Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

The Army has chosen Dynetics system using the AIM-9X missile in preference to the Rafael/Raytheon Iron Dome/Tamir missile after the IFPC shoot-off at White Sands range for the Army's cruise missile killer.

System had to be compatible with the A3/4 Sentinel radars and integrate with the Integrated Battle Command System, IBCS. Mention of possible buy of 400 systems.

"Army planned to judge the systems’ lethality at required keep-out ranges as most important, followed by its ability to provide 360-degree coverage of a defended area. Then, in order of importance, the number of stowed kills, target service rate, load and reload time, the amount of time it takes to emplace the system, and operational availability — which factors in reliability and maintainability — were to be weighed in the decision-making process."

To meet the requirement it would appear they went for the more expensive option? FY2022 AIM-9X ~ $500 thousand/Tamir $189 thousand.

Noticeable that no guns or lasers were considered by the Army as a viable option for the cruise missile killer mission.

"lethality at required keep-out ranges as most important" in WWII Navy found that the 20 and 40mm cannon were not powerful enough to overcome the Kamikaze's a/c kinetic energy and stop them hitting the ships, and it appears the Army don't expect lasers near or medium term will have the range and power either.

From <https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...bility-to-counter-drones-and-cruise-missiles/>
 
Last edited:
Cordy said:
Noticeable that no guns or lasers were considered by the Army as a viable option for the cruise missile killer mission.
Click to expand...

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?
 

Attachments

  • SMDS_2021_IFPCDE.jpg
    SMDS_2021_IFPCDE.jpg
    241.8 KB · Views: 126
Last edited:
Very exciting to see the MML come back

https://twitter.com/x/status/1431315686710775815

Despite a larger price tag and never having been fielded, a modified Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) from Dynetics paired with a version of Raytheon’s ground-launched AIM-9X Sidewinder missile has been selected by the US Army for its Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) programme, according to sources and army documents. The system was chosen over Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ combat-proven Iron Dome.
Click to expand...
 
It is not the same MML the Army abandoned. Dynetics has built on it to better meet requirements.

“Our offering is not MML,” he said, “but it is derived from the heritage and the things that we’ve learned from MML.”

Chronister said the company redesigned the stack system of the MML to obtain cost efficiencies and has worked to make the launcher more producible and less complex
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

Dynetics unveils Enduring Shield, its solution for the US Army to counter cruise missiles

Dynetics hopes to win a contract to build prototypes of the Army's indirect fire protection capability by the end of this fiscal year.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

The AIM-9X Block II costs sub $450K. Add thousands of of missiles needed by the Army and it isn't difficult to assume that cost will be brought down. US Army paid upwards of $150K for the Tamir and that variant did not work with either IAMD/IFCM or the X-band Sentinel radar. Who knows how different a redesigned interceptor would have been or how effective given risk and changes involved. The Army has also invested in low-cost seeker demonstrations and other areas that it can leverage to reduce cost. And the multi-mission launcher application makes it easy to add lower or higher cost or performance interceptors unlike the Iron Dome which has never really offered multiple interceptor options depending on the threat.

Overall, a bold move. Now hoping the Congress lets them proceed further.
 

Attachments

  • Dynetics E Shield.jpg
    Dynetics E Shield.jpg
    120.8 KB · Views: 94
Why reinvent the wheel? Just stick a RAM launcher on a truck. Proven and in production. RAM Block 2 would probably even get better range with its larger motor.
 
RAM Block 2 also costs more than two times the Block II AIM-9X and about 5 times the Tamir. The launcher cannot accommodate any other type of missile, and that one single missile is too expensive to shoot down RAM threats which this system has to be able to do by 2025ish once the initial C-UAV and CMD capability is fielded at baseline. That's probably why Raytheon chose not to offer it and went down the lane of trying to adapt the Tamir to fit into the Army's C2 and X-band radar. Dynetics just seemed to have done a better job at the shoot off to convince the Army that its launcher and missile agnostic approach to integration is superior. You can add future missiles or missile enhancements in there including things that are coming down the line for the AIM-9X like the new seeker and other motor upgrades. The thing is guaranteed to be in production till at least 2035. Not to mention, that the launcher can accommodate additional interceptors. Perhaps some of the ones that the Army has been demonstrating of late.
 
I think the requirement for IFPC Increment 2 is Group 3 or larger drones, and Cruise Missiles to begin (fielded by late FY-22). The lower end stuff is for the M-SHORAD system to address, and of course Increment 2 will have 300 kW laser weapon complement as well as THOR HPM system. Looking at the AIM-9X, assuming Dynetics doesn't alter the missile, the weapon should be more than capable of defeating that threat. However, given the secrecy around the offering, one wonders if this is a modified variant for the AIM-9X and if so what those enhancements/modifications are.

The Mulit-mission launcher approach makes it really easy for the Army to add different interceptors across the threats. MHTK has been tested out of the original Army developed MML launcher and it could be an option. Similarly, the CUDA derived SHORAD interceptor that Lockheed has demonstrated to the Army (and that the USAF is flight testing) is also another option. As is the low-cost interceptor the Army recently tested. The launcher, and how missile communication and IBCS integration is handled makes it simpler to carry a diverse missile load out and the launcher has enough magazine size for them to do that.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1325777598610362372
View: https://twitter.com/devcom_avmc/status/1325777598610362372
 
O/T - Finnish Land Ceptor – MBDA Aiming High in ITSUKO by Corporal Frisk, following comment intriguing, wondering if true that a cold/soft launch of missile saves 30% in missile weight and presume alternatively it could translate into additional 30% range compared to a live launch from a VLS cell, understand rocket motors burn out after max of only 10 seconds?

Everything in life is trade-offs and compromises, so which system is the most beneficial depends on your scenario, but the cold-launch means that by the time your rocket kicks off, the missile is already roughly pointing where it’s supposed to go. MBDA is claiming that in total this saves a whooping 30% in nominal launch weight compared to having the missile accelerate out from the tube (I would have to get a rocket scientist to check their maths before I’m ready to confirm that number), which in the case of the CAMM-family directly translates into an added usable energy which allow it to manoeuvre effectively at long-ranges or, crucially, at high altitudes. The profile of the weapons are such that the effective high-altitude performance is a priority, and MBDA describe the principle as the difference between a fence and a bubble. How big an area the fence covers and how high it goes are obviously classified data, but the official figures given is that at 45 km for the CAMM-ER and 25 km for the CAMM-sans suffix there is still usable energy for a high probability of kill, with the max ranges being further still.
Click to expand...

From <https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/08/14/finnish-land-ceptor-mbda-aiming-high-in-itsuko/>
 
Lockheed won another development contract for MHTK in May of 2020, not sure of the time frame but it seems likely they will be demo-ing it from the new MML at some point. The Army is really pushing in a good open-architecture direction which will make adding future weapons and sensors easier going forward, at the expense of making "closed" systems like the current Iron Dome incompatible.
 
Moose said:
Lockheed won another development contract for MHTK in May of 2020, not sure of the time frame but it seems likely they will be demo-ing it from the new MML at some point. The Army is really pushing in a good open-architecture direction which will make adding future weapons and sensors easier going forward, at the expense of making "closed" systems like the current Iron Dome incompatible.
Click to expand...

I suspect that was what clinched it for Dynetics. They don't produce interceptors, and a missile agnostic integration approach gives the Army a blank canvas to fit whatever they want in the launcher be it the MH2K or something else. This is what the Army originally planned to do with MML but that design on that prime mover was probably trying to do too much. Rafael and Raytheon may have tried but the system that is mature and fielded (biggest benefit of ID) can't do this and even the Israelis offer the Spyder system for a multi-weapon CMD and SHORAD capability. Once the Sentinel A4 comes online towards the end of FY-24, there is plenty of scope within the organic IFPC battery to go after more stressing targets at greater stand-off ranges. IFCN (network) has a LOS range of 150 km so that gives them over the horizon targeting options as well with dispersed radars and launchers so I'm convinced that the Army will have more than a couple weapons cleared for this launcher and battery.
 
Following the Northrop Grumman 50 kW laser burning out and withdrawing as one of the two contenders for the DE Mobile SHORAD program, only the Raytheon prototype remains. Congress asking for report from Pentagon on its investment strategy for developing power and thermal management systems (my understanding lasers only make use of approx one third of the energy to create the laser beam and the two thirds energy converted into waste heat requiring very efficient cooling system to stop overheating, burning out).

www.defensenews.com

House committee fears gap in industrial capability to power laser weapons

After Northrop Grumman exited the U.S. Army's Directed Energy Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense system program due to problems with the power and thermal management system, Congress wants the Pentagon to provide more information on the industrial base needed to power laser weapons.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Recent reports on the DE M-SHORAD trials at Fort Sill which ended late July "the soldiers performed a series of vignettes that demonstrated the established design characteristics and performance criteria for the DE M-SHORAD weapon system//In addition to targeting drones or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), the Army plans to use the DE M-SHORAD against rockets, artillery, and mortars. It is scheduled to receive four such systems in the next year//This is a prototype and we are going to learn from this”

interestingengineering.com

US Army Tests First Laser Weapon in a Combat Standoff

Drone swarms that are dispensable and can't be targeted with multi-million dollar missiles are the next big threat, but lasers could be the key to defense.
interestingengineering.com interestingengineering.com
 
The Army held a "demonstration of ground-based aerial denial and handheld solutions to counter small drone threats at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz., in late August and early September included both ground-based aerial denial and handheld solutions. Three vendors — Flex Force, Smart Shooter and Northrop Grumman — demonstrated remote-controlled systems that shot down incoming aircraft with bullets of various sized. Two other vendors, Drone Shield and IXI, showed officials electronic warfare systems designed to disrupt the drone flight The results for all the vendors varied, but declined to get into specifics."

Three systems tested were with guns, two others electronic warfare systems, presuming jammers or microwaves? no mention of lasers.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/09/army-completes-second-counter-small-drone-demonstration/>
 
Perhaps its my eyes, but it appears that the launcher is designed to accommodate a larger missile than what would be the case if it were designed for the AIM-9. Here's the original MML for reference where the Aim-9 was just about the largest missile that could fit.
 

Attachments

  • Army_MML.jpg
    Army_MML.jpg
    79.6 KB · Views: 76
A few more images for comparison. @sferrin what say you? Same or larger tubes? I'm fairly certain that they've extended the length (the previous version couldn't even fit the Tamir) but I'm leaning to an overall larger tube design as well given they now have more volume on a larger prime mover.
 

Attachments

  • Dynetics_ES_IFPC.jpg
    Dynetics_ES_IFPC.jpg
    115.8 KB · Views: 69
  • MML 1.0 Army.jpg
    MML 1.0 Army.jpg
    291.5 KB · Views: 66
  • Tamir IFPC.jpg
    Tamir IFPC.jpg
    69.3 KB · Views: 80
Last edited:
Dynetics has confirmed that they are using the AIM-9X for the baseline system given the very short delivery and fielding timelines for the first phase of the program. They will deliver four IBCS compatible launchers with missiles next year, and another 8 launchers in 2023 (Army will field when 12 operational launchers are delivered). The second half of the decade is when the Army plans to transition the LOWER-AD interceptor into this system.

Dynetics selected the AIM-9X effector and environmentally sealed All-Up Round Magazine (AUR-M) provided by Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a Raytheon Technologies business. The AIM-9X features the most advanced IR seeker in use today, providing warfighters a highly effective solution to track and intercept hard to detect, fast moving cruise missiles. The missile has previously demonstrated successful integration and engagements with the U.S. Army's IBCS, supporting the accelerated prototyping phase that the U.S. Army has requested.

Dynetics and Raytheon worked collaboratively to provide the Army a weapon system which met key requirements while incorporating lessons learned from previous programs. The investments in Enduring Shield enabled the completion of the Phase 1 Shoot-Off in May 2021 and demonstrated missile and IBCS integration.

The manufacturing of components, performance of assembly and system integration will be conducted in Huntsville, Alabama. Dynetics is set to deliver four units in 2022 and 12 units by the end of 2023.

www.dynetics.com

Dynetics to Manufacture Enduring Indirect Fires Protection Capability (IFPC) Weapon System for the US Army

The Alabama-based company chosen to produce mobile ground-based weapon system to counter cruise missile and unmanned aircraft system threats
www.dynetics.com www.dynetics.com
Click to expand...
 
Sentinel A4 will be incorporated into the Army’s future integrated air and missile defense system and its IFPC system, and is designed to keep up with the Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense System in formations.

The Army will continue integration of hardware and software for the engineering and manufacturing development A4 radars and now plans to procure five additional Sentinel A4 radars specifically for integration into the IFPC system in fiscal 2022. Those will be delivered in the first quarter of FY23, said Col. Jason Tate, the Army’s program manager for STARE programs. “Search, Track, Acquire, Radiate and Eliminate” programs falls within the purview of Program Executive Office Missiles and Space. https://www.defensenews.com/digital...-path-to-field-air-and-missile-defense-radar/
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • LM-Sentinel-A4.jpg
    LM-Sentinel-A4.jpg
    107.9 KB · Views: 52
  • Sentinel-A4-Wide.jpg
    Sentinel-A4-Wide.jpg
    229 KB · Views: 52
The Marines have tested their MRIC system -

The Marine Corps' Medium Range Intercept Capability prototype successfully engaged targets last week at White Sands Missile Range, the service announced Tuesday.

MRIC integrates the Marine Corps Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar and Common Aviation Command and Control System with Israel’s Iron Dome mini-Battle Management Control and Tamir missile.

The Dec. 16 test was the first in a series of live-fire events scheduled for fiscal year 2022 that will be carried out against increasingly challenging cruise missile profiles, the service said in a press release.
Click to expand...

Marine Corps announces successful Medium Range Intercept Capability test | InsideDefense.com

The Marine Corps' Medium Range Intercept Capability prototype successfully engaged targets last week at White Sands Missile Range, the service announced Tuesday.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
bring_it_on said:
The Marines have tested their MRIC system -

The Marine Corps' Medium Range Intercept Capability prototype successfully engaged targets last week at White Sands Missile Range, the service announced Tuesday.

MRIC integrates the Marine Corps Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar and Common Aviation Command and Control System with Israel’s Iron Dome mini-Battle Management Control and Tamir missile.

The Dec. 16 test was the first in a series of live-fire events scheduled for fiscal year 2022 that will be carried out against increasingly challenging cruise missile profiles, the service said in a press release.
Click to expand...

Marine Corps announces successful Medium Range Intercept Capability test | InsideDefense.com

The Marine Corps' Medium Range Intercept Capability prototype successfully engaged targets last week at White Sands Missile Range, the service announced Tuesday.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
Click to expand...
What is considered "Medium Range" here?
 
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
The Marines have tested their MRIC system -

The Marine Corps' Medium Range Intercept Capability prototype successfully engaged targets last week at White Sands Missile Range, the service announced Tuesday.

MRIC integrates the Marine Corps Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar and Common Aviation Command and Control System with Israel’s Iron Dome mini-Battle Management Control and Tamir missile.

The Dec. 16 test was the first in a series of live-fire events scheduled for fiscal year 2022 that will be carried out against increasingly challenging cruise missile profiles, the service said in a press release.
Click to expand...

Marine Corps announces successful Medium Range Intercept Capability test | InsideDefense.com

The Marine Corps' Medium Range Intercept Capability prototype successfully engaged targets last week at White Sands Missile Range, the service announced Tuesday.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
Click to expand...
What is considered "Medium Range" here?
Click to expand...

In this case I believe it is anything "beyond" the capability of the Stinger system. MRIC appears to be a similar level of capability to the Army Iron Dome but with the TPS-80 radar and likely using fewer launchers and equipment. The marines don't currently have a requirement for something beyond this capability though had we not walked away from MEADS but instead looked at it as an option for the USMC they would have themselves a fairly capable C-130 deployable medium ranged air-defense system.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
The Marines have tested their MRIC system -

The Marine Corps' Medium Range Intercept Capability prototype successfully engaged targets last week at White Sands Missile Range, the service announced Tuesday.

MRIC integrates the Marine Corps Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar and Common Aviation Command and Control System with Israel’s Iron Dome mini-Battle Management Control and Tamir missile.

The Dec. 16 test was the first in a series of live-fire events scheduled for fiscal year 2022 that will be carried out against increasingly challenging cruise missile profiles, the service said in a press release.
Click to expand...

Marine Corps announces successful Medium Range Intercept Capability test | InsideDefense.com

The Marine Corps' Medium Range Intercept Capability prototype successfully engaged targets last week at White Sands Missile Range, the service announced Tuesday.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
Click to expand...
What is considered "Medium Range" here?
Click to expand...

In this case I believe it is anything "beyond" the capability of the Stinger system. MRIC appears to be a similar level of capability to the Army Iron Dome but with the TPS-80 radar and likely using fewer launchers and equipment. The marines don't currently have a requirement for something beyond this capability though had we not walked away from MEADS but instead looked at it as an option for the USMC they would have themselves a fairly capable C-130 deployable medium ranged air-defense system.
Click to expand...
That's depressing. HAWK used to be considered their Medium Range missile and it could take out tactical ballistic missiles and high flying aircraft.
 
Unfortunately, the only capable Mid-range interceptor capable of TBM defense we currently produce is the PAC-3 MSE which runs nearly $4 MM a pop which is too expensive for the Marines to build a proper mid-range AD system around. It also needs more expensive higher frequency radars that the Marines don't possess. Lucky for them Israel seems to have made (through US funding) good investments on low-cost interceptors that work with S-band radars, so here's hoping that MRIC can grow to expand from the Tamir to the Stunner by developing a multi missile launcher.

We actually had a fairly capable (cruise and TBM defense) medium ranged, C-130 deployable air-defense system that we paid 50% of the development cost for and then walked away from just as it was getting ready to begin production. Imagine if the Marines had a few battalions of this capability today.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKdbkWpEGNc
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Unfortunately, the only capable Mid-range interceptor capable of TBM defense we currently produce is the PAC-3 MSE which runs nearly $4 MM a pop which is too expensive for the Marines to build a proper mid-range AD system around. It also needs more expensive higher frequency radars that the Marines don't possess. Lucky for them Israel seems to have made (through US funding) good investments on low-cost interceptors that work with S-band radars, so here's hoping that MRIC can grow to expand from the Tamir to the Stunner by developing a multi missile launcher.

We actually had a fairly capable (cruise and TBM defense) medium ranged, C-130 deployable air-defense system that we paid 50% of the development cost for and then walked away from just as it was getting ready to begin production. Imagine if the Marines had a few battalions of this capability today.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKdbkWpEGNc
Click to expand...
I wonder if ESSM could take out a TBM. (Or SLAMRAAM-ER.) Presumably they're cheaper than PAC-3. Even the SK S-350 analog would be nice.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom