Royal Moroccan Armed Forces

Royal Moroccan Armed Forces Royal Moroccan Navy Royal Moroccan Air Forces Forces Armées Royales Forces Royales Air Marine Royale Marocaine
 
AccueilS'enregistrerConnexion

Partagez
 

 industrie militaire US

Aller en bas 
Aller à la page : Précédent  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
AuteurMessage
annabi
Général de corps d'armée (ANP)
Général de corps d'armée (ANP)
annabi

messages : 6951
Inscrit le : 18/07/2012
Localisation : paris
Nationalité : Algerie-Francais
Médailles de mérite : industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena24industrie militaire US - Page 7 Cheval10
industrie militaire US - Page 7 M15c10

industrie militaire US - Page 7 Empty
MessageSujet: industrie militaire US   industrie militaire US - Page 7 Icon_minitimeJeu 26 Sep 2013 - 0:58

Rappel du premier message :

Citation :
ATK teste sa bombe Hatchet

Alliant Techsystems (ATK) prépare une série de tests de son système Hatchet de 7 livres (3,2kg) qui est conçu pour frapper des cibles moyennes allant des insurgés aux lanceurs de missiles Scud.

industrie militaire US - Page 7 Hatchet_ATK

Il existe deux versions du Hatchet: l’une qui s’utilise avec un système de guidage GPS, et une autre variante plus coûteuse qui inclut le GPS et le guidage laser semi-actif pour les bombardements de précision.
« Quand je veux frapper une cible à travers une fenêtre, j’utilise un laser semi-actif », explique Tim Strusz, directeur du développement chez ATK pour les programmes avancés.
ATK va commencer à tester la Hatchet, qu’elle a développée avec ses fonds propres, dans le dernier trimestre de 2013. Les essais commenceront avec un test en « carry captive » (« retenue captive »), suivis de frappes contre une cible inerte au début de 2014 pour démontrer l’efficacité de l’arme. Enfin, un test complet aura lieu avec une ogive à la mi-2014.
L’ogive représente environ la moitié du poids de l’Hatchet et s’appuie sur un coffre électronique d’ATK pour la mise à feu.
ATK a déclaré que des militaires américains étaient intéressés par la Hatchet car elle peut équiper une large éventail d’appareils habités comme le F-35 Lightning II JSF ou bien des petits véhicules aériens sans pilote. Les militaires américains « attendent juste l’échéance opérationnelle du Hatchet » selon Tim Strusz. Il ajoute que ATK s’investit beaucoup sur les petites armes en raison de la demande croissante de l’armée américaine pour des munitions qui minimisent les dommages collatéraux.
La société construit également une arme plus connue sous le nom de « Hammer » d’une masse de 16 livres (7.3 kg) que l’armée américaine prévoit d’utiliser sur un drone RQ-7B Shadow (AAI) à la fin de 2013 et début 2014

http://info-aviation.com/?p=15648
Revenir en haut Aller en bas

AuteurMessage
Adam
Colonel-Major
Colonel-Major
Adam

messages : 2933
Inscrit le : 25/03/2009
Localisation : Royaume de tous les Marocains
Nationalité : Maroc
Médailles de mérite :
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena31industrie militaire US - Page 7 Ambass10
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Medail10industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena15

industrie militaire US - Page 7 Empty
MessageSujet: Re: industrie militaire US   industrie militaire US - Page 7 Icon_minitimeLun 10 Déc 2018 - 10:14

Foreign Policy a écrit:

Trump’s Push to Boost Lethal Drone Exports Reaps Few Rewards


Sources say the U.S. Defense Department is stubbornly resisting the new rules.


industrie militaire US - Page 7 Gettyimages-497592606

More than six months after the Trump administration rolled out a new set of regulations promising to make it easier to sell American-made military drones abroad, no new sales have been made, and drone-makers are frustrated by the lack of concrete results.

Experts agree the administration has a genuine desire to ease the restrictions as part of a broader initiative to boost the competitiveness of U.S. products in a booming international market increasingly dominated by the Chinese. The challenge, according to observers and industry sources, is enforcing the new policy across a government bureaucracy that is both spread thin and stubbornly averse to change.

“I know senior Commerce and Defense Department leadership want to see change, but we’ve seen little to none thus far in actual exports of advanced UAS,” said Ben Schwartz, the executive director of the Defense and Aerospace Export Council at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, referring to unmanned aerial systems.

The difficulty the Trump administration has had putting the new policy into practice reflects yet another example of a government agency deliberately trying to slow-walk the president. Industry sources said the Department of Defense, particularly the U.S. Air Force, has stubbornly resisted the change.

“The Air Force has made the determination for national security reasons that certain airframes can only be transferred under the foreign military sales rule set,” rather than through commercial channels, one industry source said.

Global sales of military drones are rising rapidly, but U.S. export policy has not kept up with demand. A 2017 Rand Corp. study concluded that previous administrations’ restrictive regulations on shipping armed and unarmed drones to foreign customers has left U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage, effectively ceding the market to China.

The Obama administration also sought to ease the drone export process, but the Trump administration went further, rolling out the new policy in April. The new rules for the first time allow direct commercial sales of large, armed drones, meaning the customer can potentially buy the product directly from the manufacturer, bypassing the clunkier foreign military sales process through the U.S. government. The new policy also reclassifies drones with strike-enabling technology, like laser target designators, as unarmed, which will make them easier to export.

But Heidi Grant, the deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs, noted that despite the administration’s changes to drone export policies, “there are still going to be some systems that need to be protected.”

Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Mike Andrews said the department is “fully supportive of implementing all aspects of this Administration’s updated UAS policy.” But he stressed that “particularly sensitive components and subsystems must be sold via Foreign Military Sales (FMS), as is the case for sensitive components and subsystems for manned aircraft sales.”

“The Department is maximizing the [direct commercial sale] portion of the UAS system sale, where appropriate,” Andrews said.

Grant blamed industry for causing delays in exporting drones to allies by not building exportability—namely, protections of sensitive U.S. technology—into systems on the front end of the development process.

“What happens now is things are built for the U.S., then when there is a customer demand then they start reconfiguring for export,” Grant said. “This puts us two years behind and allows the competition to get in front of us.”

But the biggest obstacle to change, according to another industry source, is that easing drone exports is not a priority for the Pentagon, and no one has taken the lead in working out the gritty details.

“I don’t think DoD is organized with the juice to get this done,” the source said. “Everyone’s got the message, but they don’t have the bench. [Defense Secretary James] Mattis can only call [National Security Advisor John] Bolton so many times a day.”

The State Department is trying to implement a new policy approving marketing licenses that would allow companies to pitch prospective customers to buy their products, the industry source said. But right now, they have no license approvals that could not have been obtained under the old policy, the person noted.

A State Department spokesperson pushed back on claims that the policy change is not yielding results, saying the administration is making “strong progress” in implementing the new regulations. The spokesperson pointed to several recent milestones—including Japan’s agreement to proceed with a nearly $500 million sale of Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk drones—as proof the policy is working.

“As other nations begin to employ military Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) more regularly and as the commercial UAS market emerges, the United States has a responsibility to ensure that sales, transfers, and subsequent use of all U.S.-origin UAS are responsible and consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson also pointed out that the Netherlands recently signed off on the sale of four General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers valued at up to $339 million. This year, the State Department has also notified Congress of proposed sales of up to four Northrop MQ-4C Triton drone systems to Germany, valued at up to $2.5 billion, and two General Atomics RQ-7B Shadow 200 drone systems to Australia, valued at up to $218 million.

However, Congress was formally notified of all of the sales the State Department cited as evidence of change before the Trump administration’s new policy was imposed. No new drone sales have been made since the rollout.

“It is important to reiterate that the Department of Defense continues to work closely with the Department of State on all DCS [direct commercial sales] and FMS [foreign military sales] actions,” a defense official said.

In another attempt to boost sales, the Trump administration is also pursuing changes to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a 35-member export control body created in 1987 to prevent the spread of cruise and ballistic missiles that could carry weapons of mass destruction. At the time the control regime was set up, drones had a lot in common with one-way missiles—they were generally either used as target practice to test missile accuracy or as very short-range surveillance platforms, explains Michael Horowitz, an associate professor of political science and the associate director of Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. So the body was set up to control them, too, holding drones that can travel more than 300 km (about 180 miles) and carry a payload of more than 500 kg (about 1,100 pounds) to the same “strong presumption of denial” for export. The MTCR does not cover crewed aircraft.

But today, Horowitz argues, drones are much more akin to crewed aircraft—a recoverable platform designed to fly out, perform a particular mission, and return to base—than missiles, and they should be regulated as such.

“Regulating the export of drones and drone parts using range and payload standards relevant for missiles represents a mismatch between technology and reality, which could have negative effects,” Horowitz writes. “Placing drones in the same exempt category as crewed aircraft would reflect the technological reality and help preserve the integrity of the regime.”

Keith Webster, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Defense and Aerospace Export Council, also disputed the argument that selling more U.S. drones abroad will lead to the proliferation of WMD. Allowing China to control the market is where the true danger lies, he said.

“Actually, the best way to manage the risk of [drones] being used for WMD is for the United States to be the one that exports it to partners, because when we export things we partner with the country that’s receiving it to ensure they are using it in a safe way,” Webster argued. “When the Chinese sell these things, we have no visibility into how the user is going to use it.”

Experts are increasingly concerned that traditional U.S. allies are now turning to China for their drone needs. The Obama administration denied requests for armed or advanced unarmed drones from Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq. Subsequently, these countries, along with Saudi Arabia, bought armed drones from China.

“You’ve got to balance the competing priorities, but in this instance actually changing our policy to allow more commercial sales serves both a commercial imperative and a nonproliferation imperative,” Webster said.

The administration submitted a proposal in March to add a speed criteria to the MTCR, a short-term fix that would exempt most drones, as they generally fly at slower speeds than missiles. Ultimately, the goal is to place drones in the same exempt category as crewed aircraft.

But the administration faces several obstacles, including the fact that Russia is a member and could veto any proposed change. Webster was not hopeful any proposed changes would be approved.

“It’s surprising that on things like the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty the administration is willing to take quite dramatic unilateral actions, but on something where we are in direct competition with the Chinese and we don’t even need to pull out of MTCR there is hesitation to take unilateral moves,” Schwartz said.


_________________
Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Adam
Colonel-Major
Colonel-Major
Adam

messages : 2933
Inscrit le : 25/03/2009
Localisation : Royaume de tous les Marocains
Nationalité : Maroc
Médailles de mérite :
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena31industrie militaire US - Page 7 Ambass10
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Medail10industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena15

industrie militaire US - Page 7 Empty
MessageSujet: Re: industrie militaire US   industrie militaire US - Page 7 Icon_minitimeLun 10 Déc 2018 - 19:15


_________________
Les peuples ne meurent jamais de faim mais de honte.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
jf16
General de Division
General de Division
jf16

messages : 28689
Inscrit le : 20/10/2010
Localisation : france Aiacciu
Nationalité : France
Médailles de mérite :
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena32industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena24
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena25industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena26
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Cheval10industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena15
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Medail10

industrie militaire US - Page 7 Empty
MessageSujet: Re: industrie militaire US   industrie militaire US - Page 7 Icon_minitimeDim 9 Juin 2019 - 23:08

Citation :
United Technologies et Raytheon discutent d'une fusion par échange d'actions

Par AFP | 09/06/2019, 9:27 | 291 mots

industrie militaire US - Page 7 _12c55
Raytheon pèse à lui-seul 27 milliards de dollars de chiffre d'affaires (Crédits : Kacper Pempel)


Raytheon et United Technologies, deux grands groupes américains de l'aéronautique et de la défense, sont en pourparlers pour fusionner et créer l'une des plus grandes entreprises mondiales de ces secteurs, affirme samedi le Wall Street Journal.

La fusion des deux géants Raytheon et United Technologies, qui se ferait uniquement par échange d'actions, créerait une entreprise pesant 166 milliards de dollars en bourse. Elle pourrait être annoncée dans les jours qui viennent si les négociations n'échouent pas, a indiqué au Wall Street Journal une source anonyme proche du dossier. Cette fusion "entre égaux" selon le WSJ se ferait parallèlement au démantèlement du conglomérat United Technologies qui outre l'aéronautique, la défense et le spatial, compte aussi dans son portefeuille les ascenseurs Otis et les systèmes de réfrigération et de climatisation Carrier. United Technologies avait prévu d'en faire des branches indépendantes au premier semestre de 2020, précise le quotidien.

93,5 milliards de dollars de chiffre d'affaires à deux

Le Journal croit aussi savoir que c'est le patron actuel de United Technologies, Greg Hayes qui prendrait la tête du nouveau groupe, tandis que le PDG de Raytheon, Thomas Kennedy, deviendrait président du conseil d'administration.

Raytheon est un poids-lourds dans les missiles dont les produits les plus connus sont les missiles anti-missiles Patriot ou encore les missiles de croisière Tomahawk. C'est aussi un acteur majeur de l'aéronautique civile.

United technologies c'est Collins Aerospace, un acteur important de l'aéronautique tout comme Pratt and Whitney, qui est l'un des trois grands motoristes aéronautiques dans le monde, pour le civil et le militaire.
En 2018, Raytheon a réalisé un chiffre d'affaires de 27 milliards de dollars pour un peu moins de 3 milliards de dollars de bénéfice net. Pour sa part, United Technologies a enregistré un chiffre d'affaires de 66,5 milliards de dollars l'année dernière pour un bénéfice net de 5,3 milliards de dollars.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/united-technologies-et-raytheon-discutent-d-une-fusion-par-echange-d-actions-819838.html
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
jf16
General de Division
General de Division
jf16

messages : 28689
Inscrit le : 20/10/2010
Localisation : france Aiacciu
Nationalité : France
Médailles de mérite :
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena32industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena24
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena25industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena26
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Cheval10industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena15
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Medail10

industrie militaire US - Page 7 Empty
MessageSujet: Re: industrie militaire US   industrie militaire US - Page 7 Icon_minitimeDim 22 Sep 2019 - 22:44

Citation :
General Dynamics unveils its new ‘light tank’ concept

Published 16:48 (GMT+0000) September 22, 2019

industrie militaire US - Page 7 _12e97
Photo by Jimkir



U.S. aerospace and defense company General Dynamics revealed an extremely groovy new concept tracked armored vehicle during the 2019 Modern Day Marine expo in Quantico, Virginia.

General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics, has unveiled a mockup of the new ‘light tank’ — called the Griffin II.

The Griffin II is a new combat vehicle to support infantry brigade combat teams — a lightweight vehicle that can be airlifted into battle and maneuver, dispersed if necessary, in close-quarters urban terrain, but with lethal long-range firepower to take out enemy armored vehicles.

According to the current information, the new medium-weight, a large-caliber vehicle intends to boost the firepower of airborne and other light infantry units and was designed under for the U.S. Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower program.

The U.S. Army expects that new ‘light tank’ will be a 38-ton tracked armored vehicle capable to provide Soldiers with speed, protection, lethality and the ability to wage a multidomain battle, working in concert with other ground forces to overwhelm the enemy with multiple simultaneous challenges.

The new “light tank” will have improved armor and a 120 mm main gun that reminds the Abrams’ 120 mm cannon. Griffin’s turret is a scaled-down version of the M1 Abrams turret designed to engage in combat with tanks and other armoured vehicles.

Additionally, vehicle survivability can be greatly increased with intelligent sensors that are integrated with the hardware, software and effectors to create an overarching, layered system of passive and active self-defense measures.

https://defence-blog.com/army/general-dynamics-unveils-its-new-light-tank-concept.html
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
FAR SOLDIER
Modérateur
Modérateur
FAR SOLDIER

messages : 5901
Inscrit le : 31/08/2010
Localisation : Nowhere
Nationalité : Maroc-France
Médailles de mérite : industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena32industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena30
industrie militaire US - Page 7 Ambass10industrie militaire US - Page 7 Unbena15

industrie militaire US - Page 7 Empty
MessageSujet: Re: industrie militaire US   industrie militaire US - Page 7 Icon_minitimeSam 2 Nov 2019 - 0:44

Citation :
The Navy’s Tomahawk Cruise Missile Is Becoming More Lethal, More Versatile

One lesson the U.S. Navy has learned in dealing with emergent threats is that it is a lot easier to adapt what you already have to new challenges than start over with a completely new solution.

The Tomahawk cruise missile, carried on 145 U.S. warships, is a striking example of this principle at work. Tomahawk first joined the fleet in 1983 and figured prominently in both Persian Gulf wars, but today’s Tomahawk is very different from the cruise missiles used in those conflicts, and tomorrow’s Tomahawks will be something else again.

Superficially, the weapon doesn’t look much different. It still resembles the “flying torpedo” first imagined by futurists shortly after the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. But internally, Tomahawk has been repeatedly transformed as new technology and operating concepts added capabilities.

These generational updates are referred to by the Naval Air Systems Command, which oversees Tomahawk acquisition, as “blocks.” The current Block IV configuration joined the fleet in 2004, adding features such as in-flight reprogramming of targets via satellite links and the ability to loiter for long periods over war zones.

But as the thousands of Block IV Tomahawks in the Navy’s inventory now begin their 15-year recertification—the weapon has a shelf life of 30 years—the Navy is using that process to once again update the weapon’s capabilities with new technologies not available in 2004.

Recertification requires that every component in the missile be inspected and tested to assure readiness for combat, so it provides an opportunity to switch out parts if new features are desired. Tomahawk’s modular design facilitates such insertions, and recertification will thus drive modernization of the weapon to a new Block V configuration.

All of the Tomahawks in the fleet will retain their land-attack capability, which enables precise destruction of high-value targets deep in defended territory with minimal collateral damage. Whether they are launched from a surface warship or a submarine, Tomahawks typically hit within ten yards of intended targets using a variety of guidance methods including GPS, inertial navigation, and terrain contour matching.

What makes Block V different is that contractor Raytheon (a contributor to my think tank) is adding an anti-ship capability and a hard-target kill capability to specific lots of the missile. The “maritime strike” variant will have a new seeker capable of precisely identifying and targeting moving warships at sea. The hard-target kill version will carry an advanced warhead capable of destroying densely-constructed enemy assets previously requiring more specialized munitions.

The need for both capabilities was dictated by emerging threats in Eurasia. For instance, the Navy increasingly finds itself facing Russian and Chinese adversaries with longer-range anti-ship munitions than those carried on U.S. warships. The maritime strike version of Tomahawk will rectify that disparity with a munition that can strike hostile, maneuvering warships over a thousand miles away.

The hard-target version will be able to take out reinforced concrete command posts and other super-strong structures that otherwise might have provided sanctuary for enemy forces. The Navy has other ways of addressing such targets—most notably with the strike fighters of carrier air wings—but by using Tomahawk the Navy will be able to destroy a diverse array of targets even when carriers are not nearby, or when they are nearby but combatant commanders do not want to risk pilots and their planes.

Block V Tomahawk thus presents itself as the most affordable option for bolstering the Navy’s arsenal of long-range precision strike munitions without having to introduce a new weapon into the fleet. The basic footprint of the missile will not change—it will still fit into vertical launchers on surface warships, torpedo tubes on submarines, and other launch systems already extant that the joint force may elect to deploy in the future. (A land-based version of Tomahawk was successfully flight-tested in August.)

The Navy has taken delivery of over 4,000 Block IV Tomahawks since 2004, about a tenth of which have been used in combat and testing. Naval Air Systems Command intends to update the arsenal to the Block V configuration by purchasing a mix of new missiles and existing missiles that have been enhanced via recertification. Some of the Block Vs will be maritime-strike variants, some will be hard-target killers, and some will be “basic” Block V Tomahawks delivering targeting flexibility and lethality similar to Block IVs.

One issue that arises in equipping the fleet for a future of great-power competition is the survivability of existing munitions in attacking well-defended targets. The Navy is contemplating purchase of a stealthy cruise missile adapted from an Air Force munition that would be exceptionally difficult for enemy defenders to counter. However, a recent internal government study found that Tomahawk is likely to remain highly viable for many years to come. The Navy does not talk much about features built into Tomahawk designed to enhance its survivability—such as its ability to perform evasive maneuvers at extremely low altitudes—but the fact that the Navy is investing in a new generation of Tomahawks speaks for itself. Survivability does not seem to be a major concern.

Block V Tomahawks are likely to cost about a million dollars each, which arguably is a bargain for a munition that can reliably take out diverse targets over a thousand miles away worth many times that amount without causing major collateral damage. The fact that new or recertified Tomahawks can be sent to the fleet without major modifications to existing launch systems is undoubtedly a plus at a time when defense spending is likely to peak and then gradually decline.

But the most important feature of Block V Tomahawk isn’t the weapon’s price-tag. It is the ability of the Navy to address emerging threats quickly, rather than having to develop entirely new weapons with all of the uncertainties that implies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2019/10/23/the-navys-tomahawk-cruise-missile-is-becoming-more-lethal-more-versatile/#2138e2dc71d7

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Contenu sponsorisé




industrie militaire US - Page 7 Empty
MessageSujet: Re: industrie militaire US   industrie militaire US - Page 7 Icon_minitime

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
 
industrie militaire US
Revenir en haut 
Page 7 sur 7Aller à la page : Précédent  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 Sujets similaires
-
» Les moyens et l'organisation du Génie Suisse
» Pénurie de plongeur : l'armée engage !
» ORIGINE DU PARACHUTISME MILITAIRE
» Dernière acquisition
» pécule

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Royal Moroccan Armed Forces :: Armement et matériel militaire :: Autres Systemes d´armes-
Sauter vers: