The linear organization operating in exponential world won't survive.
Sebastien Roblin Security, Asia And cement a strong partnership with America. On June 19, Lockheed Martin announced in advance of a U.S. visit by Indian prime minister Narendra Modi that it had reached a joint-venture agreement with Tata Advanced Systems to move its F-16 production line to India. This deal would be contingent on the Indian Air Force selecting the F-16 to fulfill a new requirement for one hundred to 250 new single-engine fighters, which could total up to $13 to $15 billion. If the agreement does come through—the major competitor remains the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen E fighter—then India would become the exclusive producer of an advanced new Block 70 variant of the iconic fighter jet, and might also export the type to countries such as Bahrain, Colombia and Indonesia. Entering service in 1978, the F-16 Fighting Falcon—now popularly known as the Viper—is a lightweight, short-range multirole fighter renowned for its agility. More than three thousand of the type will serve in the air forces of twenty-seven countries this year. The Viper has seen plenty of action over the decades, and is credited with shooting down seventy-six aircraft in air-to-air combat in exchange for one or two losses by one count. While there are larger twin-engine fighter jets like the F-15 Eagle that can go faster and farther and carry heavier combat loads, the Viper is more maneuverable and can still perform the majority of combat missions just as well at a lower price. For example, by one accounting an F-16 costs $22,000 per flight hour, compared to $42,000 for the F-15. India previously turned down the F-16 for its medium-fighter competition in favor of a small order for thirty-six French Rafale fighters. Let’s take a look at why the new proposed joint venture could mark a dramatic turnabout for the world’s second most populous nation. This would be the first U.S.-designed jet fighter to enter Indian service. India has a large fleet of aging and accident-prone MiG-21 and MiG-27 jet fighters that will soon be leaving service. New domestically built Tejas light fighters have consistently disappointed with their subpar performance, and thus are not being considered as a full replacement for the MiGs. Read full article
Finding a dog who fits your lifestyle is crucial. And if you're the outdoorsy type, you'll need a pup who can keep up. Here are the best dog breeds for you.
F-35 UNLEASHED: The Paris display may not silence the critics, but it certainly changed the conversa…
F-35 UNLEASHED: The Paris display may not silence the critics, but it certainly changed the conversation. Lockheed test pilot Billie Flynn, who flew the much-anticipated F-35 aerial demonstration at the Paris Air Show, showcased the capabilities of the controversial new fighter in a way that has never before been seen. The F-35’s slow-speed maneuverability and […]
News this week that Uber’s CEO was stepping down likely was not a surprise to those who have been following the company in the headlines. In our work over many years, we have learned enough to know that you have to be on the inside of any company to have the full picture of what went wrong and how. But we do know from our research that rapidly growing companies — especially unicorns like Uber — face a high risk of stumbling. As a business term, “unicorn” was coined to describe a rarity: In 2011 there were just 28 early-stage companies, still privately owned, with investment valuations of $1 billion or more. Today there are more than 200 unicorns, with a total value estimated by CB Insights at almost $700 billion. Uber is one of them: Its valuation rose to a record-setting $68 billion just seven years after its founding, despite reporting losses of more than $700 million in the first quarter of this year. But when we tracked those 28 unicorns (along with 11 similar companies with valuations of $600 million or more) over the period from 2011 to the present, we found that 33% failed to grow at all and another 28% grew less than expected. Nearly two in three died or stumbled. Unicorns and near-unicorns actually are much more prone to self-induced internal breakdowns than they are vulnerable to adverse events in the marketplace. And they’re not alone. One of the hardest acts in business is scaling a business rapidly and profitably. Bain’s research concludes that of all new businesses registered in the U.S., only about one in 500 will reach a size of $100 million — and a mere one in 17,000 will attain $500 million in size and also sustain a decade of profitable growth. More often, they trip over themselves. Research for our book The Founder’s Mentality found that 85% of the time, the barriers to growth cited by executives at rapidly growing companies are internal — as opposed to, say, external threats such as unreceptive customers, a misread business opportunity or the moves of a dangerous competitor. The title of our book celebrates the internal energy and sense of insurgency that propels rapidly growing companies, but the book also warns of four predictable internal growth barriers that all too often trip up these companies during their pursuit of scale. One of these is what we called the unscalable founder. We believe the founder’s mentality is a strategic asset. Nurtured correctly, it can help a company achieve scale insurgency — a company with the benefits of both size and agility. But many individual founders aren’t scalable. Individual founders can become a barrier to growth if they are unable to let go of the details and micromanage, or fail to build a cohesive team around them, or allow hubris to get in their way. We found 37% of executives at growing companies described the unscalable founder as a major barrier to their success. Scaling a business requires enormous determination — it’s like catching lightning in a bottle. Typically, founders discover a repeatable model of success that is extraordinary and are rewarded for ignoring distractions and focusing ruthlessly on that single insurgent mission and the repeatable model that delivers it. But over time the market changes and the company needs to change its model. The same founder who was rewarded for ignoring distractions previously is often the last person to adapt. The skills that help founders get their company to take off also are the opposite of those needed to sustain new growth. Founders focus on speed, ignore good process, and relish breaking the rules of the industry they are trying to disrupt. They cut corners, ignore detractors, and avoid naysayers. Their Herculean efforts are responsible for the firm’s creation, but also its chaos. Once the company reaches cruising altitude, its leaders need to listen more to competing voices and invest more time in emerging stakeholders. Founders also often are responsible for driving their teams to stretch and accomplish far more than ever seemed possible, often at enormous personal sacrifice. Yet this can make it impossible for them to replace or supplement these foundational team members with new professionals who can take the organization to the next level. The founder remains too loyal to the original team. Founders who both create and successfully scale their company are like lightning striking twice — the miracle of creation and the miracle of sustainable growth in the same person. That is rare. The other three barriers described in our book underscore the challenge. Some 55% of executives cite the problem of revenue growing faster than talent: The company grows so quickly that it has trouble attracting the quality and amount of talent that it needs. And as growth creates complexity, complexity becomes a silent killer of growth: 22% of executives cite a lack of accountability as the company expands and the rules become unclear. At its worst, this can breed a toxic culture. Perhaps most perplexing, 25% of executives cite loss of the voices at the front line as the growing company becomes preoccupied with internal matters, numbing it to customer feedback that can improve the business model or to the concerns of frontline employees. In our study of unicorns, we took a closer look at 10 that stumbled the hardest, companies like Groupon, Zenefits, Jawbone, GoPro, and Zynga — a group that experienced a peak-to-trough valuation decline of about 75% on average. We concluded that about half encountered major external market challenges that clearly contributed to the decline; we found that these external factors always impeded the progress of the company in combination with a well-documented internal breakdown. For instance, GoPro discovered that to really fulfill its growth potential it was going to have to not just become a manufacturer of small camera devices — a difficult business to defend against the large consumer electronics companies like Sony — but also create an ecosystem of services (uploading to the cloud) and products (drones with cameras) that would differentiate it in the future. This is what founder Nick Woodman described as becoming a sort of “mini Apple,” a much harder strategy to successfully execute. That challenge was reflected in a near 50% revenue shortfall in 2016 from what analysts had expected, ultimately triggering a decline in the company’s valuation down to $1 billion from its onetime high of $12 billion. In contrast to the moderate frequency of external breakdowns, literally every one of the fallen unicorns we studied encountered well-documented internal issues that contributed to or actually caused the stumble. Consider Zenefits, a provider of efficient online employee benefits services for small and medium-size companies. In early 2015 Zenefits announced that its revenues were going to increase by a factor of 10 that year, to $100 million, causing investors to flood it with money at a valuation of over $4 billion. The core idea for the company had been well proven, the market was certainly large and untapped, and Zenefits was clearly in the lead. Yet according to the company itself, Zenefits stumbled because it wasn’t prepared internally for scaling up. When its valuation collapsed by 55%, and its CEO-founder was replaced, the new CEO wrote an email to staff noting, “It is no secret that Zenefits grew too fast, stretching both our culture and our controls.’’ For instance, the company’s “frat-like” culture became too dysfunctional to run a tight operation in a highly regulated industry, and some of the measures taken to certify new employees in health insurance law became severely compromised. If these are the rock stars of business — surrounded by the best investors, boards, and advisers — what about the rest? To dig deeper into the challenges facing high-growth companies, we held more than 25 workshops across the world, assembling a group we called the Founder’s Mentality 100. These are companies that attained early success and scale, and showed further promise and desire to grow by five or even 10 times over the coming years. When we surveyed executives in these private discussion sessions, we found a consistent story: Only 15% of the time did these leaders feel that the primary threat to achieving their plans was external (a superior competitor, a new business model, government regulation, market shifts or saturation). The majority were internal factors — factors they should be able to control. When monitoring our health, doctors use a set of proven questions and tests. With so many company growth stories coming undone because of internal causes that their leaders could have controlled, what is the equivalent protocol to diagnose growing companies? We suggest asking these five questions to assess the general health of a business and its ability to grow to large scale: Is your founder scaling the team at a pace to address the opportunities and challenges of a scale insurgent? Do we have a talent plan to match our growth plan? If not, how do we close the gap? Is the voice of the customer and the front line as strong as it used to be? How do we know? Is our insurgent mission, so inspirational in the early days, still strong, or is it getting diluted? Do people still feel an owner’s mindset that drives accountability and immediate problem solving? If you are part of an organization with bold growth ambitions, make sure you are asking these five questions early and often.
Agilent Technologies (A) has seen solid earnings estimate revision activity over the past month, and belongs to a strong industry as well.
Know what to do even when you don’t know what to do.
Стабильным интернетом во время матчей болельщиков обещает обеспечить Huawei
Tom Spoehr Security, Americas Responding quickly to modern war requires agile and rapid decisionmaking. That didn’t take long. Moments after news broke that President Donald Trump had delegated a measure of authority to adjust troop levels in Afghanistan to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, critics came out barking. Such delegation of authority, they insisted, was both “unprecedented” and “dangerous.” It’s an interesting interpretation of American military history. Prior to the Vietnam War, allowing the secretary of defense (or, before 1947, the secretary of war) to adjust troop deployments in conflict was the norm. In World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt rarely “overrode the decisions of his military commanders.” Imagine Gen. George C. Marshall travelling to see the president to request the deployment of a nine-man engineer squad overseas, or Gen. Ulysses S. Grant visiting President Abraham Lincoln to request permission to move a brigade. It’s only in more contemporary times that presidents have seen fit to severely limit decisions on military deployments. Having established that recent micromanagement of troop levels is the exception in the American military experience. However, the question remains: Is giving the secretary of defense authority to adjust troop levels a good idea? The answer is clearly a resounding “yes.” Military conflict is dynamic. In modern war, situations change daily. Enemies react in unforeseen ways to U.S. actions; fleeting opportunities present themselves; vulnerabilities are exposed. Responding quickly to these events requires an agile and rapid system of decision making, which is extraordinarily challenging if the decision to deploy every single element of military power must be approved by the president. Read full article
As a company grows, the need for structure can limit their ability to stay agile to move fast. Scaling imposes a number of challenges for the company as the need for alignment is essential, however, more process and control is not always the answer.
Culture is like the wind. It is invisible, yet its effect can be seen and felt. When it is blowing in your direction, it makes for smooth sailing. When it is blowing against you, everything is more difficult. For organizations seeking to become more adaptive and innovative, culture change is often the most challenging part of the transformation. Innovation demands new behaviors from leaders and employees that are often antithetical to corporate cultures, which are historically focused on operational excellence and efficiency. But culture change can’t be achieved through top-down mandate. It lives in the collective hearts and habits of people and their shared perception of “how things are done around here.” Someone with authority can demand compliance, but they can’t dictate optimism, trust, conviction, or creativity. At IDEO, we believe that the most significant change often comes through social movements, and that despite the differences between private enterprises and society, leaders can learn from how these initiators engage and mobilize the masses to institutionalize new societal norms. Dr. Reddy’s: A Movement-Minded Case Study One leader who understands this well is G.V. Prasad, CEO of Dr. Reddy’s, a 33-year-old global pharmaceutical company headquartered in India that produces affordable generic medication. With the company’s more than seven distinct business units operating in 27 countries and more than 20,000 employees, decision making had grown more convoluted and branches of the organization had become misaligned. Over the years, Dr. Reddy’s had built in lots of procedures, and for many good reasons. But those procedures had also slowed the company down. Prasad sought to evolve Dr. Reddy’s culture to be nimble, innovative, and patient-centered. He knew it required a journey to align and galvanize all employees. His leadership team began with a search for purpose. Over the course of several months, the Dr. Reddy’s team worked with IDEO to learn about the needs of everyone, from shop floor workers to scientists, external partners, and investors. Together they defined and distilled the purpose of the company, paring it down to four simple words that center on the patient: “Good health can’t wait.” But instead of plastering this new slogan on motivational posters and repeating it in all-hands meetings, the leadership team began by quietly using it to start guiding their own decisions. The goal was to demonstrate this idea in action, not talk about it. Projects were selected across channels to highlight agility, innovation, and customer centricity. Product packaging was redesigned to be more user-friendly and increase adherence. The role of sales representatives in Russia was recast to act as knowledge hubs for physicians, since better physicians lead to healthier patients. A comprehensive internal data platform was developed to help Dr. Reddy’s employees be proactive with their customer requests and solve any problems in an agile way. At this point it was time to more broadly share the stated purpose — first internally with all employees, and then externally with the world. At the internal launch event, Dr. Reddy’s employees learned about their purpose and were invited to be part of realizing it. Everyone was asked to make a personal promise about how they, in their current role, would contribute to “good health can’t wait.” The following day Dr. Reddy’s unveiled a new brand identity and website that publicly stated its purpose. Soon after, the company established two new “innovation studios” in Hyderabad and Mumbai to offer additional structural support to creativity within the company. Prasad saw a change in the company culture right away: After we introduced the idea of “good health can’t wait,” one of the scientists told me he developed a product in 15 days and broke every rule there was in the company. He was proudly stating that! Normally, just getting the raw materials would take him months, not to mention the rest of the process for making the medication. But he was acting on that urgency. And now he’s taking this lesson of being lean and applying it to all our procedures. What Does a Movement Look Like? To draw parallels between the journey of Dr. Reddy’s and a movement, we need to better understand movements. We often think of movements as starting with a call to action. But movement research suggests that they actually start with emotion — a diffuse dissatisfaction with the status quo and a broad sense that the current institutions and power structures of the society will not address the problem. This brewing discontent turns into a movement when a voice arises that provides a positive vision and a path forward that’s within the power of the crowd. What’s more, social movements typically start small. They begin with a group of passionate enthusiasts who deliver a few modest wins. While these wins are small, they’re powerful in demonstrating efficacy to nonparticipants, and they help the movement gain steam. The movement really gathers force and scale once this group successfully co-opts existing networks and influencers. Eventually, in successful movements, leaders leverage their momentum and influence to institutionalize the change in the formal power structures and rules of society. Practices for Leading a Cultural Movement Leaders should not be too quick or simplistic in their translation of social movement dynamics into change management plans. That said, leaders can learn a lot from the practices of skillful movement makers. Frame the issue. Successful leaders of movements are often masters of framing situations in terms that stir emotion and incite action. Framing can also apply social pressure to conform. For example, “Secondhand smoking kills. So shame on you for smoking around others.” In terms of organizational culture change, simply explaining the need for change won’t cut it. Creating a sense of urgency is helpful, but can be short-lived. To harness people’s full, lasting commitment, they must feel a deep desire, and even responsibility, to change. A leader can do this by framing change within the organization’s purpose — the “why we exist” question. A good organizational purpose calls for the pursuit of greatness in service of others. It asks employees to be driven by more than personal gain. It gives meaning to work, conjures individual emotion, and incites collective action. Prasad framed Dr. Reddy’s transformation as the pursuit of “good health can’t wait.” Demonstrate quick wins. Movement makers are very good at recognizing the power of celebrating small wins. Research has shown that demonstrating efficacy is one way that movements bring in people who are sympathetic but not yet mobilized to join. When it comes to organizational culture change, leaders too often fall into the trap of declaring the culture shifts they hope to see. Instead, they need to spotlight examples of actions they hope to see more of within the culture. Sometimes, these examples already exist within the culture, but at a limited scale. Other times, they need to be created. When Prasad and his leadership team launched projects across key divisions, those projects served to demonstrate the efficacy of a nimble, innovative, and customer-centered way of working and of how pursuit of purpose could deliver outcomes the business cared about. Once these projects were far enough along, the Dr. Reddy’s leadership used them to help communicate their purpose and culture change ambitions. Harness networks. Effective movement makers are extremely good at building coalitions, bridging disparate groups to form a larger and more diverse network that shares a common purpose. And effective movement makers know how to activate existing networks for their purposes. This was the case with the leaders of the 1960s civil rights movement, who recruited members through the strong community ties formed in churches. But recruiting new members to a cause is not the only way that movement makers leverage social networks. They also use social networks to spread ideas and broadcast their wins. Leadership at Dr. Reddy’s did not hide in a back room and come up with their purpose. Over the course of several months, people from across the organization were engaged in the process. The approach was built on the belief that people are more apt to support what they have a stake in creating. And during the organization-wide launch event, Prasad invited all employees to make the purpose their own by defining how they personally would help deliver “good health can’t wait.” Create safe havens. Movement makers are experts at creating or identifying spaces within which movement members can craft strategy and discuss tactics. Such spaces have included beauty shops in the Southern U.S. during the civil rights movement, Quaker work camps in the 1960s and 1970s, the Seneca Women’s Encampment of the 1980s and early 1990s. These are spaces where the rules of engagement and behaviors of activists are different from those of the dominant culture. They’re microcosms of what the movement hopes will become the future. The dominant culture and structure of today’s organizations are perfectly designed to produce their current behaviors and outcomes, regardless of whether those outcomes are the ones you want. If your hope is for individuals to act differently, it helps to change their surrounding conditions to be more supportive of the new behaviors, particularly when they are antithetical to the dominant culture. Outposts and labs are often built as new environments that serve as a microcosm for change. Dr. Reddy’s established two innovation labs to explore the future of medicine and create a space where it’s easier for people to embrace new beliefs and perform new behaviors. Embrace symbols. Movement makers are experts at constructing and deploying symbols and costumes that simultaneously create a feeling of solidarity and demarcate who they are and what they stand for to the outside world. Symbols and costumes of solidarity help define the boundary between “us” and “them” for movements. These symbols can be as simple as a T-shirt, bumper sticker, or button supporting a general cause, or as elaborate as the giant puppets we often see used in protest events. Dr. Reddy’s linked its change in culture and purpose with a new corporate brand identity. Internally and externally, the act reinforced a message of unity and commitment. The entire company stands together in pursuit of this purpose. The Challenge to Leadership Unlike a movement maker, an enterprise leader is often in a position of authority. They can mandate changes to the organization — and at times they should. However, when it comes to culture change, they should do so sparingly. It’s easy to overuse one’s authority in the hopes of accelerating transformation. It’s also easy for an enterprise leader to shy away from organizational friction. Harmony is generally a preferred state, after all. And the success of an organizational transition is often judged by its seamlessness. In a movements-based approach to change, a moderate amount of friction is positive. A complete absence of friction probably means that little is actually changing. Look for the places where the movement faces resistance and experiences friction. They often indicate where the dominant organizational design and culture may need to evolve. And remember that culture change only happens when people take action. So start there. While articulating a mission and changing company structures are important, it’s often a more successful approach to tackle those sorts of issues after you’ve been able to show people the change you want to see.
Agilent Technologies, Inc. (A) has witnessed significant growth in Europe and continues to boost its presence there with expanded use of its diagnostic assay, PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand).
If software has eaten the world, then agile has eaten the software world. While initially designed to improve the responsiveness of software development teams, more recently agile has become the default team-based operational model for companies big and small, across industries and sectors, with the promise of a substantial and sustained spike in team productivity and efficiency. And there is no shortage of information and advice on how agile should be implemented in your tech organization. The tactics are clear, well-documented, and offered up in a myriad of flavors. For example, a Google search for “agile software development” returns over 14 million results. An Amazon search on the same phrase returns nearly 2,300 books and other materials. The bulk of this agile canon will teach your individual teams to deliver higher-quality code, faster. The next layer of books and articles will help you scale these practices to 10, 50, or 500 teams. But a big and growing challenge is emerging: Once your tech teams have begun to master these new ways of working — improving time to market, continuous learning, responsiveness, and collaboration — they often find that the pace of work they desire is substantially hindered by the lack of agility in HR. Related Video A Quick Introduction to Agile Management The system that's changing the way we work. Save Share See More Videos > See More Videos > With agile processes and new technology permeating every corner of our organizations, there is surprisingly little published knowledge about how to integrate HR and other crucial supporting functions into the product development process or how to increase the agility in the ways they work. Agile espouses short cycles, regular reflection, and course correction based on evidence collected during the software production process. Yet HR regularly works in annual (or, at best, quarterly) cycles. In an agile organization, HR needs to provide the same services it’s always provided — hiring, professional development, performance management — but in ways that are responsive to the ongoing changes in the culture and work style of the organization. Consider the cautionary example of a large bank I recently worked with. The team I was engaged with had its agile vocabulary down. Team members spoke in a way that would make any outsider believe they were one of the more advanced, enterprise-level agile successes (and, in many ways, they were and continue to be). But although the vocabulary the organization was using had changed, the qualities being evaluated in the performance management system, for every employee, reflected a different mindset. Agile espouses collaboration, customer centricity, team-based culture, and continuous improvement. These ideas and practices, however, were nowhere to be found in the evaluation criteria of the bank’s employees. Instead, the manufacturing-era qualities of individual heroism, delivering product on deadline (whether proven or not), and contribution to high-level, often unaccountable business metrics were the main determinants of employee competence, success, and promotion. Yes, the words they were using every day had changed (which is a good start), but without changing their incentives, they were continuing to work in the same ways they always had. A success story in building agility at scale comes from ING, which understood that language shifts, and even new incentive structures, were necessary but not sufficient. Agile HR also requires having the right people in place to practice and refine these new processes. To prove this, ING made every employee at its headquarters (nearly 3,500 people) re-interview for their job. Staggeringly, 40% of these people ended up in new positions or parted ways with the company. And this result wasn’t just about their skill sets. In fact, in many cases the employees’ skill sets were still highly relevant. Rather, it was a specific mindset that was lacking — one that could embrace the uncertainty of a software-based organization while seeking out new, better ways to deliver that service. The HR team had to play a major role in understanding what this mindset looked like and how best to determine which staff members possessed it, which could be trained, and which had to be let go. Here are two essential activities your HR team can do today to help your organization’s agile efforts succeed. Go and See To understand what qualities are required to support an agile way of working, your HR team needs to go see these teams at work. If they’re not up and running in your organization, visit other companies that are doing it well. This is exactly what the leadership teams at ING did. They visited digitally native companies like Spotify, Netflix, and Zappos to understand what makes their cultures nimble, responsive, tech-centric, and attractive to top talent. By visiting these teams at work, you get a sense for the collaborative work environment and style of agile teams across the whole organization. While visiting these teams, talk to them. Interview them to understand what they like about this way of working, what’s frustrating, and what they look for in colleagues, not just in their own discipline but also in other groups with which they collaborate. Read their job requisitions. Notice that while hard skills are important, they can be taught. The crucial soft skills needed for agile environments — curiosity, humility, and collaboration — can only be encouraged and modeled. Try HR Retrospectives As we detail our book, Sense & Respond, there are valuable agile practices that, while originally intended for software development teams, must be broadened to the whole organization, including to supporting disciplines like HR. A retrospective is a regularly cadenced (e.g., biweekly) meeting with a team involved in a particular project or initiative to review how things have gone since the last retrospective. Often, the time between “retros” is short, to allow new ideas to be tested and to review their efficacy. Retrospectives can be held with the HR team alone, as well as with their internal clients. For example, on the hiring side, several recruiters can meet regularly to review job requisition language that seems to attract better candidates, or interview questions that reveal a candidate’s propensity for agile work, and use this shared insight to optimize their process. Colleagues can then take and modify these ideas in their own practice to see whether they’ll have similar successes. Retros can also be held with hiring managers, particularly after a new “HR event” like a hiring, firing, or performance review cycle. This is a “customer-centric” approach that agile espouses. The point is to understand whether the work HR is doing is delivering the intended value. If not, what can you change in the next cycle to try to improve that? Retrospectives reveal that and help assess the impact of small changes over short periods of time. Agile offers many benefits to large organizations, but getting the full set of benefits requires going beyond being simply a software development process, to become a mindset for the entire organization. When HR is included and buys into the values of organizational agility, the promise of increased productivity, efficiency, and higher-quality products and services can be fully realized.
How do you manage to not only survive but thrive as a small business when a big business competitor tries to steal your customers? It takes strength, awareness, agility and belief to outwit and outlast the competition.
Ribble’s bestselling road bike has been beefed up for the summerBased in Preston, Ribble has been in business since 1897. What makes the firm so special is its BikeBuilder feature. This means you can select from a stock of more than 20,000 products to create your dream cycle. Ribble then builds it and sends it to you. But most of us are paralysed by too much choice – which is where the R872 comes in. It’s Ribble’s most popular road bike. For this summer it’s been made stiffer with updated tube profiles and advanced carbon layups. It has been technically engineered to optimise power transfer, meaning less energy is lost through frame flex, and the shorter wheel base keeps handling precise and agile. It features Ultegra gearing and responsive Mavic Kysium wheels. The only decision you have to make is the colour: black or silver? (ribblecycles.co.uk)Price: £1,249Frame: carbonGears: Shimano UltegraWheels: Mavic Kysium Continue reading...
Forbes Woman публикует отрывок из книги Брюса Фейлера «Секреты счастливых семей: Мужской взгляд» издательства «Альпина нон-фикшн».
Sebastien Roblin Security, By teaming up, that is. In June, the U.S. Navy released a budget allocating $264.9 million towards upgrading its roughly six hundred FA-18E and F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler fighters to the new Block III standard, which includes some of the enhancements proposed for the Advanced Super Hornet. This is intended to coincide with a service-life extension program (SLEP) meant to increase the type’s flight hours from six thousand to nine thousand. The first of the upgraded aircraft are expected to enter service in 2019, and the Pentagon is now talking about keeping its Super Hornet fleet active through 2046. A few days later, the Navy also announced plans to purchase an additional eighty Super Hornets over the next five years for $7.1 billion. All in all, it would seem that Boeing has successfully redirected defense dollars away from the expensive new F-35 stealth fighter by emphasizing the lower price of maintaining the Super Hornet fleet. However, it would be mistaken to say the Super Hornet proved it could replace the F-35. In fact, the Block III upgrade should help the Super Hornet team up with the stealthier Lightning when taking on tougher opponents. The single seat F/A-18E and two-seat F/A-18F are larger, higher-performing evolutions of the 1980s-era F/A-18 Hornet attack plane. Though comparable in many respects to such excellent fourth-generation fighters as the F-15 Eagle, the Super Hornet has a lower maximum speed and is slightly less agile due to the engineering compromises necessary for taking off and landing on Navy carrier’s. On the plus side, the Super Hornet does come with more modern avionics and a unique advantage baked into its airframe: a reduced radar cross section estimated to be around one square meter from the front, a fraction of that of an F-15 and one of the lowest on any fourth-generation jet fighter. Read full article
Michael Peck Security, Middle East The new tank will not replace the current Merkava 4, which is expected to remain in production until 2020. A small armored wedge with a remote-controlled turret: is this what the Israel Defense Force’s future armored vehicles will look like? The answer is . . . maybe. At a conference in Israel last month, the former chief of the IDF’s Armored Corps showed a simulation of what Project Carmel—the IDF’s effort to develop technology for the its generation of tanks—might produce. The virtual vehicle is wedge-shaped, with the hull sloping towards the front. The cannon-armed turret is set at the rear of the hull, with a machine gun mounted on top. In one of the screenshots, below the turret there is what seems to be—and your guess is as good as mine—a row of vision ports (you can see other screenshots here and here). Israel is developing two next-generation armored vehicles. One is the Eitan, the IDF’s first wheeled armored personnel carrier and the chosen replacement for Israel’s fleet of old and poorly armored M113 APCs. Already in the prototype stage, the eight-wheeled Eitan somewhat resembles the U.S. Stryker. The thirty-ton Eitan will be paired with the much heavier Namer, an APC based on the chassis of the Merkava tank. However, the simulated vehicle displayed at the conference by retired Brigadier General Didi Ben-Yoash, who is heading Project Carmel, is much more of a tank. It would be tracked rather than wheeled like the Eitan, and would weigh thirty-five to forty tons (compared to a sixty-eight-ton M-1 Abrams). With just two crewmen, the vehicle would mostly function autonomously, including “autonomous navigation and driving, target spotting, aiming, independent firing whenever possible plus other features,” according to Israel Defense magazine. Read full article
We issued an updated research report on premium multinational firm, FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (FUJIY), on Jun 16.