Service limité pour la veille active d'opportunités

Sur le même sujet

• 

  11 juin 2018 | Information, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Plan d’investissement de la Défense 2018

  Le Programme des capacités de la Défense (PCD) un nouvel outil maintenant en ligne permet d'accéder à des renseignements sur les occasions d'investissement en défense. À l'instar du Guide d'acquisition en défense, le PCD offre à l'industrie de l'information sur la planification comme les fourchettes de financement et les échéanciers des projets. L'industrie pourra y trouver environ 250 projets financés dans le cadre de la politique Protection, Sécurité, Engagement (PSE), dont des projets d'infrastructure ainsi que d'importants contrats de soutien en service afin de faire ses prévisions pour les occasions d'acquisition en défense et tenter d'obtenir des contrats. Gr'ce à ces renseignements, l'industrie sera en mesure de prendre des décisions éclairées en matière de recherche-développement (R-D) et de partenariats stratégiques fondés sur les besoins prévus des Forces armées canadiennes. On trouvera dans le PCD : des projets : des projets de biens d'équipement ou d'infrastructure d'une valeur de plus de 5 millions de dollars prévus et financés dans le cadre du la politique PSE des contrats de soutien : des contrats de soutien en service et des contrats de service professionnels d'une valeur escomptée supérieure à 20 millions de dollars qui seront octroyés dans les prochaines années pour soutenir les capacités livrées dans le cadre de la politique PSE des projets de PSE notés et inscrits Le PCD comprend une fonction de recherche par mot-clé et segmente les occasions d'investissement en composantes qui peuvent servir de critères de recherche : secteurs en matière de capacités de Défense (SCD) secteurs d'investissement en matière de capacités de défense (SICD) promoteurs du projet capacités industrielles clés (CIC) Les secteurs en matière de capacités de Défense (SCD) se divisent en treize grandes catégories, comme les le domaine terrestre, le domaine maritime, le domaine aérien, l'aérospatiale et le cyberespace. Ces catégories se subdivisent en éléments constituants plus de 150 secteurs d'investissement en matière de capacités de défense (SICD), comme les véhicules de modèle commercial, les pièces de navires et l'avionique. Les promoteurs du projet correspondent au commandement du service ou à l'organisation civile équivalente au sein du ministère de la Défense nationale (MDN). Il est aussi possible de rechercher les projets et les occasions d'investissement en fonction des capacités industrielles clés (CIC) d'Innovation, Sciences et Développement économiques Canada. Ces secteurs de capacité indiquent à l'industrie qu'elles sont les principales activités commerciales prioritaires pour le gouvernement en ce qui concerne l'approvisionnement en matière de défense. Enfin, il y a une fonction de recherche avancée qui permet à l'utilisateur de filtrer ses résultats selon des critères particuliers. http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/fr/programme-capacites-defense/index.asp https://www.canada.ca/fr/ministere-defense-nationale/organisation/rapports-publications/plan-dinvestissement-de-la-defense-2018.html

• 

  20 mai 2022 | Information, Autre défense

  Podcast: The Next World After This: A&D Enters the Metaverse

  Your aerospace or defense business is about to enter a whole new world: the metaverse. A mix of the physical and digital realms, the metaverse is an unmapped—but not unknown—territory that looms beyond Industry 4.0. OEMs and Tier 1s already are entering the domain with cloud computing, virtual reality and quantum computing. Where they go, so go suppliers.

• 

  17 septembre 2020 | Information, Autre défense

  Coronavirus has kept us close to home. It’s a helpful lesson for strengthening national defense.

  Justin P. Oberman Despite being warned, with impressive precision, about the dangers of so-called black swan events, America tends to ignore or downplay them because they seem remote, or the perceived financial, societal and political costs are too great. In the aftermath of 9/11, of Hurricane Katrina and other major domestic tragedies, we too often learn that our relevant capabilities have atrophied. Now, following perhaps the most devastating such event — the COVID-19 pandemic — the defense industrial base is actively seeking billions of dollars to prop it up without necessarily committing to making step-function leaps forward in a highly complex threat environment. And while keeping the thousands of small companies that support the defense primes alive is important, the Pentagon — flush with cash and a mandate to act quickly to react to the pandemic — should use this opportunity to refine its technology acquisition approach, in part by doing more to engage nontraditional defense firms. The reasons for bringing in new ideas for defense are clear. Just last week, the Department of Defense released its annual report to Congress on China, which states that “China has already achieved parity with — or even exceeded — the United States in several military modernization areas.” Even more concerning, DoD analysts describe China's military-civil fusion development strategy as “a nationwide endeavor that seeks to ‘fuse' its economic and social development strategies with its security strategies to build an integrated national strategic system and capabilities in support of China's national rejuvenation goals.” The United States doesn't need and shouldn't pursue a “fusion” strategy; rather, we need a better approach to strengthening the defense industrial base and engaging with innovators. The United States is at risk of losing its ability to manufacture critical national security technology thanks to a combination of byzantine domestic procurement processes, offshoring and overseas competitors. To counter these and other negative trends, the DoD needs a sustainable, continuous innovation model. In Silicon Valley, everyone from the biggest players to the youngest startups view working against or around slow, tired establishment organizations as almost a prerequisite to success (Uber vs. taxis, Tesla vs. legacy automakers, Amazon vs. everybody). Despite the Pentagon's attractive budget and important missions, many innovators are repelled by restrictive requirements, lengthy sales cycles, high costs of bidding and a deck often stacked in favor of large prime contractors. The DoD must throw open its doors to innovators and free itself to make bets; if it does, it will get more world-class tools for its mission owners. The department should: Make requirements less prescriptive, easier to understand and run two ways. Develop an outreach program for innovators that uses channels they're already occupying, in language they understand, with requirements that are compelling. Encourage two-way communication that surfaces non-obvious solutions to critical defense missions. At the Transportation Security Administration, we worked with an In-Q-Tel-backed company that was founded in Las Vegas to catch casino cheats; the Pentagon should look for similar outside-the-box opportunities. Engage substantively with private sector innovation experts. The best investors and executives back successful entrepreneurs, mentor them as they refine their offerings and support world-changing scale. The DoD needs these skill sets and should set up (unpaid) innovation mentoring boards. Insert flexibility into contracting and financing. To remove barriers to entry without sacrificing quality, the DoD should: Create “off-campus” labs to mitigate procurement and security clearance delays. Build on the work of Dr. Will Roper, the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics. to ensure innovators don't run out of funding. In what would be a great advancement and threshold change, work with Congress to arrange for private sector investment in key technologies to bolster programs of record. Lift government price and margin controls. Cost, often controlled through the anti-innovation technique of lowest-price, technically acceptable contracts, is not the key metric, particularly in emerging, dynamic technologies. What matters are outcomes and value. Restricting profit to a bureaucrat-calculated rate of 15 percent will drive innovative and nimble companies away from the DoD. Cost does not effectively incorporate other important metrics, including risk, prior investment and return on investment. Order quantities and frequency are also critical in determining reasonable costs, as these factors underpin business cases. It's not a coincidence that the world's largest, most innovative economy belongs to the same country that has the world's largest, most lethal military and is the world's most attractive target for emerging threats. The threat environment (intensified by the pandemic) makes clear that we need to change our approach; the state of our economy means that we need to start now. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/16/coronavirus-has-kept-us-close-to-home-its-a-helpful-lesson-for-strengthening-national-defense/