Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta RAND Corp.. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta RAND Corp.. Mostrar todas las entradas

miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2018

Missile Defense: ¿Why should an army wait a year to get end-use parts that It could be 3D-Printed?


Defense companies are using Additive Manufacturing more often today to build parts for weapons: Aerojet Rocketdyne is using the technology to build rocket engines, Huntington Ingalls is using it to build warships and Boeing is 3D printing parts for its commercial, defense, and space products. “In particular, rapid prototyping, along with the creation of highly specific and technical parts are orders of magnitude faster and cheaper than traditional manufacturing methods,” said a recently released RAND report. 

Someday, the military will 3D-print missiles as needed, the U.S. Air Force’s acquisition chief says. In the shorter term, he just wants to use Additive Manufacturing Technology to get broken planes back in the air. The roadblock is legal, not technical: “I have airplanes right now that are waiting on parts that are taking a year and a half to deliver. A year and a half,” Will Roper, the assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in an interview.

The Air Force is already 3D-printing niche projects whose original suppliers no longer exist. The problem is with parts whose manufacturers are still around, but which no longer make the specific item in need. Today’s 3D-printers could make short work of those deliveries, but some of those parts’ original manufacturers control the intellectual property —and so far, the service lacks clear policy for dealing with that: “The reason I can’t say we’re going to do it is we’re talking about government contracts and IP, so I have lawyers that are helping me and other contracts folks,” Roper said. “But it’s an area I’m going to stay focused because I see a way for win-win. And that doesn’t happen often in the government.”

viernes, 12 de diciembre de 2014

ICBM Modernization: Challenges and Opportunities


A 2014 RAND Corp. study found that sustaining the current Minuteman III force with gradual upgrades is a relatively inexpensive way to retain current ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Missile) capabilities. The study also found that a new ICBM system would likely cost two to three times as much as incremental modernization and sustainment of the current ICBM system.


One constraint on the lifespan of the current system is the declining quantity of missile bodies due to required annual test launches. The Air Force conducts three tests per year, and the ICBM system program office has recommended increasing that to four times annually. It means a force of 420 operational ICBMs is not sustainable beyond 2030 without new units and the entire missile asset will be depleted by 2135, RAND said.

domingo, 23 de febrero de 2014

The Future of the US ICBM Force



Contents: Roles of Strategic Nuclear Forces - A Framework for ICBM Design Decisions - ICBM Basing - Effectiveness and Lethality - The Cost of ICBM Alternatives

Download here:

viernes, 16 de agosto de 2013

North Korean missiles likely fake

Government experts and independent researchers say North Korean missiles that were paraded in Pyongyang in late July are "almost certainly" fake.


NBC News space and missile expert James Oberg, who witnessed North Korea's failed Unha-3 rocket launch in April 2012, pointed to the "undulating skin" seen on a warhead as evidence that it was bogus.


The skin on that part of a long-range missile needs to be very smooth to prevent turbulence and also to keep the missile on course, Oberg said. Furthermore, no evidence of crucial "retro rockets" was seen on the Hwasong-13, according to aerospace engineer and former RAND Corp. military analyst Markus SchillerRetro rockets are necessary for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) like the Hwasong to reach altitudes needed to strike far-off targets, NBC reports.