Le Ministère de la Défense Nationale et les Forces armées canadiennes -- Conférence de Kingston sur la sécurité internationale / The Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces update -- Kingston Conference on International Security

On the same subject

• 

  November 5, 2018 | Local, Aerospace

  QinetiQ Target Systems and Canadian UAVs Sign MOU for Commercial and Military UAV Services in Canada

  CALGARY, Nov. 5, 2018 /CNW/ - QinetiQ Target Systems, the largest UAV manufacturer in Canada, and Canadian UAVs (CUAVs), Canada's leading unmanned aviation solutions provider for enterprise and military applications, is proud to announce that they have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), outlining how the two companies will work together to bring combined 'best of breed' solutions for military and commercial markets. The agreement focuses on providing services to clients requiring long range, endurance and payload capacity primarily with the Skeldar V200, Mosquito UHV-T Group 2 UAV and the class 1 UAV Snyper. With manufacturing and operations facilities in Medicine Hat and Calgary as well as satellite locations across the country including at major naval bases on both coasts, the partnership is perfectly placed to provide direct services for both the commercial, civil and military markets in Canada. "We are thrilled to partner with CUAVs. CUAVs provide outstanding UAV services and expertise, and we are confident that this partnership will meet and exceed the requirements of our existing and new UAV clients in Canada. We are also actively pursuing export opportunities to further leverage our joint capabilities", commented Vincent Malley, Director of Business Development at QinetiQ Target Systems. "Canadian UAVs is delighted to be working closely with QinetiQ Target Systems. They have been a UAV provider to the military for over three decades and we believe our current and future clients will benefit greatly from our comprehensive combined capacity and expertise. We are very excited for the future of unmanned aviation in Canadaand we believe this joint offering will have significant positive implications for the further advance of this industry." said Sean Greenwood, President, and CEO of Canadian UAVs". Notes for Editors: About QinetiQ Listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE: QQ.L), QinetiQ is a leading science and engineering company operating primarily in the defence, security and aerospace markets. Our customers are predominantly government organisations including defence departments, as well as international customers in other targeted sectors. Visit our website www.QinetiQ.com Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter @QinetiQ Consult our privacy policy About Canadian UAVs Canadian UAVs is a Calgary-based solutions provider focused on safety-first data acquisition for unmanned aerial vehicle applications. CUAVs provides a range of custom and innovative UAV solutions for industrial environments where advanced imaging is necessary for surveying on an iterative or fixed point basis. Using advanced technology to monitor and acquire data about industrial assets, the company provides a viable advantage for clients and enterprises seeking to mitigate risk. SOURCE Canadian UAVS For further information: Please contact, QinetiQ Press Office on Tel: +44 (0) 1252 39 3500 or email: PressOffice@QinetiQ.com; Contact: Sean Greenwood (403) 796-5102 or visit our website: http://CanadianUAVs.ca https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/qinetiq-target-systems-and-canadian-uavs-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-for-commercial-and-military-uav-services-in-canada-699634171.html

• 

  November 18, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, C4ISR, Security

  Des génies d’ici protègent les avions de chasse

  Une équipe québécoise d'élite d'une vingtaine d'employés en cybersécurité a inventé un outil informatique pour protéger les avions de chasse de l'armée. « Lorsqu'il y a intrusion, les dég'ts sont majeurs. Ça peut conduire à des écrasements ou à de l'interception d'information très sensible », explique calmement au bout du fil le PDG de StreamScan, Karim Ganame. Fondée en 2011, l'entreprise montréalaise compte parmi ses clients de gros noms des secteurs manufacturier et pharmaceutique connus que son grand patron préfère taire pour des raisons de sécurité. Ces dernières années, StreamScan a travaillé en étroite collaboration avec le Centre de la sécurité des télécommunications (CST) et le ministère de la Défense sur de nombreux projets à l'abri des regards. En gros, son outil détecte des anomalies. Par exemple, lorsqu'il y a des cyberattaques dans les avions, les systèmes informatiques vont se comporter différemment et la firme peut alors les alerter qu'une attaque est en cours. « Confiance en personne » Récemment, la PME a décroché un juteux contrat avec la Défense, qui s'intéresse à son puissant outil d'intelligence artificielle capable de sauver des vies, mais aussi de prévenir le vol d'informations ultras confidentielles. « On s'attend à ce que les alliés collaborent entre eux, mais on est quand même dans la Défense, et les intérêts peuvent varier en fonction de certaines circonstances ou de réalités géopolitiques. Bref, en cybersécurité, on a confiance en personne. Ça peut venir de n'importe où », analyse-t-il. Quand on lui demande si le Québec tire bien son épingle du jeu dans ce domaine, Karime Ganame en a long à dire sur les vice-présidents de grandes compagnies d'ici qui doutaient de sa capacité à fonder une entreprise. « On me disait que l'innovation en cybersécurité vient des États-Unis. J'ai dû leur dire : “Les États-Unis n'ont pas le monopole de la connaissance. Au Québec, on est capable de le faire”. Et on l'a fait », conclut-il. https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2020/11/09/des-genies-dici-protegent-les-avions-de-chasse

• 

  November 19, 2019 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Military Procurement: What the New Cabinet Can Learn From Australia

  By Lee Harding The Liberal government announced its new cabinet on Nov. 20—the very same day the Canadian Global Affairs Institute hosted its annual event on the topic of military procurement. Given that an overhaul in that area is sorely needed, Canada can learn a lot from Australia, Ian Mack wrote in a recent report for the institute. Mack is uniquely qualified to make that assessment, having worked with both governments in their process of awarding contracts for military sea vessels. While he believes both countries had an acceptable result, his report, titled “Another Way to Buy Frigates,” suggests the Canadian approach adds work, balloons costs, and delays success. The re-elected Trudeau government should take note. The Liberals proposed significant changes to Canada's defence procurement system during the election campaign, but it will be a tall order to change this process. The land down under is isolated in a less secure part of the globe, without a nearby superpower like the United States to watch its back. So if Australia is far more diligent about defence than Canada, it might be due to necessity. The last time Canada had a proper and comprehensive white paper on defence was 1994. Australia has had three in the 21st century. Australia's effectiveness goes from the top down, something Canada knows nothing of. As Mack explains, “Canada, uniquely among its allies, has multiple government departments and central agencies significantly involved in the minutiae of its major military procurement projects.” These include Defence; Treasury Board; Finance; Public Services and Procurement; Justice; Innovation, Science and Economic Development—and even more. Meanwhile in Australia, the minister of defence is responsible for all aspects of navy shipbuilding. This includes setting operational and technical requirements, securing funds, developing a plan to benefit domestic industries, and satisfying the legal aspects of procurement. Each country had a project management office of roughly the same size, but Canada's was, frankly, less competent. Australia's office had many knowledgeable contractors working alongside the Department of Defence, whereas Canada's team had many from the public service and armed forces with “little or no applicable experience or knowledge,” according to Mack. “In Canada, significant effort was expended on regular reporting to layers of senior governance,” he says in the report. But it was paperwork and process for its own sake, and impractical in its effect. “Despite the onerous reporting demands, only a few key decisions were rendered and rarely in a timely manner. The opposite was the case in Australia.” In seemingly every aspect of development, Canada made things rigid, complicated, and fragmented, while Australia made them flexible, cohesive, and collaborative. Canada made stand-alone contracts for each sequence of the process. Australia worked with contractors to establish “end-to-end accountability.” Canada's initial request for proposal included hundreds of technical requirements that bidders had to prove. Australia had few mandatory requirements, but worked alongside bidders to explore their respective proposed solutions. In Canada, the intellectual property, liabilities, and insurance requirements were debated at length and only decided hours before the request for proposal was made. Hundreds of criteria got a numerical score, and the sum of all scores won the bid. Canada was “preoccupied” about a public appearance of fairness and avoiding lawsuits. (Nevertheless, the controversy over former Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and complaints from Irving Shipbuilding over the bid for a navy supply vessel shows it failed at this.) Shipbuilders bidding in Australia were confident of a fair system without any of those things. The department did not announce its evaluation criteria, nor was the evaluation report the only factor. Instead, the department stated its objectives and worked collaboratively with three potential bidders in their respective approaches. In Mack's words, this left “the competition to be more about assessing apples, oranges, and bananas” than about tallying up numerical scores. Mack says he could not make the Canadian system work like Australia's because the procurement, request for proposals, and resulting contracts were done outside of the Department of National Defence. At the time, he was “simply unaware of the intricacies of the Australian approach” because he hadn't yet been exposed to it. Regardless, he had already surmised that Canadian bureaucrats “did not want changes to their tried and true ways of doing business” and clung to “adherence to prescriptive and traditional methodologies.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/military-procurement-what-the-new-cabinet-can-learn-from-australia_3150065.html