NATO Challenge top 10 ready to pitch! / DRDC Outreach Day // Le Top 10 du Défi de l’OTAN est prêt à présenter ! / Journée de sensibilisation de RDDC

Sur le même sujet

• 

  2 août 2018 | Local, Aérospatial

  CAE acquiert Alpha-Omega Change Engineering (AOCE)

  CAE a annoncé aujourd'hui que CAE USA Mission Solutions Inc., une filiale de CAE USA, a fait l'acquisition d'Alpha-Omega Change Engineering (AOCE) pour approximativement 29 millions $ US, exclusion faite des ajustements usuels après clôture. L'acquisition permettra de renforcer les compétences principales de CAE USA en tant qu'intégrateur de systèmes de formation, de faire croître la position de CAE sur les plateformes ayant une longue durée de vie comme celles des avions de chasse, et d'accroître la capacité de CAE USA à mettre sur pied des programmes de sécurité de niveau supérieur aux États-Unis. AOCE, dont le siège social se trouve à Williamsburg, en Virginie, offre une gamme de services de formation des équipages, d'évaluation et d'essais opérationnels et de services de soutien technique au U.S Department of Defense et à la communauté du renseignement des États-Unis. « Cette acquisition cadre directement avec les priorités stratégiques de CAE en matière de croissance et d'expansion de ses capacités au sein du plus important marché de la défense au monde », a déclaré Marc Parent, président et chef de la direction de CAE. « AOCE possède des contrats et un rendement antérieur en matière de systèmes télépilotés, de formation des équipages, de développement de didacticiels pour les chasseurs et les aéronefs d'opérations spéciales et l'aérospatiale et la défense antimissile », a déclaré Ray Duquette, président et directeur général, CAE USA. « Cette acquisition permettra d'améliorer considérablement les capacités d'intégration des systèmes de formation de CAE USA et nous permettra de saisir des occasions d'affaires plus importantes aux États-Unis. » AOCE a été fondée en 1997 et emploie environ 600 personnes. C'est une entreprise florissante qui offre des services de formation, d'ingénierie et de consultation. Elle est actuellement maître d'œuvre d'une gamme de programmes pour le U.S. Department of Defense, notamment : le contrat de formation des employés de la maintenance et des équipages à Kirtland, Davis-Monthan, Joint Base Andrews, Moody (KDAM) en soutien au programme de formation des équipages et de soutien à l'entraînement de l'Air Force Special Operations Command (ATARS); le contrat à quantité et à livraison indéfinies du U.S. Army Space & Missile Defense Command pour fournir des services de soutien opérationnel et d'ingénierie; le contrat de formation des équipages de la U.S. Air Force et de développement de didacticiels pour les équipages des F-15, F-16 et F-22. « CAE est un chef de file en formation reconnu mondialement. Nous avons eu la chance de connaître CAE et d'établir une excellente relation de travail avec elle en travaillant sur des programmes comme celui de l'entraînement des équipages de l'avion télépiloté MQ-9 Reaper », a déclaré Jim Hartney, président du conseil d'administration d'AOCE. « Cette acquisition et notre intégration à CAE généreront de nouvelles occasions de croissance pour AOCE et nos employés. » CAE USA a aussi annoncé la mise sur pied de CAE USA Mission Solutions Inc., une filiale de CAE USA, qui découle d'une entente de procuration avec le gouvernement des États-Unis. L'entente de procuration permet à Mission Solutions de mettre sur pied des programmes de sécurité de niveau supérieur et de les exécuter. À propos de CAE La division Défense et sécurité de CAE aide ses clients à atteindre et à maintenir le meilleur état de préparation des missions qui soit. Nous sommes un intégrateur de systèmes de formation de classe mondiale qui offre un vaste éventail de centres et de services de formation et de produits de simulation dans les segments de marché des forces aériennes, des forces terrestres, des forces navales et de la sécurité publique. Nous desservons des clients mondiaux dans les domaines de la défense et de la sécurité par l'intermédiaire de nos opérations régionales au Canada, aux États-Unis et en Amérique latine, en Europe, au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique ainsi qu'en Asie-Pacifique, qui tirent profit de la gamme complète de capacités, de technologies et de solutions de CAE. CAE est un chef de file mondial en formation dans les domaines de l'aviation civile, de la défense et sécurité, et de la santé. Appuyés par plus de 70 ans d'innovations, nous participons à la définition des normes mondiales en formation. Nos solutions innovatrices, qui vont de la formation virtuelle à l'entraînement en vol, rendent le transport aérien plus sécuritaire, gardent nos forces de défense prêtes pour leurs missions et améliorent la sécurité des patients. Nous avons la plus vaste présence mondiale de l'industrie, avec plus de 8 500 employés, 160 emplacements et centres de formation dans plus de 35 pays. Nous assurons chaque année la formation de plus de 120 000 membres d'équipage du secteur civil et du secteur de la défense et de milliers de professionnels de la santé dans le monde. https://www.cae.com/fr/nouvelles-et-evenements/communique-de-presse/cae-acquires-alpha-omega-change-engineering-aoce/

• 

  28 janvier 2021 | Local, Aérospatial

  ‘First-class’ fighter pilot becomes eVTOL entrepreneur

  BY NATASHA MCKENTY | JANUARY 28, 2021 Estimated reading time 14 minutes, 58 seconds. Brandon Robinson's Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and Top Aces fighter pilot exploits compare to those of a protagonist in a blockbuster movie. After graduating from the Royal Military College of Canada with First Class Honours, his career quickly skyrocketed from frontline fighter squadron to being selected for the prestigious Fighter Weapons Instructor Course (FWIC) – the Canadian version of Top Gun. He obtained an MBA at Royal Roads University, and then did a tour in Ottawa where he “managed over $4 billion in procurement projects for the Fighter Force.” He spent the next few years instructing for FWIC. “Think ‘Viper' from the movie Top Gun,” he laughed. I then completed our Joint Command and Staff College program for those flagged for senior leadership.” While instructing for FWIC, Robinson earned the CF-18 fighter pilot instructor role at 410 Squadron in Cold Lake, Alberta, leading into oversight of CF-18 Fleet Tactical Standards, and then onto senior project management with a deputy director role in multiple Air Force projects. Robinson is modest. He credits his competitive nature “and a lot of luck” for his success. “I fully acknowledge that without exceptionally talented and competitive friends, I would not have passed, let alone have been fortunate enough to fly jets,” he told Skies. He found Military College to be physically and emotionally demanding, having a way of teaching you your limits and how to “be at peace with them.” Despite the challenges, he was one of the top five engineers in the program all four years. For Robinson, aviation was innate. His grandfather, RCAF Capt Eric Robinson was a Second World War bomber pilot. His father, Brian Robinson, began flying at the age of 14, but his hopes of joining the Air Force were grounded when he learned his vision wasn't good enough. “My father was very young when he and [my grandfather] built from scrap metal what is now a family airplane — an old RC-3 Republic Seabee aircraft.” Brian retired from his day job to turn the family hobby into a successful custom aviation engineering business. There was always “an army of airplanes” in and around Robinson's home. The first time Robinson piloted a plane, he was three years old. His grandfather let him sit in the seat in front of him. “I couldn't sit. I had to stand,” he laughed. “He said, ‘OK, you have control, so take us over there.'” That experience “made an imprint” for Robinson. After high school, much to his “mother's chagrin,” he joined the RCAF to “fly fast jets.” After military training, “there's a big [graduation] ceremony where they hand out the slots, and I remember looking at the card and seeing the CF-18 symbol on the bottom,” he said. Internally, he was bursting. Not surprisingly, when asked about the memorable moments of his career, he said it's difficult to choose. Robinson recalled, after being on the Squadron for just three months in Bagotville, Quebec, he was deployed to Hawaii for a joint exercise with the U.S. Navy. “The U.S. Navy has this big exercise, and the Canadians were asked to go,” he said. “So, we ferried CF-18s across the country, from Quebec to Comox, British Columbia. We overnighted, met up with an aerial refueler and then the next thing I know I'm in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, tanking off a refueler. There's a portion where, if you can't get gas, you're going to have to eject because you can't get back to land. I'm a 27-year-old kid who only has 200 hours of experience in this CF-18, and I'm over the middle of the ocean thinking, ‘OK, you better make this happen.' It's not the easiest maneuver either,” he laughed. Robinson shared the story of how he earned his call-sign: Repo. “I was flying, and my left engine essentially blew up; one of the main turbine hubs fractured. It severely crippled the aircraft, placing it into a reversionary control architecture. The engine was destroyed, and the aircraft was on fire,” he said. After 10 “very long seconds” of being “out of control,” he “dealt with the fire” and regained control. “I was able to land it safely back at the base. However, it was too badly damaged to fix. So, the joke was that the government had to repossess or repo it,” he laughed. “The damaged engine almost fell out when I landed.” He remembered flying low-level over the ocean while “shooting missiles at drones and dropping bombs on remote-controlled moving ships; being in front of 100 angry fighter pilots leading a NATO coalition strike mission; [and] early morning departures over Torrey Pines in California to dogfight over the ocean.” In 2018, with 20 years of service and a list of neck and spine injuries in his rear-view, he knew it was time to find adrenaline elsewhere. “You can't pull seven-and-a-half Gs for 20 years without hurting a few things,” he laughed. Leaving, he admitted, was a difficult decision, but entrepreneurship was also on his radar. The kid that grew up in rural Ontario, Canada, with an “army of airplanes” at his disposal and a military career most would envy, headed out to his next call of duty. He joined forces with his father to start Horizon Aircraft, an aerospace startup that is currently developing the Cavorite X5 — a new eVTOL (electric vertical take-off and landing) design for the urban air mobility market. Horizon has been developing the Cavorite X5 for the past two years. The concept for the X5 came from the company's initial prototype, the X3 — an amphibious design with a hybrid electric power system. “When we were asked to push the performance even further, we naturally began investigating distributed electric propulsion and the potential for eVTOL modification of the core X3 concept,” explained Robinson. “That's how the X5 The five-seat Cavorite X5 is powered by an electric motor coupled with a high-efficiency gas engine, but is ultimately built for fully electric flight. Horizon is building the aircraft to fly at speeds up to 350 kilometers per hour, with a 450-km range. The focus is to produce an aircraft “able to do real work in harsh environments,” including disaster relief, medevac, air cargo and personnel transport. Today, Robinson has his hands full with multiple patents pending, including a “fan-in-wing design” that would allow the Cavorite X5 to fly either like a conventional aircraft or an eVTOL when required. The X5 “flies like a normal aircraft for 99 percent of its mission,” said Robinson. The wing design “allows the aircraft to return to normal wing-borne lift after its vertical portion is complete; when moving forward, the wings close up and hide the vertical lift fans.” Horizon is working towards a large-scale prototype it hopes to have flying by the end of 2021. Robinson has become comfortable fielding questions based on skepticism. He's built an army of support from his highly-skilled network, including Virgin Galactic test pilot and close friend, Jameel Janjua. “Our team is extremely experienced, formed out of my father's previous custom aviation engineering business. We also have an individual leading the technical development who has designed, built and tested two novel aircraft designs from scratch. https://skiesmag.com/news/first-class-fighter-pilot-evtol-entrepreneur

• 

  19 novembre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Military Procurement: What the New Cabinet Can Learn From Australia

  By Lee Harding The Liberal government announced its new cabinet on Nov. 20—the very same day the Canadian Global Affairs Institute hosted its annual event on the topic of military procurement. Given that an overhaul in that area is sorely needed, Canada can learn a lot from Australia, Ian Mack wrote in a recent report for the institute. Mack is uniquely qualified to make that assessment, having worked with both governments in their process of awarding contracts for military sea vessels. While he believes both countries had an acceptable result, his report, titled “Another Way to Buy Frigates,” suggests the Canadian approach adds work, balloons costs, and delays success. The re-elected Trudeau government should take note. The Liberals proposed significant changes to Canada's defence procurement system during the election campaign, but it will be a tall order to change this process. The land down under is isolated in a less secure part of the globe, without a nearby superpower like the United States to watch its back. So if Australia is far more diligent about defence than Canada, it might be due to necessity. The last time Canada had a proper and comprehensive white paper on defence was 1994. Australia has had three in the 21st century. Australia's effectiveness goes from the top down, something Canada knows nothing of. As Mack explains, “Canada, uniquely among its allies, has multiple government departments and central agencies significantly involved in the minutiae of its major military procurement projects.” These include Defence; Treasury Board; Finance; Public Services and Procurement; Justice; Innovation, Science and Economic Development—and even more. Meanwhile in Australia, the minister of defence is responsible for all aspects of navy shipbuilding. This includes setting operational and technical requirements, securing funds, developing a plan to benefit domestic industries, and satisfying the legal aspects of procurement. Each country had a project management office of roughly the same size, but Canada's was, frankly, less competent. Australia's office had many knowledgeable contractors working alongside the Department of Defence, whereas Canada's team had many from the public service and armed forces with “little or no applicable experience or knowledge,” according to Mack. “In Canada, significant effort was expended on regular reporting to layers of senior governance,” he says in the report. But it was paperwork and process for its own sake, and impractical in its effect. “Despite the onerous reporting demands, only a few key decisions were rendered and rarely in a timely manner. The opposite was the case in Australia.” In seemingly every aspect of development, Canada made things rigid, complicated, and fragmented, while Australia made them flexible, cohesive, and collaborative. Canada made stand-alone contracts for each sequence of the process. Australia worked with contractors to establish “end-to-end accountability.” Canada's initial request for proposal included hundreds of technical requirements that bidders had to prove. Australia had few mandatory requirements, but worked alongside bidders to explore their respective proposed solutions. In Canada, the intellectual property, liabilities, and insurance requirements were debated at length and only decided hours before the request for proposal was made. Hundreds of criteria got a numerical score, and the sum of all scores won the bid. Canada was “preoccupied” about a public appearance of fairness and avoiding lawsuits. (Nevertheless, the controversy over former Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and complaints from Irving Shipbuilding over the bid for a navy supply vessel shows it failed at this.) Shipbuilders bidding in Australia were confident of a fair system without any of those things. The department did not announce its evaluation criteria, nor was the evaluation report the only factor. Instead, the department stated its objectives and worked collaboratively with three potential bidders in their respective approaches. In Mack's words, this left “the competition to be more about assessing apples, oranges, and bananas” than about tallying up numerical scores. Mack says he could not make the Canadian system work like Australia's because the procurement, request for proposals, and resulting contracts were done outside of the Department of National Defence. At the time, he was “simply unaware of the intricacies of the Australian approach” because he hadn't yet been exposed to it. Regardless, he had already surmised that Canadian bureaucrats “did not want changes to their tried and true ways of doing business” and clung to “adherence to prescriptive and traditional methodologies.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/military-procurement-what-the-new-cabinet-can-learn-from-australia_3150065.html