• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
587
Reaction score
73
Given that Iron dome became operational in March 2011, and proved its value intercepting enemy missiles two weeks later (in Beersheba), it is interesting that the Army had to go through all this rigmarole and all this time to make a decision.
No comments on the fact that they target to start protecting American lives only in 2020.
At best. Before any delays, snafus, lobbying and whatnot.

Oh well...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
So is Miniature Hit-To-Kill out?

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/miniature-hit-to-kill.html

???
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
sferrin said:
So is Miniature Hit-To-Kill out?

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/miniature-hit-to-kill.html

???
It doesn't appear to be out but it is tough to see how the Army spends the money now that it is acquiring the Tamir. The temptation would always be there to just axe the funding and keep buying more Tamir rounds. That may not be all of that of a bad thing as long as the Army keeps investment into the HEL-TVD and decides to move it into EM&D phase soon after the demonstrations. If we can field 100-150 kW HEL on a FMTV by 2030 that would go a long way in support of the Counter RAM mission.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
Army eyes laser weapon for short-range air and missile defense by 2027


The Army has set plans to integrate a high-energy laser weapon into its short-range air and missile defense arsenal by 2027, making room for a directed-energy capability alongside guided-missile interceptors in the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 system.

This objective is revealed in an Oct. 26, 2018 Army report to Congress on IFPC Inc. 2, the mobile, ground-based air and missile defense system designed to provide protection in all directions against cruise missiles, unmanned aircraft, rockets, artillery and mortar threats that would replace the venerable Avenger system.

The report details how the Army explored three different options -- or, as the document notes, "courses of action" -- with varying capabilities to meet an objective of fielding an interim cruise missile defense capability by 2020.

"Integration of directed energy, by FY-27, is common to all three COAs," states the report.

That single sentence provides new insight into Army plans to weaponize laser technology.
 

Attachments

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
But as is all too often the case with Army procurement, IFPC’s requirements proved unrealistically ambitious and the technology to meet them took so long to develop that the world it was being built for went away.

“This was a classic case,” McIntire told me. Training & Doctrine Command wrote a requirement without enough input from Army acquisitions. Acquisitions built a product without checking back enough with the requirements writer. They ended up with a weapon that disappointed both sides and took so long to develop that other solutions were invented in the meantime, such as Iron Dome. The newly created Army Futures Command, McIntire noted, is meant to prevent exactly this kind of problem by uniting requirements and acquisition.
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/army-reboots-cruise-missile-defense-ifpc-iron-dome/

If I read this correctly, it seems the current IFPC has been discarded with Iron Dome and HEL based solution focusing on the CRAM mission set, while IFPC assumes a higher end Cruise Missile Defense role. I guess IBCS and the Sentinel A4 could still be salvaged with a new launcher and interceptor needed under the new mission. If I recall it was only a few years ago that the Army was touting the Multi Mission launcher as a success..I guess a bit premature..
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
So the IFPC Inc. 2 block 1 approach seams to be 2 interim Iron Dome batteries for testing and operational evaluation and training and a more comprehensive "enduring" system for long term IFPC Inc. 2 block 1 needs with an IOC target of FY23 -

- Interim IFPC 2 blk. 1 - 2 Iron Dome batteries - 240 x 2 Tamir Interceptors ($150K each) and associated sensors and C2
- Enduring IFPC 2 blk 1 - Integrating Iron Dome components like the Tamir Interceptor with the Army Sentinel radar, IBCS and a new multi-missile open architecture launcher
- Enduring IFPC 2 blk. 1 will also have the capability to utilize other missiles (CMD) with experiments ongoing in support of a new missile to also IOC by FY23 (?)

As reported on 31 Oct 2018 the Army intends to rapidly field an interim capability with the Israeli Iron Dome and an enduring capability of a launcher leveraging the Army
Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) open systems architecture and IAMD Battle Command System (IBCS) as the Fire Control component, US sensor (Sentinel),
and the employment of a variety of missiles.

In support of the Army's intent, a Directed Requirement to initiate procurement of the Israeli Iron Dome Missile System for an Interim IFPC CMD capability is being
staffed for approval and IFPC has requested Above Threshold Reprogramming (ATR) actions to align funding in accordance with the Report to Congress. The ATR
requested to repurpose $27.500 million FY 2018 funds and $91.963 million in FY 2019 funds from PE 0605052A/EY7 for Iron Dome experimentation and $36.000 million
in FY 2018 procurement funds from PE 0604319A MIPA to procure 240 Tamir (Iron Dome) missiles. The ATR requested $31.286 million of FY 2019 PE 0604319A
MIPA Advanced Procurement (originally for launcher long-lead items) and $20.900 million from PE 0605052A/EY7 to be realigned to IFPC's PE 0604319A MIPA funding
line, along with the current $145.636 million from PE 0604319A MIPA to procure two interim Iron Dome batteries for assessment of operational utility under 10 U.S.
code, paragraph 2373 (Procurement for Experimental Purposes). This budget request and Acquisition Strategy assumes approval of the 2019 ATR request which aligns
FY 2018 and FY 2019 funding to the plan provided in the IFPC Acquisition Strategy Report submitted to Congress.

In support of the Interim IFPC solution in 2QFY2019, the Army is planning a 10 U.S. code, paragraph 2373 procurement contract to buy 2 Iron Dome batteries for
technical evaluation, assessment of operational utility, and safety evaluation. Aligned with this procurement in FY 2019, IFPC will conduct Modeling and Simulation
activities and integrating the hardware and software of the US communications suite with the Iron Dome systems. Additionally, IFPC will perform logistics analysis and
assessments to determine Iron Dome training requirements, fielding requirement, spares packages, maintenance policies, and required Operational and Maintenance documentation. In FY 2020, IFPC will continue its logistics assessments, Modeling and Simulation analysis, and integration activities, as well as conduct Safety Testing,
Performance Analysis and Testing, and Capabilities and Limitations Testing of the Interim IFPC solution at White Sands Missile Range prior to their deployment for
operational assessment.

In support of the Enduring IFPC solution, the Army is participating in multiple experiments and demonstrations of the Iron Dome system in the near future. The first is
an experiment/demonstration to integrate the Iron Dome launcher and Tamir interceptor with U.S. sensors and networks. The second is an effort to assess the potential
of integrating a CMD launcher from industry with the Tamir interceptor, Sentinel radar, and IBCS. In both instances, the U.S. Government is utilizing the Department of
Defense Ordnance Technology Consortium (DOTC) Other Transaction Authority (OTA) process. IFPC has requested proposals for technology assessments that align
with Iron Dome experimentation/demonstration. Information gained through these efforts will inform the Army's enduring IFPC solution decision as reported in the Army's
IFPC Acquisition Strategy Report to Congress, submitted on 31 October 2018. The Army plans the above experimentation and analysis to determine the complexity of
integration of the componentized launcher and interceptor solution prior to making a final decision on the Enduring IFPC solution. The final decision point, planned for
2QFY2020, will decide between a componentized Iron Dome launcher or a CMD launcher from industry for the enduring IFPC Inc 2 capability.

The Army verified technology readiness of missile alternatives in FY 2018 and will select one or more missiles to proceed in FY 2019. The Army will continue missile
development, integration, and test to support Enduring IFPC Inc 2 Initial Operational Test & Evaluation in FY 2023.
Not sure if the last part refers to choosing between the Tamir (modified to work with the Sentinel) and other options for the Enduring IFPC Increment 2 block 1 or choosing a second interceptor to complement the Tamir..I hope its the latter. With the apparent upsizing of the MML in the works, or a new industry supplied launcher being considered this could be an opportunity to look at larger and more capable missiles..

dan_inbox said:
Given that Iron dome became operational in March 2011, and proved its value intercepting enemy missiles two weeks later (in Beersheba), it is interesting that the Army had to go through all this rigmarole and all this time to make a decision.
No comments on the fact that they target to start protecting American lives only in 2020.
At best. Before any delays, snafus, lobbying and whatnot.

Oh well...
Has the Tamir ever demonstrated the Cruise Missile Defense mission in Israel or elsewhere? The Interim procurement is to test, validate and integrate with US systems for the purpose of providing an interim CMD capability to fixed sites. While you can surely buy off the shelf batteries you still need to validate the TTPs and capabilities in support of the mission need and integrate it with your communication systems while also setting up your troops to train to use it. I think an FY18 purchase initiation and FY20 IOC of the first 2 batteries is pretty fast by most standards.
 

Attachments

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwxUpAY57Gs
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
US Army, Raytheon complete DeepStrike missile preliminary design review


TUCSON, Ariz., March 26, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) and the U.S. Army completed a successful preliminary design review for the new DeepStrike® surface-to-surface missile, moving the weapon down the development path toward its first flight tests planned for later this year.

Raytheon is developing DeepStrike to meet the U.S. Army’s Precision Strike Missile requirement.

The DeepStrike missile meets the Army's Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM, requirement, and will replace the current missile that was designed in the 1970s and is approaching the end of its service life. During the Preliminary Design Review, the Army evaluated every aspect of the new missile's design, from its advanced propulsion system and innovative lethality package to its guidance system.

"Completion of Raytheon's PrSM Preliminary Design Review helps us accelerate development and fielding of this high priority Army program," said Col. Chris Mills, U.S. Army program manager for Precision Fires, Rocket and Missile Systems. "We are now ready to move to test and integration activities that will lead to a demonstration of PrSM's new capabilities."

Featuring an innovative, two-in-the-pod design and many other advancements, Raytheon's new long-range precision strike missile will fly farther, faster and pack more punch than the current weapon.

The DeepStrike missile will defeat fixed land targets 60-499 kilometers away, improve effectiveness and responsiveness compared to current systems, and restore the Army's capability to overmatch adversaries. It will also be upgradable to keep U.S. soldiers ahead of the threat.

Previous program milestones include the successful integration of DeepStrike's new launch pod missile container into the Army's M142 HIMARS and M270 MLRS launchers.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvxKGCAwiCo
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
29
There is still no govy modular (length & diameter) multi-mission (from highly precise HV interceptors to barely guided GPS kits for bombardment) missile strategy. A almost perfectly scaled (both up and down) modular multi-mission missile technical strategy would be vastly less expensive and massively easier to manufacture in volume especially in the world additive manufacturing. This strategy has not even been discussed although some at PM Missile have presented maximum commonality model proposals. Minus this strategy resources will wasted and interoperability a joke. Developers need to sit as providers only for clear logical USG administered strategy.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
Designed to travel at speeds in excess of Mach 6, Raytheon’s DeepStrike solution is 13 ft (4 m) long, just under 17 inch (43 cm) diameter, and weighs approximately 1,700 lbs (770 kg). The missile will feature a new solid rocket motor that is being developed by Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (NGIS). NGIS is also developing the propulsion system for the Lockheed Martin PrSM solution – a 200 lb high explosive blast fragmentation warhead and a flight termination system (FTS) developed by Dynetics. Guidance for DeepStrike is delivered through GPS combined with a Raytheon-designed advanced inertial platform, for improved precision accuracy.
https://www.janes.com/article/87606/raytheon-completes-deepstrike-pdr
 

Mark S.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
95
Reaction score
6
Here's a link to an article describing a new start-up company and the new solid propellant they are developing:

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-purdue-startup-army-xtechsearch-technology.html

In addition to aluminum it has lithium in it. Not only will increase the range of the Army surface launched missiles it will enhance the AIM-120 successor and the AARGM-ER.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
bring_it_on said:
Designed to travel at speeds in excess of Mach 6, Raytheon’s DeepStrike solution is 13 ft (4 m) long, just under 17 inch (43 cm) diameter, and weighs approximately 1,700 lbs (770 kg). The missile will feature a new solid rocket motor that is being developed by Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (NGIS). NGIS is also developing the propulsion system for the Lockheed Martin PrSM solution – a 200 lb high explosive blast fragmentation warhead and a flight termination system (FTS) developed by Dynetics. Guidance for DeepStrike is delivered through GPS combined with a Raytheon-designed advanced inertial platform, for improved precision accuracy.
https://www.janes.com/article/87606/raytheon-completes-deepstrike-pdr
Should fit nicely into a B-1Bs weapons bays. A shame they're going to retire them. :(
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
Mark S. said:
Here's a link to an article describing a new start-up company and the new solid propellant they are developing:

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-purdue-startup-army-xtechsearch-technology.html

In addition to aluminum it has lithium in it. Not only will increase the range of the Army surface launched missiles it will enhance the AIM-120 successor and the AARGM-ER.
""We mix it the same way. We cast it the same way. We cure it the same way. The only difference is we're replacing one metal powder with another metal powder in the processing," Terry said."

I find it more than a little difficult to believe that hasn't been tried before.
 

Mark S.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
95
Reaction score
6
The difference between then and now is probably in the metallurgy of the powder. These folks may have come up with a different alloy of AL-Li that performs better. They say it's proprietary so we won't know for sure unless they release the information. Anyone know the heating value for Lithium?
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
85
Reaction score
3
sferrin said:
Mark S. said:
Here's a link to an article describing a new start-up company and the new solid propellant they are developing:

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-purdue-startup-army-xtechsearch-technology.html

In addition to aluminum it has lithium in it. Not only will increase the range of the Army surface launched missiles it will enhance the AIM-120 successor and the AARGM-ER.
""We mix it the same way. We cast it the same way. We cure it the same way. The only difference is we're replacing one metal powder with another metal powder in the processing," Terry said."

I find it more than a little difficult to believe that hasn't been tried before.
It very likely has, then. Perhaps even the exact same mixtures and compounds were concocted by some guys in the 50s or 60s.

Body armor technology, that hasn't shifted much since the 1950s, with the exception of shedding things like Doron and ballistic nylon for aluminum oxide and Kevlar. The changes come down to more efficient methods of production of the raw materials, rather than the materials themselves. People in the 1950's were aware of the potential for things like boron carbide and Dyneema in body armor, they had these materials after all, but they had no ways of producing them in the quantities to make it cheap enough for GI use. It wasn't until the 1990s that people were able to make boron carbide plates reliably in large plates and UHMWPE fibers/threads in the bulk quantities needed for vests like Interceptor OTV.

No reason to assume then that the ability of people to extract lithium from the ground, driven by the semiconductor and cell phone industries, hasn't benefited the rocket industry by providing it with large sources of lithium that can be pulverized into a powder. Alternatively, they may have found a method of reducing the noxious fumes that contaminate rocket launch sites (such as handheld missile tubes) with deadly gases. Dr. Clark talks about a variety of esoteric rocket forms being trialed by NOTS and other folks in the 60's and resulting in nothing because of foul smells or deadly reactants in the propellant smokes injuring rocket site staff. A bazooka that sprays your face with HCl or super skunk stink every time you shoot it would not be good for any GI to use.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
Raytheon's new DeepStrike missile rocket motor passes critical test

ROCKET CENTER, W.Va., April 23, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) completed a successful static test of the new DeepStrike® missile rocket motor, which moved the advanced, surface-to-surface weapon closer to its maiden flight test later this year.

The company is offering the DeepStrike missile for the U.S. Army's Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM, program to replace the aging Army Tactical Missile System that is approaching the end of its service life.
"Testing shows us how initial data assessments line up and validates them for the next phase in development," said Dr. Thomas Bussing, Raytheon Advanced Missile Systems vice president. "This test confirms our design for the DeepStrike propulsion system is solid and moves us one step closer to extending the Army's reach and doubling the load-out of long-range fires."
The rocket motor test at Allegany Ballistics Laboratory in West Virginia is the latest in a series of milestones for the DeepStrike missile. Raytheon recently concluded a successful preliminary design review for the weapon.
Raytheon's new, long-range precision strike missile features an innovative, two-in-the-pod design and will fly farther, faster, and give the Army twice the firepower at half the cost per missile. It is also more maneuverable and has a modular, open architecture to simplify system upgrades.
"With our expertise in advanced weapon systems, Raytheon is best positioned to provide an affordable, low-risk solution that gives the Army an overwhelming advantage over our nation's adversaries," Bussing said.
The DeepStrike missile will defeat fixed land targets 60-499 kilometers away, and get there faster than current systems.
 

Attachments

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
75
GMLRS-ER production contract (March 29, 2019)

"Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control, Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $237,523,200 fixed-price-incentive contract for development and qualification of a hardware design modification to the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work will be performed in Grand Prairie, Texas, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 1, 2021. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $81,738,692 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-19-C-0065)."

Unitary and Alternative Warhead versions. (my highlight)
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
137

Boeing has signed an agreement to help Nammo further develop ramjet-powered artillery shells.

The development deal is the result of an offset agreement with the Norwegian government related to the acquisition of five P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft by the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2017.

Maria Laine, vice-president of international strategic partnerships for Boeing Defense, Space & Security, and Stein Erik Nodeland, executive vice-president of aerospace propulsion at Nammo, signed the "strategic agreement" at the show on 19 June.

Ramjet artillery work will be performed by Nammo's development team in Raufoss, Norway and by Boeing's Phantom Works advanced research division in St. Charles, Missouri. The total terms of the offset deal were not disclosed, although it is understood to have a 25-year duration.

Nammo expects to offer its ramjet-powered artillery shells to the international market by 2024. The country sees demand for the long-range precision weapons from the USA and its allies – in particular, the US Army, which has set deep-penetration artillery as one of its top six priorities in the light of longer range Russian weapons.

Nammo aims to add a solid fuel ramjet to a 155mm artillery shell, a modification it believes could propel the munition up to 62m (100km).
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
25
It’s official: US Army inks Iron Dome deal

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The contract to purchase two Iron Dome systems for the U.S. Army’s interim cruise missile defense capability has been finalized, according to the deputy in charge of the service’s air and missile defense modernization efforts.
Iron Dome was co-developed by American company Raytheon and Israeli defense firm Rafael. It is partly manufactured in the United States.
Now that the contract is set in stone, the Army will be able to figure out delivery schedules and details in terms of taking receipt of the systems, Daryl Youngman told Defense News at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, on Aug. 8.
The Army was shifting around its pots of funding within its Indirect Fires Protection Capability (IFPC) program — under development to defend against rockets, artillery and mortars as well as unmanned aircraft and cruise missiles — to fill its urgent capability gap for cruise missile defense on an interim basis. Congress mandated the Army deploy two batteries by fiscal 2020 in the service’s fiscal 2019 budget.
Iron Dome could feed into an enduring capability, depending on how it performs in the interim, Youngman said during a separate interview shortly before the symposium.
USMC to demo G/ATOR with Iron Dome

US Marine Corps (USMC) leaders are in a race to field a capability to intercept mid-range rockets and artillery, and they are set to host a demonstration integrating Northrop Grumman's AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) with components of Rafael's Iron Dome system.

In a 12 August email to Jane's , USMC spokesperson Barbara Hamby confirmed that the marine corps will be hosting a demo to determine if it can net together existing service capabilities with those from the Iron Dome system. Although she did not directly address which Iron Dome components the service would be using, Iron Dome includes a launcher and uses Tamir interceptors.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
131


This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1200x637.


This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1200x851.


First ballistic tests LowER AD is scheduled to take place in the fourth quarter of the Fiscal Year 2019

 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,915
Reaction score
179
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,915
Reaction score
179
Test of Precision Strike Missile this month

 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
77
Update to NAMMO ramjet artillery shell.


Which they also want to incorporate into surface to air missiles

 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
355
It's a bit strange how they seem to portray ramjets as a new thing. Ramjets have been tested under P-51s and even biplanes the concept is so old.
 
Top