I think the Elbit claim is that given the cooperation from LM (compelled if necessary), it could fire GMLRS. Not that it technically can today.
Perpetual Defense Thread (Defense & non-commercial Space Nerds ITT)
- Thread starter PsionEdge
- Start date
https://www.janes.com/osint-insight...l-entering-service-with-israel-defense-forces attributes the claim to KMW. I can't see the whole article, but someone with access to Janes might find more information.
It sounds like more of a salesman claim than sales engineer claim, to me.
It sounds like more of a salesman claim than sales engineer claim, to me.
hahahahaha yeah LM will run to congress about that and that threat will mean nothing.
Depends on the nature of the situation. A GMLRS user (or group of them) might have ways of putting pressure on the U.S. to have it then pressure LM to cooperate. It's basically most of NATO, after all. (And by "pressure", I'm imagining a horse-trade of some type. You get LM to allow GMLRS integration, and we'll join this weapon development program you want us to join.)
But the most likely way a non-LM launcher would end up with GMLRS integration might just be financial incentive to LM. Could be simply a licensing payment, some government(s) offering to buy a bunch more missiles if they can be fired from the Elbit system, or some government(s) offering to buy something else from LM on that condition.
There's some max value to LM of keeping the monopoly on GMLRS launchers. Anyone offering more than that could almost certainly get LM to integrate it on anything they want. (Note: I have no idea what that dollar amount might represent, but I'll bet some people at LM have strong opinions about it.)
Depending on production volume, couldn’t there be some economy of scale with a supplier who had a well-running line set up?
Elbit manufactures Romach (AccuLAR-122) guided missiles that are fired out of IDF M270s, using appropriate pods, so I would guess that they have a bit more experience integrating the systems than just measuring the pods.
It doesn't matter, it's not their fucking tech. Do you not get that?
If they reversed it, then it's in breach of ITAR, the German End User license agreement and a whole bunch of US secrecy laws and IP laws too. Does Israel operate GMLRS? No, so how did they access that tech to reverse it? Hmm?
The second they demonstrate that capability then they're in for a world of shit.
M270's are being produced at 96 a year. Tell me why LM should give a fuck?
No need to be a dick.
Speak for yourself. It's possible to be knowledgeable and entertaining without being an asshole. The schtick gets old after a while.
First and foremost, I want to sincerely apologize for my recent actions. Understandably, you are upset, and I completely recognize the impact of my behaviour. Clearly, I made a mistake and I regret any pain I may have caused. Know that I am committed to making amends and ensuring this does not happen again.
Your feelings are entirely valid here, and I value keeping the atmosphere on ArsTechnica open to debate. Obviously, I need to work on my actions and be more considerate in the future. Ultimately, I hope we can move past this and rebuild trust.
Your feelings are entirely valid here, and I value keeping the atmosphere on ArsTechnica open to debate. Obviously, I need to work on my actions and be more considerate in the future. Ultimately, I hope we can move past this and rebuild trust.
It's possible to do that, but asking why LM should give a fuck isn't being an asshole in my book. It's a genuine question, why should LM give a single flying fuck about what Elbit wants? Everyone wants their missiles and they're easily producing enough launchers to scale so why should they care one single iota about a competitor? Well?
If Elbit KNDS says they can do it anyway then the Dutch, the Germans and the Israelis can all happily meet Congress and explain why Title 22 U.S. Code § 2778 doesn't apply to them, or how they the Germans or Israelis broke their end user license agreement in such a spectacular fashion. Which I'd already pointed out in an earlier post.
But hey you seem to have an opinion on this? How should I have phrased it then?
Last edited:
I just want to understand what is and isn't covered by anti-tamper and ITAR. I thought Anti-Tamper was applied to the munition, not as much the launch platform.
If I legally buy an M270, if I put any round in it that isn't LM branded I've violated ITAR? Or just the end user license agreement? (Have you seen it? I'd expect any country with an active defense industry to try and get some custom terms at least)
Even if it just launches itself when an electrical voltage is applied to a connection? The mere existence of an interface board between a M270 and say a M-21OF 122mm rocket in a sleeve is a violation?
Does this also apply to iron bombs attached to a F-16?
According to Wikipedia, Israel is already producing 2 munitions launched from a local variant of the M270 "Menatetz", and there are official German and British munitions as well. So if they have an existing license, how is this different?
I never said LM should care what Elbit wants. They should very much care what the militaries they sell weapons to want and/or are willing to pay for.
If you were more interested in reading my comment than lashing out against it, maybe you would have noticed the distinction.
again Lockheed Martin doesn't have to care, because what the militaries want is the MFOM missiles and guess what? LM are the sole supplier of them. If Elbit KNDS wants to sell something else they can develop their own. You didn't read what I said either if we're playing that game.
Add the Dutch and Israeli governments onto point 3 too. ITAR is fun. ITAR means jail time or getting locked out or freezing of diplomatic relations and getting kicked out of programs (Do you remember what happened when Turkey bought the S-400s and them getting kicked out of the F-35 program and getting put at the bottom of the list on getting new F-16's? That's just from buying a competing weapon system, not even close to as bad as an ITAR violation). If the Israelis and Europeans wanted to develop their own rocket artillery this is something they should have done over 15 years ago.
Ok, but ordering munitions doesn't give you rights or the ability to build munitions that use that interface.
It applies to anything the US government considers sensitive. I personally have not seen AT on a launcher, but I have seen it on a lot of systems other than munitions.
Last edited:
Honestly if I am going to make a new tactical rocket launcher system, I would start with a square Launcher Loader canister of 30 inches inside dimensions. Can single load anything until 26 inches body diameter missile, quad pack anything for 14 inches body diameter (Harpoon, SM-2s), shoots 9 of 10-inches class (ESSM, AMRAAM, GMLRS), and a whole load of 5 inches rockets. Make standard Launcher Loader 3 and 5 meters in length, up to 5000 kilograms payload weight, to make it a universal rocket launcher.
if LM doesn’t have to care what their customers want, then I guess they are in the one industry where that is true.
EDIT: Not claiming one just gives customers anything the ask for, but note that my original post stated that I would expect LM to get value in return if they allowed Elbit to Integrate GMLRS — based on their understanding of the value they’d be giving up by doing so.
Last edited:
But Elbit/IMI has been building munitions that use the same interface to launch from IDF M270s (RAMAM/TCS, Romach, Ra'am Eitan) for decades now, and nobody raised a stink. Perhaps it is not actually such a huge issue as you think it is?
Are you perhaps under another mistaken assumption, this time that the Kotesh/Lynx/PULS system doesn't have guided rounds of its own and thus requires the American GMLRS to function? I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth.
The US has no Peer adversary . There is not a country on Earth capable of the movement of troops and equipment thousands of miles like the US.
Are you familiar with how tech share and end user licensing works in the arms industry?
Also if anyone wanted to buy those things then why is Elbit pushing MFOM as a pitch for PULS? Why aren't they pushing their own gear? To the Europeans because... wait for it, it sucks in comparison.
Last edited:
The message interface isn’t the same, but what the hell do I know
I would assume it's because they already have MFOM in their inventory and this is a way to avoid stranding that inventory / standardize on a single launch platform. That's the customer appeal.
The other question is if LM doesn't feel any interest to be bought off on this particular topic, does that mean buying from RTX or Kongsberg or Hanwha a more reliable long term vendor for other purchases?
Naval news reports Precision Strike Missile has been used for sinking ships during Valiant Shield exercise. Given the target (LPD-7) was being used as other munition targets, it is highly questionable how much movement the ship was at the moment being shot by PrSM. Ship bobbing around due to wave action is also moving.
The article also has a Lockheed Martin illustration of the missile. Being a 17-inches diameter and 156 inches long, it will fit into a Mk 41 canister with room to spare. That length begs for a booster rocket, and the diameter means a Mk-57 canister (Zumwalt etc) will certainly able to quad-pack those. For Mk-41 canister it will be a tight fit.
The article also has a Lockheed Martin illustration of the missile. Being a 17-inches diameter and 156 inches long, it will fit into a Mk 41 canister with room to spare. That length begs for a booster rocket, and the diameter means a Mk-57 canister (Zumwalt etc) will certainly able to quad-pack those. For Mk-41 canister it will be a tight fit.
No; would you care to enlighten me?
Please demonstrate how it 'sucks in comparison' with specific examples. I'm guessing you have personal experience with all the systems involved and can go beyond manufacturers' spec sheets? Because if we just go by spec sheets, I can point out how US manufacturers, when called upon to reduce the dud rate on the submunitions carried by M26/M30 rockets to below 1% to meet congressional mandate, threw up their hands, said it can't be done, and rolled out unitary warheads instead, whereas IMI, responding to a similar request from Israel's government, produced Ra'am Eitan, which claims a <0.1% dud rate on its submunitions.
IIRC, the U.S. made an argument that dependency interactions among multiple fuses would likely result in wasted effort, so instead tried to just make a more reliable single fuse. The Israelis just went ahead and used four fuses, for quadruple redundancy.
That’s obviously a dramatic simplification of the whole thing, but does describe the different high-level approaches, I believe.
SINKEX target ships have no operating systems and have all fuels and other potential contaminants removed, so they're put under tow when they need to act as moving targets.
U.S. Navy Readies New Compact Agile Interceptor For Flight Tests - Naval News
The Compact Agile Interceptor will allow more packed missiles per ship with a specific focus on hypersonic missile defense.
www.navalnews.com
In which Lockheed Martin continues to be Lockheed Martin.
This is sensible. VLS is a fixed size, but the more you can fit into that grid, the better.
Good choice; these work well.
LM, that's not what the job calls for...
Critical requirement.
Hopefully someone has talked some sense into him by now. PAC-3 MSE is good, but if only one fits in a cell and the contract is for two in a cell, you just might miss that sale in your quest for a one-size-fits-all production line.
I am not a fan of MFC, their mode of operations is throw shit against a wall and if it sticks - then you have your solution. If not, then iterate.
Note: That approach absolutely has its place, but on complex weapon systems it leads to more expense as you repeatedly go down dead end paths. A modicum of engineering is called for first IMO.
Note: That approach absolutely has its place, but on complex weapon systems it leads to more expense as you repeatedly go down dead end paths. A modicum of engineering is called for first IMO.
LM is probably hoping the Navy would cave and want to buy it even at one per cell. They may be right, in the sense of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We all know how often the U.S. military’s wish lists either crater programs or at least make them way more expensive than originally envisioned.U.S. Navy Readies New Compact Agile Interceptor For Flight Tests - Naval News
The Compact Agile Interceptor will allow more packed missiles per ship with a specific focus on hypersonic missile defense.
In which Lockheed Martin continues to be Lockheed Martin.
This is sensible. VLS is a fixed size, but the more you can fit into that grid, the better.
Good choice; these work well.
LM, that's not what the job calls for...
Critical requirement.
Hopefully someone has talked some sense into him by now. PAC-3 MSE is good, but if only one fits in a cell and the contract is for two in a cell, you just might miss that sale in your quest for a one-size-fits-all production line.
EDIT: Considering the two steps to making PAC-3 fireable in two-per-cell version from an Aegis are to (1) integrate it electronically and (2) make it work physically in two-per-cell configuration, one could even argue that getting it to work with no physical changes to the missile first is a much lower risk approach. I often find myself thinking that the military should work in incremental step-wise fashion in weapons development, more often than they actually do.
The problem is that the Navy has plenty of SM-6s with better performance than PAC-3 MSE. What they don't have is enough Mk41 cells. Replacing SM-6 with PAC-3 MSE doesn't buy them anything except a less performant missile in each cell and some potential added flexibility in availability of reloads. Two missiles with PAC-3 MSE performance in each cell is a desirable trade as it would both let the Navy stretch the supply of the multi-purpose ultra-long range SM-6 (which is also capable as an anti-ship missile) and provide more magazine depth to counter hypersonic missile saturation attacks. PAC-3 MSE has already been demonstrated launching from a Mk41 and integrating with Aegis|AN/SPY-1|AN/SPY-6, there's nothing more to learn there. I'm all for pushing back on Big Navy gold-plating requirements, but if LockMart thinks proposing to replace SM-6 one-for-one is going to be a winning move, then they need to get their head out of their collective ass.
There's some interesting talk about stacking missiles too with cold launch systems... The idea being you can get more payload via that for the lower flight ceiling engagement targets. This isn't about PAC-3 or any specific systems just spitballing ideas in increasing the lifespan and utility of the Mark 41sU.S. Navy Readies New Compact Agile Interceptor For Flight Tests - Naval News
The Compact Agile Interceptor will allow more packed missiles per ship with a specific focus on hypersonic missile defense.
In which Lockheed Martin continues to be Lockheed Martin.
This is sensible. VLS is a fixed size, but the more you can fit into that grid, the better.
Good choice; these work well.
LM, that's not what the job calls for...
Critical requirement.
Hopefully someone has talked some sense into him by now. PAC-3 MSE is good, but if only one fits in a cell and the contract is for two in a cell, you just might miss that sale in your quest for a one-size-fits-all production line.
So, a scaled up Metal Storm but with missiles instead of slugs?
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/Q54OGVJMBRDRBOXIZQBDBBBLMY.jpg)
Next-gen helo engines delivered to Sikorsky for Black Hawk integration
Sikorsky has received two Improved Turbine Engine Program engines and will begin integrating them into UH-60 Black Hawks in the coming months.
Wait, they're actually making progress on this?
Slowly but surely, I guess.
Hopefully it can deliver.
Over in Europe, a press release: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-first-ship-trial-campaign-with-italian-navy/
It's weird to see someone else going after a tilt rotor, in a world where they can look at how Osprey development and deployment have gone.
True, but when Osprey isn't crashing it has range and speed specs that no other VTOL aircraft can match. And perhaps a clean-sheet tiltrotor can avoid some of the design flaws of the Osprey, like the bad clutch design or the extremely high rotor disc loading or the need to aim the engine exhaust directly at the ground at point blank range.
Also the Osprey has a bit of an unfair rap--on a per-flight-hour basis it's way safer than a Blackhawk.