Xtend to supply hundreds of Wolverine Gen2 drones to US military

On the same subject

• 

  September 16, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Contracts for September 15, 2021

  Today

• 

  August 2, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  US Army discloses timelines for Block 3 Chinook

  Gareth Jennings, London Boeing is to begin development of a Block 3-standard Boeing CH/MH-47 Chinook transport and assault helicopter toward the end of the 2020s, ahead of fielding by the US Army in the late 2030s/early 2040s. The timeline was disclosed by the army's MH-47G programme manager, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Klarenbach, in a briefing presented earlier in 2018 and seen by Jane'son 1 August. According to the briefing, Block 3 technology development for both the CH-47F and MH-47G will run from about 2027 to 2040, with production immediately following. With Boeing currently engaged in the early stages of the Block 2 upgrade for the US Army's Chinook fleet (the first of three prototypes is now in final assembly, ahead of the first low-rate initial production delivery in fiscal year 2023), in May 2017 the company first touted the notion of a Block 3 upgrade to take the Chinook out to the 2060s. No details as to what a Block 3 upgrade might include were released, but Boeing at that time noted it could feature the new Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE), which is being provisioned for inclusion in Block 2, as well as active parallel actuator systems and torque management systems. It could also see the Chinook become optionally-piloted. “[Optionally piloted] is not a huge technology challenge with the flights controls the Chinook has – it is more a tactics, techniques, and procedures [TTP] challenge,” said Randy Rotte, Boeing's director of cargo helicopter sales and marketing. “Unlike the [US Marine Corps'] K-MAX, which carried its cargo sling-loaded, someone would need to get inside [of the unmanned Chinook] to load and unload it.” While the US Army has yet to comment on what a Block 3 Chinook might entail, Col Klarenbach's briefing slides showed two possible configurations. Full article: https://www.janes.com/article/82113/us-army-discloses-timelines-for-block-3-chinook

• 

  January 15, 2019 | International, Naval

  An ocean apart: Few naval vendors manage to pierce US and European protectionism

  By: Tom Kington , Andrew Chuter , and Sebastian Sprenger ROME, LONDON and COLOGNE, Germany — The U.S. and European shipbuilding industries lead largely separate lives against the backdrop of a massive Asian naval buildup, but some trans-Atlantic projects still manage to thrive. The building of warships has always been a prime example of nations nurturing a highly specialized industry deemed so crucial that outside economic forces cannot be allowed to intervene. And while some European nations have begun to think about pooling shipbuilding forces on the continent, analysts and industry executives in Europe say the wall separating the U.S. and European naval markets remains high. Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said. “The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven't given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added. At the same time, the U.S. market has been relatively closed off to European shipbuilders, though there is a chance that could change somewhat with the Navy's Future Frigate program. “It's a bit like two different planets,” said Sebastian Bruns, head of the Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University in northern Germany. The reflex to buy only American-made warships is especially strong in the current political climate, he added. The sheer number of ships needed on each side of the Atlantic creates a natural differentiator, according to Bruns, who spent time working U.S. naval policy as a House staffer on Capitol Hill. He said the Navy tends to prefer no-frills designs made for maximum war-fighting power in a great powers competition, while Europeans have taken to building vessels with a kind of peace-maintenance role in mind, affording a greater level of automation and comfort for the crew, for example. One British naval executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the lack of trans-Atlantic industrial touch points wasn't limited to market access, arguing that cost-effectiveness was also an issue. “Despite the problems we have and the programs that don't go exactly according to plan ton for ton and capability for capability, the U.K. manages to build and deliver surface ships at a much lower cost than the United States,” he said. “The U.S. shipyards know they would have difficulty competing in the region, particularly if you are talking about yards that have built a good track record. Naval Group, Fincantieri, Damen Shipyards, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems — these are yards that have been competitive and build with export experience behind them. They are already ahead of the game and I do think it comes back to the cost base, I think it is difficult for the United States to build as cost-effectively as the Europeans,” the executive argued. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/01/14/an-ocean-apart-few-naval-vendors-manage-to-pierce-us-and-european-protectionism