Why would one assume that lessons learned and capability demonstrated and matured under that initiative won't be utilized on the Stinger replacement?
Barely worth responding to...................................................................
because no contractor is offering a multipurpose modular solution only their propreitary single mission solution.

Can you share what you know on what each contractor is offering?
will state again years ago ARDEC displayed this concept at show(s) and I posted it....it is not being followed....what in the world are talking about?
 
I was talking about you implying some sort of insight into what each contractor has offered as part of proposals for Stinger replacement.. As in specifics on their bids.. Clearly you don't so let's just end this here.
 
An open architecture modular, literally set of algorthims rather than
a proprietary single mission solution would be better answer, problem is it came from a lab not a contractor.
Modular in mission/dual mission, payload, range, sensor whether one wants a muntion/uas option etc is a wiser conversation and testing/prototyping regime. Future propellant can add length or diameter adds as shown, for instance
 
I understand that and there is no reason to believe that the Army would not have some of those requirements of modularity, OMS approach and easy of upgrade as part of its requirements.
 
likewise, as mentioned on the Patriot replacement thread. A replacement for MEADS, Patriot, Standard, THAAD, maybe even Iron Dome and these hypers should be based on common missile open achitecture design w/ maximum commonality algorithims to maximize economies of scale. Low-Cost Extended Range Air Defense (LOWER-AD) could be the baseline start point.
 
Common across what mission needs and programs? Component quality, cost, and capability can vary greatly depending on the mission and not to mention data-link and mission comms needs. The Army hasn't run a new interceptor program for years (MSE went into full rate production a number of years ago now) and LTFI appears to be a one-off. Lower-AD is great but will/can it ever make it to production? The Army would probably be better off using its limited resources to buy existing in production AF/Navy and Israeli weapons for the IFPC need (AIM-9, AMRAAM / AMRAAM-ER and Tamir) and using savings to field force structure. Stinger replacement and LTFI will pretty much consume the service's entire budget for new development interceptor programs.

So in principle I agree but this assumes the Army can think ahead and design a common architecture across numerous mission needs..when in reality it struggles to start one new interceptor EMD program every decade (more like 1 every 15 years). So if you're running that program you'd really have zero incentive to think ahead and invest your resources on this type of stuff when you can be investing more directly towards your requirements.

The Navy does standardize around Standard Missile and ESSM programs so in a way they are already doing it..and will likely continue to for some time unless they decide to break Raytheon's monopoly over their interceptor programs with the GPI need..
 
it would be pointless to discuss the current procurement failings as noone can or will think ahead, have the resources to think ahead and monopolies do prevail so there is indeed agreement in principle. ..would likley disagree that quality of component needs to vary across platforms. comms and datalinks should be modular and upgradeable as well.
 
Thanks for the eye candy Boeing but you're out :)

The Army has selected Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies to develop competing prototypes of a next-generation short-range interceptor, a move that knocks Boeing from an expected multibillion-dollar competition to design and build a follow-on to the Stinger missile. Brig. Gen. Frank Lozano, program executive officer for missiles and space, said the government plans to begin discussions soon with the two vendors over the scope of work for a planned four-year contest that will culminate with a source selection...

 
Early days, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next system has a gripstock that could fit a tube nearly identical to Stinger's (with a more modern missile inside) as well as other cannisters for other payloads.
If they're doing it right, they're using the Javelin LW-CLU as the base, and slapping in whatever missile(s) are needed.


Just a question related to this speculative sidebar - does anyone know of attempts to create larger MANPADS?

Hypothetically, could one not create a LOAL system cued by an infantry controlled director at some distance from the launcher? Doing so could allow a vertical launch removing the need for it to be shoulder held, which would in turn allow assembling of a two-stage system using parts carried by two infantrymen. So, it'd be a team of at least three people (rather than the standard two). That would allow pushing the missile weight above 25-30kg... some of that would be lost in requiring some energy to suspend prior to turning, but not much... so one could significantly expand the envelop with such an approach. It'd also require more set-up - but probably less than three minutes to deploy.
Most modern MANPADS are right at the limit for what you can call "man portable" as is. Can't really make them any heavier without making the crew immobile.



Anyway Martlet is still the highest performing MPADS for the job of swatting rotary wing aviation. It's a 3" diameter missile with the general performance of a RBS 70. Perhaps America will come up with a multiple shot MHTK for the LWCLU, which would be neat in its own right, but not exactly useful for killing helicopters with long range weapons that have been (somewhat) proliferating since the 90's. It doesn't have to be literally Martlet, obviously, just something comparable in size and general utility for doing Stinger's job of killing helicopters.

Which means better performance than Stinger, which only Martlet really achieves in the same form factor. Anything much bigger is probably too big for soldiers to usefully use outside of weird pedestal mounts. That said a multiple shot MHTK mated to a LWCLU would be useful for swatting Group 1/2 UAS, and they both might happen since helicopters and UAS are separate threats.
And Martlet is literally Thales raiding the parts bins and playing LEGO.


Some thoughts:
The big question about manpads is whether light infantry will still be a thing, or infantry would only exist as part of vehicle based formations.

In some sense this is a dumb question because vehicles are vulnerable across the depth of the battlespace to long range fires when one is inferior in combat power, but this is America and America do not fight defensive land wars.
-------
If "light infantry" forces with a hard limit on weight and volume is to be fielded, it will need a solution to air threats from 300grams to 30tons, spanning orders of magnitude. Unlike previous generations of air power, air threats can economically combat even highly dispersed infantry. I currently don't see solid solutions that would enable safe movement of infantry outside of heavy top cover when under air threats.
The US Army (including reserves and national guard) is roughly 2/3rds leg and Stryker brigades. If you want to get picky about Strykers (finally) having M-SHORAD units and not counting, the leg infantry makes up a bit under 1/2 of the entire Brigade count of the Army of the US.
 
And Martlet is literally Thales raiding the parts bins and playing LEGO.

It isn't even clear if America's attempts to replace Stinger will succeed. Given it hasn't succeeded in the vast majority of new missile systems it's tried to procure since 1998, going back to the old standbys is a good choice, because at least by raiding a parts bin you have a pretty good idea of whether it will work.

30-ish months suggests it will be a combination of existing subsystems, either in production or producible prototypes, anyway. Both RTX and Lockheed-Martin manufacture the FGM-148, while the FIM-92 is manufactured by RTX, as is the RIM-116. Perhaps Lockheed-Martin could use technology from the MHTK if it wants to really get out ahead of the curve.

All of those options have pretty good pedigrees for replacing a mostly 5 km range missile and increasing it to 8-10 km.
 
It isn't even clear if America's attempts to replace Stinger will succeed. Given it hasn't succeeded in the vast majority of new missile systems it's tried to procure since 1998, going back to the old standbys is a good choice, because at least by raiding a parts bin you have a pretty good idea of whether it will work.

Raiding the parts bin has some utility. But I'd hope the US looks at the Starstreak/LMM system and thinks about interchangeable missiles/payloads from a common launcher system, the LWCLU could be a good starting point. They won't purchase LMM or Starstreak 2/3 but I think having multiple missiles available for different targets sets makes an awful lot of sense. Personally I'd also be developing a re-usable drone killer payload to be used from the same unit, lots of different approaches available from DARPA's 'silly string' to MARSS kinetic ramming drone, and the potential for extending the range of the missiles when launched from platforms rather than a soldiers shoulder via a modular approach, or additional booster sections.
 
Most modern MANPADS are right at the limit for what you can call "man portable" as is. Can't really make them any heavier without making the crew immobile.

Well, my concept gets around that by having the load split - with one person carrying the sensor/warhead/FCS, one carrying the booster, one carrying the directors etc. It is still man-portable, although it'd likely take at least two to five minutes to set up/assemble. Of course, the assembled unit would be immobile (needing disassembly, relocation, and reassembly time). But it could extend the reach considerably (in theory).
 
Well, my concept gets around that by having the load split - with one person carrying the sensor/warhead/FCS, one carrying the booster, one carrying the directors etc. It is still man-portable, although it'd likely take at least two to five minutes to set up/assemble. Of course, the assembled unit would be immobile (needing disassembly, relocation, and reassembly time). But it could extend the reach considerably (in theory).
So, the SAM version of TOW.

The other problem with this is that a crew of 3 only has one missile, while a Stinger team of 2 can have 3 missiles (gunner carries CLU and missile, loader carries 2x missiles).
 
Raiding the parts bin has some utility. But I'd hope the US looks at the Starstreak/LMM system and thinks about interchangeable missiles/payloads from a common launcher system,

It will probably be compatible with the Javelin CLU because it exists and it's already been done with Stinger.


There's very serious reasons to believe that a top attack anti-tank missile, with a HEDP warhead and a fragmenting sleeve, can replace nearly all MANPADS except very high performance ones like Starstreak. Even then, Starstreak can defeat light armored vehicles anyway. Javelin already has a capacity to engage low flying helicopters with its direct attack mode, and it's far more credible at that than using mostly hypothetical things, like TOW or Dragon, in the role.
 
It will probably be compatible with the Javelin CLU because it exists and it's already been done with Stinger.


There's very serious reasons to believe that a top attack anti-tank missile, with a HEDP warhead and a fragmenting sleeve, can replace nearly all MANPADS except very high performance ones like Starstreak. Even then, Starstreak can defeat light armored vehicles anyway. Javelin already has a capacity to engage low flying helicopters with its direct attack mode, and it's far more credible at that than using mostly hypothetical things, like TOW or Dragon, in the role.
I'd want a faster ATGM for that, Mach 2 not just supersonic.
 
Maybe a low drone network layer to provide a data link to SMs?

No RF, just lasers sent up to reduce jamming...
I think that might be a bit too complicated for what needs to be a man-portable weapon that can be brought into action very quickly to take a quick shot off at an enemy helicopter or low flying aircraft that may be exposed for only a short time. If you want to use drones for remote targeting of missiles it would probably make more sense to have those missiles be at the next layer of air defense with beyond line-of-sight range.

I can't imagine using lasers for control and sharing sensor data of small very disposable drones would be worth the expense involved. Probably leave that up to larger drones/UAVs.
 
I wonder if there's anything that that can shoot down Russian glide-bombs (Poor man's JDAM)?
 
I wonder if there's anything that that can shoot down Russian glide-bombs (Poor man's JDAM)?

At least one of those can: Land-based Phalanx Weapon System (LPWS), aka Centurion C-RAM (Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar). Of course, it's probably the least versatile of them all.

I suspect some of the lasers could damage the wing kit at least, if not deflagrate the explosive fill in the bomb.
 
Meanwhile, Italy is leading on the way to a non-ITAR Stinger Replacement, NG V-SHORADS. It’s interesting how the MANPADS moniker is being deemphasized, despite the obvious man portability of the design.

I see the Europeans, and Italians in particular, looking towards non-ITAR export markets with actual paying customers.
 
Last edited:
It’s interesting how the MANPADS moniker is being deemphasized, despite the obvious man portability of the design.
I'd speculate that a lot of that has to do with the current trend of MANPADS being mounted on everything with wheels, tracks, and or wings. The rest is just marketing.
"What do you mean the Man Portable missile can go on a vehicle? Shouldn't we use something bigger?"
"Short Range Air Defence? Put it on everything!"
 
Meanwhile, Italy is leading on the way to a non-ITAR Stinger Replacement, NG V-SHORADS. It’s interesting how the MANPADS moniker is being deemphasized, despite the obvious man portability of the design.

I see the Europeans, and Italians in particular, looking towards non-ITAR export markets with actual paying customers.
They gotta get a Stinger replacement fast because many won't buy (old) expensive stinger anymore. Countries like germany could tend to buy Piorun NG or NG V-SHORAD as part as an offset for example like polish Orca programm. After all the need is big (my guess) to something around 4000-10000 Systems based on the budget and total force (there is the wish for mutch more soldier in the army and a fully equipt reserve in germany.
 
Talking about BAe's APKWS I wonder if a similar guidance module will be developed for the 5" Zuni-rocket?

It already has been. Unclear if was actually procured, though. Zuni may be gone from US service, but we shipped a bunch of them to Ukraine last year.

 
Last edited:
It already has been. Unclear if was actually procured, though. Zuni may be gone from US service, but we shipped a bunch of the to Ukraine last year.


Apparently, the entire American Zuni rocket stockpile has been exhausted? This is what happens when you burn through rockets by firing the entire load out at low level with a lofted trajectory to avoid ground fire. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/ukraine-exhausts-entire-u-s-stockpile-of/amp/
 
Last edited:
Apparently, the entire American Zuni rocket stockpile has been exhausted? This is what happens when you burn through rockets by firing the entire load out at low level with a lofted trajectory to avoid ground fire. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/ukraine-exhausts-entire-u-s-stockpile-of/amp/

To be fair the 'entire US stockpile' of working Zuni appears to be a grand total of 4,000 rockets. Which points to a stockpile on the verge of disappearing regardless. With a typical 2 ship SU-25 sortie, each equipped with 2 x 4 round launchers (i.e. 16 rockets per sortie fired) that means the Ukrainian's got 250 missions out of the stockpile in just over a year of operations...

It's not exactly high tempo...
 
A shame I think, because a 127mm rocket warhead has quite a bit of punch to it and is probably a nice middle ground between the 70mm rockets and the larger missiles. Did any customers actually buy the laser-guidance kits for the Zuni that MBDA was offering?
 
A shame I think, because a 127mm rocket warhead has quite a bit of punch to it and is probably a nice middle ground between the 70mm rockets and the larger missiles. Did any customers actually buy the laser-guidance kits for the Zuni that MBDA was offering?
Those are called Hellfires.
 
A shame I think, because a 127mm rocket warhead has quite a bit of punch to it and is probably a nice middle ground between the 70mm rockets and the larger missiles. Did any customers actually buy the laser-guidance kits for the Zuni that MBDA was offering?
I don't believe they did.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom