Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

[jsport]

One shot wonders are always going to be a logistics burden compared to a 40mm GL carrying returnable UAS.

Not sure what talking about. An expendable UAV/muniton/Grenade is going to be pricey and unreliable compared to real UAS firing a grenade and return to do it again for months or years.

Just to narrow the discussion, what do you consider a "real" UAS?

What a real UAV is not is a cluster bomb stuck to quadrotor being picked up by a third world child and either exploding or not but having "US" written on the submunition and on the quadrotor as it the video is shown on BBC or any news media discussion US operations in the area. Video of fields of crashed quadrotors w/ bombs on them id proof of non military solution. Cluster bombs are limited for a reason an quadrotor/muntions are even more of nightmare. Not sure where the conversation has value.

 

[sferrin]

One shot wonders are always going to be a logistics burden compared to a 40mm GL carrying returnable UAS.

Not sure what talking about. An expendable UAV/muniton/Grenade is going to be pricey and unreliable compared to real UAS firing a grenade and return to do it again for months or years.

Just to narrow the discussion, what do you consider a "real" UAS?

What a real UAV is not is a cluster bomb stuck to quadrotor being picked up by a third world child and either exploding or not but having "US" written on the submunition and on the quadrotor as it the video is shown on BBC or any news media discussion US operations in the area. Video of fields of crashed quadrotors w/ bombs on them id proof of non military solution. Cluster bombs are limited for a reason an quadrotor/muntions are even more of nightmare. Not sure where the conversation has value.

Note I did not ask what you think a "real" UAS isn't. As for the value of the conversation swarms are going to be a thing whether you like it or not. If you don't see the value then don't participate in the conversations. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

 

[jsport]

One shot wonders are always going to be a logistics burden compared to a 40mm GL carrying returnable UAS.

Not sure what talking about. An expendable UAV/muniton/Grenade is going to be pricey and unreliable compared to real UAS firing a grenade and return to do it again for months or years.

Just to narrow the discussion, what do you consider a "real" UAS?

What a real UAV is not is a cluster bomb stuck to quadrotor being picked up by a third world child and either exploding or not but having "US" written on the submunition and on the quadrotor as it the video is shown on BBC or any news media discussion US operations in the area. Video of fields of crashed quadrotors w/ bombs on them id proof of non military solution. Cluster bombs are limited for a reason an quadrotor/muntions are even more of nightmare. Not sure where the conversation has value.

Note I did not ask what you think a "real" UAS isn't. As for the value of the conversation swarms are going to be a thing whether you like it or not. If you don't see the value then don't participate in the conversations. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

In the end disposable drones will not prevail in modern Armies. Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

 

[sferrin]

One shot wonders are always going to be a logistics burden compared to a 40mm GL carrying returnable UAS.

Not sure what talking about. An expendable UAV/muniton/Grenade is going to be pricey and unreliable compared to real UAS firing a grenade and return to do it again for months or years.

Just to narrow the discussion, what do you consider a "real" UAS?

What a real UAV is not is a cluster bomb stuck to quadrotor being picked up by a third world child and either exploding or not but having "US" written on the submunition and on the quadrotor as it the video is shown on BBC or any news media discussion US operations in the area. Video of fields of crashed quadrotors w/ bombs on them id proof of non military solution. Cluster bombs are limited for a reason an quadrotor/muntions are even more of nightmare. Not sure where the conversation has value.

Note I did not ask what you think a "real" UAS isn't. As for the value of the conversation swarms are going to be a thing whether you like it or not. If you don't see the value then don't participate in the conversations. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

In the end disposable drones will not prevail in modern Armies. Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

Time will tell. Maybe they'll be a flash in the pan, or forever be limited gathering information. Maybe they will transform warfare completely. Maybe they'll be just another tool in the tool box. I'm thinking somewhere between 2 and 3.

 

[bring_it_on]

From Lockheed's presentation at the Warsaw Security Forum last month:

- Sentinel A4 (upgrade)
- Next Gen. Missile
- MSHORAD Missile
- MHTK
- DE/HEL

 

[jsport]

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/army-builds-1000-mile-supergun/

"AUSA: Why is the Army confident it can build a Strategic Long-Range Cannon to shoot with precision more than one thousand miles? Because the superweapon will be essentially supersizing proven technologies found in the existing 155 mm howitzer and rocket-boosted artillery shells from the 1980s.

“I don’t want to oversimplify, (but) it’s a bigger one of those,” Col. John Rafferty told reporters here. “We’re scaling up things that we’re already doing.”

Soon to be a one-star general, Rafferty is the Army’s modernization director for Long-Range Strategic Fires, the service’s top priority, which covers everything from revolutionary hypersonic missiles to longer cannon barrels for the venerable 155mm. While the Strategic Long-Range Cannon — SLRC, pronounced (unfortunately) “Slorc” — will hit targets at ranges comparable to the bleeding-edge hypersonics, Rafferty emphasized the cannon is built on proven principles, just bigger.

How much bigger are we talking about? Will it just look like a scaled-up M109 Paladin howitzer, I asked, or more like a World War II railroad cannon, or even Saddam Hussein’s infamous never-finished “supergun“?

It’ll be “pretty big,” one of Rafferty’s officers said, but it’ll be “mobile” — or, he added after a pause, at least “movable.”

“Relocatable,” another officer suggested."

 

[sferrin]

I wonder if we're missing something. If we consider all of the acceleration doesn't have to happen in the barrel maybe it could be a bit more realistic. Forget ramjet or scramjet, what about an external burning projectile? IIRC they were able to achieve about 1000 ISP back in the 60s/70s with that. If you had something like an M107 (or long barrel M110) with a sub-caliber round using external burning on the way up. . . If it's US Army it'll have to be air transportable so that would seem to put an upper limit on the thing.

 

[Rickshaw]

The use of jet/rocket/"burning" projectiles is that they mess badly with the trajectory of the round after it leaves the barrel. While the use of guidance systems in each round could help there, they add appreciably to the cost of each round. As the objective of using a gun over a missile is cheapness, it rather defeats the purpose.

The South Africans used base-bleed extended range rounds - now pretty universally used in 155mm guns. the base-bleed extended range rounds don't add to the thrust, per se, of the round, what they do is remove the vacuum behind the base of the round, making it "slippier" through the air. Longer barrels increase muzzle-velocity and hence range. Larger calibres allow greater quantities of powder to be burnt, more quickly, hence increasing muzzle velocity and range. The Germans worked on, just before the end of WWII a multi-chamber gun, the V-3, aimed at London from France. Gerard Bull was also working on a multi-chamber weapon when he was assassinated. I rather suspect that base-bleed, extended range rounds, fired from a longer barrel with multiple chambers would work rather well. However, it would necessarily be overly mobile nor relocatable (although multiple section barrels/chambers might make that possible).

In the end, IMO the use of a guided missile is cheaper and easier for a thousand plus miles range, as against a gun.

 

[marauder2048]

Forget ramjet or scramjet, what about an external burning projectile?

It was looked at in the 70's for artillery shells and did produce net thrust. Accounting for
variations in launch conditions and atmospheric pressure is tricky which I think leads you
to throttleable designs.

For reference, the standard PGK is around $9k per unit. I'm sure the newer versions they are envisioning
with uplinks etc. are going to be more expensive but maybe not dramatically so.

 

[sferrin]

The use of jet/rocket/"burning" projectiles is that they mess badly with the trajectory of the round after it leaves the barrel. While the use of guidance systems in each round could help there, they add appreciably to the cost of each round. As the objective of using a gun over a missile is cheapness, it rather defeats the purpose.

The South Africans used base-bleed extended range rounds - now pretty universally used in 155mm guns. the base-bleed extended range rounds don't add to the thrust, per se, of the round, what they do is remove the vacuum behind the base of the round, making it "slippier" through the air. Longer barrels increase muzzle-velocity and hence range. Larger calibres allow greater quantities of powder to be burnt, more quickly, hence increasing muzzle velocity and range. The Germans worked on, just before the end of WWII a multi-chamber gun, the V-3, aimed at London from France. Gerard Bull was also working on a multi-chamber weapon when he was assassinated. I rather suspect that base-bleed, extended range rounds, fired from a longer barrel with multiple chambers would work rather well. However, it would necessarily be overly mobile nor relocatable (although multiple section barrels/chambers might make that possible).

In the end, IMO the use of a guided missile is cheaper and easier for a thousand plus miles range, as against a gun.

Base bleed and external burning are completely different things.

 

[sferrin]

Forget ramjet or scramjet, what about an external burning projectile?

It was looked at in the 70's for artillery shells and did produce net thrust. Accounting for
variations in launch conditions and atmospheric pressure is tricky which I think leads you
to throttleable designs.

For reference, the standard PGK is around $9k per unit. I'm sure the newer versions they are envisioning
with uplinks etc. are going to be more expensive but maybe not dramatically so.

Even so something like an Excalibur with external burning (a much longer round I'd think) fired with a sabot out of an 8" (or larger) gun is probably still going to be cheaper than a 1000 mile range missile or flying a bomb to the target I'd think. They're saying a 1000-mile range gun. Just trying to think of ways that might be achieved with a gun that can still fit on a C-17.

 

[marauder2048]

Base bleed and external burning are completely different things.

The confusion might stem from the fact that external burning was also used to reduce base drag.

Even so something like an Excalibur with external burning (a much longer round I'd think) fired with a sabot out of an 8" (or larger) gun is probably still going to be cheaper than a 1000 mile range missile or flying a bomb to the target I'd think.

Agreed. Wonder how exotic they want to go? That Green Launch light-gas gun is intended to launch (essentially) a sabot'ed rocket-assisted projectile.

https://greenlaunch.org

 

[bring_it_on]

Put an EM launch system on a 747. That's exotic

 

[sferrin]

Base bleed and external burning are completely different things.

The confusion might stem from the fact that external burning was also used to reduce base drag.

Hmmm. Looks like it's mostly useful for lateral acceleration (divert) and that keeping the flame lit for propulsion would be tricky. (Then again, who knows what they've figured out since then.)

https://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/pdfs/V08_N2_1968/V8_N2_1968_Billig.pdf

 

[Rickshaw]

The use of jet/rocket/"burning" projectiles is that they mess badly with the trajectory of the round after it leaves the barrel. While the use of guidance systems in each round could help there, they add appreciably to the cost of each round. As the objective of using a gun over a missile is cheapness, it rather defeats the purpose.

The South Africans used base-bleed extended range rounds - now pretty universally used in 155mm guns. the base-bleed extended range rounds don't add to the thrust, per se, of the round, what they do is remove the vacuum behind the base of the round, making it "slippier" through the air. Longer barrels increase muzzle-velocity and hence range. Larger calibres allow greater quantities of powder to be burnt, more quickly, hence increasing muzzle velocity and range. The Germans worked on, just before the end of WWII a multi-chamber gun, the V-3, aimed at London from France. Gerard Bull was also working on a multi-chamber weapon when he was assassinated. I rather suspect that base-bleed, extended range rounds, fired from a longer barrel with multiple chambers would work rather well. However, it would necessarily be overly mobile nor relocatable (although multiple section barrels/chambers might make that possible).

In the end, IMO the use of a guided missile is cheaper and easier for a thousand plus miles range, as against a gun.

Base bleed and external burning are completely different things.

I didn't suggest they were.

 

[jsport]

Put an EM launch system on a 747. That's exotic

Given the Asia/Pacific range and munitions delivery problem this idea would seem to be the the best FA/XX proposed. ;D

 

[marauder2048]

The confusion might stem from the fact that external burning was also used to reduce base drag.

Hmmm. Looks like it's mostly useful for lateral acceleration (divert) and that keeping the flame lit for propulsion would be tricky. (Then again, who knows what they've figured out since then.)

https://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/pdfs/V08_N2_1968/V8_N2_1968_Billig.pdf

In that paper, they do actually mention employing it for drag reduction for projectiles; the follow-on work that
I'm familiar with tried to combine it and base bleeding as means of (secondary) propulsion for artillery shells.

 

[sferrin]

The confusion might stem from the fact that external burning was also used to reduce base drag.

Hmmm. Looks like it's mostly useful for lateral acceleration (divert) and that keeping the flame lit for propulsion would be tricky. (Then again, who knows what they've figured out since then.)

https://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/pdfs/V08_N2_1968/V8_N2_1968_Billig.pdf

In that paper, they do actually mention employing it for drag reduction for projectiles; the follow-on work that
I'm familiar with tried to combine it and base bleeding as means of (secondary) propulsion for artillery shells.

Yeah, I did see that but was primarily looking for anything related to axial propulsion. Reading up on UpStage and the later HEDI, it looks like external burning showed the most promise as a divert technique. I'd previously thought it might have used it for axial propulsion as well. Certainly the infamous "Flaming Pumpkin Seed" concept intended to use it for axial propulsion.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWiSTeYUFt8

 

[fredymac]

These look like JDAMs hitting moving targets but it isn't clear what type of seeker they are using or if they are receiving high speed GPS updates on target position instead. The tip is colored black but it doesn't look like an optical dome.

 

[jsport]

These look like JDAMs hitting moving targets but it isn't clear what type of seeker they are using or if they are receiving high speed GPS updates on target position instead. The tip is colored black but it doesn't look like an optical dome.

there was talk about MMW for terminal guidance on moving targets some time ago.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Laser JDAM has a black seeker (DSU-38/B) nose with a small window.

 

[fredymac]

That looks like the answer. I guess they figure the JDAM doesn't need a wide field of regard so a little window at the tip will work.

I was thinking it might have been an AMSTE JDAM using MTI radar updates to keep the GPS coordinates locked on the target.

 

[jsport]

That looks like the answer. I guess they figure the JDAM doesn't need a wide field of regard so a little window at the tip will work.

I was thinking it might have been an AMSTE JDAM using MTI radar updates to keep the GPS coordinates locked on the target.

AMSTE was what I was thinking of but heard not just updates but internal onboard MMW.
Laser dependence too scary in the modern context.

 

[SpudmanWP]

That looks like the answer. I guess they figure the JDAM doesn't need a wide field of regard so a little window at the tip will work.

LaserSDB (not to be confused with SDB2) uses the same seeker.

In August 2003, following a two-year competitive phase, the Air Force selected Boeing to develop and build the SDB system. The Boeing and Air Force SDB I Team delivered the SDB system to the warfighter at cost and ahead of schedule. The Air Force declared Initial Operational Capability in October 2006, and SDB has been in combat use on the F-15E since October 2006. Using the same Semi-active Laser (SAL) sensor from Boeing’s Laser JDAM, Laser SDB was developed in 2010 and began initial testing in 2011.

 

[marauder2048]

That looks like the answer. I guess they figure the JDAM doesn't need a wide field of regard so a little window at the tip will work.

I was thinking it might have been an AMSTE JDAM using MTI radar updates to keep the GPS coordinates locked on the target.

AMSTE was what I was thinking of but heard not just updates but internal onboard MMW.
Laser dependence too scary in the modern context.

https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/818698/air-force-funds-development-of-high-performance-munitions-technology/

They were looking at a MMW seeker that is form-factor compatible.

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[bring_it_on]

Cuda Lockheed's M-SHORAD tested :

Lockheed Martin conducts initial flight test of new M-SHORAD Future Interceptor

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control on 14 November conducted a successful initial ballistic flight test of its new M-SHORAD Future Interceptor from a Stryker Maneuver SHORAD Launcher (MSL) at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

The M-SHORAD Future Interceptor leverages Lockheed Martin and government technology investment in a 6 ft-class hit-to-kill interceptor designed to defeat unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and cruise missiles.

"The 5 inch diameter interceptor fits in the same envelope as the AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missile currently being integrated on the MSL for the US Army's Stryker-based interim manoeuvre SHORAD [short-range air-defence] capability, and provides significantly more range and manoeuvrability," a Lockheed Martin spokesperson told Jane's .

"The internally funded test objectives were to demonstrate key technologies, vehicle stability, and range. The Interceptor performance matched our predictions," the spokesperson said.

"The driver for this development is how to address air-breathing threats for US Army manoeuvre forces beyond its current Stinger/Stryker capability," Tim Cahill, Vice President, Integrated Air and Missile Defense, at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control told Jane's . "We've designed a medium-size hit-to-kill for what we believe will be the [US] Army's range requirement for an M-SHORAD missile. The imperative of M-SHORAD is range and capability in the size of a missile that is manageable and affordable; Stinger is performance limited, other missiles are too long. So I believe it should be a hit-to-kill missile for M-SHORAD, and we will follow the PAC-3 MSE formula for both future land and sea applications," he added.

Lockheed Martin has not disclosed additional specific detail on the M-SHORAD Future Interceptor, including its interception range, weight, and homing guidance.

 

[sferrin]

Those must be some tiny divert thrusters.

 

[bring_it_on]

deleted

 

[marauder2048]

Those must be some tiny divert thrusters.

I think we've seen even more compact installations.

 

[sferrin]

 

[marauder2048]

Thanks. Looks great in flight.

 

[bring_it_on]

This is great but we could have had something in the 200-300 km range had we gone in for an upgraded propulsion like some of the solutions that were being talked about a few years ago.

 

[sferrin]

 

[marauder2048]

They had mentioned in the budget documents a future anti-radiation payload which makes that
surface-launched AARGM-ER proposal a little more understandable.

 

[bring_it_on]

Better to put that payload on the PrSM and get proper stand-off capability unless they want to target a very low cost payload for a GMLRS which could also be interesting as long as they can increase the range.

 

[marauder2048]

PrSM might very well have a much increased minimum range which GMLRS-ER has to cover.

For VIPER, has anyone flown a Gluhareff Pressure Jet in the GMLRS-ER flight regime?

 

[bring_it_on]

I don't think so. However, we would have to look across many propulsion solutions to get to those performance levels. Perhaps an SFRJ based design is less risky.

 

[bring_it_on]

Army picks Iron Dome for interim CMD, eyes long-term adoption of Israeli system

The Army will acquire two Iron Dome batteries to provide ground forces an interim capability by 2020 against unmanned air vehicles, mortars, rockets, artillery and cruise missiles as well as explore full adoption of the Israeli-developed system for the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept program and incorporation with the Integrated Battle Command System by 2023.

Army acquisition executive Bruce Jette notified Congress of the previously unreported decision in a 14-page report dated Oct. 26, 2018, effectively swapping out an AIM-9X II guided missile -- being developed since 2014 for ground launch from the IFPC Inc. 2 Multi-Mission Launcher -- for the Iron Dome system, which includes the Tamir interceptor.

"Based on an analysis of cost, schedule and performance, the Army [has decided to]: field two interim IFPC batteries of Iron Dome in [fiscal year] 2020, while concurrently componentizing a launcher and interceptor solution that are interoperable and integrated with the Army IBCS by FY-23," states the report.

The service considered three options: Iron Dome, Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System, built by Kongsburg and Raytheon, and an improved variant of the IFPC Inc. 2 program of record.

Only Iron Dome could meet the 2020 goal, according to the report, NASAMS lagging in 2021 and the IFPC Inc. 2 variant lagging until 2023. The NASAMS unit launcher carried a $12 million price tag and each AIM-120 missile was $800,000 and could intercept cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft but not rocket, artillery and mortar fire, according to the report.

The new variant of the IFPC Inc. 2 interceptor, the Expanded Mission Area Missile, is the focus of an ongoing competitive development between Lockheed's Miniature Hit-to-Kill Missile, Raytheon's Accelerated Improved Intercept Initiative and the SkyHunter missiles. "All EMAM candidate interceptors require qualification, integration, and test prior to production and fielding in FY-23."

By comparison, the Iron Dome launcher cost $1.37 million, the battle management center cost $4 million, the radar $34.7 million and each Tamir interceptor, $150,000.

Looking to 2023, the Army plans to explore the "feasibility of a componentized launcher and interceptor for an enduring IFPC solution that leverages joint studies and experimentation between the Army and the Marine Corps," the report states.

"The Army plans to experiment with Army sensors and IBCS to determine the complexity of integration of the componentized launcher and the interceptor solution prior to making a final decision on the enduring solution," states the report. "The Iron Dome system provides the best value to the Army based on its schedule, cost per kill, magazine depth, and capability against specified threats."