16 octobre 2020 | International, Terrestre, Sécurité

Army signs $87 million deal for latest tank killer

Mike Glenn

The Army signed an $87 million deal with Saab to arm its soldiers with the latest version of the Swedish manufacturing company's powerful 84mm bunker-busting, Carl-Gustaf anti-tank weapon.

The seven-year contract calls for Saab to provide an indefinite number of the shoulder-fired weapons, designated as M3E1, to the military. They will be used by the Army, Marine Corps and elements of U.S. Special Operations Command, company officials said.

“The lightweight and effective recoilless rifle ensures readiness on the modern battlefield with multi-role capabilities through a wide array of munitions,” Erik Smith, president and CEO of Saab in the U.S., said in a statement.

The latest version of the Carl-Gustaf is 28 percent lighter than its predecessor. The system has been popular with U.S. troops as a combined anti-tank, anti-personnel weapon system since it was first fielded in the late 1980s. The Army decided it would acquire the latest version in 2018.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/15/army-signs-87-million-deal-latest-tank-killer/

Sur le même sujet

  • The Five Most Important Facts About The F-35 Fighter

    15 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    The Five Most Important Facts About The F-35 Fighter

    When the Clinton administration first conceived the notion of a “joint strike fighter” in 1995, it was the ideal solution to a host of military challenges. The basic idea was a family of highly survivable tactical aircraft that could share common technology to accomplish a dozen different missions for three U.S. military services. The Air Force would use it to replace Cold War F-16 fighters in aerial combat, bombing of ground targets and close air support of troops. The Navy would use it to extend the striking range of carrier-based aircraft. The Marines would use it to land on a dime anywhere expeditionary warfare was being waged. And everybody, including allies, would use it to collect vast amounts of intelligence that could be shared securely with coalition partners in future conflicts. From the beginning there were those who thought the joint strike fighter was an unrealistic dream—a project that expected too much from one plane, and would likely go into a tailspin as costs mounted. The program probably never would have gotten off the ground if military threats had been at a fever pitch. But the Soviet Union had collapsed and China was an afterthought at 3% of global GDP, so the Clinton administration decided to take a gamble. Today, that gamble has paid off. Hundreds of the planes, now designated F-35s, are operational with ten military services around the world. It took longer to come to fruition than originally planned, but in the end the joint strike fighter met its goals for survivability and versatility. That makes it one of the greatest engineering feats of the post-Cold War generation—a testament to the discipline and skill of the American aerospace industry. However, unless you've been following the F-35 program closely, you probably don't know most of this. President Trump entered office with little understanding of F-35, and only gradually came to grasp why it mattered so much to the joint force. The Biden administration hopefully will exhibit a smoother learning curve. Just to be on the safe side, though, it's worth repeating for the umpteenth time what makes F-35 unique. It really is invisible to enemies. When F-35 participates in training exercises, it typically defeats adversary aircraft at a rate of better than 20-to-1. It would do the same in wartime against Russian or Chinese fighters, because it was designed to absorb or deflect radar energy, so opposing pilots can't see it before they are shot down. In addition, F-35 is equipped with an advanced jamming system that tricks or suppresses hostile radars, both in the air and on the ground. Enemy radars might detect something in the distance, but they can't track it or target it. Also, F-35's powerful turbofan engine masks and dissipates heat before heat-seeking missiles can home in. It is more than a fighter. F-35 isn't just the most survivable combat aircraft ever built, it is also the most versatile. In its fighter role it can clear the skies of opposing aircraft that threaten U.S. forces. In its strike role, it can precisely destroy a vast array of targets on the ground (or at sea) with a dozen different smart bombs and missiles. But that is just the beginning. F-35's onboard sensors can collect and share intelligence from diverse sources across the spectrum. Its jamming system and air-to-air munitions make it a superior escort for less survivable aircraft. Its vertical-takeoff-and-landing variant can land anywhere Marines need it to be, while its Air Force version can carry nuclear weapons to provide regional deterrence. The cost of each plane has fallen steadily. As the government planned, the cost to manufacture each F-35 has fallen steadily with each new production lot. If fact, it has fallen at a faster rate than Pentagon estimators expected. At $78 million, the price tag for the Air Force variant in the latest lot is similar to that for the F-16 which the new plane will replace, even though it is much more capable. It is also far below the list price for commercial jetliners. The cost of keeping F-35s operational and ready for combat is also falling. The cost per flight hour for each plane has fallen 40% since 2015, and further savings are expected as maintenance procedures are refined. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin LMT -0.4% LMT -0.4% LMT -0.4% (a contributor to my think tank) has proposed a performance-based logistics package in which it would assume much of the financial risk for assuring the fighters are fit for combat. Many U.S. allies have committed to the program. A majority of America's most important allies have elected to replace their Cold War fighters with the F-35. These include Australia, Belgium, Demark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Korea and the United Kingdom. Several of these countries helped to pay for the plane's development, and now contribute to its production. Allies favor the F-35 for its price and performance, but also because coalition warfare unfolds more smoothly when participants share the same capabilities. The “interoperability” of so many friendly air forces flying the same highly survivable, versatile fighter will ease the challenge of executing complex war plans in the future. The domestic economic impact is huge. The F-35 airframe is integrated in Texas. Its engines are made in Connecticut. Its jamming system is manufactured in New Hampshire. Altogether, there are 1,800 U.S. based suppliers to the program sustaining over a quarter-million jobs. The annual economic impact of the program in the U.S. is estimated at $49 billion. Additional suppliers are located in allied countries. Whether at home or abroad, the vast scale of the F-35 program, with over 3,000 aircraft likely to be delivered, has a significant impact on communities. Although national security is the sole rationale for building the plane, it helps to pay for houses and schools in thousands of communities, and makes a sizable contribution to the U.S. trade balance. Because of F-35, America will dominate the global market for tactical aircraft through mid-century. Companies engaged in building F-35 contribute to my think tank. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2021/02/12/the-five-most-important-facts-about-the-f-35-fighter/?ss=aerospace-defense&sh=ee75fa760b57

  • Le SCAF, un programme crucial pour la France

    16 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Le SCAF, un programme crucial pour la France

    Safran et Dassault Aviation ont qualifié le programme du Système de combat aérien du futur (SCAF) de « projet existentiel », selon un rapport d'information du Sénat d'Hélène Conway-Mouret (PS) et de Ronan Le Gleut (Les Républicains) sur ce projet. « Le programme SCAF n'a sans doute pas tout à fait le même degré d'importance et d'urgence pour chacun des partenaires, notent pourtant les deux auteurs. Pour la France, le SCAF est existentiel à la fois pour Dassault et pour Safran, qui ne peuvent pas se permettre de rester sans projet d'avion de combat et de moteur d'avion de combat. Les industriels allemands (Airbus et MTU au premier chef) ou espagnols ne sont pas tout à fait dans la même situation : il s'agit plutôt pour eux de monter en compétence dans ces domaines ». Surtout, estime le rapport, si le développement d'un avion européen n'est pas lancé, « la France et l'Allemagne devront sans doute se doter d'une solution non souveraine en 2040, rappellent les deux sénateurs. La France renoncerait ainsi à son autonomie stratégique ». La Tribune du 15 juillet 2020 – Le Figaro du 15 juillet 2020

  • Army-developed multimission launcher ‘off the table’

    15 octobre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Army-developed multimission launcher ‘off the table’

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army spent years internally developing its own multimission launcher for the Indirect Fires Protection Capability program — designed to counter threats like rockets, artillery and mortars as well as cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft systems. But that grand plan is now officially off the table. The service has purchased two Rafael-made Iron Dome systems as an interim solution to get after the cruise missile defense capability gap, but it's taken a step back to rethink its enduring IFPC program strategy. While much is up in the air, it's certain that the launcher that will ultimately be part of the IFPC program won't be the MML. “It'll be something different that we will develop,” Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson, who is in charge of the Army's air-and-missile defense modernization, told Defense News at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference. As of 2016, the Army had spent $119 million to build MML prototypes, which included owning the technical data rights. The cost of developing the system outside of the Army would have been about three times as much according to the service at the time. Over the course of its development, the launcher was able to defeat a cruise missile target and an unmanned aircraft system using an AIM-9X missile at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and fired the Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) and Tamir missiles as well. The U.S. Army had awarded three $2.6 million contracts in the summer of 2018 for the first phase of a program to find a second interceptor — the Expanded Mission Area Missile (EMAM) — for the MML. Also already selected was the first interceptor for the launcher, the Sidewinder. Lockheed Martin's MHTK missile and two missiles from Raytheon were chosen to be qualified for the launcher: Sky Hunter, the U.S. version of the Iron Dome missile Tamir; and the Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative missile. The effort to qualify the MHTK has been paused, Scott Arnold, Lockheed Martin's vice president and deputy of integrated air-and-missile defense with the company's Missiles and Fire Control business, said at AUSA. The company did not have an intercept test, but was able to move the MHTK missile through some testing prior to the Army's decision to pause the program. The Army may take technologies developed as part of the MML effort and spiral them into a future launcher, “but there were a lot of things, with all the right reasons, that launcher turned out the way it did,” Gibson said. An assessment of the launcher determined it was not sufficient for an enduring capability, he added. “All the variables of when you define a new piece of hardware matter and, for air defense, it really comes down to angles you launch things at, whether it's vertical or whether it's horizontal, and the applicability of how many different interceptors potentially you can put in,” Gibson said. “Those are all lessons learned from MML and it matters on the threat set.” The one-star added that he is confident the Army is capable of developing something appropriate on the right timeline when it comes to a launcher for the enduring IFPC plan. And while the service doesn't want to buy beyond the two batteries of Iron Dome already purchased, the Army is considering the feasibility of taking its launcher and missiles for the future IFPC program. The Army has until the end of 2023 to field an initial enduring capability or, by law, will have to buy more interim Iron Dome systems. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2019/10/15/army-developed-multimission-launcher-off-the-table

Toutes les nouvelles