Register here

Author Topic: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program  (Read 77115 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Army To Develop Multi-Mission Launcher For Indirect Fire Protection


Posted: Mar. 28, 2014

The Pentagon has approved the Army's plan to begin a technology maturation and risk-reduction phase of the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 program that will focus on the development of a multi-mission launcher, according to an acquisition decision memorandum. Frank Kendall, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, signed the ADM last week. It directs the Army to deliver an updated acquisition strategy for the program within 60 days "to reflect the focus of Block I is to develop a multi-mission launcher (MML) and an open architecture that will define an interface that will allow for a variety of missiles to be demonstrated and employed from this MML." The March 24 "for official use only" ADM also directs the Army to conduct an alternate interceptor trade study analysis within 180 days and present the results to him. The IFPC Inc. 2 system is designed to provide 360-degree protection against simultaneous threats from rockets, artillery, mortars and unmanned aircraft systems. IFPC Inc. 2 will integrate with counter-RAM systems and RAM warning systems that support deployed forces and counterinsurgency operations.

The Army began more than a year ago to explore the concept of a multi-mission launcher capable of firing interceptor missiles against a range of threats, but whether it would do so as part of the IFPC program was not certain. The new launcher would include incorporating current Army programs, according to Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Peggy Kageleiry in November 2012 (ITA, Nov. 5, 2012). Kendall also signed, on the same day as the ADM, a waiver of a competitive prototyping requirement authorizing the Army to develop its own IFPC Inc. 2 Block I prototype. Kendall notes that the primary development component for the IFPC Inc. 2 is the MML. "Within the MML, four items require development: the azimuth drive, the elevation drive, the missile tube, and the missile rack. None of these items represent new technology," the waiver states. "The Army has several missile launchers that hold missile pods and have the ability to elevate and to slew (e.g., High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and Avenger)." The acquisition strategy "leverages mature, fielded components and sub-systems to meet the IFPC Inc. 2-I, Block 1 requirements," it adds. "These components include an existing fire control sensor (Sentinel Radar), existing interceptors, and existing Command and Control system capabilities (Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System)." The "majority" of the technology risk reduction associated with the effort "has already occurred for these components," the document states. Kendall approved the waiver to allow the Army to develop its own system based on a cost-benefit analysis that concluded "competitive prototyping would not provide additional system maturity or risk reduction to programmatic technical maturation efforts," the document reads.

A competitive prototyping effort would increase costs for the program by approximately $208.5 million and extend the TMRR phase by two years, Kendall wrote. If the Army develops the prototypes, the cost for research, technology, development and evaluation for the MML would amount to $219.6 million. "The costs of producing competitive prototypes would exceed the life-cycle benefits of producing such prototypes by $198.7 million," the waiver states. Kendall notes that the Army's Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center will develop the MML, producing the design, building prototypes and conducting a formal preliminary design review. "The design will be matured during the development of two prototypes and a Developmental Level Technical Data Package will be created by the AMRDEC," the document adds. As part of the technology maturation effort, the Army must verify the kill chain "end-to-end" resulting in an intercept "verified through telemetry data analysis," the ADM states. The prototypes developed through the program should demonstrate a technology readiness level of 6 within an IAMD system of systems open architecture, the document adds. The MML should also develop an "ability to store multiple interceptors, receive data and launch stored interceptors," the document states. The Army must launch two or more different interceptors from the MML, it adds. The effort should demonstrate "platoon operations using actual hardware and software and hardware emulators," according to the ADM.

An independent cost estimate, attached to the ADM, notes the total technology development phase of the IFPC Inc. 2 effort is expected to cost $429.6 million from fiscal year 2015 through FY-19 and $547.4 million total. The total procurement cost of the system is estimated to be $2.4 billion. The plan, according to the cost estimate, is to purchase 344 launchers and 850 missiles. Kendall estimates the average procurement unit acquisition at $4.4 million for the MML, with an average annual operating and support cost of $625,000 per unit. Initial operational capability is estimated for the fourth quarter of FY-19. -- Jen Judson
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 12:09:22 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2014, 12:09:33 am »

Army Exploring Path Forward On New Guided Rocket System


Posted: Mar. 21, 2014

An Army colonel said the service hopes to release an analysis of alternatives by the end of the year that will determine whether it will move forward with a plan to develop a new guided rocket system.

Col. Gary Stephens said the Army is looking at the possibility of creating a new-start program known as Long-Range Precision Fire (LRPF), previously known as Guided Multiple Launcher Rocket System (GMLRS) Increment 4. Stephens, who is the project manager for precision fires rocket and missile systems under program executive office for missiles and space, said the LRPF could fill a well documented capability gap. To determine that, however, the Army must first finish the AOA.

"During that analysis of alternatives we're really going to evaluate what is the target set, what is the range for the target set . . . and out of that we'll have a recommendation and maybe the recommendation is a new-start," Stephens said March 19 at the National Defense Industrial Association's Precision Strike Conference in Springfield, VA. "There are many other alternatives, some of which that do nothing, many make modest improvements to the GMLRS family. I can't tell you what we're going to do."

Lt. Col. Francis Moss, who works in the force development office for the Army deputy chief of staff (G-8),

told Inside the Army in a March 21 email that the service's LRPF effort is separate from the current GMLRS program and that the LRPF capability gap was last validated by an Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) operational requirement document (ORD) in 1999.

"Due to the pending expiration of the existing ATACMS inventory, a materiel development decision (MDD) was made in November 2013 and the Army's LRPF effort is now undergoing an analysis of alternatives (AOA) to determine alternative ways to fill a capability gap which may exist if ATACMS is not replaced."

Moss said the AOA findings are scheduled to be reported in November with a final written report due by March 2015.

Stephens said the Army already has a tentative plan laid out for the LRPF should the AOA support the creation of a new program.

"I'll say a big if before I make the next comments -- if it's a new-start, then we will posture ourselves to go to a milestone A in FY-15, with the intent to award contracts in FY-16 . . . to enter the technology maturation and risk reduction phase," Stephens said. "Our intent is to pick two contractors, it'll be a full and open competition."

The GMLRS program is a Pentagon effort that began in 2003 to acquire more than 43,500 rockets through 2024. Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for GMLRS, received a $255 million contract late last year for the ninth full-rate production lot of the M31 GMLRS unitary rocket.

The vast majority of the more than 20,000 GMLRS rockets Lockheed has built to date have been unitary variants, designed to carry 200-pound, high-explosive warheads beyond 70 kilometers and strike targets within five meters, according to company officials and Army documents. Insidedefense.com reported on Jan. 30, 2013 that the Army plans to acquire a total of 34,848 GMLRS unitary warheads. A third variant which the service has dubbed "Increment 3," the GMLRS Alternative Warhead, is in development.

Lockheed Martin told ITA in a March 20 statement that the company "is very interested in the Army's exploration" of an LRPF program.

"We will closely follow developments on the program as the Army continues to refine the operational concepts and requirements for the long-range precision fires program," according to the email. "Lockheed Martin has a long-established legacy of providing highly accurate and cost-effective precision fires products for the U.S. and allied militaries, and we eagerly anticipate the development of the next generation of long-range precision munitions." -- Ellen Mitchell
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2014, 05:09:16 am »
"Due to the pending expiration of the existing ATACMS inventory, a materiel development decision (MDD) was made in November 2013 and the Army's LRPF effort is now undergoing an analysis of alternatives (AOA) to determine alternative ways to fill a capability gap which may exist if ATACMS is not replaced."

That's depressing as hell.  You just know they won't replace them, and in the small chance that they do we won't see it fielded for 20 years. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2014, 07:39:36 pm »
Inside the Army - 11/10/2014 

Multimission Launcher Tube Successfully Fires Three Interceptors

Posted: Nov. 07, 2014

The launch tube set to be used in the Army's new indirect fire protection program successfully fired interceptors for the first time in a recent test, the service announced last week. Officials fired three different interceptors from the tube during the late October event: an AIM-9X missile, an Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative (AI3) missile and a miniature hit-to-kill (MHTK) interceptor, according to Lt. Col. Christopher Whitmark, project director for the multimission launcher within the Army's Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center. The launcher is being developed for the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 Block 1, meant to counter unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, rockets, artillery and mortars. "It validated our design for a new tube launch system," Whitmark said of the test in a Nov. 5 interview with Inside the Army. "All the test objectives were focused on the tube and the structural integrity of the tube."

The successful test will allow the Army to finalize the tube design and begin building two multimission launcher prototypes, Whitmark said. He expects both prototypes will be completed by the first quarter of fiscal year 2016. The Army revealed in an Oct. 16 notice that it plans on awarding up to two contracts for the IFPC Inc. 2-1 engineering and manufacturing development phase. That stage is expected to begin in the third quarter of FY-16, according to budget documents. Since the program will use the Sentinel radar and the Integrated Air and Missile Defense command and control architecture, the phase will focus on developing the multimission launcher. The service said in the notice that it will select one of the contractors to continue the work following a limited user test in FY-18 (ITA, Nov. 3). Whitmark said two upcoming tests of the multimission launcher will be conducted under the auspices of the IFPC program office. An Oct. 30 notice on the Federal Business Opportunities website announced the Army was seeking companies interested in providing interceptors for the two tests. The first trial, a launch demonstration next March, will involve "ballistic test vehicle firing," while an engineering demonstration in March 2016 will be a "fully integrated firing against a live target," according to the notice. -- Justin Doubleday
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2014, 12:27:16 am »
That's depressing as hell.  You just know they won't replace them, and in the small chance that they do we won't see it fielded for 20 years.


ATCAMS doesn't need a successor system if the rockets life expires. A new production batch or a refit is adequate.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2015, 11:08:59 pm »
Looks like MHTK is moving ahead...

Lockheed Martin Corp., Missile and Fire Control, Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $46,509,372 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) Integrated Demonstration (ID) Program to demonstrate the technology required to counter rocket, artillery and mortar threats and other selective targets. This will transition to the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept (IFPC2-I) Program. Funding and work location will be determined with each order with an estimated completion date of Sept. 26, 2019. Bids were solicited via the Internet with one received. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-15-D-0040).
« Last Edit: January 29, 2015, 11:10:42 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2015, 09:34:59 am »
That's depressing as hell.  You just know they won't replace them, and in the small chance that they do we won't see it fielded for 20 years.


ATCAMS doesn't need a successor system if the rockets life expires. A new production batch or a refit is adequate.

New Missile Program Could Give Raytheon, Boeing Chance To Challenge Lockheed

Posted: February 20, 2015


The Army next month plans to finalize a recommendation for a potential new long-range, guided missile program that -- if approved by Defense Department leaders -- could give Raytheon and Boeing the chance to challenge Lockheed Martin's historic incumbency as provider of the service's premier ground-launched, deep-strike weapon.

According to the Army's fiscal year 2016 budget request, the service is weeks away from completing a Long Range Precision Fires analysis of alternatives commissioned by the Pentagon's acquisition executive in November 2013 to recommend a follow-on to the Lockheed Martin-made Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) program. The Army terminated ATACMS production in 2007.

“The AOA is scheduled for completion in March 2015,” the budget request states. “The LRPF is being developed as a cluster and insensitive munition-compliant system that replaces and improves upon ATACMS capabilities to provide Joint Force Commanders with a 24/7, all-weather, area target, long-range fires capability without placing aircraft and crews at risk.”

In total, the Army is seeking $124 million to get the LRPF effort started between FY-16 and FY-18; that's a 57 percent reduction compared to the $293 million for LRPF the service set aside in the five-year plan it forecast along with its FY-15 spending request.

In separate interviews over recent months, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon representatives all said they were closely monitoring the Army's LRPF analysis. None wanted to be quoted on the record until the Army published a request for proposals.

The service currently plans to seek permission from the high-level Defense Acquisition Board during the first quarter of FY-16 to enter the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction phase of a new LRPF program. One of the first planned actions is to utilize a special contract vehicle designed to give the government access to cutting edge technology that companies are often reluctant to provide under standard procurement regulations, according to the budget request.

“Funding is requested in FY-16 to conduct competitive sub-system risk reduction activities under DOD Section 845 Other Transaction Authority, to mature the rocket motor and warhead technology to support the award of Technology Maturation/Risk Reduction (TM/RR) system demonstration contracts in FY-17,” the request states. “LRPF will be developed using competitive prototyping, carrying two or more contractors through the TM/RR Phase.”

The current schedule calls for a single supplier to get an engineering and manufacturing development contract award in FY-19; initial production is scheduled for FY-22, according to the budget request.

In November 2013, Pentagon acquisition executive Frank Kendall approved the Army's request for an LRPF material development decision and set an initial affordability goal of average procurement unit cost of $720,000 per missile, assuming annual purchases of at least 200.

“The LRPF AOA will provide the analytic underpinnings to inform how the Army could affordably address future capability in the area of long-range precision fires,” Kendall wrote in a Nov. 6, 2013 memo. “The analysis will examine the available trade space between joint fires in lieu of ATACMS, a service life extension program of the current ATACMS, restarting the ATACMS production line, developing a new missile, and potential allied systems, or a combination of all of these alternatives to meet the Army's mission needs,” the DOD acquisition chief wrote.

The LRPF requirement sets a threshold for minimum distance of 70 kilometers and objective requirement of 60 kilometers; the maximum range threshold is 300 kilometers with 499 kilometers the objective, according to a June 25, 2014 Army summary of the key parameters.

The guided missile is to be compatible with both the M270A1 Multiple Launch Rocket System and HIMARS launch platform and demonstrate flight speeds “comparable with or superior to ATACMS,” the Army document adds.

The new missile is also to be compliant with the Defense Department's 2008 cluster munition policy, which means the new weapon will likely carry the unitary warhead on currently fielded ATACMS. -- Jason Sherman
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2015, 02:26:51 pm »
Army General Stresses 'Kinetic Aspect' In Service's Pacific Posture

Posted: March 06, 2015


The head of U.S. Army forces in the Pacific says the service should improve combat capabilities tailored to the region, providing senior-level cover for a nascent program to develop a new missile class. "One can certainly imagine that precision surface-to-surface engagement is a matter of expertise for the Army," Gen. Vincent Brooks said at a Feb. 5 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "Can we do that in the geography that we're talking about, or does it require adaption of existing technologies or the emergence of new technologies? These are the kinds of conversations we have to have," he continued. Brooks said the problem of insufficient range of some Army weaponry in the vast environs of the region, combined with the difficulty of hitting targets on the water from land, must be addressed. "We maintain dialogue with industry about things like that, and we also examine concepts on how we would think about using such capabilities," he said in response to a reporter's question. The general emphasized that combat capabilities specific to the Asia-Pacific region are also generated by Army-provided logistics services, most notably a fleet of cargo ships parked in Japan and elsewhere. Ground-based missile defense programs and the pairing of attack helicopters with unmanned aerial vehicles, too, should be counted in the mix of weapons valuable in a regional war, he argued.

"So there is a kinetic aspect to this that we must maintain in readiness all the time and to make sharper with every day that passes," Brooks said. The comments on kinetic weaponry stood out in a speech almost entirely devoted to building partnerships with the armies of regional allies and China. "Our primary objective is to never have to engage in a fight. I think that's very important to understand," he said. "Having said that, as our recently released Army Operating Concept highlights, the focus of the concept is to win in a complex world." Brooks was referring to a document unveiled last October. The concept describes in broad strokes the kinds of conflicts for which the service should prepare.

Meanwhile, Army officials are awaiting the results of an internal analysis about the service's ability to conduct surface-to-surface strikes of targets up to 499 kilometers away, the maximum range allowed under the 1987 U.S.-Russian Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty. The service appears eager to start a new program, with officials already thinking about a potential management structure and necessary technology for a future missile.

If given the greenlight for a new development, the Army will first need to devise a new rocket booster to achieve the desired range, according to Col. Gary Stephens, program manager for precision fires. Other components, like a guidance package, warhead payload and control augmentation system, are already available, Stephens said (Inside the Army, March 2). -- Sebastian Sprenger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Us should renegotiate the INF Treaty for conventional missile/munitions only. Silly to let China build thousands of IRBM ranged systems while limiting ourselves to 499km
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2015, 03:00:39 pm »
ATACMs does seem a bit limited.  Now if you put two ATACM motors in tandem, dropped the first stage at burnout, and made the rest more heat tolerant that could be interesting. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2015, 08:04:59 pm »
ATACMs does seem a bit limited.  Now if you put two ATACM motors in tandem, dropped the first stage at burnout, and made the rest more heat tolerant that could be interesting. 

Two stage would make a great intermediate ranged prompt strike system. I would go even bigger with a C4/AHW sized land based system. Long ranged with a decent sized payload. The Mk4 improved RV is supposed to give 10m CEP.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
  • The path not taken.
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2015, 05:01:08 am »
ATACMs does seem a bit limited.  Now if you put two ATACM motors in tandem, dropped the first stage at burnout, and made the rest more heat tolerant that could be interesting. 

Two stage would make a great intermediate ranged prompt strike system. I would go even bigger with a C4/AHW sized land based system. Long ranged with a decent sized payload. The Mk4 improved RV is supposed to give 10m CEP.

Maybe you could even 'borrow' an old concept, air-augmentation, to improve performance even further.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2015, 05:13:10 am »
ATACMs does seem a bit limited.  Now if you put two ATACM motors in tandem, dropped the first stage at burnout, and made the rest more heat tolerant that could be interesting. 

Two stage would make a great intermediate ranged prompt strike system. I would go even bigger with a C4/AHW sized land based system. Long ranged with a decent sized payload. The Mk4 improved RV is supposed to give 10m CEP.

You'd need a hell of a TEL for that.  :o

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2015, 05:25:17 am »
ATACMs does seem a bit limited.  Now if you put two ATACM motors in tandem, dropped the first stage at burnout, and made the rest more heat tolerant that could be interesting. 

Two stage would make a great intermediate ranged prompt strike system. I would go even bigger with a C4/AHW sized land based system. Long ranged with a decent sized payload. The Mk4 improved RV is supposed to give 10m CEP.

You'd need a hell of a TEL for that.  :o



Ya 36.5 tons for the C4 maybe a cut down Midgetman [sized] missile cause you don't need the range? 15 tons original design shorter first and second stages down to 10 tons or less?

I'm just thinking of something to outrange China's IRBM's that target our carriers (3k km) I wonder how many Virginia Payload Modules you could fit on a retired helicopter carrier  :o Then you could convert excess D5's to the CTM mission.

I know none of this would ever happen but I enjoy speculating  :D
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2015, 07:27:45 pm »
Army completes second test firing of Multi-Mission Launcher program

Quote
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. (Mar. 23, 2015) -- The Army successfully completed a launch demonstration of three missile launches from the Multi-Mission Launcher Launch Demonstration Unit.

The Army's Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept Product Office conducted the launches with support from the Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center.

The three missile launches included an Air Intercept Missile 9-X that intercepted an unmanned aerial vehicle after launch. A Low Cost Active Seeker and a Mini Hit-to-Kill interceptor were also successfully launched and flew ballistic trajectories.

The successful firing of the missiles served to verify the tube integrity and missile stack integration of the MML. The IFPC Inc 2-I program remains on schedule to conduct an engineering demonstration in March 2016.

The AMRDEC MML Program is designing, fabricating and will deliver two MML prototypes for integration into the IFPC Inc 2-I system during the technology maturation and risk reduction phase of development. The MML is a next generation air defense launcher that is built on open system architecture and will have the capability to launch a variety of interceptors for comprehensive air defense against a variety of unmanned and cruise missile threats.

The Army plans to field the system in 2019.

"This, yet again, demonstrates a positive step forward for the MML," said James Lackey, AMRDEC Director. "MML will be critical in providing expanded ground troop area protection capabilities by enabling kinetic kill lethality effects against a variety of advanced, airborne incoming threats.

"I am very proud of the AMRDEC Team for keeping the focus and solidly executing requirements to both affordable cost and efficient schedule," Lackey added.

The unique government-to-government relationship between the IFPC Inc 2-I Program and the MML Program is on schedule and on budget to deliver two prototypes for use in the engineering demonstration.

http://www.army.mil/article/145021/

Some photos of the AIM-9X launching from one of the canisters

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2015, 09:09:28 am »
Quote

Lockheed eyes opportunities for MHTK

Robin Hughes, London - IHS Jane's Missiles & Rockets
20 July 2015
   
Lockheed Martin's MHTK interceptor. Source: Lockheed Martin
Key Points
Three guidance options are available for the MHTK interceptor, plus an option for miniature warhead integration
Future options for the EAPS competitor include equipping helicopters, UAS and potentially offering a shoulder-launched capability
Lockheed Martin is expecting to complete development of its miniature hit-to-kill (MHTK) kinetic interceptor for the US Army's Extended Area Protection and Survivability Integration Demonstration (EAPS ID) programme by August/September 2016, with a view to exploiting the MHTK technology for other opportunities.

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman were awarded multi-phase contracts in February 2008, aiming to design and demonstrate a prototype missile interceptor weapon system for the EAPS ID programme.

The latter is a Science & Technology programme designed to advance the development of critical intercept technologies to meet a future US Army requirement for enhanced counter rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM) and counter-unmanned aerial vehicles (C-UAV) roles.

EAPS ID is expected to inform the Army Cruise Missile Defense Systems (CMDS) programme office's decision on what technologies to progress as it draws up plans for its future Indirect Fire Protection Capability, Increment 2 - Intercept (IFPC Inc 2-I) Block 2 requirement.

The IFPC Inc 2-I is envisaged as a tactical ground-based weapon system designed to acquire, track, engage, and defeat UAVs, cruise missiles (CM), and RAM threats. The CMDS office intends to apply a block acquisition approach to provide the IFPC Inc 2-I capability. Block 1 will deliver point protection for C-UAV and CM Defence (CMD), elements of this Block include: developing the Multi-Mission Launcher (MML); and leveraging existing interceptors (AIM-9 type), sensors (Sentinel), and existing network (Integrated Battle Command System: IBCS). Block 2 adds a C-RAM capability, including leveraging the MML and the IBCS, as well as developing a new sensor or extending the capabilities of an existing sensor to support C-RAM engagements and developing a C-RAM interceptor.

Block 3 extends the Block 1 CUAS/CMD capability from point defence to area defence.

Chris Murphy, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control business development lead for MHTK told IHS Jane's that in the near term the company will complete some rescheduled lethality and flight tests by September 2016, and transition MHTK off the EAPS programme to position it for the IFPC Inc 2-I Block 2 requirement.

Lockheed Martin conducted Controlled Test Vehicle flight tests in May 2012, followed by an initial guided flight test in March 2013, and a guided intercept test in January 2014 to characterise the performance of the RF seeker. Follow-on tests scheduled for August 2014 were postponed due to "challenges with the seeker", but the company asserts that these have since been resolved.

The MHTK is understood to be approximately 70 cm (29 inches) in length and 4 cm in diameter, with a launch weight of about 2.5 kg. Lockheed said that "MHTK's effective range [for a single-shot kill] against RAM will be 3 km or more."

While there are no energetics in the missile - as the name suggests it is a body-to-body contact kill system - Lockheed Martin has integrated a 'lethality mechanism' or penetrator package in the MHTK to help penetrate the skin of the target. Murphy noted that "the precision and accuracy that go with hit to kill allow us, if required, to remove the penetrator package and integrate a small warhead, to achieve the effect desired without extensive collateral damage, and this is something that could be explored."

Lockheed Martin has integrated unique amorphous alloy canards, sourced from Liquidmetal Technologies, for the MHTK. To achieve the miniaturised electronics package for the interceptor, Lockheed Martin has sourced a range of technologies for components and packaging from outside of its customary supply chain.

"We've borrowed from the medical imaging industry, from the cell phone industry, and from 'large data farming' industries; we've also leveraged some unique packaging industries to fit the electronics, the batteries, to fit the controllers, the motor and to fit the elements of the seeker into the missile."

Murphy said that Lockheed Martin will offer three guidance options for MHTK: it initially integrated a semi-active RF seeker, which was the main focus of the EAPS programme; the US Army's Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) funded a feasibility investigation of an active seeker in the same form factor.

Lockheed Martin is continuing this work on internal investment and has had some success, although it is not as mature as the semi-active RF seeker development.

The company is also evaluating integration of a semi-active laser (SAL) for use with a third-party designator source. "We designed and built the missile so that we could interchange guidance options; if we wanted to integrate a miniaturised video camera in the front end, and it made sense to do so, we are also able to that."

The interceptor itself is powered by a compact new rocket motor developed by Nammo in the United States. Nammo said the MHTK's narrow 40 mm diameter interceptor body precluded the requirement for any active cooling or heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning devices; its solution focuses on mechanical design innovations combined with the development of a new propellant, and materials able to withstand sustained heat. Nammo declined to disclose the exact compositions used, but said that the kinematic requirements needed a very fast burning propellant that is required "to burn for seconds".

To meet the proposed IFPC Inc 2-I Block 2 architecture, Lockheed Martin will package multiple MHTKs in an all-up round (comprising the missiles and the canister they are launched from). The all-up round fits a single launch tube of the MML and can be shipped in the same canister assembly, thus delivering the missile loadout required by the army, but also minimising the missile's logistics footprint.

For other C-RAM user requirements, multiple MHTK all-up rounds canisters can be 'ganged' into any launch tube, with the only limitations being the: size of the launch tube, the availability of an adequate power supply.

Murphy confirmed that Lockheed Martin is already in discussions with two international customers with regard to acquiring the interceptor for a C-RAM/C-UAV requirement.

http://www.janes.com/article/53095/lockheed-eyes-opportunities-for-mhtk



Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2015, 09:25:31 am »
MHTK right here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,22716.msg230247.html#msg230247

I was debating which thread to post it in but since the Jane's article had some good information on the overall IFPC effort
I felt that this was the more appropriate location. I'll cross post it.


Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2016, 04:20:41 am »
Since cluster bomb warheads are being phased out, an enhanced fragmentation warhead was developed.  Doesn't look as effective as a CB warhead.  I would think a fail safe fuse coupled with Insensitive Munitions explosives would address the "dud" issue that is cited as the justification for banning CB warheads.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2016, 06:03:22 am »
They use GMLRS as a point rather than area affect weapon, so a blast warhead is desirable to reduce collateral damage.


Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 533
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2016, 06:41:48 am »
Did they improve the fuse with a delay mode already?

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2016, 07:35:57 am »
In recent Army documents, notably the future on the commission of the Army and a RAND report, the weakness of Army artillery has been noted. In particular, as Russia goes to a range of rocket munitions (thermobaric, cluster, UAV, unitary, maybe EMP), the US has restricted itself to only GMLRS.

This may be an attempt to get some area capability from the GMLRS, but from that video, area capability appears to be basically non-existent.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2016, 07:45:32 am »
In recent Army documents, notably the future on the commission of the Army and a RAND report, the weakness of Army artillery has been noted. In particular, as Russia goes to a range of rocket munitions (thermobaric, cluster, UAV, unitary, maybe EMP), the US has restricted itself to only GMLRS.

This may be an attempt to get some area capability from the GMLRS, but from that video, area capability appears to be basically non-existent.

We do seem to excel at tying our own hands behind our backs while the other guy sharpens his blade.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2016, 08:47:09 am »
We do seem to excel at tying our own hands behind our backs while the other guy sharpens his blade.

I've heard from one Russian that they have radio-jammer and EMP rounds for MRLS.

The Army has put so little effort into utilizing the MRLS weapon platform. What work has been done will lose effectiveness as GPS jamming becomes widespread.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2016, 11:06:28 am »
We do seem to excel at tying our own hands behind our backs while the other guy sharpens his blade.

I've heard from one Russian that they have radio-jammer and EMP rounds for MRLS.

The Army has put so little effort into utilizing the MRLS weapon platform. What work has been done will lose effectiveness as GPS jamming becomes widespread.

One of the main points doctrinally of GMLRS is counter-battery fire. Not sure why you need exotic payloads to accomplish that. GPS jamming is unlikey to be effective at typical GMLRS apogee.

Updating the proximity fuze on GMLRS to a MMW seeker and a range bump would be far more useful upgrades.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 935
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2016, 11:40:48 am »
With the newly developed GLSDB, why not  GLSDB2?

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2016, 11:46:25 am »
With the newly developed GLSDB, why not  GLSDB2?


The problem is going to be cost per shot.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2016, 11:48:20 am »
With the newly developed GLSDB, why not  GLSDB2?



I'd be satisfied if they even did the first one.  AFAIK the US Army has no plans to buy them.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 935
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2016, 12:48:09 pm »
The problem is going to be cost per shot.

That it will.

There are several lower-cost things that they could do to address the issues.

..Add a low-cost (ala APKWS2) SAL seeker to GMLRS.
..Add a wing kit to the MLRS itself to extend range.  They have done studies on this as a naval variant but I can't find the PDF at the moment.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2016, 12:48:35 pm »
With the newly developed GLSDB, why not  GLSDB2?

That's a excellent complementary effort that should be pursued (including other front-ends like say JAGM) but SDB II is delivering about half the payload of GMLRS at lower velocity.

What I'm suggesting would be cheaper and could be accomplished by replacing the steel rocket motor case with a composite case and replacing the front-end when the rounds
come back for regraining.

In fact, the Army is looking at replacing the back-end with tail-controlled actuators and an extend-range, composite rocket motor case which would free up room in the front-end as the canards go away.
Also, it's important to note that the Multi-Mission Launcher developed for IFPC is designed to salvo fire its payload and is being considered for a role as a mini-MLRS.


Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2016, 01:39:55 pm »
I think the problem exists beyond adding guidance to the warheads (which is already an excellent idea, maybe look at Scene-Matching methods?). The problem is that MRLS systems are still going to be unitary warheads. This doesn't solve the area suppression problem, e.g. targeting a formation on the move, nor does it allow for other useful capabilities, such as EMP / Jamming / remote sensor deployment.

The Multi-Mission Launcher would be a great candidate for a short ranged MRLS system, similar to the Grad. That leaves the long range capability un-addressed.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 935
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2016, 01:47:32 pm »
Ripple firing would take care of larger formations, but you are right in that we have no EMP/Jammer warheads on the books.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2016, 03:03:33 pm »
I think the problem exists beyond adding guidance to the warheads (which is already an excellent idea, maybe look at Scene-Matching methods?). The problem is that MRLS systems are still going to be unitary warheads. This doesn't solve the area suppression problem, e.g. targeting a formation on the move, nor does it allow for other useful capabilities, such as EMP / Jamming / remote sensor deployment.

The Alternative Warhead can't really be described as unitary and the variable Height of Burst fuze  gives you the desired area effect.  Not sure how EMP/Jamming helps you in the CB role and
for any remote sensor to be useful at the ranges GMLRS+ can hit it would need SATCOM links which would eat into your 200 lbs of useful payload pretty quickly.   

For these proposed payloads, ATACMS/LPF would be the far more suitable rocket.



 

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #33 on: March 17, 2016, 03:40:52 am »
Raytheon Long Range Precision Fire Missile (500km range)
http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/long-range_precision_fires.html

----------------------------------------------------------
What do you do with an old missile? Replace it with one that's faster, stronger, cheaper to deploy and much more accurate.

Better yet: Replace it with two.

Raytheon is developing a long-range missile that will allow the Army to field twice as many missiles on its existing launch vehicles. Thin and sleek, it will fire two missiles from a single weapons pod, slashing the cost. The new missile also flies further, packs more punch and has a better guidance system than the current weapon.

“We're looking to replace a design originally from the 1980s," said Greg Haynes, a Raytheon manager leading the company’s campaign for a new long-range weapon. “Missile technology has come a long way.”

The ability to fit two Long-Range Precision Fires missiles in an existing launcher is a significant leap over existing tactical missiles
--------------------------------------------------------



Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2016, 12:59:49 pm »
Lockheed Martin Restarts Production of Tactical Missile System at Arkansas Facility


Quote
DALLAS, March 29, 2016 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) has restarted its Tactical Missile System (TACMS) production line at the company’s facility in Camden, Arkansas.

For more than 20 years, TACMS (formerly ATACMS) was assembled on-budget and on- or ahead of schedule at the company’s facility in Horizon City near El Paso, Texas. In order to consolidate all of Lockheed Martin’s Precision Fires missile and rocket production at its Camden Operations, TACMS production was temporarily suspended in 2014 and relocated to Camden.

“Restarting the TACMS production is excellent news for our customers seeking deep precision fire support,” said Ken Musculus, vice president – Tactical Missiles at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “This production re-start will yield greater flexibility and significant cost-savings on a program with a rich history of reliability, affordability and mission success.”

TACMS is a combat-proven precision deep-strike system with readiness rates exceeding 98 percent since the program’s initial fielding in 1990. Providing quick-reaction firepower with ranges up to 300 kilometers, the TACMS missiles can be fired from the entire family of MLRS launchers, including the lightweight High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).

Each TACMS missile is packaged in an MLRS launch pod and is fired from the MLRS family of launchers. TACMS is the only long-range tactical surface-to-surface missile ever fired in combat by the U.S. Army. Almost 600 TACMS have been employed to date, with the system demonstrating extremely high rates of combat accuracy and reliability.

http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/march/mfc-032916-lockheed-martin-restarts-production-tactical-missile-system-arkansas.html

There was an RFI earlier this month looking at sustained annual production rates of 200 ATACMS with an option to surge to 320/year.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #35 on: March 29, 2016, 01:08:49 pm »
^------ Excellent news.  (Of course it would be even better if they were developing a nuclear variant. . .)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2016, 06:38:18 pm »
Since cluster bomb warheads are being phased out, an enhanced fragmentation warhead was developed.  Doesn't look as effective as a CB warhead.  I would think a fail safe fuse coupled with Insensitive Munitions explosives would address the "dud" issue that is cited as the justification for

Despite the name of the treaty (CCM) cluster bombs are not actually banned by it. Just cluster bombs with large numbers of dumb bomblets. Weapons with up to 10 bomblets each weighing more than 4kg and with a combined weight of more than 20kg are allowed. That is if they have an electronic fuse, sensor and self destruct capability. Under these rules it is more than feasble to replace DPICM type shells and CEM type bombs with weapons of at least the same lethality and cost. Especially as the sensor and single target engagement capability can just be the fusing system to detonate the bomblet at the right height to achieve the required distribution of effects to destroy the target.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2016, 06:52:54 pm »
http://defense-update.com/20160329_58969.html

Multi-mission launcher

http://www.army.mil/article/164971/U_S__Army_successfully_fires_missile_from_new_interceptor_launch_platform/

And now on to the Longbow Hellfire in the counter-UAS role.  Curious if the MML canister could accommodate RAM Blk II, AMRAAM(-ER)...


Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2016, 07:29:23 pm »
Since cluster bomb warheads are being phased out, an enhanced fragmentation warhead was developed.  Doesn't look as effective as a CB warhead.  I would think a fail safe fuse coupled with Insensitive Munitions explosives would address the "dud" issue that is cited as the justification for

Despite the name of the treaty (CCM) cluster bombs are not actually banned by it. Just cluster bombs with large numbers of dumb bomblets. Weapons with up to 10 bomblets each weighing more than 4kg and with a combined weight of more than 20kg are allowed. That is if they have an electronic fuse, sensor and self destruct capability. Under these rules it is more than feasble to replace DPICM type shells and CEM type bombs with weapons of at least the same lethality and cost. Especially as the sensor and single target engagement capability can just be the fusing system to detonate the bomblet at the right height to achieve the required distribution of effects to destroy the target.

Did the US actually ever accede to the Oslo Process (the so-called CCM)?

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2016, 05:20:18 pm »
Tests begin with interceptors for new base-protection missile shield


Army officials have begun a series of tests to determine the performance of various missiles that could function as interceptors under the service's Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept program, the service has announced.

The Army wants to use its existing inventory of munitions as part of the program, developing only a new Multi-Mission Launcher to keep costs down. The effort follows the successful deployment of C-RAM systems -- Counter Rocket, Mortar and Artillery -- to Iraq in previous years. The systems alerted deployed soldiers whenever munitions were flying toward their encampments. Connected to a re-purposed Navy Phalanx gun, the C-RAM setup was able to pulverize munitions in mid-air.

Officials fired a Stinger missile from the MML on March 23, according to a service statement. The test with the man-portable, infrared-homing, surface-to-air missile will be followed by additional shots with other munitions in the coming weeks.

"A variety of other missiles are scheduled to be tested as part of an IFPC Inc 2-I Engineering Demonstration at White Sands Missile Range, NM, in the coming weeks," the Army said.

In addition to the MML, the emerging program will feature connectivity to the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, or IBCS. That system is meant as the Army's brains for virtually all air-defense efforts of the future, netting together optimal sensors and shooters in a given engagement, officials have said.

A Sentinel radar will scan the surroundings for threats. Working in concert, the components are designed to provide spherical coverage.

According to the Army, the new launcher is mounted on a medium tactical vehicle and can rotate 360-degrees. It boasts 15 tubes that can be filled with a single large interceptor or multiple smaller ones.

Col. Terrence Howard, project manager for cruise missile defense systems in the Army's program executive office for missiles and space, told Inside the Army last fall that tests were also planned with the Tamir missile, which is the interceptor for Israel's Iron Dome program.

Additionally, officials want to see how the AIM-9X "Sidewinder," the Miniature Hit-to-Kill missile, and the Hellfire would perform in an IFPC program. The AIM-9X serves as the "reference" missile against which all other interceptors will be compared, Howard said in an interview with ITA at the annual convention of the Association of the United States Army last October.

The goal of the ongoing program tests is to see if the various missile variants can be used against aerial threats like drones and cruise missiles. A later increment of the program will aim to shoot down rockets, artillery and mortar shells with kinetic interceptors or lasers.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1838
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2016, 08:36:26 pm »
Since cluster bomb warheads are being phased out, an enhanced fragmentation warhead was developed.  Doesn't look as effective as a CB warhead.  I would think a fail safe fuse coupled with Insensitive Munitions explosives would address the "dud" issue that is cited as the justification for

Despite the name of the treaty (CCM) cluster bombs are not actually banned by it. Just cluster bombs with large numbers of dumb bomblets. Weapons with up to 10 bomblets each weighing more than 4kg and with a combined weight of more than 20kg are allowed. That is if they have an electronic fuse, sensor and self destruct capability. Under these rules it is more than feasble to replace DPICM type shells and CEM type bombs with weapons of at least the same lethality and cost. Especially as the sensor and single target engagement capability can just be the fusing system to detonate the bomblet at the right height to achieve the required distribution of effects to destroy the target.

Did the US actually ever accede to the Oslo Process (the so-called CCM)?

Quote
United States policy towards cluster munitions

In May 2008, then-Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Stephen Mull stated that the U.S. military relies upon cluster munitions as an important part of their defense strategy.

    "Cluster munitions are available for use by every combat aircraft in the U.S. inventory, they are integral to every Army or Marine maneuver element and in some cases constitute up to 50 percent of tactical indirect fire support. U.S. forces simply cannot fight by design or by doctrine without holding out at least the possibility of using cluster munitions."
    — Stephen Mull

U.S. arguments favoring the use of cluster munitions are that their use reduces the number of aircraft and artillery systems needed to support military operations and if they were eliminated, significantly more money would have to be spent on new weapons, ammunition, and logistical resources. Also, militaries would need to increase their use of massed artillery and rocket barrages to get the same coverage, which would destroy or damage more key infrastructures. The U.S. was initially against any CCW negotiations but dropped its opposition in June 2007. Cluster munitions have been determined as needed for ensuring the country's national security interests, but measures are being taken to address humanitarian concerns of their use, as well as pursuing their original suggested alternative to a total ban of pursuing technological fixes to make the weapons no longer viable after the end of a conflict.[89] In July 2012, the U.S. fired at a target area with 36 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) unitary warhead rockets. Analysis indicates that the same effects could have been made by four cluster GMLRS rockets. If cluster weapons cannot be used, the same operation would require using nine times as many rockets, cost nine times as much ($400,000 compared to $3.6 million), and take 40 times as long (30 seconds compared to 20 minutes) to execute.[90] The U.S. suspended operational use of cluster munitions in 2003, and the U.S. Army ceased procurement of GMLRS cluster rockets in December 2008 because of a submunition dud rate as high as 5 percent. Pentagon policy is to have all cluster munitions used after 2018 to have a submunition unexploded ordnance rate of less than 1 percent. To achieve this, the Army has undertaken the Alternative Warhead Program (AWP) to assess and recommend technologies to reduce or eliminate cluster munition failures, as some 80 percent of U.S. military cluster weapons reside in Army artillery stockpiles.[89]
[Source]

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #42 on: March 31, 2016, 11:00:38 am »
So I guess the answer is no the US did not accede to the CCM Treaty (or the CCW treaty) but has a self-imposed moratorium on the use of cluster munitions with a greater than 1% UXO rate.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #43 on: March 31, 2016, 11:50:46 am »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2016, 04:16:13 pm »


Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Arian

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2016, 11:16:41 pm »
What happened to this project?:


Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #46 on: April 05, 2016, 12:27:36 pm »
I suspect the decision to go with an active seeker for MHTK killed AI3 since the Army did not want to introduce illuminators which would be required for AI3's (and friends) semi-active front-end.

Speaking of MHTK

Lockheed Martin Mini-Missile Takes Flight in New Demonstration

Quote


WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M., April 5, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- A Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT]-built Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) interceptor was successfully launched from a Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) in an engineering demonstration on April 4 at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

The launch demonstrated the agility and aerodynamic capability of the MHTK missile, which is designed to defeat rocket, artillery and mortar (RAM) targets at ranges greatly exceeding those of current and interim systems. Today's launch advances the program, increasing the level of MHTK integration maturity with the MML.

"Today's global security environment demands agile, close-range solutions that protect soldiers and citizens from enemy rockets, artillery and mortars," said Hal Stuart, Lockheed Martin's MHTK Program Manager. "This test is a critical milestone demonstrating the interceptor's maturity, and we look forward to continuing to build on this success using key data gathered from today's launch."

The MHTK interceptor was designed to be small in size while retaining the range, lethality and reliability of other Hit-to-Kill interceptors. MHTK is just over two feet (61 cm) in length and weighs five pounds (2.2 kg) at launch. The compact footprint of the MHTK allows multiple rounds to be packaged in a single MML tube.

The MML is a key component of the Army's Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 – Intercept program.  The program is designed to provide Army forces protection from cruise missiles, unmanned aircraft systems and RAM threats. The MML is designed to carry and launch a variety of missiles from a single launcher.

The MHTK uses Hit-to-Kill technology, which destroys threats through kinetic energy in body-to-body contact. Hit-to-Kill technology removes the risk of collateral damage seen in traditional blast-fragmentation interceptors. The MHTK interceptor complements other Lockheed Martin Hit-to-Kill missile interceptors by delivering close range lethality with proven success for a true layered defense.

http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/april/mfc-lockheed-martin-mini-missile-takes-flight-demonstration.html
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 01:07:36 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline Arian

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2016, 05:37:21 pm »
Thanks. That makes sense.

Given this picture posted by LM, is MHTK also being considered as a "self-defense" missile for aerial platforms?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2016, 06:39:35 pm »
Deleted post was supposed to go somewhere else . :'(
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 05:25:02 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #50 on: April 08, 2016, 05:27:21 pm »
Got to be able to carry a hundred or so MHTK vehicles??
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #51 on: April 08, 2016, 05:52:42 pm »
Got to be able to carry a hundred or so MHTK vehicles??

60, IIRC. 4 MHTK canisters/MML launch tube * 15 MML launch tubes/vehicle.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 894
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #52 on: April 08, 2016, 10:20:44 pm »
That launcher is the smartest thing the Army has cooked up in a long time. Just keep adapting new payloads.

Offline John21

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 139
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2016, 02:17:21 am »
That launcher is the smartest thing the Army has cooked up in a long time. Just keep adapting new payloads.
Lets just hope it doesn't go the way of NetFires, SLAMRAAM...etc :P. glad that the Army is at least trying to get back into the Anti-aircraft/Air-defense game.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2016, 07:43:09 am »
That launcher is the smartest thing the Army has cooked up in a long time. Just keep adapting new payloads.

They need to buy that MLRS/SDB combo too.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 894
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2016, 02:12:33 pm »
That launcher is the smartest thing the Army has cooked up in a long time. Just keep adapting new payloads.
Lets just hope it doesn't go the way of NetFires, SLAMRAAM...etc :P. glad that the Army is at least trying to get back into the Anti-aircraft/Air-defense game.
I think they've already avoided that by diversifying so well. NetFires boxes and the SLAMRAAM launcher could be used for other payloads but the Army never went out and actually did it. So when their limited payload died, so did the launcher. This MML already has a track record shooting off a variety of weapons with minimal integration issues. Anyone one of those weapons could die but the MML should live on, one hopes anyway.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #58 on: April 12, 2016, 03:12:55 am »
That's NLOS, which isn't the same as MML.

This article says 4 MHTK in each MML launch cell, for a total of 60 per launcher.:

http://defense-update.com/20150328_mml.html

But the picture illustrating that isn't specifically for MML either. 

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2016, 07:31:20 pm »
Prior press release mentions of the "Low Cost Active Seeker" missile being launched from MML but I don't recall seeing an image.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 01:36:01 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #61 on: April 15, 2016, 03:46:25 am »
I thought I read somewhere that the original semi-active guided MHTK was around $30K each.  As "quantity is a quality of its own" so too is cost.  I would hope they keep developing this thing.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #62 on: April 15, 2016, 02:52:02 pm »
I thought I read somewhere that the original semi-active guided MHTK was around $30K each.  As "quantity is a quality of its own" so too is cost.  I would hope they keep developing this thing.

IIRC, the goal was $16,000 AUPC for the semi-active version. The bump in AUPC for the active version is hopefully offset by the higher Pk i.e. fewer shots per kill.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #63 on: April 16, 2016, 04:32:26 am »
Lockheed Martin evolves MHTK missile design

Lockheed Martin is expected to conduct a controlled test vehicle flight of an enhanced variant of its Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) missile in July following its successful launch from the US Army-developed Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) on 4 April at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, as part of Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept (IFPC Inc 2-I) Engineering Demonstration.

"The MHTK airframe that was launched from the MML in April is slightly different from that we have flown previously, and was a first-step risk-reduction test for a controlled test flight that we will execute in early July this year with the updated airframe - although not out of the MML," Chris Murphy, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control business development lead for MHTK, told IHS Jane's  .

The original MHTK variant was just under 27 inches (68.6 cm) in length and 40 mm in diameter, with a launch weight of about 2.5 kg (5.5 lb). Murphy said the new MHTK design - which is intended to deliver greater agility - involves an increase in the length of the missile to just over 28 inches (71.1cm), but with no change in weight, and a slightly sharper, more pointed nose.

Four fins have been added to the rear of the missile - forward of and cropped at 45° to the original four fins - with their trailing edge and the leading edge of the original fins more or less aligned. Both sets of rear fins are aligned with the forward canard assembly.

"These modifications improve by 30-40% MHTK's agility to meet anticipated needs for increased capability beyond what was envisioned at the beginning of the S&T programme," Murphy noted.

MHTK is being developed for the US Army's Extended Area Protection and Survivability Integration Demonstration (EAPS ID) programme, which is a science & technology (S&T) initiative designed to advance the development of critical intercept technologies to meet a US Army future requirement for enhanced protection against rocket, artillery, and mortar (RAM) and unmanned aircraft system (UAS) threats. The results of EAPS ID are expected to inform the Army Cruise Missile Defense Systems (CMDS) Program Office's decision on what technologies to progress the IFPC Inc 2-I Block 2 (C-RAM) requirement.

The Engineering Demonstration at White Sands paves the way for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of IFPC Inc 2-I Block 1, which will deliver point protection for CUAS and CM Defence (CMD). Elements of this Block include developing the MML, leveraging the AIM-9X Block 2 as the baseline interceptor, leveraging the existing sensor (Sentinel), and leveraging the existing network (Integrated Battle Command System or IBCS).

Block 2 adds a C-RAM capability and includes leveraging the MML and the IBCS, developing a new sensor or extending the capabilities of an existing sensor to support C-RAM engagements, and developing a C-RAM interceptor - potentially MHTK. Block 3 extends the Block 1 CUAS/CMD capability from point defence to area defence.

Lockheed Martin has, to date, funded three MHTK launches from the MML. In its original configuration, MHTK was initially launched from an MML tube during tests at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, California, in October 2014. In March 2015, it was fired from a full MML Launch Demonstration Unit at White Sands Missile Range.

During the March/April IFPC Inc 2-I Engineering Demonstration - which included MML launches of the Raytheon AIM-9X and the Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Longbow Hellfire Missiles at White Sands, and an FIM-92 Stinger at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida - the third launch from a fully networked MML demonstrated the updated MHTK's mechanical, electrical, and software integration with the launcher, and its ability to work as part of an integrated air and missile defence network, Murphy said.

Lockheed expects to wrap up the EAPS ID S&T programme before September - following an MHTK controlled test vehicle flight in July - "At which point we will have an updated airframe that has greater agility and manoeuvrability than our original airframe, and [MHTK] components matured to an advanced TRL [technology readiness level] 6," said Murphy.

Pending an army decision on an IFPC Inc 2-I Block 2 requirement, however, the company will continue investing in the development of the missile, with tests in the laboratory and flight tests to demonstrate the interceptor's maturity, he said. This includes determining and demonstrating the best guidance options to meet the army's requirement.

Murphy said that MHTK was designed to allow integration of different seekers, to complement the operational requirement. The company initially integrated a semi-active (RF) seeker, which was the main focus of the EAPS ID programme, although the army's Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center also funded a feasibility investigation for an active seeker in the same form factor. Lockheed is continuing to mature this on internal investment funding, while in parallel evaluating integration of a semi-active laser (SAL) for use with a third-party designator source, and an imaging infrared seeker in the same form factor.

"The SAL seeker has been matured up to the point that it is ready to be flight tested, but the imaging seeker is not quite as mature yet," Murphy said.

Murphy said the company has tested each of these seeker types but will focus on the semi-active RF seeker guidance for MHTK in the near term. "We had an intercept flight test with the semi-active RF seeker back in July 2014, and we learned a lot from that. We will conduct a second company-funded intercept flight test with the semi-active RF seeker in November against a RAM target, while we complete development of the active seeker."

While the army's prospective IFPC Inc 2-I Block 2 requirement is the principal mechanism to advance MHTK into a programme of record, the improved agility of the missile and seeker options available offer the potential for other battlefield applications, including equipping UAS, helicopters, or light aircraft, or as a shoulder-launched capability for operations in urban terrain.

"To do a C-RAM job is a lot different from launching from an air platform, but if you take that same airframe, and for the most part the same components, and simply change the seeker, that's something that a lot of people are interested in," Murphy said.

"There is already interest in other applications - including shoulder launched - and we have responded to interest from the aviation community to launch [MHTK] off army aviation platforms. We are working with the army to understand what they would like to see in terms of capability. I think we will continue to see interest not just from the army, but other services, as we progress the missile design and testing."
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Arian

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2016, 09:46:57 pm »
So has MHTK actually engaged any targets in tests yet?

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #65 on: April 20, 2016, 06:11:40 pm »
Israeli Interceptor Launched From US System Destroys Target


Quote
WASHINGTON — The US Army has launched a number of different types of missiles from its new Multi-Mission Launcher (MML), developed entirely by the service, but last week marks the first time a foreign interceptor was tested with the system.

An Israeli Tamir interceptor was fired from the MML on April 14 at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and destroyed an unmanned aircraft system target as part of a bigger effort to demonstrate Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept (IFPC Inc. 2-I), according to an Army statement released Wednesday.

The IFPC Inc. 2-I is intended to defeat UAS, cruise missiles, rockets, artillery and mortars.

The Tamir missile is the interceptor for the Israel-US-developed Iron Dome air defense system that is deployed in Israel and is used to protect the country from incoming rockets, artillery and mortars.

The Israeli and US governments have a co-development and production agreement to produce parts for Iron Dome and build the interceptors. Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Raytheon are the co-producers for the program. About 55 percent of the work is done in the US while the remaining work is done in Israel.While the US does not use the Tamir missile in any of its own systems, proving its functionality with a US launcher signals potential consideration for its use by the US military down the road.

The Army has also successfully launched Lockheed Martin's Longbow Hellfire, as well as Raytheon's AIM-9X Sidewinder, Stinger and miniature hit-to-kill missiles.The MML, mounted on a medium tactical vehicle, is being developed internally by the Army and represents the first development of a major program by the government industrial base in more than 30 years, the service said.

The Army spent $119 million to build the prototypes, which includes owning the technical data rights. The cost of developing the system outside of the Army would have been about three times as much, according to information obtained during a tour with the acting Army secretary last month of the Aviation & Missile Research Development & Engineering Command (AMRDEC) at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, where one of the MMLs was on display.

The launcher, which consists of 15 tubes, which can hold either a single large interceptor or multiple smaller interceptors, can rotate 360 degrees and elevate from zero to 90 degrees, according to the Army.

The launcher’s open-system architecture allows it to interface with the Army’s air and missile defense Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) Engagement Operations Center to support and coordinate target engagements. IBCS will be “the brains” of the service’s future air and missile defense system with the capability of stitching a variety of radars, launchers and interceptors together.

The IFPC Inc 2-I is a joint effort between AMRDEC and the Army’s Program Executive Office for Cruise Missile Defense Systems' (CMDS) project office.

The Army plans to build six more MMLs in the engineering and manufacturing development phase at Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania.

Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #66 on: April 22, 2016, 11:04:24 pm »
Army is tasked to weigh new missiles forbidden under U.S.-Russia treaty

April 21, 2016

Lawmakers have adopted legislation tasking the Army to envision fielding new missile types currently banned under a landmark disarmament treaty with Russia.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) introduced an amendment to that effect to the fiscal year 2017 defense authorization bill during an April 21 meeting of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee. Members approved the measure by voice vote. The subcommittee's mark now stands to be approved at an April 27 full committee hearing.

Forbes wants the ground service's Training and Doctrine Command to study the “potential military benefits” of conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Such weapons are prohibited under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by the then-leaders of the Cold War foes, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Before the agreement, the Army had nuclear-tipped Pershing II missiles stationed in West Germany. This sort of weapon came to symbolize the hair-trigger tensions between the superpowers, as their use would have given each side little to no warning.

Training and Doctrine Command is where the Army typically studies new warfighting concepts. Its officials have been involved in developing ideas toward what former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel dubbed a new kind of “coastal artillery” that could be deployed to U.S.-friendly nations in the Asia-Pacific region to keep China in check.

One new Army weapon still in the conceptual stage, the Long-Range Precision Fires missile, has a self-imposed range cap of 499 kilometers, as Army officials have repeatedly emphasized.

The Virginia congressman's amendment text cites Cold War-era precedents of U.S. intermediate-range weapons, including the Pershing II and the Air Force's Gryphon cruise missile, a tactical nuclear strike weapon based on the Navy's ship-launched Tomahawk.

While the United States has stuck to the INF Treaty and dismantled the arms, Forbes argues, the State Department has deemed Russia in violation because of a ground-launched cruise missile with prohibited performance characteristics. China is not party to the agreement at all.

“As was the case in previous years, in 2015, the United States again raised concerns with Russia on repeated occasions in an effort to resolve U.S. concerns,” reads the State Department's 2016 report on international compliance with various arms control agreements. “The United States will continue to pursue resolution of U.S. concerns with Russia.”

In a back-and-forth with Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) during the markup hearing, Forbes played up the Russian noncompliance and framed his amendment as preparation for a time when the treaty is no longer honored by either side. Merely studying the issue would “send a message to the Russians,” Forbes argued.

“The committee is interested in ascertaining whether conventional land-based surface-to-surface missiles would have military value to the United States, or to its allies, as a means of promptly striking time-sensitive and other high-value targets, as well as denying enemy use of adjacent waters,” the amendment text reads.

The committee's position, it adds, is that such weapons could help improve the U.S. position in “potential long-term military competitions.” That verbiage is typically code for the new arms race with Russia and China.

Notably, the Forbes amendment wants the Army study to be “resource-unconstrained.” Still, the report, due to Congress by April 1, 2017, must include information about cost estimates.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8038
  • The path not taken.
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #67 on: April 23, 2016, 02:40:24 am »
Even Congress has realised that the INF treaty is dead and buried, though they are still a trifle reluctant to just come out and say it. The State Department on the other hand, well denial is still a river in Egypt in so far as they are concerned...
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 07:16:31 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #68 on: April 23, 2016, 07:58:04 am »
Even Congress has realised that the INF treaty is dead and buried, though they are still a trifle reluctant to just come out and say it. The State Department on the other hand, well denial is still a river in so far as they are concerned...
Especially in the SCS where Chinese MRBM and IRBM out number us hundreds to zero. US should declare or re-negotiate the treaty for non-nuclear systems.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #69 on: April 23, 2016, 08:01:15 am »
Even Congress has realised that the INF treaty is dead and buried, though they are still a trifle reluctant to just come out and say it. The State Department on the other hand, well denial is still a river in so far as they are concerned...
Especially in the SCS where Chinese MRBM and IRBM out number us hundreds to zero. US should declare or re-negotiate the treaty for non-nuclear systems.

Without bringing the rest of the world into it we'd just be tying our own hands (not that we haven't been dumb enough to do that in the past).  China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Russia, India. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1838
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #70 on: April 23, 2016, 07:42:51 pm »
Even Congress has realised that the INF treaty is dead and buried, though they are still a trifle reluctant to just come out and say it. The State Department on the other hand, well denial is still a river in so far as they are concerned...
Especially in the SCS where Chinese MRBM and IRBM out number us hundreds to zero. US should declare or re-negotiate the treaty for non-nuclear systems.

Without bringing the rest of the world into it we'd just be tying our own hands (not that we haven't been dumb enough to do that in the past).  China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Russia, India. . .

Two of those nations are at least nominal allies of the USA the last time I checked...   ::)

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #71 on: April 24, 2016, 07:23:08 am »
Even Congress has realised that the INF treaty is dead and buried, though they are still a trifle reluctant to just come out and say it. The State Department on the other hand, well denial is still a river in so far as they are concerned...
Especially in the SCS where Chinese MRBM and IRBM out number us hundreds to zero. US should declare or re-negotiate the treaty for non-nuclear systems.

Without bringing the rest of the world into it we'd just be tying our own hands (not that we haven't been dumb enough to do that in the past).  China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Russia, India. . .

Two of those nations are at least nominal allies of the USA the last time I checked...   ::)
Point taken, as we welcome the age of succinct yes but no and no but yes answers amoung frenemies :o

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #72 on: April 28, 2016, 04:53:13 pm »
Counter-Drone Prototype Put to Test at Army NIE
Quote

Jen Judson, Defense News

FORT BLISS, Texas — A prototype to counter unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS) using capabilities already in the Army inventory is
now being put to the test at the service’s Network Integration Evaluation (NIE).

The NIE is a soldier-led evaluation that assesses how to integrate programs of record into and progress the Army’s tactical network.
The evaluation, set to take place at Fort Bliss, Texas, over two weeks starting at the beginning of May, includes testing how well the
C-UAS Mobile Integrated Capability (CMIC) works within the network and how it fares in the hands of soldiers.

The Army acknowledges the UAS threat will only grow as the systems become increasingly affordable and can be obtained through
a few simple clicks on the Internet.

“We see that as kind of a poor man’s air force,” Michael Cochran, the Fires liaison officer at Fort Bliss, told Defense News April 26 as
 the NIE prepared to kick off.

Using the C-UAS CMIC, "we can put a capability in soldiers’ hands using existing equipment that they have, so really what we are doing is we
 are taking existing programs of record and repurposing it to give the ability to counter those UAS,” he said.

To make its prototype, the Army selected a vehicle already used by the service’s fire support teams, the Q-53 Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar System and
the Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder (LLDR).

The only piece of new equipment is Northrop Grumman’s Venom mast, which transmits Q-53 radar information and supports the LLDR.

The Army added the capability to track air vehicle threats to the Q-53 radar, which traditionally tracks rockets, artillery and mortars.

The radar will detect a threat, send a signal to the vehicle — through the mast, up to the LLDR — which will slew on the target.
The system is connected to the Army’s command and control systems. A soldier can then decide how to take out the target, according to Cochran.

The Army’s C-UAS CMIC system is an example of what Pentagon officials and members of Congress alike want to see more —
using what it has in innovative ways and taking the initiative to rapidly develop prototypes.



Thornberry Markup Promotes Prototyping, Experimentation

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry’s fiscal 2017 markup of the defense policy bill proposes giving each service
the ability through dedicated funding to experiment more with prototypes and rapidly deploy weapon system components and other technologies
without requiring those programs to be tied to existing major programs.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/aaaa/2016/04/28/counter-uas-prototype-put-test-nie/83638706/

Cool that they (re)activated Q-53's air vehicle tracking capability.  LLDR could be used to guide the SAL version of MHTK, Hellfire Romeo, JAGM etc.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #73 on: April 29, 2016, 06:58:07 pm »
And the above article has been updated to reflect the Q-50 rather than Q-53.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #74 on: May 19, 2016, 09:17:29 am »
Video of Tamir launch.  Looks like a case of more missile than box.


Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #75 on: May 19, 2016, 09:19:10 am »
Summary report of test status.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #77 on: July 15, 2016, 11:12:44 am »

Army taps Raytheon, Baylor University to develop elements for Next-Generation Radar


The Army has awarded a pair of grants for advance research on technologies for its planned next-generation radar, tapping Raytheon and Baylor University to develop modular building blocks that could be easily plugged into a future sensor system that is not yet a program of record but the service envisions fielding around 2030.

The Army Research Laboratory has formed collaborative alliances with Raytheon -- a major supplier of U.S. military radar systems -- and Baylor University’s School of Engineering and Computer Science to fabricate and demonstrate modular building blocks for a next-generation radar system. The system will be a multimode air-defense sensor.

"The research to be performed under this action will tap into external high-risk, high-payoff approaches that will enhance our in-house multimode scalable investigation for Air Defense and Counter Rocket And Mortar (C-RAM) applications," according to the Army Research Laboratory.

The Army has tapped Raytheon to develop a module dubbed SAMFET -- Scalable, Agile, Multimode, Front End Technology -- as part of the 24-month cooperate research project.

"NGR will enhance radar-reliant Air Defense and Counter Rocket and Mortar system performance, particularly in portable configurations such as hand-held, vehicle-mounted and airborne deployments," Raytheon said in a July 11 announcement of the project. "Raytheon will work with ARL to explore new approaches for the design and fabrication of modular components that will fit into NGR's open architecture, offering processing flexibility, agility and efficiency across radar bands."

Raytheon plans to leverage its work on gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductor technology -- which allows for higher-power density than previous semiconductors -- such as the new Air and Missile Defense Radar the company is developing for the Navy's next variant of the Arleigh-Burke class guided missile destroyers.

Raytheon's work to ready GaN for military production earned the defense contractor high marks from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, according to the company.

GaN can efficiently amplify high-power signals at microwave frequencies, enabling radars "to operate up to five times more powerfully than they would with older semiconductor technology, and without overheating," according to a company statement.

As part of this project, the Army has awarded Baylor University an $850,000 grant for work on electrical and computer engineering, particularly its work on micro-electrical mechanical systems (MEMS), devices that allow circuitry to change quickly. The circuits will use algorithms developed at Baylor, according to the university.

"Unlike conventional radar, next-generation radar transmitters coexist with wireless communication devices using the same airwaves and can adjust themselves on the fly and allow for adaptation to battlefield conditions," Charles Baylis, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering and director of the Wireless and Microwave Circuits and Systems Program at Baylor, said in a statement.

The Baylor research will consider current radar broadcast bands, which scientists say are both contested and congested. "Next-generation radar will come from a much smaller, more flexible device that is able to run operational rings around today’s radar and will help make cellular devices and radar best friends forever," said Robert Marks, a Baylor electrical and computer engineering processor.

This effort is funded through applied research in the Army's sensors and electronic survivability projects portfolio. The Multi-Mode Air Defense Radar research "supports the current and future technical challenges associated with air defense radar technology" including "analyzing current and emerging RF spoofing, RF jamming, and RF signature management technologies to determine their impact on the performance of air defense radars," according to the Army's FY-17 budget request.

Additional projects include electromagnetic modeling, RF measurements, experiments to identify mitigation techniques for spoofing and jamming, and identifying useful signature management technologies, according to the budget request. "This will also include research in electronic devices, sub-assembly design, and laboratory experiments to advance the state-of-the-art of air defense radars operating in contested electronic environments," the
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #78 on: August 03, 2016, 04:07:41 am »
MTHK Flight Test

"WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M., Aug. 2, 2016 –Lockheed Martin’s (NYSE: LMT) Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) interceptor was successfully launched in an engineering demonstration at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. The demonstration on Friday, July 29, was part of the U.S. Army’s Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center’s (AMRDEC) Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) program."

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/august/mfc-080216-lockheed-martin-mighty-mini-missile-completes--flight-test.html

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #79 on: August 04, 2016, 05:58:37 pm »
....
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #80 on: August 04, 2016, 07:14:25 pm »
The active RF seeker version was scheduled to be tested this year; that radome looks different. Also interesting to note how the rear surfaces continue to evolve.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 894
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #81 on: August 05, 2016, 07:38:34 am »
The test shot may not have included the seeker head, depending on the objectives of the test.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #82 on: August 08, 2016, 03:10:19 am »
Lockheed Martin flies redesigned MHTK interceptor



Quote
Lockheed Martin on 29 July conducted the first controlled vehicle test flight of redesigned version of its Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) semi-active radar homing missile as part of the US Army's Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Centre's (AMRDEC's) Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) Science & Technology (S&T) programme.

MHTK is a compact counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM)-optimised interceptor, developed by Lockheed Martin for the EAPS S&T initiative, to deliver area protection against proliferating high volume, low technology threats in theatre.

The original MHTK solution for EAPS S&T was just under 68.6 cm in length, approximately 40 mm in diameter, and with a launch weight of about 2.2 kg.

Intended to deliver greater agility, the new design sees an increase in the length of the airframe to just over 71.1 cm, but with no change in weight, and a slightly sharper front end. Four additional fins have been added to the rear of the missile - forward of, and cropped at 45º to the original four fins - with their trailing edge, and the leading edge of the original fins, more or less aligned. Both sets of rear fins are aligned with the forward canard assembly. Chris Murphy, Lockheed Missiles & Fire Control Business Development lead for MHTK said that the modifications improve by 30-40% MHTK's agility to meet anticipated needs for increased capability beyond what was envisioned at the beginning of the S&T programme.

Funded by AMRDEC and conducted at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, the 29 July test flight is the second launch of the redesigned MHTK. In April, Lockheed Martin funded a ballistic shot from the US Army's Multi-Mission Launcher at White Sands to demonstrate the enhanced MHTK's mechanical, electrical, and software integration with the launcher, and its ability to work as part of the Army's proposed integrated air and missile defence network.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #83 on: August 09, 2016, 05:58:49 pm »
I think the Janes article was later updated to include:

Key Points
  • First intercept test scheduled for November 2016
  • Series of tests MHTK equipped with active radar homing guidance planned for 2017 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #84 on: August 24, 2016, 11:25:21 am »
Lockheed Tests More-Agile Counter-Rocket Interceptor[/b]

Quote
Lockheed Martin has flight-tested an improved version of its Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) missile in its final firing under a U.S. Army program to develop technology for a counter-rocket, artillery and mortar (C-RAM) interceptor.                                                                       
The test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, completes work under the Army’s Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) program and was the first involving a redesigned MHTK interceptor with increased agility.

MHTK is 40 mm in diameter, less than 72 cm (2.5 ft.) long and weighs about 5 lb. The improved missile is about 1 in. longer and has eight tail fins—an extra set of four mounted slightly forward of, and clocked through 45 deg. relative to, the original set of four. This increases agility by 20-30% to meet anticipated threats.

The end-of-July flight test demonstrated the agility and aerodynamic capability of the MHTK, Lockheed says. The interceptor has semi-active radar homing guidance and is designed to defend a radius of more than 2.5 km (1.5 mi.) with a cost per kill of $16,000 or less
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #85 on: August 24, 2016, 11:28:31 am »
Was this a new test or is AvWeek just late on reporting it?

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #86 on: August 24, 2016, 01:38:41 pm »
I think just late :)
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #87 on: September 29, 2016, 04:54:44 pm »
Lockheed Martin begins work on LRPF as it readies new ATACMS for first flight

Quote
Lockheed Martin is looking to leverage its expertise in long-range missiles and deep strike capability as the company begins work on developing a replacement for its MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

Investing in the next-generation Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) in order to provide combatant commanders (COCOMS) with increased long-range fires lethality is one of a handful of army fires objectives for fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Lockheed Martin was one of two companies awarded a contract for phase one of the risk reduction for LRPF, Misty Holmes, LRPF business development manager for Lockheed Martin told IHS Jane's .

"We will do trade studies, analysis, and modeling and simulation to ensure we are providing that best of breed and making sure our Lockheed Martin offering is uniquely postured to deliver state of the art technology for the LRPF solution," she said.

Work done during the nine-month phase one effort will prepare the companies for technology maturation risk reduction (TMRR).

"We will leverage our previous expertise in the long-range surface-to-surface tactical ballistic missile technology. That is our market space and we are the only providers to [offer a] surface-to-surface missile to the US Army, especially in that deep strike capability," she said.

The US Army also awarded Raytheon a contract for the risk reduction phase.

"We have extraordinary performance that we have demonstrated in the field and we are going to use that legacy to provide the user with a munition system that will provide increased load out to two or more missiles per pod," Holmes added.

The army has asked for the ability to load two munitions into a single launch pod container for the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS). Currently, that configuration is not possible with the ATACMS. Increasing the number of LRPFs per pod would enable the army to increase the rate of fires per launcher load.

Holmes noted the company is designing the LRPF system with the future in mind.

"We are designing all this so the system architecture can easily adapt as the threat evolves and [we can] continue to meet warfighting needs," she said.

Although Lockheed Martin provides the ATACMS to the US Army, Holmes said company engineers will leverage the full breadth of the Lockheed Martin projectile portfolio for LRPF.

"We want to make sure that this user has a best of breed, so we are taking that best of breed mentality and taking advantage of [US Department of Defense] buys so that we can bridge the LRPF gap faster for the future munition needs," she said. "We are not just relying on ATACMS."

In July, Lockheed Martin submitted a technology maturation proposal to the army. Holmes said the company is anticipating an award decision in 2017.

"The technology maturation phase will result in prototype flight test hardware so we will be flying missiles," she said.

COMMENT

ATACMS is undergoing a modernisation effort to extend the shelf life of the current long-range missile to bridge the gap until LRPF can be developed and fielded.

The stockpile reliability programme will enable the service life of ATACMS to be extended beyond the original contractual requirement of 10 years. The army has authorised a refresh programme, which will take end of service life missiles containing M 74 submunitions and returns them to service with a cluster munition compliant warhead.

That change is required because in 2019 the US Department of Defense will no longer allow the use of cluster munitions. That decision led to the need to have ATACMS warhead replaced with a unitary warhead.

Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for ATACMS, is performing the ATACMS service life extension programme. The company is currently under contract for the engineering and manufacturing development phase. The first system qualification test flight of the modernised missiles will likely occur in November, followed by a production decision in early 2017.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #88 on: September 29, 2016, 07:27:53 pm »
Possible Japanese co-development and co-production of LRPF is a new wrinkle (for me at least).  From AUSA Redstone 2016 presentation.


Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #89 on: October 17, 2016, 03:30:52 pm »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #90 on: October 17, 2016, 03:41:17 pm »

Possible Japanese co-development and co-production of LRPF is a new wrinkle (for me at least).  From AUSA Redstone 2016 presentation.

That plus the reported US Army interest in an anti-ship capability might suggest that LRPF could meet the JGSDF's Type 23 antiship missile requirement.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27790.0.html

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #91 on: November 17, 2016, 11:29:36 am »
Land Based Anti-Ship Missiles: A Complementary Capability for Maintaining Access in an Anti-Access/Area-Denial Environment
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1560
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #92 on: November 29, 2016, 02:23:04 pm »
That launcher is the smartest thing the Army has cooked up in a long time. Just keep adapting new payloads.
Lets just hope it doesn't go the way of NetFires, SLAMRAAM...etc :P. glad that the Army is at least trying to get back into the Anti-aircraft/Air-defense game.

Agree 100%
The U.S. Army's focus and track record on air defence has been near criminal  :'(

But I'll only believe it when this system is deployed in numbers!! >:(

(Actually, as a side note, it would be interesting to compile a list of 'failed' US Army air defence programs and they're monetary costs!) 

Regards
Pioneer
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 02:48:01 pm by Pioneer »
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #93 on: November 29, 2016, 07:50:10 pm »
That plus the reported US Army interest in an anti-ship capability might suggest that LRPF could meet the JGSDF's Type 23 antiship missile requirement.


Throw a Harpoon booster on it and it would slide right into a current Harpoon canister.  Put a Mk114 (VL-ASROC) booster on it and fire it from a Mk41.  (And I'd still like to know how they managed to stuff an ATACMs into a Mk41 cell.  Too bad no canister drawings are out there.)
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 07:53:26 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #95 on: February 19, 2017, 01:50:07 pm »
Although Not directly related to IFPC, but the Army recently floated a new M-SHORAD notification

Sources Sought Announcement for a Bailment Agreement for Industry to Participate in the Maneuver­Short Range Air Defense (M­SHORAD)
Demonstration
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #97 on: March 14, 2017, 06:28:54 pm »
Raytheon's LRPF mockup from AUSA Global 2017 (from Twitter).

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #98 on: March 14, 2017, 11:29:32 pm »
Lockheed's LRPF (from @SydneyFreedburg)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #101 on: April 09, 2017, 04:06:36 pm »
Raytheon's LRPF mockup from AUSA Global 2017 (from Twitter).

Do you know if the LRPF competitors are looking to leverage an in-service (USN or USA) propulsion solution?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #102 on: April 09, 2017, 05:30:26 pm »
Raytheon's LRPF mockup from AUSA Global 2017 (from Twitter).

Do you know if the LRPF competitors are looking to leverage an in-service (USN or USA) propulsion solution?

They don't say, but Raytheon do mention similarities to existing "shipboard and air defense" missiles including SM-3 and SM-6.  That makes me think they might be taking bits from the latest Mk-104 DTRM version.

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/long-range_precision_fires.html

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #103 on: April 09, 2017, 05:40:49 pm »
Thanks! Yes that is what I had in mind as well. Lt. Gen McMaster also spoke to this end last year in terms of leveraging existing systems in new ways for multi domain fires

https://youtu.be/nGuJ8fsmTGw?t=2751
« Last Edit: April 09, 2017, 06:50:04 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #104 on: April 09, 2017, 07:05:34 pm »
Raytheon's LRPF mockup from AUSA Global 2017 (from Twitter).

Interesting that they're showing SM-3/6 in US Army green.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #105 on: April 10, 2017, 01:04:39 pm »
Raytheon's LRPF mockup from AUSA Global 2017 (from Twitter).

Interesting that they're showing SM-3/6 in US Army green.

Marketing AEGIS Ashore to the Army? 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #106 on: April 10, 2017, 01:17:19 pm »
Raytheon's LRPF mockup from AUSA Global 2017 (from Twitter).

Interesting that they're showing SM-3/6 in US Army green.

Marketing AEGIS Ashore to the Army?
Arclight Ashore?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #108 on: April 10, 2017, 03:12:53 pm »
In an SEC filing Aerojet mentioned:


Quote
We also successfully demonstrated a composite rocket motor case enhanced technology providing improved insensitive munitions for the Long Range Precision Fires rocket motor.
Insensitive munitions are munitions that minimize hazardous reactions to unplanned mechanical shocks, fire, and impact by shrapnel and can still function as intended to destroy their targets.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #109 on: April 16, 2017, 04:57:41 pm »
Highlights from Lt. Col Kenneth Britt's presentation at PSAR 17 (formatting issues in original). 

The first combat use of GMLRS AW is news to me at least and
there's a slight range bump using the IM rocket motors.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #110 on: April 26, 2017, 01:53:14 pm »
Next generation long range missile clears Milestone A
Jeff Martin, jmartin@waaytv.com  Apr 25, 2017


According to the Army, the service's next generation long range missile, known as
Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) has advanced to the next phase of development.
In a statement, spokesman Dan O'Boyle said that the program reached Milestone A
on March 31, and that the program was now in the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase.

"Our strategy is to have two competing contractors develop and build LRPF prototype
missiles and conduct  demonstration test flights in late FY2019
" O'Boyle said.

LRPF seeks to replace the Army's MGM-140 Advanced Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).
According to government auditors, the service plans to buy 2,480 of the missiles and spend
about $2.9 billion on both development and procurement. Both Lockheed Martin and Raytheon
are competing to replace the ATACMS, which is built by Lockheed Martin.

According to O'Boyle, both of those companies are expected to be awarded new contracts
in "mid-May 2017." That will allow both companies to continue work and stay on schedule.

http://www.waaytv.com/redstone_alabama/next-generation-long-range-missile-clears-milestone-a/article_19ab3a0e-2a03-11e7-854f-abd353f6ca26.html


My emphasis.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #111 on: May 20, 2017, 06:05:02 am »
US Army eyes lasers for IFPC next-generation air defence system



Quote
The US Army hopes to add a laser to its next-generation air defence system known as the Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC).

Accordingly, US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command (USASMDC/ARSTRAT) has evolved the High Energy Laser Tactical Vehicle Demonstrator (HEL TVD) as 'a pre-prototype system' that could potentially address objective requirements for the IFPC Increment 2 - Intercept Block I (IFPC Inc 2-I), an official from the command told Jane's  on 18 May at the Pentagon.

The IFPC system overall is meant to address incoming rocket, artillery, and mortar (RAM) and unmanned aerial system (UAS) threats at fixed or semi-fixed locations.

Ultimately, the HEL TVD is to consist of a 100 kW-class laser and a precision pointing, high-velocity target tracking beam control system, and is to demonstrate a counter-RAM (C-RAM) and counter-UAS (C-UAS) capability sometime around fiscal year 2022 (FY 2022).

For now, the High Energy Laser Mobile Test Truck (HELMTT) is providing "key knowledge points for the HEL TVD" and has demonstrated a 10-kW laser against small calibre mortars and UASs, according to SMDC.

A previous effort was based on a Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, but in early FY 2016 the army instead decided to use "a more compact laser system" on a Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles truck.

Sometime in 2017 a 50 kW-class laser is to be integrated into the HELMTT and a C-RAM/C-UAS is to be conducted in late FY 2018.

Moreover, USASMDC/ARSTRAT has been working on a Mobile Experimental High Energy Laser (MEHEL) based on a Stryker wheeled combat vehicle and using a 5 kW laser system to engage small fixed-wing and quadcopter UASs.

The MEHEL is in a second phase after trailing a 2 kW laser against UASs, and the 5 kW laser - supplied by partner Boeing - is to provide faster engagement times and greater range. Stryker manufacturer General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) is also working on the effort, and the Stryker is the first combat vehicle to mount such a laser.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #112 on: May 29, 2017, 10:10:57 pm »
From Steelman's NDIA 2017 Armaments presentation.  My highlight: just something IFPC will likely have to contend with.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #113 on: June 16, 2017, 02:39:55 pm »
Raytheon begins TMRR phase for its 'DeepStrike' army LRPF effort



Quote
The company announced on 12 June that it received a USD116.4 million contract to enter the 34-month TMRR phase that will culminate in three guided flight tests at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico....

JR Smith, director of advanced land warfare systems for Raytheon Missile Systems, told Jane's  on 15 June that the company is looking at ways it might be able to accelerate the programme.

"All the various components and technologies involved are really kind of here and now," he said. "We are not trying to invent anything new. When you start looking at everything that is involved here - GPS receivers and guidance electronics, the control actuation system, warhead design - all this is well understood."

In March Raytheon conducted a test of its LRPF warhead solution. Smith noted the test went "very well".....

Lockheed Martin had also received an award for the initial risk mitigation effort. The army is expected to award the company a similar contract for the TMRR phase.

Although Smith could not provide details of any of the components or subcomponents due to the ongoing LRPF competition, he said LRPF is leveraging work that Raytheon has in place on other programmes.

"We are leveraging stuff at the subcomponent level that we know is going to work well," he said. "In addition to getting high performance, the cost of manufacturing is obviously a key consideration.

"The art is putting it all together. That is one thing we do very well - system engineering. Once you have chosen your solution and some of these are sitting on the shelf, you start putting it together into subcomponents and testing those subcomponents."

Once the subcomponent testing is complete and the components have been put together, Raytheon will begin work to ensure the projectile integrates with the launch pod and projectile container, Smith said.

Those tests could include test-firing the projectile (although not with the full rocket motor) to ensure it can be expelled from the launch pod and possibly a controlled test shot, at short range, to build up to the guided flight tests planned at the end of the TMRR phase.

Raytheon also will be working with its partner, Orbital ATK, to ensure the rocket motor can meet all the insensitive munitions tests.

The rocket motor is a scaled-up variant of the motor used on the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System.

"Scaling it up to a 17-inch (43.18 cm) diameter missile … there is some work to be done, but it is well understood [and] not considered to be risky in any sense," he said.

The rocket motor tests are designed to demonstrate, for example, that the engine can withstand a high-speed fragment impact, a gradual increase in temperature such as when exposed to a fire, and impact from a bullet....

Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #114 on: July 07, 2017, 06:59:03 pm »
Lockheed Martin Awarded $73.8M Contract for Phase 2 of the Long Range Precision Fires Program

DALLAS, July 6, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) received a $73.8 million contract from the U.S. Army for Phase 2 of the Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) program.

LRPF is the U.S. Army's program envisioned to provide combatant commanders with next-generation, long-range precision fires with ranges up to 499 kilometers. The missile will be capable of striking time-sensitive and area targets in a variety of conditions.

"Lockheed Martin has invested heavily in leveraging our legacy of unrivaled performance and affordability on the combat-proven Tactical Missile System (TACMS) program to create the next generation long-range precision engagement weapon," said Scott Greene, vice president of Precision Fires for Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "We intend to demonstrate to our Army customer that our LRPF solution will be the most cost-effective, precise and reliable munition to meet their future long-range engagement needs."

The LRPF Phase 2 program includes technology maturation and risk reduction for the development of a prototype LRPF missile system. The prototype missile system includes a Launch Pod Missile Container and a fully integrated surface-to-surface guided missile that will be compatible with the Multiple Launch Rocket System MLRS M270A1 and M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System HIMARS launchers.

During the 36-month Phase 2 LRPF contract, Lockheed Martin will design, develop and fly multiple prototype missiles in anticipation of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the program. The initial LRPF Phase 1 risk-reduction contract successfully completed in May 2017.

http://news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-07-06-Lockheed-Martin-Awarded-73-8M-Contract-for-Phase-2-of-the-Long-Range-Precision-Fires-Program

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #115 on: July 21, 2017, 03:06:17 pm »
Per the latest SAR summary, it looks like the extended range GMLRS variant (150 km range with room for payload growth)
is more definite:

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System/Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System Alternative Warhead (GMLRS/GMLRS AW) – Program costs increased $734.1 million (+10.74%) from $6,834.0 million to $7,568.1 million, due primarily to increased production capacity (+$386.5 million), development of the Extended Range GMLRS (+$372.3 million) , a revised estimate to reflect the actual cost of production units (+$82.1 million), support for GMLRS variants (+$20.0 million), and revised escalation indices (+$5.0 million). These increases were partially offset by accelerating the procurement buy profile to meet maximum production capacity of 6,000 rockets in FY 2018 (-$93.3 million) and acceleration of production activities in FY 2022-FY 2029

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1251392/department-of-defense-selected-acquisition-reports-sars-december-2016/

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #116 on: July 22, 2017, 10:34:43 am »
Per the latest SAR summary, it looks like the extended range GMLRS variant (150 km range with room for payload growth)
is more definite:

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System/Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System Alternative Warhead (GMLRS/GMLRS AW) – Program costs increased $734.1 million (+10.74%) from $6,834.0 million to $7,568.1 million, due primarily to increased production capacity (+$386.5 million), development of the Extended Range GMLRS (+$372.3 million) , a revised estimate to reflect the actual cost of production units (+$82.1 million), support for GMLRS variants (+$20.0 million), and revised escalation indices (+$5.0 million). These increases were partially offset by accelerating the procurement buy profile to meet maximum production capacity of 6,000 rockets in FY 2018 (-$93.3 million) and acceleration of production activities in FY 2022-FY 2029

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1251392/department-of-defense-selected-acquisition-reports-sars-december-2016/

Thank you for the update Sir.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
« Last Edit: August 06, 2017, 02:08:11 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #119 on: August 08, 2017, 02:54:25 pm »
..
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #120 on: August 08, 2017, 04:12:26 pm »
Never understood why Western systems just stick those expensive missiles right out there where they can get beat to crap and weathered.  How about some canisters guys?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #121 on: August 08, 2017, 04:18:32 pm »



https://www.scribd.com/document/355679559/Industry-Day-2017-Briefings

This, while better than nothing at all, is just sad.  I've said for years (hell, decades at this point) we should have used Pershing IIs in the antiship role.  Oh well, at least China appears to have got it right (in theory anyway).  Between all their various types of ballistic missiles, they can hit anything out to about 2500 miles from their coast with precision conventional or nuclear warheads within minutes - TODAY.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 06:41:11 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #122 on: August 08, 2017, 09:45:21 pm »



https://www.scribd.com/document/355679559/Industry-Day-2017-Briefings

This, while better than nothing at all, is just sad.  I've said for years (hell, decades at this point) we should have used Pershing IIs in the antiship role.  Oh well, at least China appears to have got it right (in theory anyway).  Between all their various types of ballistic missiles, they can hit anything out to about 2500 miles from their coast with precision conventional or nuclear warheads within minutes - TODAY.
The C4 would have been a great solution IMHO
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #123 on: August 09, 2017, 04:55:49 am »

The C4 would have been a great solution IMHO

C4?  As in the Trident C-4?  As an antiship missile?  ???
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 05:22:44 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #124 on: August 09, 2017, 11:27:51 am »

The C4 would have been a great solution IMHO

C4?  As in the Trident C-4?  As an antiship missile?  ???
If the Chinese have an anti ship IRBM.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #125 on: August 09, 2017, 02:55:55 pm »

The C4 would have been a great solution IMHO

C4?  As in the Trident C-4?  As an antiship missile?  ???
If the Chinese have an anti ship IRBM.

Even Pershing II would outclass everything except their new DF-26. (And probably that as well.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kat Tsun

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #126 on: August 10, 2017, 03:42:35 pm »
Never understood why Western systems just stick those expensive missiles right out there where they can get beat to crap and weathered.  How about some canisters guys?

Canisters are not uncommon. Pretty much every Western system barring MIM-72 and Rapier has them. The Soviets had more exposed missiles than the West and they did fine with them.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #127 on: August 10, 2017, 04:29:18 pm »
Never understood why Western systems just stick those expensive missiles right out there where they can get beat to crap and weathered.  How about some canisters guys?

Canisters are not uncommon. Pretty much every Western system barring MIM-72 and Rapier has them. The Soviets had more exposed missiles than the West and they did fine with them.

Just thinking of Hawk, SLAMRAAM, MIM-72. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1838
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #128 on: August 10, 2017, 08:18:53 pm »
Different times, different means of guidance.   Non-canister contained SAMs usually required exposure of the nose to allow it to acquire reflected radar signals from the intended target.   Initially, this took up to a few seconds because of the use of valve and then later transistorised components in the guidance system.  Also allowed easier heat shedding.   With the creation of chip based guidance systems, acquisition times were reduced and the amount of heat produced decreased markedly.   The west were quick to introduce those systems whereas the Russians were slower.

Then, with IR systems, you need the nose exposed to allow the guidance system to search the sky for it's target.  With the introduction of chips, acquisition times were reduced and the ability to slave the guidance system were now possible, so the nose could be covered.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 10:55:32 pm by Kadija_Man »

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 935
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #129 on: August 10, 2017, 09:30:06 pm »
Depends on the climate.  Norway created the NASAMS which takes the AIM-9, AIM-120, and ESSM series of missiles and protects them in enclosures.

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #130 on: August 12, 2017, 07:12:28 am »
...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #131 on: August 12, 2017, 11:30:06 pm »
Different times, different means of guidance.   Non-canister contained SAMs usually required exposure of the nose to allow it to acquire reflected radar signals from the intended target.   


This is backwards; semi-active RF missiles tended to need the rear-reference antenna exposed.
But I don't believe this was, even for the time, a fundamental limitation.
After all, MIM-46 Mauler fired an encanisterizerd missile that relied on a rear-reference signal.

Quote
Then, with IR systems, you need the nose exposed to allow the guidance system to search the sky for it's target. 

Or behind a frangible IR window as it was for Redeye in its launch tube.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1838
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #132 on: August 13, 2017, 06:39:42 pm »
Different times, different means of guidance.   Non-canister contained SAMs usually required exposure of the nose to allow it to acquire reflected radar signals from the intended target.   


This is backwards; semi-active RF missiles tended to need the rear-reference antenna exposed.
But I don't believe this was, even for the time, a fundamental limitation.
After all, MIM-46 Mauler fired an encanisterizerd missile that relied on a rear-reference signal.

"Rear-reference antenna", "rear-reference signal"?  While technically correct they are not terms in general use.   Semi-active Radar Guided missiles required their noses to be exposed to pick up the reflected radar energy from the directing radar once it has bounced off the intended target.   Which is basically what I said.   

Quote
Quote
Then, with IR systems, you need the nose exposed to allow the guidance system to search the sky for it's target. 

Or behind a frangible IR window as it was for Redeye in its launch tube.

Redeye was an unusual missile for a long time.  No denying it had some unique features.  However, it took about 10+ years before other MANPADS and SAMs using IR guidance to catch up.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #133 on: August 14, 2017, 04:21:02 pm »

"Rear-reference antenna", "rear-reference signal"?  While technically correct they are not terms in general use.   


Those terms have been used all over the technical literature for at least the last 35 years (though sometimes without hyphens). 
They are semi-modern terms which is why I used them because the contemporary descriptions/manuals for the missiles in question use terms
like "rear-signal lock" or "direct RF" which can be somewhat confusing to modern audiences.

   Semi-active Radar Guided missiles required their noses to be exposed to pick up the reflected radar energy from the directing radar once it has bounced off the intended target.   Which is basically what I said

Almost none of the missiles of the era in question needed that to happen *before* launch.
But they all needed to synchronize with the reference signal from the llluminator but again this did not
fundamentally require any exposure of any part of the missile.




Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #134 on: August 15, 2017, 02:12:30 am »
Vendors prepare to duel in the desert at Army's 'SHORAD Shoot Off'


Quote
Defense contractors are vying to provide the Army an interim solution to the dearth of short-range air defense capability in its maneuver formations, with some demonstrating their wares at an event next month.

The office of the Army acquisition executive is hosting a "SHORAD Shoot Off" from Sept. 4 to 16 at White Sands Missile Range, NM. The service has indicated that four vendors will participate in the event.

The Army has not yet established an acquisition time line to follow the demonstration.The cruise missile defense system project office, housed within the program executive office for missiles and space, has the lead on the SHORAD Shoot Off.

The demonstration consists of an acquisition and tracking phase for each vendor, culminating with a live fire against aerial (UAS) and ground targets," the project office told Inside the Army in an Aug. 11 statement. "Additionally, we are analyzing the system design from each vendor."

The office told ITA "the demonstration is intended to inform the Army on available industry capabilities should the Army decide to field an interim M-SHORAD capability in the near term."

As ITA has previously reported, the service has requested fiscal year 2018 funds to support development of a maneuver SHORAD capability.

After concentrating resources elsewhere for the fights of the past 16 years, Army leadership has elected to bolster its SHORAD capacity in Europe, sending Avenger units to the continent as the service works to add new capabilities.

Maj. Gen. Bo Dyess, acting director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, told reporters Aug. 9 the service aims to evaluate the systems industry has to offer now. While "everything works on the floor at AUSA" or "on PowerPoint," Dyess said the Army needs to determine the viability of these systems in a setting that more closely resembles an operational environment.

General Dynamics Land Systems will enter its Stryker Maneuver SHORAD Launcher system, developed in response to a Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement from the European theater, as well as an ONS from U.S. Army Europe.

Kendall Linson, business development manager for Stryker and specialty wheeled vehicles at GDLS, outlined the company's efforts during an Aug. 8 interview.

While acknowledging that the Avenger is "a legacy system," Linson emphasized the inclusion of "upgraded missile systems" on the Stryker MSL. In order to mount the turret, the company "had to cut the back of the Stryker and basically take that off," he explained, creating what Linson referred to as an "El Camino configuration."

The MSL vehicle accommodates three crew members; Linson noted this is actually an increase from the two crew members for the humvee-mounted Avenger system.

In its communications with vendors, the Army has focused not on the price of a maneuver SHORAD system, but on quantity, Linson said, with an expectation of placing 24 vehicles in the inventory by FY-19. The company has been asked to provide a production schedule demonstrating how it would meet the targeted time line of FY-19 to FY-24 for an interim solution.

The other combat vehicle maker will not participate in the September event, but is working to address the Army's M-SHORAD needs, according to a company spokeswoman.

"BAE Systems is actively developing and supporting PEO M&S on an organic M-SHORAD solution for the Army's ABCT formations," Megan Mitchell told ITA. The company intends to leverage its past work on the Bradley Linebacker Air Defense variant "while also working with several top tier defense companies on evaluating, integrating and demonstrating their technologies as part of a holistic M-SHORAD threat solution and capability," she said.

Mitchell explained that BAE will not participate in the SHORAD Shoot Off "due to resource availability."

Maj. Gen. Al Shoffner, operations director for the Rapid Capabilities Office, told ITA in May the service will take a "phased approach" to closing its SHORAD gaps. While the initial phase incorporates Stingers and Avengers, the eventual goal involves "moving to a protected capability."

Referencing a number of prototypes, Shoffner said "the idea is they're multirole systems, so they could fire a variety of different missiles."

Some prototypes were displayed during a fires conference held at Ft. Sill, OK from May 2 to 4, but they were not demonstrated. In the May interview, Shoffner cited ongoing work to determine the requisite sensors and radars to provide detection and fire control capability to support these systems.

Col. Patrick Ellis, commander of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, told ITA in a July 18 interview that the Avenger system is "very targetable, easy to identify." By contrast, he said, the possibility of a multi-missile launcher mounted on a Stryker -- the same platform employed across the regiment -- is "a step in the right direction."
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 03:46:06 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #135 on: August 25, 2017, 04:47:17 pm »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #136 on: August 25, 2017, 06:08:49 pm »
GAO Report on the IFPC from earlier this year.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #137 on: August 29, 2017, 05:24:45 am »
High-energy lasers eyed to close capability gaps, reduce costs


Quote
The Army is advancing its science and technology work on high-energy lasers as "complementary" to traditional kinetic weapons, including a potential maneuver short-range air defense solution, according to a service scientist.

Adam Aberle, high-energy laser division technology development and demonstration lead at Army Space and Missile Defense Command, discussed several ongoing efforts with Inside the Army in an Aug. 23 interview at Redstone Arsenal, AL.

SMDC is "the organization that executes the majority of the Army's investment in high-energy lasers," he said, highlighting the command's "four main technology development demonstration efforts."

The two near-term projects, designed to inform development of requirements and tactics, techniques and procedures, are the Mobile Expeditionary High Energy Laser and the High Energy Laser Mobile Test Truck. Additionally, two efforts "are focused at specifically either informing requirements or meeting requirements that the Army has identified": the High Energy Laser Tactical Vehicle Demonstrator and the Multi-Mission High Energy Laser.

As ITA has previously reported, the MEHEL began as a 2 kW laser and has since been upgraded to a 5 kW laser. The Army will decide "within the next couple weeks" on the feasibility of further upgrade to a 10 kW laser, Aberle said, with an eye toward participation in the next Maneuver Fires Integrated Experiment in November and December.

This week, the Army will remove the 10 kW laser from the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck ahead of installation of a 60 kW laser on the HELMTT this fall, Aberle said. That platform will be demonstrated next year "as a risk reduction for one of our mid-term HEL [science and technology] activities."

Lt. Gen. James Dickinson, the SMDC commander, in July referenced plans to upgrade the HEL TVD to a 100 kW laser for demonstration in fiscal year 2022. HEL TVD, mounted on a Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles platform, is intended to provide "a laser system to effectively address the target set for the Indirect Fires Protection Capability, which is rockets, artillery, mortar and [unmanned aircraft systems]," Aberle said.

The Multi-Mission High Energy Laser would mount a 50 kW laser on a Stryker "to be able to help the Army and inform the requirements development for the mobile short-range air defense mission," he explained. The project is a new start in FY-18, and thus would be unable to proceed under a continuing resolution.

"The objective is to put a high-energy laser on a vehicle platform that can maneuver with the maneuvering Army force," Aberle said. "Basically, the brigade and below. Something that can move forward closer to the front edge of battle, and do the protection from indirect fires and UAS that the forward troops would encounter."

Aberle noted the lack of a formal requirement for maneuver SHORAD, and said SMDC's approach to MM HEL, "based on some drafts and the target sets . . . is building up a system and then actually see how effective it is and what environments it works in. And then that can help inform how requirements are written so that there's not a big disconnect" in the materiel development stage. The plan is to ensure "there's technology that is able to address the requirements."

Should these S&T efforts transition to materiel development, the expectation is that they would fall under the auspices of the cruise missile defense systems project office, he said.

Aberle noted the challenges involved in the increase to a 100 kW laser are not a question of physics, but highlighted the absence of a substantial industrial base to support production. He characterized the systems produced to date as "one-off" efforts, and said going forward, the Army intends to invest in manufacturing technology.

"We know that we will want to rapidly produce these systems if the Army does come and determine that a high-energy laser is the best materiel solution for a certain set of requirements," Aberle said. "Being able to set that stage early on in this phase, while we're still in S&T, the Army is looking at, how do we help grow the industry base? How do we work on manufacturing technology so you can envision some time in the future that you could actually develop a laser system on an assembly line?"

The service has to determine the subset of threats that should be targeted using a high-energy laser system, Aberle said. "The Army has very much a tiered level of defense, depending on what its targets are, and that's why you have lots of different options for a combatant commander" to choose among.

"The challenge with high-energy lasers is that the Army doesn't have any in inventory," Aberle said. "This is a new capability, it's a new weapon system. We view it as very complementary to kinetic missile systems." There is no expectation, "based on our understanding today, that a high-energy laser is going to replace all guns or missile systems. There are certain targets that high-energy lasers will affect very well, and there's other targets that it'll be a little bit more difficult, and it may make more sense to engage those targets with some sort of a kinetic kill system."

He highlighted the low "cost per kill" for a high-energy laser system as another "significant benefit" as compared with kinetic systems.

"It doesn't take a lot of diesel fuel to charge up batteries to conduct an engagement," Aberle noted. "As opposed to firing a multi-ten, hundred thousand-dollar missile at the target, maybe a few cups of diesel fuel is all that it takes." Noting the Army already transports fuel around the battlefield as part of its normal procedures, he said the integration of high-energy laser systems into the inventory could create "a little bit more of a logistics burden, but you're not having to come up with a whole new way of providing logistics support."

The cost of "an average shot is somewhere around $30," he said. "You can engage those few-hundred-dollar, few-thousand-dollar mortar round, small UASs, artillery shells, cheap rockets, with something that is cheaper than what you're engaging, and so you can stay on the right side of the cost/benefit curve."
« Last Edit: August 29, 2017, 05:26:48 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #138 on: August 29, 2017, 02:03:20 pm »
...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #140 on: October 08, 2017, 10:30:23 am »
Well it works but I am sceptical about the cost effectiveness if used against quadcopter class targets.  Predator class would be OK but do they usually fly low enough for this type of missile?

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #141 on: October 08, 2017, 11:37:08 am »
Well it works but I am sceptical about the cost effectiveness if used against quadcopter class targets. 

They need to add a 30kw or so laser to the turret for those.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #142 on: October 08, 2017, 03:40:05 pm »
Well it works but I am sceptical about the cost effectiveness if used against quadcopter class targets.  Predator class would be OK but do they usually fly low enough for this type of missile?

It is just one set of demonstrations with specific weapons (of which the Army currently has a large inventory). I don't think that the new upgraded Avenger gives up the capability to carry the Stingers which have and are being upgraded.

The Army also has the LOWER-AD missile that looks like it is intended for similar applications and threats.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4993.msg311688.html#msg311688

Here is the same upgraded Avenger system mounted on a truck with Aim-9s and Stingers. I think this configuration is and will be an option going forward.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2017, 05:57:07 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #143 on: October 08, 2017, 06:58:27 pm »
General Dynamics has such a configuration on display at AUSA 2017 that kicks off tomorrow..
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #144 on: October 09, 2017, 07:33:53 am »
BAE stepping up to the plate to meet the M-SHORAD demand -

https://twitter.com/GrantTurnbull_/status/917368890421907456

Also, an Avenger mounted on a JLTV..
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 07:39:00 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #145 on: October 09, 2017, 07:51:53 am »
Is that round thing on the BAE design an HPM emitter to fry the electronics of small drones?  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #146 on: October 09, 2017, 08:03:17 am »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #147 on: October 09, 2017, 04:32:35 pm »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #148 on: October 10, 2017, 02:48:44 am »
Raytheon vying for Army short-range mobile air defense program



Quote
Raytheon said it incorporated its FIM-92 Stinger missile into an existing remote-control weapon station aboard a Stryker during a September demonstration with the U.S. Army at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

During one of several industry demonstrations in September, the Army fired Stinger missiles from the Stryker vehicle “and successfully intercepted airborne targets,” Raytheon said Monday in a new release.

In April, Raytheon successfully tested a new proximity fuze for the Stinger that allows the missiles to destroy targets by detonating at close range, bringing down two small drones in a demonstration at Eglin Air Force Base.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #149 on: October 10, 2017, 05:01:34 am »
Somebody tell Raytheon and the US Army that Stinger is a joke for anything more than MANPADS. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #150 on: October 10, 2017, 05:19:40 am »
It may be for some of the more serious threats..but they want a rapidly fieldable system against the low cost UAS threat against which the Stinger Prox. fuse is a credible, low cost weapon system. I like the idea to field something that is available, rapidly while developing directed energy and/or future kinetic weapons such as the LowER-AD, SkyCeptor etc. Of course they have Aim-9s, and Longbow Hellfire's on the same system so that helps too.

The Saudi's were shooting down cheap drones with PAC-2's, and the North Koreans put out a fairly simply drone to monitor the THAAD batteries. We've also seen ISIL put out DIY drones that carry simple munitions..The Stinger and/or Aim-9 based Avenger, mounted on either an armored or LTV based platform would be suitable for such a role, as it would for the maneuver mission given similar threat type. Of course they need to strive harder to cover more complicated threats at even lower cost ratios but keep in mind that the baseline is NOT HAVING ANYTHING AT ALL.

Picture shows North Korean drone that was 'spying on US missile defence system' in South
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 05:25:37 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #151 on: October 10, 2017, 08:54:29 am »
The North Korean drone incident is serious, because IIRC the Houthis successfully disabled a Patriot battery with a small drone. The North Koreans would certainly be interested in a SEAD attack against the THAAD battery.

In a way, this shows the Army needs its own point defense for area missile batteries, in a fashion similar to the current Pantsier S-1 supporting S-400 batteries.

Offline DWG

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 227
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #152 on: October 10, 2017, 09:03:58 am »
The other North Korean threat is special forces, and the layout of the site and defences would be very useful to anyone planning direct action.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #153 on: October 10, 2017, 09:22:23 am »
The North Korean drone incident is serious, because IIRC the Houthis successfully disabled a Patriot battery with a small drone. The North Koreans would certainly be interested in a SEAD attack against the THAAD battery.

In a way, this shows the Army needs its own point defense for area missile batteries, in a fashion similar to the current Pantsier S-1 supporting S-400 batteries.

This is why there is IFPC but this seems to be at even more urgent timeline plus focused on mobility. I don't think they need something as elaborate as the Pantsir given the threat type. What they need is something that has a small footprint and can take over the C-UAS mission. The cruise missile defense mission can be dealt with by incorporating a lower cost interceptor within patriot (such as the Stunner or Lockheed's H2K based solutions) or brought up through IFPC which has that as its objective.

Quote
The Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 – Intercept (IFPC Increment 2-I) Block 1 System is a mobile, ground-based weapon system designed to defeat unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and cruise missiles.

The Block 1 system will use an existing interceptor and sensor and will develop a Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) on an existing vehicle platform to support the Counter-UAS (C-UAS) and Cruise Missile Defense (CMD) missions. The system will use the Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) open systems architecture, and will use the AIAMD Integrated Battle Command System as its mission command component. http://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/ms-ifpc_inc_2-i/

IBCS based IFPC with the Advanced Sentinel and the MML will be plenty of protection against this threat types. Avenger and Avenger derivatives need to advance towards a more mobile threat from UAVs. What is urgently needed here is a new interceptor in between the Stinger PF and the Aim-9 in terms of cost and performance. That and a major push with DEWs particularly 5-10kW systems on light vehicles like the JLTV. Having them dispersed would be a great benefit.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 09:26:46 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #154 on: October 10, 2017, 09:43:04 am »
What is urgently needed here is a new interceptor in between the Stinger PF and the Aim-9 in terms of cost and performance.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/mfc-miniature-hit-to-kill.html

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #155 on: October 10, 2017, 09:51:26 am »
Yeah one of them anyway. Lockheed has another G2A interceptor that is a bit more capable which would probably suite the mission better. I'm thinking about something based around the CUDA with a cheaper seeker..Could really get them to replace both the Aim-9  on Avenger and IFPC and come in at a lower cost and weight.

I doubt that as things stand, the MHTK can take out a very large number of UASs in terms of performance class.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 09:53:27 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #156 on: October 10, 2017, 10:09:08 am »
Yeah one of them anyway. Lockheed has another G2A interceptor that is a bit more capable which would probably suite the mission better. I'm thinking about something based around the CUDA with a cheaper seeker..Could really get them to replace both the Aim-9  on Avenger and IFPC and come in at a lower cost and weight.

I doubt that as things stand, the MHTK can take out a very large number of UASs in terms of performance class.

Thing is you don't want to waste the money of a CUDA-based SAM on a DJI quad.  These types of UASs are going to get prevalent enough that cost will start to become a real issue. An SSL will really be the only cost effective solution for UASs below a certain size.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #157 on: October 10, 2017, 10:22:17 am »
Those are the sort of targets current generation (2-3kW) are successfully shooting down even now and these will only gett better as they move to the 5-10 kW systems on the Stryker families and on the LTVs. Same with the upgraded Stinger. I'm thinking more of the gap between a $50-60K interceptor on one end and a $250K+ interceptor on the other end.

At the moment the Army plans on shooting down cruise missiles with multiple interceptors one of them being the Aim-9X. I think this is an area where H2k can improve performance, reduce cost and enable higher loadouts, particularly on Avenger or Avenger like systems mounted on light vehicles. 

You will never get into a favorable cost per kill ratio with a sub $5000 drone unless you go directed energy or employ jamming. Even Semi Active seekers will run you a good chunk of change.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 12:14:20 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #158 on: October 10, 2017, 10:38:58 am »
Raytheon offering a domestic version of Iron Dome.


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #159 on: October 10, 2017, 10:41:48 am »
Raytheon is offering all these things (based on their new C2 for Patriot upgrades) knowing full well that the Army is committed to IBCS and IFPC? :) The Army is committed to the upgraded Sentinel, and incorporating newer target sets into the Q-53. There is literally no way that the smaller version of the ELM-2084 or a new Command and Control system makes sense. Or the launcher for that matter. The Army may choose something based on the  Tamir but that is about it.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 10:45:57 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #160 on: October 10, 2017, 10:42:26 am »
You will never get into a favorable cost per kill ratio with a sub $5000 drone unless you go directed energy or employ jamming. Even Semi Active seekers will run you a good chunk of change.

Yep.  TOR tried to keep costs down by keeping most of the brains on the launch vehicle but even that would get expensive with the really cheap drones.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #161 on: October 10, 2017, 12:05:15 pm »
Some of the JLTVs will have LW30 RWS.

It should be possible to equip them with the proximity fuzed version of the
LW30 round being developed for Apache.

That proximity fuze might have enough margin to be used in the 30x173 round as well.

Linking all of the above into IFCN is non-trivial but they have to do it for
IFPC and Avenger anyway.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #162 on: October 11, 2017, 02:50:38 pm »
deleted
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #163 on: October 11, 2017, 10:43:12 pm »
http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/raytheon-flight-test-deepstrike-missile-2019


Quote
Ryan Braden of Raytheon’s advanced land warfare systems group said during an Oct. 9 interview that DeepStrike has passed through an initial design review and the prototype is now being developed for first flight in 2019.

“The objective is to get this to the Army as quickly as possible,” Braden says. “The whole purpose of the TMRR phase is to have an engineering and manufacturing development-ready missile at the end, so we can roll into development and start low-rate production.”

Up the thread there were stories saying 2027 deployment this pace seems quicker than that?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 10:50:40 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #165 on: October 13, 2017, 12:13:25 pm »
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/10/11/army-to-demonstrate-new-extended-range-artillery-by-2018

Quote
The new system is “not just a gun; it’s projectile, it’s cannon, it’s fire control,” he said at the Association for the United States Army’s annual conference in Washington, D.C. It can be fired from a mobile platform as well as a towed platform, he added.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #166 on: October 20, 2017, 12:15:33 pm »
Orbital ATK is developing a range of new advanced medium-calibre ammunition
variants for use with its 30/40 mm calibre MK44 XM813 and 30 mm calibre lightweight
XM914 Bushmaster Chain Guns. The new ammunition types – command-guided,
 proximity fuze, and air burst – are intended to deliver enhanced capabilities for a wide
range of land and air combat platforms.

Development of the 30×173 mm command-guided round leverages technologies
evolved by Orbital ATK for the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) programme.

The EXACTO effort has resulted in a guided .50 calibre round – equipped with real-time
optical sensors and aero-actuation controls – that improves sniping performance in
long-range, day/night engagements. The EXACTO system combines a manoeuvrable
bullet with a complementary laser designator-equipped fire-control system (FCS) to
compensate for weather, wind, target movement, and other factors that can reduce
accuracy.

The sniper uses the laser designator to determine and track the target. Once fired,
actuators inside the bullet – which can correct its movement up to 30 times per second
 in flight – receive data from the optical sensor to guide it to the target. For the new
30×173 mm guided round, the target is locked with a radar sensor, while a networked
FCS delivers updated course correction and target information via a datalink to an
unspecified command guidance sensor located in the back of the munition.

“It’s a one shot, one kill capability in one round,” Tim Strusz, Director Business
Development, Precision Weapons at Orbital ATK told Jane’s .

“In terms of operational cost effectiveness, the round pays for itself with a single shot,” he added.

http://www.janes.com/article/75087/orbital-atk-progresses-new-medium-calibre-munition-development

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #167 on: October 20, 2017, 01:21:14 pm »
Orbital ATK is developing a range of new advanced medium-calibre ammunition
variants for use with its 30/40 mm calibre MK44 XM813 and 30 mm calibre lightweight
XM914 Bushmaster Chain Guns. The new ammunition types – command-guided,
 proximity fuze, and air burst – are intended to deliver enhanced capabilities for a wide
range of land and air combat platforms.

Development of the 30×173 mm command-guided round leverages technologies
evolved by Orbital ATK for the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) programme.

The EXACTO effort has resulted in a guided .50 calibre round – equipped with real-time
optical sensors and aero-actuation controls – that improves sniping performance in
long-range, day/night engagements. The EXACTO system combines a manoeuvrable
bullet with a complementary laser designator-equipped fire-control system (FCS) to
compensate for weather, wind, target movement, and other factors that can reduce
accuracy.

The sniper uses the laser designator to determine and track the target. Once fired,
actuators inside the bullet – which can correct its movement up to 30 times per second
 in flight – receive data from the optical sensor to guide it to the target. For the new
30×173 mm guided round, the target is locked with a radar sensor, while a networked
FCS delivers updated course correction and target information via a datalink to an
unspecified command guidance sensor located in the back of the munition.

“It’s a one shot, one kill capability in one round,” Tim Strusz, Director Business
Development, Precision Weapons at Orbital ATK told Jane’s .

“In terms of operational cost effectiveness, the round pays for itself with a single shot,” he added.

http://www.janes.com/article/75087/orbital-atk-progresses-new-medium-calibre-munition-development

Uhm. . .yeah.  Let's see a human keep a laser designator on this long enough for a bullet to hit it.  Hell, even a machine.



And you can be CERTAIN they'll have AI capable of doing this (likely more as human reflexes will cease to be the limiter) in a few short years.   Imagine 100 of them heading toward your position, each with the equivalent of a 30mm round onboard, and all they're trained to do is blow up near a human, optical sight, radar array, etc.  Each individual member of the swarm communicating with the "cloud" it carries along with it, to make sure there isn't double-coverage on any one target unless needed.  Imagine that "30 mm round" has a small shaped charge, large enough to punch a hole in the wall of an artillery barrel if so desired.  Churn these things out in big factories like iphones.  The mind boggles at the implications.  Instead of ATACMs dropping a unitary warhead on the target, or a bunch of dumb submunitions, it comes in low and deploys a few hundred of these things.  Maybe a version of a USMC LVTP-7 ditches the meat compartment in the back and has a thousand or so of these at the ready to help clean the beach landing site.  Maybe the next time a "boat swarm" shows up to harass USN ships a thousand of these suckers go meet it.  The possibilities are endless. 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2017, 01:24:52 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #168 on: October 20, 2017, 03:30:17 pm »
The article says the 30mm version uses radar to track the target.  Presumably pretty high frequency to provide good resolution on small targets like drones. 

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #169 on: October 20, 2017, 04:53:08 pm »
The article says the 30mm version uses radar to track the target.  Presumably pretty high frequency to provide good resolution on small targets like drones.

I'm skeptical that it would be effective against the type I showed in the video.  A DJI type (like in the photo in the article) isn't remotely as difficult of a target. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #170 on: October 21, 2017, 02:41:21 am »
The first line of defense would likely be to take the drone down via Electronic Attack. If it can survive Electronic disruption, only then will kinetic options be utilized imho. Now how much of EW/EA can cheap, really small drones survive before they become practically useless to their operators?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #171 on: October 21, 2017, 06:27:26 am »
The first line of defense would likely be to take the drone down via Electronic Attack. If it can survive Electronic disruption, only then will kinetic options be utilized imho. Now how much of EW/EA can cheap, really small drones survive before they become practically useless to their operators?

A multi-Kw laser (30 - 100k) would be a better option for these things IMO.  Even a radar directed gun is going to struggle to keep up with this kind of drone.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1838
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #172 on: October 21, 2017, 06:13:18 pm »
The first line of defense would likely be to take the drone down via Electronic Attack. If it can survive Electronic disruption, only then will kinetic options be utilized imho. Now how much of EW/EA can cheap, really small drones survive before they become practically useless to their operators?

A multi-Kw laser (30 - 100k) would be a better option for these things IMO.  Even a radar directed gun is going to struggle to keep up with this kind of drone.

"That kind of drone" is simply too small, too light and too short-ranged to carry sufficient payload fast enough and far enough to emulate that sort of manoeuvrability.  The reason why it is so fast and manoeuvrable is because it is light weight and it doesn't have to demonstrate it for very long.   A 30mm round - which is BTW, far too small a calibre to penetrate most MBT roofs, weighs about 1.5 kg (with case, obviously not needed in this situation.  Lets say about .5 kg).   It will only ever have a MV of the drone, say a few tens of metres a second.   A hollow charge round would only penetrate about 30-40 mm.   The drone would not be able to manoeuvre as quickly carrying that sort of weight.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #173 on: October 21, 2017, 10:18:45 pm »
"That kind of drone" is simply too small, too light and too short-ranged to carry sufficient payload fast enough and far enough to emulate that sort of manoeuvrability.

That SPECIFIC quad is.  It's an example of what's possible though.  I thought that was obvious.


The reason why it is so fast and manoeuvrable is because it is light weight and it doesn't have to demonstrate it for very long.

It's not the weight but the power to weight.   And there's no reason why short range drones would need to fly for hours. 

  A 30mm round - which is BTW, far too small a calibre to penetrate most MBT roofs,

Who said anything about penetrating MBT roofs?

weighs about 1.5 kg (with case, obviously not needed in this situation.  Lets say about .5 kg).

This 0.5 kg rifle grenade (with a lot of unnecessary structure for this application) can penetrate 350mm of armor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC58

It will only ever have a MV of the drone, say a few tens of metres a second.

Shaped charges don't care.  These aren't KE rounds.  Also, these are going MUCH faster than that.  For example:



A hollow charge round would only penetrate about 30-40 mm.

"The M789 is typically used in the M230. Each round contains 21.5 g (0.76 oz) of explosive charge sealed in a shaped-charge liner. The liner collapses into an armor-piercing jet of metal that is capable of penetrating more than 2 inches of RHA. Additionally, the shell is also designed to fragment upon impact. The lethal radius against unprotected, standing targets is about 10 ft (3.0 m) under optimum conditions."

The M789 projectile weighs 236g

https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/30mm/docs/LW30mm_Fact_Sheet.pdf

2 inches of RHA is plenty to punch a hole in a tank or howitzer gun barrel for a mission kill.  Hell, if all you're interested in is antipersonnel or busting an optical turret or radar array you could go smaller.

The drone would not be able to manoeuvre as quickly carrying that sort of weight.

Make it a bit bigger. 



(Obviously you wouldn't dangle the payload on a string.)



« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 01:47:21 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #174 on: October 22, 2017, 05:47:28 pm »
...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1838
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #175 on: October 22, 2017, 07:02:00 pm »
"That kind of drone" is simply too small, too light and too short-ranged to carry sufficient payload fast enough and far enough to emulate that sort of manoeuvrability.

That SPECIFIC quad is.  It's an example of what's possible though.  I thought that was obvious.

No, it is not.

Quote
The reason why it is so fast and manoeuvrable is because it is light weight and it doesn't have to demonstrate it for very long.

It's not the weight but the power to weight.   And there's no reason why short range drones would need to fly for hours. 

They would need to cover several thousands of metres before coming into contact with enemy forces.   You simply could not assemble and launch large numbers of drones closer without some form of rapid response occurring.  You appear to forget, just as far as drones proliferate, so do counter-drone weapons.   The range of the drone will determine survivability of the launching soldiers and of course, their ability to search for their targets.

Quote
  A 30mm round - which is BTW, far too small a calibre to penetrate most MBT roofs,

Who said anything about penetrating MBT roofs?

Tank gun/Howitzer barrels are as tough, if not more so.  Wasn't the use of an MBT as example, obvious?

Quote
weighs about 1.5 kg (with case, obviously not needed in this situation.  Lets say about .5 kg).

This 0.5 kg rifle grenade (with a lot of unnecessary structure for this application) can penetrate 350mm of armor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC58

Penetration is not stated in that Wiki article.  I find it remarkable that a .5kg rifle grenade could exhibit performance like that whereas your US Army example doesn't...

Quote
It will only ever have a MV of the drone, say a few tens of metres a second.

Shaped charges don't care.  These aren't KE rounds.  Also, these are going MUCH faster than that.  For example:



MV determines accuracy, not penetration with HEAT rounds.   Low MV means short range and rather inaccurate weapons.

Quote
A hollow charge round would only penetrate about 30-40 mm.

"The M789 is typically used in the M230. Each round contains 21.5 g (0.76 oz) of explosive charge sealed in a shaped-charge liner. The liner collapses into an armor-piercing jet of metal that is capable of penetrating more than 2 inches of RHA. Additionally, the shell is also designed to fragment upon impact. The lethal radius against unprotected, standing targets is about 10 ft (3.0 m) under optimum conditions."

The M789 projectile weighs 236g

https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/30mm/docs/LW30mm_Fact_Sheet.pdf

2 inches of RHA is plenty to punch a hole in a tank or howitzer gun barrel for a mission kill.  Hell, if all you're interested in is antipersonnel or busting an optical turret or radar array you could go smaller.

If it hits it, yes.  However, you're aiming at a long, thin, often mobile target.   The drone would have to have phenomenal accuracy to hit a tank/gun barrel.   Optical turrets or radar arrays tend tobe even smaller targets to find and destroy.

Quote
The drone would not be able to manoeuvre as quickly carrying that sort of weight.

Make it a bit bigger. 



(Obviously you wouldn't dangle the payload on a string.)



Make it bigger?  Makes it a bigger target, more easily detected, more easily counteed and of course, it's increased weight and size makes it less manoeuvrable...


Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #176 on: October 24, 2017, 03:25:13 pm »
Doesn't the average racing UAV have a battery life < 10 minutes?

Sure the UAV can pull off sick tricks, but if you need to be suicidally close to deploy them, what's the purpose?

I am very intrigued that the Army is planning to get a new howitzer ready by next year(!). That is uncharacteristically very fast. 

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #177 on: October 24, 2017, 03:53:37 pm »
Doesn't the average racing UAV have a battery life < 10 minutes?

Sure the UAV can pull off sick tricks, but if you need to be suicidally close to deploy them, what's the purpose?

Go read what I wrote.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #178 on: October 24, 2017, 03:57:21 pm »
...

I'm curious what the one with the wings is.  (Obviously it's related to LRPFs but it's size/configuration suggests there's more to it than that.)

« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 04:00:37 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #179 on: October 24, 2017, 04:14:59 pm »
LowerAD: Low-Cost Extended Range Air Defense.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #180 on: October 24, 2017, 05:49:13 pm »
Tail Controlled GMLRS fact sheet

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #181 on: October 24, 2017, 05:49:49 pm »
Lockheed 2017 supplier conference GMLRS status (extended range, IM)

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #182 on: October 24, 2017, 10:41:48 pm »
Regarding Orbital ATK's command guided 30x173, I knew I had seen something similar before.

From Col. Gutierrez' Munitions 2017 presentation.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #183 on: October 25, 2017, 04:19:18 am »
Any talk at all about the Boeing / SAAB MLRS/SDB tests?  Seems like it would be a no-brainer, an idea so awesome it'd get jumped on with both feet.  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #185 on: October 25, 2017, 12:04:51 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2017/10/24/marines-fire-himars-ship-sea-control-experiment-navy

Hmm.  I know they fired ATACMS from a launcher on a ship's deck as far back as 1995.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long to do the same with MLRS rounds.


Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 894
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #186 on: October 25, 2017, 10:45:59 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2017/10/24/marines-fire-himars-ship-sea-control-experiment-navy

Hmm.  I know they fired ATACMS from a launcher on a ship's deck as far back as 1995.  I'm surprised that it's taken this long to do the same with MLRS rounds.
Guidance, GMLRS wasn't around in 95.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #187 on: October 26, 2017, 05:02:07 am »

Guidance, GMLRS wasn't around in 95.

Why would a guidance system be a limitation? 

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #188 on: October 26, 2017, 05:36:53 am »

Guidance, GMLRS wasn't around in 95.

Why would a guidance system be a limitation?

Because you need guidance to correct in flight the errors in launch trajectory caused by a moving platform. 

GMLRS came about in 2005/6; I would have expected an at-sea test within a year or two of that, but possibly the demands for ready-use rounds in Afghanistan made that impossible.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #189 on: October 26, 2017, 05:41:40 am »

Guidance, GMLRS wasn't around in 95.

Why would a guidance system be a limitation?

Because you need guidance to correct in flight the errors in launch trajectory caused by a moving platform. 

GMLRS came about in 2005/6; I would have expected an at-sea test within a year or two of that, but possibly the demands for ready-use rounds in Afghanistan made that impossible.

LM did promote guided MLRS from their VLS back then.  Don't recall what they called it but I remember seeing it on their site.  Also, unguided rockets have been used many times over the years from ships (granted, not at long range against land targets). 
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 05:46:48 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #190 on: October 26, 2017, 06:42:19 am »

Guidance, GMLRS wasn't around in 95.

Why would a guidance system be a limitation?

Because you need guidance to correct in flight the errors in launch trajectory caused by a moving platform. 

GMLRS came about in 2005/6; I would have expected an at-sea test within a year or two of that, but possibly the demands for ready-use rounds in Afghanistan made that impossible.

LM did promote guided MLRS from their VLS back then.  Don't recall what they called it but I remember seeing it on their site.  Also, unguided rockets have been used many times over the years from ships (granted, not at long range against land targets).

That was POLAR. which was discussed c.1999, in parallel with initial GMLRS development. 

Unguided rockets over the range of MLRS would probably not have been accurate enough from a moving ship.  Add the increased pressure not to just blanket a whole grid square with submunitions and guidance was clearly required.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #192 on: October 30, 2017, 04:22:44 pm »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #193 on: November 03, 2017, 09:39:35 am »
Aviation and Missile
Technology
Other Transaction Agreement
Requirements and
Technology Exchange Day


https://www.scribd.com/document/363399780/11032017-OTA-PPT-26
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #194 on: November 07, 2017, 03:08:07 am »
Counter UAS gun/RF combo.


Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #195 on: November 07, 2017, 04:16:43 pm »
Counter UAS gun/RF combo.



Pretty sexy
thanks for posting fredymac.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #196 on: November 07, 2017, 05:51:28 pm »
Great find!  Hopefully, we'll get to see footage of the command guided 30mm.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #197 on: November 08, 2017, 05:54:48 am »
Great find!  Hopefully, we'll get to see footage of the command guided 30mm.

They've already tested it at 50mm so it's mainly a packaging exercise.

Go to 40 second mark.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #198 on: November 08, 2017, 11:59:10 am »
Janes' article and the Army briefing seem to describe something a bit different than EAPS which
was command divert  (via thruster) + command detonate.



Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #199 on: November 08, 2017, 12:35:59 pm »
That would make it more like the DARPA Exacto 50cal bullet but with a proximity fuse included.  I would think an RF ground linked guidance would be cheaper than semi-active seeker.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #202 on: November 20, 2017, 03:16:38 pm »
Follow up to my drone idea:



(Please excuse the hysterical title.  Obviously, this isn't real - yet.)

« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 03:20:38 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #203 on: December 24, 2017, 10:49:35 am »
...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #204 on: January 03, 2018, 02:47:42 pm »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #205 on: January 03, 2018, 03:19:00 pm »
Hellfire Longbow L7A adds a blast fragmentation sleeve and proximity fuze.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #206 on: January 04, 2018, 03:15:04 am »
Have Raytheon ever proposed bringing the RIM-116 to land based SHORAD applications?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #207 on: January 04, 2018, 11:26:17 am »
Hellfire Longbow L7A adds a blast fragmentation sleeve and proximity fuze.

A counter UAS Hellfire Longbow is contractor's dream and that is about all.. about all.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #208 on: January 04, 2018, 02:06:58 pm »
Hellfire Longbow L7A adds a blast fragmentation sleeve and proximity fuze.

A counter UAS Hellfire Longbow is contractor's dream and that is about all.. about all.

I don't doubt its utility against lows and slows.

Have Raytheon ever proposed bringing the RIM-116 to land based SHORAD applications?

Not that I've heard; RAM Block II is ~2X the unit cost of AIM-9X Block II+

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #209 on: January 04, 2018, 02:10:52 pm »
Quote
Not that I've heard; RAM Block II is ~2X the unit cost of AIM-9X Block II+

Thanks. Even though it is more expensive than the Aim-9X, one would think that it could go after a more diverse target set and still come in cheaper than the SLAMRAAM. Perhaps cost is one of the reasons why they didn't bother proposing it for IFPC against a cruise missile threat since Raytheon's competitors are looking at all new missile designs to compete in that space.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #210 on: January 04, 2018, 03:33:50 pm »
While RAM has an IR all-the-way mode, it's really optimized against RF-emitting targets.  That's most ASCMs but probably a small proportion of the IFPC target set.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #211 on: January 04, 2018, 03:37:43 pm »
Also, they're already playing with AIM-9X in a land SAM role.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #212 on: January 04, 2018, 03:43:32 pm »
Also, they're already playing with AIM-9X in a land SAM role.

AIM-9X Block II has datalink that's in-band with respect to the Sentinel radar.
AFAIK, RAM doesn't have a datalink though Block 2B is supposed to have a missile-to-missile link.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #214 on: January 30, 2018, 03:55:44 pm »
Lockheed Martin Miniature Hit-to-Kill Missile Demonstrates Increased Agility and Affordability

     
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-01-30-Lockheed-Martin-Miniature-Hit-to-Kill-Missile-Demonstrates-Increased-Agility-and-Affordability?_ga=2.243947340.895923279.1517355198-1242832585.1503775749#assets_20295_128386-117

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M., Jan. 30, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin's (NYSE: LMT) Miniature Hit-to-Kill
(MHTK) missile successfully conducted a controlled flight test to demonstrate the interceptor's increased agility, and to validate
 the performance of its airframe and electronics -- now common between MHTK's two configurations to drive affordability.

Friday's test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, was the first ever for MHTK's updated electronics, and the second for the
interceptor's next-generation airframe. Commonality between the two missile configurations (active and semi-active seeker), and
the increased agility demonstrate MHTK's transformational capabilities to defeat rocket, artillery and mortar (RAM) targets with
greater accuracy, reliability and range compared to current systems. Funded by Lockheed Martin, the successful test advances the
program's technical maturity level and builds confidence in the interceptor's ability to defeat current and evolving threats.

"The U.S. Army and international customers have made it clear that today's global security environment demands agile, close-range
solutions that protect warfighters and citizens from enemy rockets, artillery and mortars. The design of the MHTK interceptor
enables a highly effective solution in a very compact package," said Tim Cahill, vice president of Integrated Air and Missile Defense
at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "This test is exciting because it is another successful milestone demonstrating the
interceptor's revolutionary capabilities. We look forward to building on this success."

Shorter than a yardstick, MHTK retains the range and lethality required of a counter-RAM solution. MHTK uses hit-to-kill
technology, which destroys threats through an extremely accurate application of kinetic energy in body-to-body contact.
Hit-to-kill technology eliminates the incoming threat while reducing the risk of collateral damage seen in traditional
blast-fragmentation interceptors.

The MHTK interceptor is less than 2.5 feet (72 cm) in length and weighs about 5 pounds (2.2 kg) at launch.
The mini missile has the potential to bring miniaturized capabilities to the warfighter with lower costs and reduced
logistic footprints, while opening a world of opportunities for applications of small interceptors.




Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #215 on: January 31, 2018, 05:09:15 am »
I see that and almost wonder "why"?  It would be useless against something like this:



"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #216 on: January 31, 2018, 06:26:47 am »
This is primarily for the CRAM mission. While there may be some residual C-UAS capability clearly they are looking for a Directed Energy insert in IFPC to support that mission.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #217 on: January 31, 2018, 06:29:14 am »
This is primarily for the CRAM mission. While there may be some residual C-UAS capability clearly they are looking for a Directed Energy insert in IFPC to support that mission.

Hopefully swarm components won't get tough like mortar rounds and artillery shells. (Though I suspect they will at some point.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #218 on: January 31, 2018, 06:36:13 am »
That will also drive their cost and complexity. On the flip side, Lasers are getting better at a fairly fast pace. They are looking at a 50kW Striker based DEW which is a huge leap from the 5kW currently being tested. Similarly, a 100kW+ DEW on an FMTV may possibly enter EMD by 2022-24 after a technology demonstration currently scheduled for FY22. That is some serious power. Once we see these systems in EMD, in my opinion the capacity and capability will increase much more rapidly. To get from 100kW to 200+kW probably won't take as long as it has to get from 5-10kW based systems to 100kW based ones.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 06:39:17 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #219 on: January 31, 2018, 06:49:03 am »
That will also drive their cost and complexity.

They don't need to be as tough physically, as in made out thick metal, but tough as in laser/RF resistant.  Also they don't need to be impervious, but if a laser needs to dwell, say 10 seconds to kill a SC, instead of 1. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #220 on: January 31, 2018, 06:56:46 am »
Right. But my point was that the laser weapon is also a moving target capable of some serious scaling. You may have to overcome a 10 or 30 kW laser in 2019 but this may scale to say 115-150kW by mid to late 2020s and closer to 300kW in the mid to late 30s. Moreover, I'm sure with system maturity and tech advances you could develop directed energy weapons with the ability to lase multiple targets simultaneously.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #221 on: January 31, 2018, 07:40:22 am »
I keep wondering if they'll ever develop a beam source that pipes the emissions to multiple, independently targetable, emiters.  This is what you'd want to do on an aircraft if possible.  Have the main emitter up front with lower powered about the aircraft for disabling missiles and enemy pilots. I seem to recall reading there was a maximum you could send along a fiber optic however.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 935
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #223 on: January 31, 2018, 10:40:05 am »
Add Northrop's "Silent Watch' (F-35's EODAS for ships) and you'll have a very capable CIWS.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SilentWatchEODAS/Pages/default.aspx

WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #224 on: January 31, 2018, 10:49:22 am »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #225 on: February 15, 2018, 02:25:46 am »
Rapid development, deployment, and support of the Expeditionary Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integrated Defeat System (E-LIDS).
[/url]

Quote
This is a request for information (RFI)/Sources Sought (SS) only. This RFI does not constitute an invitation for bid (IFB), request for quotation (RFQ), or request for proposal (RFP). The US Government is conducting market research for the rapid development, deployment, and support of the Expeditionary Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integrated Defeat System (E-LIDS).

Background: The US Army has identified a need to develop countermeasures against enemy-armed and intelligence gathering UAS's operating at various speeds and altitudes, which are targeting US interests both at home and abroad.


Interested sources need to demonstrate the technical capability, corporate knowledge, and experience in providing all hardware, equipment, technical expertise, planning, management, manufacturing and testing efforts. This includes all incidental services to develop, produce, integrate, deploy, and sustain the E-LIDS in multiple theaters of operation.



This procurement requires the contractor to operate as a US corporation with a secure manufacturing facility approved to the SECRET level by the Defense Security Service (DSS). Further, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) will be asked to conduct a pre-award survey of the contractor's facility to determine the capability to successfully fulfill the requirements of this contract and to minimize risk to the C-RAM program.



Rapid development, deployment, and support of the Mobile-Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integrated Defeat System (M-LIDS).


Quote
This is a request for information (RFI)/Sources Sought (SS) only. This RFI does not constitute an invitation for bid (IFB), request for quotation (RFQ), or request for proposal (RFP). The US Government is conducting market research for the rapid development, deployment, and support of the Mobile-Low, Slow, Small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Integrated Defeat System (M-LIDS).

Background: The US Army has identified a need to develop countermeasures against enemy-armed and intelligence gathering UAS's operating at various speeds and altitudes, which are targeting US interests both at home and abroad.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #226 on: February 20, 2018, 07:42:28 am »
M-SHORAD Onboard Sensor Capability


Quote
The purpose of this RFI is to determine if there are sources with the ability to deliver and integrate an onboard acquisition, tracking, surveillance, queuing and fire control quality data sensor capability for short range air defense that meets the requirements designated in this RFI. ...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #227 on: March 16, 2018, 11:03:50 am »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #228 on: March 19, 2018, 03:14:58 pm »
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/03/19/south-korea-to-deploy-artillery-killer-to-destroy-north-korean-bunkers/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Defense%20DNR%2003-19-18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Daily%20News%20Roundup

Quote

SEOUL, South Korea — The South Korean Army plans to deploy surface-to-surface missiles in a newly created counter-artillery brigade by October, with the aim of destroying North Korea’s hardened long-range artillery sites near the Demilitarized Zone, should conflict erupt on the Korean Peninsula.

The plan is part of South Korea‘s defense reform for developing an offensive operations scheme, a defense source said. The tactical missiles are developed locally.

“The Ministry of National Defense has approved a plan to create an artillery brigade under a ground forces operations command to be inaugurated in October. The plan is to be reported to President Moon Jae-in next month as part of the ‘Defense Reform 2.0’ policy,” the source said. “The brigade’s mission is fairly focused on destroying North Korea’s long-range guns more rapidly and effectively, should conflict arise”
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #229 on: March 20, 2018, 06:23:40 am »
Army to demonstrate precision strike, hypersonics and ramjet capabilities in just a few years


Quote
The CFT is looking at “how do we take that chassis that is hopefully going to be at full-rate production in the next couple of months and get ourselves to a better propellant, a better projectile, and a longer barrel — extending from a 39 caliber to a 58 caliber — to be able to not only get on the current battlefield to the 70 kilometer range, but also provide the basis from which either a hypervelocity or a ramjet technology round could get us to very long ranges with cannon artillery,” he said.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 06:26:56 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #230 on: March 20, 2018, 08:02:11 am »
ATACMS replacement poised for name change, acceleration


Quote
The deeper fight will involve the Precision Strike Missile, part of a plan “to grow a replacement for ATACMS,” which was terminated in 2007 and for which the Army has been conducting a service life extension program. The aim is to achieve a missile with current technology and "the growth to be able to incorporate spiral future capabilities."

"While the program of record is a 'right of [materiel development decision]' program, it is the bus that will enable the CFT's effort, which is in the science and technology realm, to spiral capabilities out," Maranian said.

The program manager has developed "a plan to accelerate the first delivery of this PrSM missile from 2027 back to 2023 -- early '23 -- which is going to enable our science and technology to more rapidly cut in capabilities like cross-domain fires, the ability to hit moved and/or moving targets in both the maritime domain and on land. The ability to use sensor technology to home in on targets for terminal attack, the ability to deliver loitering [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] to a very deep part of the battlefield to help identify targets that we need to service in a denied, degraded or disrupted GPS environment."

Finally, in the long-range fight, Maranian cited Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s vision of "a strategic capability that is [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty]-compliant, that is able to deliver effects at strategic ranges."

The CFT is "looking at a number of different options" to address this need, Maranian said, "whether that be a very-long-range cannon or a missile that's able to fly in a trajectory that does not violate the INF Treaty."
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #231 on: March 20, 2018, 08:44:47 am »
ATACMS replacement poised for name change, acceleration


Quote
The deeper fight will involve the Precision Strike Missile, part of a plan “to grow a replacement for ATACMS,” which was terminated in 2007 and for which the Army has been conducting a service life extension program. The aim is to achieve a missile with current technology and "the growth to be able to incorporate spiral future capabilities."

"While the program of record is a 'right of [materiel development decision]' program, it is the bus that will enable the CFT's effort, which is in the science and technology realm, to spiral capabilities out," Maranian said.

The program manager has developed "a plan to accelerate the first delivery of this PrSM missile from 2027 back to 2023 -- early '23 -- which is going to enable our science and technology to more rapidly cut in capabilities like cross-domain fires, the ability to hit moved and/or moving targets in both the maritime domain and on land. The ability to use sensor technology to home in on targets for terminal attack, the ability to deliver loitering [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] to a very deep part of the battlefield to help identify targets that we need to service in a denied, degraded or disrupted GPS environment."

Finally, in the long-range fight, Maranian cited Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s vision of "a strategic capability that is [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty]-compliant, that is able to deliver effects at strategic ranges."

The CFT is "looking at a number of different options" to address this need, Maranian said, "whether that be a very-long-range cannon or a missile that's able to fly in a trajectory that does not violate the INF Treaty."

A shame they're replacing ATACMs with a missile of much lower capability when everybody else is going the other direction.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #232 on: March 20, 2018, 09:43:09 am »
wait what,  did someone say very long range gun.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #233 on: March 20, 2018, 10:10:56 am »
wait what,  did someone say very long range gun.

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #234 on: March 20, 2018, 12:26:49 pm »
wait what,  did someone say very long range gun.
seems we've seen that pic before.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #235 on: March 20, 2018, 02:57:21 pm »
wait what,  did someone say very long range gun.
seems we've seen that pic before.

Because it's awesome.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline moonbeamsts

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #236 on: March 20, 2018, 05:06:38 pm »
Go BOLO or ORGE!!!

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #237 on: March 21, 2018, 06:34:22 am »
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/03/20/army-to-demonstrate-precision-strike-hypersonics-and-ramjet-capabilities-in-just-a-few-years/

Quote

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army will demonstrate Long-Range Precision Fires technology from a precision-strike missile to hypersonics and ramjet capabilities within the next couple of years, according to the service’s LRPF modernization team lead.

The LRPF cross-functional team — or CFT — was recently tasked to come up with ways to bring LRPF capability online as fast as possible. LRPF has been identified as the Army’s top modernization priority among six. Each priority was assigned a CFT to tackle modernization plans going forward and will be housed within the Army’s new Futures Command expected to open its doors this summer.

[Modernization reborn: Army pushes for total overmatch]

“There is a real need to modernize our surface-to-surface fires at echelon to be able to guarantee a clear overmatch against any potential adversary both on the modern and future battlefield,” Brig. Gen. Stephen Maranian, the LRPF team lead, told Defense News in a March 19 interview. “To that effort, we are looking at how do we increase our range, how do we increase our lethality and how do we increase our volume of fires, not just in the missile area, but at echelon.”

US should build this proposal from the Vietnam War era.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #238 on: March 21, 2018, 06:39:23 am »
"WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army will demonstrate Long-Range Precision Fires technology from a precision-strike missile to hypersonics and ramjet capabilities within the next couple of years, according to the service’s LRPF modernization team lead."

This sounds like they don't know what they want.  The "Long Range Precision Fires" is a missile that swaps out one ATACMs for two less capable missiles (much smaller payload) in the same cell.  Now they throw in "hypersonics" and "ramjet"?   ???
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 06:51:28 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #239 on: March 21, 2018, 06:42:05 am »
"WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army will demonstrate Long-Range Precision Fires technology from a precision-strike missile to hypersonics and ramjet capabilities within the next couple of years, according to the service’s LRPF modernization team lead."

This sounds like they don't know what they want.  The "Long Range Precision Fires" is a missile that swaps out one ATACMs for two less capable missiles (much smaller payload) in the same cell.  Now they thrown in "hypersonics" and "ramjet"?   ???
Time to ditch the INF for conventional missiles.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 894
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #240 on: March 21, 2018, 08:11:16 am »
"WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army will demonstrate Long-Range Precision Fires technology from a precision-strike missile to hypersonics and ramjet capabilities within the next couple of years, according to the service’s LRPF modernization team lead."

This sounds like they don't know what they want.  The "Long Range Precision Fires" is a missile that swaps out one ATACMs for two less capable missiles (much smaller payload) in the same cell.  Now they throw in "hypersonics" and "ramjet"?   ???
It's a bit of word salad, but they could be talking about anything from a hypersonic demonstratot that uses LRPF components (booster, launcher, maybe guidance?) to a more general "notional ramjet LRPF upgrade."

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #241 on: March 21, 2018, 09:34:13 am »

It's a bit of word salad, but they could be talking about anything from a hypersonic demonstratot that uses LRPF components (booster, launcher, maybe guidance?) to a more general "notional ramjet LRPF upgrade."

The article covers the entire portfolio which includes LRPF but also Artillery and railgun demonstrations for ranges covering short (100 km and below), medium 499 km and below and long range. Reference to hypersonics and ramjet likely applies to the guns where they will be looking to fire the HVP and perhaps a propulsion stack as marauder mentioned HERE. The longer ranged INF compliant fires could be something that has longer range than the LRPF but spends more than 50% of its time inside the atmosphere which would mean that it is not a Ballistic Missile going by the definition in the INF treaty language. If it carries a booster than it would also not be a cruise missile..

Quote
Another way to get after fast speeds and longer ranges is through ramjet technology. When a projectile leaves the cannon and is flying through the air, the air is fed into the projectile itself and ignites an internal propellant, which causes further acceleration, according to Maranian.

The Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and Space and Missile Defense Command, outside of the Army, are looking at a number of classified programs, he said.

The SCO is particularly looking at the 58-caliber cannon tube because it is a base requirement for hypersonics.

Quote
DOD FY19 RDT&E Budget

High-speed/hypersonic weapons are being developed to ensure the continued military superiority and strike capability of the United States including freedom of
movement and freedom of action in areas protected by anti-access/area denial defenses. Current weapon system demonstrations and technology development
programs include high-speed and hypersonic air-breathing missiles, maneuvering reentry and boost-glide weapons, hypersonic gun-launched projectiles, and air-
breathing space access vehicles. These systems require development of conventional and high-speed turbine, ramjet, scramjet, and combined cycle engines; high
temperature materials; thermal protection systems (TPS); and thermal management systems.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 09:54:57 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #242 on: March 21, 2018, 01:51:34 pm »
Jeez.  Just came across this in a folder I've been using for reference.  (Though they better be looking at it a lot sooner than 2030)

(Long Range Maneuverable Fires)


"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #243 on: March 23, 2018, 11:28:21 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/03/army-will-field-100-km-cannon-500-km-missiles-lrpf-cft/

Quote
The Army is modernizing three artillery systems: 155 cannon, the cheapest option, for the close fight against the enemy's frontline forces; guided rockets for the deep fight against enemy reinforcements and supply lines; and missiles, the most expensive munitions, for very deep or even strategic strikes against targets in the enemy rear and homeland.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #244 on: March 24, 2018, 08:49:44 am »
Jeez.  Just came across this in a folder I've been using for reference.  (Though they better be looking at it a lot sooner than 2030)

(Long Range Maneuverable Fires)
Thank you for posting. yes sooner the better and a GMLRS Light on regular LMTV (hopefully much cheaper) is one the smartest ideas in a while.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #245 on: March 24, 2018, 08:56:56 am »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/03/army-will-field-100-km-cannon-500-km-missiles-lrpf-cft/

Quote
The Army is modernizing three artillery systems: 155 cannon, the cheapest option, for the close fight against the enemy's frontline forces; guided rockets for the deep fight against enemy reinforcements and supply lines; and missiles, the most expensive munitions, for very deep or even strategic strikes against targets in the enemy rear and homeland.
wait, what, again
"The metallurgy of the new barrel should be robust enough to fire even more advanced munitions like hypersonic and ramjet rounds that enter service beyond 2023, Maranian said, ..."

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #246 on: March 24, 2018, 05:11:41 pm »
Jeez.  Just came across this in a folder I've been using for reference.  (Though they better be looking at it a lot sooner than 2030)

(Long Range Maneuverable Fires)
Thank you for posting. yes sooner the better and a GMLRS Light on regular LMTV (hopefully much cheaper) is one the smartest ideas in a while.

What are your thoughts on this?





Personally I don't know why the US isn't scrambling as fast as it can to add this capability.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #247 on: March 25, 2018, 10:04:02 am »
Always believed in GMLRS SDB (almost an old concept now) but had no idea of the flight regime  capability.

2030s though a gun launched SDB  B)

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #248 on: March 25, 2018, 12:57:47 pm »
Always believed in GMLRS SDB (almost an old concept now) but had no idea of the flight regime  capability.

Definitely wouldn't be viable against DEW CIWS or even something like TOR.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #249 on: March 25, 2018, 01:43:57 pm »
Such is the demand that practically all of the demil'ed M26 rocket motors that would have constituted the
feedstock for GLSDB are being converted into practice rounds.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11093
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #250 on: March 25, 2018, 02:10:27 pm »
Such is the demand that practically all of the demil'ed M26 rocket motors that would have constituted the
feedstock for GLSDB are being converted into practice rounds.

It does make you wonder if anybody is awake at the wheel.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #251 on: March 25, 2018, 03:46:00 pm »
Such is the demand that practically all of the demil'ed M26 rocket motors that would have constituted the
feedstock for GLSDB are being converted into practice rounds.
Hope this means new higher energy motor replacement for all MLRS program ie energetics. GMLRS is key.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #252 on: March 25, 2018, 11:14:46 pm »
I presume GMLR-ER is the tail-controlled GMLRS. 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #253 on: March 27, 2018, 03:52:34 am »


« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 04:04:09 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #254 on: March 27, 2018, 05:32:58 am »
Army aims to flight test Precision Strike Missile in 2019


Quote
Barry Pike, program executive officer for missiles and space, told reporters here that the projection for initial operational capability in fiscal year 2027 was "based on a certain funding profile and risk."

The cross-functional team construct was "very effective" because it incorporated senior leaders in the process, enabling them to adjust the time line. Pike emphasized the value of this acceleration, given that ATACMS has been out of production for 11 years.

A decision to "add resources to the program" helped shift it to the left by two years, he explained. "That was really executed through the cross-functional team, with the operational community coming in" and emphasizing the urgency of the capability gap.

Additionally, Pike said there was an opportunity to accelerate prototyping "from the front end of the program," employing other transaction authority to "get the program started quicker." Through collaborative efforts involving industry, the acquisition and operational communities, officials determined that vendors could "deliver prototypes for flight testing starting next year. So in 2019, we'll actually be able to get some results from first flight tests."

This approach could pay dividends for operational forces, he continued.

"If we demonstrate sufficient progress next year in flight testing, and we have an urgent operational need from a combatant command, we can actually build some number of the early prototypes to deliver capability in late '22 or '23 -- ahead of what was previously planned, even a '25 IOC."
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #255 on: March 28, 2018, 05:25:40 pm »
https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/long-range_precision_fires?WT.mc_id=breakingdefensenativerms_ausa_gf&utm_source=breakingdefense&utm_medium=native&utm_content=rms_deepstrike&utm_campaign=rms_ausa_gf&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--YHdp4B5qv-ll4XKNTKMjEHBw74JIf_50TmhvoCs5E4_v_TQ-1qrWoIpREr08l0oO7IFgKrwEJeR8Be9tziXHO-hCLpA&_hsmi=61693996

Quote
What do you do with an old missile? Replace it with one that's faster, stronger, cheaper to deploy and much more accurate.

Better yet: Replace it with two.

Raytheon is developing a long-range missile for the Army’s Precision Strike Missile requirement that will allow the Army to field twice as many missiles on its existing launch vehicles. Thin and sleek, it will fire two missiles from a single weapons pod, slashing the cost. The new missile also flies farther, packs more punch and has a better guidance system than the current weapon.

“We're looking to replace a design originally from the 1980s," said Greg Haynes, a Raytheon manager leading the company’s campaign for a new precision strike weapon. “Missile technology has come a long way.”

The ability to fit two DeepStrike missiles in an existing launcher is a significant leap over existing tactical missiles.

“Since most of these were produced in the late '90s, you run into what we call ‘end of shelf life,’ where the motors and such are no longer reliable,” said former Army colonel John Weinzettle, now a program manager in Raytheon’s Advanced Missile Systems business.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #256 on: March 29, 2018, 04:06:40 am »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #257 on: March 31, 2018, 12:18:27 am »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/03/army-accelerates-air-missile-defense-five-years-mshorad-mml-lasers/

Quote
AUSA GLOBAL FORCE SYMPOSIUM: To counter MiGs, Sukhois, Hinds, and missiles, the US Army is rushing anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems into service up to five years ahead of its original schedule. The head of the Army’s Air & Missile Defense Cross Functional Team, Brig. Gen. Randall McIntire, told me here the goal is to build on today’s uneven defenses — a lot of Patriot and a little THAAD to kill ballistic and cruise missiles, a few Stingers to down aircraft — and create multiple overlapping layers of protection.

The next five years will see a steady drumbeat of new systems:

2020: The first battery of MSHORAD, highly mobile, lightly armored Stryker vehicles with anti-aircraft guns and missiles to protect mobile frontline forces from enemy helicopters and drones. That’s five years ahead of the original fielding date, 2025.
    Late 2020 or early ’21: A new network link between Patriot and THAAD missile defense batteries, so Patriot can both protect THAAD from air attack and use THAAD’s longer range radar to find targets. This link was originally going to wait until the IBCS network was fielded in 2022 (below).

2021: The IPFC Multi-Mission Launcher (MML), a truck-mounted system bigger and less mobile than MSHORAD. MML’s larger magazine of larger missiles can reach targets at higher altitudes and longer ranges, especially cruise missiles and fixed-wing aircraft, as well as helicopters.

2022: The IBCS network, which will share targeting data among all air and missile defense systems, allowing any launcher to fire at targets spotted by any radar. (IBCS will incorporate the THAAD-Patriot link). This is the one system that’s been delayed, although the decision to do so predates the creation of the CFTs: IBCS was originally going to be fielded this year, but software development proved daunting.

2023: The first prototype platoon of 50 kilowatt lasers mounted on Stryker vehicles, which will join MSHORAD missile launchers in frontline forces to defend against small drones. That 2023 date isn’t final, McIntire told the AUSA conference here: “We’re looking at, can we move that to the left a little bit?”

The Army is also working on a larger truck-mounted laser — less mobile but more powerful — in the 100 kW range. McIntire and his fellow officers didn’t offer a fielding date for that one. The Army has previously said it will be test-fired in 2022, but don’t be surprised if it’s accelerated.

Services accelerating weapons technology I guess with the inflow of funds we are seeing "More 'bucks' more Buck Rogers.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #258 on: March 31, 2018, 05:34:52 am »
Right now the "accelerating" bit is only buying back capability which the Army had for years with the Avenger SHORAD. I guess the picture that they painted for themselves that SHORAD would no longer be necessary in the active service didn't really pan out. Hopefully, the mindset or even the leaders responsible for such shortsighted decisions wouldn't be allowed anywhere near any force structure decision of any consequence (if they are still around). I liked the fact that Tom Karako on the Air-Defense panel brought up the fact that the Army had been looking for a 360-degree sensor on the patriot for more than a quarter-century. Hopefully, those currently in charge of the Directed Energy portfolio will be slightly more competent and actually fielding systems of significance (50kW or more) in the next few years.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #259 on: March 31, 2018, 08:54:41 am »
...
« Last Edit: March 31, 2018, 09:21:41 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #260 on: March 31, 2018, 12:03:58 pm »
You have this full report?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 499
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #261 on: March 31, 2018, 03:23:38 pm »
Strategic fire cannon artillery? That sounds weird - unless they want to use a really exotic round / railgun.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #263 on: March 31, 2018, 05:47:47 pm »
No worries thanks for the link.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #264 on: March 31, 2018, 06:34:59 pm »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #266 on: April 24, 2018, 03:58:09 am »
Marines will host counter-UAS demo using non-developmental equipment


Quote
The Marine Corps plans to host a demonstration of a non-developmental, counter-unmanned aerial system missile in fiscal year 2019 or 2020 while working with the Army on a long term solution for both services, according to an official.

Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant for combat development and integration, told Inside the Navy April 18 following a House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing the service set aside $4.5 million in FY-18 research and development funding for the demonstration.

The plan is to integrate the non-developmental solution into the Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar and Common Aviation Command and Control System, he said.

"What we've got right now is a . . . very high end capability with G/ATOR and CAC2S, [but] we don't have shooters to go with it," Walsh said.

The National Defense Strategy directs the Marine Corps to focus on the higher-end threat. Walsh said the service views both G/ATOR and CAC2S as a huge benefit in integrating the air and ground domains.

"What we need is something larger than the path that we were going down, [which was] integrating Stinger onto a vehicle," he said. "What we can do now is get something commercial-off-the-shelf [and] see what it is."

Walsh said the demonstration will help the Marine Corps achieve an "early capability" while it continues working with the Army on the second block of the Indirect Fire Protection Capability program. IFPC Block II will have a counter-rocket, artillery and mortar capability, while the first block is designed to defeat unmanned aircraft systems and cruise missiles.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #267 on: April 24, 2018, 04:19:06 pm »
...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #268 on: April 24, 2018, 09:15:02 pm »
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/04/23/this-army-unit-tested-the-newest-paladin-howitzer-by-firing-hundreds-of-rounds-a-day-for-weeks/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

Quote

Cannon-cockers with the 1st Infantry Division’s “Bonecrusher” Battery fired hundreds of artillery rounds a day for two weeks straight as they tested the Army’s newest upgrades to the Paladin howitzer.

And some of the soldiers in the battery who participated called it the most “intense and exhilarating” training they’ve experienced.

Capt. Joseph Brown, battery commander with B Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team said the training was conducted much like what the soldiers would see at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California — even though they were at Fort Riley, Kansas, the unit’s home station.

The soldiers started the testing with a muster and move to the field, and then they started firing for almost 20 hours a day in “near continuous operations over the course of the next two weeks.”
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #269 on: April 25, 2018, 10:07:00 am »
...

Paladin's developments are great for rapid sustained fire technology that Crusader started realizing  but a Strategic Strike Artillery appears needs Light Gas and tanks need an ETC as railguns are still very risky and were judged back in the 80s as impractical for tanks.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/plans-for-new-us-super-tank-with.html

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2862
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #270 on: April 25, 2018, 10:18:05 am »
Paladin's developments are great for rapid sustained fire technology that Crusader started realizing  but a Strategic Strike Artillery appears needs Light Gas and tanks need an ETC as railguns are still very risky and were judged back in the 80s as impractical for tanks.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/plans-for-new-us-super-tank-with.html

That page has some major misinformation on it.  The statement that the XM360 uses ETC is simply false -- it's just a lightweight 120mm firing the same ammunition as the current 120mm tank guns. 

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #271 on: April 25, 2018, 02:57:34 pm »
Here is the often read discussion of FCS gun alternatives back in 1997 which could prompt discussion today. Binary liquid propellants that have been patented after 97 render LP much safer and deserve a look.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1997/5fcs97.pdf

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #273 on: May 07, 2018, 06:13:25 am »
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/aaaa/2018/04/30/army-extending-range-of-airborne-munitions/

Quote

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The Army is working to extend the range of its airborne precision munitions in order to provide greater standoff in future contested environments.

Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville said at the Army Aviation Association of America on April 26, that the service needs to make sure it is extending the range of its current capabilities.

The service prioritized long-range precision fires as its top modernization effort, and it is taking steps to extend the range of its cannon artillery on the ground in the short term.

Matching that capability in the sky, the Army aviation’s research, development and engineering arm is looking to increase standoff ranges for its helicopters to effectively fire its munitions.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #274 on: May 08, 2018, 08:53:46 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/army-needs-2b-a-year-more-for-big-six-52-for-air-missile-defense/

Quote
UPDATED with expert comment WASHINGTON: The Army needs “an additional $2-3 billion per year,” above its already generous 2019 budget, to fund its Big Six modernization priorities in the 2020s, says a new strategy document submitted to Congress. All told, the Army plans to spend over $13 billion on the Big Six over the five years from 2020 to 2024.

More than half of that money, $6.8 billion, goes to air and missile defense, ostensibly only the fifth of the six priorities. Not quite a quarter, $3 billion, goes to the No. 4 priority: Army command, control, and communications networks, including alternatives to GPS. By contrast, the top three priorities — long-range artillery and missiles, armored vehicles, and aircraft — get less than 20 percent combined, $2.6 billion.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #275 on: May 10, 2018, 06:52:42 am »
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/5/8/army-push-for-greater-lethality-presents-opportunities-for-armaments-industry

Quote
Indianapolis, Ind. — Lethality is now a "hot issue” in the Army and resources are being realigned to push these capabilities forward. And that's good news for industry, a service official said May 8.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen such strong emphasis on lethality growth from small arms all the way up to artillery systems all at the same time. That’s almost unprecedented,” said Anthony Sebasto, executive director of the enterprise and systems engineering center at the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center. “In the past they’ve all come in cycles but this is … a wholesale change,” he added.

The Army has identified long-range precision fires, next-generation combat vehicle, future vertical lift family of helicopters, air and missile defense, soldier lethality and the network as its primary areas of focus as it prepares for conflict with peer competitors such as China and Russia. Armaments touches on five of those six categories, Sebasto said at the National Defense Industrial Association’s Armament Systems Forum in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2093
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #276 on: May 15, 2018, 10:06:12 am »
Tail-Controlled GMLRS test at WSMR.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8509
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #277 on: May 19, 2018, 01:38:48 pm »
https://www.army.mil/article/205512

Quote
WASHINGTON -- Within a decade, if not sooner, leap-ahead technologies like lasers, hypersonic weapons, mobile and secure networks and unmanned/autonomous air and ground vehicles will likely reside in combat formations, said the Army's secretary.

Peer threats from China and Russia -- nations also developing these technologies -- make fielding these systems absolutely necessary, said Secretary of the Army Mark T. Esper, who spoke Wednesday at the Center for a New American Security here.

The secretary provided a glimpse into some of these new capabilities that the Army is developing, in partnership with industry, as part of its six modernization priorities.

LONG-RANGE PRECISION FIRES

"The Army is looking at hypersonics as game changer in its No. 1 modernization priority: long-range precision fires," Esper said.

Hypersonic weapons can fire rounds or a projectile hundreds of miles, he said. "That gives us an incredible ability to reach out and hurt an adversary or at least to hold him at bay," he said. Further, it would buy time for maneuver forces to secure objectives on the battlefield.

Projectiles of hypersonic weapons travel at speeds of Mach 5 or more using a supersonic combustion ramjets. Mach 5 is a speed well above high-performance jets that cruise at Mach 3 or 4 at their fastest. Experts say that cruise missiles or even unmanned aerial systems could eventually be modified to make them hypersonic.

NEXT GENERATION COMBAT VEHICLE

The second modernization priority, a next generation combat vehicle, will replace the aging Bradley Fighting Vehicles, which no longer have the power or space to haul modern communications gear or advanced weaponry, he said.

For development of the NGCV, the Army is not averse to opening the competition up to foreign partners as well as American companies, he added. The Stryker, a highly successful vehicle, wasn't made in America.........................
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1163
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program
« Reply #278 on: May 20, 2018, 08:01:34 am »
"The Army is looking at hypersonics as game changer in its No. 1 modernization priority: long-range precision fires," Esper said.

Hypersonic weapons can fire rounds or a projectile hundreds of miles, he said. "That gives us an incredible ability to reach out and hurt an adversary or at least to hold him at bay," he said. Further, it would buy time for maneuver forces to secure objectives on the battlefield.

Projectiles of hypersonic weapons travel at speeds of Mach 5 or more using a supersonic combustion ramjets."

Artillery needs to eclipse Aviation as the premiere. This has been projected by DSB  since the early 2000s.

Modern & Future IADS are too dangerous. The ultimate low cost disposable armed swarm UAV is a guided artillery shell (for targets not in complex terrain) .
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 08:09:30 am by jsport »