New Cyber Security Strategy bolsters cyber safety, innovation and prosperity

Sur le même sujet

• 

  24 novembre 2022 | Local, Aérospatial

  RCAF to look at 'revolutionary' vertical lift options to replace CH-146 Griffon

  As the RCAF launches into a project for its next tactical aviation platforms, it is closely following what allies are doing.

• 

  10 octobre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Opinion: How To Assess Defense Prospects For The Future

  Byron Callan During upcoming earnings conference calls, expect some defense contractors to again state that they are well-positioned in high-priority programs and markets that fully align with customer priorities. In addition, planners and analysts are going to be asking a lot more questions about contractor positioning and the outcome of the 2020 U.S. election. Who will be best positioned if President Donald Trump is reelected or if there is a Democrat in the White House in 2021? On the first assertion of “well-positioned,” to a degree it is axiomatic. Defense requirements are validated, so by that very process, they take priority over emerging and yet-to-be-funded requirements. However, if one accepts the premises that Defense Department budgets may be flat for a multi-year period and that demand signals for security are going to rise, the sector will be entering a far more dynamic period in the 2020s than the past 4-5 years. Instead of being “well-positioned,” a broader set of filters may need to be applied. Posture may be a better way to assess contractor outlooks. There are five attributes on which this may be assessed. 1. The priority and relative safety of programs matters both in U.S. and international markets. But that needs to be assessed and reassessed against changed defense needs. Today's major programs of record are likely to change. If there is doubt on that issue, a reading of the U.S. Marine Corps Commandant's Planning Guidance released last July may dispel notions that the next 10 years are going to be stable and predictable. 2. One contractor can disrupt others through new product and service offerings or even a new business model. Examples of the former include Boeing's T-X/T-7 aircraft, which, if evolved into a fighter/attack aircraft, may be good enough for some missions. Kratos' Valkyrie is another example, which could affect demand for manned combat aircraft. On the latter, the Pentagon now intends to purchase launch services instead of expendable launch vehicles. Where else might these sorts of “as a service” models be applied? 3. The pipeline of bid opportunities: There are some large programs that are in competition and for which decisions are pending. The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, Long-Range Standoff, Army aviation and ground-vehicle modernization and Navy FFG(X) programs are some of the larger ones that could be decided, but there also are classified ones and swaths of opportunity in unmanned systems, hypersonics, software for data and artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. International opportunity also clearly matters in assessing how a contractor is postured. 4. The ability to execute within cost and schedule is essential. Human capital, technology application and risk, contracting and supply chain management are critical attributes. This also will tie into the bid pipeline and the degree to which a contractor is postured to pursue new opportunities or if the contractor will have challenges managing its current portfolio of products and services. From the outside looking in at contractors, this attribute may be difficult to measure. Open job position data can be sketchy, but it is one metric to consider. Performance on current programs is another. 5. Contractor culture will be critical in the 2020s. One aspect of culture is how well a contractor anticipates potential changes in defense and security needs. Another is how receptive company leaders are to positioning or repositioning to capitalize on those changes. There will not be solid metrics here, although there are plenty of good questions to ask. In order to anticipate change, contractors are going to have to be wired to understand when and where change is occurring. This has to allow perspectives that may differ from the consensus view to reach leaders so they can assess whether ideas are worth pursuing or if there is a threat to be addressed. Part of this posture entails a willingness to create top cover and breathing space for conflicting views. There will be a natural tendency of company leaders to continue to exploit current business models and protect major products and services. There will likely be very strong pressure from shareholders to sustain or increase operational margins and cash flow and stay within current business lanes. Posture, however, may also include a willingness to take some short-term or even intermediate-term pain and risk in order to better position for the future. Innovation is an overused term these days, and it may be like former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's assertion on obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Be that as it may, contractors must dedicate time to innovation every week in order to achieve it. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-how-assess-defense-prospects-future

• 

  8 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

  Scheer rolls out an ambitious defence agenda, but critics ask: Where's the money?

  Murray Brewster · CBC News A little joke used to make its way around the Harper Conservative government every time National Defence presented Andrew Scheer's former boss with the bills for new equipment — about how Stephen Harper would emit an audible 'gulp' of alarm when they crossed his desk. Scheer, in the first of a series of election-framing speeches for the Conservatives, pledged yesterday to wrap his arms around Canada's allies, take the politics out of defence procurement, buy new submarines, join the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and expand the current military mission in Ukraine in an undefined way. What was absent from the Conservative leader's speech — a greatest-hits medley of road-tested Conservative policy favourites, blended with jabs at the Trudeau government's record — was an answer to the first question his supporters usually ask on these occasions: How are you going to pay for it? Deficit hawk or defence hawk? The Liberals have set the federal government on course to increase defence spending by 70 per cent by 2027. The cost of what Scheer is proposing — submarines and missile defence — would have to be shoehorned into that framework somehow. Either that, or he'd have to radically redesign the current defence spending program. Scheer's speech was greeted with raised eyebrows by more than one defence sector observer. "When he starts talking about deficits, you can kiss all that goodbye," said Stephen Saideman, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University. "In other speeches, he talked about being a deficit hawk. That would have real implications for the defence stuff." The Harper government increased defence spending during the Afghan war and made a series of promises to revitalize the military, but ended up cutting its budget and postponing projects in order to eliminate the deficit. 'Harper all over again' Saideman said Scheer's speech did not offer an ironclad guarantee that he'd avoid doing the same thing, and was even inaccurate in its characterization of the Liberals' record on defence spending. A full half to two-thirds of the defence and foreign policy vision Scheer laid out, he said, was "Harper all over again" — but with some surprising differences. His embrace of allies was much warmer than it was with the previous Conservative crowd, which tended to look upon NATO with a jaundiced eye. "I will reinvigorate Canada's role in the alliances we share with our democratic allies. This includes existing alliances like NORAD, NATO, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie and the Five Eyes, but it will also include overtures to India and Japan," Scheer said. He also pledged a Conservative government would do more in Eastern Europe. "This will include expanding upon the current missions to support Ukraine and providing Ukraine's military with the equipment they need to defend their borders," said the Conservative leader. Scheer didn't say in his speech what he wants Canada to do in Eastern Europe that it isn't doing now — short of putting combat troops on the front line of Ukraine's breakaway eastern districts, or selling offensive weapons to Kiev. Scheer did promise to take the lead on a potential United Nations peacekeeping mission, a proposal that has been out there in the international community for months and has largely gone nowhere. Other ideas that often go nowhere filled out the rest of Scheer's speech — like the promise of a fix for the Canadian military's complex, cumbersome system for buying equipment. Politicians are to blame, Scheer said. "Military procurement in Canada is hyper-politicized, to our detriment," he said. "By playing politics with these matters, governments have diminished the important responsibility to adequately and expediently equip the Armed Forces." To accept that argument, one must set aside his party's favourite rallying cry during the politically blistering F-35 debate of half a dozen years ago: If you don't support the plane, you don't support the troops. Politics-free procurement? Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia defence policy expert, said removing politics from procurement decisions would be a fantastic step forward, one that could save taxpayers boatloads of money by doing away with pet projects and regional interests. "It's an admirable goal, but he would be the first prime minister ever to take the politics out of defence procurement," he said. "So, I'm skeptical about whether he would actually do so ... I take that statement with a very large grain of salt." The absence of a clear fiscal pledge also troubles Byers, who noted that replacing Canada's Victoria-class submarines with either German or Swedish-built boats would be expensive. So would participation in ballistic missile defence, which has various levels of participation from research and development all the way up to anti-missile radar and batteries. It is, he said, all about the dollars. "I think that when we talk about defence spending and defence budgets, we have to talk about real money going out the door in terms of signed contracts," said Byers. "And neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have been able to deliver much in the way of signed contracts for the last 20 years." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-rolls-out-an-ambitious-defence-agenda-but-critics-ask-where-s-the-money-1.5127028