Register here

Author Topic: Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program  (Read 45099 times)

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1427
  • 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

Online DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 419
  • 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: 1427
  • 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

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9814
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: 1427
  • 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

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9814
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: 1427
  • 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: 941
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: 1427
  • 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

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9814
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: 1738
  • "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: 1427
  • 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: 7674
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 »
“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7674
“I judge civilization by simple tests What is the degree of freedom possessed by citizen or subject Can he think speak & act freely under well established well known laws? Judging by these standards Great Britain & the United States can claim to be in the forefront of civilized communities Churchill