AETE to join testing “centre of excellence” in Ottawa

Sur le même sujet

• 

  28 novembre 2018 | Local, Aérospatial

  Aerospace execs call for government strategy to support key industrial capabilities

  Chris Thatcher Canada will struggle to retain its position as a leading player in the global aerospace market without a government-backed industrial policy. That was the stark message form a trio of industry executives to the Canadian Aerospace Summit in mid-November as the sector embarks on Vision 2025, an exercise involving industry, federal and provincial governments, and other stakeholders to develop recommendations the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada (AIAC) hopes will lead to a long-term, fully-funded sector strategy. “I think it is important we have a sound industrial policy in Canada,” said David Gossen, president of Halifax-based IMP Aerospace and Defence. “It's clear every nation [that has an indigenous capability] is doing all they can to protect that industry. I think we need to follow that same principle.” As an engineering and in-service support (ISS) provider to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Gossen has seen the business model transform in recent years as OEMs have transitioned from long-term partners to fierce competitors for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) work. He's watched emerging markets start to create their own domestic support capabilities–in some cases after requesting IMP know-how. And he's seen established aerospace nations erect barriers to protect their own ISS providers. He's also watched the boom and bust cycle of Canada's shipbuilding industry on the East Coast and drawn lessons he fears aerospace is in danger of repeating. “We don't [want to] spend 10 years trying to figure out how we rebuild [our] industry,” he cautioned. Many of Gossen's concerns were echoed by fellow panellists Dan Goldberg, president and chief executive officer of Ottawa-based Telesat, and Amandeep Kaler, chief executive officer of aerostructure manufacturer Avcorp Group. Goldberg said the 50-year-old satellite communication services provider is being buffeted by similar dynamics as traditional players seek greater protection at home and emerging markets strive to gain entry. “Our industry is changing dramatically,” he said. For manufacturers like Avcorp, a component and repair services supplier to international OEMs and airlines for over 16 years, “our business is being reshaped,” said Kaler, noting the growth of build-to-print suppliers in government-support markets. “The race for best price is not going to slow down anytime soon,” he said. “You can let it happen or you can take the steps . . . to be the leading-edge of that by bringing your own capabilities and leveraging other technologies that are available to us in Canada.” To survive, all three executives pointed to the need for expertise and intellectual property in niche capabilities. But they acknowledged government planning and support will be necessary if aerospace is going to capitalize on new technologies. While Telesat, for example, would prefer its satellites to be manufactured and integrated by Canadian suppliers, many of which have the technical ability, “at the end of the day we are a for-profit company . . . and we are going to procure satellites from the group of companies that can give us the best overall value proposition,” said Goldberg. If Canadian suppliers are to compete in the company's project for a new constellation of low orbit satellites, they will have to make “meaningful investments,” which will require provincial and federal assistance, he acknowledged. “I can say their competitors outside of Canada are receiving that kind of support,” he said. Goldberg flagged niche capabilities such as digital processing in space, phased array antenna technologies, and optical communications which several Canadian companies already provide. “They need to evolve their technologies to deliver what we need, and that is going to be a big investment on their part,” he said. Kaler and Gossen highlighted niche areas like robotics, automation, business aircraft, artificial intelligence as well as simulation and training systems and ISS, both of which were identified in a 2013 report by Tom Jenkins of Open Text, Canada First: Leveraging Defence Procurement Through Key Industrial Capabilities. Though government departments have refined the list of key industrial capabilities since the report was published, the strategy to leverage them is still pending. “Every segment will say we need to be supported. The reality is we can't be everything; we need to pick those we're good at and ensure we have good policies to support them,” said Gossen. “We need a healthy debate within government and industry to identify what those capabilities are,” he added, alluding to the promise of Vision 2025, an exercise now underway and led by Jean Charest, a former Québec premier and federal cabinet minister. “If I were a government policymaker, I'd start with what are we good at today and where these global markets are going, and then try and connect the dots between the two. And then I would start making some bets,” said Goldberg. “If the government doesn't start leaning in on some of these policies, all of these capabilities will completely atrophy.” In a controlled market such as defence, where governments often protect domestic manufacturers and build new capabilities, Gossen also argued for a similar approach to level the play field. Canadian suppliers need government help understanding where they can sell, he said, noting “a lot of markets are just closed to us.” Playing the sovereignty card, he said Canadian companies “should have the ability to service Canada's military equipment,” and suggested an industrial strategy could ensure “homefield is always protected.” https://www.skiesmag.com/news/aerospace-execs-call-for-government-strategy-to-support-key-industrial-capabilities

• 

  30 juin 2024 | Local, Naval

  Government to begin construction on new warships despite not knowing the final cost or design

  The project has already faced significant increases in cost from the original estimated price tag of $26 billion

• 

  29 octobre 2020 | Local, Terrestre

  Fight the Information War Without Sacrificing Canadian Values

  David Scanlon Defence Watch Guest Writer Recent news reports have shown the Canadian Armed Forces are struggling to define ethical boundaries as they expand their capability to meet the rising threats of the information age. A global information war is now being fought in a “grey zone” where malign state and non-state actors are trying to sow confusion and division across the international community. American professor of strategy and author Sean McFate writes that future military victories “will be won and lost in the information space, not on the physical battlefield.” But he warns that “some democracies may be tempted to sacrifice their values in the name of victory.” Recent mishaps by Canada's military underscore this temptation. In April, the Ottawa Citizen published this headline: “Canadian Forces ‘information operations' pandemic campaign quashed after details revealed to top general.” The article reported that the “IO” campaign was targeted at Canadians and “called for ‘shaping' and ‘exploiting' information” with the aim of maintaining civil order and ensuring “public compliance with suppression measures” during the coronavirus pandemic. A parallel effort involved the “data mining” of personal social media accounts in Ontario by a team assigned to military intelligence. The military shared data with the province, including findings that some of its citizens were unhappy about its response to the pandemic. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan ordered a review of the information operations campaign and an investigation into the legality of the data-mining activities. Given the Canadian Armed Forces were tasked with helping the provinces of Quebec and Ontario deal with the cruel impact of the coronavirus in long-term care homes, it is disquieting that such a campaign would be contemplated, let alone put in writing. Chief of the defence staff General Jon Vance reportedly avowed that, “as long as he was in charge information operations tactics wouldn't be used in a domestic situation, except in the case where an enemy had invaded the country.” Despite the defence chief's promise, only six months later the armed forces were caught conducting a disinformation campaign on Canada's Atlantic coast. Under the headline, “Canadian Soldiers Cry Wolf, Alarming Residents,” the New York Times reported that a military psychological training exercise had “gone wrong,” and that a “fake disinformation exercise had become a real one.” For reasons as yet unexplained, military personnel circulated a forged letter from the province of Nova Scotia warning certain residents to be wary of a wandering wolfpack, backed by loudspeakers blaring the sounds of growling wolves. It took some time for the armed forces to accept responsibility and apologize. Meanwhile, baffled local officials assured affected residents the province had not issued the letter and there were no wolves in the area. The defence minister rightly supports training the military “on how best to respond to foreign actors who use influence activities.” But to avoid further mistakes he ordered such training paused until an investigation into the wayward wolfpacks was concluded. Emma Briant, a US-based British academic and author who specializes in propaganda and political communication, told the New York Times she finds the recent incidents “appalling,” a “failure of governance,” a “failure to ensure restraint,” and a “failure to ensure ethics are built into training and planning operations.” “They seem to have introduced a policy of weaponization of influence, domestically,” Briant observes. Instead, she advises, Canada's military needs to be building “a relationship of trust with the public.” The military's pattern of ethical breaches appears to reveal an embedded operational mindset fixed on tactics, as opposed to a strategic one focussed on building public trust. British military historian Hew Strachan wrote that armed forces are attracted to the operational level of war, as opposed to the strategic. It allows them to “appropriate what they see as the acme of their professional competence,” enabling them to operate in “a politics free zone.” This may in part explain General Vance's decision in 2015 to “operationalize” the military's public affairs branch, which is responsible for public communication. The branch was seen as not delivering tangible “effects” in support of so-called “operations in the information environment.” By operationalizing a strategic function like public affairs, the military was in effect reducing it to an operational or tactical capability, like special operations forces or precision-guided missiles. Ostensibly, these can deliver precise, tangible “effects” under direct military control. Some of the perils of this new approach were exposed when a senior public affairs officer, Brig.-Gen Jay Janzen (then a colonel), began using his Twitter account to target journalists, commentators, and politicians. In April 2018, for instance, he sparked a heated Twitter exchange with opposition defence critic James Bezan. The defence committee had been debating a military deployment to Mali to help defeat cancerous African offshoots of ISIS and al-Qaeda. Janzen tweeted that questions about the mission from opposition Members of Parliament were “nonsensical.” He even proposed “better” questions for opposition parties to ask. For a serving senior officer to publicly criticize elected officials was unprecedented. Government ministers must have been perplexed to see a high-ranking service member tweeting better debate questions to opposition MPs. Janzen's tweets, which appear to have at least the tacit approval of his superiors, set an example for other service members. Another perplexing public information moment occurred last April when the Canadian military reported that a Canadian frigate patrolling off the Greek coast had “lost contact” with its Cyclone maritime helicopter. It was later revealed the helicopter was moments from landing on the ship when, as the CBC reported, “it went down in full view of horrified shipmates.” Tragically, all six aboard the Cyclone were killed in the crash. The military was widely criticized for misrepresenting the facts—contact was in fact never “lost” and officials failed to explain the miscommunication. Some practitioners of public affairs and information operations have been telling their military bosses that with scientific techniques like “target audience analysis” they can change people's perceptions and behaviours with astounding precision. Canada's defence department recently paid over a million dollars to Emic Consulting Limited (whose founder worked at the UK's controversial and now defunct Strategic Communication Laboratories) to teach public affairs officers and others how to conduct “actor and audience analysis” and otherwise weaponize behavioural science. But is this training being misapplied? One aim of information operations is to change the perceptions and behaviours of target audiences using a range of influence techniques, including “psychological” and “deception” operations. As the defence chief alluded, such techniques should not be approved for use in Canada, other than in exceptional circumstances against clearly defined foes, such as terrorists. Military public affairs, by contrast, is about ensuring Canada's armed forces follow federal communications policy, which calls for maintaining “public trust,” and directs that federal communications “must be objective, factual, non-partisan, clear, and written in plain language.” In a free and democratic society, public trust is a priceless strategic “effect.” As malign actors seek to create confusion and division, Canadians need trusted sources of information. Surveys consistently show that Canadians trust their military. Military leaders and their public affairs advisors must preserve this trust. As called for in defence policy, Canada's armed forces do need the tools to wage information and cyber warfare. They are already facing such threats on missions overseas. But the armed forces also need the tools to communicate with Canadians and other friendly audiences in a timely, truthful, and accurate fashion. Transparency is a potent democratic deterrent against disinformation. Informed by the investigations into recent mishaps, the defence minister and chief of the defence staff should consider the following: o To ensure that information operations have proper approvals and oversight, and are conducted ethically, robust policy, doctrine, and governance are essential. o To ensure broad awareness of ethical considerations when conducting influence activities, related training and education needs to be incorporated at all rank levels. o To explain their actions and help build public trust, the armed forces need to field uniformed spokespersons more often. (The military's “chief spokesman” cited by the New York Times in the “wolves” story was a civilian.) o To ensure coherent doctrine and effective implementation of information-related capabilities, a professional total force cadre of practitioners should be created. o Military public affairs must be reinvigorated as a strategic capability that promotes transparency, provides unhindered advice to commanders at all levels, and ensures close coordination with the civilian communication arms of government. o Policy and doctrine, along with leaders, operators, and information practitioners, must clearly differentiate between activities intended to inform Canadians, such as public affairs, and information operations designed to influence or deceive adversaries. Fighting disinformation is a serious whole-of-nation challenge. It requires an informed public, ethical and transparent government, an engaged private sector, a vigorous and valued free press, and armed forces that respect and reflect Canadian values. https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/fight-the-information-war-without-sacrificing-canadian-values-513691/