Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
1,099
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.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
575
Reaction score
1,163
51764691001_fcef1359a0_k.jpg


https://flic.kr/p/2mSgzbr View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usaasc/51764691001/
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
1,099
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.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,882
Reaction score
3,924
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.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
1,099
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: 14

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,882
Reaction score
3,924
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.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
1,099
They do have that capability. The launchers are fielded by the Air Force ;)
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,882
Reaction score
3,924
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.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
1,099
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.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,882
Reaction score
3,924
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.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
1,099
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:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,882
Reaction score
3,924

HyFonic

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
6
Reaction score
4
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.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
237
Reaction score
367
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...
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,882
Reaction score
3,924
Uh. Was thinking about Thor slamming it in the ground in Infinity War. I was joking.
 

Similar threads

Top