Register here

Author Topic: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program  (Read 80433 times)

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • 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.

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 968
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: 2161
  • "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: 1297
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: 2161
  • "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.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11232
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: 8522
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: 2161
  • "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: 2161
  • "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: 1837
  • 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: 1856
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: 2161
  • "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: 2161
  • "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: 1837
  • 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