Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

fredymac said:
Raytheon contract for development of XM1155 ramjet artillery shell. Says they are partnering with "Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek" for the ramjet but the picture looks like the NAMMO ramjet shell.

http://www.dmitryshulgin.com/author/wagner666/
Click to expand...

I've seen a couple of articles use pictures of the Nammo/Boeing ramjet round to illustrate the Raytheon/TNO press release. I don't think Raytheon put out any pictures of their own design.
 
defence-blog.com

U.S. Army expects to receive new multirole missile system in 2023

The U.S. Army has provided another update on the plan to extend the firing range of the current Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, by more than 500 kilometers. Currently, the U.S. Army has invested more than $1 Billion for developing and test next-generation, long-range precision-strike...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
 
ABMS Demo Proves AI Chops For C2

"Tanks shooting down cruise missiles is awesome -- video game, sci-fi awesome," Air Force acquisition czar Will Roper told a small group of reporters.

By THERESA HITCHENS
on September 03, 2020 at 8:44 PM
 
defence-blog.com

General Dynamics awarded $1.2B contract for short-range air defense systems

General Dynamics Land Systems was awarded a $1.2 billion contract to produce, test and deliver Interim Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (IM-SHORAD) systems, according to the U.S. Department of Defense contract announcements. Per the contract, work locations and funding will be determined with...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
 
Interesting. The missile does not ring a bell.

The missile shown does not look like a LM Cuda / M-SHORAD. Nether Raytheon Peregrine, nor like a Raphael / IMI / IAI product.

Based on handle of pallet lifter, the diameter could be some 220mm with a length of about 3460mm. Since this does not really make sense to me and the very big margin of error associated, it could be a diameter of 178mm as well, giving a length of about 2784mm.

Hm. 178mm diameter would be an enabler to use some low cost seeker technologies from other programs.


https://www.army.mil/article/226920/ccdcs_road_map_to_modernizing_the_army_air_and_missile_defense

Layer 6: LOWER-AD (largest dome of protection)

The Patriot missile system is instrumental in protecting forward-deployed forces, friends and allies against incoming air and missile threats. The CCDC Aviation & Missile Center is developing and demonstrating the Low-Cost Extended Range Air Defense (LOWER AD) missile interceptor technology that is smaller and less costly than larger systems. The LOWER AD project will demonstrate critical technologies to defeat subsonic cruise missiles and lethal unmanned aerial systems, leaving the advanced Patriot interceptors for the more stressing threats.

The LOWER AD technology will make it possible to reduce the size of the missile, which in turn will allow more missiles per launcher. Internal components of the LOWER AD missile technology will include improved navigation and a low-cost seeker and warhead, which will maximize its capability to protect defended areas and troops.

LOWER AD will conduct a flight test in fiscal year 2021, using various targets at extended ranges to demonstrate Level 6 maturity of the technology. A flight test with the ballistic test vehicle will be conducted in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019 to verify key component performance.
 
Racer said:
Interesting. The missile does not ring a bell.

The missile shown does not look like a LM Cuda / M-SHORAD. Nether Raytheon Peregrine, nor like a Raphael / IMI / IAI product.

Based on handle of pallet lifter, the diameter could be some 220mm with a length of about 3460mm. Since this does not really make sense to me and the very big margin of error associated, it could be a diameter of 178mm as well, giving a length of about 2784mm.

Hm. 178mm diameter would be an enabler to use some low cost seeker technologies from other programs.


https://www.army.mil/article/226920/ccdcs_road_map_to_modernizing_the_army_air_and_missile_defense

Layer 6: LOWER-AD (largest dome of protection)

The Patriot missile system is instrumental in protecting forward-deployed forces, friends and allies against incoming air and missile threats. The CCDC Aviation & Missile Center is developing and demonstrating the Low-Cost Extended Range Air Defense (LOWER AD) missile interceptor technology that is smaller and less costly than larger systems. The LOWER AD project will demonstrate critical technologies to defeat subsonic cruise missiles and lethal unmanned aerial systems, leaving the advanced Patriot interceptors for the more stressing threats.

The LOWER AD technology will make it possible to reduce the size of the missile, which in turn will allow more missiles per launcher. Internal components of the LOWER AD missile technology will include improved navigation and a low-cost seeker and warhead, which will maximize its capability to protect defended areas and troops.

LOWER AD will conduct a flight test in fiscal year 2021, using various targets at extended ranges to demonstrate Level 6 maturity of the technology. A flight test with the ballistic test vehicle will be conducted in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2019 to verify key component performance.
Click to expand...
It's been in AMRDEC slides for years
 

Attachments

  • lower-ad.png
    lower-ad.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 101
Low-Cost Extended Range Air Defense

Seems an oxymoron to me - U.S. Military and low-cost.....
Let's see if it actually enters service....

My apologies for my cynicism


Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Low-Cost Extended Range Air Defense

Seems an oxymoron to me - U.S. Military and low-cost.....
Let's see if it actually enters service....

My apologies for my cynicism


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

The program appears to be focusing on developing an interceptor and/or related technologies that are tailored towards subsonic cruise missiles and medium to large UAV's. It seems that this is going to have a range that is greater than that of something like the Tamir but short of something that would require the more expensive PATRIOT missiles. So we aren't talking about an interceptor that costs tens of thousands (even the Tamir costs upwards of $150K for the US Army) but possibly in the hundreds of thousands instead of millions like the PAC-2/3/MSE or naval missiles. In FY-21 they realigned this research into the Maneuver Air Defense Advanced Technology portfolio in support of M-SHORAD.

"Funding realigned from Project AC8 (Low Cost Extended Range Air Defense Adv Tech) in this PE in FY21 to accelerate
Maneuver Air Defense Technology TRL6 demonstration from FY24 to FY23."
Click to expand...

 

Attachments

  • Lower-AD000.jpg
    Lower-AD000.jpg
    421.4 KB · Views: 39
  • LOWER-AD001.jpg
    LOWER-AD001.jpg
    321.9 KB · Views: 53
Racer said:
Interesting. The missile does not ring a bell.

The missile shown does not look like a LM Cuda
Click to expand...
On the contrary. Aside from the differently shaped fixed wings it looks exactly like CUDA.
 
Well, than many missiles look exactly same for you: pointed nose and cylindrical body? ;)
Cuda (1,78m) is about 1m shorter and much smaller in diameter (127mm). At least according my measurements above.

Has anyone a better idea about the precise size of the missile?
----

I was aware of the program, as well the powerpoint. My though was it shows a placeholder image only. But now It seems rather near the reality. My expectation was that an existing product or industry programm will be used. Surprisingly that is not the case. That was what I meant with "does not ring a bell". It looks like purpose built by AMRDEC and partners itself, based on a white paper.
 
Last edited:
If it is CUDA, it is not the variant that LMT has been displaying as the wings and tail fins are noticeably different in shape and size.

www.flightglobal.com

Details emerge about Lockheed’s Cuda missile

More details are emerging about Lockheed Martin's prospective Cuda hit-to-kill missile system. According to a company product card being distributed...
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
Hawk Eyes said:
If it is CUDA, it is not the variant that LMT has been displaying as the wings and tail fins are noticeably different in shape and size.

www.flightglobal.com

Details emerge about Lockheed’s Cuda missile

More details are emerging about Lockheed Martin's prospective Cuda hit-to-kill missile system. According to a company product card being distributed...
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...

It isn't the CUDA. I believe those TRL-6 demonstrations (of CUDA like M-SHORAD solutions) are slated for 2023?? Though it is also possible that Lockheed has done a ton of internal development and testing and may present the CUDA as an option for IFPC which is planning a shoot-off in the summer. We'll know more in the coming months but I doubt that LOWERAD is a CUDA. It may not have been designed by Lockheed at all.
 

Attachments

  • M-SHORAD FI.jpg
    M-SHORAD FI.jpg
    204.4 KB · Views: 66
Last edited:
Hawk Eyes said:
If it is CUDA, it is not the variant that LMT has been displaying as the wings and tail fins are noticeably different in shape and size.

www.flightglobal.com

Details emerge about Lockheed’s Cuda missile

More details are emerging about Lockheed Martin's prospective Cuda hit-to-kill missile system. According to a company product card being distributed...
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...
Because that never happens between the marketing model and the actual flight item.
 
sferrin said:
Hawk Eyes said:
If it is CUDA, it is not the variant that LMT has been displaying as the wings and tail fins are noticeably different in shape and size.

www.flightglobal.com

Details emerge about Lockheed’s Cuda missile

More details are emerging about Lockheed Martin's prospective Cuda hit-to-kill missile system. According to a company product card being distributed...
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...
Because that never happens between the marketing model and the actual flight item.
Click to expand...
Absolutely possible. No reason to think they couldn't/haven't redesigned the CUDA. Does anybody know who is participating in the IFPC shoot off?
 
Hawk Eyes said:
sferrin said:
Hawk Eyes said:
If it is CUDA, it is not the variant that LMT has been displaying as the wings and tail fins are noticeably different in shape and size.

www.flightglobal.com

Details emerge about Lockheed’s Cuda missile

More details are emerging about Lockheed Martin's prospective Cuda hit-to-kill missile system. According to a company product card being distributed...
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...
Because that never happens between the marketing model and the actual flight item.
Click to expand...
Absolutely possible. No reason to think they couldn't/haven't redesigned the CUDA. Does anybody know who is participating in the IFPC shoot off?
Click to expand...

Besides Rafael and Raytheon no one has really confirmed participation. But it wouldn't be a shoot-off if they didn't have multiple industry participants willing and able to provide interceptors that were mature enough to do a demonstration.

What we know so far:

- Lockheed conducted an initial ballistic test of their M-SHORAD Future Interceptor in late 2018 (FY19).

The 5 inch diameter interceptor fits in the same envelope as the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missile currently being integrated on the MSL for the US Army’s Stryker-based interim manoeuvre SHORAD [short-range air-defence] capability, and provides significantly more range and manoeuvrability,” a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told Jane’s .

“The internally funded test objectives were to demonstrate key technologies, vehicle stability, and range. The Interceptor performance matched our predictions,” the spokesperson said.

Lockheed Martin Tests New M-SHORAD Future Interceptor – UAS VISION

www.uasvision.com www.uasvision.com
Click to expand...

- The LOWER-AD initial tests were performed in FY19 as well (the image believes to be from them?) with more advanced guided tests performed more recently.

Could they both be the same weapon? Not sure. Lockheed's language around "internally funded test objectives" could suggest they are distinct efforts. Either way, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect Lockheed to pitch their MSFI for the IFPC requirements though they seem to also be targeting M-SHORAD which incidentally the LOWER-AD investments are also transitioning towards in FY21 and beyond as referenced in the budget docs posted earlier.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Hawk Eyes said:
sferrin said:
Hawk Eyes said:
If it is CUDA, it is not the variant that LMT has been displaying as the wings and tail fins are noticeably different in shape and size.

www.flightglobal.com

Details emerge about Lockheed’s Cuda missile

More details are emerging about Lockheed Martin's prospective Cuda hit-to-kill missile system. According to a company product card being distributed...
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...
Because that never happens between the marketing model and the actual flight item.
Click to expand...
Absolutely possible. No reason to think they couldn't/haven't redesigned the CUDA. Does anybody know who is participating in the IFPC shoot off?
Click to expand...

Besides Rafael and Raytheon no one has really confirmed participation. But it wouldn't be a shoot-off if they didn't have multiple industry participants willing and able to provide interceptors that were mature enough to do a demonstration.

What we know so far:

- Lockheed conducted an initial ballistic test of their M-SHORAD Future Interceptor in late 2018 (FY19).

The 5 inch diameter interceptor fits in the same envelope as the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missile currently being integrated on the MSL for the US Army’s Stryker-based interim manoeuvre SHORAD [short-range air-defence] capability, and provides significantly more range and manoeuvrability,” a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told Jane’s .

“The internally funded test objectives were to demonstrate key technologies, vehicle stability, and range. The Interceptor performance matched our predictions,” the spokesperson said.

Lockheed Martin Tests New M-SHORAD Future Interceptor – UAS VISION

www.uasvision.com www.uasvision.com
Click to expand...

- The LOWER-AD initial tests were performed in FY19 as well (the image believes to be from them?) with more advanced guided tests performed more recently.

Could they both be the same weapon? Not sure. Lockheed's language around "internally funded test objectives" could suggest they are distinct efforts. Either way, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect Lockheed to pitch their MSFI for the IFPC requirements though they seem to also be targeting M-SHORAD which incidentally the LOWER-AD investments are also transitioning towards in FY21 and beyond as referenced in the budget docs posted earlier.
Click to expand...
Might be a little late to join the shoot-off now as there were some hoops that needed to be jumped through early on in order to qualify. I don't believe participation in the shoot-off is necessary anyways to put forth a solution for IFPC in the following phase. So maybe LMT figures why bother with the shoot-off if they can still put forth a solution (costs money to do a shoot-off). And if they already have significant testing under their belts from MSFI, that might be good enough for post-shoot-off RFP responses if they're going to submit the same effector.
 
Why would it be too late to participate in the shoot off? It won't happen till the summer of 2021 and we don't know a whole lot about what Lockheed has developed or done in the last 2 years as it relates to their MSFI design and testing. I believe the shoot off is aiming to pick an interceptor and launcher that is compatible with Sentinel A3/4 and IAMD-IBCS so it will be a long uphill climb in terms of getting back in the competition if you don't participate. Also, it would be quite absurd for the Army to schedule a shoot-off if they knew that no industry source had a solution that could work (besides Rafael and Raytheon). I believe Northrop Grumman has done some work with IBCS and CAMM so perhaps they are looking to enter something but surely there will be more more than 1 vendor launching its weapons during the event (or it just gets scrapped altogether).

On March 2, the Army asked industry in a public notice to provide potential solutions for IFPC Inc. 2 in a "Shoot-Off" demonstration planned for between April 2021 and June 2021.

"The Shoot-Off will allow vendors to demonstrate their capability to integrate their launcher-interceptor solution with the U.S. Army's IBCS and Sentinel A3 Radar," states the market survey notice.

The Army will use the shoot-off results along with digital simulation data to pick a vendor with the goal of delivering an Enduring IFPC Inc. 2 capability by 2023.

The cruise missile defense system program office, overseeing the effort, "is conducting market research to identify potential solutions that provide air and missile defense capabilities to fixed and semi-fixed sites in order to defeat Cruise Missiles (CM); Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS); and Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (RAM) targets," according to the solicitation. "The IFPC Inc 2 vendor-provided launcher-interceptor solution is defined as a launch platform, All-Up Round Magazine (AUR-M), interceptor, and data link (if needed)," according to the notice.

The Army plans to brief industry on April 7-8, the market survey states.
Click to expand...

Iron Dome shortcomings prompt Army to overhaul IFPC 2 Inc. 2 with new 'shoot off' competition | InsideDefense.com

The Israeli-made Iron Dome is not compatible with existing U.S. air defense systems, forcing the Army to launch a new acquisition strategy this week for the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept (IFPC Inc. 2) program that features an open invitation to all industry to...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
Last edited:
HDWIL safety/C2 integration requirements in the BA. Not sure how complicated those are, but they do need to be met to participate. Perhaps they can be addressed between now and the summer, certainly a possibility. I just don't know how complicated answering the requirements would be for LMT. Agreed that the USG would want a third vendor and it's an interesting point on CAMM integration with IBCS which I think was done for Narew in Poland. Maybe NOC and MBDA play in the shoot-off.
 
Hawk Eyes said:
HDWIL safety/C2 integration requirements in the BA. Not sure how complicated those are, but they do need to be met to participate. Perhaps they can be addressed between now and the summer, certainly a possibility. I just don't know how complicated answering the requirements would be for LMT. Agreed that the USG would want a third vendor and it's an interesting point on CAMM integration with IBCS which I think was done for Narew in Poland. Maybe NOC and MBDA play in the shoot-off.
Click to expand...

We also don't know the full extent of what these companies (Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and perhaps Boeing) have been doing with the Army over the last few years. None of these missiles (like the MSFI and LOWER-AD) were developed and tested in a bubble and one would assume that the Army wouldn't just randomly pick Q3 FY21 as a shoot-off timeframe if it knew that most of the industry and existing Army alternatives (to Tamir) couldn't show up and provide demonstration of capability.
 

Army Plans Next Steps for Iron Dome Missile Defense​

Although Iron Dome is currently marked as an interim indirect fires protection capability solution, Pini Yungman, executive vice president and head of Rafael’s air-and-missile defense division, said the system is also in the running to become a permanent part of the Army’s portfolio.

The company will be participating in a demonstration at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, in 2021, he noted.

“We will know probably in the end of [2021], if Iron Dome will be … the next Army system to defeat UAVs and the rockets and short-range missiles, ballistic missiles, etc.,” he said. “I’m sure that after the demonstration, the Army will make a decision.”

Rafael and U.S.-headquartered Raytheon are also working on a U.S. version of the Tamir missile dubbed SkyHunter.

“We can say that SkyHunter [is] a name for the American Tamir with small adjustments, but we didn’t get detailed requirements,” Yungman said. “We know that it’s not a technical challenge, we know that it will not cause any damage to the performance.”

Sam Deneke, Raytheon’s vice president of business execution for land warfare and air defense, said the cost of each SkyHunter missile is likely to be similar to that of the Tamir and that the design has yet to be finalized.

“The elements of the missiles are very, very similar,” he said. “From a cost perspective, it likely will be very much in the same neighborhood of what the Tamir missile costs at this point.”

Rafael and Raytheon also plan on opening a facility to manufacture Iron Dome in the United States. Rafael already has offices opened in Washington, D.C., and the company plans to deliver interceptors, Yungman noted.

Within two years, subassemblies from Israel will be shipped to the new manufacturing facility in the United States, he said. “They will do the final integration. ... They will ship and deliver the interceptors.”

The new facility will be able to produce thousands of interceptors a year, although the Army has not set a requirement, he noted.

In Raytheon’s August announcement of the new facility, the firm said the partnership with Rafael is dubbed Raytheon RAFAEL Area Protection Systems and that the facility will produce both Iron Dome and the SkyHunter missile.

“It’s a highly collaborative relationship that we have with them,” Deneke said. “Raphael has a lot of technical expertise. Raytheon has been working with Raphael for many years, and so we have technical experts on our side as well.”

Deneke said the location of the U.S. Iron Dome facility is still yet to be determined. The August announcement said the companies hoped to choose a site by the end of 2020.

However, Deneke said the firms are “not holding ourselves to an end of the year announcement.”

There are some challenges facing Iron Dome moving forward.

One includes incorporating the system into the Army’s integrated air-and-missile defense battle command system, or IBCS, which helps network sensors together. In March, the service attempted to abandon its plans to purchase Iron Dome due to these potential complications, although it later walked back those decisions. Gen. John Murray, head of Army Futures Command, told the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee that the service would be unable to connect the Israeli product into IBCS.

“We believe we cannot integrate them into our air defense system based on some interoperability challenges, some cyber challenges, and some other challenges,” he said in testimony. “What we ended up having really is two standalone batteries that will be very capable, but they cannot be integrated into our air defense system.”

Deneke said Raytheon is working on the challenge to ensure that Iron Dome can be integrated into IBCS.

“The Army has been very public in terms of the challenges and the architecture associated with IBCS and that integration,” he said. “Certainly we understand that and have done some work in that regard.”

Raytheon is confident in its ability because it has already demonstrated the system with the Marine Corps, he noted. The Congressional Research Service noted that the Marine Corps was able to integrate Iron Dome elements into its radar and command-and-control system in August 2019 during a live-fire event.

“According to a Marine official at the time, ‘The Marine Corps proved during a live-fire demonstration last month that it could integrate Marine Corps systems with other components to successfully counter emerging threats,’” CRS said in a 2020 report titled, “U.S. Army Short-Range Air Defense Force Structure and Selected Programs: Background and Issues for Congress.”

Yungman also expressed confidence in solving the challenge, noting that Rafael has already been working on meeting Army requirements.
“We conducted another test by the Army requirements,” he said. “We, by our investments, sent and shipped a battery to the U.S. and deployed a system and actually conducted the test.”

Another issue was the availability of source code, with some Israeli publications reporting that U.S. officials were unable to obtain the required source code from Israel, which is key data needed to use the system. Yungman said the company has not run into issues with bringing Iron Dome over to the United States and modifying it for the U.S. Army.

“We shared our source code with the U.S. Army without any problems because we’re not hiding anything, and we delivered already a simulation of the interceptors to the U.S. Army and to Raytheon,” he said. “Any kind of technical data that was asked [for] by the Army was delivered by Rafael to the U.S. to the Army and to Raytheon.”
Click to expand...
 
The folks in Huntsville conceptualized a family of modular multi mission missiles varying in length and width but of course, have not followed thru, as always. Lack of commericialization of Program Executive Offices research defines DoD in house R&D as a laughing stock, welfare program. Either solve the commericialization while mitigating the researcher's risk of being left in a lurch or leave all research to existing large private companies.. The latter, will of course. feed more LSI/majors monopoly behavior, which is already out of control.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom