National Defence Committee on May 5th, 2016

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

It is a project that is in evaluation. In fact, we have just completed this week the flight testing of the second aircraft. We are down to two suppliers in this competition. Again, there are lessons learned from the past—which I talked about early on—about the length of time these aircraft will be in service, such that we do very detailed testing analysis before we proceed with the selection.

We have been out with the Alenia aircraft and the Airbus aircraft. We have done a number of flights and a number of works, and that is completed. The evaluation process is due to end this summer and we will then proceed through the normal approval process internally and, of course, across government. Our target for signing the contract is by the end of this year.

When going out and doing industry consultations, we at times have a tendency to be very aggressive about wanting to take quick delivery. In this case, we talked to all of the aircraft manufacturers, who all told us that with the complexity of this, the order book, and the marshalling of material, the first aircraft would be delivered three years after the contract award. So we are targeting the delivery of the first aircraft at the end of this decade, and with a fairly quick delivery thereafter. Now that's the delivery of the aircraft. There is training, there are trainers, there are spare parts, so we're still a number of years away from that aircraft being in service, wherever it's going to serve, to continue to provide the fixed-wing search and rescue role.

I would tell you that notwithstanding the age of the Buffalos—and again, I am the materiel authority for the Canadian Armed Forces—we don't fly aircraft that are unsafe and that we have a lot of experience, which can be good and bad, in operating older aircraft. These are also aircraft that operate elsewhere in the world, so we are able to get spare parts and have a very rigorous technical airworthiness program to ensure that the current aircraft cannot only meet their function, but are also safe for the people in the Canadian Armed Forces. And for me, that's job one.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much for that answer.

Another question I have is what key capabilities does the RCAF require from its new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft? And what are the challenges that have been encountered over the years in trying to find this new FWSAR for the RCAF?

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

Again, I can't speak to the capability on behalf of the air force. Certainly, I can say it needs to cover the Canadian airspace. In the request for proposals, there are timings that they have to meet, so there are some capabilities of that nature. Of course, there's the nature of Canada with its large expanses, as you would appreciate from where you're from, and operating both in the Rockies and in the plains and eastern Canada, the complexity that comes from all of that. For the specific capabilities beyond that, though, I'd have to defer to the air force.

To go to the other part of your question, it has been a long and at times cumbersome process to get to where we are today. We're marching towards a request for proposal, but have not yet launched one. There was quite a debate publicly about the nature of the requirements as listed, and whether or not they were written to specify a given aircraft. In fact, this is an oft-referred to example of military requirements and the issues around them. It was the genesis of the establishment of our Independent Review Panel for Defence Acquisition, which now looks at all of them independently.

In the case of the fixed-wing search and rescue, we put it out to the National Research Council to do a review of the procurement and the requirements. It came out with a recommendation for a completely performance-based approach. So the request for proposal requirements are now....

We did put some limits on that, a number of bases, between three and five, some different things, but it certainly was a strong example for us. Whether or not we agree that the requirements were focused is irrelevant, because the perception was there and it really delayed this project and caused us to do, again, some independent work, and we are now finally off and running with the expectation that we are very close now to getting into contract.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

That's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

We're going to take the next question over to Mr. Spengemann. You have the floor for seven minutes.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I would like to share the remaining time, if any, with the next speaker on the Liberal list in the speaking order.

Thank you, all, for being here and for your expert counsel and for your service.

I wanted to start with a question for Mr. Pitfield. Could you give us a quick flavour of the improvements you're proposing that are scheduled for the base in Comox, with the $52 million, as per your testimony? What kinds of things are being done to that base?

[Jaime Pitfield]

We're recapitalizing roads and utility corridors. We are making upgrades to the runway and to lighting. That's pretty much all the detail I had.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Is it fair to say that the across-the-base upgrades that are currently scheduled would increase or improve the forward deployability of our fighter assets?

[Jaime Pitfield]

You'd have to ask the air force that question, in terms of capability. Certainly it will result in a base that is better equipped to support operations than it was before the upgrades.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Was that part of the proposal, then, to say that we would like to have greater flexibility in where you deploy your aircraft on a temporary basis?

[Colonel Kevin Horgan, Commander, Real Property Operations Group/Director General Fire And Nuclear Safety, Department of National Defence]

I can address that one, sir.

Certainly, Comox has been a DOB, a deployed operating base, for our fighter aircraft for a number of years. The facilities are there to support that operation. They'll continue to be there. The projects we're looking at really support the base at large, which of course then supports that concept of being able to support those deployed operations on the fighter side.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's helpful, and is the same true for the other bases in terms of upgrades?

[Col Kevin Horgan]

It is.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Have any of the base upgrades taken into account our obligations under NORAD's Operation Noble Eagle, which is inward-looking domestic airborne threats?

[Col Kevin Horgan]

Again, I think I can address that.

Certainly we have a number of projects in line to upgrade the QRA facilities, the quick reaction capabilities we have for those deployed fighter aircraft. We have that plan for those DOB locations across the country. Those projects are in development now, and they will eventually deliver those additional capabilities.

Again, they're already there; they already can support those operations. These are enhancing those capabilities on the ground with these new QRA facilities.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

In terms of the overall order of magnitude of upgrades to our bases, as your testimony outlines, if we put that against some of the upgrades that our friends and allies are doing with respect to next generation fighter aircraft—for example, Australia is upgrading a base to the tune of $1 billion and the U.S. is upgrading Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska to the tune of $500 million—is that something that's captured in your current process of upgrading our bases? In other words, are we preparing for a different kind of fighter asset through these upgrades? Are they still—and I don't want to put the wrong label on it—“catch-up” upgrades, or are they forward looking?

[Jaime Pitfield]

Our regular maintenance and regular upgrades are scheduled to keep the asset in the condition that it needs to be to support operations right now. As new aircraft or new capability come on anywhere within National Defence, we'll change the infrastructure to support that. At this point we're not preparing for anything for the next generation, because we don't know what it is.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Would it be wrong of me to invite you to speculate on the order of magnitude we would have to undertake to invest in if we were to go to a different generation of fighter aircraft?

[Jaime Pitfield]

I'll ask my colleague to answer that one.

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

We don't have the order of magnitude established yet, in the sense that we're still looking at options and are unsure of aircraft and what that would involve.

The point I was going to make as the project leader for all these new acquisitions—and it's something that's somewhat unique in Canada—is that when we establish budgets for all our new projects, they are very comprehensive. They include infrastructure, which is something that most of our allies don't do.

As we go forward through the options analysis—led, again, by the air force—our chief financial officer and I will become engaged. As project leader, I'll have to ensure that the appropriate money is there for the artifact, the aircraft whatever it is, the infrastructure, training, spare parts, technical data, etc. That is all work to come. It is then funded through vote 5, which comes to me and I transfer to my colleague to execute the infrastructure.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's helpful. Thank you for that.

I want to briefly touch on the second supporting pillar—if you will—for the fighter assets, which is our tanker fleet. We have to house our aircraft in the right places at the right location. We also have to make sure, given the vast territory we have and the rather complex operating requirements, whether local or across the country, that our aircraft are fuelled well and effectively.

My current understanding is that there are five tanker aircraft in the Canadian fleet; that's two Polaris and three C-130s. I'm wondering if you could comment on the potential replacement of this fleet, or what the thinking is at the moment, looking down the road.

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

Again, I think that when General Hood was here he talked about how that becomes.... You can look at a fighter decision, and then that comes thereafter. If I remember correctly, for the Airbus anchors, we'll have another decade out of them. The Hercules model H aircraft, of course, are being used for both fixed-wing and search and rescue right now, so that is something we will be looking at as well.

It's basically about what is the capability and what is the refuelling requirement, and then taking a look at some of those support aspects as well. We certainly are covered for a decade, and in the case of the Herc-Hs, it could it could go beyond that. We'll have to look at the method of refuelling, how much, and where we need to do it, and that will follow suit.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

There's no current thinking in the absence of a switch to a different generation of fighter aircraft to upgrade our tanker fleet to replace any of this—

[RAdm Patrick Finn]

I beg your pardon for interrupting.

I would not say that there is no current thinking in the context of needing the capability.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay.