tema oficial de tecnologí­a militar

Iniciado por ghostdog, Marzo 01, 2006, 09:21:33 PM

Tema anterior - Siguiente tema

Dan

No tienen más que comprar a alguien que tenga por ahí experiencia en frío y moles de éstas... No sé, T-90 o, puestos a pedir, T-14.

PP2000

Lo mejor para el yelo es la turbina de los T-80, a lo que cuentan...

PP2000



Hay un Documento de Requisitos Operativos del Mando de Alto Nivel (HLCORD) durante el Salón Aeronáutico de Berlín entre Francia y Alemania. Para cuando pudiera unirse España a la movida, sus rollos deberá llevarlos en pods y tragar con todos los suministros gabachos alternativos (nada nuevo para indra o tecnobit, en el F-18A/C, por otra parte)... no obstante hasta los boches se tientan el armazón. Tom Enders, CEO de Airbus, para Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "será un éxito si no dejamos que los gobiernos interfieran con sus demandas de uso de proveedores y ubicaciones específicas en ciertos países".

PP2000

#783
Russia announced earlier this month that the Su-57, its proposed entry into the world of fifth-generation stealth-fighter aircraft, would not see mass production que pasan de pringar pasta en una versión gitana del F-22 ahora que es evidente donde no se van a ganar las batallas, ...evidente sobre todo por lo mostrado en Siria y NK por ellos mismos, mucha prisa no tendrían -jugando con dos barajas- pues en montarle a la cadena de producción... decía, no se, hace seis o siete años-.



https://www.businessinsider.es/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7

PP2000

Resumen para hippies: El cazabombardero tripulado de baja (pero suicida) visibilidad es a la III Guerra Mundial lo que los acorazados de bolsillo nancis (o, igual da más tochos de la historia japos) a la II: una preciosidad para maquetistas y una nimiedad tácticamente hablando.

PP2000


PP2000

L3, un nuevo gallo en el gallinero milikotecnólogo yanki... ¿porqué nace caballo ganador en tiempos de enemigos ayer amigos?, escuchemos a su CEO:

WASHINGTON - Defense News ― When Chris Kubasik took the helm of L3 Technologies, you might say it was a corporation from a traditional and perhaps fading era of defense contractors: buttoned up, decentralized, even a bit bureaucratic. But as defense customers shift how they buy, so must companies shift how they sell.

[...]speak about the transition underway, and his grand plans to become the industry's sixth prime.


You've been on the job about six months. What did you realize needed to change at the company as you took on this opportunity?

The main thing that I wanted to change was to evolve from more of a holding company to an operating company. The first 20 years we were quite successful growing mainly as a result of over 130 acquisitions. But as our strategy became to be a nontraditional sixth prime, we needed to be better integrated, more collaborative and more innovative. And that's the plan that we laid out internally and externally. It's really a transformation of the company. [The year] 2018 is the focus on integration, common systems, policies and procedures ― and ultimately a more cost-effective organizational structure.

You have been at various companies including Lockheed Martin. What did you take from those and bring into this position to infuse into the company?

I take a little bit from everyone, all the leaders that I've either worked with or worked for. First and foremost, you set up a strategy, which we've done. I talk a lot about differentiation. What's going to be different about L3 compared to the market we're in? We're in a market where you hear things like "too big to be small" and "too small to be big." Whatever. We are what we are. How do we advance this company?

Then you try to tell that story, you try to build the company that aligns with those values and beliefs. I want fewer layers of management — I want more accountability and I encourage people to make decisions. I try to be accessible 24/7 and to make quick decisions, and I think that's appreciated.

Change can make some people uncomfortable.

Absolutely. But it's not that big of a deal because it's a 20-year-old company. It's time for the next generation. Lay it out and more people than not have stepped up and said: "I've always wanted this."

We decided to do our first corporatewide employee survey in 20 years. Over 80 percent of our employees responded to the survey. One of the most significant finding is the employee engagement. Our employee engagement score was above industry average. The employees have a sense of purpose, they like their job, they work extra hours. They refer a friend, they believe in the mission and the strategy.

How does the structure of the company then shift how you deliver solutions?

That goes to collaboration. We [offer] incredible technologies, incredible capabilities. And the biggest challenge for anyone within L3 was knowing what all the different capabilities were. We've made a concerted effort to bundle our capabilities and take them to the customers internationally and domestically as L3. In many cases our customers are the five primes, but a fair amount of our work is directed to the end user. The recent example is the Canadian surface combatant [won by a team of L3 and five other companies], where we had ultimately eight different divisions of L3 come together, with one taking the lead and presenting an all-inclusive solution.

So was the company positioned in such a way to really be able to fully take advantage of that type of opportunity before?

It used to be each of the divisions would have their own strategy and pursue their own growth. And many times one or two would sign an exclusive agreement with an [original equipment manufacturer]. By changing that strategy and talking about collaboration up the food chain, everybody embraced the idea of working together. So I think it was change of leadership, change of strategy and change of expectations.

In terms of that kind of a bundling tactic — you succeed together, but does it not introduce risk that you collectively could miss out on opportunities entirely? Fail together, so to speak?

The first part of growing is identifying all the opportunities, so I think we're doing a better job of opening the aperture and seeing what's out there. And then we work collaboratively to see what makes the most sense. In the Canadian example, we actually had nine different divisions working together, all or nothing. Then we compromised it to eight out of nine in that example, which is still better than one or two.

It's working. I'm equally looking at how we're organized and if we have all the right pieces in the right buckets. Again, the goal in this case is for top-line synergies. And I'm pleased with the way people are working collaboratively. But it's even easier if they're in the same organization. So there may be some minor movements in portfolio to make them better aligned.

Anything you could talk about ― next steps of the changes that we might see?

I don't want to get ahead of things. But as the markets change and capabilities change, it would be unusual to not naturally move some things around.

I know you've had an eye on buying. What is the merger and acquisition strategy for L3 right now?

I believe we've differentiated ourselves from the industry by being one of the first to say that we're going to use our free cash flow to grow inorganically, to make acquisitions. There seems to be a preference by most companies to do share repurchases. And while we must do a minimal amount of those to absorb share creep, every day we wake up thinking we're going to grow, and in 2017 we made acquisitions of varying sizes and varying markets in varying parts of the world.

As of today in June, we haven't made any [acquisitions in 2018]. But it's not for a lack of looking. I'm confident by the second half of the year we'll have a couple transactions that we'll close. We look at them on a variety of fronts. In several cases after discussions with our customers and looking at the National Defense Strategy, we're looking for different technologies and capabilities.

The best example of that were three acquisitions made to basically stand up from scratch an unmanned undersea vehicle capability. It aligns with the customers' needs in the U.S. and around the world. And instead of spending our own R&D taking several years to develop all these, we thought to acquire these three relatively new startups.

What was the total value?

I have not said. But I'm happy to say in aggregate they were about $100 million. Clearly our strategy would be analogous to the UAV market 20 years ago. And we think it will accelerate more quickly because the customer and the world is accepting of autonomous air vehicles. I don't think it's going to take 20 years for the UUV market to get to where the UAV market is. We're at the forefront. And the nice thing is that it aligns with customers — it aligns with some of the threats and customer desires. This is an example of being the prime, dealing directly in this case with the U.S. Navy, but [also] other navies around the world. And it complements larger platforms from others.

So through these acquisitions you will be able to put together complete undersea, unmanned platforms for the Navy, correct?

Correct. One acquisition was to get the actual vehicle itself — a commercial vehicle knowns as the Ivers, which they had sold several hundred of commercially. We had an MIT spinoff that has the power systems — a unique power system that replaces the [lithium] batteries, [which bring high] risk of fire and [low] duration.

The Iver is a commercially developed autonomous underwater vehicle. (L3 OceanServer)
So our solution is nonflammable, and equally, or maybe more importantly, can extend the duration of the mission significantly depending on the depth and the size of the vehicle Ivers, anywhere from five to 10 times, which is incredibly significant. The third one adds some sensors and system engineering capabilities.

We're very close to bidding on opportunities here in the U.S. and to start to generate some significant revenues.

Which programs? I know DARPA does quite a bit on the R&D side in terms of undersea unmanned, but what kind of programs are you targeting with this for now?

The Marines have an opportunity now that we're currently evaluating, and on my international travels we've had discussions with Japan, Singapore and Taiwan for the early stages [of programs]. And then there's variations and investments we'll continue to make for these to be launched from torpedo tubes. So we're early in the process, but it's exciting. Clearly they are not accretive in year one or two, but they have the potential to be significant needle movers.

But most of the [focus for] acquisitions has been on electronics and sensors. Those are our high-growth segments with good margins. And we talk internally about earning the right to grow. So as entities are well-run and fixed and generating cash we try to give them priority over other segments, which still have organic challenges.

You've been quoted as saying you are looking for a big buy. Is that true?


We want for the foreseeable future to protect our investment-grade credit rating. And given the cash on hand, which is soon to include at least $400 million after taxes from the Vertex sale, and the cash we generate, we can easily do $1 billion a year of acquisition without impacting the credit rating.

We seem to be doing $100-$200 million [deals]. I'm fine doing five $200 million deals, and equally as happy to do two $500 million deals. And if there was a $1 billion deal, I would not be adverse because it takes the same amount of time and effort to do each deal. We don't have a limitation. We look at our strategy, we go out and find things to fill the gaps. If there was one for a billion and it made sense financially, we would absolutely do it.

All of this I imagine contributes to that goal of becoming the sixth prime. How do you define the sixth prime? Is it purely revenue-based or does it factor into how you sell?

Great question. Historically when we were first formed we were a merchant supplier. What we're looking for [today] is dealing directly — selling directly to the customer, which doesn't necessarily equate to large platform. So that is the relationship, intimacy with the customer.

I do not envision a scenario where we're building multibillion-dollar satellites, airplanes and ships. But we can better connect those, we can have smaller offerings or platforms like a UUV, UAV, maybe a small satellite that works and complements the larger system. So that's my definition of prime.

For example, take the Enhanced Night Vision Goggles for the Army. We're a prime. We deal directly with the Army. These are obviously enhanced, lighter-weight, better capability. We have made significant investments over the years. It's white phosphor, which means when you turn out the lights and put them on it's the same as what we see sitting here, compared to the green that you see from the older technology.

So as a team, thanks to Army leadership and our commitment, we were able to sit side by side in an alpha contracting-type environment and negotiate this in a fraction of the time that a traditional acquisition would have taken. We negotiated a fair deal, and we're now under contract for 10,000 ENVGs. And in that process the Marines joined in and got 3,000. A $391 million contract — that's an example where we're a prime.

Can you give me an update on where Compass Call stands?

Compass Call is going well. The proposed language in [the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act] requires a relook at the acquisition strategy, [while also] accelerating the aircraft purchase, so we're pleased. We were never asked to stop work. We're progressing. And again, consistent with the customer desires to have business jets as an alternative platform, we were able to adapt technologies.

We got through the protest process, and now it's in everyone's best interest to buy more airplanes quicker. Get the capability that you need and cheaper; so far so good.

Looking internationally, what kind of opportunities do you see and how does that play into your strategy for L3 and for growth?


Given our size, we have to monitor our resources, but we've identified 10 countries [to focus on] — a couple have been in the Middle East, also in the Far East. And a lot of what we are doing in Europe is partnerships. We work in a complementary manner, and we are not direct competitors with many or most of the European industry. In the U.K., specifically with BAE [Systems], the Canadian surface combatant is an example. We [will provide] various systems, predominantly communications.

Are you getting any apprehension, skepticism globally considering some tensions between the Trump administration and NATO, the threat of tariffs, and so forth?

I think in the Middle East we're very welcome a la OTAN que le den por culo, un pudridero de pasta sin retorno que habilita a Alemania a no gastar un euro en Defensa mientras tiene un I+D tres veces mas cachas en IA, Energía y comms, no por inversión, sino, por, más real y efectivo, científicos e ingenieros envueltos que USA entera; they view the current administration in a positive light. When I was in Japan it was at the same time President Trump happened to be in Japan. I think they appreciate the president and the administration and our presence. So I haven't really seen anything other than positives.

And do you think there should be a space corps?

I don't know the answer to that one.

PP2000

#787
...hicieron falta doce misiles antibuque y un torpedo para enviar la embarcación al fondo del Pacífico. De hecho lo hundió el torpedo... que el barco esta bien parido, conociendo las viejas y robustas navship rules yanquis quien lo duda, pero, para que engañarnos, si no te conformas con deshabilitarlo, aunque sea chinorri-cartónpiedra, si quieres partirlo por la quilla, cojones tírale un par de bombas de 500 kg al arrufo (o en su defecto un par de obuses de 155 mm en la toldilla)...

Vídeo dentro:
https://mundo.sputniknews.com/defensa/201807171080486645-video-viral-disparan-muchos-misiles-para-hundir-barco/

PP2000

#788
https://defpost.com/everything-you-need-know-about-russia-six-new-super-weapons/
Tienen una pinta de ser unos pseudo-fakes de tres paaares de cojones... pero por otra parte las instalaciones ruskis son así de cutres desde el año del jen jis kan, de modo que a saber (dada mi especialización de cuando me licencié, especial cariño a ponerle propulsión nuclear -reactores tipo bolas de billar- a UUVs y -jets isotópicos de aire calentado a dos mil grados en una matriz porosa parte de mismo reactor- a misiles de crucero).

k98k



Cachamba, cachamba y fresa, cachamba y cochino frito

PP2000

Jode, que preciosidad, que envidia y que de todo... ojocuidao, que acabo de ser consciente de que ni un lanchón tengo diseñado que navegur, ...el único artefacto de cuyo proyecto he sido jefe -por ausencia de- no es, snif, autopropulsado, pero navega y opera y labora (aunque los maricas FCC le hicieron después de estar en dos o tres obras, una reforma integral, proyecto de SENER, que, vaya, yo había demostrado fehacientemente, a su entrega -por eso pudo operar, claro,, que no era necesaria, que no había vicio oculto -aquí yo ya apuntaba maneras-, que me echaran abogados -que me los echaron, a un vicepresidente y su cohorte y yo sólo sonriendo mucho..., ya puestos a cabrearse, fue a cambio de despedir, de Koplowtiz chirigota, fulminantemente a un ing aeroanaútico a sur 53 tacos, su director de proyectos especiales, y uno naval junior, 28?, su jefe se obra, mientras yo silbaba):

...con ustedes el Mar del Aneto, para la FCC de 2003, el Mal del Aneto:

PP2000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgAaNAcFPo

Tenía un comportamiento tan sorprendente cuando el agua dejaba de dar superficie libre en toda la caja inferior, mojando solo las cuatro secciones de los pilares esos esbeltos que sirven... básicamente porque con un poco de viento y escorando un pelo volvía a mojar la cubierta (SENER le puso francobordos abatibles, total cuatro duros)... que no servían la mitad de los SW de cálculo de estabilidad del mundo para calcular la estabilidad dinámica (yo me escribí un desarrollo de Taylor en una Excel y a tomar por culo tanto Maxsurf tanta polla)... ni siquiera los SW especiales para catamaranes chutaban (esto es esencialmente un tetramarán que moja la quilla dado la vuelta).... y, claro, el análisis estático tampoco, de donde los polvos y los lodos.


Math powa'!

PP2000

Y que es tecnología militar porque un día abrá que hacer una pista para los Galaxy aussies y los A400s francopololos en algun islote filipino a medio camino de las Spratley para cerrar el Mar de China y eso no se hace tirando bloques de hormigón desde el Galicia y el Castilla.

[vimeo]https://vimeo.com/78824163[/vimeo]

PP2000

Según lo de arriba he sido jefe de proyectos de un buque cojonero... me gusta, y segun li de abajo FCC les ha dado un toque a los de la Asoc de Ing de Caminos, que menos broma con la peseta (de Bing):

Diques flotantes | ingeniero de caminos / https://ingeniero-de-caminos.com/diques-flotantes

La eficiencia estructural de un dique flotante se reduce al ... , con surtida información sobre los diques flotantes del Mar del Aneto y del mar
...
...y vas a entrar y hay un 404 Non Found muy autoexplicativo

PP2000

Tras más de un año de planificación, este 10 de Agosto, el binomio empresarial de Navantia y Saab Australia presentó su oferta final (un barco más bonito que un sanluís*) al gobierno canadiense para la construcción de 15 fragatas (¡15!, el proyecto un 20% de todo, y todo es 15*800 millones de euros griegos) para la marina del gigante norteamericano. Han sido tres (3, empezaron 9, pero los coreanos, alemanes, italianos, franceses y hasta diseñadores norteamericanos, les han mandado un poco a tomar por culo visto lo mucho que preguntaban, las pocas garantías de que no fuera una ToT by the face, y los mecanismos compensatorios y de garantías, que igual cobras 1 por el diseño, y pagas 3 por defecto oculto, sea tuyo el problema o de la novatada canadiense, que es quien construyes) las corporaciones que han alcanzado este punto tras dos años de pugna: la compañía pública nacional y su aliada oceánica, el trío compuesto por Alion, Damen y Atlas y, por supuesto, la británica BAE Systems en colaboración con Lockheed Martin Canadá.

El proyecto presentado por Navantia está basado en las naves de la clase F-105 utilizadas por la Armada Española, además de Noruega (discutible, éstas son más nanas, muy cucas) y Australia. El contrato, no obstante, estaría realizado por el astillero local Irving Shipbuilding –con base en Halifax (Nueva Escocia)–, por lo que, al igual que el proyecto de las F-110 australianas, se trataría mayormente de una labor de diseño (y comerse marrones).

El problema, sin embargo, viene por las grandes influencias actuales en la esfera sociopolítica internacional. Al igual que el contrato oceánico, este beneficioso trabajo podría verse truncado por factores que nada tienen que ver con las especificaciones de los buques o las diferentes cuantías económicas.

"Tensión en la Commonwealth"
La situación actual dentro de la gran alianza de naciones anglosajonas bajo el manto británico no es ningún secreto. La creciente certeza de un Brexit duro por parte de Inglaterra, el progresivo distanciamiento de Nueva Zelanda del grupo y las renovadas tensiones entre Canadá y Arabia Saudita a causa de las continuas violaciones de derechos humanos por esta última, han generado un gran clima de tensión que bien podría afectar a los contratos. A esto habría que sumar el constante pulso entre el Gobierno estadounidense con los Ejecutivos europeos en cuestión de tasas y con su vecino del norte por sus generosas políticas migratorias.
Este caldo de cultivo geopolítico podría desencadenar ciertas reacciones ante las que Navantia poco podría hacer. En el peor de los casos puede repetirse el escenario australiano, con una adjudicación a BAE Systems como favor político hacia Inglaterra, permitiendo a la primera ministra Theresa May mantener el argumento de que el Brexit será económicamente beneficioso para su país. No obstante, las estrechas relaciones de Londres con Riad podrían ejercer una gran influencia en la decisión. Pese a los esfuerzos de Mohámed bin Salmán –hijo del actual rey de Arabia Saudí y ministro de Defensa–, de acercar el país musulmán al mundo occidental, los últimos movimientos de este –como la venta de todos sus activos canadienses, la publicación de un amenazante tuit o la expulsión del embajador en el reino–, podrían actuar en detrimento de BAE Systems (los huevos, BAe se ha comido el sapo de embarcar sistema de combate sueco, justo es que ofertamos, ups!, y antenas australianas, justo las que ofertamos, ups!, para la oferta ganadora en Australia, ...y el aliado natural para Australia de esta apuesta industrial es Canadá, y ahora que Australia ha tomado partido, fijo que Canadá se apunta a una movida ligeramente distinta porque, qué demonios, la F-105 navega, los riesgos técnicos frente al barco de papel son menores... ya, claro, turutú!.

"Apuesta europea"
El otro posible escenario, más beneficioso para Navantia, partiría de la intención de Canadá de estrechar lazos con la Unión Europea tras los últimos encontronazos entre Justin Trudeau y Donald Trump. El presidente estadounidente ha criticado duramente a Europa por su baja inversión económica en materia de defensa, llegando a calificar al primer ministro vecino –mucho más afín al viejo continente– de débil y falso. Estas posiciones antagónicas podrían desencadenar una apuesta puramente europeísta, lo que concretizaría la carera entre el trío formado por Alion, Damen y Atlas y la alianza de Navantia y Saab Australia.
La situación es única para ambas partes. La primera cuenta con la ventaja de que una de las tres compañías, Alion Canadá, es local –pese a que la matriz es estadounidense–, y las otras dos son holandesa y griega respectivamente. La segunda, Navantia y Saab, gozan del privilegio de aunar dos compañías de raíces europeas –Suecia y España– con importantes bases oceánicas, lo cual permitiría apoyar a dos de sus mayores aliados. (Qué cojones aliados, y la puta guerra del fletán, nadie se acuerda de la guerra del fletán).

"Una decisión técnica"
El último escenario posible sería el de una adjudicación basada únicamente en criterios tecnológicos. A pesar de la gran tensión entre las principales potencias, lo cierto es que el Gobierno canadiense lleva preparando este contrato durante mucho tiempo.
De acuerdo con el diario Chronicle Herald, el ejecutivo americano está utilizando un nuevo sistema mediante el cual la lista de candidatos se ha ido reduciendo, dando tiempo a los restantes a perfilar sus propuestas.
Teniendo en cuenta que Canadá no se caracteriza por tomar esta clase de decisiones a la ligera, no sería de extrañar que Justin Trudeau se inclinase por la mejor oferta. Al fin y al cabo tiene en la actualidad muchos otros frentes que atender. (Esto está sacado del diario de Ferrol, ósea que ya sabeis de que va el último párrafo).