Le gouvernement du Canada annonce qu'il soutiendra la création d'un écosystème d'innovation dans le domaine de l'aérospatiale

Sur le même sujet

• 

  25 octobre 2019 | Local, Naval

  The Global Naval Vessels And Surface Combatants Market 2019-2029

  Summary The global naval vessels and surface combatants market is valued at US$36. 7 billion in 2019, and will grow at a CAGR of 1. 97%, to reach a value of US$44. 6 billion by 2029. New York, Oct. 22, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "The Global Naval Vessels And Surface Combatants Market 2019-2029" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p02275942/?utm_source=GNW The cumulative market for global naval vessels and surface combatants is anticipated to value US$429.8 billion over the forecast period. The demand for naval vessels is anticipated to be driven by high levels of expenditure by emerging economies in the Asia-Pacific region including India and China. The North American region supported by US Navy's multi-year procurement programs, is expected to maintain its leading position globally, exhibiting a steady pace of growth over the forecast period. The global naval vessels and surface combatants market is expected to be led by North America with revenue share of 41.9%. Cumulatively, North America is projected to spend US$180.3 billion on naval vessels and surface combatants over the forecast period. In 2019, regional expenditure is expected to value US$15.1 billion and increase to US$19.0 billion by 2029, growing at a CAGR of 2.32%. Asia-Pacific will follow North America and is expected to account for 26.2% revenue share of the global naval vessels and surface combatants market over the forecast period. Europe is anticipated to be the third-largest market globally with a revenue share of 22.2% over the forecast period, driven by the naval expansion and capability enhancement initiatives undertaken by various countries in the region. With a share of 5.5%, the market for naval vessels and surface combatants in the Middle East is projected to be the fourth largest globally. Frigates is expected to be the largest segment in the naval vessels and surface combatants market during the forecast period. Driven by several high-value procurement programs worldwide including the US Navy's FFG(X) program, Canadian Navy's ‘Canadian Surface Combatant' program, Saudi Navy's Multi-Mission Surface Combatant program, Australian Navy's SEA 5000 (Hunter-class) program and French Navy's Intermediate Frigate (FTI) program among others; the Frigates segment is expected to account for a 28.7% revenue share of the total market over the forecast period. Destroyers segment will follow Frigates segment with 19.6% market share. With 15.1% share, Amphibious Ships segment is anticipated to hold the third position in the global market. The growing demand for Amphibious Ships is primarily attributed to the ongoing initiatives of naval forces to develop relevant sealift capabilities. Light Combat Vessels and Corvettes segments to account for respective shares of 11.8% and 9.3%. Aircraft Carriers will account for a decent share of 8.6% over the next decade. The remaining share of 6.9% will be held by Auxiliary Vessels segment. The report "The Global Naval Vessels And Surface Combatants Market 2019-2029", offers a detailed analysis of the industry, with market size forecasts covering the next ten years. This report will also analyze factors that influence demand for naval vessels, key market trends, and challenges faced by industry participants. In-depth analysis provides - - Market size and drivers: detailed analysis during 2019-2029, including highlights of the demand drivers and growth stimulators.It also provides a snapshot of the spending and modernization patterns of different regions around the world - Recent developments and industry challenges: insights into technological developments and a detailed analysis of the changing preferences of naval vessels and surface combatants segments around the world. It also provides trends of the changing industry structure and the challenges faced by industry participants - Regional highlights: study of the key markets in each region, providing an analysis of the key segments of the market that are expected to be in demand - Major programs: details of the key programs in each segment, which are expected to be executed during 2019-2029 - Competitive landscape and strategic insights: analysis of the competitive landscape of the global market. It provides an overview of key players, together with information regarding key alliances, strategic initiatives and financial analysis Companies mentioned: General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Austal, Naval Group, Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T), Lockheed Martin, Fincantieri SpA, BAE Systems, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co., Ltd and Abu Dhabi Shipbuilding Scope - The global naval vessels and surface combatants market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 1.97% over the forecast period. - The market consists of seven categories: frigates, destroyers, amphibious ships, light combat vessels, corvettes, aircraft carriers, and auxiliary vessels. - North America will dominate the sector with a share of 26%, followed by Asia-Pacific and Europe. The frigates segment is expected to be the leading segment during the forecast period. Reasons to buy - Determine prospective investment areas based on a detailed trend analysis of the global naval vessels and surface combatants market over the next ten years - Gain in-depth understanding about the underlying factors driving demand for different naval vessels and surface combatants segments in the top spending countries across the world and identify the opportunities offered by each of them - Strengthen your understanding of the market in terms of demand drivers, industry trends, and the latest technological developments, among others - Identify the major channels that are driving the global naval vessels and surface combatants market, providing a clear picture about future opportunities that can be tapped, resulting in revenue expansion - Channelize resources by focusing on the ongoing programs that are being undertaken by the defense ministries of different countries within the global naval vessels and surface combatants market - Make correct business decisions based on thorough analysis of the total competitive landscape of the sector with detailed profiles of the top naval vessels and surface combatants providers around the world which include information about their products, alliances, recent contract wins and financial analysis wherever available. Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p02275942/?utm_source=GNW https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-naval-vessels-surface-combatants-134956689.html

• 

  8 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

  Matt Gurney: Is it any wonder the U.S. is steamed at us over our fighter jet fiasco?

  Matt Gurney One can only imagine the astonishment in Ottawa when a letter arrived from Washington, reminding the Canadian government that military procurement projects are about procuring military equipment, not creating Canadian jobs. I like to imagine flabbergasted bureaucrats reading the letter over and over, before finally putting it down, rubbing their temples and musing aloud, “Don't the Americans realize how things are done here?” They do, it seems. And they don't like it. On Monday, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published a new report, “Catastrophe: Assessing the Damage from Canada's Fighter Replacement Fiasco.” The title tells you most of what you need to know about the tone of the report. Author Richard Shimooka recaps the long and embarrassing history of Canada's inability to properly replace our rapidly aging and slowly attritting fleet of almost-40-year-old CF-18 jets. The report mostly covers a story that's been oft-told, including here in the National Post. But it did break some news: apparently, Washington's frustration with Canada is boiling over, and it's not keeping quiet about it anymore. Shimooka recaps the long and embarrassing history of Canada's inability to properly replace our rapidly aging ... CF-18 jets Shimooka's report reveals the existence of two letters previously unknown to the public, sent last year by American officials to Canadian counterparts. The specifics of the complaints involve fairly legalistic and technical aspects of Canada's membership in the international consortium that helped finance the development of the F-35 stealth fighter. Suffice it to say that Canada, as a participating nation, gets access to a rock-bottom price for the fighter (meaning the same cost paid by the U.S. military) and Canadian firms have been part of the production of the planes from the very beginning. That's the deal. It's a pretty good one. But Canada wants a different deal. Specifically, it wants the same kind of deal it always insists on when buying military equipment from abroad. We want any foreign company we're purchasing equipment from to invest heavily in Canada, so that even a contract signed with a foreign supplier can be shown to have helped Canadian jobs, and the middle class, and those working hard to join it. Even this is only a second-best option, a procurement Plan B. Canadian politicians would much rather have stuff built in Canada by Canadians, no matter how much that ends up costing us in terms of cost overruns and delays. But when that's simply not possible, we'll settle for industrial offsets from foreign companies. You'll note that in the above paragraph on military procurement, there was very little emphasis on actually successfully procuring equipment for the Armed Forces. Ottawa is much too sophisticated for that kind of concern. The real action is in the jobs, the industrial benefits, the gigantic novelty cheques, the ribbon cuttings, the question period talking points and the partisan mailers crowing about all the money flowing to Canadian firms. That's what military procurement is really for, at least in the eyes of Canadian officials. That's why our national shipbuilding strategy was to first build out a shipbuilding industry and then build some ships, almost as an afterthought, when we could have bought them faster and almost certainly cheaper from an ally. The Americans, it seems, have had enough, and are threatening to pull the F-35 from consideration in Canada's upcoming program to select our next fighter. To their mind, Canada has already been offered an objectively good deal: access to one of the world's most advanced fighter jets at the same cost the U.S. military pays, and billions in industrial benefits. It's true that the F-35 program has been troubled, but most of those problems are now behind it. These jets are entering service in large numbers in the U.S. military and in allied forces, as well. The F-35 isn't perfect but it's available, now, and Canada has already paid the cost of entry to the club. Angling for a better deal than everyone else is getting, is a slap in the face to the Americans and all the other allied nations who are part of the process. Angling for a better deal than everyone else is getting, is a slap in the face to the Americans Now a cynic will say that it's just good business. There's nothing wrong with Canada trying to get the best deal for itself. In general, I have an open mind to this kind of argument. But Canada isn't a business. It's a country that has signed alliances and agreements with our democratic peers, theoretically in good faith. We have our own interests, to be sure, but we also have obligations. Canada's membership in the F-35 consortium does not obligate us to buy F-35s. We'd retain the industrial benefits even if we select another fighter. But certainly it obligates us to at least honour the agreement we've already made? The Liberals have never been keen on the F-35. Before the past election, they actually pledged to never purchase them, before realizing that that was an impossible pledge to keep if we actually intended to hold a fair and open competition to select the next plane. The prime minister himself once dismissively described the F-35 as a plane that didn't work, even as the United States was putting its first squadron into active service. Part of me wonders if the Liberals are deliberately structuring our selection process to make it impossible for the U.S. to sell us F-35s. That would certainly solve that particular problem for the Liberals. Alas, the more realistic answer is probably, as ever, the simplest one. The Canadian government is probably baffled that the Americans would object to us behaving as we always do. Military procurement in Canada isn't about procurement, or the military, or honouring our commitments to our friends. It's about political booty that can be flung around the country come election time. That's just the way we do things here. Why would that ever change? https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-is-it-any-wonder-the-u-s-is-steamed-at-us-over-our-fighter-jet-fiasco

• 

  4 septembre 2018 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

  No need to ensure purchased military equipment actually works, government officials argue in procurement dispute

  David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen Officials admit they have never tested the latest search and rescue gear to be used by the military and coast guard Canada is under no obligation to ensure the military equipment it purchases can actually do the job, federal officials are arguing, as they admit they have never tested the latest search and rescue gear to be used by the military and coast guard. The admission by staff of Public Services and Procurement Canada is among the evidence in a complaint by two defence firms that argue the government's decision to award a contract to a rival company was unfair. The complaint was filed on July 27 with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal by Kongsberg Geospatial of Ottawa on behalf of Critical Software, a Portuguese firm. The complaint centres on the government decision to name MDA Systems the winner of a $5.6 million contract to provide software to help in search and rescue missions. Critical Software, which teamed with Kongsberg to bid on the project, had originally raised concerns with the government about why the two companies' proposal was thrown out on a technicality. The Critical Software system is used by more than 1,000 organizations, such as coast guards, police and military in more than 30 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. But because Critical Software and Kongsberg didn't provide a percentage figure of how many systems were in use in each region, their bid was disqualified by the government. The two companies questioned that decision and were stunned when federal officials admitted they have never tested the winning system and didn't actually know whether it meets the requirements of the Canadian Forces or the Canadian Coast Guard. Public Service and Procurement Canada officials stated “Canada may, but will have no obligation, to require that the top-ranked Bidder demonstrate any features, functionality and capabilities described in this bid solicitation or in its bid,” according to the federal response provided to Kongsberg/Critical Software and included in its complaint to the trade tribunal. The government noted in its response that such an evaluation would be conducted after the contract was awarded and insisted the acquisition process was fair and open. Full article: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-need-to-ensure-military-equipment-purchased-actually-works-government-officials-argue-in-procurement-dispute