Cyberrisques: pas le moment de baisser la garde

Sur le même sujet

• 

  1 octobre 2020 | Local, Naval, C4ISR, Autre défense

  Terrestrial Energy and L3Harris Technologies to Develop IMSR Generation IV Nuclear Power Plant Simulator

  GlobeNewswire OAKVILLE, Ontario and MONTREAL, Sept. 30, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Terrestrial Energy has awarded L3Harris Technologies a contract to develop an engineering and operator training simulator for the Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR®), a Generation IV nuclear power plant. The IMSR power plant simulator is being built at L3Harris' operation in Montreal, Quebec and will be delivered to Terrestrial Energy's Oakville, Ontario facility in 2021. It will provide Terrestrial Energy with a high-fidelity platform to simulate and visualize all major IMSR reactor and power plant functions. The simulator will support Terrestrial Energy's engineering activities and, subsequently, operator training as development moves to licensing and construction prior to plant commissioning. “We are applying our high-performance computing and reactor simulation capabilities to IMSR power plant development,” said Rangesh Kasturi, President, Maritime International, L3Harris. “This effort will result in Terrestrial Energy obtaining its first simulator for the IMSR power plant equipping its engineers with a dynamic, integrated and real-world tool to support IMSR deployment.” “L3Harris' simulator provides an extraordinary real-world experience of the IMSR power plant operation and performance. It supports our engineering activities, operator training programs and future IMSR deployments,” said Simon Irish, CEO of Terrestrial Energy. “This digital technology illustrates how high-performance computing enables Generation IV innovation capable of providing cost-competitive, reliable, resilient and clean electric power and industrial heat.” In addition to modeling and testing the integrated engineering simulator, L3Harris will provide its state-of-the-art Orchid® simulation environment and training to Terrestrial Energy for further simulator development. This aspect of the contract is a result of L3Harris' Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) commitments to Canada through its participation in the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) on the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships program with Irving Shipbuilding. “This investment in Terrestrial Energy is another example of the National Shipbuilding Strategy at work creating investment in people and businesses across the country to ensure Canadians are benefitting from coast to coast to coast,” said Kevin McCoy, President of Irving Shipbuilding. “Through the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship construction program and the Canadian Surface Combatant program, spending commitments to date have generated positive economic impacts for hundreds of businesses and organizations that are creating world-class innovation and research across the country.” The ITB commitment requires identifying new opportunities that benefit Canadian industry when any work is performed outside of Canada on the NSS. The ITB program ensures that 100 percent of the value of a significant defence contract is spent in Canada, and this creates a strong link between our naval programs and the creation of innovation in our energy sector. About Terrestrial Energy Terrestrial Energy is a developer of Generation IV advanced nuclear power plants that use its proprietary Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR®) technology. IMSR technology represents true innovation in cost reduction, versatility, and functionality of nuclear power plants. IMSR power plants will provide zero-carbon, reliable, dispatchable, cost-competitive electric power and high-grade industrial heat for use in many industrial applications, such as chemical synthesis and desalination, and in so doing extend the application of nuclear energy far beyond electric power markets. They have the potential to make important contributions to industrial competitiveness, energy security, and economic growth. Their deployment will support rapid global decarbonization of the primary energy system by displacing fossil fuel combustion across a broad spectrum. Using an innovative design, and proven and demonstrated molten salt reactor technology, Terrestrial Energy is engaged with regulators and industrial partners to complete IMSR engineering and to commission first IMSR power plants in the late 2020s. terrestrialenergy.com About L3Harris Technologies L3Harris Technologies is an agile global aerospace and defense technology innovator, delivering end-to-end solutions that meet customers' mission-critical needs. The company provides advanced defense and commercial technologies across air, land, sea, space and cyber domains. L3Harris has approximately $18 billion in annual revenue and 48,000 employees, with customers in more than 100 countries. https://financialpost.com/pmn/press-releases-pmn/globe-newswire-releases/terrestrial-energy-and-l3harris-technologies-to-develop-imsr-generation-iv-nuclear-power-plant-simulator

• 

  15 janvier 2020 | Local, Aérospatial

  Canadian government to spend estimated $800M more to keep aging CF-18s in fighting shape

  OTTAWA — The federal government is planning to invest hundreds of millions of dollars more to ensure Canada's aging CF-18s can still fight while the country waits for replacement jets, which were originally expected years ago. The extra money comes after the federal auditor general warned in late 2018 that Canada's fighter jets risked being outmatched by more advanced adversaries due to a lack of combat upgrades since 2008 and will result in new weapons, sensors and defensive systems for the fleet. Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger estimated the added cost will be around $800 million, which is on top of the $3 billion the government has already set aside to extend the lives of the CF-18s and purchase 18 secondhand fighter jets from Australia. “Canada has a history of upgrading their fighter aircraft,” Meinzinger said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press. “It's a consequence of the fact that over time, threats ... advance as technology advances.” The air force did not initially plan any upgrades to the CF-18s' combat systems after 2008 because it expected to retire the last of the fleet by 2020, when a new fleet of jets was to have taken over. Instead, thanks to how successive governments have managed — or mismanaged — the jet file over the past decade, a competition to select a new fighter for the air force is only now underway. Even then, the last CF-18 isn't scheduled to be retired until 2032. The air force “imagined perhaps transitioning the fighter force a little bit earlier,” Meinzinger acknowledged, which is why the need to invest in the CF-18s' combat systems wasn't taken — or even apparent — earlier. “Because we anticipate flying the aircraft longer, this is why we're doing what we're doing to ensure we've got at least parity with the threats that we would see over that timeline before we can transition to the new fighter,” he added. The federal auditor general flagged concerns with the combat effectiveness of Canada's CF-18s in a report in November 2018, warning that the planes “will become more vulnerable as advanced combat aircraft and air defence systems continue to be developed and used by other nations.” The auditor general also found that even though the Department of National Defence had decided to invest money into the CF-18s to keep them flying past 2020, it “removed upgrades to combat capability,” in part because of “cost concerns.” Documents obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act show the auditor general's office initially wanted to say the fleet was “not fully capable for combat.” But defence officials said that could “compromise operational security” and suggested toned down language. “We've got an excellent capability,” Meinzinger said when asked about the state of the fleet. “The fighter force has got an outstanding reputation globally. They stand the watch 24/7, 365 under the NORAD rubric. ... I don't want Canadians to be worried about where we're at today.” The U.S. Marines are looking at keeping their F-18s — upon which the CF-18 is based — in the air until the 2030s, and Meinzinger said the two forces are working together to identify the best ways to do that. “We've made it a priority and we're moving as fast as we can to get it delivered,” he said. “Obviously our intent is always to ensure that we're making the investments such that we believe that we've got at least parity against the threats that we would face.” https://nationalpost.com/news/air-force-to-spend-hundred-of-millions-more-to-keep-cf-18s-fighting-fit

• 

  20 février 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  New defence procurement agency would be disruptive, costly

  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