News

By: Tom Kington , Pierre Tran , Andrew Chuter , and Sebastian Sprenger Is there enough drive to reach a unified shipbuilding enterprise? ROME, LONDON, PARIS AND COLOGNE, Germany — As European shipbuilders prepare to transform their nations' rising military budgets into naval power, local priorities are acting as formidable forces against the integration of a fragmented market. Two years ago, Italian defense think tank CESI produced a document lamenting the fractured state of the European naval industry, warning that firms on the continent would be swept aside by foreign competition if they failed to team up and take on the world. The paper provided the ideological underpinning for proposals by Italian shipyard Fincantieri to jointly build vessels with France's Naval Group, a plan being considered by both governments. But today, one of the authors of the report, Francesco Tosato, says that despite European Union moves to integrate the defense industry, little has changed in the naval sector. “We still have six or eight types of frigates, each with manufacturing runs of no more than 10 vessels, which is unsustainable,” he said. Supporters of integration say shipyards will be able to cut costs through synergies and avoid competing against each other in export markets. “The Germans are building U-212NG submarines with the Norwegians, but they are not integrating,” he added. A second analyst agreed that integration is not happening, but offered a positive outlook. “With European governments not wanting to spend on naval vessels, it is all about exports, and buyers in Asia and the Middle East want to deal with one government, not with Europe,” said Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “They may want a German frigate with a French radar and MBDA missiles, but they still want one national point of contact,” he added. Roberts also argued that European multinational shipbuilders risked stifling competition. “That could lead to poorer designs and higher prices,” he said. In addition, one European industrial giant may be unable to offer different types of vessels to export customers with a variety of requirements. “Customers have bespoke needs, which means systems integrators are crucial,” Roberts said. “Why not have systems intergrators working on a European basis? That could be the starting point for integrating Europe's industry, rather than putting together shipyards.” German angst In Germany, meanwhile, industry officials and lawmakers are bickering over whether surface shipbuilding is, or should be, a national priority so critical that contracts must go to German yards. (The Ministry of Defence has only designated submarine construction as such a key capability.) That debate permeates the competition for the MKS-180 program, a novel multi-use combat ship. The thought that Dutch contractor Damen, one of the bidders still in the race, could win the contract over the purely German team of German Naval Yards and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems has some coastal politicians and trade unions up in arms. There is a lot at stake for German shipbuilders. A recent MoD strategy document proclaimed a national objective of restoring the balance between out-of-area missions and homeland defense. The latter area has been chronically underfunded in the rush to provide troops at the tip of the spear with equipment that works, the argument goes. That dynamic will “inevitably mean an increase in forces, including warships and modernization of the fleet,” a spokesman for the Germany Navy told Defense News. For example, the service plans to buy at least one new warship annually over the next 10 years, plus 46 helicopters. Combined with a new deployment and manning scheme, officials hope to raise the entire fleet's operational availability to 50 percent compared with today's 30 percent, meaning more vessels theoretically will be ready to fight at any given time. Those plans could directly translate into jobs in Germany, and domestic shipbuilders, including heavyweight TKMS, are doing their part to support the demand for government favoritism toward their own yards. British exclusivity The situation is similar in the United Kingdom, where shipbuilding for the Royal Navy is by definition a domestic affair. It has been a little more than a year since the British government published a national shipbuilding strategy, which in part called for a greater surface warship building capability. BAE Systems has had a stranglehold on the business since it first merged and then in 2009 acquired VT Shipbuilding. BAE Systems' two surface warship building yards in Glasgow, Scotland, meet the government requirement that complex warships must be locally built. The Conservative government, however, made it clear in its shipbuilding strategy that while BAE would continue to build in Glasgow the planned eight Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates destined for the Royal Navy, it wanted another yard to build a fleet of five Type 31e general purpose frigates. Peter Parker, the author of the strategy report, justified the creation of a second naval build center, saying it would be unprecedented for BAE to run two new programs side by side. But it hasn't been smooth sailing for British Ministry of Defence officials running the Type 31e program, as they seek sufficient bidders to hold a robust competition. Building frigates in a British yard with a price of no more than £250 million (U.S. $329 million) and an in-service date of 2023 has proved a challenge. The government stopped the competition earlier this year after it failed to attract a sufficient level of interest from qualified vendors. But officials got the show back on the road Aug. 20, restarting discussions with potential suppliers on a revised plan. Competition documents were issued to industry last month, with potential bidders mandated to reply by Oct. 19. With German and the British shipyards hoping to secure their respective turfs at home, the Fincantieri-Naval Group deal could still become the poster child for European naval-industry consolidation. At least, that's the theory. French maneuvers French officials appeared to get cold feet earlier this month on a key aspect of the merger arrangement: a proposed cross-shareholding of 5 to 10 percent. “Bercy is not keen,” said an industry executive, referring to the French Economy and Finance Ministry, located in a vast modern building resembling a bridge by the river Seine. A source with the French Armed Forces Ministry would only say: “Negotiations take time. We need more time.” Even before that wrinkle, the French and Italian governments requested “clarification” from Fincantieri and Naval Group after the two companies submitted dossiers in mid-July for a partnership. The request for clarification referred to the key elements of cooperation in research and development, common purchase of parts and offers in export markets, an industry executive told Defense News. Cross-border cooperation in foreign sales is seen as significant, as Naval Group has set a target of exports accounting for half of annual sales compared to the present estimated one-third of revenue. Competition with Fincantieri raises the cost of sales and cuts profit margins, as each seeks to submit competitive offers. If Naval Group and Fincantieri do manage to forge an industrial alliance, that will reverse a declining trend in cooperation. Previous French attempts to work with Italy in building a common MU90 light torpedo led to nothing, while the level of common parts on the FREMM multimission frigate fell compared to that realized on the Horizon air-defense frigate. European industrial cooperation also stalled on the Scorpene attack submarine, with Spanish shipbuilder Navantia opting to pursue its own S-80 diesel-electric boat rather than work with Naval Group. Tom Kington, Andrew Chuter, Pierre Tran and Sebastian Sprenger contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/10/21/for-europe-its-naval-business-as-usual/

By: Valerie Insinna and Sebastian Sprenger WASHINGTON and LIÈGE, Belgium — Belgium appears poised to select Lockheed Martin's F-35 over the Eurofighter Typhoon as its next-generation fighter jet, with government sources on Oct. 22 telling national news outlet Belga that an F-35 victory has already been decided. The Belgian government is expected to formally announce its decision before Oct. 29, Reuters reported on Monday. A Lockheed Martin spokesman said he could not confirm whether Belgium had communicated its choice to the firm, but said the company remains confident in its offering. “The F-35 offers transformational capability for the Belgian Air Force and, if selected, will align them with a global coalition operating the world's most advanced aircraft,” Mike Friedman said in an emailed statement. “The F-35 program is built on strong international partnerships, and our proposal includes significant industrial opportunities for Belgian companies to contribute to the global F-35 enterprise.” The F-35 was widely considered the favorite in the competition, which included the Eurofighter — a partnership among the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Germany. This summer, Belgium announced that it would also consider two options in addition to the F-35 and Typhoon: France's Dassault Rafale or upgrading its existing F-16 fleet instead of purchasing new aircraft. U.S. aerospace behemoth Boeing and Sweden's Saab pulled out of the competition last year, with Boeing claiming that Belgium's requirements favored the F-35 and Sweden stating that it was not able to provide the operational support needed by the Belgian Air Component. A win by the F-35 would further solidify the joint strike fighter's dominance among U.S. allies in Europe and deal a heavy blow to Franco-German ambitions for a prominent role in building Europe's next-generation defense capabilities. Both Rafale and Eurofighter had pitched extensive industrial packages to Belgium in the hopes of bolstering their offers. Analysts had said that Belgium's decision could be a bellwether for future European fighter jet competitions. U.S. industry sources told Defense News this summer that they believed that President Donald Trump's rhetoric on NATO allies' defense spending and tariffs on steel and aluminum may have led Belgium to take a closer look at the European offers. Meanwhile, European defense officials and experts repeatedly made the case that Belgium should pick a European plane. For Brussels, the capital of Europe, to choose the U.S. plane would amount to nothing less than an act of “betrayal,” the French business journal La Tribune headlined on Monday. Two practical considerations were seen as playing heavily into the Belgian government's inclination toward the joint strike fighter: For one, the neighboring Netherlands already is an F-35 customer. The two countries agreed some years ago to pool their resources in policing their common airspace, and having only one aircraft type presumably would be good for interoperability. In addition, Belgium for decades has had an agreement with NATO that requires its planes to be capable of carrying U.S. nuclear weapons into a hypothetical atomic war. Belgium, like neighbor Germany, stores a few warheads within its borders for that purpose. Certifying a European-made aircraft, like the Airbus Eurofighter, for the nuclear mission after the F-16 is politically tricky and – some say – perhaps even undoable given the current state of trans-Atlantic affairs. In that line of thinking, a nuclear-capable F-35 could represent the most trouble-free option for Belgium. The Belgian decision is sure to be watched closely by Germany. Berlin is in the market to replace its Tornado aircraft, looking for roughly 90 new planes. While officials have said they prefer the Eurofighter, uncertainty surrounding the nuclear-weapons certification of the future fleet remains something of an elephant in the room. Belgium intends to buy 34 new fighters to replace its aging inventory of F-16s, which number about 54 jets — although that number may be even fewer after an embarrassing incident earlier this month, where a mechanic accidentally opened fire while doing repair work and and blew up a neighboring F-16. In January, the U.S. State Department pre-emptively approved a $6.53 billion F-35 sale to Belgium that would include 34 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variants, 38 F-135 engines manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, and a slew of other equipment to enable operations, training and logistics. That estimate is expected to come down as Lockheed and the government hammer out a final contract. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/22/belgium-reportedly-picks-f-35-for-future-fighter-jet

By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. and its NATO allies are teaming up to more closely cooperate on the development and fielding of unmanned maritime systems, according to an agreement signed by the defense heads of 13 NATO allies. During the July summit, the powers signed onto a plan to jointly pursue technologies aimed at mine and sub hunting, according to an October news release making the agreement public. “The use of unmanned systems is a potentially game changing leap forward in maritime technology,” the release read. “Working alongside traditional naval assets, these unmanned systems will increase both our situational awareness and our control of the seas.” The release, while short on details, seems to open up the possibility that development of underwater and surface drones could be even more lucrative for companies involved, as it hints at the alliance seeking common, interoperable systems. That means a proven drone might be competing for business in 13 markets simultaneously instead of just one. “Through this initiative, Allies will also be able to exploit economies of scale to reduce costs, allowing increasing defence budgets to go even further,” the release said. The countries involved in the agreement are Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. For NATO watchers, the agreement is the latest sign of just how seriously the alliance is taking the threat from Russian submarines. “NATO members are alarmed by the growing threat from Russian submarines, and are investing more resources to deal with it,” said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who previously served as the lead on NATO issues for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “Under [President Vladimir] Putin, Russia has deployed new, stealthier submarines in the north Atlantic that are much harder for NATO navies to track. “This new multinational cooperation in undersea drones is the most recent example that NATO is taking the Russian threat in the north Atlantic much more seriously than it has in the past quarter century.” Expanding role The agreement also reflects the ever-expanding role of unmanned systems in the underwater domain, which countries are banking on to offset the ever-quieter and more advanced submarines. As the U.S. submarine fleet has dipped to 56 attack and guided-missile boats, and the Navy projects that number is slated to further drop to 42 by 2028 and hold below 48 boats through 2032, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. The Navy's 2019 30-year shipbuilding plan shows the number of attack submarines dropping precipitously in the mid-2020s, something CRS has warned about for years as the Los Angeles-class boats begin to retire in numbers. That shortfall is prompting an all-out push on developing unmanned systems that can perform some functions to free up the big hunters for missions where they are more needed. When it comes to cooperating in development of drones, monitoring the littorals in and around the Baltic — and in the Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom gap — is an area where this kind of cooperation could be helpful, said Bryan Clark, a retired submariner and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The Battle of the Atlantic The renewed threat from Russian submarines has triggered what the U.S. Navy's Europe commander, Adm. James Foggo, has dubbed “The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic,” harkening back to the fight with German U-boats in World War I, World War II and the standoff with Russia in the Cold War. But with the expansion of NATO to former Soviet satellite states, the Battle of the Atlantic will sprawl from the Eastern Seaboard all the way to the Baltic and Black seas, areas that Russia has fortified with anti-access, area denial weapons and other capabilities in recent years. That battlespace, however, extends not only to the undersea domain but all the way to the ocean floor, which is home to everything from pop-up mines to undersea internet cables that transmit the vast majority of the world's data. That means the alliance will need to know more than ever about what's on the sea floor, a job that simply can't be done with the declining number of attack submarines needed to shadow nuclear missile subs and conduct high-risk intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions around the globe. In that arena, experts say that underwater systems — be it drones or stationary systems — will be necessary to monitor crucial chokepoints. "We don't have to know everything everywhere,” retired Vice Adm. Michael Connor, former head of American's submarine forces, told the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee in a 2015 hearing. “But there are places where you would like to have very good knowledge. We have critical things we want to protect, like some of the undersea infrastructure that is so critical to our economy. “There may be places we decide we want to have some volume of systems and that relatively small area around that infrastructure where you would have sufficient vehicles to obtain perfect knowledge.” Pawns Developing and using autonomous underwater unmanned vehicles has proven to be a challenge. The issues are multifarious, but they boil down to three core problems: communications, navigation and endurance. Communicating underwater is a challenge in the best of circumstances, and surveillance drones aren't worth much if they can't tell others what they find. To that end, they must either have a home base to which they can navigate and upload data, or they need to surface and transmit, said Clark, the CSBA analyst. A second challenge is navigating around obstacles. Fish, which know quite a bit about navigating underwater, have trouble avoiding commercial fishing nets that are common in sea lanes. Likewise, drones have issues finding and avoiding them, and that's just one example. Endurance is another challenge. Some of the best underwater drones in the U.S. Navy's inventory, under ideal usage conditions, last a day underwater, Clark said. “UUVs can only go a few knots, and that's of limited duration,” he said. Underwater drones are showing promise in the areas of mine hunting and mine sweeping, but perhaps even more promising — in terms of becoming an adequate stand-in for an attack boat — are some of the surface drones in development. Clark said programs such as the Sea Hunter, a medium-displacement unmanned surface vessel, could be a huge leap forward for monitoring chokepoints. Developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel, or ACTUV, was designed to track enemy subs while avoiding collisions and abiding by the rules of the road. The first Sea Hunter was christened in 2016, and in January the project transitioned to the Office of Naval Research for further development. The idea behind Sea Hunter is that one can field a multitude to cover a lot of area at a fraction of the cost of a frigate of destroyer. “ACTUV represents a new vision of naval surface warfare that trades small numbers of very capable, high-value assets for large numbers of commoditized, simpler platforms that are more capable in the aggregate,” Fred Kennedy, head of DARPA's Tactical Technology Office, said in a January news release. “The U.S. military has talked about the strategic importance of replacing ‘king' and ‘queen' pieces on the maritime chessboard with lots of ‘pawns,' and ACTUV is a first step toward doing exactly that.” Other technologies have also shown promise. Liquid Robotics' Wave Glider, which uses ocean current and solar panels to power itself, can stay at sea for months at a time and provide persistent surveillance for anywhere from $250,000 to $300,000 a unit, a company representative told Defense News last year. The agreement reached by 13 NATO powers is just the latest indication of how countries see unmanned systems impacting the future of warfare. “It's an important statement that NATO allies and partners are thinking seriously about these emerging capabilities — and they need to think about them,” said Michael Horowitz, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research has centered on unmanned systems. “It's a reflection of how they see these systems impacting the maritime domain.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/10/21/to-combat-russian-subs-nato-allies-are-teaming-up-to-develop-unmanned-systems-at-sea/

Jim Bronskill / The Canadian Press OTTAWA — Satellites vital to Canadian military operations are vulnerable to cyberattack or even a direct missile strike — just one example of why the country's defence policy must extend fully into the burgeoning space frontier, an internal Defence Department note warns. The Canadian military already heavily depends on space-based assets for basic tasks such as navigation, positioning, intelligence-gathering, surveillance and communications. Canada is also working on the next generation of satellites to assist with search-and-rescue and round-the-clock surveillance of maritime approaches to the country, including the Arctic. But those important roles could be endangered as technological advances and lower costs allow more countries, including adversaries, to cause trouble in orbit. Powers such as China and Russia are developing the ability to wage technological attacks in space, the note points out. "Easier access could also open the door to non-state actors or to failed states with nothing to lose from disrupting space." Canada's new defence policy underscores the importance of space, creating a need for "innovative investment" to ensure National Defence has the tools and know-how to fend off threats, the internal document adds. A copy of the note, Space Technology Trends: Threats and Opportunities, was recently obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act. Several sensitive passages were stripped from the note, prepared last November for the deputy minister of National Defence. In a statement, the department called the intention to protect and defend military space technology a "very important change" in the new policy. "What 'defending and protecting' these assets means in practice will evolve, as technology and international discussions mature." Despite public perception, the militarization of space actually happened decades ago, said Dave Perry, vice-president and senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "Militaries the world over depend on an extraordinary amount of infrastructure that's space-based, even if there are no physical weapons in space," he said in an interview. "Space is well-emerged, but we keep calling it emerging." Even so, the internal note points out space is becoming ever more congested due to the advent of commercial space companies and the dawn of space tourism. "In addition, more and more nations are becoming space-capable and will expect their share of access to space." The most direct threat to Canada's space capabilities comes from adversaries with the ability to attack satellites, the note bluntly states. China, for example, has demonstrated the ability to destroy one of its aging low-orbit weather satellites with a ballistic missile, creating plenty of space debris. Other possible tactics include a directed energy attack, electronic jamming or a cyberattack, which can temporarily or permanently disable a satellite, the note adds. It says Canada is working with the U.S. and other allies on the idea of being able to quickly dispatch replacements for critical space assets that are damaged or destroyed. As artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent in operating space technology, such as a robotic arm, it will be easier for a hostile player to sabotage it, Perry said. "If you can figure out a way to affect the software, then that's a potential vulnerability. Whereas before you would have (needed to fly) someone there, and actually put them on the piece of equipment, to be able to do something." High-resolution images of the Earth captured by space satellites, once exclusive to the military, have become increasingly available to other government agencies, companies, the public and hostile players — essentially "whomever is willing to pay," the note says. The accessibility of this data and the ability to link it with other sources, such as social media, "will present immense challenges" to privacy and public safety. As space-based sensing and communication technologies rapidly improve, they become capable of scooping up more information, creating another headache for the military, the note says. "The challenge of collecting, handling, storing, processing and accessing this data will become more and more severe as the data volume, velocity and variety continues to increase." — Follow @JimBronskill on Twitter https://www.richmond-news.com/canadian-satellites-vulnerable-to-cyberattack-internal-defence-note-warns-1.23474192

AIR FORCE Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded a $62,016,768 cost-plus-incentive-fee option (P00012) to contract FA8675-16-C-0044 for the Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM) program. This modification provides for the exercise of options for Phase 5 activities and foreign military sales (FMS) drawings for the form, fit and function refresh of the AMRAAM guidance section. Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 21, 2020. This contract involves FMS to Norway, Turkey, Japan, Romania, and Australia. FMS funds in the amount of $6,072,542 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity. Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, Colorado, has been awarded a ceiling $36,043,319 cost-reimbursement type contract for Solid State Laser Effects and Modeling. This contract provides for developing innovative diagnostics/test methods, increasing fidelity, realism and confidence of predictive models, measuring and consolidating laser vulnerability data, and working synergistically with tri-service for high energy laser system research. Work will be performed at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, and is expected to be completed by Oct. 24, 2022. This contract award is the result of a competitive acquisition and one offer was received. Fiscal 2018 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $100,000 will be obligated at the time of award. Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, is the contracting activity (FA9451-19-C-0001). Infinity Systems Engineering LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado, has been awarded a $22,653,934 firm-fixed-price contract for Global Positioning Systems Engineering, Analysis & Remote Site Sustainment II. The contract provides organizational maintenance and operational support services to the operational unit that will include remote site technicians, network administrative officers and operations support. Work will be performed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2025. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and three offers were received. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $2,565,094 are being obligated at the time of award. Space and Missile Systems Center, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, is the contracting activity (FA8823‐19‐C‐0001). Advanced Electronics Co., Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has been awarded a $9,437,259 modification (FA8505-11-D-0002-0006-12) to contract FA8505-11-D-0002 for the Royal Saudi Air Force Electronic System Test Set. The contract modification incorporates a 15-month extension in order to allow for the completion of the Royal Saudi Air Force Electronic System Test Sets configuration upgrade. Work will be performed Huntsville, Alabama and in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is expected to be completed by Dec. 28, 2019. This modification involves foreign military sales for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Foreign military sales funds in the amount of 9,437,259 are being obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $28,518,831. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity. Honeywell International Inc. Aerospace, Albuquerque, New Mexico, has been awarded a $7,838,175 firm-fixed-priced order, for the repair and upgrade of the C-5M Super Galaxy's Versatile Integrated Avionics/Avionics Integrated Units (VIA/AIU). This order provides for the repair and upgrade of 85 of the existing 903 and 904 configuration VIA/AIUs to the 905 configuration. The C-5M VIA/AIU repair and upgrade effort is a key component to the overall Core Mission Computer/Weather Radar aircraft modification/installation kit. Work will be performed in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and is expected to be completed by June 14, 2020. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2017 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $7,146,972; and fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $691,203 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting (FA8625-18-F-6801). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Rocky Brands Inc., Nelsonville, Ohio, has been awarded a maximum $20,566,240 modification (P00005) exercising the second one-year-option period of one-year base contract SPE1C1-17-D-1004 with four one-year option periods for hot-weather combat boots. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Locations of performance are Ohio and Puerto Rico, with an Oct. 20, 2019, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. ARMY Science Applications International Corp., Reston, Virginia, was awarded a $13,567,362 firm-fixed-price contract for life cycle management of programs within multiple ammunition product lines. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 4, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (W15QKN-19-D-0002). Fabritex Inc.,* Hartwell, Georgia, was awarded a $9,257,500 firm-fixed-price contract for non-corrosive 16-block wire mesh for the manufacture and assembly of articulated concrete mattress squares. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work will be performed in Hartwell, Georgia, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 18, 2023. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance Army funds in the amount of $9,257,500 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis, Tennessee, is the contracting activity (W912EQ-19-C-0001). *Small Business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1667326/source/GovDelivery/

ARMY Absolute Business Solutions Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0001); Adams Communication & Engineering Technology Inc.,* Waldorf, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0002); Augustine Consulting Inc.,* Monterey, California (W15P7T-19-D-0003); Addx Corp.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0004); Altus LLC,* Darlington, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0005); American Electronic Warfare Associates Inc.,* California, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0006); Array Information Technology Inc.,* Greenbelt, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0007); Advanced Systems Development Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0008) Attain LLC,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0009); Avenge Inc.,* Fayetteville, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0010) Axiom Resource Management Inc.,* Falls Church, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0011); B3 Solutions LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0012); Barbaricum LLC,* Washington, DC (W15P7T-19-D-0013); Bennett Aerospace Inc.,* Cary, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0014); Bowhead Logistics Solutions LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0015); Brockwell Technologies Inc.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0016); By Light Professional IT Services LLC,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0017); C4 Planning Solutions LLC,* Blythe, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0018); Cambridge International Systems Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0019); Carley Corp.,* Orlando, Florida (W15P7T-19-D-0020); Chimera Enterprises International Inc.,* Edgewood, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0021); Centech Group Inc.,* Falls Church, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0022); Chenega Technical Innovations LLC,* Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0023); Clearavenue LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0024); Client Solution Architects LLC,* Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0025); Client/Server Software Solutions Inc., doing business as Constellation,* West, Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0026); Data Matrix Solutions Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0027); Decibel Research Inc.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0028); Decisive Analytics Corp.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0029) Delan Associates Inc.,* Freeport, New York (W15P7T-19-D-0030); Data Intelligence LLC,* Marlton, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0031); Edgesource Corp.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0032); Enterprise Information Services Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0033); Envistacom,* LLC, Atlanta, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0034); Polaris Alpha Advanced Systems Inc.,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0035); Enterprise Resource Planning International LLC,* Laurel, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0036); Enterprise Resource Performance Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0037); Fibertek Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0038); Five Rivers Services LLC,* Colorado Springs, Colorado (W15P7T-19-D-0039); Frontier Technologies Inc.,* Wilmington, Delaware (W15P7T-19-D-0040); Future Technologies Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0041); Fulcrum It Services LLC,* Centreville, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0042); Futron Inc.,* Woodbridge, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0043); GaN Corp.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0044); GC&E Systems Group Inc.,* Peachtree Corners, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0045); Glacier Technologies LLC,* El Paso, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0046); Global Dimensions LLC,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0047); Global Infotek Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0048); GS5 LLC,* Dumfries, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0049); Gstek Inc.,* Chesapeake, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0050); Hebco Inc.,* Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (W15P7T-19-D-0051); Holmes-Tucker International Inc.,* Lexington Park, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0052); Ideal Innovations Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0053); IDS International Government Services LLC,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0054); Intelligent Decision Systems Inc.,* Centreville, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0055); Innovative Emergency Management Inc.,* Morrisville, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0056); Igov Technologies Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0057); Information and Infrastructure Technologies Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0058); Information Management Group Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0059); Integral Consulting Services Inc.,* Rockville, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0060); Intelitrac Inc.,* Fort Worth, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0061); Intelligent Waves LLC,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0062); Iomaxis LLC,* Lorton, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0063); IPKeys Technologies LLC,* Eatontown, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0064); Ip Network Solutions Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0065); Impact Resources Inc.,* Springfield, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0066); ISHPI Information Technologies Inc.,* Mount Pleasant, South Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0067); Janus Research Group Inc.,* Appling, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0068); Karthik Consulting LLC,* Reston. Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0069); Keybridge Technologies Inc.,* Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (W15P7T-19-D-0070); Kinney Group Inc.,* Indianapolis, Indiana (W15P7T-19-D-0071); Knowledge Management Inc.,* Tyngsboro, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0072); Link Solutions Inc.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0073); Linquest Corp.,* Los Angeles, California (W15P7T-19-D-0074); Lintech Global Inc.,* Farmington Hills, Michigan (W15P7T-19-D-0075); Logyx LLC,* Mountain View, California (W15P7T-19-D-0076); Lufburrow & Co. Inc.,* Havre de Grace, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0077); Middle Bay Solutions LLC,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0078); Millennium Corp.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0079); Morgan Business Consulting LLC,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0080); MSK TriTech Group LLC,* Tampa, Florida (W15P7T-19-D-0081); Manufacturing Techniques Inc.,* Kilmarnock, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0082); Navmar Applied Sciences Corp.,* Warminster, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0083); NES Associates LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0084); Nexagen Networks Inc.,* Morganville, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0085); Nextgen Federal Systems LLC,* Morgantown, West Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0086); Oak Grove Technologies LLC,* Raleigh, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0087); Object CTalk Inc.,* King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0088); OBXtek Inc.,* Tysons Corner, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0089); Odyssey Systems Consulting Group Ltd.,* Wakefield, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0090); OST Inc.,* Washington, DC (W15P7T-19-D-0091); Paragon Research Corp.,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0092); PCI Strategic Management LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0093); PD Systems Inc.,* Springfield, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0094); Peerless Technologies Corp.,* Fairborn, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0095); Pelatron Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W15P7T-19-D-0096); P E Systems Inc.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0097); Pitech Solutions Inc.,* Durham, North Carolina (W15P7T-19-D-0098); Pluribus International Corp.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0099); Pragmatics Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0100); Praxis Engineering Technologies LLC,* Annapolis Junction, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0101); Premier Management Corp.,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0102); Professional Solutions1 LLC,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0103); Pro-Sphere Tek Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0104); Polaris Alpha Cyber and Sigint LLC,* Annapolis Junction, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0105); People, Technology and Processes LLC,* Lakeland, Florida (W15P7T-19-D-0106); QBase LLC,* Beavercreek, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0107); Research Innovations Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0108); Sabre Systems Inc.,* Warrington, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-19-D-0109); Savantage Financial Services Inc.,* Rockville, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0110); SBG Technology Solutions Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0111); Sealing Technologies Inc.,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0112); Secure Innovations LLC,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0113); Sev1tech Inc.,* Woodbridge, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0114); S&K Aerospace LLC,* Saint Ignatius, Montana (W15P7T-19-D-0115); SNR Systems LLC,* Ashburn, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0116); Solers Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0117); Soliel LLC,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0118); Sonalysts Inc.,* Waterford, Connecticut (W15P7T-19-D-0119); Spectrum Software Technology Inc.,* Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0120); Science and Technology Corp.,* Hampton, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0121); Systems Technology Forum Ltd.,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0122); Strategic Operational Solutions Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0123); Subsystem Technologies Inc.,* Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0124); Superlative Technologies Inc.,* Ashburn, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0125); SURVICE Engineering Co. LLC,* Belcamp, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0126); Systems Technologies Inc.,* West Long Branch, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0127); Technology and Management International LLC,* Toms River, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0128); Total Computer Solutions Inc.,* Burke, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0129); Technatomy Corp.,* Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0130); Telesis Corp.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0131) Informatics Applications Group Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0132); Trace Systems Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0133); Tribalco LLC,* Bethesda, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0134); TriHawk LLC,* Houston, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0135); TriMech Services LLC,* Glen Allen, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0136); Truestone LLC,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0137); Unified Business Technologies Inc.,* Troy, Michigan (W15P7T-19-D-0138); Universal Solutions International Inc.,* Newport News, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0139); Validatek Inc.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0140); Varen Technologies Inc.,* Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0141); Veteran Corps of America,* Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0142); Wakelight Technologies Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W15P7T-19-D-0143); Windmill International Inc.,* Nashua, New Hampshire (W15P7T-19-D-0144); WinTec Arrowmaker Inc.,* Fort Washington, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0145); WisEngineering LLC,* Dover, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0146); Zantech IT Services Inc.,* Tysons Corner, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0147); Zolon Tech Inc.,* Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0148); Abacus Technology Corp., Chevy Chase, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0149); Accenture Federal Services LLC, Arlington, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0150); AceInfo Solutions Inc., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0151); Alion Science and Technology Corp., Burr Ridge, Illinois (W15P7T-19-D-0152); Artel LLC, Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0153); AT&T Government Solutions Inc., Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0154); Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Beavercreek, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0155); Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0156); CACI Technologies Inc., Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0157); HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0158); Comtech Mobile Datacom Corp., Germantown, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0159); Cubic Global Defense Inc., San Diego, California (W15P7T-19-D-0160); DynCorp International LLC, Fort Worth, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0161); Dynetics Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0162); Engility Corp., Andover, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0163); Gryphon Technologies LC, Washington, District of Columbia (W15P7T-19-D-0164); Kbrwyle Technology Solutions LLC, Columbia, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0165); IAI LLC, Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0166); International Business Machines Corp., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0167); Hexagon US Federal Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0168); Information Innovators Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0169); Polaris Alpha LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado (W15P7T-19-D-0170); Jacobs Technology Inc., Tullahoma, Tennessee (W15P7T-19-D-0171); Kforce Government Solutions Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0172); L-3 Communications Integrated Systems LP, Greenville, Texas (W15P7T-19-D-0173); Leidos Inc., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0174); Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0175); Macaulay-Brown Inc., Dayton, Ohio (W15P7T-19-D-0176); NetCentric Technology LLC, Wall, New Jersey (W15P7T-19-D-0177); Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0178); Novetta Inc., McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0179); Oasis Systems LLC, Lexington, Massachusetts (W15P7T-19-D-0180); Parsons Government Services Inc., Pasadena, California (W15P7T-19-D-0181); Preferred Systems Solutions Inc., McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0182); QED Systems Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0183); Raytheon Co., Dulles, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0184); System Studies & Simulation Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0185); Science Applications International Corp., Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0186); Salient Federal Solutions Inc., Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0187); Smartronix Inc., Hollywood, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0188); The KEYW Corp., Hanover, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0189); Scientific Research Corp., Atlanta, Georgia (W15P7T-19-D-0190); SRC Inc., North Syracuse, New York (W15P7T-19-D-0191); SRCTec LLC, Syracuse, New York (W15P7T-19-D-0192); Strategic Resources Inc., McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0193); Telecommunication Systems Inc., Annapolis, Maryland (W15P7T-19-D-0194); Vectrus Systems Corp., Colorado Springs, Colorado (W15P7T-19-D-0195); Vencore Inc., Chantilly, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0196); VSE Corp., Alexandria, Virginia (W15P7T-19-D-0197); and CAS Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-19-D-0198), will compete for each order of the $37,400,000,000 hybrid (cost, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and firm-fixed-price) contract for provide knowledge based professional engineering support services for programs with command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) related requirements. Bids were solicited via the internet with 388 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of May 14, 2022. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Navistar Defense LLC, Lisle, Illinois, was awarded a $19,700,110 modification (P00010) to contract W56HZV-15-D-0037 for sustainment technical support services for the in-production and out-of-production Mine Resistant Ambush Protected MaxxPro family of vehicles. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of March 31, 2020. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity. NAVY Austal USA, Mobile, Alabama, is awarded a $57,854,366 cost-plus-fixed-fee undefinitized contract action for procurement of long-lead-time material and production engineering for the expeditionary fast transport (EPF) 13. The EPF class provides high-speed, shallow-draft transportation capability to support the intra-theater maneuver of personnel, supplies and equipment for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army. Work will be performed in Novi, Michigan (30 percent); Mobile, Alabama (15 percent); Houston, Texas (9 percent); Slidell, Louisiana (8 percent); Franklin, Massachusetts (8 percent); Chesapeake, Virginia (7 percent); Rhinelander, Wisconsin (5 percent); Iron Mountain, Michigan (2 percent); and Dallas, Texas (2 percent); with other efforts performed at various locations throughout the U.S. below one percent (2 percent); and at various locations outside the U.S. below one percent (12 percent). Work on EPF 13 is expected to be completed by November 2021. Fiscal 2018 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $43,390,775 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with one offer received. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00024-19-C-2227). *Small Business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1666213/source/GovDelivery/

BERLIN (Reuters) - La Belgique devrait choisir d'ici la fin du mois quel avion de combat remplacera ses F-16 vieillissants, a appris Reuters de plusieurs sources, et elle devrait, selon des experts du secteur, préférer le F35 de Lockheed Martin au Typhoon d'Eurofighter. L'attribution de ce marché de plusieurs milliards de dollars était attendue en juillet avant le sommet de l'Otan à Bruxelles. Elle a été repoussée en raison des élections communales en Belgique, dimanche dernier, et d'un rapport qui a semé le trouble en suggérant que la durée d'exploitation des F-16 aurait pu être prolongée. Les Etats-Unis, à la demande de Bruxelles, ont prolongé de deux semaines, jusqu'au 31 octobre, les termes de leur offre portant sur 34 chasseurs F-35, ont dit des sources américaines. Un nouveau report, ont-elles ajouté, pourrait entraîner une modification du prix proposé. Harry Breach, analyste chez Raymond James basé à Londres, a estimé que la compétition tournait à l'avantage du F-35, en notant que les pilotes belges sont déjà familiarisés avec les F-16, qui sont aussi construits par Lockheed. Le Typhoon d'Eurofighter serait une option plus onéreuse, a-t-il ajouté. "Pour des raisons de coût, les petits pays ont tendance à choisir un avion à réaction de taille, charge utile et portée plus réduites. Tout cela suggère le choix des F-35." Aucun commentaire n'a pu être obtenu auprès du ministère belge de la Défense mais, selon des sources haut placées, une décision est probable avant la fin du mois. Eurofighter est un consortium constitué du Royaume-Uni, de l'Allemagne, de l'Italie et de l'Espagne. La France, qui dispose du Rafale fabriqué par Dassault Aviation, n'a pas répondu à l'appel d'offres officiel de la Belgique. Selon des sources industrielles, elle serait cependant soucieuse d'éviter que le F-16 gagne du terrain en Europe et aurait proposé à la Belgique une coopération étroite en matière de défense. (Andrea Shalal, Dominique Rodriguez pour le service français, édité par Marc Angrand) https://www.zonebourse.com/LOCKHEED-MARTIN-CORPORATI-13406/actualite/La-Belgique-devrait-choisir-Lockheed-plutot-qu-Eurofighter-27453698/

Ottawa, ON - MDA, a Maxar Technologies company (NYSE: MAXR) (TSX: MAXR), today announced announced the company's LaunchPad program, which will serve as an entry point for innovative small and medium-sized Canadian companies and academic research groups seeking to collaborate with MDA on technology or innovation projects. MDA LaunchPad will create partnerships that build and grow Canadian businesses in the fast-paced space and defence industries. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) and academic research groups can contact the MDA LaunchPad team to: Explore potential collaboration regarding the development of world-class technology Bring new products or business opportunities together Jointly enter a new market Collaborate on research and development ideas that are of mutual interest Collaboration on other types of projects "A crucial aspect of creating growth is widening the arc of the very market you serve—creating a larger, more collaborative economic sector with an array of industrial participants that enable one another," said Mike Greenley, group president of MDA. "As a market leader, MDA has the unique opportunity to provide a powerful engine to fuel economic growth. Partnering with other companies, particularly, highly innovative SMEs, as well as academia, MDA provides essentially a "business incubator" to support the global environment of rapid technological advances that require flexible and innovative responses to emerging market opportunities. Allowing greater financial self-sufficiency, structure and services for SMEs within the new space economy and the associated technology spin offs helps build a better world." "I am also delighted to announce MDA's LaunchPad during Small Business Week. The Government of Canada and Small Business and Export Promotion Minister Mary Ng are committed to making it as easy as possible for Canadian small businesses to succeed, and we at MDA are proud to add our expertise and voice to that goal," added Greenley. The Government of Canada expects MDA, as the country's anchor space company and one of the leading defence companies, to lead—which means reaching out across the Canadian industrial base to enable all of Canada's industrial sector to both shape and enable each other. MDA plans to leverage the powerful combination of the four industry-leading companies that comprise Maxar Technologies to provide a platform of convergence and access to expanded networks to support MDA LaunchPad. Learn more at www.mdacorporation.com/launchpad. About MDA MDA is an internationally recognized leader in space robotics, space sensors, satellite payloads, antennas and subsystems, surveillance and intelligence systems, defense and maritime systems, and geospatial radar imagery. MDA's extensive space expertise and heritage translates into mission-critical defence and commercial applications that include multi-platform command, control and surveillance systems, aeronautical information systems, land administration systems and terrestrial robotics. MDA is also a leading supplier of actionable mission-critical information and insights derived from multiple data sources. Founded in 1969, MDA is recognized as one of Canada's most successful technology ventures with locations in Richmond, Ottawa, Brampton, Montreal, Halifax and the United Kingdom. MDA is a Maxar Technologies company (TSX: MAXR) (NYSE: MAXR). For more information visit www.mdacorporation.com. About Maxar Technologies As a global leader of advanced space technology solutions, Maxar Technologies (formerly MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates) is at the nexus of the new space economy, developing and sustaining the infrastructure and delivering the information, services, systems that unlock the promise of space for commercial and government markets. As a trusted partner, Maxar Technologies provides vertically integrated capabilities and expertise including satellites, Earth imagery, robotics, geospatial data and analytics to help customers anticipate and address their most complex mission-critical challenges with confidence. With more than 6,500 employees in over 30 global locations, the Maxar Technologies portfolio of commercial space brands includes MDA, SSL, DigitalGlobe and Radiant Solutions. Every day, billions of people rely on Maxar to communicate, share information and data, and deliver insights that Build a Better World. Maxar trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange as MAXR. For more information, visit www.maxar.com. https://mdacorporation.com/news/pr/pr2018101901.html

Par Nathalie Guibert De nombreuses applications de l'IA deviennent possibles gr'ce aux gigantesques quantités de données accumulées par les armées modernes, analyse la journaliste du « Monde » Nathalie Guibert. Analyse. Pour les armées modernes, « l'intelligence artificielle (IA) se présente comme la voie principale de la supériorité tactique » et elle est devenue « un enjeu de défense prioritaire pour les puissances militaires du XXIe siècle ». Dans une étude que publie l'Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI) sur cette nouvelle révolution, un ancien pilote de l'armée de l'air, Jean-Christophe Noël, évoque un « humanisme militaire » menacé. Il n'est pas certain, selon lui, que les robots pourront toujours, en accord avec le « modèle de l'équipier fidèle », rester « étroitement associé(s) à un homme en charge d'un système d'armes comme un avion de chasse, un blindé ou un navire ». Les applications militaires de l'IA deviennent accessibles et semblent sans limites. Elles sont rendues possibles par les gigantesques quantités de données (images, sons, etc.) désormais accumulées – un Rafale produit plusieurs téraoctets de données par heure de vol, et chacun des trois satellites d'observation français successeurs d'Helios 2 permettra de produire, à partir de 2019, cent fois plus d'informations que l'ensemble de ceux utilisés aujourd'hui par les armées. De plus, les algorithmes acquièrent la capacité nouvelle d'apprendre seuls selon les situations qu'ils rencontrent. Préparation au combat par la simulation, renseignement, ciblage, optimisation du soldat... La course a démarré. « Hyperwar » Le département de la défense américain a lancé près de 600 projets intégrant l'IA, un domaine où il vient d'annoncer 2 milliards de dollars (1,7 milliard d'euros) d'investissement dans les cinq prochaines années. « Une IA surnommée ALPHA, qui fit ses classes en affrontant des programmes informatiques de combats aériens de l'Air Force Research Lab, a systématiquement triomphé d'un pilote de chasse chevronné en octobre 2015 »,rappelle l'expert de l'IFRI. Article complet: https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/10/16/les-defis-militaires-de-l-intelligence-artificielle_5369924_3232.html