Un nouveau logiciel montréalais au cœur des avions

On the same subject

• 

  November 23, 2024 | Local, Aerospace

  Canada’s donation of new air defence system arrives in Ukraine

  The Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, has announced that Canada’s donation of a National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) has arrived in Ukraine.

• 

  December 17, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

  Think The F-35 Is Impressive? Then 6th Generation Fighters Will Blow Your Mind

  by Kris Osborn (Washington, D.C.) Drone fighter jets, hypersonic attack planes, artificial intelligence, lasers, electronic warfare and sensors woven into the fuselage of an aircraft - are all areas of current technological exploration for the Air Force as it begins early prototyping for a new, 6th-Generation fighter jet to emerge in the 2030s and 2040s. While the initiative, called Next Generation Air Dominance(NGAD), has been largely conceptual for years, Air Force officials say current “prototyping” and “demonstrations” are informing which technologies the service will invest in for the future. “We have completed an analysis of alternatives and our acquisition team is working on the requirements. We are pretty deep into experimenting with hardware and software technologies that will help us control and exploit air power into the future,” Gen. James Holmes, Commander, Air Combat Command, told reporters at the Association of the Air Force Air, Space and Cyber Conference. Part of the progress with the program, according to Air Force Acquisition Executive William Roper, is due to new methods of digital engineering. “I have spent six months with our industry leaders and NGAD team looking at examples of applied digital engineering. I'm impressed with what they have done,” Roper. Digital engineering, as Roper explains it, brings what could be called a two-fold advantage. It enables weapons developers to assess technologies, material configurations and aircraft models without needing to build all of them -- all while paradoxically enabling builders to “bend metal” and start building prototypes earlier than would otherwise be possible. “The reward is more than the risk,” Roper said, speaking of the need to “try something different” and pursue newer acquisition methods which at times results in prototyping earlier in the process than the traditional process typically involves. The Air Force Research Laboratory has been working with the acquisition community on digital engineering techniques, often explored through modeling and simulation, for many years. “Digital engineering is another exciting area and we see the opportunity to accelerate the pace of moving things from the bench level of science and technology into a system, integrating concepts into an operational campaign model,” Tim Sakulich, Executive Lead for Implementing the Air Force S&T Strategy and Air Force Research Laboratory Lead for Materials and Manufacturing, told Warrior in an interview. Current work on a futuristic 6th-gen fighter - to come after and fly alongside upgraded F-35s -- includes development of stealthy drone fighters, hypersonic flight, lasers, new precision weaponry and advanced AI able organize targeting data in milliseconds. While all of these things are of course key parts of the equation, the Air Force Penetrating Counter Air/NGAD program is equally focused on information exchange itself as a defining element of future war. Such an approach, looking beyond isolated systems and weapons themselves, envisions expansive “networked” combat with war platforms operating as “nodes” in a larger warfare system of weapons and sensors working together in real time. “This approach is one that views military operations in terms of wholistic elements of an information-shooter-effector complex. That will require a lot more going into the design of the next generation of combat aircraft than how fast and far it can fly - or what the numbers of weapons it can carry,” Ret. Lt. Gen. David Deptula, former planner of the US air attacks in Operation Desert Storm and current Dean of the The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies , told Warrior Maven in an interview. The NGAD program, which traces its history to the Air Force's “Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan,” envisions the possibility of a “family of capabilities.” Holmes explained that this study began by examining more than 650 different ideas for 6th-Gen combat, which were then narrowed down to merely a few. Directed by the Air Force Chief of Staff, service weapons developers who worked on the study have been working in Enterprise Capability Collaboration (ECCT) teams designed to pursue next-generation air superiority. “We are moving into a future where aircraft need to be looked at as not just elements of their own, but as a system of information nodes - sensor - shooter - effectors. It is about creating an entire system of systems that is self-forming and self-healing with a greater degree of awareness than an adversary can achieve, and a much greater degree of survivability,” Deputla said. Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works and Boeing's Phantom Works are all among a handful of industry developers already working on prototype 6th Gen planes and advanced technologies - intended to align with key elements of the Air Force vision. The Air Force itself, while not yet decided upon a particular platform or fixed set of new technologies, is moving quickly beyond the conceptual realm into the active exploration of weapons, sensors, technologies and networks. “There are maybe two to three companies that can build high-performance tactical aircraft,” Roper said. Next-generation stealth technology is also of course a large focus of the technical equation. Newer radar absorbing coating materials, improved IR suppressants or thermal signature management, evolved radar-eluding configurations and acoustic reduction technologies offer a window into current areas of developmental focus. A 2013 Essay by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Science and Technology Committee discusses the evolution of advanced heat reduction technologies built into the “skin” of an aircraft. “To become low-observable in multiple spectrums, advanced skins manage a plane's heat distribution to foil radar, infrared, and thermal detection systems. These skins do this by distorting or eliminating heat distribution to restructure its thermal shape. They may also be able to heat up or cool down all parts of an aircraft's surface to perfectly match the surrounding atmosphere, making it virtually undetectable,” the report, titled “The Future of Combat Aircraft: Toward a 6th Generation Aircraft,” writes. The Air Force B-21 Raider, a new stealth bomber expected to emerge in the mid 2020s, is said by developers to incorporate a new generation of stealth - but very few details are available. Engine development is yet another area of major leap-ahead technological focus, according to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly report. Emerging “Variable Cycle Engines” introduce a third air stream into an engine, which can be controlled by the pilot, the essay explains. The new engines reportedly massively increase an aircraft's reach, fuel efficiency and speed. “By opening or closing the third air stream, the pilot can adjust the fuel intake of the jet engine and optimize its performance,” the report states.​ Fighter-jet launched laser weapons, expected to be operational by the mid 2020s, are of course part of the planning for 6th-Generation fighters. Targeting and sensor technology, coupled with advanced guidance systems, are progressing so quickly that ships, fighter jets and land assets can no longer rely upon an existing threat envelope. Simply put, all US military systems will increasingly become more vulnerable as enemies acquire more drones, high-speed fighter jets and longer-range precision weaponry - all enabled by AI-fortified long-range sensors and targeting technology. This includes the emergence of advanced enemy fighter jets, ships, ballistic missiles and weapons such as land-based anti-ship missiles, all further necessitating the need for information and combat awareness in warfare. The pace of advancement in computer processing speeds, miniaturization and AI also promise to bring new things to air combat. Algorithms able to instantly gather, compile and organize ISR data and perform real-time analytics will bring faster targeting and attack systems to fighters. AI-enabled real time analytics will, for instance, bring an ability to compare new sensor information against vast databases of relevant data in milliseconds. Information dominance, therefore, could among other things enable a fighter jet to both launch attacks and also function as an aerial ISR node. Operating as part of a dispersed, yet interwoven combat sensor network, a fighter could transmit combat relevant data to air assets, ground-based weapons, command and control centers, Navy ships and satellites. If a ship, ground or air commander has occasion to see or learn of an incoming attack at greater distance, he or she is obviously much better positioned to defend it. Perhaps, for instance, a medium-range ballistic missile attack is airborne, approaching land based artillery formations or a Carrier Strike Group - what might a Commander do? Should the attack be met with a ground-based interceptor, jammed with electronic warfare technology, hit with a laser or thrown off course in some other way? What if a fighter jet, configured to function as an aerial node in a larger interwoven combat network, were able to detect the approaching attack earlier in its trajectory? From beyond the horizon? Perhaps the jet might itself be positioned to attack, intercept or dismantle the approaching missile - or at least provide early warning to the weapons intended target. In this case, more “time” simply means more options to inform a commander's decision cycle. Referring to this emerging tactical complex as a “combat cloud,” Deptula posited that, for instance, an aircraft such as an F-35 could cue or alert an Aegis Navy Cruiser about an incoming attack, therefore offering ship-based radar, fire control and interceptor weapons a vastly improved envelope with which to take out an attack. Thus, an interconnected web of attack, targeting and information nodes can better sustain operations should one node be destroyed, and “sensor-to-shooter” time can be massively accelerated. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/think-f-35-impressive-then-6th-generation-fighters-will-blow-your-mind-105587

• 

  May 25, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Defence procurement won't be so easy to cut in a time of COVID-19

  As governments around the world reassess national security, Ottawa could find it harder to delay plans for new ships, helicopters and fighter jets. Jeffrey F. Collins May 22, 2020 A few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the first signs of impact on Canada's defence procurement plans are showing. The government has been following an ambitious multi-decade blueprint, starting in 2010, to kick-start the domestic shipbuilding sector, but some yards have had to scale back their workforces under public health orders. What this means for the National Shipbuilding Strategy and its more than $85 billion (by my calculations) in ongoing and planned construction of large ships is as yet unclear. The $19-billion Future Fighter Capability project, designed to replace the four-decade-old CF-18 fighter with 88 new jets, could also be affected. Government officials were adamant until early May that the June submission deadline for bids remained unchanged — before granting a 30-day extension. But with industry and public sector workers largely stuck at home, it is difficult to see how even the new July deadline can be met. In earlier times of economic strain, Ottawa found defence spending an easy target for cuts. This time could be different, as governments around the world reassess what national security means and how best to achieve it. Heading into 2020, things were still looking up for the capital spending plans of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The Trudeau government's 2017 Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) defence policy had allocated $108 billion in capital expenditures over a 20-year timeframe, 2017-37. Then came the pandemic. There were more than a million job losses in March alone, and as of early May, the Parliamentary Budget Office was predicting a $1-trillion debt by 2021. Given the rapid drop in both domestic and global consumer demand, the price collapse in the country's key commodity, oil, and the accompanying decline in the Canadian dollar, the country is now in a recession for an unknown period. If past is prologue and the virus persists without a vaccine for the foreseeable future, the likelihood of the government delaying or cancelling projects or trimming its orders for ships and planes is growing. When faced with economic pains in the past, federal governments scaled back procurement plans. The staggering debt and deficit in the late 1980s and 1990s led the Brian Mulroney government to drop its ambitious bid to acquire up to a dozen nuclear submarines in 1989, a mere two years after announcing the project in the 1987 defence White Paper. In 1993 the Jean Chrétien government infamously scrapped the contract to replace the 1960s-vintage Sea King helicopter (at a cost of $478 million in penalties). The following year's defence White Paper outlined $15 billion in delays, reductions and cancellations to the DND's procurement budget; this was in addition to large-scale base closures and 20 percent reductions in both CAF regular force personnel and the overall defence budget. The ostensibly pro-military Stephen Harper Conservatives announced 20-year funding plans, as ambitious as the SSE, in the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy but deviated from them in the aftermath of the 2008-09 global recession. With a goal of returning to balanced budgets after $47 billion in stimulus spending, the Harper government delayed or cut over $32 billion in planned procurement spending and laid off 400 personnel from DND's procurement branch. Among the casualties was the army's $2.1-billion close-combat vehicle. There are several reasons why this pattern has repeated itself, but two stand out. First, defence is a tempting target for any government belt-tightening drive, typically accounting for a large share of discretionary federal spending. With most federal money going to individual citizens (employment insurance, pensions, tax benefits) and provinces (health and social transfers), there simply is little fiscal room left outside of defence. To remove money from these politically popular programs is to risk voter resentment and the ire of provincial governments. In short, when past federal governments confronted a choice between cutting tanks and cutting transfers, they cut the tanks. Second, Canada's geostrategic position has helped. Sitting securely atop North America in alliance with the world's pre-eminent superpower has meant, in the words of a defence minister under Pierre Trudeau, Donald Macdonald, that “there is no obvious level for defence expenditures” in Canada. Meeting the terms of our alliances with the United States and NATO means that Canada has to do its part in securing the northern half of the continent and contributing to military operations overseas, but generally in peacetime Ottawa has a lot of leeway in deciding what to spend on defence, even if allies growl and complain. Yet it is this same geostrategic position that may lessen the impact of any cuts related to COVID-19. Unlike the Mulroney and Chrétien governments, who made their decisions amid the end of Cold War tensions, or the Harper government, which was withdrawing from the combat mission in Afghanistan, this government must make its choices in an international security environment that is becoming more volatile. The spread of the virus has amplified trade and military tensions between the world's two superpowers and weakened bonds among European Union member states as they fight to secure personal protective equipment and stop the contagion at their borders. Governments worldwide are now unabashedly protectionist in their efforts to prevent the export of medical equipment and vital materials. As supply chains fray, pressures mount for each country to have a “sovereign” industrial capability, including in defence. In fact, the Trump administration has turned to the 1950 Defense Production Act to direct meatpacking plants to remain open or to restrict the export of health products (three million face masks bound for Canada were held up, then released). The pandemic is intensifying the Trump administration's skepticism of alliances and international institutions; in late March, there was even discussion of stationing US troops near the Canadian border (the plan was eventually abandoned). Smaller powers like Canada that have traditionally relied on American security guarantees will have to maintain their defence spending, or even increase it, as they try to strengthen old alliances and create new ones. As Timothy Choi, a naval expert at the University of Calgary, has told me, an irony of the pandemic is that it may see the National Shipbuilding Strategy become a “major destination for stimulus spending in times of recession.” Either way, by the time the pandemic subsides, Canadians may yet find out that there is indeed an “obvious level” to defence spending. This article is part of the The Coronavirus Pandemic: Canada's Response special feature. Photo: The Halifax-class navy frigate HMCS Fredericton in the waters of Istanbul Strait, Turkey. Shutterstock.com, by Arkeonaval. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2020/defence-procurement-wont-be-so-easy-to-cut-in-a-time-of-covid-19/