Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

I don't think anyone was questioning Iron Dome system capability to intercept slow subsonic stuff but rather the supersonic SEAD stuff that will definitely be fired at the THAAD installations that IFPC would be required to protect
 
ew33 said:
I don't think anyone was questioning Iron Dome system capability to intercept slow subsonic stuff but rather the supersonic SEAD stuff that will definitely be fired at the THAAD installations that IFPC would be required to protect
Click to expand...
There were folks questioning IDDS's subsonic CM defeat capability given its heritage as primarily a Counter Rocket first system. This is why Rafael, working with the IDF/MDA did very public demonstrations (attended by several US industry, Army and other stakeholders) in the 2020 timeframe ultimately leading up to the US Army itself performing the capstone demonstration in WSMR in 2021. Supersonic CM defeat was not part of the requirement. The Army knew it had no Supersonic CM defeat solution organically available within both its size/volume and cost footprint and that it would have to develop something for the future. As such, Subsonic CM and Group 3-5 UAS and other FW/RW threats were included in the truncated initial threat set. The Marines will be extensively testing against the subsonic CM threat as well (MRIC system). I don't even think the Army has tested the PAC-3 MSE yet against a supersonic low flying cruise missile and probably doesn't even have the targets in hand do this so we are some time away from demonstrating this for either Patriot or IFPC.

Moving on, Rafael has continued to independently develop an enhanced Tamir that complies both with the US Army's AIAMD and IFPC program requirements (C2, launcher, and radar agnostic with ability to be launched on US Army's IFC network and with X-band uplink for missile communication), and goes after the updated IFPC inc 2 second interceptor threat set of Supersonic Cruise MIssiles, and large caliber rockets. Rafael did this working independently of Raytheon with the understanding that it would lead the offer with the missile system produced at the joint site in Arkansas that has already begun producing Tamir hardware for the Marines and Israel. The Army has included this upgraded Tamir as part of the proposals it has funded for the next phase of the second interceptor program along with clean sheet designs from Lockheed Martin and Boeing/Anduril. Of these, only one (Tamir NG) is actually based on a mature parent design with both proven performance and long history of affordability and production scaling.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2051985853493174512
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/2051985853493174512?s=20
Click to expand...
Supposedly, the USMC is discussing fielding their own "Theater Ballistic Missile Defense" as the MLR's and their Littoral Anti-Air Battalion's will be attempting to hold small Islands well within range of thousands of Chinese Ballistic Missiles, with MRIC & MADIS only.
I think a Battalion of Patriot's spread between 3 MLR's might be enough. (Plus the USN covering everything above)...
https://www.twz.com/land/marines-re...d-on-army-alone-for-ballistic-missile-defense
 
TeourdBeourglaer said:
Supposedly, the USMC is discussing fielding their own "Theater Ballistic Missile Defense" as the MLR's and their Littoral Anti-Air Battalion's will be attempting to hold small Islands well within range of thousands of Chinese Ballistic Missiles, with MRIC & MADIS only.
I think a Battalion of Patriot's spread between 3 MLR's might be enough. (Plus the USN covering everything above)...
https://www.twz.com/land/marines-re...d-on-army-alone-for-ballistic-missile-defense
Click to expand...
Best defense would be to poke out their eyes.
 
TeourdBeourglaer said:
Supposedly, the USMC is discussing fielding their own "Theater Ballistic Missile Defense" as the MLR's and their Littoral Anti-Air Battalion's will be attempting to hold small Islands well within range of thousands of Chinese Ballistic Missiles, with MRIC & MADIS only.
I think a Battalion of Patriot's spread between 3 MLR's might be enough. (Plus the USN covering everything above)...
https://www.twz.com/land/marines-re...d-on-army-alone-for-ballistic-missile-defense
Click to expand...
The Marines have Burkes for that.
 
Burkes are not going to be able to provide terminal BM defense to every possible Marine contingency while also magically performing every other tasking that the Navy will have to support with an ever reducing fleet size. Relying on that is probably picking the most expensive, the least flexible, and possibly the least available option that the USMC could ever wish to have.
TeourdBeourglaer said:
I think a Battalion of Patriot's spread between 3 MLR's might be enough. (Plus the USN covering everything above)...
Click to expand...
Patriot is a legacy system that despite IBCS and other modernization elements is still fairly dated from a size and footprint perspective. While the Army has been able to 'bolt on' things to modernize elements as budgets permit those changes (RIG-360, IFCN relays etc) have added significant footprint making the system even less agile in terms of its ability to pack up and deploy or keep up with a mobile force. Its effectively now a fixed/semi fixed site defense system.

MEADS /CORPS SAM would have been awesome but the Israeli have a couple of systems that might be of interest to the Marines. Both the Stunner based David's Sling and the Barak MX offer a lighter footprint, significantly more cost effective effectors and sensors, and are more capable of being adapted to C-130 deployability than the Patriot.

If the Marines are serious they would either need to develop a lighter, more mobile version of Patriot (what basically MEADS was looking to do), or go with something more turnkey like the path they pursued with MRIC.
 
bring_it_on said:
Burkes are not going to be able to provide terminal BM defense to every possible Marine contingency while also magically performing every other tasking that the Navy will have to support with an ever reducing fleet size. Relying on that is probably picking the most expensive, the least flexible, and possibly the least available option that the USMC could ever wish to have.

Patriot is a legacy system that despite IBCS and other modernization elements is still fairly dated from a size and footprint perspective. While the Army has been able to 'bolt on' things to modernize elements as budgets permit those changes (RIG-360, IFCN relays etc) have added significant footprint making the system even less agile in terms of its ability to pack up and deploy or keep up with a mobile force. Its effectively now a fixed/semi fixed site defense system.
Click to expand...
Patriot always was a semi-fixed system.

ANYTHING capable of Theater Ballistic Missile Defense is going to be semi-fixed due to size of effectors required.

And anything semi-fixed is not going to be mobile enough for the Marines, except for a Navy ship with Aegis.
 
Scott Kenny said:
ANYTHING capable of Theater Ballistic Missile Defense is going to be semi-fixed due to size of effectors required.
Click to expand...

A mobile, rapidly relodable (palletized), C-130 deployable TBM capability was demonstrated under the MEADS effort. It was able to demonstrate intercepts using a PAC-3 MSE that majority of the US's currently deployed Patriot launchers and FCN are incapable of doing until the latter part of the decade / into next decade. Its origins actually go back to a US Army - USMC effort (Corps SAM).

Both the Italian and US/German versions of the launchers were C-130 deployable. The Fire Control radar likewise was C-130 deployable. The system had modularity and could be built up for fixed/semi fixed defenses by adding additional fire control and long range sensors (dedicated surveillance radar to share load) or it could be used as a mobile system with fewer elements yet still capable of performing to the threshold standards and requirements. In fact it was this latter version that was ultimately pitched by Lockheed Martin and partners for Germany's TLVS program.

Israelis can produce a similarly mobile Barak MX system if a customer wishes for one and I believe the Stunner's launcher could also be adapted to a MRIC like C-130 deployable configuration. All of these things are possible now and were more than a decade ago. Just because the US Army decided to bolt stuff on to existing TBM system to make them even bulkier, less mobile, and harder to deploy does not mean that producing systems with a lighter footprint, more mobility, and better survivability is not possible.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjjcK9Q356Y

BTW, this problem also exists for the US Army. Specifically as it ties into USAF and rest of the Joint Forces' ACE concept in the Pacific. But the Army's response so far to that has been "Can't defend everything" rather then reforming its current ADA capabilities to meet the challenge. What's worst is that the Army then responded with the Multi Domain Task Force concept of fielding Navy missiles (MRC) and then assigned majority of its initial IFPC SHORAD systems (the only SHORAD capability with the service) to protecting those launchers rather than the JF operating in theater. If the Army is incapable of developing a modern mobile TBM system that can network with aerial and space borne sensors and can deploy at tactically relevant timelines (to match ACE) then it needs to step aside and transfer funding over to other services that can take a shot at it.

Budget permitting, perhaps the Marines can show them the way by developing a mobile, C-130 deployable PAC-3 MSE (or Barak or Stunner etc etc) launcher paired with a C-130 deployable rotating Ghost Eye / TPY-5 radar capable of SRBM defeat. C-130 deployable mobile IBCS EOC and IFCN relays are the easy bit. All this is possible funding permitting, and I'd argue would much better position the US Joint Force in the INDO PACOM and at a fraction of the cost of Golden Dome and other near to mid term investments.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2054959066502303971
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/2054959066502303971?s=20
Click to expand...
C130 deployable 155mm? So, revenge of FCS, at least in terms of the XM1203 NLOS-cannon?



bring_it_on said:
Budget permitting, perhaps the Marines can show them the way by developing a mobile, C-130 deployable PAC-3 MSE (or Barak or Stunner etc etc) launcher paired with a C-130 deployable rotating Ghost Eye / TPY-5 radar capable of SRBM defeat. C-130 deployable mobile IBCS EOC and IFCN relays are the easy bit. All this is possible funding permitting, and I'd argue would much better position the US Joint Force in the INDO PACOM and at a fraction of the cost of Golden Dome and other near to mid term investments.
Click to expand...
Assuming that the island the Marines are on has a C-130-sized airstrip...

Plus, MEADS requires at least 3x C-130s worth of trips to deploy.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Assuming that the island the Marines are on has a C-130-sized airstrip...

Plus, MEADS requires at least 3x C-130s worth of trips to deploy.
Click to expand...
Marines have a C-130 requirement for the lower end of the cruise missile defense system (MRIC). Having the same for the more capable system would add no additional system requirements. No C-130, no meaningful MRIC either at those locations if air deployment is the primary means of deployment. Of cours more capacity and capability means more C-130 loads. Its the same for a MRIC battery or a larger formation. That magically does not fit on a single C-130. If you want anything other than JLTV mounted stingers or next gen CUAS weapons, and air deployability is the only option, you are looking at multiple C-130 loads. That is true for MEADS just as it is for MRIC and other systems. That said, a ligher, smaller sling loadable launcher can probably be developed. Probably using the Rogue fires platform or something like that.
 
bring_it_on said:
That said, a ligher, smaller sling loadable launcher can probably be developed. Probably using the Rogue fires platform or something like that.
Click to expand...
Still likely looking at 2x Rogue Fires platforms and a pretty big box truck for the command post.

Might even take 4 King Stallion sling loads that way. (Radar, launcher, CP, generator+fuel)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Still likely looking at 2x Rogue Fires platforms and a pretty big box truck for the command post.

Might even take 4 King Stallion sling loads that way. (Radar, launcher, CP, generator+fuel)
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Unfortunately, there isn't a MANPAD version of TBM defeat. But the Marines don't seem to have those requirements. If they did MRIC would have been cancelled and not expanded. So that seems to be something that we've invented here in the thread and may not have any actual relation to what the Marines want from its expeditionary requirements for medium and long range air defense. Recall the original point was that TBM defeat systems are essentially fixed or semi fixed sites. That is clearly not the case unless one charecterizes any system that cannot be sling loaded on a CH-53 as not mobile.
 
bring_it_on said:
Recall the original point was that TBM defeat systems are essentially fixed or semi fixed sites. That is clearly not the case unless one charecterizes any system that cannot be sling loaded on a CH-53 as not mobile.
Click to expand...
You're not moving THAAD etc very quickly. Setup/strikedown times measured in hours, not minutes.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're not moving THAAD etc very quickly. Setup/strikedown times measured in hours, not minutes.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about an upper tier system. Neither is the USMC. That is a strategic system which is why even the US Army never introduced it into its Patriot battalions (hopefully they will in their composite ibcs battalions). Systems like MEADS, modified David's Sling etc could all operate within very similar footprints of a MRIC from the USMC perspective.

The service already is paying a logistical price for MRIC over and above what it would for a Marine armed with a Stinger, LMADIS or even the JLTV based MADIS system. Those latter systems are basically there for Counter UAS and maybe some capability against rotary winged aircraft. For everything else the service is fielding MRIC with Tamir interceptor. For something reasonably similar to its deployability, the service can hope to field some sort of HIMAD lite just as Corps SAM or MEADS was envisioned through its evolution by the developing partners (USMC and Army for C SAM and US Army, Germany, and Italy for MEADS). The gap between USMC''s MRIC configuration, and US Army's Patriot is quite large from a logistical footprint and deployability perspective. A lot can be done to occupy the middile.
 
Moose said:
I think they've already avoided that by diversifying so well. NetFires boxes and the SLAMRAAM launcher could be used for other payloads but the Army never went out and actually did it. So when their limited payload died, so did the launcher. This MML already has a track record shooting off a variety of weapons with minimal integration issues. Anyone one of those weapons could die but the MML should live on, one hopes anyway.
Click to expand...
The current wide area dispersed front would seem to invite a remoted netfires able to find its own tgts. Hiding the boxes from drones et al. would be an abiding issue though. New Js w/ a 5km rnage would be a start or SPEAR 3s w even longer range.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1d8lbq3/javelin_anti_tank_mine_system
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1d8lbq3/javelin_anti_tank_mine_system/


Javelin anti tank mine system 1781798792914.png 1781798812533.png 1781798829729.png 1781798853455.png ​

 
jsport said:
another Netfires box option.albeit w/ lesser rng.
Click to expand...
Needs a few missiles in the box with turbojet engines instead of solid rockets for loitering air defense, best against Shahed-types.

Ironic that Iran of all nations went and built the loitering SAMs that the US never got around to making.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Needs a few missiles in the box with turbojet engines instead of solid rockets for loitering air defense, best against Shahed-types.

Ironic that Iran of all nations went and built the loitering SAMs that the US never got around to making.
Click to expand...
Netfires Loitering Attack Missile (LAM) and the larger cargo container launched creature of the Drone Dominance Intiative. Cost is an issue as boxes will be easy to find & destroy. They wold be primary tgt to stifle battlespace shaping.
 
jsport said:
Netfires Loitering Attack Missile (LAM) and the larger cargo container launched creature of the Drone Dominance Intiative. Cost is an issue as boxes will be easy to find & destroy. They wold be primary tgt to stifle battlespace shaping.
Click to expand...
If you're putting boxes of that size everywhere, some of which are LAMs and some of which are Javelin Mines etc**, the chances of the enemy hitting the right boxes are reduced.

** And resupply drops and flat out decoy boxes.
 
jsport said:
The current wide area dispersed front would seem to invite a remoted netfires able to find its own tgts. Hiding the boxes from drones et al. would be an abiding issue though. New Js w/ a 5km rnage would be a start or SPEAR 3s w even longer range.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1d8lbq3/javelin_anti_tank_mine_system
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1d8lbq3/javelin_anti_tank_mine_system/


Javelin anti tank mine systemView attachment 815687View attachment 815688View attachment 815690View attachment 815693​

Click to expand...
Non Credible Defense is a spoof reddit site after all. An exact capability would of course require quite a bit M&S. The level of automation on the current front would calculate what is the realm of the practical. Expending 70 quads to destroy a single vehicle is certainly not practical.
 
bring_it_on said:
A mobile, rapidly relodable (palletized), C-130 deployable TBM capability was demonstrated under the MEADS effort. It was able to demonstrate intercepts using a PAC-3 MSE that majority of the US's currently deployed Patriot launchers and FCN are incapable of doing until the latter part of the decade / into next decade. Its origins actually go back to a US Army - USMC effort (Corps SAM).

Both the Italian and US/German versions of the launchers were C-130 deployable. The Fire Control radar likewise was C-130 deployable. The system had modularity and could be built up for fixed/semi fixed defenses by adding additional fire control and long range sensors (dedicated surveillance radar to share load) or it could be used as a mobile system with fewer elements yet still capable of performing to the threshold standards and requirements. In fact it was this latter version that was ultimately pitched by Lockheed Martin and partners for Germany's TLVS program.

Israelis can produce a similarly mobile Barak MX system if a customer wishes for one and I believe the Stunner's launcher could also be adapted to a MRIC like C-130 deployable configuration. All of these things are possible now and were more than a decade ago. Just because the US Army decided to bolt stuff on to existing TBM system to make them even bulkier, less mobile, and harder to deploy does not mean that producing systems with a lighter footprint, more mobility, and better survivability is not possible.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjjcK9Q356Y

BTW, this problem also exists for the US Army. Specifically as it ties into USAF and rest of the Joint Forces' ACE concept in the Pacific. But the Army's response so far to that has been "Can't defend everything" rather then reforming its current ADA capabilities to meet the challenge. What's worst is that the Army then responded with the Multi Domain Task Force concept of fielding Navy missiles (MRC) and then assigned majority of its initial IFPC SHORAD systems (the only SHORAD capability with the service) to protecting those launchers rather than the JF operating in theater. If the Army is incapable of developing a modern mobile TBM system that can network with aerial and space borne sensors and can deploy at tactically relevant timelines (to match ACE) then it needs to step aside and transfer funding over to other services that can take a shot at it.

Budget permitting, perhaps the Marines can show them the way by developing a mobile, C-130 deployable PAC-3 MSE (or Barak or Stunner etc etc) launcher paired with a C-130 deployable rotating Ghost Eye / TPY-5 radar capable of SRBM defeat. C-130 deployable mobile IBCS EOC and IFCN relays are the easy bit. All this is possible funding permitting, and I'd argue would much better position the US Joint Force in the INDO PACOM and at a fraction of the cost of Golden Dome and other near to mid term investments.
Click to expand...
What about CAML?
The Army isn't developing an designated mobile TBM Defence system because they're already doing so with CAML.
"Common Autonomous (Networked) Multi-mission Launcher"...
 
TeourdBeourglaer said:
What about CAML?
The Army isn't developing an designated mobile TBM Defence system because they're already doing so with CAML.
Click to expand...
CAML is not an air defense system. Its an autonomous launcher. But yes, it, if followed through, should create more deployable options but again, its just a launcher. By itself that is not an IADS. You still have radars and larger C2 elements that cannot deploy on something like a C-130. MEADS demonstrated that nearly a decade ago.
 
jsport said:
Non Credible Defense is a spoof reddit site after all. An exact capability would of course require quite a bit M&S. The level of automation on the current front would calculate what is the realm of the practical. Expending 70 quads to destroy a single vehicle is certainly not practical.
Click to expand...
Here another wide area denial concept from 'flaketom' on Deviantart.
Hardeneing might allow it to be initially placed via an over 200mm diameter systems.
1783093638657.png
 
bring_it_on said:
I am not talking about an upper tier system. Neither is the USMC. That is a strategic system which is why even the US Army never introduced it into its Patriot battalions (hopefully they will in their composite ibcs battalions). Systems like MEADS, modified David's Sling etc could all operate within very similar footprints of a MRIC from the USMC perspective.
Click to expand...
If you're talking ABM work, that's not a lower tier system. By definition.

ABM needs a fecking big radar that may-or-may-not be C130 transportable. You also need pretty big effectors, though for the USMC it helps that the ABM launcher and radar is basically sitting on top of the place being targeted so they may not need missiles as big as the Army is using.

Can't even use the standard TPY-2 or Patriot radar (I forget the designation MPQ-65A), because island bases need full 360 coverage, not single-arc. Yes, I know that Patriot has added some small arrays for 360 coverage, but they're not big enough for 360 BMD. With Patriot, you'd be dropping an entire 4-radar battalion on the island. Which honestly is just too much stuff to move. But I don't know how much smaller you can get a radar array that is still effective for BMD, even by switching to GaN or whatever the current hotness is. I think an 8ft wide array is as small as you can get away with. Likely need to build a new radar trailer (or truck) with 4 array panels on it each 8ft diameter and add some fun "push the base out while the cube is pushed upwards and/or rotated" mechanical silliness. Like a spiral track that the angle-setting block runs in, and you rotate the whole cube to set whatever the appropriate angle needs to be. Maybe someone with some actual 3d modeling skills and software can design that?

The Marines can get away with smaller effectors than the Army would need, since as I mentioned the Marine ABM launcher is sitting within a mile or so of whatever the target is. And that makes life a lot easier in terms of moving ordnance onto and off of an island.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If you're talking ABM work, that's not a lower tier system. By definition.

ABM needs a fecking big radar that may-or-may-not be C130 transportable. You also need pretty big effectors, though for the USMC it helps that the ABM launcher and radar is basically sitting on top of the place being targeted so they may not need missiles as big as the Army is using.

Can't even use the standard TPY-2 or Patriot radar (I forget the designation MPQ-65A), because island bases need full 360 coverage, not single-arc. Yes, I know that Patriot has added some small arrays for 360 coverage, but they're not big enough for 360 BMD. With Patriot, you'd be dropping an entire 4-radar battalion on the island. Which honestly is just too much stuff to move. But I don't know how much smaller you can get a radar array that is still effective for BMD, even by switching to GaN or whatever the current hotness is. I think an 8ft wide array is as small as you can get away with. Likely need to build a new radar trailer (or truck) with 4 array panels on it each 8ft diameter and add some fun "push the base out while the cube is pushed upwards and/or rotated" mechanical silliness. Like a spiral track that the angle-setting block runs in, and you rotate the whole cube to set whatever the appropriate angle needs to be. Maybe someone with some actual 3d modeling skills and software can design that?

The Marines can get away with smaller effectors than the Army would need, since as I mentioned the Marine ABM launcher is sitting within a mile or so of whatever the target is. And that makes life a lot easier in terms of moving ordnance onto and off of an island.
Click to expand...
Well, it depends if it's terminal / endo / exo ABM. You can (in theory) do ABM with stinger if you believe in yourself hard enough and get really lucky. AIUI if you want to look at the smallest footprint for reasonable BMD you're looking at SAMP-T NG, Chu-SAM Kai/-PIP, and KM-SAM Block II, which means at least six trucks.

In theory the USMC may also be able to lash into NIFC / CEC using USG-4, which may be able to push good enough tracks along. At minimum you may be able to get coverage from Navy assets. TPS-80 and TPY-4, and similar may also be viable for queueing? Maybe even MPQ-64A4? You start running up a big logistical tail real quick though. And you can start to see why IBCS is a big mess with how many radar types there are kicking around.

In terms of the radar, the other big question is how much power generation and fuel you can bring. It seems to me that you'd probably be looking at something like:

Engagement Operation Center Truck
TPY-4/TPS-80 Battle Management / BMD Search Radar
Generator Truck, Control Van​
Engagement Radar Truck
TEL x 4-6
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom