• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

LCI - Low Cost Interceptor SAM

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
77
Armada Internation Feb 2001 said:
A fascinating project from Northrop Grumman is the low cost interceptor -- or LCI -- which is a US Army programme aimed at modifying existing Air Force

missiles to make them `ground-launchable' to counter the emerging threat from cruise missiles, with an initial operational capability in 2005. In other words, the LCI, with a range of more than 250 km, can be regarded as an `anticruise missile cruise missile'. The vehicle is powered by a TJ-50 M-1 turbojet engine from Hamilton Sundstrand and uses a Hellfire booster for the launch phase.

This 10 inch diameter missile was intended as a $100,000 unit cost system to destroy lower end threats. Has there been any news?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,880
Reaction score
2,155
TinWing said:
Armada Internation Feb 2001 said:
A fascinating project from Northrop Grumman is the low cost interceptor -- or LCI -- which is a US Army programme aimed at modifying existing Air Force

missiles to make them `ground-launchable' to counter the emerging threat from cruise missiles, with an initial operational capability in 2005. In other words, the LCI, with a range of more than 250 km, can be regarded as an `anticruise missile cruise missile'. The vehicle is powered by a TJ-50 M-1 turbojet engine from Hamilton Sundstrand and uses a Hellfire booster for the launch phase.

This 10 inch diameter missile was intended as a $100,000 unit cost system to destroy lower end threats. Has there been any news?


Wasn't an afterburning version of MALD eyed for this role (before it was cancelled?)
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,871
Reaction score
4,799
Some info from 2004

http://www.smdc.army.mil/PubAff/04Eagle/Sept_Oct04.pdf

2005 news, from the maker (Miltec)

http://www.mil-tec.com/miltec1/news/08032005.asp
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,505
Reaction score
4,248
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a386395.pdf (Northrop Grumman MALI based concept)

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a499427.pdf (Miltec Missiles and Space Company concept/project)

II. Program Overview

Miltec, working with the Air Defense Center at Fort Bliss, USASMDC/ARSTRAT and several System
Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA) contractors, began examining requirements and conducting studies and
analyses that would support a System Requirements Review (SRR). A July 2001 memorandum from the Directorate
of Combat Developments, US Army Air Defense Artillery School at Fort Bliss, supporting the research and
development for reducing the costs of kinetic interceptors, stated:

“In addition to ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, we also see proliferation of far less sophisticated, though no less
dangerous targets. These targets include unmanned aerial vehicles, decoys, and relatively simple cruise missiles, potentially
carrying weapons of mass destruction. We would like to engage these targets using an interceptor that costs far less than those
designed for the more difficult targets. This would result in significant munitions inventory cost savings and allow preservation of
the higher cost, more capable interceptors for the tough targets. This lower cost interceptor would ideally have application to
other Army and Joint mission areas.”5


The Air and Missile Defense Battle Lab at Fort Bliss provided a memorandum that linked the need for LCI to the
Mission Need Statement for Theater Air and Missile Defense and concluded:

“that there is a compelling mission need for a capability to counter other than high performance threat systems
with a interceptor that can be provided in sufficient quantities and lower cost than present AMD interceptors. The
intent of this new capability is not meant to replace existing system or systems but rather augment those systems by
reducing the cost per intercept ration, as a result of the anticipated lower cost of the LCI.”6


In addition to the memorandums, the US Army Defense Artillery School provided draft Concept of Operations
and Desired Operational Capabilities documents that drove the technical performance requirements and the design
of the interceptor. This development could give the battlefield commander the option of using lower cost
interceptors against low cost threats, and thus save the more capable interceptors for the high-end threats.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
5 US Army Air Defense Artillery School Memorandum, Subject: Low Cost Interceptor, July 2001, p1.
6 US Army Air and Missile Defense Battle Lab Memorandum, Subject: Statement of Mission Need for LCI, 30 July
2001, p1


http://www.ducommun.com/miltec/lci.aspx
http://www.ducommun.com/miltec/mms/lcimovie.html
 
Top