Army Missile Repurposed as Anti-Ship Weapon

[Sferrin]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2344

"One such project was to develop “cross domain capability” for the Army Tactical Missile System, also known as ATACMS.

“By integrating an existing seeker onto the front of the missile they are enabling it to hit moving targets both at sea … as well as on land,” Carter said.

The ATACMS was originally a surface-to-surface missile system designed to hit ground targets. The modified version can now attack ships from coastal locations at a range up to 300 kilometers, according to the Pentagon chief.

The development dovetails with the Defense Department’s “multi-domain battle” concept, which was unveiled in September. The initiative aims to better enable the services to operate outside of their primary domains, such as enhancing the ability of the Army to hit targets at sea and in the air."

 

[marauder2048]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_8X29NcKqw

 

[stealthflanker]

tactical anti ship ballistic missile eh ?

 

[Sferrin]

tactical anti ship ballistic missile eh ?

Not a ballistic missile strictly speaking. With Harpoon's seeker and flight control system, I'll be they could make it do all kinds of interesting things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipr_hPAcR_Q

 

[marauder2048]

SecDef Carter mentions it at 1 hour, 38 minutes into that video posted above.

 

[TomS]

tactical anti ship ballistic missile eh ?

Not a ballistic missile strictly speaking. With Harpoon's seeker and flight control system, I'll be they could make it do all kinds of interesting things.

Probably not a Harpoon seeker. Looking down on a sea surface scene from above takes a different type of sensor and seeker logic than a sea skimmer. The old Standard Active anti-ship concept, for example, had a very unusual radar seeker (monopulse SLAR). I'd expect them to use something different now, possibly imaging IR or MMW radar.

 

[Sferrin]

tactical anti ship ballistic missile eh ?

Not a ballistic missile strictly speaking. With Harpoon's seeker and flight control system, I'll be they could make it do all kinds of interesting things.

Probably not a Harpoon seeker. Looking down on a sea surface scene from above takes a different type of sensor and seeker logic than a sea skimmer. The old Standard Active anti-ship concept, for example, had a very unusual radar seeker (monopulse SLAR). I'd expect them to use something different now, possibly imaging IR or MMW radar.

It'd be interesting to see what kind of flexibility they're going to give the thing regarding it's flight profile. As high and fast as it gets it'll have a lot of kinetic energy to play with. Maybe it dives down outside the range of CIWS and glides in (still supersonic), maneuvering as speed bleeds off. Who knows?

 

[marauder2048]

tactical anti ship ballistic missile eh ?

Not a ballistic missile strictly speaking. With Harpoon's seeker and flight control system, I'll be they could make it do all kinds of interesting things.

The unitary ATACMS actually uses the warhead from Harpoon.

 

[marauder2048]

"One such project was to develop “cross domain capability” for the Army Tactical Missile System, also known as ATACMS.

“By integrating an existing seeker onto the front of the missile they are enabling it to hit moving targets both at sea … as well as on land,” Carter said.

I do wonder if this is a slight exaggeration: ATACMS is getting a proximity sensor (planned since FY2015)
and there are techniques for employing prox sensors for target search and track even against sea clutter
in various sea states.

 

[bobbymike]

"One such project was to develop “cross domain capability” for the Army Tactical Missile System, also known as ATACMS.

“By integrating an existing seeker onto the front of the missile they are enabling it to hit moving targets both at sea … as well as on land,” Carter said.

I do wonder if this is a slight exaggeration: ATACMS is getting a proximity sensor (planned since FY2015)
and there are techniques for employing prox sensors for target search and track even against sea clutter
in various sea states.

Do you have the rest of this document?

Now all we need is a family of systems up to ~3000 miles range far outside Chinese A2/AD systems.

 

[marauder2048]

"One such project was to develop “cross domain capability” for the Army Tactical Missile System, also known as ATACMS.

“By integrating an existing seeker onto the front of the missile they are enabling it to hit moving targets both at sea … as well as on land,” Carter said.

I do wonder if this is a slight exaggeration: ATACMS is getting a proximity sensor (planned since FY2015)
and there are techniques for employing prox sensors for target search and track even against sea clutter
in various sea states.

Do you have the rest of this document?

Now all we need is a family of systems up to ~3000 miles range far outside Chinese A2/AD systems.

Latest version of the preso is here:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016armament/Turner.pdf


The image (slide 16) gives some indication of where sensors might be integrated.

 

[marauder2048]

Or maybe what I thought was a throw away line from the Sept. 28, 2016 "Lockheed Martin Delivers First Modernized TACMS Missile" press release wasn't:

"Additionally, the TACMS platform provides flexibility to quickly integrate novel payloads and new capabilities as required by the warfighter."

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/tag/army-tactical-missile-system/

 

[marauder2048]

Sounds like they want seeker-aided navigation as much as moving target capability.

 

[Sferrin]

"One such project was to develop “cross domain capability” for the Army Tactical Missile System, also known as ATACMS.

“By integrating an existing seeker onto the front of the missile they are enabling it to hit moving targets both at sea … as well as on land,” Carter said.

I do wonder if this is a slight exaggeration: ATACMS is getting a proximity sensor (planned since FY2015)
and there are techniques for employing prox sensors for target search and track even against sea clutter
in various sea states.

Do you have the rest of this document?

Now all we need is a family of systems up to ~3000 miles range far outside Chinese A2/AD systems.

Latest version of the preso is here:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016armament/Turner.pdf


The image (slide 16) gives some indication of where sensors might be integrated.

What rocket is that suppose to be? Looks too chunky for LRPF and the proportions are off for ATACMs. Looks like a distorted (stretched) ATACMS drawing.

 

[bobbymike]

"One such project was to develop “cross domain capability” for the Army Tactical Missile System, also known as ATACMS.

“By integrating an existing seeker onto the front of the missile they are enabling it to hit moving targets both at sea … as well as on land,” Carter said.

I do wonder if this is a slight exaggeration: ATACMS is getting a proximity sensor (planned since FY2015)
and there are techniques for employing prox sensors for target search and track even against sea clutter
in various sea states.

Do you have the rest of this document?

Now all we need is a family of systems up to ~3000 miles range far outside Chinese A2/AD systems.

Latest version of the preso is here:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016armament/Turner.pdf


The image (slide 16) gives some indication of where sensors might be integrated.

What rocket is that suppose to be? Looks too chunky for LRPF and the proportions are off for ATACMs. Looks like a distorted (stretched) ATACMS drawing.

Is it the new 499km version that is to fit two to a launcher?

 

[Sferrin]

The 499km missile is the one shown two to a box in the lower left hand corner (for a total of 4 for an M270 or 2 for a HIMARS). I'm talking about the main picture. Looks like they took a drawing of ATACMS and stretched it. The proportions don't really match LRPF or ATACMS.

 

[marauder2048]

The 499km missile is the one shown two to a box in the lower left hand corner (for a total of 4 for an M270 or 2 for a HIMARS). I'm talking about the main picture. Looks like they took a drawing of ATACMS and stretched it. The proportions don't really match LRPF or ATACMS.

I just took it as a: "we can rehost the ATACMS SLEP improvements on LRPF"

I posted the precision fires road map graphic in another thread. It mentions possible Japanese co-development/co-production for LRPF
which raised the possibility, in my mind at least, of using the first stage from SM-3 IIa for LRPF. Might also, a consequence, enable use
from a VLS cell.

 

[Sferrin]

It mentions possible Japanese co-development/co-production for LRPF
which raised the possibility, in my mind at least, of using the first stage from SM-3 IIa for LRPF.

It'd have roughly the same diameter of SM-2 albeit a couple feet shorter. Also, the first stage of SM-3 Block IIA is the same used by the current SM-3 and SM-6 - the Mk72. The PDF that shows two LRPF per cell diagonally shows them roughly 13.5" dia. What document did you get that first slide from? Looks like "Low-Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile" is now "Long Range Precision Fires". And what is that "Long Range Manueverable Fires"?

 

[marauder2048]

It mentions possible Japanese co-development/co-production for LRPF
which raised the possibility, in my mind at least, of using the first stage from SM-3 IIa for LRPF.

It'd have roughly the same diameter of SM-2 albeit a couple feet shorter. Also, the first stage of SM-3 Block IIA is the same used by the current SM-3 and SM-6 - the Mk72. The PDF that shows two LRPF per cell diagonally shows them roughly 13.5" dia. What document did you get that first slide from? Looks like "Low-Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile" is now "Long Range Precision Fires". And what is that "Long Range Manueverable Fires"?

Actually, it's somewhere in between because the GMLRS launch tubes are 12.2 inches in diameter so if the missile has to fit within 1.5 GMLRS launch tube diameters
you are looking at around 18 inches.

The slides are from Henderson's 2015 Fuze presentation:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2015fuze/henderson.pdf

 

[Sferrin]

Thanks!

 

[Moose]

It mentions possible Japanese co-development/co-production for LRPF
which raised the possibility, in my mind at least, of using the first stage from SM-3 IIa for LRPF.

It'd have roughly the same diameter of SM-2 albeit a couple feet shorter. Also, the first stage of SM-3 Block IIA is the same used by the current SM-3 and SM-6 - the Mk72. The PDF that shows two LRPF per cell diagonally shows them roughly 13.5" dia. What document did you get that first slide from? Looks like "Low-Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile" is now "Long Range Precision Fires". And what is that "Long Range Manueverable Fires"?

At the risk of being pedantic, the Mk72 is the booster for those missiles.

 

[Sferrin]

It mentions possible Japanese co-development/co-production for LRPF
which raised the possibility, in my mind at least, of using the first stage from SM-3 IIa for LRPF.

It'd have roughly the same diameter of SM-2 albeit a couple feet shorter. Also, the first stage of SM-3 Block IIA is the same used by the current SM-3 and SM-6 - the Mk72. The PDF that shows two LRPF per cell diagonally shows them roughly 13.5" dia. What document did you get that first slide from? Looks like "Low-Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile" is now "Long Range Precision Fires". And what is that "Long Range Manueverable Fires"?

At the risk of being pedantic, the Mk72 is the booster for those missiles.

In this instance, what's the difference? ???

 

[Moose]

Not a lot in the grand scheme, but I'm just OCD enough that I couldn't stop myself, sorry.

 

[Sferrin]

Not a lot in the grand scheme, but I'm just OCD enough that I couldn't stop myself, sorry.

LOL. For something like "strap on" or "wrap around" boosters, like you'd see on Bloodhound or Sandbox, "booster" seems pretty cut and dried. Even for things like Talos, Brahmos, and Tomahawk, where the "booster" is just there for a few seconds to get the missile up to speed for the jet to take over, it seems pretty clear. I guess for things like Nike Hercules, Aster, and Pantsir, where there are just two parts, the "missile" and "the other piece" it makes sense that it's the booster, as it's function. . .hell, I don't know. I know the top stage on SM-3 is generally referred to as it's "3rd stage" which would seem to imply that the Mk72 would be the first stage. . .. hell with it. Doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it to me either. :-\

 

[TomS]

I posted the precision fires road map graphic in another thread. It mentions possible Japanese co-development/co-production for LRPF
which raised the possibility, in my mind at least, of using the first stage from SM-3 IIa for LRPF. Might also, a consequence, enable use
from a VLS cell.

It also makes me wonder if the recently discussed "Type 23" antiship ballistic missile for the JGSDF might end up being the LRPF with an antiship seeker and a hinomaru on the side.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=27790.0

 

[marauder2048]

Excerpt from AMRDEC BAA From Oct. 24, 2016


Concept Papers and proposals are to be focused on the design, fabrication, integration and flight-test demonstration of those component-level and system-level technologies necessary to enhance the range, precision and/or lethality of Army LRF against stationary and/or mobile land and/or sea targets, at ranges beyond 300 km, in all operating environments, while maintaining compatibility with the Army's existing Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Family of Munitions (MFOM) Launch Platforms to the greatest extent possible.

Proposals with new and innovative technologies are needed which could enhance the state-of-the-art and scientific knowledge for the technical areas listed below. Proposals should address and focus on one or more of the technical areas and capability demonstration listed. AMRDEC is interested in demonstrating technical advances in the following technology areas:

(1) Inertial Navigation Technology - Highly accurate, low cost inertial sensors enabling precision long range navigation in GPS degraded or denied environments;

(2) Multi-mode Seeker Technology - Active and/or passive seekers enabling target detection, acquisition, tracking, discrimination and aim-point selection in GPS degraded or denied environments;

(3) High-temperature "Seeker Friendly" Dome Materials - High temperature "seeker friendly" dome materials capable of withstanding the thermal environments resulting from extended range, high velocity flight profiles, while simultaneously maximizing RF/IR/etc. seeker performance;

(4) Signature Reduction Technology - Active and/or passive means of reducing the signature of the LRF Munition in the RF, IR and other common military detection bands;

(5) Warhead Technology - Kinetic and Non-Kinetic means of enabling enhanced lethality and reduced packaging envelopes (weight and/or volume);

(6) Digital Datalink Technology - Communication elements enabling secure smart-weapon network integration (aim-point coordination, arrival time synchronization, etc.);

(7) Propulsion Technology - Enhanced performance propulsion systems (solid rocket motor, hybrid, gel, liquid, air-breathing, etc.) enabling extended range LRF missions; and

(8) Attitude Control Technology - Enhanced performance altitude control systems (divert thrusters, canards, fins, jet vanes, etc.) enabling improved weapon system maneuverability, reduced packaging envelopes (weight and/or volume) and/or reduced power consumption. AMRDEC is interested in demonstrating the resulting technology-driven performance enhancements via sub-scale or full-scale flight test, potentially utilizing Army-provided MFOM test assets.