Lockheed Martin UK looking to invest in new space-based manufacturing facility

Sur le même sujet

• 

  7 mars 2024 | International, Terrestre

  State of Canadian Armed Forces' combat readiness growing worse, government report warns | CBC News

  Only 58 per cent of the Canadian Armed Forces would be able to respond if called upon in a crisis by NATO allies right now — and almost half of the military's equipment is considered "unavailable and unserviceable" — says a recent internal Department of National Defence presentation obtained by CBC News.

• 

  27 novembre 2019 | International, Terrestre

  MELLS guided missile for the German Infantry

  26 Nov 2019 Rheinmetall and its joint venture partners Diehl Defence and Rafael have won an order to supply the Bundeswehr with the advanced MELLS antitank guided missile. Rheinmetall is tasked with supplying key components to Eurospike, the company that manufactures the MELLS multirole lightweight guided missile system. For Rheinmetall, this represents an order intake of over €30 million without valued added tax. Delivery begins in 2020 and continues through to 2023. A framework agreement contains an option for the fabrication and delivery of around 100 additional weapon systems and a five-figure number of component sets for the MELLS guided missile during the 2024-2031 timeframe. This would mean incoming orders for Rheinmetall in the three-digit million-euro range. The MELLS missiles now ordered by the Bundeswehr are intended for infantry operations. Rheinmetall will be supplying over a hundred integrated command and launch units, including transport and storage containers, as well as 1,500 sets with components for the long-range Spike LR missile produced by Rafael. Produced by Eurospike – a joint venture of Rheinmetall, Diehl Defence and Rafael – the MELLS is a state-of-the-art effector capable of engaging armoured targets at ranges of up to 4,000 metres. Rheinmetall can point to abundant expertise and experience with the MELLS. The Düsseldorf, Germany-based company has already integrated this advanced missile system into the Marder infantry fighting vehicle, and is doing so again in the Puma IFV. In addition, another contractor is currently integrating the system into Rheinmetall's air-portable Wiesel/Wiesel weapons carrier. Looking ahead, more extensive networking of the command and launch units and guided missiles with Rheinmetall-made soldier systems like the Future Soldier – Expanded System (IdZ-ES) and the TacNet battle management system offers significant future potential, which will further optimize the sensor-to-shooter sequence. RHEINMETALL AG Corporate Sector Defence Press and Information Oliver Hoffmann Rheinmetall Platz 1 40476 Düsseldorf Germany Phone: +49 211 473-4748 Fax: +49 211 473-4157 View source version on Rheinmetall AG: https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/latest_news/index_22144.php

• 

  20 juillet 2020 | International, Terrestre

  OMFV: Army Wants Smaller Crew, More Automation

  The draft RFP for the Bradley replacement, out today, also opens the possibility for a government design team to compete with private industry. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on July 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM WASHINGTON: The Army is giving industry a lot of freedom in their designs for its future armored troop transport, letting them pick the gun, weight, number of passengers and more. But there's one big exception. While the current M2 Bradley has three crew members – commander, gunner, and driver – a draft Request For Proposals released today says that its future replacement, the OMFV, must be able to fight with two. Fewer humans means more automation. It's an ambitious goal, especially for a program the Army already had to reboot and start over once. The other fascinating wrinkle in the RFP is that the Army reserves the right to form its own design team and let it compete against the private-sector contractors. This government design team would be independent of any Army command to avoid conflicts of interest. If the Army does submit its own design, that would be a major departure from longstanding Pentagon practice. But the Army has invested heavily in technologies from 50mm cannon to automated targeting algorithms to engines, so it's not impossible for a government team to put all that government intellectual property together into a complete design. The Army has embraced automation from the beginning of the Bradley replacement program, and that's been consistent before and after January's decision to reboot. OMFV's very name, Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, refers to the service's desire to have the option to operate the vehicle, in some situations, by remote control – eventually. But an unmanned mode remains an aspiration for future upgrades, not a hard-and-fast requirement for the initial version of the vehicle scheduled to enter service in 2028. By contrast, the two-person crew is one of the few hard-and-fast requirements in the draft RFP released this morning. It's all the more remarkable because there few such requirements in the RFP or its extensive technical annexes (which are not public). Instead, in most cases, the Army lays out the broad performance characteristics it desires and gives industry a lot of leeway in how to achieve them. That's a deliberate departure from traditional weapons programs, which lay out a long and detailed list of technical requirements. But the Army tried that prescriptive approach on OMFV and it didn't work. Last year, in its first attempt to build the OMFV, the Army insisted that industry build – at its own expense – a prototype light enough that you could fit two on an Air Force C-17 transport, yet it had to be tough enough to survive a fight with Russian mechanized units in Eastern Europe. Only one company, General Dynamics, even tried to deliver a vehicle built to that specification and the Army decided they didn't succeed. So the Army started over. It decided heavy armor was more important than air transportability, so it dropped the requirement to fit two OMFVs on a single C-17; now it'll be satisfied if a C-17 can carry one. In fact, it decided rigid technical requirements were a bad idea in general because it limited industry's opportunity to offer ingenious new solutions to the Army's problems, so the service replaced them wherever it could with broadly defined goals called characteristics. And yet the new draft RFP does include a strict and technologically ambitious requirement: the two-person crew. Now, since the OMFV is a transport, it'll have more people aboard much of the time, and when an infantry squad is embarked, one of them will have access to the vehicle's sensors and be able to assist the crew. But when the passengers get out to fight on foot, there'll just be two people left to operate the vehicle. A two-person crew isn't just a departure from the Bradley. This is a departure from best practice in armored vehicle design dating back to World War II. In 1940, when Germany invaded France, the French actually had more tanks, including some much better armed and armored than most German machines. But a lot of the French tanks had two-man crews. There was a driver, seated in the hull, and a single harried soldier in the turret who had to spot the enemy, aim the gun, and load the ammunition. By contrast, most German tanks split those tasks among three men – a commander, a gunner, and a loader – which meant they consistently outmaneuvered and outfought the overburdened French tankers. A lot of modern vehicles don't need a loader, because a mechanical feed reloads automatically. But in everything from the Bradley to Soviet tanks, the minimum crew is three: driver, gunner, and commander. That way the driver can focus on the terrain ahead, the gunner can focus on the target currently in his sights, and the commander can watch for danger in all directions. A two-person crew can't split tasks that way, risking cognitive overload – which means a greater risk that no one spots a threat until it's too late. So how do fighter jets and combat helicopters survive, since most of them have one or two crew at most? The answer is extensive training and expensive technology. If the Army wants a two-person crew in its OMFV, the crew compartment may have to look less like a Bradley and more like an Apache gunship, with weapons automatically pointing wherever the operator looks. The Army's even developing a robotic targeting assistant called ATLAS, which spots potential targets on its sensors, decides the biggest threat and automatically brings the gun to bear – but only fires if a human operator gives the order. Now, industry does not have to solve these problems right away. The current document is a draft Request For Proposals, meaning that the Army is seeking feedback from interested companies. If enough potential competitors say the two-man crew is too hard, the Army might drop that requirement. The current schedule gives the Army about nine months, until April 2021, to come out with the final RFP, and only then do companies have to submit their preliminary concepts for the vehicle. The Army will pick several companies to develop “initial digital designs” – detailed computer models of the proposed vehicle – and then refine those designs. Physical prototypes won't enter testing until 2025, with the winning design entering production in 2027 for delivery to combat units the next year. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/omfv-army-wants-smaller-crew-more-automation/