Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

ESSM Blk II is slated to have some limited SRBM defense capability but nothing even remotely close to what the PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE offer. And they haven't actually tested it, nor do they seem to plan to do a test. MEADS would have been perfect for the Marines and higher production rate and volume would begin to get the PAC-3 MSE AUR cost down as well. Within current budgets, the Marines are smart to build something around fieleded G/ATOR capability as this is the most affordable way to get something out quick. Here's hoping that they, over time, add more capable interceptors than the TAMIR. Stunner would be a good start given its compatible with S-band systems and should more than double the keep out range of the Tamir.
 
51764691001_fcef1359a0_k.jpg


View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usaasc/51764691001/
 
past days, Northrop Grumman proposal for EAPS competition (very-hi-res to link)

There is no hope for any of this tech with the Army. MDA should be leading the effort of developing new IAMD systems and interceptors. Though the Army seems to have done a good job with coordinating the C-UAS activities, the ADA acquisition community is weak, poorly funded and lacks any teeth to see future technologies through to their induction.
 
past days, Northrop Grumman proposal for EAPS competition (very-hi-res to link)

There is no hope for any of this tech with the Army. MDA should be leading the effort of developing new IAMD systems and interceptors. Though the Army seems to have done a good job with coordinating the C-UAS activities, the ADA acquisition community is weak, poorly funded and lacks any teeth to see future technologies through to their induction.
Problem is this is battlefield stuff. Well outside the realm of MDA, I'd think. That's depressing as hell to consider the US Army can't even manage to buy itself weapons.
 
From the Army's FY-22 budget materials:

Project 688 is a developmental effort for the Palletized Field Artillery Launcher (PFAL). Previously, PFAL was STRIKE-X capability 1 of the SCO Demonstration program and CD ATACMS was STRIKE X capability 3. PFAL is a palletized erectable launcher that provides alternatives to deliver near-term innovative long-range strike capabilities to improve operational effectiveness for Combatant Commanders. The PFAL launcher consists of an erectable palletized mechanical structure, Fire Control System (FCS), and Power Management System (PMS). PFAL is capable of firing all current Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Family of Munitions (MFOM) rockets and missiles, to include the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS), the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), and future munitions such as the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) and Extended Range GMLRS (ER GMLRS). PFAL is capable of carrying two launch pods each containing either six GMLRS / MLRS rockets or one ATACMS missile. The PFAL launcher is capable of firing from a fixed ground position, Palletized Load System (PLS) trailer, or maritime vessel.

In FY2020 and FY2021, the Army will procure the kits to build 1 prototype to replace the 3 SCO prototypes that were dispositioned to an Army unit in FY2020. In FY2021, the Army will design and develop upgrades to the baseline design based upon the directed requirement.

Description: The Palletized Field Artillery Launcher (PFAL) Program provides a palletized erectable launcher capable of firing the Multiple Launched Rocket System (MLRS) Family of Munitions (MFOM). This effort will refine prototypes against Combatant Commanders specific requirements to support a continuous user evaluation.

Base year funding allows for continued design, development, and integration to ensure the safe and effective deployment
of operational prototypes in a continuous user evaluation. Procure and receive hardware/materials to implement design improvements to the mechanical structure, FCS, and/or PMS subsystems of existing prototypes transitioned from the SCO. Support component-level and system-level qualification and integration. Conduct flight tests of existing munitions with existing prototypes to evaluate readiness for supporting a user evaluation. Procure long lead-time hardware/materials necessary to start the fabrication of up to 7 additional prototypes.
 

Attachments

  • Army PB22 RDT&E R-2.png
    Army PB22 RDT&E R-2.png
    353.5 KB · Views: 137
From the Army's FY-22 budget materials:

Project 688 is a developmental effort for the Palletized Field Artillery Launcher (PFAL). Previously, PFAL was STRIKE-X capability 1 of the SCO Demonstration program and CD ATACMS was STRIKE X capability 3. PFAL is a palletized erectable launcher that provides alternatives to deliver near-term innovative long-range strike capabilities to improve operational effectiveness for Combatant Commanders. The PFAL launcher consists of an erectable palletized mechanical structure, Fire Control System (FCS), and Power Management System (PMS). PFAL is capable of firing all current Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Family of Munitions (MFOM) rockets and missiles, to include the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS), the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), and future munitions such as the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) and Extended Range GMLRS (ER GMLRS). PFAL is capable of carrying two launch pods each containing either six GMLRS / MLRS rockets or one ATACMS missile. The PFAL launcher is capable of firing from a fixed ground position, Palletized Load System (PLS) trailer, or maritime vessel.

In FY2020 and FY2021, the Army will procure the kits to build 1 prototype to replace the 3 SCO prototypes that were dispositioned to an Army unit in FY2020. In FY2021, the Army will design and develop upgrades to the baseline design based upon the directed requirement.

Description: The Palletized Field Artillery Launcher (PFAL) Program provides a palletized erectable launcher capable of firing the Multiple Launched Rocket System (MLRS) Family of Munitions (MFOM). This effort will refine prototypes against Combatant Commanders specific requirements to support a continuous user evaluation.

Base year funding allows for continued design, development, and integration to ensure the safe and effective deployment
of operational prototypes in a continuous user evaluation. Procure and receive hardware/materials to implement design improvements to the mechanical structure, FCS, and/or PMS subsystems of existing prototypes transitioned from the SCO. Support component-level and system-level qualification and integration. Conduct flight tests of existing munitions with existing prototypes to evaluate readiness for supporting a user evaluation. Procure long lead-time hardware/materials necessary to start the fabrication of up to 7 additional prototypes.
A shame they don't do this:


Seems like the hard part is already done.
 
They do have that capability. The launchers are fielded by the Air Force ;)
 
They do have that capability. The launchers are fielded by the Air Force ;)
Yeah, BUT. GMLRS has got a lot of use by the ground guys despite the fact the USAF can drop bombs. Seems like this would be a fine addition so you don't HAVE to have USAF tooling around waiting to see if they'll be needed or not. Force multiplier.
 
They do have that capability. The launchers are fielded by the Air Force ;)
Yeah, BUT. GMLRS has got a lot of use by the ground guys despite the fact the USAF can drop bombs. Seems like this would be a fine addition so you don't HAVE to have USAF tooling around waiting to see if they'll be needed or not. Force multiplier.

ER-GMLRS with 150 km range sort of meets that range gap b/w 70 km and 150 km. With ATACMS, and PrSM at the longer end / larger warhead, I don't think they have much room for something in between that adds a completely new weapon into inventory given the current LRPF priorities.
 
They do have that capability. The launchers are fielded by the Air Force ;)
Yeah, BUT. GMLRS has got a lot of use by the ground guys despite the fact the USAF can drop bombs. Seems like this would be a fine addition so you don't HAVE to have USAF tooling around waiting to see if they'll be needed or not. Force multiplier.

ER-GMLRS with 150 km range sort of meets that range gap b/w 70 km and 150 km. With ATACMS, and PrSM at the longer end / larger warhead, I don't think they have much room for something in between that adds a completely new weapon into inventory given the current LRPF priorities.
True. The SDB option does open up hard target and back-side targeting options however.
 
No doubt it gets them capability that they can't get from either GMLRS or PrSM but I think the Army looked at all these options before it narrowed down on Extended range GMLRS, PrSM and follow on PrSM increments to invest in as far as its current portfolio is concerned. Hopefully, the GL-SDB application finds good use with NATO and other allies, particularly some of the smaller nations who don't have large AFs and AL PGM delivery means.

I hope they continue with the palletized 2-cell launcher as it really opens up the capability with 2x the capacity of HIMARS at a much more cost effective fashion, particularly if they can also use it off of ships.
 
Last edited:
Marvel should sue. "Storm Breaker" should be on the GBU-57, not this firecracker.
I'm pretty sure "StormBreaker" is just in reference to its additional all weather capability.

The technology involved in the SDB-2 is much more impressive than the MOP, and very deserving of the intimidating name. Although lets be real, the GBU-57 is quite a simple weapon, big and heavy. Any machinist with a large lathe could turn out its casing. Can't say the same about the seeker on the StormBreaker.
But with that said, SDB-2 would offer quite a unique targeting capability if it were to be ground launched.
 
Marvel should sue. "Storm Breaker" should be on the GBU-57, not this firecracker.
I dont know about that.

The SDB do have their roots in stopping the Soviet Hoard weapons.

Or as some put it.

The Storm of Soviet Armor crossing the Fusa Gap.

Even a F16 can carry 16 of these things on a sortie. A few F16s will do well in stopping the Soviet storm...
 
Uh. Was thinking about Thor slamming it in the ground in Infinity War. I was joking.
 
Not to scale, but here's an interesting size comparison between the Tamir launch tubes on the US Iron Dome battery, and the launcher Dynetics took to the shoot off. Could be deceptive, but I suspect the Enduring shield launcher would be capable of accommodating significantly larger weapons.
 

Attachments

  • Dynetics_ES_IFPC_ShootOff.jpeg
    Dynetics_ES_IFPC_ShootOff.jpeg
    912.6 KB · Views: 113
  • Irom Dome Guam_Nov2021.jpeg
    Irom Dome Guam_Nov2021.jpeg
    496.4 KB · Views: 144
From Lockheed's 2021 Sentinel A4 presentation -
 

Attachments

  • SA4 brief 26 May, 2021-3.png
    SA4 brief 26 May, 2021-3.png
    6.5 MB · Views: 145
  • SA4 brief 26 May, 2021-2.png
    SA4 brief 26 May, 2021-2.png
    5.5 MB · Views: 140
  • SA4 brief 26 May, 2021-4.png
    SA4 brief 26 May, 2021-4.png
    7.3 MB · Views: 132
  • Sentinel_A4-brief.pdf
    2.5 MB · Views: 23
 
They do have that capability. The launchers are fielded by the Air Force ;)
Yeah, BUT. GMLRS has got a lot of use by the ground guys despite the fact the USAF can drop bombs. Seems like this would be a fine addition so you don't HAVE to have USAF tooling around waiting to see if they'll be needed or not. Force multiplier.
if i can only count how many wonderful and common sense weapon systems that die in silence because of military branch rivalry and politics
 
They do have that capability. The launchers are fielded by the Air Force ;)
Yeah, BUT. GMLRS has got a lot of use by the ground guys despite the fact the USAF can drop bombs. Seems like this would be a fine addition so you don't HAVE to have USAF tooling around waiting to see if they'll be needed or not. Force multiplier.
if i can only count how many wonderful and common sense weapon systems that die in silence because of military branch rivalry and politics
 
As the U.S. Army’s number one modernization priority, Long Range Precision Fires has a heavy (pay)load to carry.

But the program, of which the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Aviation & Missile Center plays a critical role, has proven to stand up to the scrutiny. The Precision Strike Missile, part of the LRPF portfolio, is an integral reason why.

“PrSM is an exciting capability improvement for the Army that will provide dramatic improvements in targeting, lethality and range while using existing launchers,” said Christi Dolbeer, director of the Technology Development Directorate at DEVCOM AvMC.

What makes PrSM so revolutionary? Both an ambitious approach to increasing capabilities but also a pragmatic one. Those launchers are already built, already in the field and already utilized by Soldiers who will not need extensive additional training on the weapons system’s operation. That design was intentional given the Army’s “do more with less” climate and an expected program price tag of more than $1.2 billion over five years.

“PrSM fits in the existing High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers,” said Mike Turner, Fires Capability Area Lead for DEVCOM AvMC. “It is part of the command and control structure. It will be organic to all Army fires units. So we have hundreds of launchers already capable of firing this and the targeting dilemma we create for potential adversaries is significant. Especially when we talk about increment four, where we can shoot 1000 kilometers and that can come from any field artillery rocket and missile unit.”

The first increment of PrSM brings with it the capabilities of an increased 500-kilometer range and double the missile capacity per launcher compared to the aging Army Tactical Missile System. It is currently in an engineering and manufacturing development phase overseen by the Program Executive Office Missiles and Space Strategic and Operational Rockets and Missiles Project Office and is scheduled to be delivered to Soldiers in 2023.

Engineers at DEVCOM AvMC are currently working with prime contractor Lockheed Martin on increment two, which will integrate a multimode seeker to hit both poorly located unmoving targets and moving targets. This capability will expand the PrSM target set to include maritime targets under the Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile science and technology program.

Still in its early stages, increment three focuses on an enhanced lethality: adding smart submunitions - a small munition that separates from the missile prior to impact – and multiple target capabilities. Increment three will also present an opportunity for industry competition.

In a testament to Army adaptability, the increment intended to be fourth has been prioritized ahead of three and will extend PrSM’s range to 1000 kilometers, doubling the range of increment capabilities. The reordering, directed by Army Futures Command and the Army, was due to “a need for a longer range in certain theaters,” Turner said.


Doubling the range of the precursor missile with increment one –then doubling it again with increment four – is ambitious. Turner credits the leadership of the Long Range Precision Fire Cross-Functional Team in fostering collaboration within the Army enterprise, a collaboration that has opened avenues of ingenuity for a program conceptualized by the DEVCOM AvMC team in 2011. As increment one is soon to be delivered under urgent materiel release, Turner and his team’s belief in the future of the program remains unwavering.

“We are confident we can do it,” he said.
 
Somewhat of a tangent, but the above is why the DoD's switch from endless Spiral development to field-able Increments is such a good thing. Instead of "well spiral 1 barely functions, but by spiral 5 we'll have a roadmap to the spiral 8 system," Increment 1 is a credible and useful system. If problems, be they technical, budgetary, or "other," derail future Increments, the program has still produced something that works even if it's not checked all the boxes on the wishlist.
 
Included in this week's recent additional $3 billion aid package for Ukraine the is Vampire “The Vampire system itself is a counter-UAS system” said Colin Kahl undersecretary of defense for policy “It is a kinetic system that uses small missiles essentially to shoot UAVs out of the sky.”

Vampire is a system developed by L3Harris that uses a four tube launcher for the BAE Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) a conversion of the Hydra 70mm/2.75" unguided rocket with a laser guidance kit added and L3Harris's WESCAM, a small, multi-sensor, multi-spectral sighting system, which can be mounted on a pickup flatbed with a self-contained palletized system.

Wikipedia quotes the cost of the APKWS as $22,000 each with 50,000 manufactured, so question is why is Army planning on spending $100's millions on the 50kW DE M SHORAD, what advantages does the laser bring to justify what looks likes an order of magnitude higher cost system?
 

Attachments

  • Vampire.jpg
    Vampire.jpg
    33.4 KB · Views: 82
Electrical lasers can be mounted on anything, in theory, and have a greater potential engagement envelope and stowed kills than a 2.75", 1.2-1.5 meter long missile. This matters for platoon-company air defense where extremely limited assets like air defense radars and specialized C-UAS carriers aren't likely going to be available, but the need for Group 1 UAS destruction is still just as (arguably more) important. You might need to swat a dozen or more UAS a day. How many missiles are you getting from division or the TSC that week again?

I'd rather every Bradley have a laser on the turret than shed TOWs for warmed over Stingers and have to rely on resupply of rockets over fuel.

Or worse, have to carry Stinger weapon rounds strapped to the top of the wagons and fire them out the hatch like a Soviet motor rifleman and pray that the little plastic helicopter got killed before the observer team realized they were being engaged by a giant launch plume coming from an armored vehicle and radioed my platoon's position to the nearest 155mm battalion. Of course if I'm out of Stingers it's down to piling as many rifles as I can out and shooting at the thing until it falls out of the sky, popping the hatch and using the air defense sight on the Bushmaster (possibly while firing a sidearm, like God intended), or hoping a recce jeep is in position to swat it with their little 30mm RWS.

Company can probably have a radar truck that gives warning cues through datalink for the lasers, and every platoon can have a little recce team pair with a couple EW and C-UAS JLTVs to alert me to local UAS and start taking counter-observation action while they try to jam the datalink or attack the drone with their grenade launchers (or maybe lasers?). Current European thinking for Group 1 CUAS is 25-40mm airburst grenade launchers (akin to LW30 I suppose) on RWS and eventual transition to lightweight tactical lasers.

The Stinger is still important for swatting Group 3s like Shadow of course, but that's more of a company (or battalion) level thing than a platoon thing. Maybe that's what L3 is marketing this for, though. Stinger is a bit overkill for a toy helicopter, after all.

There are other options, but only lasers really offer that (potential) widespread engagement envelope from Group 1 to Group 3 without burdening platoons and companies with a oversized laager of crazy quilt clown cars that comes with bringing back stuff like Linebacker to deal with the fundamentally common and highly saturated air defense threats at low organizational levels.
 
Last edited:
There are three high-energy lasers being prototyped and/or deployed for Counter sUAS work. These include a 10, and 20kW palletized laser (PHEL), the 20kw version of which has already been demonstrated and is possibly forward deployed for operational assessment, and another HEL mounted on an infantry squad vehicle (operational prototypes by late 2023). Something like a laser APKWS shooter would appear to be a good compliment to this. There is also an OSD program to put an IIR seeker on the APKWS sized rocket making it fire-forget. This is on top of M-LIDS which is getting a sort of LMADIS like transformation (over the next 3-5 years) which would basically integrate the two-vehicle payload onto a single vehicle. The Coyote Block 3 interceptor, and the Podded Leonidas are also great capabilities at the tactical level. There's also the 10kW Raytheon HELWS that has been forward deployed by the Air Force. In short plenty of non-kinetic stuff to support the 1-2 kinetic solutions.

Wikipedia quotes the cost of the APKWS as $22,000 each with 50,000 manufactured, so question is why is Army planning on spending $100's millions on the 50kW DE M SHORAD, what advantages does the laser bring to justify what looks likes an order of magnitude higher cost system?

APKWS is 22K each (assuming your numbers check out). Are you claiming that a 50kW HEL shot would cost upwards of $220K per kill? How well did APKWS perform against mortarts in testing?
 

Attachments

  • RCCTO_SMD2022.png
    RCCTO_SMD2022.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 82
Last edited:
APKWS is 22K each (assuming your numbers check out). Are you claiming that a 50kW HEL shot would cost upwards of $220K per kill? How well did APKWS perform against mortarts in testing?
InsideDefense in May reported on the Army tests at the White Sands missile ranges against mortars

"During the testing at White Sands Missile Range, NM, the DE M-SHORAD “acquired, tracked, targeted and defeated multiple mortars and successfully accomplished multiple tests simulating real-world scenarios,” according to a Raytheon press release. A Raytheon spokeswoman declined to comment on exactly how many mortars the laser shot down, or whether it failed any attempts. “With an effectively infinite magazine and near-zero cost per shot, [high-energy laser] is now the proven answer to asymmetric threats like drones and mortars,” Byron Bright, president of KBR Government Solutions"

Have seen no info APKWS if ever tested against mortars, but would guess the laser tested in near perfect conditions with wall to wall sunshine at White Sands. In the $3 billion aid package for Ukraine included 65,000 120mm mortar bombs, how effective would a laser be in in taking out a barrage of hundreds, how long would a 50 KW take out to burn thru the mortar steel casing, 10 seconds each?

FWIW the $22K for APKWS taken from Wikipedia, have seen no info on whatever on cost of DE M-SHORAD kill, $220K or otherwise but to be noted KBR/Raytheon make no mention of the cost their system, understand the kinetic M-SHORAD ~$10 million each, would that double with the DE M-SHORAD?, will have to see actual procurement cost budget for DE M-SHORAD when released by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller. Think the business case for laser yet to be proven due to problems mentioned and the cost whereas Vampire would be a substantially less costly though not a perfect system.

 
Have seen no info APKWS if ever tested against mortars, but would guess the laser tested in near perfect conditions with wall to wall sunshine at White Sands. In the $3 billion aid package for Ukraine included 65,000 120mm mortar bombs, how effective would a laser be in in taking out a barrage of hundreds, how long would a 50 KW take out to burn thru the mortar steel casing, 10 seconds each?

I assume it has not been tested (otherwise you would have provided some source) and the rest of the stuff (laser envelope and whether the professionals testing it (more than 400 mortar and Group 1-2 engagements over a 40+ day evaluation period) know how to test and assess a system) is something you just don't know.

How many total Group 1-2, and other surface to air test engagements has the APKWS gone through?

In any weather?
FWIW the $22K for APKWS taken from Wikipedia, have seen no info on whatever on cost of DE M-SHORAD kill, $220K or otherwise but to be noted KBR/Raytheon make no mention of the cost their system, understand the kinetic M-SHORAD ~$10 million each, would that double with the DE M-SHORAD?

So you don't know how much a HEL cost on a per-kill basis or even on a per system basis (at rate production / non-operational prototype volumes), but we are to take your word for it that it costs an order of magnitude more for this mission?

You also have to cost out a HEL-WS differently compared to a kinetic shooter to account for the fact that the upfront cost of the vehicle damn near includes all if its potential kill cost whereas you are just buying the "shooter" when you pay for the kinetic capability and all future kills require an inventory of missiles that need to be replenished, maintained, transported etc etc. For a Stryker mounted Guardian, its really the cost of the Laser and other equipment that is variable (not platform etc) and the same for any palletized application or something that is carried on the back of a pick-up truck or infantry fighting vehicle like Kord's Firefly or Raytheon HELWS which is going for that same mission with the UK and other US services (with a 10, scalable to 20kW system). Lasers and HPM shooters are going to be a cheap source to field a ton of combat capability against small drones, mortars, and at larger power levels against rockets, cruise missiles and larger drones. Israel has basically come to the same conclusion. You don't need years or decades to build up inventory of multiple interceptors. Of course they will be partnered with kinetic options and the plan for MSHORAD specifically is to have a 1/3 / 2/3 mix. Claiming they cost an order of magnitude per kill compared to a laser guided rocket without any evidence is just wasting everyone's time.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom