Back to news

July 25, 2018 | Local, Land, Security

Autonomous security vehicle to patrol Edmonton International Airport perimeter fence

Edmonton International Airport Press Release

An autonomous security all-terrain vehicle (ATV) developed by the Alberta Centre for Advanced MNT (microprocessor and nanotechnology) Products (ACAMP) is ready to patrol the perimeter security fence at Edmonton International Airport (EIA).

The unarmed vehicle is controlled remotely by humans and can also drive autonomously, incorporating machine-learning to perform its tasks.

“Safety and security is our number one priority at EIA and the autonomous ATV security vehicle will enhance our patrol of the perimeter fencing that secures the 7,000 acres of land at our airport,” says Steve Maybee, EIA's vice-president of operations and infrastructure.

“The partnership with ACAMP to build the vehicle is also part of a larger effort to foster innovation, collaboration and economic diversification through our Airport City's growing number of technology and aerospace companies.”

The new vehicle system includes navigation, path planning, obstacle avoidance, animal and human recognition, communication systems to airport security, geo-fencing, situational awareness and analysis and more.

The autonomous ATV patrols will focus on the following:

  • Identifying damage to the chain-link fence and fence posts, verifying barbed wire is taut and undamaged, and detecting holes or gaps under the fence;
  • Detecting human or animal activity; and
  • Searching for obstacles using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging).
  • “The partnership with EIA has helped us build a customizable platform that uses the latest in artificial intelligence, telematics, communications and other technologies that has application worldwide,” said Rosy Amlani, ACAMP's CFO and vice-president of business development.

    EIA is a member of the Advanced Systems for Transportation Consortium established by ACAMP and supported by the Government of Alberta.

    ACAMP is a member of the Alberta Aerospace and Technology Centre at EIA.

    ACAMP and EIA were able to harness technologies developed by consortium members to construct and test the autonomous ATV security vehicle, readying it for regular use at EIA.

https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/autonomous-security-vehicle-to-patrol-edmonton-international-airport-perimeter-fence/

On the same subject

  • Canadian defense minister talks fighter competition and geopolitics

    December 1, 2020 | Local, Aerospace

    Canadian defense minister talks fighter competition and geopolitics

    By: Aaron Mehta; DefenseNews.com 20 November 2020 WASHINGTON — When the Trudeau government took office in 2015, one of the first appointments was tapping Harjit Sajjan, a combat veteran who served in Afghanistan, as Canada's minister of national defense. Sajjan is now one of the lonest-serving ministers of defense in Canadian history. After an appearance at the Halifax International Security Forum, Sajjan talked with Defense News about the country's long-awaited fighter jet procurement, as well as the nation's future on the world stage. The interview has been edited for clarity and length. Regarding the fighter competition, the plan is to either downselect to two jets in 2021, or make a final decision in 2022. Where does that decision stand? How has the coronavirus pandemic impacted the timing and size of the program? I'm very happy with the progress of the selection for our next fighter. And it's gone to a very good stage where we actually have three companies. I don't know exactly — because the team there that does the analysis is independent — which direction they'll go, of downselecting or how that's going to happen. So we'll see how the progress moves ahead. I can turn to your direct question regarding COVID-19. We initially, obviously, just like anybody, had some minor delays because we had to shift a lot of the resources to the pandemic fight. But we were able to shift our people back into dealing with our procurement very quickly because, as you know, defense is an essential service, and making sure that those jobs continue was very important to us. So the delays were actually very minor. And all the updates that I've reviewed so far [shows] that things are actually progressing extremely well. So you don't see any delays for that program likely coming as a result of COVID-19 or anything else? Right now I'm confident that we'll be able to make up any time because the shift that we made. [We have some] very good people [who] are running these very large projects, so we needed to shift some of that talent to the COVID-19 fight initially, for good reason. But in a few months, we were able to shift those people back to this program. Canada's defense budget is set to significantly increase in the coming years based on the 2017 defense policy agreement. You've recently said this will still happen, but some experts said that given the economic impact of the last year and given post-pandemic priorities, the defense budget might end up either changing or taking a cut. How confident are you that the targets that have been set are going to be hit, budget wise? First of all, the security challenges that we face around the world don't change. And that's an important point for everybody to take note of, and it's something that we took note when we conducted our defense policy review. This is one of the reasons why, when we put this defense policy together, we wanted to have a thorough cost analysis done early on based on the capabilities that we felt that we needed, not only for the defense of Canada but to be good partners as part of this financial command at North American Aerospace Defense Command or the Five Eyes [intelligence-sharing alliance] and the work that we do at NATO. So we made a decision to fund the defense policy for the duration, which is 20 years. So there was a government-level decision to do this, to carve it out of the fiscal framework, and that should give assurance to people how seriously we took this from the beginning. We looked at any type of financial challenges that a nation might go through, but we also knew that we needed to maintain the defense funding because, as you know, in the past, defense policies have been put out, but the money has not been included, and they had to be agreed upon every single year. Based on that experience, I can understand some of the concerns that some of these experts actually have, but this is something that we looked at right from the beginning, and the reason why we made a government-level decision to fund the defense policy for the 20 years. So it can't be just a very quick decision to change the defense budget. But more importantly, one of the things — probably one of the most important things that we need to take a look at, especially as we deal with COVID-19 — is the economic downturn, [is that] the defense industry adds a significant amount of well-paying jobs. So it's very important to keep these investments moving because this is about maintaining well-paying jobs across the country and supply chain that we have, connected with our allies, especially with the U.S. You mentioned global challenges. Something that recently emerged is this idea of the “Quad” between India, Japan, the United States and Australia. Do you see Canada having a role in that, and would you want to join? I can see what that initiative — what it was trying to achieve. But let's keep in mind: We already had some good mechanisms where we were working with — so for example, with the United Nations Security Council resolutions on sanctions monitoring in North Korea, that was where nations came together from all the nations that participated in the Korean conflict, Korean War early on, where we decided to up our support for [monitoring.] We created Operation NEON in Canada to provide the direct support. In fact, one of our frigates just completed their work with monitoring, and we have a surveillance aircraft still in the region conducting that work. So the work that the Quad does — I think it's extremely important. I think we need to have a much wider conversation of not just looking at the Quad, but we need to look at how allies are going to come together to look at how do we support places like the Asia-Pacific region and our Association of Southeast Asian Nations partners in the Indo-Pacific region. So I think it's a good effort, but I think we need to look at even more thorough analysis and look at what are the things that nations can contribute. There's also talk about whether to expand Five Eyes, perhaps by formally including Japan. Is the idea of a formal Five Eyes expansion something you support? First of all, Five Eyes is probably one of the most trusted agreements that we have. It's not just: “You sign an agreement, and you're part of a trusted group.” There are some very strict measures that every nation needs to take in terms of the security architecture that's needed inside your country, how we communicate — that provides a framework. That framework also includes a set of laws about governance, as well. But it does not preclude us from working with other partners, and [partners] having greater cooperation with the Five Eyes. And if ever down the road there's an opportunity, I think that's something that's to be kept on the table. But I think Five Eyes allows us to be able to work with likeminded partners, like Japan, and we're already doing some great work as it is. We'll see where the discussion goes. It seems like you're saying you're happy to work with other nations, and already do that, but that Five Eyes requires such a strict legal measure that a formal expansion might not make sense. What I'm going to say here is that there's a lot of good work already being done. When you have an expansion, that alone would require a significant amount of effort toward that. But I think right now we need to take a look at how do we use our current mechanisms to create the effects we need. Because there is a concern right now, and we need to support our ASEAN partners in the Pacific. And so it's better to look at mechanisms that we have in place and work toward a larger relationship. You've made pointed comments about China and the challenge from Beijing. Where's the greatest challenge from China for Canada? The Arctic? The Pacific? Is it economic? It's not just one thing, or pick one over another. I would say overall, the unpredictable nature that China has created, that when you go outside the international rules-based order — that was set up for good reason after the Second World War, of creating predictability — it's the unpredictability that China has created that's giving us significant concerns. So everything from freedom of navigation to how finances are used in countries to bring in influence. About the most important, the biggest one for us, is when they have a disagreement [they will] arbitrarily detain citizens. So we have two citizens who are detained. Australia just, I believe, had an incident very similar to ours. These are some of the things that cause nations around the world to take a [concerned] look. So I wouldn't say it's just one. The Arctic, I'll be honest with you, it will always be a concern for Canada because our sovereignty is extremely important to us. We want to work within partnerships under international laws. We want to do this, but a pattern that's created in other areas has caused concern for us in Canada. There's a debate among foreign policy experts over whether Canada has been too passive. Does Canada need to take a more robust foreign and national security policy stance, or are you comfortable with where it is now? I would say our stance has been misunderstood, then. If you look at the last five years alone, when we formed the government and I became defense minister, we didn't have a consistent engagement in the Pacific. Now we do. We're officially part of Operation NEON, conducting sanctions monitoring; we obviously, because of COVID-19, weren't able to do this, but we've had ships in the Pacific conducting visits, doing exercises as well, or being part of Exercise RIMPAC. And also increasing our whole-of-government approach. We put a battlegroup into Latvia that we lead, [forces] in Ukraine, we actually increased our role there, increased our footprint with the coalition to fight ISIS [the Islamic State group]. And the list goes on. We've actually commanded the NATO training mission in Iraq for the last two years. So when you look at what we do, it is quite significant. But I think in terms of — you can look at it as passive or active. We have to take a look at what does each nation bring to the table. And I remember having a conversation with [U.S. Defense Secretary Jim] Mattis about this. It's about utilizing the skill set of your closest allies and how you work together in creating effects for our diplomats. And that's exactly what Canada has been doing: being a credible partner to convene conversations to be able to move toward peaceful resolutions to disagreements. I wouldn't say that we've actually had to step back in any way. In fact, if you look at the record of what we've actually done, not only we've talked about increasing our spending, we've actually increased our capabilities and contributions at the same time. Aaron Mehta is Deputy Editor and Senior Pentagon Correspondent for Defense News, covering policy, strategy and acquisition at the highest levels of the Department of Defense and its international partners. https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2020/11/30/canadian-defense-minister-talks-fighter-competition-and-geopolitics/

  • Used Australian F-18s will fly 160 hours annually for RCAF

    March 14, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

    Used Australian F-18s will fly 160 hours annually for RCAF

    DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN The Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report provides more details about the used Australian F-18s that Canada is purchasing. Eighteen of the 25 will eventually be flying, while the other seven will be used for spare parts and testing. Here are details taken from the PBO report: According to PBO calculations, the Canadian fleet is both slightly older and has experienced more usage than the Australian fleet. The average Canadian F-18 had accrued over 6,000 flying hours by the end of the 2017-2018 fiscal year. These calculations are supported by media reports indicating that by 2014, the CF-18s had accumulated over 5,700 flying hours on average, with over a third of the fleet already having flown over 6,000. Canada's Department of National Defence has stated that the aircraft being purchased from Australia's F-18 fleet are very similar to those currently in operation within the RCAF. The fleet arrival profile consists of 2 aircraft in 2018-2019, 2 aircraft in 2019-2020, 8 aircraft in 2020-2021, and 6 aircraft in 2021-2022; The aircraft will enter service approximately 6 months after being received; The aircraft will each accumulate about 160 flying hours per year, in accordance with the recent experience of the Canadian CF-18 fleet; Each Australian F/A-18 has accumulated an average of 6000 flying hours over the course of its operational history with the Royal Australian Air Force;. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/used-australian-f-18s-will-fly-160-hours-annually-for-rcaf

  • Why the Australians are better at buying new warships than Canadians: report

    November 21, 2019 | Local, Naval

    Why the Australians are better at buying new warships than Canadians: report

    Andrea Gunn (agunn@herald.ca) OTTAWA, Ont. — Canada could have a thing or two to learn from the Australians when it comes to buying warships, a new report claims. Ian Mack, a retired rear admiral and director-general in the Department of National Defence, released a paper via the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Friday shedding light on what he believes are some key mistakes in the way Ottawa has handled the $60-billion procurement of a new fleet of frigates. Mack has a unique perspective. He served in his DND role from 2007 to 2017 and was responsible for the conception, shaping and support of the launch and implementation of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, including the initial stages of the Canadian surface combatant competition. In 2017 Mack was selected by the Australian government to join an international expert advisory panel for their Future Frigate Program as it moved into its competitive evaluation process. In the paper, Mack points out the similarities between the two countries: they embarked on the procurement process at about the same time, they both sought to break the boom-and-bust cycle of shipbuilding, and ultimately they would both end up selecting BAE's Type 26 global combat ship as their preferred design. But the differences, Mack says, are what have encumbered Canada's process, and why the Canadian government took three years longer to go from government approval to design selection than the Australians, In the paper, Mack points to excessive red tape, inexperience among officials working on the project, and a general lack of drive to change the process to make it more efficient and cost-effective. For example, the Australian government made the decision up front to restrict the competition to three shipbuilders and their warship designs, whereas Canada only required shipbuilders to qualify to compete, which over 10 of them did. The initial request for proposals for the Canadian surface combatant also included hundreds of mandatory technical requirements characterized in great detail which proved problematic and led to an eventual overhaul of the process. In comparison, for Australia's future frigate, there were only a few mandatory requirements of any kind with further guidance provided to bidders via a question and response process. Mack also pointed out that in Canada, the project management office was about the same size as in Australia but entirely drawn from the public service and the Canadian Armed Forces, with a significant number of team members having little or no applicable industry experience or knowledge, whereas in Australia, the office was populated by knowledgeable contractors. The Canadian government, Mack concludes, has traditionally worn blinders when it comes to executing complex procurement projects. “It takes a serious investment of effort to study what others are doing,” he writes. “One useful place to start is by comprehensively exploring other nations' approaches to identify gems we might adopt and trial before we need to buy warships again.” https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/why-the-australians-are-better-at-buying-new-warships-than-canadians-report-377148/

All news