Register here

Author Topic: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program  (Read 77111 times)

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.