Register here

Author Topic: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program  (Read 35663 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9171
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.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9171
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: 7145
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
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9171
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: 7145
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.
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9171
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: 68
  • 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.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9171
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: 1612
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 »

Offline SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 694
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: 1277
  • 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: 1498
  • "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: 1612
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: 1498
  • "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: 1277
  • 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