry said the government faces a tough decision as the navy needs new resupply ships and the Coast Guard needs a new icebreaker.

“The navy needs to get new supply ships ASAP,” Perry said. “But on the other hand our icebreakers were built many, many decades ago.

“They’re basically going to have to decide whether they want to do Arctic operations first, or whether they want to do open-ocean naval operations first,” he added. “They need both and there’s no easy choice.”

The pending conflict is yet the latest issue facing the $35-billion national shipbuilding strategy, which the Harper government has been holding up as an unmitigated success against a backdrop of problems related to the F-35, search-and-rescue airplanes and other military procurement projects.

Submarine HMCS Windsor hobbled after $209M refit

More trouble for Canada's fleet of used British submarines.

The Royal Canadian Navy has confirmed that HMCS Windsor – fresh from a $209 million refit – is unable to perform as expected because of a broken mission-critical diesel generator.

"We have restricted her in range of operations and her endurance," Captain Luc Cassivi, director of Canada's submarine force told CBC in an interview.

That means that the Windsor will only be able to operate in Canadian coastal waters until the diesel generator – a huge 16 cylinder engine – is removed from the submarine and replaced.

The Windsor has a second diesel generator which is still working. The diesel generators are used to charge the batteries that allow the submarine to operate under water.

Restrictions in place

A source has told CBC that the submarine's diving depth is severely restricted and the navy has been forced to withdraw the sub from planned exercises off the southern U.S. coast.

Capt. Cassivi said he is unable to provide exact details of the restrictions because they are "classified and linked to operational capabilities," but he denies that any exercises have been cancelled.

"It's an unexpected defect, and that is why we are going through the investigative process," said Capt. Cassivi.

The Halifax–based Windsor went back in the water in April, 2012 after a five-year refit designed to bring the submarine up to Canadian standards. The refit was three years behind schedule and until now, the navy has refused to say exactly how much it cost.

Capt. Cassivi confirmed to CBC that the Windsor's five-year refit totalled $209 million. The cost of removing and replacing the diesel generator is not included in the refit price.

"We have a plan for rectification as soon as the parts are available," said Capt. Cassivi.

The submarine should be hauled out of the water in Halifax in late summer and it could take a "few months" to replace the engine, he said.

One operational submarine

Canada purchased the four Victoria-class submarines in 1998 after the British navy declared them surplus. At $750 million, the deal was hailed as a bargain, and at a price far less than buying new submarines.

HMCS Victoria completed its refit last year at about the same $209 million cost as the Windsor, said Capt. Cassivi.

HMCS Chicoutimi's refit is more complicated and expensive because of damage done to the submarine by a fire that killed one sailor on the boat's first voyage under a Canadian flag. The Chicoutimi has been sidelined ever since the 2004 fire but may become operational by the end of the year.

Also, the refit to HMCS Corner Brook is expected to exceed the $200 million-plus price tag because of damage done to the sub's bow when it slammed into the seafloor off British Columbia. The Corner Brook has not gone to sea since its grounding in June 2011.

The unexpected repairs to the Windsor and the resulting restrictions means that the navy has only one fully operational submarine in service. The west coast-based HMCS Victoria – which was discovered to have a large dent in its hull after delivery – is the only submarine capable of firing torpedoes, unrestricted diving and movement.

It’s their fault: MacKay blames military for cut in danger pay for soldiers in Afghanistan

Defence Minister Peter MacKay diverted blame from himself to the military on Tuesday for being behind a decision to pay Canadian soldiers in northern Afghanistan less danger pay.

But opposition MPs are still questioning why MacKay doesn’t intervene to overrule the brass.

Opposition MPs kept up the pressure on the defence minister, questioning why Canadian troops serving in Mazar-i-Sharif are receiving less danger pay than other Canadian soldiers in that country.

But MacKay said neither he nor the Conservative government is to blame.

“It was as a result of a recommendation, a direction not taken by me, not taken by the government but taken upon the recommendation made, including (by) members of the armed forces themselves,” he said in the House of Commons.

But NDP defence critic Jack Harris said MacKay’s answer is ridiculous, considering he is supposed to be in charge of the department. “He seems more interested in deflecting blame from himself than doing something about the problem,” said Harris. “This is something he doesn’t seem to be able to or willing to do something about.”

In the Commons, MacKay accused Harris and the NDP of not supporting the Canadian Forces. He has also accused the Liberals of not supporting the troops, when that party’s MPs asked questions about the danger pay. Such accusations by MacKay are common when he can’t answer a question or when embarrassing issues are raised about the government, opposition party officials point out.

On Monday, MacKay’s office issued a statement on the danger pay issue, noting that “Our government will be asking department officials to re-examine their decision.”

Just hours after Postmedia News reported Canadian soldiers in northern Afghanistan were being forced to pay back danger pay they had previously been awarded, MacKay stepped in Monday to reverse that order. But MacKay’s intervention did not address the fact that the soldiers in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif were still getting a lower amount of danger pay than those Canadian soldiers in Kabul.

Some of the soldiers contacted Postmedia News to complain not only about the original rollback but the fact they were receiving less danger pay.

Monday’s announcement is the second time in this month that the Conservative government, stung by a public backlash over attempts to cut danger pay for Afghan troops, has reversed course, at least partially.

Northern Afghanistan has been relatively peaceful but over the last several years it has seen an increase in violence. In 2012 a suicide bomber killed a high-profile anti-Taliban politician and 22 other guests at a wedding reception.

In February, gunmen in Mazar-i-Sharif tried to assassinate a member of the Iranian consulate. In 2011, seven United Nations workers were killed in an attack in the city.

About 30 Canadian soldiers are in Mazar-i-Sharif, involved in training Afghan forces. Around 100 soldiers have worked at that location between June 1, 2012 and Feb. 3, 2013.

Neither MacKay nor Prime Minister Stephen Harper have explained why Canadian soldiers in Mazar-i-Sharif are getting a lesser amount of danger pay.

Opposition MPs say MacKay would have been told days in advance that in both this and an earlier case, the news media were asking questions about the danger pay cuts. But he waited to see public reaction to the news reports before doing anything, said Liberal defence critic John McKay.

The Defence Department has not provided details on what the rates of hazard and hardship pay were for Mazar-i-Sharif or Kabul-based soldiers.

Canada - Need to maintain aging fleet hurting Navy’s flexibility

A new Defence Department report shows the Royal Canadian Navy stretched thin over the past year as aging ships were forced to into dry-dock for maintenance and refits to keep them floating.

The repairs were scheduled and the report says the navy was able to do its job despite having fewer ships available.

But the revelations highlight the pressure the federal government, shipbuilding industry, but especially navy commanders are under to start cutting steel on replacement vessels in the coming years as the existing fleet continues getting older.

According to the report, tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday, the biggest challenge facing the navy was when its two support ships, the HMCS Protecteur and Preserver, went into maintenance at the same time.

Both vessels are nearly 50 years old and were supposed to start being replaced this year, but design and money concerns have delayed delivery of the first new joint support ship until at least spring 2018.

The report describes the supply ships as “integral” to the navy’s ability to do its job, and says the repairs were essential to keep them operational.

But because of their absence in late 2011 and early 2012, the navy was forced to turn to allies for help replenishing other Canadian vessels at sea until the re-supply ships came back online.

Similarly, planned maintenance and scheduled refits reduced the number of Halifax-class frigates and Iroquois-class destroyers naval commanders had at their disposal, making it more difficult to respond to an emergency.

The report said “careful planning” ensured enough warships were available, but that the maintenance programs, particularly the frigate overhauls, “will continue to exert pressure on the total number of available major warships.”

A senior naval official said there are currently seven frigates unavailable for operations right now.

While the absence of so many ships has been anticipated and is being managed, the official confirmed it has reduced the navy’s flexibility.

That challenge will only increase as the existing ships get older and until replacements come on line, the official said.

The frigate-refit program is expected to run until early 2018, but that may not solve the navy’s problems as Postmedia News reported in June that the country’s nearly 40-year-old destroyers will begin retiring in 2017 — before replacements are ready.

There have also been fears a three-year delay in delivery of the navy’s first new armed Arctic vessels, which are being built by Irving Shipyards in Halifax as part of the federal government’s $35-billion shipbuilding strategy, will push back the timeline on replacements for the destroyers and frigates.

Canada’s commandos test the small submarine market

International Submarine Engineering Ltd. of British Columbia has developed the ODYSSEY, a submarine that is used to transport tourists. Canadian special forces have examined such submarines in their quest to find new equipment for its missions.

International Submarine Engineering Ltd. of British Columbia has developed the ODYSSEY, a submarine that is used to transport tourists. Canadian special forces have examined such submarines in their quest to find new equipment for its missions.

Canada’s commandos have been window-shopping for small submarines as they continue to look for new equipment for their counter-terrorism and special forces missions.

Equipment specialists from the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command in Ottawa surveyed Vancouver-area specialty diving firms in their quest to look at who in the country could build a “dry submersible,” according to a May 2011 briefing note prepared for Brig.-Gen. Denis Thompson. Thompson is the commander of the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command or CANSOFCOM.

“The (commander) expressed interest in a dry submersible built in Vancouver BC that could carry up to (censored),” the briefing note obtained by the Citizen through the access to information law stated.

A dry submersible protects occupants from the marine environment and would allow commandos to spend longer periods submerged in cold water. Such a system could range from a small submarine to a hard metal deep diving suit.

The CANSOFCOM equipment specialists found that a number of companies in the Vancouver area, all founded by retired navy divers, had developed state-of-the-art technology in both manned and unmanned diving systems.

Some of the firms offered deepsea exploration vehicles, either for individuals or a two-man crew, while others marketed small submarines built by firms from other countries. One such submarine was about eight-metres long and could dive down to more than 160 metres.

The equipment specialists determined that one Canadian company was capable of designing and building a small customized submarine. But one such vessel could end up costing up to $5 million.

CANSOFCOM spokeswoman Lianne Wallace noted that the command does not have any project underway to purchase such equipment.

“We continue to monitor the dry submersible industry, however we have no intent to procure a dry submersible,” she stated in an email.

Wallace said the briefing note was prepared in order to update the commander of CANSOFCOM on the current capability of Canadian industry to produce a dry submersible vehicle.

“Since advanced technology plays a critical role in the success of special operations forces, CANSOFCOM force development staff regularly monitor available and emerging technologies to ensure that CANSOFCOM personnel have the best possible equipment,” she added.

CANSOFCOM currently possesses a “wet” submersible capability. That is an underwater craft that scuba divers can ride.

For security reasons, CANSOFCOM will not disclose further details on that submersible capability.