eshelon

unconventional solutions
Joined
11 July 2012
Messages
98
Reaction score
103
Chaparral 2000/Roadrunner/Advanced Chaparral/Chaparral Chassis Service Life Extension Program (CCSLEP)/LAV MPLS (MultiPurpose Launcher System)/Chapfire

/1/ 1999 report by "Forecast International"
Chaparral III?.
Loral, along with other companies, was trying to interest the US Army and other potential customers in further modifications to increase Chaparral’s effectiveness and further extend its service life. This effort involved various options and has been known by the following names: Chaparral 2000, Roadrunner and Chaparral Chassis Service Life Extension Program (CCSLEP). Many of the upgrades offered for the Chaparral were developed privately by Loral and other contractor teams. These upgrades were revealed at the SafeAir 93 demonstrations held at the McGregor Range, New Mexico.
This Chaparral enhancement initiative includes several new configurations, offered under the overall designation Chaparral Chassis Service Life Extension Program (CCSLEP), as well as a new missile load assist device (LAD) that reduced the crew needed to operate the present Chaparral M730 series system. The CCSLEP, previously known as Roadrunner and also called Advanced Chaparral, was an outgrowth of the Chaparral system and included the following derivatives: Universal Carrier, designed XM1108; a modified version of the General Motors of Canada Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) 8x8, designated M1047A; and a trailer-mounted Pedestal design. The CCSLEP was a natural progression from the Chapfire demonstration held in the middle of 1992, the success of which led to development of the launcher hardware.
The launcher pallet allowed for the universal mounting of various pedestals equipped with launch rails specific to the required missile system. The use of identical pallets allowed interchangeable applications and the ability to tailor the weapon system for specific scenarios. The multi-weapon platforms have already been used to test fire HELLFIRE and Chaparral missiles and Hydra-70 rockets. MICOM identified a number of additional weapon candidates for future integration on the CCSLEP including: tail-control Chaparral; Stinger; Sparrow; AMRAAM; a lightweight version of the Line Of-Sight-Anti-Tank (LOSAT); and even TOW missile, once the latter is finally fire-and-forget. The tracked XM1108 carrier was believed to have been demonstrated for Egypt, which already operates a number of Chaparral SAM systems. Egypt may be interested in a version outfitted with both AMRAAM surface-to-air and HELLFIRE anti-tank missiles. Other interested customers included: the US Marine Corps for the LAV configuration; and the Norwegian army, which has shown interest in a variant carrying the AMRAAM. Both the tracked and wheeled CCSLEP systems remove the gunner from the Chaparral turret and place him under armor in the vehicle crew compartment. The trailer-mounted version of the CCSLEP also carries a combination of missile systems, allowing the weapons platform to be used around airfields and other fixed sites.
A version based on a stretch M113 chassis was developed in cooperation with FMC and the US Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM). The M113 armored personnel carrier was cut down and stretched with the addition of a sixth set of road wheels. The carrier crew compartment used the production model armored cab from the MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System), also made by FMC, and had space for three soldiers. This provided the crew the same level of ballistic protection found in the M113A3 APC and moved the gunner’s position to the armored cab. The system could normally be operated with a crew of only two, although the third person was required to conduct 24-hour operations. The prototype’s propulsion system was to be replaced by that to be used in the new XM8 Armored Gun System (AGS). The Roadrunner had a maximum gross weight of 16,329 kg. The M113 Common Carrier was designed to have a combat weight of 10,357 kg with an additional 189 kg dedicated platform growth. The remaining 5,783 kg have been allocated to payload weight capacity. A complete vehicle could be delivered three months after a contract award.
Loral was also experimenting with the addition of dual spectral (radio frequency and infrared) sensors and interactive missile guidance to expand the operational utility of the system beyond the Improved Chaparral. A dual spectral seeker would enable Chaparral to sense the radio frequency signals emitted when attacking aircraft switch on their radars for target acquisition and an early target approach. The infrared seeker would continue to be used for terminal guidance. Alternatively, target information from both the infrared and radio frequency seekers could be collated by a data fusion system. A tail control missile would provide an extended intercept range beyond 15 kilometers, while modifications to the rocket motor would reduce flight time to target intercept and simplify missile handling.
Other electronic based modifications included the addition of new sensors, such as the Thorn EMI Electronics ADAD (Air Defence Alerting Device) and the McDonnell Douglas Nighthawk target acquisition and designation system, and the adding of an Identification Friend-or-Foe (IFF) system.
Launcher Models.
The following describes the various launch platforms that were used by the Chaparral, which includes tracked, towed and shipborne versions.

/2/ source unknown
Chapfire.
The US Army Missile Command and Loral have developed the Chapfire system, which is capable of firing both MIM-72 Chaparral anti-aircraft and AGM-114 HELLFIRE anti-tank missiles. The system is equipped with a new Allstar radar, an improved version of the Lockheed Sanders forward area alerting radar (FAAR) fielded with Chaparral units. This radar unit provided cueing and targeting information for Chapfire demonstrations. The Chapfire system uses a modified Chaparral launcher mounted on a wheeled trailer and equipped with two ready-to-fire Chaparrals and two HELLFIREs. The launcher is outfitted with a Texas Instruments FLIR target acquisition unit and a laser designator/rangefinder for the HELLFIRE missiles. The Chapfire also can be mounted on a fighting vehicle, trailer ship or fixed ground position. The Chapfire unit, without extra missiles, would be roughly $2.5 million.
The system has been demonstrated for various allied countries and the US Navy has been offered the system for use on its cargo vessels (although the latter service has declined the offer). The Chapfire concept origi-nated with the US Navy, which is seeking a low-cost shipboard air/surface defense system for defending lightly armed cargo vessels in coastal waters. The system eventually selected by the US Navy would be known as the Rapid Deployment Integrated Defense System.

/3/ janes.com - http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Land-Based-Air-Defence/Lockheed-Martin-Missiles-and-Fire-Control--Orlando-Chaparral-Chassis-Service-Life-Extension-Program-CCSLEP-United-States.html (dead link)
 

Attachments

  • Chapfire tracked.jpg
    Chapfire tracked.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 498
  • Chapfire wheeled.jpg
    Chapfire wheeled.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 496
A few more pics of the XM1108 with the Advanced Chaparral/Chapfire:
 

Attachments

  • XM1108 with advanced chaparral_01.jpg
    XM1108 with advanced chaparral_01.jpg
    234.4 KB · Views: 464
  • XM1108 with advanced chaparral_02.jpg
    XM1108 with advanced chaparral_02.jpg
    77.1 KB · Views: 425
  • XM1108 with advanced chaparral_03.jpg
    XM1108 with advanced chaparral_03.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 428
Some great information thanks eshelon

Although I'm of the opinion that the makeshift nature of the Chaparral SAM system was just that - makeshift and a crude improvisation for the US Army's inability to field a purposefully designed and fielded system. The Chaparral should have been phased out of service by a much more capable SAM system, without money being spent on 'updates'.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Problems with Chaparral in general were part and partial to blame on the poorer performance of earlier-model surface-launched Sidewinders.
The latest iterations of AIM-9X Blocks are considerably different beasts, only similar in original appearance.
But the real improvements inside: newer solid state digital "missile-tronics" replacing older legacy analog-digital crossover era components,
motor propellant improvements allowing greater thrust, acceleration, and "burn time" for improved range,
improved actuator controls allowing greater maneuverability...
there's reason behind AIM-9X still being of the Sidewinder family and still the predominant US close-range AAM, as opposed to a completely new weapon in the AIM-120 AMRAAM when compared to its AIM-7 Sparrow ancestor.

US Army experimentation with the Avenger pedestal turret follow-on, leveraging off the "ChapFire" modularity,
in addition to the various developmental multi-celled Area Fires SHORAD/C-RAM launcher developments mounted on FMTVs,
use the latest AIM-9X derivatives (among other considerations), and would be far more capable in performance and reliability than what the original Chaparral and any perceived upgrades of its day would've allowed.

What doesn't help is that the US Army never really had a clear and concise picture of just what envelope it wants a SHORAD SAM system to cover: there's the carry-it-anywhere MANPADS Stinger, but beyond that, advocates suggest "anywhere an AIM-9 can be mounted, for an additional several million $$ more, we can mount Stunner or SL-AMRAAM instead"....
Cycle continues ad infinitum (Iron Dome most likely won't ever evolve into a localized anti-air umbrella in US service) and nothing of note ever gets fielded.

Food for thought.
 
I can't honestly answer that Odysseus1980, although in the following video (at time 7:59), they give the impression the Chaparral 'was amphibious after the fitting of a special swim kit'.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Yes. Like this.

id_m48_chaparral_05_700.jpg
 
From a 1994 paper on 'Army National Guard Air Defense Artillery Modernization' (or lack thereof, thanks to the Peace Dividend & associated stupidities!):

Fourth, the plan culminates in the ineffectual and inefficient allocation of equipment and resources. A primary example of this is the Army's recent decision to prioritize the allocation of Avenger to the AC division over its allocation to the Corps Air Defense Artillery brigade.' Strictly used in a static rear area protection role at the division and corps level, Avenger is capable of performing the mission unarmored and mounted in a HMMWV vehicle. Avenger lacks the mobility and survivability to keep up with M-1 Abrams and M-2 Bradley maneuver elements at the division level, should the need arise. Not ideal, but much better suited for the division-level mission, is the M-48A3 Chaparral missile system. The Chaparral is trackmounted and lightly armored. Cost-effectively upgraded to the Roadrunner configuration, it can shoot on the move and provide an air defense and anti-armor missile capability. Allocation of the Roadrunner to both AC and RC Division and Separate Brigade Air Defense organizations would free existing Avenger assets for allocation to AC and RC Corps/KAC air defense battalions as originally envisioned.

Among other things, it gives a good overview on how the Chaparral was deployed in ANG service at the time and how upgrades could have been quite cost effective indeed. Though the author of the paper did express his preference for the originally planned Avenger replacements along with the SUG (Stinger Under Armor) program to be revived. A very forlorn hope, as it turned out.
 
Last edited:
"Tail Control Chaparral"? A redesigned missile looking more like a baby Standard, with strakes and fins at the back?

Given the poor sensitivity of any sidewinder before the -L seeker, I'm still not sure why the Army didn't use the SARH AIM-9Cs. At least those would allow for engaging the attacker before they drop, instead of after they've flown past the Chaparral launcher!
 
"Tail Control Chaparral"? A redesigned missile looking more like a baby Standard, with strakes and fins at the back?

Given the poor sensitivity of any sidewinder before the -L seeker, I'm still not sure why the Army didn't use the SARH AIM-9Cs. At least those would allow for engaging the attacker before they drop, instead of after they've flown past the Chaparral launcher!
Complexity . . . which means cost.
You would need to develop and integrate an illuminator radar to the Chaparral launcher vehicle, and you may need an additional search and tracking radar as well.

cheers,
Robin.
 
Complexity . . . which means cost.
You would need to develop and integrate an illuminator radar to the Chaparral launcher vehicle, and you may need an additional search and tracking radar as well.

cheers,
Robin.
Considering how the USN put together the Basic ESSM Point Defense Missile System with IIRC the radar from an F-8, it wouldn't be hard to source an illuminator from something already in the supply chain. (fixed system name)
 
Last edited:
Considering how the USN put together the Basic ESSM with IIRC the radar from an F-8, it wouldn't be hard to source an illuminator from something already in the supply chain.

You mean the Basic Point Defense Missile System? It might have used the CW illuminator circuit from the F-8 (I've never heard that, but it's possible). But the actual fire control was manual. Literally, a gunner had to visually acquire and track the target based on verbal cues from CIC, then hold the illumination radar on target during flight.
 
You mean the Basic Point Defense Missile System?
Oops, yes. BPDMS. (Where's the embarrassed emoji on this forum?)


It might have used the CW illuminator circuit from the F-8 (I've never heard that, but it's possible).
The AIM-9Cs were intended for the F-8, since it didn't have pylons that could take a ~500lb Sparrow but could take a 200lb Sidewinder.

And as a side note, the Army having a crapton of AIM-9Cs in service would allow them to field AGM-122 SideARMs on helicopters like the Marines did. And or allow the USAF to make some SideARMs.


But the actual fire control was manual. Literally, a gunner had to visually acquire and track the target based on verbal cues from CIC, then hold the illumination radar on target during flight.
No more complicated than holding a .50cal or M163 on target, and the illuminator operator didn't have to get super close to the incoming. Just somewhere within the illuminator beam that was some 20deg wide, so all you had to do was get within the right clock face to track.

But yes, an automatic system like the later Improved BPDMS with the Mk95 illuminator and the Mk91 FCS would be better.
 
The bigger issue be where you will put the director.

Cause the BPDMS director needed to be within X amount of distance to the missiles themselves and was a hefty system weight wise.

So you likely either had to put the thing on its own vehicle and train like hell to ensure they are aways in the right spot.

Or try to co-located on the launcher and take the fact that you're going to lose 2 missiles.

And AIM9C was not a good missile by all accounts it having many of the same issues the early Aim7 did until it became a HARM type.
 
The bigger issue be where you will put the director.

Cause the BPDMS director needed to be within X amount of distance to the missiles themselves and was a hefty system weight wise.

So you likely either had to put the thing on its own vehicle and train like hell to ensure they are aways in the right spot.

Or try to co-located on the launcher and take the fact that you're going to lose 2 missiles.

And AIM9C was not a good missile by all accounts it having many of the same issues the early Aim7 did until it became a HARM type.
Definitely co-locate the illuminator and suck up the weight/volume issues.
 
Definitely co-locate the illuminator and suck up the weight/volume issues.
Meaning that you'll lose 2 missiles, the Amphibious capacity, the helicopter sling load and likely a few other things.

In exchange for a weapon that MIGHT be better....
 
Meaning that you'll lose 2 missiles, the Amphibious capacity, the helicopter sling load and likely a few other things.

In exchange for a weapon that MIGHT be better....
Two missiles, maybe. Looking at how the Chaparral turret goes together, though, I don't think you'd lose any missile capacity.

How are you losing the amphibious capabilites, though? The illumination radar weighs about 1000lbs or less, you're +500lbs over the basic design if it does cost you a pair of missiles.

Same question for the sling load. It's not significantly heavier, and proper location of the lifting eyes will protect the radars from the sling.
 
Oops, yes. BPDMS. (Where's the embarrassed emoji on this forum?)



The AIM-9Cs were intended for the F-8, since it didn't have pylons that could take a ~500lb Sparrow but could take a 200lb Sidewinder.

And as a side note, the Army having a crapton of AIM-9Cs in service would allow them to field AGM-122 SideARMs on helicopters like the Marines did. And or allow the USAF to make some SideARMs.



No more complicated than holding a .50cal or M163 on target, and the illuminator operator didn't have to get super close to the incoming. Just somewhere within the illuminator beam that was some 20deg wide, so all you had to do was get within the right clock face to track.

But yes, an automatic system like the later Improved BPDMS with the Mk95 illuminator and the Mk91 FCS would be better.

Two words . . .
'Sergeant York'.

cheers,
Robin.
 
Two words . . .
'Sergeant York'.

cheers,
Robin.
Which except for the M48 chassis was a pretty effective piece of kit, until the New Yorker put out a hit piece on it. There was already a plan in place to address every single one of the issues that article named.
 
Two missiles, maybe. Looking at how the Chaparral turret goes together, though, I don't think you'd lose any missile capacity.

How are you losing the amphibious capabilites, though? The illumination radar weighs about 1000lbs or less, you're +500lbs over the basic design if it does cost you a pair of missiles.

Same question for the sling load. It's not significantly heavier, and proper location of the lifting eyes will protect the radars from the sling.
That cause it not just the Radar you need to consider.

But the Power that radar needs.

The Chaparral M730 carrier is based on the M113, hull and drivetrain. It does not have the need power nor is it set up to provide the PROPER power for the system. This generation of radars need 400 htz ac power, which is a good bit more then the amount given out by the normal 30HP power unit used to run the system on standby.

You WILL need to drop a bigger generator to run the thing, likely a specialize one just for it. And that is another ton if not more of gear between the generator, the unit, and all the cabling. Through in you will want to make sure that every is more robust not to be shaken apart by going off road at 30 MPH? Which even for tracks is ROUGH as hell?

Eyeah you want some added meat to the system.

That would put it over the weight limit for amphibious cause again, M113 based hull, with the M730 being a good bit shorter despite weighing nearly much as much at 22,500 pound combat loaded. I seen images and videos of it swimming, There is not alot of freeboard to it, so any added weight. Well, the M113 lost it Amphibious ability when it gain nearly a ton in the A2 model, going from 22900 to 24080 pounds, and it had far more freeboard play with.

So yes, it be a good bit heavier and that is going to effect everything.

And that just the weight being evenly distributed, which we all know it will not be.

If it put more weight in the back, well... That can get real ugly real fast.


If they put the power generator on the track, more then likely its going to be a trailer mounted unit cause that is far cheaper to do and allows fair higher reliability rate since it be easy to switch out.
 
How about APKWS technology, keyed lasers, and multiple designators to provide multiple target engagement capacity? Chaparral with MIM-9X may as well also carry MIM-120 for post-WVR work.
 
That cause it not just the Radar you need to consider.

But the Power that radar needs.

The Chaparral M730 carrier is based on the M113, hull and drivetrain. It does not have the need power nor is it set up to provide the PROPER power for the system. This generation of radars need 400 htz ac power, which is a good bit more then the amount given out by the normal 30HP power unit used to run the system on standby.

You WILL need to drop a bigger generator to run the thing, likely a specialize one just for it. And that is another ton if not more of gear between the generator, the unit, and all the cabling. Through in you will want to make sure that every is more robust not to be shaken apart by going off road at 30 MPH? Which even for tracks is ROUGH as hell?
Depends on the radar. The usual way to do 400hz generation is a motor-generator set. Electric motor spins a 400hz generator. Those are ~80% efficient at turning input electricity to output electricity and close to soldier-proof (because there's nothing there for the soldier to mess with).

Eyeah you want some added meat to the system.

That would put it over the weight limit for amphibious cause again, M113 based hull, with the M730 being a good bit shorter despite weighing nearly much as much at 22,500 pound combat loaded. I seen images and videos of it swimming, There is not alot of freeboard to it, so any added weight. Well, the M113 lost it Amphibious ability when it gain nearly a ton in the A2 model, going from 22900 to 24080 pounds, and it had far more freeboard play with.

So yes, it be a good bit heavier and that is going to effect everything.

And that just the weight being evenly distributed, which we all know it will not be.

If it put more weight in the back, well... That can get real ugly real fast.
Remember that this is going on a stretched chassis with another road wheel, not a standard length M113.

If they put the power generator on the track, more then likely its going to be a trailer mounted unit cause that is far cheaper to do and allows fair higher reliability rate since it be easy to switch out.
Yes, a towed generator would be easier to swap when down, but I'd want the 400hz on the track so that you're not dragging a trailer off road at 30mph.
 
Considering how the USN put together the Basic ESSM Point Defense Missile System with IIRC the radar from an F-8, it wouldn't be hard to source an illuminator from something already in the supply chain. (fixed system name)
Yeah.... about that.....
Sourcing "off the shelf" hardware Army-style resulted in the travesty known as DIVADS, aka M247 "SGT York".
An F-16 radar typically used to scan open air (was not known to be the better "look-down shoot-down" radar of the western world at the time), being forced to operate amongst the clutter of tree tops, that just could not be "told" to stop looking at its side lobes (in addition to countless other integration issues),
collectively all these parts that worked as intended elsewhere, created an abysmal failure when integrated together into an Army proposal.

Only the US Army could take effective components (F-16 radar, Bofor 40mm L70 guns, mechanically-reliable (when properly cared for) M48 tank chassis in service with dozens of nations for MANY tears) and create a non-functional Frankestein system.
Made an even bigger travesty, when European nations with smaller budgets, actually created and fielded reliably-functioning systems (numerous 30-mm gunned platforms, and the Gepard, etc).

Theoretically, everything existed in the technology of the time, that it SHOULD have worked. And yet, somehow, the US took really good systems and made a really bad mess integrating them together so ineffectively.
 
Yeah.... about that.....
Sourcing "off the shelf" hardware Army-style resulted in the travesty known as DIVADS, aka M247 "SGT York".
An F-16 radar typically used to scan open air (was not known to be the better "look-down shoot-down" radar of the western world at the time), being forced to operate amongst the clutter of tree tops, that just could not be "told" to stop looking at its side lobes (in addition to countless other integration issues),
collectively all these parts that worked as intended elsewhere, created an abysmal failure when integrated together into an Army proposal.

Only the US Army could take effective components (F-16 radar, Bofor 40mm L70 guns, mechanically-reliable (when properly cared for) M48 tank chassis in service with dozens of nations for MANY tears) and create a non-functional Frankestein system.
Made an even bigger travesty, when European nations with smaller budgets, actually created and fielded reliably-functioning systems (numerous 30-mm gunned platforms, and the Gepard, etc).

Theoretically, everything existed in the technology of the time, that it SHOULD have worked. And yet, somehow, the US took really good systems and made a really bad mess integrating them together so ineffectively.
You might want to read the threads on this forum about the M247, especially this one: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/m247-sergeant-york-a-testers-view.37564/

Basically, all the claimed problems weren't. The only real problem was mobility, and that was the fault of trying to put an AA turret heavier than the original onto the M48 chassis that could not keep up with Abrams/Bradleys. Solution? Use M60 or Abrams chassis, keep the turret.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom