News

ByEd Adamczyk Jan. 6 (UPI) -- L3 Technologies will upgrade the F-16 fighter plane training system of Greek Air Force F-16 in a $28 million contract announced by the U.S. Defense Department. The Texas-based company will improve Aircrew Training Devices for conversion of Hellenic Air Force F-16s to the new F-16V configuration. The new variant includes add-ons which include electronically scanned array radar, a new mission computer and electronic warfare suite, automated ground collision avoidance system, and various cockpit improvements. The package can be retrofitted to most F-16s. The aircraft, in service since 1978 and known as the Fighting Falcon, has been built by General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. Over 4,600 F-16s, in use by 25 countries, have been built. The "V" suffix indicates the "Viper" package of improvements. The Hellenic Air Force has 154 F-16s in three variants, with the upgrades planned for 84 of the planes. Work will be performed at L3's Arlington, Texas, facility, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2027, the Defense Department said Friday in a statement. The award completely involves Foreign Military Sales to Greece. The statement by the Pentagon comes two weeks after Greek Ministry of Defense announced that seven-year maintenance contracts with French companies Dassault Aviation, Safran Military Engines and Thales were signed to similarly upgrade the Mirage 2000-5 combat aircraft by the Hellenic Air Force. Those contracts were valued at $290.8 million. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2020/01/06/L3-Technologies-to-upgrade-Greek-F-16s-in-28M-contract/5451578328820

By: Chiara Vercellone WASHINGTON – The Department of Defense is seeking input from industry partners on using artificial intelligence and drones in humanitarian aid and disaster relief missions. In a Dec. 23 request for information, the Pentagon's Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) called for market research to identify existing technology that could contribute to the rapid deployment of self-sufficient drones on disaster response operations. The drones should be able to fly a predetermined area and find people or man-made objects, on land or at sea, in tough conditions including haze, clouds, fire and other obstacles. The drones should prompt when to examine findings through a remote digital monitor, allowing analysts to simultaneously focus on other missions without having to constantly watch the monitor. To support the initiative, the drones must be capable of operating for at least two hours at 50 knots airspeed; cover a minimum of 100 square nautical miles during flight; be launched from various air, sea and ground platforms; search a geofenced area; and resist being dropped from another aircraft in flight, according to the RFI. In addition, JAIC is looking for drone manufacturers and artificial intelligence software companies to develop solutions relating to platforms, sensors, edge AI processing and detecting algorithms that would provide drones with the necessary skills to enable search-and-rescue operations. Industry partners may respond individually or partner with other vendors to provide a joint response. Responses should be submitted electronically no later than Jan. 20. https://www.c4isrnet.com/industry/2020/01/06/the-pentagon-wants-self-sufficient-search-and-rescue-drones

ARMY Adams Communication & Engineering Technology Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0001); Advanced Technology Systems Co.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-20--D0003); The Boeing Co., Ridley Park, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-20-D-0004); CopaSat LLC,* Tampa, Florida (W15P7T-20-D-0005); GATR Technologies Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-20-D-0006); DataPath Inc., Duluth, Georgia (W15P7T-20-D-0007); Envistacom LLC, Atlanta, Georgia (W15P7T-20-D-0008); Fairwinds Technologies LLC,* Annapolis, Maryland (W15P7T-20-D-0009); General Dynamics One Source LLC, Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0010); Globecomm Systems Inc., Hauppauge, New York (W15P7T-20-D-0011); Kratos Technology & Training Solutions Inc., San Diego, California (W15P7T-20-D-0012); NewSat North America LLC, Indian Harbour Beach, Florida (W15P7T-20-D-0013); Nexagen Network Inc.,* Morganville, New Jersey (W15P7T-20-D-0014); PAE National Security Solutions LLC, Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0015); Quantum Research International Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-20-D-0016); Serco Inc., Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0017); STS International Inc.,* Berkeley Springs, West Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0018); Telecommunication Systems Inc., Annapolis, Maryland (W15P7T-20-D-0019); TMC Design Corp.,* Las Cruces, New Mexico (W15P7T-20-D-0020); Trace Systems Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0021); Tribalco LLC, Bethesda, Maryland (W15P7T-20-D-0022); and Ultisat Inc., Gaithersburg, Maryland (W15P7T-20-D-0023), will compete for each order of the $5,100,000,000 hybrid (cost-no-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price) contract for the Global Tactical Advanced Communication Systems (GTACS II) and services. Bids were solicited via the internet with 24 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 5, 2030. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity. IOEI-EQM JV,* San Diego, California, was awarded a $35,000,000 fixed-price level-of-effort contract to provide emergency, immediate or rapid-response environmental remediation services at contaminated sites. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 11, 2022. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity (W9128F-20-D-0020). Young's General Contracting Inc.,* Poplar Bluff, Missouri, was awarded a $9,199,326 firm-fixed-price contract for flood rehabilitation of the Clear Creek-Platte River Right Bank Levee System. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work will be performed in Omaha, Nebraska, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 7, 2020. Fiscal 2020 civil construction funds in the amount of $9,199,326 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity (W9128F-20-C-0007). Manson Construction Co., Seattle, Washington, was awarded an $8,396,000 firm-fixed-price contract for dredging of the Mississippi River. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work will be performed in Plaquemines, Louisiana, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 12, 2020. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance-Recovery Act and civil works funds in the amount of $8,396,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, is the contracting activity (W912P8-20-C-0010). Indtai Inc., Vienna, Virginia, was awarded a $7,640,269 modification (P00016) to contract W9124J-17-C-0018 to deliver adult education programs and services. Work will be performed at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, with an estimated completion date of July 27, 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $7,640,269 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, is the contracting activity. NAVY Ace Electronics Defense Systems LLC,* Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is awarded a $64,405,123 single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with firm-fixed-price delivery orders for the production and delivery of manufacturing kits, spare parts and first article testing for the hardware component refresh of the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System (AN/SWG-5(V)6). The AN/SWG-5(V)6 upgrade offers new offensive capabilities to upgraded ships in support of the Maritime Strike Tomahawk, addresses obsolescence risks and improves the operability and maintainability of the system hardware. This single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract has a five-year ordering period, which, if all line item quantities are ordered, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $64,405,123, with an ordering period to January 2025. Work will be performed in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and is expected to be complete by January 2025. Fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $259,118 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with one proposal received. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, Port Hueneme, California, is the contracting activity (N63394-20-D-0002). Engineered Coil Co., doing business as DRS Marlo Coil, High Ridge, Missouri, is awarded an $11,007,314 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price contract for up to 103 modular refrigeration systems in support of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD). The supplies under this contract cover the Air Conditioning Refrigeration and Thermal Management Control System Branch (Code 411) and the Auxiliary Machinery Systems Division (Code 41) of the NSWCPD. These supplies are in support of CVN 68, CVN 69, CVN 74, CVN 75 and CVN 77. Work will be performed in High Ridge, Missouri, and is expected to be complete by December 2023. Fiscal 2020 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding for $2,212,490 will be obligated at time of award via an individual task order and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. In accordance with Section 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1), this contract was not competitively procured (only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements). NSWCPD, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity (N64498-20-D-0002). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Conmed Corp., Utica, New York, has been awarded a maximum $36,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for hospital equipment and accessories for the Defense Logistics Agency Electronic Catalog. This was a competitive acquisition with 102 responses received. This is a five-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is New York, with a Dec. 29, 2024, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2025 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2DH-20-D-0027). *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2051251/source/GovDelivery/

Posted on January 6, 2020 by Robert Erdos The dogfight was over in seconds. Our radar painted a bogey closing on us from about 20 miles. Selecting the radar to “Track” mode, a tone in our helmets confirmed that a radar-guided missile had locked on the target, and with a squeeze of the trigger we dispatched a lethal message about virtue and democracy. Splash one bad guy. There was something unusual about our air combat victory: there was no bogey, no radar, and no missile. The entire engagement was an elaborate airborne simulation. It was all in a day's work for the PC-21; Pilatus' latest concept in pilot training. Pilatus Aircraft Limited invited Skies to its factory in Stans, Switzerland, to experience something new and innovative in military pilot training. At first, the experience was, frankly, a bit boggling. Would we be flying or were we simulating? Well, both. Modern technology allows training to be conducted on the ground in simulators, often to a high degree of fidelity but, as any pilot knows, simulators have their limitations, particularly in the realm of dynamic manoeuvring. With the PC-21, Pilatus has blended the in-air and in-the-box experiences, creating a form of high fidelity, in-flight simulation. It's a capability that is a game changer in the complex and expensive business of military pilot training. What's new in flight training? Pilatus lists the PC-21's design objectives as increased performance, enhanced maintainability, lower operating costs and added capability. While it scores points on all counts, the “added capabilities” are at the heart of what makes the PC-21 unique, in that those capabilities include full-spectrum mission-systems simulation embedded within the aircraft. As combat aircraft become more sophisticated, they become easier to fly; however, increased complexity of the sensors, weapons, countermeasures and tactics make them similarly harder to fight. Introducing tactical systems and procedures early in the training makes sense. The collateral benefit of doing so in a turboprop PC-21 versus an operational combat aircraft also makes economic sense. Pilatus touts the PC-21 as a trainer that can take an ab initio pilot from their first flying lesson through fighter lead-in training. To say I was skeptical is an understatement. In my experience, a trainer that is easy enough for a new student to fly would be ill-suited for advanced air combat training. Similarly, an aircraft with sufficient performance and systems to credibly perform air combat would be too “hot” for a student. Military budget managers might eschew operating multiple types, but no single type would suffice. Pilatus was eager to prove otherwise. Two sorties were scheduled for my visit. For the first, I would ostensibly be an ab initio student. My plan was simply to strap-in and fly the PC-21, reasoning that a good trainer should be sufficiently conventional and forgiving that it shouldn't present any obstacles to a trained pilot. Admittedly, I learned to fly in an analog environment several decades ago, but that shouldn't be an impediment, right? My PC-21 training began in the simulator, a fixed-base device which replicates the aircraft with sufficient fidelity to habituate me to normal procedures, systems and basic handling. An hour in the “box” left me feeling ready to strap in and find the important levers and switches – provided that I had adult supervision. I would fly my first sortie with Pilatus' experimental test pilot Matthew “Fish” Hartkop, an ex-U.S. Navy F/A-18 pilot. Teaching the fundamentals Strapping into the Martin-Baker ejection seat – survival kit, leg restraints, oxygen hose, G-suit, communications, harnesses – puts one in a tactical frame of mind. The cockpit layout roughly emulates an F-18, with a heads-up display, three reconfigurable 6×8-inch portrait-style displays and a fighter-style up-front control panel as the interface for avionics and simulated weapons systems. The stick and throttle emulate a fighter's hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) design. The cockpit layout was snug and utilitarian. Hartkop talked me through the start-up of the digitally controlled engine, and we were ready to taxi in about three minutes. The mechanical nosewheel steering was tight and responsive, with only a touch of brake required to regulate speed. The field of view from the front seat through the single-piece canopy was expansive, and I was beginning to think that the PC-21 was no big deal. Then I opened the throttle. To tame propeller torque, full throttle is scheduled to deliver “just” 1080 HP below 80 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), increasing to its rated 1600 HP above 200 KIAS. Initial acceleration was brisk behind 1080 HP, and remained strong as we cleaned up landing gear and flaps and accelerated to the scheduled 190 KIAS climb speed, where we were rewarded by a spectacular 3,900 foot-per-minute initial climb rate. In addition to taming the natural directional instability of a propeller, the speed-scheduled power limits gave the PC-21 the characteristic long slow push of a pure jet, allowing me, as Hartkop put it, to “quickly forget about the propeller.” Aerobatics are a productive way to get acquainted with a new airplane. Flying in the highly segmented Swiss airspace was a bit like learning to swim in a bathtub! Most of our aerobatics seemed to occur out of necessity as we bounced off the corners of the tiny country, but I was in pilot heaven. Friendly handling I found the simple, reversible, mechanical flight controls – with hydraulically-boosted ailerons augmented by roll spoilers – to be light, crisp and predictable. The published maximum roll rate of 200 degrees per second is sufficient to replicate tactical manoeuvring. Wind-up turns to for ‘g' displayed a well-balanced stick-force gradient estimated at 10 pounds per ‘g.' Overall, the control harmony and response of the PC-21 were delightful throughout the flight envelope. Cruising in slow flight at 95 KIAS in the landing configuration, I did some crisp roll attitude capture tasks, expecting to need copious rudder co-ordination, but the PC-21 rewarded me with cleanly decoupled roll response. The published stalling speed of 81 KIAS makes the PC-21 a fairly hot single-engine airplane, but the stall characteristics in both the clean and landing configuration were entirely benign, with a distinct pitch break at the stall, retaining full lateral control throughout. Having marvelled at how “unpropeller-like” the airplane was at low speed, Hartkop suggested a similar demonstration at high speed. We shoved the throttle forward, unleashing all 1600 HP as I accelerated at low level up a Swiss alpine valley. I saw 294 KIAS, which equates to an impressive 323 knots true airspeed. With 1,200 pounds usable fuel onboard, low level fuel flow averages 700 pounds per hour. At higher altitudes, Hartkop uses 300 to 400 pounds per hour as a fuel flow rule of thumb. Retaining a turboprop powerplant is a decision driven by economy, yet the expectation is that students will graduate to fly high-performance tactical jets. That is, the propeller is a training distraction that is ideally transparent to the budding jet pilot. In an effort to mask its effects, the PC-21 features a sophisticated computerized rudder trim aid device (TAD) that moves the rudder trim tab based on inputs of airspeed, engine torque, angle of attack, and load factor. The trim aid device kept the aircraft co-ordinated as we accelerated, as evidenced by a slow migration of the rudder pedals underfoot, but pilot workload to co-ordinate that big propeller was effectively nil. Something else I wouldn't have noticed unless Hartkop mentioned it: the ride. It was like rumpled velvet. The sky around us was a roiling mess of torn cumulus, so I could see that the conditions were turbulent, but the PC-21's high wing loading gave us a ride that could only be described as “jet-like.” We returned via a vectored-ILS at the nearby Swiss Air Force base at Emmen, before returning to work the airfield at Stans. Equipped with a glass cockpit, autopilot, dual civil-certified flight management systems, dual inertial reference units, dual GPS and instrument landing system (ILS) receivers, the PC-21 is very well equipped for instrument flight training. Hartkop let me loose in the circuit, and with his prompting I did a suitable job with several touch-and-go landings, a closed pattern, a flapless approach, and a practice forced landing. My experiment was to simply strap into the PC-21 and safely take it flying, figuring those first impressions would reveal any quirks awaiting the new trainee. After about 90 minutes in the front seat of the PC-21, my growing confidence with the aircraft was ample proof of its merits as a trainer. Meet the PC-21 Pilatus has been building airplanes since 1939, and is perhaps best known today for the success of its PC-12 single-engine turboprop design. However, it has long been a key player in the military training market with its PC-7 and PC-9 designs, of which over 800 have been delivered, as well as licensed variants of the PC-9, called the T-6 Texan/Harvard II. The PC-21 is an entirely new design, although by this point a mature one, having first flown in July 2002. As a trainer, the PC-21 seems exceptionally well equipped, including a heads-up display (HUD), airbrakes, health and usage monitoring system (HUMS), single-point refuelling, cockpit pressurization, onboard oxygen generating system (OBOGS) and anti-skid brakes. Pilatus claims that the turn-around between flights can be performed in 12 minutes by a single technician. The aircraft features a single digitally-controlled 1,600 horsepower (HP) Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68B engine that drives a five-blade graphite propeller. For reference, that's a better pounds-per-horsepower ratio (power loading) than a Second World War P-51 Mustang, so rather satisfying performance might be anticipated. It's maximum operating speed (Vmo) is 370 KIAS (0.72 Mach). Planning for combat Our second mission was to demonstrate the PC-21's simulated tactical capabilities in a composite air-to-air and air-to-ground mission. I flew with Pilatus test pilot Reto “Obi” Obrist. Mission planning requires downloading topographic and tactical data to a removable hard drive, called a “brick.” Alternatively, an instructor in either seat in the PC-21 can enhance the scenario by assuming a degree of real-time control of the threat aircraft. It also records DATA for post-flight playback, along with HUD video, cockpit audio, and a reconstruction of all the players in the three-dimensional battle space. “Fox three” I rode the back seat as Obrist demonstrated how quickly he could make the PC-21 emulate a multi-mission fighter. Using the instructor's pages on the MFD, he “loaded” imaginary missiles onto imaginary rails on our very real aluminum wings, adding a few notional free-fall bombs and some virtual chaff and flares until we were virtually bristling with simulated firepower. We launched in a two-ship formation of PC-21s, with Hartkop departing first in the “threat” aircraft. Our aircraft split to a distance of about 30 miles and then turned toward each other. Hartkop's aircraft was continually visible on the multi-function display, based on real-time high-bandwidth datalink. Obrist obligingly explained that he had selected a “six bar scan” on the F/A-18 radar emulation. I was quickly recalling that I don't understand fighter pilot talk, but the HUD symbology indicated that a weapon had locked onto Hartkop's aircraft at a range of 16 miles, allowing Obrist to squeeze the trigger. “Fox 3,” he called on the radio, indicating a radar-guided missile shot. Hartkop was dead, sort of, until Obrist “reset” him for the next engagement. We did four air-to-air engagements. Our first engagement was simply a missile shot, but it let me experience the basic functionality of the F/A-18's AN/APG-73 radar and its associated weapons systems in a very realistic setting. The training scenarios proceeded incrementally. We set up for another engagement, but this time Hartkop seemed inclined to shoot back. The warning tone of his missile trying to lock onto our aircraft sent us into a defensive manoeuvre with some additional radar work to widen the sector scan to obtain a weapons lock. Things were getting interesting. On the next, a simulated missile was launched against us, requiring Obrist to employ the radar countermeasures. We survived. Obrist made no claims about the fidelity of the radar or weapons simulations. The performance and behaviour of the tactical systems relies upon unclassified commercial models of weapons and sensors that Pilatus has integrated into the aircraft. Exact realism isn't the objective, however. Rather, the goal is effective training. The purpose of the tactical scenarios is to teach the pilot to behave appropriately and to do so in a setting where their judgment, timing and skills are critical to the outcome. The only thing missing from complete realism were live warheads. Interestingly, some simulation models have been modified to enhance training effectiveness. For example, Hartkop explained that in the interest of improved training, the onboard dynamic model of the air-to-air missiles needed to be slowed down to give realistic time-of-flight between turboprop trainers engaging at slower speeds and shorter distances than actual fighter aircraft. Bombs without the boom There is a lovely lakeside town south of Stans that needed a bit of friendly bombing, so we split our formation, set the radar to Ground Mode, and set course for the target. I was impressed by the air-to-air radar simulation capability, but utterly gobsmacked when Obrist selected the air-to-ground mode. The synthetic radar display depicted a pseudo-photographic image of the terrain ahead. Let's take a moment to appreciate what we were seeing: In the absence of an actual radar, the radar return was simulated; meaning that the software “knew” the shape and texture of the local terrain, “knew” the characteristics of an AN/APG-73 radar beam, including all the fancy features and modes such as Doppler beam sharpening, “knew” where the radar beam was in space, and calculated what the reflected radar image should look like under those conditions. Impressive! Our navigation system put a waypoint near the target, allowing Obrist to visually identify and update the target designator during our low-level ingress to the target. The HUD guided us through a pop-up manoeuvre to the continually computed release point (CCRP), where it simulated release of the weapon. The PC-21 can simulate – and even score – gun, rocket or bomb delivery. Taking simulation airbourne The PC-21 wasn't a fighter, but you couldn't tell from where I was sitting. Taking stock of the experience, the PC-21 isn't an airplane and it isn't a simulator, but rather combines the best aspects of both to provide a unique training capability. It can't deliver a weapon, but if the need ever arises the PC-21 can teach you how. https://www.skiesmag.com/features/pilatus-pc-21-this-simulator-burns-jet-fuel

La Direction générale de l'armement a inauguré le 19 décembre 2019 sur son centre d'expertise et d'essais Techniques aéronautiques à Balma (proche de Toulouse) un cluster d'innovation technique de défense dans le domaine de l'aéromobilité. Baptisé CI-AILE, ce cluster a été créé en associant quatre partenaires régionaux fondateurs : la DGA, l'armée de Terre, l'institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace (ISAE-SUPAERO) et la communauté défense du pôle Aerospace Valley dans les régions Occitanie et Nouvelle Aquitaine. Le cluster CI-AILE a pour objectif de détecter, orienter et expérimenter les innovations portées par les acteurs régionaux afin de faire émerger de nouvelles solutions technologiques pour la défense dans le domaine de l'aéromobilité en lien avec l'Agence de l'innovation de défense (AID). Basé en région Occitanie, il pourra bénéficier d'un écosystème riche dans le domaine aéronautique et en particulier dans celui de l'aéromobilité, tout en restant ouvert à des partenariats avec des acteurs implantés dans d'autres régions de France. Le comité stratégique de CI-AILE est co-présidé par le directeur du centre d'expertise et d'essais DGA Techniques aéronautiques, le sous-chef d'état-major plans et programmes de l'armée de Terre, le directeur général de l'institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace . Son comité de pilotage comprend un représentant de chaque membre fondateur. Ce nouveau cluster s'inscrit dans l'effort global du ministère des Armées en faveur du soutien à l'innovation, coordonné par l'Agence de l'innovation de défense en lien étroit avec la DGA. CI-AILE est un partenariat dont le fonctionnement repose sur un comité stratégique qui donne les orientations du cluster et un comité de pilotage qui anime et conduit les ateliers technico-opérationnels. Le comité de pilotage de ce cluster est constitué de personnels de DGA Techniques aéronautiques, de la 11e brigade parachutiste basée à Toulouse, du commandement des forces spéciales terre basé à Pau, de l'ISAE-SUPAERO et d'Aerospace Valley. Il se réunira pour la première fois en janvier 2020. Les périmètres attendus de l'innovation dans le domaine de l'aéromobilité sont la captation et l'évaluation de technologies innovantes dans les domaines : - du parachutage de combattants de l'armée de Terre et d'équipements, de mise à terre à partir d'aéronefs (aérolargage, aérocordage...) - de l'embarquement sur aéronefs (voilure fixe et tournante) de combattants de l'armée de Terre et d'équipements (aérotransport, aérocordage...) - de l'équipement du combattant débarqué et embarqué, toutes fonctions opérationnelles confondues, et de son adaptation aux contraintes du parachutiste - des méthodes et des moyens d'essais et de la R&T dans le domaine de l'aéromobilité. Cinq clusters d'innovation techniques ont déjà été créés en 2019 par la DGA autour de ses centres d'expertise et d'essais, CI-AILE étant le sixième : ALIENOR à Saint-Médard-en-Jalles dans le domaine aérospatial GIMNOTE à Toulon et ORION à Brest pour le domaine des techniques navales GINCO à Vert-le-Petit (Essonne) dans le domaine de la maitrise des techniques nucléaire, radiologique, biologique et chimique LAHITOLLE à Bourges dans le domaine des techniques terrestres. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/actualite/la-dga-lance-ci-aile-un-cluster-d-innovation-technique-de-defense-dans-le-domaine-de-l-aeromobilite

This message is to let all our users know that CTTSO plans to implement an updated BIDS site on or around February 15, 2020. While the website address won't change, it will still be https://bids.cttso.gov, you will need to re-register. The current BIDS site will still be available (and have your old account and submission) at https://bids.cttso.gov/archive. We look forward to seeing your new registration and submissions in BIDS this spring! Thank you, BIDS Help

By Charlie Pinkerton; iPolitics Published on Jan 2, 2020 3:02pm Although Canada's defence minister has been tasked with working toward creating a new defence procurement agency to improve the country's often slow-moving system for purchasing military equipment, there's no clear timeline for when the new body will be put in place. In the mandate letter addressed to him by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and published last month, Harjit Sajjan was told that part of his job in this Parliament will be to “bring forward analyses and options for the creation of Defence Procurement Canada,” which the Liberals promised to advance toward in this mandate while they campaigned in the fall's election. “A lot of work has already started on (Defence Procurement Canada) and the goal of this is to make sure that we get the procurement projects done as quickly as possible to make sure the Canadian Armed Forces has what they need,” Sajjan told iPolitics the day before his mandate letter was released. Sajjan also said the Department of National Defence (DND), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada still need to complete “more work” before a timeline for the creation of the new procurement agency would be set. Some of the first steps of the Trudeau government to improve Canada's military procurement system was in transferring the responsibility of military procurements to being managed internally at DND. When the Liberals published its overhauled defence policy in June 2017, DND said that 70 per cent of procured projects were being delivered past their deadlines. “Cumbersome decision making and approval processes have introduced undue delays. Accountability among departments has been diffuse and at times unclear,” says the Liberals' defence policy (it's titled Strong, Secure, Engaged). As a response, the defence policy declared that DND would internally manage the contracts of all projects of under $5 million — an initiative which it said would reduce departmental approval times by 50 per cent for 80 per cent of all contracts. The defence policy is intended to lead how Canada's military operates beyond this decade. At the same time as developing the new agency for military procurement projects, Sajjan has also been tasked with choosing which company the government will choose to pay almost $20 billion to build Canada's next generation fleet of fighter jets. According to the current timeline laid out by the Canadian Armed Forces, the government will receive the final bid proposals from the three companies it deemed in 2018 as being capable of meeting Canada's needs (which includes Saab, Lockheed Martin and Boeing) early in 2020. If it sticks to its timeline, the government will pick which company will be its fighter jet provider by next year and will receive the first next generation jet as early as 2025. Sajjan's mandate letter includes another procurement-related list item; he's also tasked with advancing the renewal of Canada's naval fleet. There are four major navy procurement projects that are nearing their conclusion. Canada is buying new surface combatants, new Arctic and offshore patrol ships, new joint patrol ships and retrofitting its 12 frigates. The combined cost of these projects is expected to cost taxpayers more than $83 billion. Investments in procured projects account for a large portion of the $32 billion jump in annual defence spending that Canada is planning for by 2027. If achieved in that year, Canada's defence spending as it relates to a portion of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) would equal about 1.4 per cent. Canada currently spends just over 1.3 per cent of its GDP on its military two years ago. It has pledged to NATO to work toward spending two per cent of its GDP on its military, which is a common goal amongst allied countries. Over the past few years, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on Canada to increase its military spending to surpass two per cent of GDP. Global News reported less than a month ago that Canada had multibillion-dollar discrepancies in the last two years in how much it planned to spend on its military and how much it actually spent. According to documents obtained by the publication, it had a discrepancy of $2.29 billion in military spending in 2017-2018 and a shortfall of $4.45 billion in spending last year, compared to what it outlined in its defence policy.

Article by Marcia Mills and Paul Burbank Capital Perspectives Last Updated: January 3 2020 The issues surrounding defence acquisition took a backseat in the run up to the 2019 federal election. As noted by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, this occurred despite the fact that two of the largest defence procurements in Canadian history – the Canadian Surface Combatants (warships) project and the Future Fighter Capability Program (fighter jets) – are in active procurement mode, spending is falling short of forecast and roughly 70 per cent of the approved projects under the 2017 implementation of the Strong, Secure, Engaged Defence Policy have seen schedule delays 1. Canadian defence procurement is a many-layered affair. Spread across three departments and a central agency (the Department of National Defence; Public Procurement and Services Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development; and Treasury Board, respectively), the need to coordinate and align this much bureaucracy is often viewed as one of the significant problems in defence procurement. The two main political parties offered very different solutions to these issues during the election, but provided few details. The Platforms The Conservatives focused on the need to "de-politicize" the procurement process, which would in turn deliver greater value for money and better resources for the Canadian military. To accomplish this, new oversight mechanisms, both in Cabinet and in the Privy Council Office, would be created. 2 Major defence procurements are already subject to oversight by the Defence Procurement Secretariat, a Deputy Ministers Governance Committee and a Ministers Working Group. It is not entirely clear how additional layers of oversight would reduce delay and improve efficiencies, unless the new mechanisms replaced all or some of the current oversight layers. The Liberal platform included a portion on defence procurement that pointed to the creation of "Defence Procurement Canada," to ensure defence projects were delivered on time and with greater transparency. The structure of Defence Procurement Canada was not explained. A bit of speculation is now in order as to what this could mean for defence procurement. The New Cabinet The Liberals formed a minority government and announced their new Cabinet on Nov. 20. While the Ministers of Defence (Harjit Sajjan) and Innovation, Science and Economic Development (Navdeep Bains) remain the same, Treasury Board has a new President and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) has a new Minister – Jean-Yves Duclos and Anita Anand, respectively. Treasury Board President Duclos moves from a smaller, specific portfolio within Employment and Social Development Canada to now preside over one of the federal government's most powerful central agencies and cabinet committees. He will have a considerable role in ensuring effective financial management and government spending. Minister Anand is a new face in Cabinet and a first-time Member of Parliament for the riding of Oakville, Ont. She is assuming responsibility for, amongst other things, the two single largest purchasing organizations in the federal government (PSPC and Shared Services Canada (SSC)). Going Forward Defence procurement in Canada follows a general ebb and flow – resources are increased during times of conflict and are reduced in times of peace. Restructuring occurs in response to these influences, as well as perceived redundancies, desired efficiencies and the odd scandal or two. Various Minsters and departments have been responsible for defence procurement and production over the past 100 years, including boards or commissions set up during times of war. A new independent department for defence procurement would result in three different departments (SSC, PSPC and the Defence Procurement Canada) managing the vast majority of federal acquisition. This approach would be similar to the stand up of the Department of Defence Production in the '50s. The DDP had a short life. Established in 1951, it was expanded to become the central purchasing organization in 1963 as an interim measure, then disbanded in 1969 with the establishment of the Department of Supply and Services. The amalgamations of various entities continued until 1993, with the creation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services (a.k.a. PSPC). PSPC operates as a central purchasing agent for the government, with exclusive authority under the Defence Production Act to acquire defence supplies for DND. If Defence Procurement Canada is to exist as a departmental corporation or agency, the government would want to launch this new entity early in its mandate so that it can lay claim to any degree of efficiency or success achieved. If so, the new entity would likely remain within PSPC, as the Minister has existing statutory authority to create a supporting departmental corporation or agency under the Defence Production Act. Creating this entity outside of PSPC's current authority would require a significant reorganization of the public service and change to the operations of government of a magnitude greater than that required to establish Shared Services Canada – this would include deciding whether to maintain or decentralize the functions of defence procurement and defence production, as well as significant statutory amendments to provide or reduce, as required, the authority of all Ministers involved. Ministerial mandate letters, which were released in mid-December, shed no additional light on the specific operational structure or corporate identity that Defence Procurement Canada is expected to take. Notable in these letters, however, is a prevailing theme: Minister Anand has the clear responsibility for bringing forward options to Cabinet, but that effort will be supported by a host of respected, senior ministers, including Minister Sajjan (National Defence), Minister Jordan (Fisheries & Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard), and Minister Bains (Innovation, Science and Industry). As all of these Ministries are already involved in defence procurement, their continued support is not surprising. Throughout the history of defence acquisition and production in Canada, large-scale reorganization has been predicated by one of three events: war, post-war reconstruction or scandal. Absent one of these triggers, a minority government may have little appetite (or be able to drum up support from any other party) to stand up a wholly new department, or even a departmental corporation or agency within PSPC itself, on the basis of efficiency and economy alone, particularly in light of the on-going Phoenix debacle and the continued issues at Shared Services Canada. As no new Minister for Defence Procurement Canada was named in the new Cabinet nor were any Additional Ministers within PSPC named for defence or Defence Procurement Canada, it appears that, at least for now, any defence acquisition reorganization is likely to remain on the backburner. Marcia Mills is procurement counsel with the Fasken Ottawa office and has 20+ years of private and public sector experience. She provides clients with legal and strategic advice for all aspects of government procurement, as well as advice on government policies and procurement processes. Paul Burbank is an associate with the Fasken Ottawa office. He works with the Communications Law group to provide advice on telecommunications and broadcasting in Canada. Paul also works with Fasken's Government Relations and Political Law group on strategy and compliance matters. Footnotes 1 The Defence Procurement Outlook for Canada's 43rd Parliament by David Perry, The Global Exchange, 2019 Volume XVII, Issue III; Canadian Global Affairs Institute 2 Global News: With billions at risk, federal parties promise to fix defence, procurement

by Chris Thatcher; Skies Magazine Posted on December 24, 2019 When the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada in June released its blueprint for the next five years, Vision 2025: Charting a New Course, support for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) was one of its core themes. Small companies make up over 90 per cent of the sector and the report argued for greater government support to help them scale up, generate more jobs, and enhance their global competitiveness. That could include new funding to pursue digital business transformation, a reduction in the complexity of government contracting, and greater priority in the value propositions of prime contractors chasing defence procurements. “If our small- and mid-sized companies are left at risk, the negative impacts will be felt across Canada's aerospace industry as a whole,” according to the report, prepared by Jean Charest, a former premier of Quebec and deputy prime minister of Canada. Small companies are viewed as the prime creators of aerospace jobs and, in a sector buffeted by changing technology and new players, many may be more agile and better able to adapt than larger counterparts that must answer to corporate headquarters outside of Canada. But support from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and governments is essential to their survival, according to a panel of SMEs at the Canadian Aerospace Summit in November. There is no one-size-fits-all to helping SMEs scale up. Companies at different stages of growth require different types of support, they noted. But help with skilled labour shortages and easier access to government programs are common challenges for all. A solid position on a major platform is critical to initial success, but long-term growth requires diversification, observed Barney Bangs, chief executive officer of Tulmar Safety Systems. Located between Ottawa and Montreal in the small community of Hawkesbury, Ont., the company manufactures protective and safety equipment, associated components and in-flight training products. Traditionally, its focus has been 80 per cent defence — Tulmar has been a supplier to a military platform for over 25 years and benefitted from a strong aftermarket. In recent years, though, the company has sought a better balance between military and commercial customers. “As of last year, we were 65 per cent defence and 35 per cent (civilian) aerospace,” he said. Tulmar has also become more of what he called “a solution provider,” integrating components from other suppliers to provide an OEM with a final, certified piece of equipment such as an aircraft seat rather than just the safety harness or seatbelt. “We are doing more in-house and saving customer-costs for the OEM,” said Bangs. Diversification has also been a priority for Apex Industries, a machining, components, subassembly and structures manufacturer in Moncton, N.B. Twelve years ago, its aerospace business was five per cent defence and 95 per cent civil, much of it geared to Bell Helicopter and Bombardier. “We made a conscious effort to diversify into the military side a lot more,” said vice-president Keith Donaldson. “We are very conscious of not allowing our sales to go too high on one platform or with one customer.” Challenged by cost-savings pressures in commercial aviation contracts, military platforms offer a company like APEX “good visibility,” he said. However, militaries have long been trading quantity for technological superiority, meaning fewer platforms and a relatively short production cycle. And ramping up quickly with people and equipment to meet tight delivery schedules is a challenge for small businesses that need other options to justify and sustain the investment when the contract ends. “It is very tough for a SME like ourselves to invest.” However, defence procurement and government programs can go a long way to supporting the scale-up of SMEs, said Patrick Mann, president of Patlon Aircraft & Industries, a technical sales force for global manufacturers of custom components and systems. The scale-up program must be run by single entity within government committed to the Canadian SME community that would be “funded, independent and have the authority to make decisions.” Mann suggested coping what has worked well in other jurisdictions, noting the success of the United States Small Business Administration's set-aside program. “Within that, there is a small business innovation research program which has been highly successful in scaling up SMEs,” he said. The Vision 2025 report called for a federal scale-up program to “provide advice, coaching, networking, value proposition development and consortium-building support to incentivize growth and build capacity–helping firms expand their global footprints and giving them the means and maturity to support OEMs effectively.” The report recommended the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (OSME) within Public Services and Procurement Canada shoulder that responsibility. “Having OSME at the table as a contributor to the development of government procurement strategies and as a champion of small and medium-sized business interests will help ensure government policies and programs recognize the unique characteristics of small firms,” it stated. “We are a pretty good example of a scale-up of an SME using competitive bid government procurement as a mechanism,” said Mann. However, developments over the past 10 years such as single point of accountability and bundling, where multiple small contracts are combined in one larger procurement that is awarded to one contractor, have been “devasting” to smaller suppliers. “It has been a real issue for us. Again, it is an issue where (OSME) can play a role.” OEMs can bolster government programs by mentoring small companies within their supplier base on management and production processes, especially around digitization, added Donaldson. “OEMs have a lot of that knowledge ... [but] I don't think [they] do enough of that.” He and Bangs both cautioned that the ability to scale up will be contingent on resolving talent shortages. Developing and attracting skilled labour is a chronic problem affecting the entire sector, but it is particularly acute for SMEs in more remote locations that don't have the resources to recruit as widely or navigate the immigration system. “Before we launch a scale-up program with support for financing and working capital, we have to make sure we have our skills done first,” said Donaldson. However the Liberal government opts to respond to the Vision 2025 report, the value of investing in SMEs should be clear. Viking Air, KF Aerospace or IMP Aerospace & Defence were once small companies and are “now thriving global participants,” said Mann. “That is the reason why todays SMEs are an important part of our industry.”