National Defence Committee on Feb. 14th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Good afternoon and welcome to the 48^th meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

We are delighted to welcome the National Research Council of Canada and the President, John McDougall. It is a pleasure and thank you for being here. We also have Jerzy Komorowski, Director General of the Institute for Aerospace Research.

Thanks for being with us. I will give you the floor for five to seven or 10 minutes. After that, members will be able to ask you questions.

Merci beaucoup. La parole est à vous.

[John McDougall, President, National Research Council Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to present to the committee today.

My name is John R. McDougall, and I am President of the National Research Council of Canada, or NRC. I am accompanied today by Mr. Jerzy Komorowski, Director General of the Institute for Aerospace Research at NRC.

NRC is an agency of the Government of Canada. Our mandate is set out under the NRC Act and makes us responsible, among other things, to undertake, assist or promote scientific and industrial research in different fields of importance to Canada.

NRC research spans a wide range of disciplines from aerospace and agriculture, to ocean engineering and photonics. We also offer an array of technology development and commercialization services to our partners and clients, including our industrial research assistance program that works with close to 8,000 small and medium-size Canadian businesses each year.

The NRC Institute for Aerospace Research, or NRC Aerospace, is Canada's national aerospace laboratory. We maintain national research and development facilities in Ottawa and Montreal, but we work with governments, universities, and aerospace companies across Canada and internationally to advance research and technology development in this important industry. Our work and our expertise are focused on the design, manufacture, performance, and use and safety of air and space vehicles.

In late October 2009, NRC was asked by Industry Canada, the Department of National Defence, and Public Works and Government Services Canada to conduct an independent review of the statement of operational requirement for the new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft that DND intends to procure. This statement of operational requirement was produced by DND in 2006. NRC's review resulted in a report that was submitted to Public Works on March 12, 2010, and the report is now available in both official languages on the DND website.

To complete the review, we assembled a team of highly qualified staff from NRC's flight research laboratory. This team was led by an airworthiness expert with a master's degree in aeronautical engineering, a fixed-wing pilot's licence, and more than 18 years of flying experience. He was joined by a human factors specialist with a doctorate in neuroscience and 10 years' experience in human factors analysis for Defence Research and Development Canada, and three former Canadian Forces pilots with close to 60 years of collective military experience. Two were search and rescue pilots during the course of their military careers, while the other was a senior test pilot at the Canadian Forces Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment in Cold Lake, Alberta.

We began the review in November 2009. The team thoroughly examined the statement of operational requirement references provided to them by Public Works. In January 2010, the team travelled to Trenton, Ontario, to interview DND personnel. In late January 2010, our human factors specialist travelled to Canadian Forces Base Comox in British Columbia to observe search and rescue technicians in action aboard the Buffalo aircraft.

We produced an interim report on February 5, 2010, which we delivered to Public Works. The Department of National Defence responded to this report on February 15, and we met with them on February 19 to discuss their comments. We delivered a draft final report on March 5, incorporated comments from Public Works on March 9, and submitted our final report on March 12.

In very general terms, the principal conclusion of the report was that the statement of operational requirement, as written, was over-constrained. By this we mean the application of the statement of operational requirement would likely make it difficult to achieve the overarching objective of acquiring an aircraft to provide the level of search and rescue service equal to that currently provided.

The report provided an analysis and discussion of each of the high-level mandatory capabilities identified in the statement of operational requirement, with observations and recommendations for each. The report contained 15 principal recommendations that were intended to solidify the actual requirements for the aircraft while providing bidders with flexibility on how they could propose meeting the requirement. These recommendations advised that the 2006 statement of requirement for Canada's new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft should be amended to reflect a capability approach, rather than a platform-centric one, which would be a major rewrite.

Second, they advised that the Government of Canada should review the current policy, in which the Canadian Forces provide all primary fixed-wing search and rescue service. The government would do this by conducting an in-depth analysis of the cost and potential benefits of providing part of the fixed-wing search and rescue solution through contracted support for elements such as aircraft, aircrew, and maintenance, including civilian sources. Use of civilian helicopters is already in place to provide initial levels of support to the military rotary-wing search and rescue community.

Third, the Government of Canada should develop policy to define the required level of service for search and rescue, in terms of response time that ought to be provided by either the Canadian Forces or another provider, without reference to the existing aircraft. Where possible, such policy should be developed on the basis of available historical and forecast search and rescue incident locations.

Fourth, DND should change the statement of operational requirement to allow bidders more flexibility in meeting the requirement. For example, this could include the consideration of other options for Main Operating Bases or the consideration of a proposal with more than a single type of aircraft.

As mentioned earlier, the authors of NRC's report concluded that utilizing some contracted fixed-wing search and rescue response could possibly provide a cost-effective alternative to alleviate some of the costs associated with establishing or relocating a main operating base or requiring an aircraft with high cruise speed for all scenarios.

The fifth recommendation is that DND change many of the rated requirements in the statement of operational requirement to mandatory requirements. Examples of this include a ramp that can be deployed while airborne to airdrop search and rescue technicians or equipment and the capability for the aircraft to use short gravel runways and to conduct operations from austere airfields and to operate in icy weather conditions.

The sixth recommendation is that DND avoid using the term “off the shelf” in the statement of operational requirement, unless the department anticipates that aircraft can be procured in the form in which they are currently produced with no design changes.

The seventh recommendation is that DND remove specific speed and range requirements from the statement of operational requirement for the new aircraft. As mentioned, the authors recommended using a capability-based approach based on search and rescue incident data that are already available.

The eighth recommendation is that DND use alternative analytical methods to determine the minimum cargo compartment dimensions, rather than those specified in the 2006 statement of operational requirement. These methods could be based on a retrospective study of injuries to search and rescue technicians.

With that, I'd be happy to respond to any questions related to the content of the NRC report. Questions that would pertain to work being done by Public Works and Government Services Canada or the Department of National Defence after March 12 should presumably be referred to them.

Thank you very much, monsieur le président.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. McDougall.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Simms for seven minutes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Merci, monsieur Bernier.

Thank you to our guests for coming.

I have read your study. Have you ever been called in before in a situation like this between departments? You were called in by Public Works for what seemingly is a question or issue that has been bantered back and forth between defence and industry. Is that correct? What was the process by which you were called in, the initial stage?

[John McDougall]

The process actually began before I arrived at NRC.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

More importantly, why?

[John McDougall]

I think the real question is why. I think what happens is, in the case of a complex procurement agenda, government takes a look at the circumstances of the procurement and looks for the kind of expertise that can be brought to bear in helping through the decision. The statement--

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

This doesn't happen very often, does it?

[John McDougall]

The statement of operational requirement for a purchase of this scale is very large and complex. Often, when one does look at one of these, there will be, through third parties, an opportunity to improve that statement of requirement.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Would you agree with me, then, that you felt the SOR was quite narrow? You say it's complex, but really what they were looking for were things like “off the shelf”. From this study, it just seems to me that they should have widened that scope a little larger than what it was. Is that correct?

[John McDougall]

I think what we did when we looked at the statement of requirement was to recognize that there were many, many elements in it, as was I think pointed out in my remarks. There were mandatory requirements, there were rated requirements, there were constraints--there were a variety of elements that were brought to bear in putting such a document together. As I say, it's large and substantial. It covers many, many items.

There's no doubt that our review identified areas where we felt the statement of requirement could be improved. In fact, by removing or, let's say, deconstraining some of the areas, the potential opportunity for bidders would be improved as well.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

This is a lengthy process. This started around 2005 or 2006. And you were brought in just around.... What was the date you were formally asked to do this study?

[John McDougall]

October of 2009.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

In the process of doing that, seemingly all that you've got here is.... You talk about the basing options, and so on. I reiterate, it takes the scope of this further afield. For example, one of the things you suggest is using multiple aircraft. Was that possibility not considered in your study? Did the military not want to consider that? Were they bent on using only one type of aircraft?

[John McDougall]

How can I describe this? I can't comment on what the military was or was not trying to do. We are not really familiar with that.

What we did was look at the statement of requirement—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

But certainly the scope was too narrow, in your opinion.

[John McDougall]

Our view is that it was overly constrained and that by moving to a performance-based or a capacity orientation rather than a platform orientation, you would improve the situation.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

To a platform orientation. Could you describe it a little bit more?

[John McDougall]

No, from a platform.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

From a platform, okay.

When I read your study.... One of the things we discovered when doing our study, when we went to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, particularly in Newfoundland, in Gander, was that aircraft such as the Hercules are very flexible in the sense that they can be used in certain types of forces' missions and then they can be used for search and rescue thereafter. As a matter of fact, there is a plan to use some of the different types of Hercules for doing fixed-wing search and rescue, which comes just in time, obviously, given the fact that 2015 is when the Buffalos will be done. I think 2017 will probably be when they need new fixed-wing search and rescue.

That being said, it seems the department is behind the eight ball, as it were. In other words, this decision really has to come quickly in order for it to be completed by the 2015 to 2017 window. Is that correct? Would you agree?

[John McDougall]

Jerzy, do you want to speak to the lifespan of current aircraft?

[Jerzy Komorowski, Director General, Institute for Aerospace Research, National Research Council Canada]

It's true that the current aircraft have probably extended what was the original design goal. However, through appropriate maintenance actions, they have been maintained up until now, and they are still airworthy. However, there is obviously a limit to where you can carry that. And indeed the costs—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

But the limit is 2017, or 2015 if you're talking about the Buffalos. Is that correct?

[Jerzy Komorowski]

Well, that depends on how much money you want to put into continuing these aircraft and maintaining them. You can replace structures. You can replace wings. It is all very costly.

There comes a point where it is more cost-effective to replace a fleet rather than to continue to operate it. But there are many examples currently in the world where aircraft fleets are operated for 40 or 50 years.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

How much time do I have? I have one minute. I don't know if I'll get a chance to ask again. Are we having two rounds?

First of all, for the sake of disclosure, I'm the MP for Gander.

On page 14 you talk about the basing option. You say Gander would have been a preferable choice, as opposed to Greenwood, for fixed-wing assets. Perhaps you'd like to comment on that. I can read the exact quote if you wish. I think you know what I'm talking about.