Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

There’s are hundreds of M113s with those big flat top decks always thought loading about 20 Hellfires/JAGMs vertically would make a great tank killer. Could even probably be a UGV ambush vehicle.
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/rgtfha
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/tanks/comments/rgtfha/m113_hellfire/

armoredwarfare.fandom.com

M113 Hellfire

The M113 Hellfire is a Tier 9 progression Tank Destroyer under Oscar Faraday's dealership. Class: Self-Propelled ATGM Launcher (Prototype) Developed: 1989 Service: N/A Vehicles Built: 1 Operators: N/A The M113 Hellfire is essentially an M113A2 hull paired with a prototype turret by Electronic...
armoredwarfare.fandom.com armoredwarfare.fandom.com
The M113 Hellfire is essentially an M113A2 hull paired with a prototype turret by Electronic and Space Corporation (ESCO), featuring eight launcher tubes for the Hellfire ATGM. It was designed to significantly increase the firepower of American mechanized units. A single prototype was built in 1989 and underwent some military tests but, with the end of the Cold War, the project was discontinued. This, plus multiple other cancelled defense contracts, would get ESCO into a lot of trouble financially – trouble that the company would only gradually overcome in the 1990s by moving away from the military sector to a civilian one. Fortunately, the company managed to diversify its portfolio enough to survive and is alive and well to this day. As for the prototype – it ended in the Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles near Lexington, Nebraska, where it is being cared for by a squad of volunteers.
Click to expand...
 
This is a US Navy program from a US participation perspective. THOR-ER also has its own thread.
 
A massive AIM-9X production increase may be on the horizon. Hard to imagine the Army not dramatically increasing its annual buys for IFPC within this three year MYP as it coincides with the programs transition to the PEO.

The AIM-9X production procurement includes a maximum quantity of 2,500 Tactical Missiles, Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs), Special Air Training Missiles (NATMs) and Captive Test Missiles (CTMs) per lot, with associated spares, containers, training and test missiles, tooling and special test equipment, training kits, maintenance kits, Non-recurring Engineering (NRE) for rate capacity increases, and other related supplies and data for the United States Navy, United States Air Force, United States Army and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers.
Click to expand...

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov
 
The US Army Program Executive Office, Missiles and Space, Project Manager, Short and Intermediate Effectors for Layered Defense (SHIELD) is conducting research to identify potential interested sources with the capability to provide a second interceptor to the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) program. The IFPC Inc 2 system provides tiered and layered effectors to provide 360 degree protection against unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles (CM), and large caliber rocket threats to fixed and semi-fixed sites. The new interceptor will utilize an open system architecture approach to establish lethal kinetic effects against select targets within the IFPC Inc 2 threat set, specifically supersonic cruise missiles and large caliber rockets. The new interceptor requires future capability growth with minimal levels of system redesign to address objective level threat sets...
Click to expand...

In 2021, the Army began the enduring IFPC Inc 2 effort. The IFPC Inc 2 system includes an industry-built launcher and an interceptor delivered as an All Up Round Magazine (AUR-M). Four launchers comprise a platoon. The U.S. Army’s Sentinel radar serves as the sensor and the U.S. Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) serves as the fire control component at the platoon level. Development and integration efforts are ongoing, and the program plans a transition to production. Concurrently, the IFPC Inc 2 Product Office (PdO) is planning to integrate a second interceptor beginning in FY25. When complete, the IFPC Inc 2 system will include tiered and layered effectors to provide 360 degree protection to fixed and semi-fixed sites.
Click to expand...
The IFPC Inc 2 2nd Interceptor system consists of four Major End Items (MEI): an interceptor, an All-Up-Round (AUR) Magazine (AUR-M), a Weapons Interface Controller (WIC), and Engagement Calculator (EC) software. The interceptor is stored, transported in, and fired from the AUR-M. The WIC Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI) resides on the Network Attached Storage (NAS) and is deployed to the Weapon Interface Card (WIC) upon system boot. The physical architecture of the WIC is the Abaco SB326. The WIC CSCI serves as the translator between the Launcher (User Datagram Protocol (UDP) over Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4)) and the native interceptor’s message format (e.g., MIL-STD-1553). Each AUR-M has a corresponding WIC Single Board Computer (SBC) residing in the Weapons Interface Unit (WIU) chassis located on the Enduring Shield Launcher and an interface controller card that resides on the magazine. Mission command for the 2nd Interceptor is handled by the IBCS.
Click to expand...


IFPC INC 2 2ND INTERCEPTOR REQUIREMENTS

  1. The system shall be capable of defeating supersonic cruise missiles.
  2. The system shall be capable of defeating large caliber rockets, 240mm-300mm.
  3. The system may retain capability against defeating UAS and subsonic cruise missile.
  4. The system shall provide a command destruct and command divert capability via data link.
  5. The system shall be an All-Up-Round (AUR) magazine capable of integration with the IFPC Inc 2 launcher and architecture.
  6. The system shall include an engagement calculator that integrates with IBCS.
  7. The system shall be insensitive munitions compliant.
  8. The system shall provide the following cybersecurity features and data integrity capabilities as defined in Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 8500.1, DODI 8510.01, DODI 8500.01, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 6510.01F, Army Regulations (AR) 25-2, and AR 380-5.
  9. The system shall be capable of conducting a technology demonstration in FY25-FY26 timeframe consisting of all digital simulation, hardware-in-the-loop, and/or live fire demonstration.
Click to expand...

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov
 
Last edited:
The Army Indirect Fire Protection Capability office have awarded Epirus $66 million for four prototypes of their Leonidas HP Microwave system to counter UAS swarms, the Leonidas HPM system “outperformed” six other systems during various test events to win the contract.

The January 23 Breaking News article also mentions that the Stryker-based DE M-SHORAD has hit some "speed bumps" and Army planning a new competition for its laser, Lockheed will be competing with its DEIMOS system against the incumbent Raytheon laser in 2024?

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/01/us-army-selects-epirus-leonidas-for-high-power-microwave-initiative/
 

Attachments

  • Epirus_Leonidas.jpg
    Epirus_Leonidas.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 54
Anyone have any background info on what the new capabilities Army looking for with the new interceptor, a Tamir type missile?

The Army is looking to add a second interceptor to its still-in-development, next-generation cruise missile defense system, seeking a guided-missile to counter supersonic air-breathing threats as well as large-caliber rockets and setting the stage for a likely new round of competition for the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 program. On Jan. 12, the office of the Army’s project manager for Short and Intermediate Effectors for Layered Defense (SHIELD)
Click to expand...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...ersonic-cruise-missiles-large-caliber-rockets
 
They want an IAMD/BCS and Enduring Shield launcher compatible interceptor optimized for supersonic CM defeat, and against large caliber rockets. My last post has a link to the exact solicitation.
 
PATRIOT fire units linked through IAMD-BCS with Sentinel A4 radars and Enduring Shield launchers will be a tremendous increase in defended area, and particularly Cruise Missile defense capability for areas defended by them. An IFPC launcher capable of launching AIM-9X's, Tamir interceptors, AIM-260's etc and capable of being spaced >100 km. via IFCN relays is just a huge capability leap for the overall system at least for fixed/semi-fixed site defense. That said, we are probably still 3-5 five years from realizing this as fully integrated systems running on IBCS and working on a common fire control network will take some serious testing to validate and flesh out. It will be well worth it in the end.
 

Attachments

  • Sentinel A4 (Capability 2023).png
    Sentinel A4 (Capability 2023).png
    2 MB · Views: 56
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
PATRIOT fire units linked through IAMD-BCS with Sentinel A4 radars and Enduring Shield launchers will be a tremendous increase in defended area, and particularly Cruise Missile defense capability for areas defended by them. An IFPC launcher capable of launching AIM-9X's, Tamir interceptors, AIM-260's etc and capable of being spaced >100 km. via IFCN relays is just a huge capability leap for the overall system at least for fixed/semi-fixed site defense. That said, we are probably still 3-5 five years from realizing this as fully integrated systems running on IBCS and working on a common fire control network will take some serious testing to validate and flesh out. It will be well worth it in the end.
Click to expand...
added simultaneous functions sounds promising.
 
sferrin said:
Throw a Harpoon booster on it and it would slide right into a current Harpoon canister. Put a Mk114 (VL-ASROC) booster on it and fire it from a Mk41. (And I'd still like to know how they managed to stuff an ATACMs into a Mk41 cell. Too bad no canister drawings are out there.)
Click to expand...
If it's like how they stuffed an ATACMS into a submarine VLS, by reshaped and folding tail fins, much thinner padding, accepting more bumping of the missile due to close-aboard explosions, and using a flat ribbon cable instead of a round umbilical.


sferrin said:
Never understood why Western systems just stick those expensive missiles right out there where they can get beat to crap and weathered. How about some canisters guys?
Click to expand...
Missiles designed for it.


DrRansom said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's on the list. Probably not as complex as the Pantsir, though.


sferrin said:
I keep wondering if they'll ever develop a beam source that pipes the emissions to multiple, independently targetable, emiters. This is what you'd want to do on an aircraft if possible. Have the main emitter up front with lower powered about the aircraft for disabling missiles and enemy pilots. I seem to recall reading there was a maximum you could send along a fiber optic however.
Click to expand...
It's too easy to knock those systems out of alignment if they aren't using fiber optics.


SpudmanWP said:
Add Northrop's "Silent Watch' (F-35's EODAS for ships) and you'll have a very capable CIWS.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SilentWatchEODAS/Pages/default.aspx
Click to expand...
I would do some seriously sketchy stuff to have that backing me up as a lookout on a sub...

Fit that onto the sail of a submarine with water-repellent coatings on the glass, and if you can as a 360 sensor at the top of the periscope (maybe via fisheye lens?)...

sferrin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ramjet powered artillery shells are pretty new.


jsport said:
IMHO the Army is nowhere near even conceiving an answer to large numbers of dispersed mobile swarm UAV launcher trucks. Mobile DEWs cant be everywhere and will be avoided and thus largely negated. It is still 3k a DEw shot as well. Even Coyote is not an answer as it is "Model A tech" UAV. No DoD funded research, no quality answer. COTS gets u garbage. Expensive exquisite missiles gets you broke and short on shots,
Click to expand...
You keep harping on how the Army isn't doing anything to counter swarming UAVs.

What country is fielding swarming UAVs? What country is even talking about fielding swarming UAVs?



bring_it_on said:
The Increment 2 Interceptor award was for the kinetic portion of IFPC. IFPC-HEL (now called Valkyrie) is a 300 Kw class High energy laser that will complement the kinetic option. The first four Valkyrie's will be fielded within a year of fielding the first increment 2 battery. That contract has already been awarded to Dynetics (Lockheed as the laser supplier) and they've begun producing the first units.

IFPC-HPM is the High Power Microwave component and the Army will start off with fielding 4 USAF THOR derived systems in FY24. HEL and HPM complement this kinetic option. In fact, one of the justifications the Army offered as it bumped requirements for the Laser from 100-150 kW to 300kW class was that the latter was better suited to defeat cruise missiles. With HPM they are probably not that mature yet, but if they can get Group 1-3 UAS defeat at baseline they can work their way up to higher power levels.

IFPC as an overall program sits in between the SHORAD and MSHORAD options on the lower end (Interim MSHORAD is now being fielded and a 50kW DE-MSHORAD will be fielded next year), and PATRIOT on the upper end. Unlike the SHORAD solutions (for now) IFPC will be fully integrated into IAMD using IBCS and the 150 km ranged Integrated Fire Control Network as its backbone. Because of this, it can be expected that a lot of the CM killing this system does would be on account of tracks provided by outside sensors, and platforms. Dynetics chose a missile agnostic multi-mission launcher. Once IAMD proliferates, we can expect the Army to perhaps begin focusing on a longer ranged Cruise Missile Defense interceptor that is lower cost and smaller than the PAC-2 or the PAC-3. Perhaps they'll take a look at the AIM-260?
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight, they're using both lasers and microwaves as hard-kill systems? Or are the HPM systems jammers?

And did they completely scrap the idea of using that 50x330mm EAPS cannon? No gun system at all for last ditch CRAM defense?
 
IFPC currently has three layers -The Enduring Shield launcher with kinetic capability (would be capable of fielding multiple missiles starting with AIM-9X and moving beyond that with via block upgrades), the High Power Microwave layer which is currently contracted to field a version of the Leonidas solid-state HPM system, and a 300kW class High Energy Laser weapon system. At the divisional air defense battalion level, the current capability being fielded is 3 MSHORAD batteries, 1 IFPC battery, and 1 Fixed or Mobile LIDS battery. These ratios are subject to change. MSHORAD an LIDS will both have dedicated DE layers in the form of 50kW and 20kW systems focused on Counter UAS and with the 50kW also on the counter mortar etc needs. Both could also have HPM effectors.

The 50x330 mm EAPS was never included in either of those systems, it was probably scrapped long before any of the current iterations of this started. The focus on munitions is very much on 30mm, 35 mm and 40 mm proximity and steerable proximity rounds. Even with the current heavy investments, the Army would be lucky to field the currently planned SHORAD and IFPC force structure..let alone add additional packages to it.

On a previous point about providing organic Counter UAS protection to high value ADA assets such as TPY-2 radars..the MSHORAD and single vehicle M-LIDS platform could serve that role. Both of those offer good capability for that mission and will be improved over time. Layered with DE systems this will be what will tackle the Group 1 through Group 3 UAS threats and any combination of layered or even swarming attacks. Both are mature and fielded (single vehicle MLIDS is not but does not have any developmental systems - it's merely moving operational kinetic, EW or C2 packages from 2 vehicles to one).
 

Attachments

  • FySYNC-XgAEZnv5.jpg
    FySYNC-XgAEZnv5.jpg
    993.9 KB · Views: 32
  • sv-cuas-stryker-002.jpeg
    sv-cuas-stryker-002.jpeg
    198 KB · Views: 29
  • MLIDS-Stryker.jpeg
    MLIDS-Stryker.jpeg
    812.2 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
IFPC currently has three layers -The Enduring Shield launcher with kinetic capability (would be capable of fielding multiple missiles starting with AIM-9X and moving beyond that with via block upgrades), the High Power Microwave layer which is currently contracted to field a version of the Leonidas solid-state HPM system, and a 300kW class High Energy Laser weapon system. At the divisional air defense battalion level, the current capability being fielded is 3 MSHORAD batteries, 1 IFPC battery, and 1 Fixed or Mobile LIDS battery. These ratios are subject to change. MSHORAD an LIDS will both have dedicated DE layers in the form of 50kW and 20kW systems focused on Counter UAS and with the 50kW also on the counter mortar etc needs. Both could also have HPM effectors.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay, the Leonidas HPM is a hard-kill EMP projector.

I'm wondering if the APS radars on front-line vehicles could be networked into the CUAS/CRAM lasers as pointers, so that every front-line vehicle could have a 20kw laser onboard. Those are small enough that they're basically a light RWS or pintle MG these days. And if we can squeeze the 50kw lasers down to the size of the 20kw, now every vehicle has onboard CRAM.

bring_it_on said:
The 50x330 mm EAPS was never included in either of those systems, it was probably scrapped long before any of the current iterations of this started. The focus on munitions is very much on 30mm, 35 mm and 40 mm proximity and steerable proximity rounds. Even with the current heavy investments, the Army would be lucky to field the currently planned SHORAD and IFPC force structure..let alone add additional packages to it.
Click to expand...
50x330mm EAPS was a steerable AHEAD type round, as I understand it. Looks like they figured out how to pack all that guidance electronics into a smaller package now.
 
I guess you could leave it on the truck, but then you have a truck permanently deployed in that area that can't be used for other things. Maybe that's their thinking.
 
Forest Green said:
I guess you could leave it on the truck, but then you have a truck permanently deployed in that area that can't be used for other things. Maybe that's their thinking.
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a new roro trailer that can pick these items up again in fairly short order?

Yes it’s a fixed target unloaded but would be protecting other fixed assets anyway.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom