Latvia selects Ascod infantry fighting vehicle for its land forces

On the same subject

• 

  October 2, 2019 | International, Land

  Raytheon Rheinmetall Land Systems submits bid for US Army combat vehicle competition

  DETROIT, October 1, 2019 /PRNewswire/ - Raytheon Rheinmetall Land Systems, a joint venture formed by Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) and Rheinmetall Defence, has submitted its bid for the U.S. Army's new Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, or OMFV, program. The team will offer the next-generation Lynx Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Lynx is a next-generation, tracked armored fighting vehicle designed to address the critical challenges of the future battlefield. The vehicle provides ample growth capacity to support new technologies over its lifetime, and features lower life-cycle costs. "U.S. Army soldiers deserve the best possible fighting vehicle when they go into battle and that's exactly what this team is offering," said Sam Deneke, Raytheon Land Warfare Systems vice president. "Lynx provides unparalleled troop protection and features advanced technology that will keep our men and women in uniform ahead of the threat." Scheduled for fielding in 2026, the OMFV is expected to replace the Bradley fighting vehicle. "Our team has spent the last year assembling a U.S. supply chain to ensure that Lynx will be built in America by American workers," said Ben Hudson, global head of Rheinmetall's Vehicle Systems division. "This next-generation combat vehicle will help save lives on the battlefield and further bolster the U.S. industrial base - now that's a win-win." Raytheon technology earmarked for the Lynx includes the company's advanced weapons, Active Protection System, third-generation thermal sights, Coyote® unmanned aircraft system and cyber protection. About Rheinmetall Headquartered in Düsseldorf, the publicly traded Rheinmetall AG is a high-tech enterprise dedicated to the twin modern imperatives of mobility and security. Founded in 1889, the group today consists of two operational components: Rheinmetall Defence and Rheinmetall Automotive. One of the world's leading suppliers of military systems and equipment, Rheinmetall's Defence arm comprises three divisions: Vehicle Systems, Electronic Solutions and Weapon and Ammunition. The group's 23,000-strong global workforce generated sales last year of $6.9 billion. Follow us on Twitter. About Raytheon Raytheon Company, with 2018 sales of $27 billion and 67,000 employees, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, civil government and cybersecurity solutions. With a history of innovation spanning 97 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration, C5I(®) products and services, sensing, effects and mission support for customers in more than 80 countries. Raytheon is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. Follow us on Twitter. Media Contacts Raytheon John B. Patterson +1.520. 440.2194 rmspr@raytheon.com Rheinmetall Oliver Hoffmann Head of Public Relations, Rheinmetall AG +49-(0)211-473 4748 oliver.hoffmann@rheinmetall.com http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/raytheon-rheinmetall-land-systems-submits-bid-for-us-army-combat-vehicle-competition-300929126.html

• 

  September 18, 2024 | International, Aerospace

  Marines reopen second WWII-era airfield to prep for future combat

  The opening of the North Carolina airfield follows the service’s June recertification of an airfield on the Pacific island of Peleliu.

• 

  January 16, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Does the Pentagon need a chief management officer?

  By: Jerry McGinn Ms. Lisa Hershman, an accomplished former CEO who has been serving in the Department of Defense for over two years, received Senate confirmation by unanimous consent to become the DoD chief management officer shortly before Christmas. At the same time, however, the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act required two studies from the DoD that openly posit eliminating the CMO function altogether. What gives? The mixed signals coming out of these discordant events underscore the fact that the theory behind the current CMO function (and similar efforts over the past two decades) does not match the reality of the business structure of the DoD. The solution that will ultimately work best for the DoD is one that truly takes a business-based approach to DoD business operations. The CMO function is the latest in a long-running series of efforts since the early 2000s to reform the business of defense. The essential idea has been to bring the best commercial business practices into DoD business operations through organizational and legislative changes. While the rationale for these respective initiatives is unassailable, they have struggled in execution. The CMO and its predecessor organizations, for example, have focused on the acquisition or certification of DoD business systems. These efforts, however, have largely devolved into bureaucratic battles over resources and authorities, pitting the business-focused organization against the formidable military departments and the “fourth estate.” Whatever the outcome, the business-focused organization ends up being seen as weak and ineffective. Why is that? Having worked for years in and around these respective efforts in both government and industry roles, I have come to the conclusion that these well-meaning initiatives are just the wrong type of solution. This is largely because their respective organizations, often despite strong leadership and empowered by various degrees of legislative authority, have not had the bureaucratic throw-weight to succeed in Pentagon battles with the services and the fourth estate. The solution to this challenge, however, is not to further tinker with the CMO's authority or to create a larger or different CMO organization. Part of the solution is to recognize that while the DoD is not a business, it is in many ways a businesslike organization. There are no profit and loss, or P&L, centers in the DoD, but the military departments frankly function in much the same way as a P&L line of business. The services are directly responsible for training and equipping their soldiers, sailors and airmen just as P&L leaders are responsible for delivering products and solutions on time and profitably. Likewise, fourth estate entities such as the defense agencies and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have direct responsibility over their respective functions. Harnessing the power and authority of these organizations through the training and enabling of good business practices is a much more natural fit for the DoD. Devolving responsibility in and of itself is not the answer, however. The other part of the solution is accountability. Commercial businesses do not have a CMO function. Instead, well-run businesses are led by strong executives who are responsible and accountable for delivering results to their employees and shareholders. Those that succeed are rewarded, while those that fail are replaced. The same goes for the DoD. DoD leadership should focus on establishing business-reform objectives for each major DoD organization, and then holding leaders of these respective organizations accountable to the achievement of measurable business goals. This should be driven by the secretary and the deputy, and enabled by a much smaller CMO function. Secretary Mark Esper appears to be headed in that direction in his recent memo on 2020 DoD reform efforts, which focuses the CMO's efforts on the fourth estate and makes the services directly responsible “to establish and execute aggressive reform plans.” That is the right approach. In short, the DoD does not need a management organization to oversee the business of defense; it needs to enable its leaders to utilize business best practices, and then hold these leaders accountable for results. Jerry McGinn is the executive director of the Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University. He previously served as the senior career official in the Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy at the U.S. Defense Department. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/15/does-the-pentagon-need-a-chief-management-officer