12 days ago
By Joe Brock
FARNBOROUGH, England, July 20 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin announced a lower-cost Patriot interceptor on Monday as militaries seek cheaper ways to counter drones and missiles, while defense contractors face competition from startups making low-cost weapons that can be produced at scale.
Lockheed said its new PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or ACE, missile would cost less than half as much as its PAC-3 MSE interceptors, which cost roughly $4 million per missile, according to U.S. Army budget documents.
Initial production could start within 36 months, the company said, adding that it plans to develop and manufacture the weapon with U.S. and European industry partners.
"American and allied warfighters need a solution that is battle-tested and budget-smart," Tim Cahill, president of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said in a statement at Britain's Farnborough Airshow.
FARNBOROUGH, England, July 20 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin announced a lower-cost Patriot interceptor on Monday as militaries seek cheaper ways to counter drones and missiles, while defense contractors face competition from startups making low-cost weapons that can be produced at scale.
Lockheed said its new PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector, or ACE, missile would cost less than half as much as its PAC-3 MSE interceptors, which cost roughly $4 million per missile, according to U.S. Army budget documents.
Initial production could start within 36 months, the company said, adding that it plans to develop and manufacture the weapon with U.S. and European industry partners.
"American and allied warfighters need a solution that is battle-tested and budget-smart," Tim Cahill, president of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said in a statement at Britain's Farnborough Airshow.
1 month ago
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that "an agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice." This week, the Court held that a government-ordered **** ysis of cellphone location data qualifies as a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.
In both cases, Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with the result but wrote separately to highlight deeper issues that the majority did not address: the Supreme Court's endorsement of coercive plea bargaining and its embrace of two dubious Fourth Amendment doctrines. Gorsuch's opinions, which criticize precedents that have undermined civil liberties, illustrate his talent for identifying wrong turns that his colleagues are not yet ready to acknowledge.
The first case involved Munson P. Hunter III, who was sentenced to four years in federal prison after pleading guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud. His sentence also included a requirement that he undergo psychiatric treatment after his release and "take all mental health medications" prescribed for him.
Hunter objected to the latter condition, saying it violated his "constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs." But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said he was not allowed to raise that issue because he had given up his right to contest any aspect of his sentence, as federal defendants usually do when they plead guilty.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying Hunter should be allowed to argue that forced medication qualifies as a "miscarriage of justice" because it is unconstitutional. Gorsuch concurred, noting that an appeal waiver can hardly be considered "knowing and voluntary" when the defendant does not yet know the details of his sentence.
In both cases, Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with the result but wrote separately to highlight deeper issues that the majority did not address: the Supreme Court's endorsement of coercive plea bargaining and its embrace of two dubious Fourth Amendment doctrines. Gorsuch's opinions, which criticize precedents that have undermined civil liberties, illustrate his talent for identifying wrong turns that his colleagues are not yet ready to acknowledge.
The first case involved Munson P. Hunter III, who was sentenced to four years in federal prison after pleading guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud. His sentence also included a requirement that he undergo psychiatric treatment after his release and "take all mental health medications" prescribed for him.
Hunter objected to the latter condition, saying it violated his "constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs." But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said he was not allowed to raise that issue because he had given up his right to contest any aspect of his sentence, as federal defendants usually do when they plead guilty.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying Hunter should be allowed to argue that forced medication qualifies as a "miscarriage of justice" because it is unconstitutional. Gorsuch concurred, noting that an appeal waiver can hardly be considered "knowing and voluntary" when the defendant does not yet know the details of his sentence.
