News

By PAUL MCLEARY PENTAGON: Close to 300 companies logged on to a “virtual industry day” with Pentagon leadership last week as the military scrambles to build its own 5G networks. The challenge: moving fast enough to keep up with commercial innovation — but cautiously enough to keep China out. The event, led by DoD's technical director for 5G, Dr. Joe Evans, marked a starting point for shaping a forthcoming Request for Prototype Proposals planned in the coming weeks. The companies selected will then start work later this year on a series of 5G experiments at four bases across the United States. Those experiments are intended to help the individual armed services to refine what it is they need, and what they need to ask from industry, as the Pentagon pumps hundreds of millions of new funding into 5G programs across the department. The experiments run the gamut from logistics to sharing information between radar systems, and each service will play a role in testing out what industry offers. Hill Air Force Base in Utah will develop 5G dynamic spectrum sharing capabilities between airborne radar systems and 5G cellular systems. The Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Georgia and Naval Base San Diego will test out a smart warehouse concept, while virtual reality training systems will be tested at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. The RPP will be issued through the National Spectrum Consortium, an industry group established under a five-year, $1.25 billion Other Transaction Authority contract with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Emerging Capabilities and Prototyping. Only vetted companies who belong to the consortium will be considered for the work. The effort is part of a wider push within the government to develop homegrown tech, and quickly. President Trump's top economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, told reporters Friday the White House is planning a 5G meeting in April with top technology companies in an effort to ensure Huawei does not cornere the global market on the technology. “We're going to have a lot of them in the White House to have a discussion,” Kudlow said, though the event hasn't been officially announced. The Pentagon fiscal year 2021 budget requests $449 million in research and development for the 5G next generation information communications technology program, $249 million more than provided by Congress last year. While the Pentagon is paying to run these initial tests, the individual services will ultimately be responsible for paying to 5G technologies once they're matured, adding another budget line at a time when no one expects defense accounts to rise for the foreseeable future. When that happens, 5G will compete “with all other infrastructure upgrades that the services already have planned for their installations and for the systems that operate on them,” said Morgan Dwyer, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “So, how quickly DoD can deploy 5G is really a function of how much utility the technology provides to the services and how willing they are to trade-off other capabilities in order to prioritize 5G instead.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/pentagon-briefs-industry-on-5g-experiments

Federal government tables figures showing what it's spent on the projects to date Murray Brewster The federal government has spent slightly more than $1.01 billion over the last seven years on design and preparatory contracts for the navy's new frigates and supply ships — and the projects still haven't bought anything that floats. The figures, tabled recently in Parliament, represent the first comprehensive snapshot of what has been spent thus far on the frequently-delayed project to build replacement warships. It's an enormous amount of money for two programs that have been operating for more than a decade with little to show for their efforts to date. It will be years before the Canadian Surface Combatant project — which aims to replace the navy's frontline frigates with 15 state-of-the-art vessels — and the Joint Support Ship program for two replenishment vessels actually deliver warships. The numbers and details for each advance contract were produced in the House of Commons in response to written questions from the Conservative opposition. The money was divided almost evenly between the federal government's two go-to shipyards: Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, the prime contractor for the new frigates, and Seaspan of Vancouver, the builder of the supply ships. The breakdown raises critical questions about at least one of the programs, said a defence analyst, but it also shines a light on promises made by both Liberal and Conservative governments to keep spending under control for both of these projects — which could end up costing more than $64 billion. "I think there should be a level of concern [among the public] about whether or not what's being delivered in practice is what was advertised at the outset," said Dave Perry, a procurement expert and vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. A design still in flux Most of his concerns revolve around the new support ships, which the Liberal government says are in the process of being built now. The written responses, tabled in Parliament, note that the projected cost for the two supply ships — $3.4 billion — remains under review "as the design effort finalizes." Perry said he was astonished to learn that, "seven years and half-a-billion dollars into design work on an off-the-shelf design," the navy doesn't have the support ships, even though "the middle third of the ship is built" — and officials now say "the design effort isn't finished." Usually, he said, ships are designed before they're built. The head of the Department of National Defence's materiel branch said most of the preparatory contracts were needed to re-establish a Canadian shipbuilding industry that had been allowed to wither. 'A lot of patience' "I think we have to look at the totality of everything that's being accomplished under" the national shipbuilding strategy, said Troy Crosby, assistant deputy minister of materiel at DND. "Over that period of time, and with these expenditures, we've built a shipbuilding capability on two coasts, not just through National Defence but also through the coast guard, offshore fisheries science vessels. I understand it has taken a lot of patience, I suppose, and probably some uncertainty, but we're really getting to the point now where we can see delivering these capabilities to the navy." The largest cash outlays involve what's known as definition contracts, which went individually to both shipyards and were in excess of $330 million each. They're meant to cover the supervision of the projects and — more importantly — to help convert pre-existing warship designs purchased by the federal government to Canadian standards. The choices on each project were made at different times by different governments, but ministers serving both Liberal and Conservative governments decided that going with proven, off-the-shelf designs would be faster and less expensive than building from scratch. Now, after all the delays, it's still not clear that choosing off-the-shelf designs has saved any money. "I would be completely speculating on what it would cost to invest to develop the kind of expertise and capacity inside the government, inside National Defence and everybody involved, to be able to do something like that in-house," said Crosby. "The approach we've taken at this point, by basing both the Joint Support Ship and the Canadian Surface Combatant on pre-existing designs, allows us to retire a lot of risk in the way forward." When Crosby talks about "retiring risk," he's talking about the potential for further delays and cost overruns. Among the contracts, Irving Shipbuilding was given $136 million to support the drawing up of the design tender for the new frigates and to pay for the shipbuilding advice Irving was giving the federal government throughout the bidding process. Years ago, the federal government had enough in-house expertise to dispense with private sector guidance — but almost all of that expertise was lost over the past two decades as successive federal governments cut the defence and public works branches that would have done that work. The last time Canada built major warships was in the 1990s, when the current fleet of 12 patrol frigates was inaugurated. The federal government has chosen to base its new warships on the BAE Systems Type-26 design, which has been selected by the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy. The hull and propulsion system on the new frigates will be "largely unchanged" from the British design, but the combat system will be different and uniquely Canadian, said Crosby. The project is still on track to start cutting steel for the new combat ships in 2023. Crosby said he would not speculate on when the navy will take delivery of the first one. Delivery of the joint support ships is expected to be staggered, with the first one due in 2024. There will be a two-year gap between ships, said Crosby, as the navy and the yard work through any technical issues arising with the first ship. If that timeline holds, the first support ship will arrive two decades after it was first proposed and announced by the Liberal government of former prime minister Paul Martin. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigates-joint-supply-ships-navy-procurement-canada-1.5474312

As part of its commitment to NATO, Canada also must be prepared for high-tech warfare in Europe. by David Axe Follow @daxe on TwitterL Key point: Canada, like Switzerland, likely can't afford to fail again to buy new planes. Canada for the third time in a decade is trying to replace its aging F/A-18A/B Hornet fighter jets. With every year the acquisition effort drags on, the condition of the Royal Canadian Air Force's fast-jet fleet grows direr. “The politically-charged competition to replace Canada's aging fleet of fighter jets will rocket forward at the end of May [2019] as the federal government releases a long-anticipated, full-fledged tender call,” Murray Brewster reported for CBC News. Four companies are vying for the multibillion-dollar contract for as many as 88 fighters that would replace the RCAF's 1980s-vintage Hornets, which in Canadian service are designated “CF-18.” Saab, Airbus, Boeing and Lockheed Martin all are in the running, respectively offering the Gripen, Eurofighter, F/A-18E/F and F-35A. The manufacturers will have until the end of 2019 to submit bids, CBC News reported. But the RCAF hardly can wait. The RCAF acquired 138 F/A-18A/Bs from McDonnell Douglas starting in 1982. In early 2019, 85 of the original Hornets, all more than 30 years old, comprise Canada's entire fighter fleet. The Canadian Hornets are unreliable and lack modern systems. In 2010, Canada's Conservative Party government announced plans to acquire 65 new F-35 stealth fighters by 2020. But the government never fairly compared the F-35 to rival fighter types such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Auditor General of Canada concluded in a 2018 report. "National Defense did not manage the process to replace the CF-18 fleet with due diligence." In 2015, Liberal Party candidate Justin Trudeau made the F-35 a major issue in his campaign for prime minister. Trudeau won. And in 2017, Ottawa backed off its proposal to purchase F-35s and, instead, launched a new competition to acquire 88 fighters. The aircraft would enter service in 2032, meaning the old Hornets would have to continue flying 12 years longer than the government originally planned. Ottawa briefly considered acquiring 18 F/A-18E/Fs from Boeing in order to bolster the early-model Hornets, but the government canceled the plan during a U.S.-Canada trade dispute in 2017. Canada was left with its original Hornets. In December 2017, the government announced it would spend around $500 million buying up to 25 1980s-vintage F/A-18s that Australia was declared surplus as it acquired its own fleet of new F-35s. The RCAF would add some of the Australian Hornets to the operational fleet and use others as sources of spare parts. But the government has no plan to keep its Hornets combat-ready as they enter their fourth and even fifth decade of service." We found that the CF-18 had not been significantly upgraded for combat since 2008, in part because [the Department of] National Defense expected a replacement fleet to be in place by 2020," the government auditors found. "Without these upgrades, according to the department, the CF-18 will become more vulnerable as advanced combat aircraft and air-defense systems continue to be developed and used by other nations." Against this backdrop, Brewster assessed the current fighter contenders, in particular, the Swedish Gripen and the American F-35. “There has been a rigorous political and academic debate about whether Canada should choose a legacy design from the 1990s, such as the Gripen, or the recently-introduced Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter,” Brewster wrote. “The Swedish air force is about the same size as the Royal Canadian Air Force,” Brewster pointed out, adding that Sweden and Canada also share geographic concerns. “The Gripen is intended for operations in rugged environments, such as Sweden's Arctic region,” Brewster wrote. “Canada's CF-18s occasionally operate from forward bases in the north, but those deployments are infrequent compared with the routine activity of the Swedes.” As part of its commitment to NATO, Canada also must be prepared for high-tech warfare in Europe. The Gripen lacks the radar-evading stealth features that in theory allow the F-35 to penetrate the most dangerous Russian-made air-defenses. But Brewster cited a March 2019 Swedish study that claimed Russian defenses are less fearsome than many observers believe. “Besides uncritically taking Russian data at face value, the three cardinal sins have been: confusing the maximal nominal range of missiles with the effective range of the systems; disregarding the inherent problems of seeing and hitting a moving target at a distance, especially targets below the horizon; and underestimating the potential for countermeasures against [anti-access area-denial]-systems,” Robert Dalsjo, Christopher Berglund and Michael Jonsson explain in their report "Bursting the Bubble." The stakes are high. If Canada fails a third time to buy a new fighter, it might find itself in the same unfortunate situation in which Switzerland has found itself. In April 2019 the Swiss air force is down to just 10 ready fighters with full-time pilots. The crisis is the result of the Swiss public's decision in a 2014 referendum to reject the air force's proposal to buy 22 new fighters to begin replacing 40-year-old F-5 Tigers. The Swiss air force in 2019 plans to remove from service 27 Tigers. The 26 Tigers that remain will perform limited duties. With the F-5 force shrinking and flying part-time, the Swiss air force increasingly relies on its 30 F/A-18C/Ds. To last that long, the F/A-18s need structural upgrades. The upgrade work has sidelined more than half of the Hornet fleet. Switzerland like Canada has relaunched its fighter competition. The same companies and designs that are competing in Canada, plus Dassault with the Rafale, are in the running in Switzerland. Intensive flight testing began in April 2019. Canada like Switzerland likely can't afford to fail again to buy new planes. The old Canadian Hornets probably won't last much longer. "The CF-18 will be disadvantaged against many potential adversaries, and its combat capability will further erode through the 2020s and into the 2030s," Ottawa's auditors warned. David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad. (This first appeared last year.) https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/canada-needs-new-aircraft-could-f-35-fit-bill-125556

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN The Canadian military is investigating potential problems with brakes on its new armoured vehicle fleet which may have contributed to a number of incidents, including where one of the 18-tonne vehicles hit a car near Petawawa. There have been eight reported incidents involving problems with stopping or issues with brakes affecting the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles, or TAPVs. A formal safety advisory was issued Feb. 12 to the army units using the $600-million TAPV fleet. But the use of the vehicles is not being restricted at this time. The brake issues started being reported in January 2018 and the intermittent problem has only occurred at speeds in the range of five to 15 kilometres an hour, according to the Canadian Forces. “We are working with experts to try and determine if there is a problem with the vehicles braking performance at low-speed, and if the problem is isolated to a few vehicles or the result of something that may affect the wider fleet,” noted army spokesman Lt.-Col. Doug MacNair. So far, the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence has been unable to replicate the reported problem, nor have inspections uncovered any obvious causes. There have been no injuries as a result of the incidents. Among the eight incidents is a Feb. 3 accident during which a TAPV rolled through a red light and hit a civilian vehicle near Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. No injuries were reported, and Ontario Provincial Police issued a ticket to the TAPV driver for failing to stop at a red light. Driver error was the “apparent problem” according to the Canadian Forces. But sources point out the driver in question reported problems with the TAPV brakes. During a change of command parade in Halifax in November 2019 a TAPV hit a wall causing minor damage after the brakes failed to stop the vehicle. A soldier near the vehicle had to “take evasive action to avoid being struck,” according to the Canadian Forces. In one case the brakes on a TAPV caught fire. In the aftermath of several other incidents involving brake failure large amounts of ice were found in the brake drums. In another case a TAPV hit the side of a bridge during training. “Following each of these incidents, technicians were unable to locate a problem with the brakes after they conducted technical inspections,” the Canadian Forces added. In 2016 the TAPV fleet had brake issues. At that time it was determined the anti-lock braking system on the vehicles was engaging erratically at higher speeds. A retrofit was introduced across the entire fleet to deal with that problem. The military says there is no evidence to suggest a connection between the 2016 braking issues and these latest incidents. Last year this newspaper reported on a series of rollovers and fires affecting the TAPV fleet. Between April 2014 and January 2019 there had been 10 incidents when Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles have tipped on to their sides, six where they have rolled over completely, and four where they have caught fire. Pat Finn, then the assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement at the Department of National Defence, said at the time there have been no serious injuries as a result of the incidents. Finn suggested the rollovers might be caused because of the high centre of gravity the vehicles have. Training was improved to deal with the issue of rollovers. No explanation was provided at the time for the cause behind the fires. The TAPVs have also faced other problems, according to DND documents obtained by this newspaper using the Access to Information law. The TAPV program has “experienced a number of significant technical issues, particularly affecting vehicle mobility,” then-Conservative defence minister Rob Nicholson was told in August 2014. There have been problems with the suspension, steering and other items on the vehicle, according to the briefing document for Nicholson. The technical issues significantly delayed the test program for the vehicles, the document added. The Conservative government announced the TAPV contract in 2012 as part of its re-equipping of the Canadian Army. Canada bought 500 TAPVs from Textron, a U.S. defence firm, at a cost of $603 million. The TAPV is a wheeled combat vehicle that will conduct reconnaissance and surveillance, security, command and control, and armoured transport of personnel and equipment. The TAPV project cost taxpayers a total of $1.2 billion, which not only includes the vehicles but also includes the building of infrastructure to house them, as well as the purchase of ammunition and service support for the equipment. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/new-armoured-vehicle-fleet-faces-more-problems-civilian-vehicle-hit-near-petawawa

It almost seemed like a throwaway line at the end of the Liberal Party's 2019 election platform, in a section on proposed approaches to security: “To ensure that Canada's biggest and most complex defence procurement projects are delivered on time and with greater transparency to Parliament, we will move forward with the creation of Defence Procurement Canada.” Little was said about the proposal during the election campaign, but in the mandate letters to ministers that followed, National Defence (DND), Public Services and Procurement (PSPC), and Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard were tasked with bringing forward options to establish Defence Procurement Canada (DPC), a priority, the Prime Minister wrote, “to be developed concurrently with ongoing procurement projects and existing timelines.” Whether DPC would be a department, standalone agency or new entity within an existing department isn't clear. Nor is it apparent how the government would consolidate and streamline the myriad procurement functions of multiple departments. Jody Thomas, deputy minister of National Defence, acknowledged as much during an address to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI) Jan. 29 when asked about DPC progress. “I don't know what it is going to look like ... We're building a governance to look at what the options could be and we are studying what other countries have done,” she said, noting that a standalone agency outside the department of defence has not necessarily worked particularly well in other countries. “Everything is on the table. We're looking at it, but we haven't actually begun the work in earnest.” The idea of moving defence procurement under a single point of accountability is hardly new. Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister of Material (Adm Mat), made the case for a single agency in a 2006 book, Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement. And the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) issued a report in 2009 calling for a “separate defence procurement agency reporting through a single Minister ... [to] consolidate procurement, industrial, contracting and trade mandates into one new department, like a Defence Production Department, reporting to a minister.” More recently, an interim report on defence procurement by the Senate Committee on National Defence in June 2019 argued that “a single agency could simplify the complex procurement governance framework. Serious consideration could also be given to empowering project officials and making the Department of National Defence the lead department.” Williams remains a strong proponent. In a presentation to a CGAI conference on defence procurement in the new Parliament in late November, he greeted the DPC decision with a “hallelujah,” pointing to the high cost created by overlap and duplication when multiple ministers are involved in a military acquisition decision, and the tendency to play the “blame game” when delays or problems arise and there is no single point of accountability. But he cautioned that the initiative would falter without better system-wide performance measures on cost, schedules and other metrics. “If you don't monitor and put public pressure on the system, things will [slide],” he said. Williams also called for a defence industrial plan, backed by Cabinet approval, to help identify where to invest defence capital, and “a culture that recognizes and demands innovative creativity, taking chances.” Other former senior civil servants, many with decades of experience in public sector organizational reform, were less optimistic about the prospects of a new agency or departmental corporation. “There is always a good reason why things are the way they are,” said Jim Mitchell, a research associate with the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa and part of massive reorganization of government departments undertaken by Prime Minister Kim Campbell during her brief tenure in 1993. “If you want to change things, you first have to understand, why do we have the current situation that we have in defence procurement and who are the people who have a major stake in the status quo and why? If you don't understand that, you are going to get into big trouble,” he warned the CGAI audience of government and industry leaders. At a time when the departments are moving a record number of equipment projects, including CF-188 Hornet replacement, through the acquisition process under the government's 2017 defence policy, any restructuring could significantly delay progress. “Organizational change is always disruptive, it's costly, it's difficult, it's hard on people, it hurts efficiency and effectiveness of organizations for a couple of years at minimum,” said Mitchell. “It is something you do very, very carefully.” It's a point not lost on CADSI. “The sheer scale of the change required to make DPC real should give companies pause. It could involve some 4,000-6,000 government employees from at least three departments and multiple pieces of legislation, all while the government is in the middle of the most aggressive defence spending spree in a generation,” the association wrote in an email to members in December. A vocal proponent of improving procurement, it called DPC “a leap of faith,” suggesting it might be “a gamble that years of disruption will be worth it and that the outcomes of a new system will produce measurably better results, including for industry.” Gavin Liddy, a former assistant deputy minister with PSPC, questioned the reasoning for change when measures from earlier procurement reform efforts such as increased DND contracting authority up to $5 million are still taking effect. “You really need an extraordinarily compelling reason to make any kind of organizational change. And every time we have attempted it ... it takes five to seven years before the organization is up and standing on its feet,” he told CGAI. “If you want to do one single thing to delay the defence procurement agenda...create a defence procurement agency. Nothing would divert attention more than doing that.” While few questioned the need for enhancements to the defence procurement process, many of the CGAI participants raised doubts about the logic of introducing a new entity less than three years into the government's 20-year strategy. Thomas described a number of improvements to project management and governance that are already making a difference. “The budgeting and project management in defence is really extraordinarily well done. If I am told by ADM Mat they are going to spend $5.2 billion, then that is what they spend. And we have the ability to bring more down, or less, depending on how projects are rolling,” she explained. “We are completely transparent about how we are getting money spent, what the milestones are on projects ... The program management board is functioning differently and pulling things forward instead of waiting until somebody is ready to push it forward.” “And we are working with PSPC. I think it is time to look at the government contracting [regulations], how much we compete, what we sole source, the reasons we sole source. I think there is a lot of work there that can be done that will improve the system even more.” https://www.skiesmag.com/news/new-defence-procurement-agency-would-be-disruptive-costly

Ottawa, Canada: ABS today announced it is engaged in a pilot program with the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) to deliver the ABS Digital Asset Framework for the RCN's Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels. The ABS Digital Asset Framework forms the foundation of a broader Conditioned-Based Class program that transforms ship classification from a calendar-based schedule to a condition-based model. The project, which will start with HMCS Saskatoon, will support the RCN's larger Digital Navy Initiative. “ABS is a leader in delivering condition-based maintenance data services in maritime and offshore applications, and we are proud that the RCN have chosen to work with us on this landmark project,” said Christopher J. Wiernicki, ABS Chairman, President and CEO. “Through our digital programs for commercial and government clients, we are seeing first-hand the power of these technologies to drive improved asset performance and operational safety.” In the pilot program, a network of data models will be generated from a suite of ABS digital solutions which include advanced condition analysis tools. This network of data models will support the execution of an integrity management program developed specifically for the RCN. The multi-year pilot program will enable the RCN to monitor the condition of the vessel throughout its remaining service life using digital twin technology and advanced ABS analytics to identify anomalies, guiding inspection and maintenance planning. ABS digital solutions that will be applied during this pilot program include: • A vessel-specific structural sensor plan designed for measurement of global hull response • Hull sensor pre-processing and data quality checks • Hull and operational data dashboard visualizations • Full structural digital twin creation and analytics • RAM Analysis Together, the digital solutions offer greater access to vessel-wide intelligence providing a more holistic view of structural health and the condition of on-board equipment. This allows the RCN to plan future maintenance actions based on the actual condition of the vessel. About ABS ABS, a leading global provider of classification and technical advisory services to the marine and offshore industries, is committed to setting standards for safety and excellence in design and construction. Focused on safe and practical application of advanced technologies and digital solutions, ABS works with industry and clients to develop accurate and cost-effective compliance, optimized performance and operational efficiency for marine and offshore assets. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200217005014/en/

Rolls-Royce has broken ground on a new expansion to its Centre of Excellence for Naval Handling equipment in Canada. Design and manufacture of the Rolls-Royce Mission Bay Handling System (MBHS) will take place inside the new facility in Peterborough, Ontario. The MBHS is a feature of the Global Combat Ship design, selected for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), Australian Hunter Class and UK Type 26 programs. The Canadian Federal Government has already selected the Global Combat Ship design for the Royal Canadian Navy's 15 new CSC ships. Bruce Lennie, Rolls-Royce, vice president, business development and government affairs said: "We are pleased to welcome Minister Monsef, MPP Smith and Mayor Therrien to mark this significant milestone in developing our infrastructure which will support the Canadian Surface Combatant program. "This centre will harness and build upon the wealth of Canadian engineering and technological expertise we have at Rolls-Royce. "We look forward to growing our business in country, further developing our supply chain and enhancing our contributions to the Canadian economy." Rolls-Royce employs more than 1,000 people across five facilities in cities including Montreal, Ottawa and Peterborough. https://www.insidermedia.com/news/midlands/rolls-royce-breaks-ground-on-canada-expansion

Rolls-Royce has started expansion work on its Centre of Excellence for Naval Handling equipment in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. The ground-breaking ceremony was witnessed by Peterborough-Kawartha Minister Maryam Monsef, Provincial Parliament Member Dave Smith, and Peterborough Mayor Diane Therrien. The newly expanded facility will accommodate the design and manufacture of Rolls-Royce Mission Bay Handling System (MBHS). MBHS is a manufacturing system that will support the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), as well as the UK's Type 26 and Australian Hunter-class programmes. The MBHS offers a flexible and compatible low-risk solution, holding the capability to launch and recover naval vehicles. It can also move containerised packages without the aid of a dockside crane. Rolls-Royce Business Development & Government Affairs vice-president Bruce Lennie said: “We are pleased to welcome Minister Monsef, MPP Smith and Mayor Therrien to mark this significant milestone in developing our infrastructure, which will support the Canadian Surface Combatant programme. “This centre will harness and build upon the wealth of Canadian engineering and technological expertise we have at Rolls-Royce. We look forward to growing our business in-country, further developing our supply chain and enhancing our contributions to the Canadian economy.” The upcoming infrastructure expansion is aimed to benefit the Canadian economy and Canada's Armed Forces. The Global Combat Ship design for ships CSC ships have been approved by the Canadian Federal Government. Under the deal, 15 new CSC ships are to be manufactured. According to the company, the Canadian supply chain network has also been expanded to support the domestic and international export openings created by the Global Combat Ship programme. Rolls-Royce currently has over 1,000 Canadian workforces across five facilities, including in Montreal, Ottawa and Peterborough. https://www.naval-technology.com/news/rolls-royce-invests-in-facility-expansion-for-canadas-csc-project/

Le consortium HFTS qui réunit, à parts égales, Airbus Helicopters, CAE, Rheinmetall et Thales, va procéder à la remise à niveau des simulateurs NH90 au tout dernier standard hélicoptère MR-1. Le consortium HFTS qui réunit, à parts égales, Airbus Helicopters, CAE, Rheinmetall et Thales, va procéder à la remise à niveau des quatre simulateurs de mission NH90 des forces allemandes au tout dernier standard hélicoptère MR-1. Signé récemment, le contrat vient compléter le contrat de financement privé initial signé en 2004. "Cette modernisation s'accompagne d'une rénovation des configurations informatiques, du remplacement du poste instructeurs et du logiciel d'animation de la situation tactique (CGF) et prévoit une certification de niveau C auprès de l'autorité européenne EASA", indique Thales qui poursuit : "gr'ce à ce programme, les forces armées allemandes pourront fournir des services de formations de pointe pour leurs équipages NH90 dans un environnement virtuel. De plus, l'interconnexion des simulateurs répartis sur les sites de Bückeburg, Fassberg et Holzdorf et l'ouverture vers les autres moyens d'entrainement de l'Armée allemande permettra aux équipages de faire de l'entraînement collectif sur des missions complexes". "Tous les pilotes de NH90 des forces armées allemandes ont utilisé exclusivement les simulateurs de HFTS GmbH au cours de la dernière décennie, totalisant 200 000 heures de vol. Des clients internationaux tels que la Suède, la Belgique, la Finlande et la Nouvelle-Zélande se sont également entraînés avec succès sur les simulateurs NH90 ces dernières années", souligne Peter Halbig, directeur du consortium. https://www.air-cosmos.com/article/nh90-modernisation-de-quatre-simulateurs-de-mission-22576