Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

[bring_it_on]

What I find baffling is that the Army can rapidly bring to service something as complex as a 300 kW (IIRC the change in requirements was just a couple of years ago) high energy laser but isn't capable of fielding more than one new clean sheet interceptor a decade and a half.

 

[bring_it_on]

Israel delivers new batch of Iron Dome defense system to U.S. Army

On Sunday, Israel’s Ministry of Defense has announced that Israel Missile Defense Organization delivered the second of two Iron Dome Defense System batteries to the U.S. Army. The details were given in a 3 January media release, to announce that U.S. Army will receive new batteries, produced by...

defence-blog.com

 

[sferrin]

What I find baffling is that the Army can rapidly bring to service something as complex as a 300 kW (IIRC the change in requirements was just a couple of years ago) high energy laser but isn't capable of fielding more than one new clean sheet interceptor a decade and a half.

What new clean sheet interceptor has it fielded in the last decade and a half?

 

[bring_it_on]

What I find baffling is that the Army can rapidly bring to service something as complex as a 300 kW (IIRC the change in requirements was just a couple of years ago) high energy laser but isn't capable of fielding more than one new clean sheet interceptor a decade and a half.

What new clean sheet interceptor has it fielded in the last decade and a half?

I was being generous and counting the PAC-3 MSE which was declared operational around 2015 IIRC. At least from an Army budget process it was a seperate R&D program and is being tracked as a distinct acquisition program. My point was that we currently really only have one Army interceptor that is moving through R&D and into procurement (THAAD being an MDA program not counting the interim Iron Dome purchase or other lower end stuff (like Howler and Stinger etc). The LTFI program is designed to pick up once the MSE programs begins to fade so they aren't even attempting to field more than one major interceptor acquisition concurrently. No one talks enough about this enough when they mention that our interceptors are upwards of $3 Million these days. In an ideal world the US Army and USMC would be both buying and fielding the MSE and we'd see a fairly significant reduction in unit cost making this capability more affordable. Right now, from the cost side they are basically at the mercy of FMS customers coming in and boosting the overall quantity to those levels. And let's not even get into when the Army plans to field a new PATRIOT launcher. I don't think it is even part of the plans right now.

 

[marauder2048]

What I find baffling is that the Army can rapidly bring to service something as complex as a 300 kW (IIRC the change in requirements was just a couple of years ago) high energy laser but isn't capable of fielding more than one new clean sheet interceptor a decade and a half.

Not having to do the typical workup of controlled test flight/guided test flight/intercept test flight and then warhead testing,
missile durability testing, IM testing, handling tests, mechanical and logical (RF) interface tests speeds things up.

And you don't have the long lead times for the test missiles; there's no missile telemetry to collect and analyze if/when
things go wrong.

And you are operating against low/slow or C-RAM threats which means no waiting for big range availability and expensive long-lead time targets.

 

[bring_it_on]

What I find baffling is that the Army can rapidly bring to service something as complex as a 300 kW (IIRC the change in requirements was just a couple of years ago) high energy laser but isn't capable of fielding more than one new clean sheet interceptor a decade and a half.

Not having to do the typical workup of controlled test flight/guided test flight/intercept test flight and then warhead testing,
missile durability testing, IM testing, handling tests, mechanical and logical (RF) interface tests speeds things up.

And you don't have the long lead times for the test missiles; there's no missile telemetry to collect and analyze if/when
things go wrong.

And you are operating against low/slow or C-RAM threats which means no waiting for big range availability and expensive long-lead time targets.

No I get the technical side of the argument in terms of what is require to qualify one vs the other. I was talking more about from a programmatic stand point. They need counter drone, counter RAM, additional BMD capability etc. Yet, we have the MSE and are rushing mostly foreign missiles into the shoot off next years. LTFI is just an AoA at the moment etc..I wonder what would happen if 2-3 interceptor type need originated simultaneously across different applications.

 

[sferrin]

What I find baffling is that the Army can rapidly bring to service something as complex as a 300 kW (IIRC the change in requirements was just a couple of years ago) high energy laser but isn't capable of fielding more than one new clean sheet interceptor a decade and a half.

Not having to do the typical workup of controlled test flight/guided test flight/intercept test flight and then warhead testing,
missile durability testing, IM testing, handling tests, mechanical and logical (RF) interface tests speeds things up.

And you don't have the long lead times for the test missiles; there's no missile telemetry to collect and analyze if/when
things go wrong.

And you are operating against low/slow or C-RAM threats which means no waiting for big range availability and expensive long-lead time targets.

No I get the technical side of the argument in terms of what is require to qualify one vs the other. I was talking more about from a programmatic stand point. They need counter drone, counter RAM, additional BMD capability etc. Yet, we have the MSE and are rushing mostly foreign missiles into the shoot off next years. LTFI is just an AoA at the moment etc..I wonder what would happen if 2-3 interceptor type need originated simultaneously across different applications.

I think in the case of lasers it's a matter of cobbling together the right legos vs building something from scratch.

 

[bring_it_on]

Yeah and there is also work they are building on and other investments (like OSD and the Navy). Perhaps it wasn't a great example. My point was that the Army has gone pretty slow on interceptors both in terms of developing new ones and fielding the ones that it has now in acquisition. Let's see if the Army evaluates the LCI for the IFPC shoot off and what other US OEMs put up for evaluation.

 

[bring_it_on]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qeWaa6gQZ4

 

[marauder2048]

Yeah and there is also work they are building on and other investments (like OSD and the Navy). Perhaps it wasn't a great example. My point was that the Army has gone pretty slow on interceptors both in terms of developing new ones and fielding the ones that it has now in acquisition. Let's see if the Army evaluates the LCI for the IFPC shoot off and what other US OEMs put up for evaluation.

They have two new radars in the pipeline; PAC-3 MSE already outshoots the current PATRIOT radars and it's largely the same
scenario for some of the notional interceptors for Sentinel A3.

The Army is part of JATM which would seem to cover the high-loadout/high-Pk medium range threat category.
For the upper tier stuff, I would think they would just leverage whatever MDA is doing for THAAD-ER since
I think any kinematic improvements over PAC-2 are going to require a bigger launcher.

 

[bring_it_on]

Is there anything specific about the Army being part of the JATM? The Army hasn't yet revealed an IFPC launcher and I don't think it is continuing with the development of the MML. Interestingly, Rafael and Raytheon still continue to highlight the compatibility of their missile with the MML so MML 2.0 could be a possibility perhaps derived from the original MML. JATM wouldn't fit either the MML or the current Iron Dome launcher so I would assume that would require the Army going back to a NASAMS launcher or developing something completely new.

LTFI is a lower tier program so I would assume that the Army wants to lead this and its specifically for the PATRIOT program. They are doing an AoA this year so things are fluid but they are seeking a faster, longer ranged, higher performance interceptor capability for PATRIOT. Not sure they have the budgets to pay the cost of a THAAD round so likely something around or below $5 Million range may work.

 

[bring_it_on]

Iron Dome Heads For Key US Integration Test - Breaking Defense

With the second battery now bound for the US, the Israeli-made missile defense system must prove it works with American command networks. “We have a very detailed plan to do the integration,” Rafael’s Pini Yungman told me.

breakingdefense.com

“We have a very detailed plan to do the integration into IBCS, to the US system, and to conduct a demonstration [at] White Sands,” in early 2021, Rafael’s Pini Yungman told me. That will be part of a US Army “shoot-off” to pick a missile – or potentially multiple missiles for different targets – for the future IFPC.

Now, the version of Iron Dome in the two batteries now being delivered to the US is not IBCS-compatible, at least not yet. “This is the existing system we are operating in Israel, the same system, with small adjustments for the US requirements,” Yungman emphasized. It includes not only the Tamir missile and its launcher, but mobile command posts and ELTA radars.
The Army won’t just be testing compatibility with the IBCS network. It also wants to see how the competing weapons work against a variety of targets, including cruise missiles. Both the Israeli Iron Dome and the US Indirect Fire Protection Capability began life focused on short-range, unguided rockets launched by terrorists and guerrillas, like the Taliban or Hezbollah. Now both programs emphasize the rising threat of precision-guided cruise missiles, which are becoming increasingly common around the world.

Since April 2011, when Iron Dome first intercepted a real-world threat, “we are not sitting in our offices and doing nothing,” Yungman told me. “We are upgrading the performance and the Iron Dome capabilities on a daily basis.”

Iron Dome has intercepted over 2,500 incoming threats since its first live, Yungman told me. But, I asked, aren’t those mostly unguided rockets? “I cannot elaborate,” he said. “It’s classified.”

What Yungman can say: “We are not familiar with any kind of threat… that Iron Dome cannot intercept. It’s not only unguided rockets. It’s missiles; it’s TBMs [Tactical Ballistic Missiles, e.g. Scuds]; it’s UAVs., etc. etc.,” he told me, carefully. “We’ve tested it, and we’ve faced it, and we have operational results — combat-proven.”

The US Army doesn’t have to take Rafael’s word for it: They just have to ask the Marines.

Raytheon, with Rafael as a subcontractor, has already integrated Iron Dome with Marine Corps’ command systems and the Marines’ new G/ATOR radar, complete with a live-fire test in 2019.

“We intercepted” a drone simulating an incoming cruise missile, Yungman said – a supersonic target that skimmed terrain at low altitude to make itself harder to hit.

“This year we will conduct another test with the Marines,” he told me, with a more extensive integration into American systems.

So far, though, the chronically cash-poor Marine Corps hasn’t officially said it wants to buy Iron Dome. Meanwhile the Army is pouring billions into air & missile defense, one of its Big Six modernization priorities, despite congressional cuts to the Indirect Fire Protection Capability. That makes the coming IFPC shoot-off all the more important for the Israelis – and their competitors.

 

[bring_it_on]

Army preps for key tests of seeker capable of attacking maritime targets

A captive-carry test for the multimode seeker, that will be integrated into the U.S. Army's Precision Strike Munition, is coming soon, as the service looks to find ways to speed up mating the seeker into the new long-range missile.

www.defensenews.com

While the Army won’t be moving faster to integrate the seeker, the service is heading into a February captive-carry test of the LBASM seeker at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, Rafferty said.

Following that test, the Army will put the seeker inside a surrogate system to begin to refine its performance in a high-speed missile, in order to reduce the risk for integration into PrSM.
“It won’t fly as fast or as high or as far [as PrSM] but it’s the beginning of introducing it to that violent flight environment with the thermal challenges associated with high speed,” Rafferty said. “We’re not going to have the PrSM missiles yet to put the seeker into, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have to continue to develop the seeker and be ready when the resources are there.”

 

[sferrin]

"While the Army won’t be moving faster to integrate the seeker"

Typical.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Army Contracting Command-Redstone anticipates awarding a contract for PrSM EMD and EOC production quantities on an other than full and open competitive basis under the authority of Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C) 2034(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) -- Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.



The applicable NAICS code for this requirement is 336414 with a Small Business Size Standard of 1,250 employees. The Product Service Code is J014.



The proposed contract action is a 48 month effort for the final development and production of up to 30 PrSM Missiles. There will potentially be a subsequent contract action for production of 110, 185, and 295 PrSM Missiles. This contract action will serve to replace the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and rematch/overmatch the United States Army’s adversaries’ long distance missile capabilities with a range of up to 499km. The required deep fires capability is for a 24/7/365 Surface-to-Surface precision attack missile capable of servicing high-value, well defended targets.



The Baseline Missile will provide an initial capability while enabling an architecture that facilitates future growth. The PrSM Baseline Missile provides responsive engagement of high value point and area targets by Army and Joint Force Commanders under all weather conditions, at operational ranges defended by enemy air-defense systems.



PrSM will replace and expand upon the capabilities of ATACMS with major improvements in range, effectiveness, and volume- of-fire, while meeting insensitive and cluster munition policy requirements and incorporating M-Code Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance.





The proposed acquisition is limited to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control

(LMMFC), 1701 W Marshall Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75051; CAGE Code 64059.

LMMFC is the only source with the knowledge, experience, technical expertise, and infrastructure necessary to meet the PrSM requirements. The U.S. Government does not possess sufficient technical documentation and data rights required for another contractor to conduct EMD and produce the early PrSM production missiles. Previous competitive phases of the PrSM program have not produced a viable second source capability.

SAM.gov

beta.sam.gov

 

[bring_it_on]

U.S. Army Seeks Unmanned Launchers, Submunitions For PRSM | Aviation Week Network

The requests for enhanced white papers show the U.S. Army’s plans for the next iteration of a portfolio of Long Range Precision Fires programs, which includes the Precision Strike Missile and the Mid-Range Missile Capability.

aviationweek.com

 

[bring_it_on]

Army Has Second Successful Test Of New Multi-Mode Seeker, Planning Max-Range PrSM Test Shot This Fall - Defense Daily

The Army has conducted a second successful captive-carry test of its multi-mode seeker for the future Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), and is preparing

www.defensedaily.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

With regards as to APKWS, via the SNAFU blog:

View: https://youtu.be/P6X8fT5IfFM

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9D9qbAfELs

 

[bring_it_on]

Iron Dome plans being finalized as US Army begins training on systems

Options for an Iron Dome deployment are fleshing out as the Army begins a year of qualifying its two systems and training units to operate them.

www.defensenews.com

 

[bring_it_on]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1375413028410294275

View: https://twitter.com/lmnews/status/1375413028410294275

 

[bring_it_on]

Ahead of the Game: Sentinel A4 Radar Will Detect More Types of Threats, Sooner for U.S. Army Soldiers​

As of February, the Sentinel A4 program successfully completed several functional and design reviews ahead of traditional program schedules:

• Systems Requirement Review
• Systems Functional Review
• Preliminary Design Review
• Manufacturing Readiness Assessment – MRL Level 7
• Critical Design Review

 

[Grey Havoc]

Army approves rapid development of Tactical Space Layer

The Army continues to make progress in utilizing satellite imagery for beyond-line-of-sight targeting.

www.c4isrnet.com

Less to the announcement though than it first would seem.

That does not mean that the Army is planning to build and launch its own satellite constellation, Nelson clarified. Instead, document will guide the Army’s efforts to use existing or future commercial constellations, as well as satellites owned by the other services and the intelligence community, and to integrate them with Army platforms and systems.

The APNT/Space CFT worked with a number of other Army organizations to develop the capability document, including the Long-Range Precision Fires CFT; Army Space and Missile Defense Command; the Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors; the Project Manager for Positioning, Navigation and Timing; the Intelligence Center of Excellence; the Fires Center of Excellence; and the Army G-2.

 

[Grey Havoc]

US Army tackles enduring system to counter both drone and cruise missile threats

The Army is in the midst of a shoot-off to evaluate capabilities to defend against cruise missile and drones threats.

www.defensenews.com

 

[jsport]

US Army tackles enduring system to counter both drone and cruise missile threats

The Army is in the midst of a shoot-off to evaluate capabilities to defend against cruise missile and drones threats.

www.defensenews.com

IMHO the Army is nowhere near even conceiving an answer to large numbers of dispersed mobile swarm UAV launcher trucks. Mobile DEWs cant be everywhere and will be avoided and thus largely negated. It is still 3k a DEw shot as well. Even Coyote is not an answer as it is "Model A tech" UAV. No DoD funded research, no quality answer. COTS gets u garbage. Expensive exquisite missiles gets you broke and short on shots,

 

[bring_it_on]

This program is particularly focused on countering Cruise missiles, and rockets for non maneuver applications. IFPC with the Tamir interceptor with subsequent interceptor growth does well there without requiring years and billions (which the Army does not have) of development cost. For other lower end threats, the Army has committed to a layered system so we are unlikely to get just one exquisite turnkey air-defense system that handles it all from Class1 UAS's through the larger drones and loitering munitions. It is going to entail a combination of soft and hard kill measures.

US Army tackles enduring system to counter both drone and cruise missile threats

The Army is in the midst of a shoot-off to evaluate capabilities to defend against cruise missile and drones threats.

www.defensenews.com

No DoD funded research, no quality answer.

There is DOD funded research on C-sUAS systems including a number of Army and Air-Force initiatives. If you expand the horizon, there are interceptors that will likely sit on top of the smaller systems like the Coyote (which continues to evolve). The Stinger replacement comes to mind but there are other low cost interceptor tech efforts in the Army S&T budget.

U.S. Army Opens 5-Year Search For Stinger Missile Replacement | Aviation Week Network

The sources sought notice asked interested companies to supply a wide range of information, such as a rough order of magnitude estimate for the cost and schedule of developing and delivering up 8,000 missiles.

aviationweek.com

 

[jsport]

C-sUAS requires an offensive/defense capability which Coyote (LSI government capture in the first place) inherently can not evolve to or it no longer would be a Coyote.. Model A trash...Not worth arguing. Stinger, again, is an expensive missile. Close in APS hard/soft efforts are great as is needed for other purposes, however, w/o an offensive capability against the launch trucks APSs are easily overwhelmed. APSs, and Suicide drones are short sighted. Therefore the statement stands.

 

[bring_it_on]

Which adversary loitering munition capable of surviving soft kill, jamming and/or HPM is more expensive than a Stinger currently? What is its launch platform, and how is it targeting vital US military infrastructure?

 

[jsport]

Which adversary loitering munition capable of surviving soft kill, jamming and/or HPM is more expensive than a Stinger currently? What is its launch platform, and how is it targeting vital US military infrastructure?

HPM is not on most vehicles and therefore detected by a close swarm and avoided.. One of the basics of swarms is an acceptance of losses even to individual APSs. Flying IEDs are cheaper than ATGM, and AT rds.thus potentially more numerous..thus the term overwhelmed...



We are talking about tactical operational and strategic assets and formations being protected from a proliferation of increasingly long range (cheap enough to swarm) armed UASs lunched from mobile launchers posted on this forum not this thread. Not sure what is meant by-- What is its launch platform, and how is it targeting vital US military infrastructure?

 

[bring_it_on]

Which swarming weapons are capable of detecting and avoiding HPM's. Some specific systems would be nice to look at, as well as their cost for comparison.

 

[jsport]

Which swarming weapons are capable of detecting and avoiding HPM's. Some specific systems would be nice to look at, as well as their cost for comparison.

We are playing games here.

Any cheap UAV swarm single bird can smoke out a low density asset ie, Laser DEW, SHORAD, Coyote carrier for its follow on Flying IED buddies to attack every other unprotected Battlefield Operating System (BOS) even those w/ APS.

 

[jsport]

As someone else wrote in the defense press. Folks will find, just like WWI, the the best means to stop swarming UAVs (in WWI fixed wing craft) is w/ offensive defensive swarming UAVs of your own. C-sUAS is not best accomplished w. disposable suicide drones, one shot wonders which leave the battlefield streun w unexploded munitions, but non attritable air superiority, w/ ground atk UAS.

 

[bring_it_on]

I don’t think we’re playing games. You claimed that swarming systems can sense and avoid HPM. I want to know which ones, how much do they cost and how they are delivered.

 

[jsport]

This is a game we just finished.

 

[jsport]

Systems which are getting development money need to plan for the future, U r Mr gottcha.. I aint playin

 

[bobbymike]

Army: Proposals For Cruise Missile Killer Due June 4 - Breaking Defense

In August, the Army will pick a single vendor to build the Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC), focused on countering cruise missiles and larger drones. Later upgrades will add lasers and counter-rocket capability.

breakingdefense.com

 

[shin_getter]

Which swarming weapons are capable of detecting and avoiding HPM's. Some specific systems would be nice to look at, as well as their cost for comparison.

We are playing games here.

Any cheap UAV swarm single bird can smoke out a low density asset ie, Laser DEW, SHORAD, Coyote carrier for its follow on Flying IED buddies to attack every other unprotected Battlefield Operating System (BOS) even those w/ APS.

Low density asset stop being low density when you mass them!

I see the possible tactical situations as follows:
1. Area with good top cover (tunnels, cities, some forests): ideal defensive terrain to hide your drone/missile/artillery launchers. Use concealment plus active defense to slow down the opponent.
2. Area with bad cover:
2.1 One conduct offensive by massing all available AA hard/softkill and air cover in one dense mutually supporting formation and just defeat defender's attack by shooting them all down, while shooting back with artillery/missile/air as opponents reveal their positions by opening up.
2.2 If mass is unavailable, have screening force of stealthy but ultimately very cheap and disposable items if defender defeating mass could not be produced. Really cheap stuff like unattended ground sensors, drones that land, and very cheap UGVs.

Moving serious assets out of AD bubble is a dumb thing in the days of airland battle, it is dumber now.

Also, low cost drone swarms are easy targets to flying DEW and micromunitions (including gunfire) Some fighter with HPM or laser pod, the gunslinger missile or gun pods on low cost UAV can be the first line while ground systems are more last ditch. The only thing is that it is the airforce that gets those toys. The power of aerial DEW may mean most of the tactical aircraft would gets assigned this job against really large swarms, while the attack is done by ground artillery/rockets.

 

[aonestudio]

Abandoned Multi-Mission Launcher, AIM-9X Sidewinder pairing revived for US Army air defence competition

US Army officials are preparing to evaluate at least two mobile, ground-based weapon systems to defeat aerial threats, but the service has found faults with both in the...

www.janes.com

 

[aonestudio]

U.S. Army could get up to 400 launchers of the new air defense system

The U.S. Army is seeking proposals for new, innovative solutions to address the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) requirements to develop a new air defense system, the U.S. government’s main contracting website announced May 28. The U.S. Army Contracting Command –...

defence-blog.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Not nearly enough even under ideal circumstances.