Preserving capacity, General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, Keys to Canadian SAR
Issue link: http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/235053
E editor's note EDITOR Chris Thatcher editorvanguard@netgov.ca CONTRIBUTORS Gen Michael Hayden LGen Marquise Hainse MGen Mike Day Mike Greenley Guy Parent Jeffrey Rodney John Porter Bernadette Terry Meghan Spilka O'Keefe Roy Thomas Ben Sabbath Amy Allen Brace for the blowback EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD LGen (Ret'd) Bill Leach LGen (Ret'd) George Macdonald VAdm (Ret'd) Greg Maddison LGen (Ret'd) Michel Maisonneuve Ambassador Graham Green Professor Philippe Lagassé SALES VICE PRESIDENT PUBLIC SECTOR SALES Terri Pavelic (905) 727-4091 ext. 225 terrip@netgov.ca National Account Manager Marcello Sukhdeo (905) 727-4091 ext. 224 marcellos@netgov.ca MARKETING DIRECTOR Mary Malofy ART & PRODUCTION ART DIRECTOR Elena Pankova SUBSCRIPTIONS AND ADDRESS CHANGES CIRCULATION DIRECTOR James Watson circulation@promotive.net (705) 812-0611 CORPORATE PUBLISHER John R. Jones publisher@netgov.ca Publisher's Mail Agreement: 40052410 Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to circulation dept. 24-4 Vata Court, Aurora, ON L4G 4B6 Vanguard magazine is published 6 times per year by Promotive Communications Inc. All opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher or any person or organization associated with the magazine. Letters, submissions, comments and suggested topics are welcome, and should be sent to assoceditor@netgov.ca REPRINT INFORMATION: Reproduction or photocopying is prohibited without the publisher's prior written consent. High quality reprints of articles and additional copies of the magazine are available through circulation@netgov.ca PRIVACY POLICY: We do not sell our mailing list or share any confidential information on our subscribers. VANGUARD OFFICE 24-4 Vata Court, Aurora, ON L4G 4B6 Phone: (905) 727-4091 Fax: (905) 727-4428 4 DECEMBER 2013/JANUARY 2014 www.vanguardcanada.com This was not the editorial I had planned. I had intended to begin the New Year on a more positive note, arguing that for all the hysterical headlines surrounding military procurement these days, there are a surprisingly large number of projects going on below the media radar. Not to dismiss problems with the procurement system. To be sure, there are big challenges. As the Auditor General's fall 2013 report made all too clear, there is a sizeable gap between the government's level of ambition – as stated in the Canada First Defence Strategy – and how and how much money is earmarked for capital programs: the two do not align. But as the government's Speech from the Throne in October stated: "Serious countries have serious capabilities." And there are a lot of serious capabilities in the pipeline. At a conference in London, Ontario this fall, Director of Land Requirements shared a list of 24 projects, more than half slated for the one-to-five year term of Horizon 1, from recovery and logistics vehicles to a wide range of capability intended to further digitize the army. At Soldier Systems, Director Land Requirements Coordinator had a similar list of 17 projects, from combat radios, to small arms replacement, unmanned systems and clothing, many again due in the near-term horizon. Delegates at that latter event were cautioned that projects would slow, that quantities might be decreased, to deal with the fiscal reality, but there remains a "substantial capital procurement program" to modernize the army. Air force and navy efforts are no less robust. Then on December 20, as we were about to go to press, the government announced the cancellation of the Close Combat Vehicle project. The cancellation itself was perhaps not a surprise. There had been rumblings for most of the past year that the $2.1 billion allocated to the project could be better spent elsewhere as National Defence tightens its belt; that the capability of the heavily protected troop carriers might not be necessary – at least for now. It was suggested that improvements to the protection of the upgraded Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV), as well as enhancements to ISR and counter-IED capabilities and changes to tactics, techniques and procedures had all contributed to an assessment that the protection of the CCV was no longer required. The arrival of the CH-147 Chinook helicopters was undoubtedly also a contributing factor. (Until we see figures from the testing of the LAV UP and the three CCV candidates, I'm not sure one can claim both vehicles offer a similar level of protection). What was surprising was the absence of a single minister to deliver the news about an obviously political decision. Instead it was left to the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Commander of the Army, as well as the Director of Land Requirements, to justify the verdict and face questions about what impact it might have on the longer-term future of defence procurement. (In an interview on page 26, conducted before this announcement, LGen Hainse addresses the preservation of training and the role of the vehicle fleet, including the CCV, as part of a spectrum of combat capability.) As you'll read elsewhere in this issue, DCNS is looking for a foothold in Canadian shipbuilding and Dassault is eager to participate in a fighter replacement competition. But both must be asking hard questions today based on the experience of their countrymen at Nexter, who for the past four years have run a highly visible campaign around the CCV, sponsoring conferences and trade shows across the country. This decision might have been made for prudent and justifiable reasons, but it has political consequences that could reverberate for years to come. Chris Thatcher, Editor De Su