Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

Cordy said:
Of course there are no known issues with the new launcher's thermal management system as it has yet to be tested (as far as we know), but until the Army completes its trials we won't know, till then just keeping fingers crossed the revised launcher will pass its tests.
Click to expand...
Yes but that's the same with everything. Like one claiming that the ES launcher has not yet overcome the challenges of having two missiles fired from it etc etc. To bring up past challenges on an unrelated design and point those as something unique to this is pretty stupid. They have yet to begin actual testing on this but launchers are going to be heading there pretty soon including climatic testing etc.
 
Wish they'd come up with something better than Stinger. Bet they could come up with a hell of a short range SAM for 100 lbs.
 
Forest Green said:
Given that the main modern-day purpose of the M-SHORAD is low-rent drones, if the new missile isn't cheaper, is it actually better?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1802109914611118236
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1802109914611118236
Click to expand...
Anti drone work is just part of the mission profile.

Shorad systems have been use to solid success in taking out high performance Cruise Missiles and Helicopters in Ukraine on both sides.

and not to mention that some of those cheapo low rent drones are reaching Hound Dog size and performances so any Stringer replacement is going to be a pretty expensive.

Especially with 30mm, and 50mm guns or Lasers being able to take out the VERY cheap stuff.
 
Firefinder said:
Anti drone work is just part of the mission profile.

Shorad systems have been use to solid success in taking out high performance Cruise Missiles and Helicopters in Ukraine on both sides.

and not to mention that some of those cheapo low rent drones are reaching Hound Dog size and performances so any Stringer replacement is going to be a pretty expensive.

Especially with 30mm, and 50mm guns or Lasers being able to take out the VERY cheap stuff.
Click to expand...
There are cheap drones capable of flying over 1200km at Mach 2 at low altitudes? :confused:

I'd be happy to use an AIM-9X or SLAMRAAM on an attack helicopter or cruise missile, it's a virtuous trade cost-wise. And last I checked Stingers still work fine on helicopters anyway, I guess they're due an update though. Honestly though, fighters carrying AAMs are best for helicopters and cruise missiles, is it that the ground stuff is more for third party theatres?

I agree for drone point defence (guns and lasers), but would add APKWS and Coyote.
 
Forest Green said:
There are cheap drones capable of flying over 1200km at Mach 2 at low altitudes? :confused:

I'd be happy to use an AIM-9X or SLAMRAAM on an attack helicopter or cruise missile, it's a virtuous trade cost-wise. And last I checked Stingers still work fine on helicopters anyway, I guess they're due an update though. Honestly though, fighters carrying AAMs are best for helicopters and cruise missiles, is it that the ground stuff is more for third party theatres?
Click to expand...
I suspect some of it may be for Pacific, where you can't be guaranteed fighter cover for cruise missiles.
 
Forest Green said:
breakingdefense.com

Switching course: Unhappy with options, US Army considers developing new IFPC interceptor - Breaking Defense

“In a perfect world, I'd love to have all second interceptors able to address all threats, that's what we're asking for,” said Brig. Gen. Frank Lozano, describing a potential five-year development effort.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Whats the issue with using AMRAAM sized missile in the current launcher? Wingspan clearance? I like the idea of developing a new missile for this role that's sized right, but any such development will take 4+ years to complete so you need an interim solution.

If the issue is just wingspan clearance they could look at making a version of the AIM-120 with folding fins, or make a new launcher tube that replaces existing launcher tubes. Maybe it even takes the space of 2-4 current tubes and allows multiple missiles per tube. Sure you take a hit to magazine depth, but you get your capability much quicker.

Or just buy some darn NASAMs, there's a use for them. After 6-10 years and you decide you don't want them anymore you can donate them to Taiwan or anywhere else. Or upgrade the NASAMs to use AIM-260s for another defensive layer.
 
Shoes31 said:
Whats the issue with using AMRAAM sized missile in the current launcher? Wingspan clearance? I like the idea of developing a new missile for this role that's sized right, but any such development will take 4+ years to complete so you need an interim solution.

If the issue is just wingspan clearance they could look at making a version of the AIM-120 with folding fins, or make a new launcher tube that replaces existing launcher tubes. Maybe it even takes the space of 2-4 current tubes and allows multiple missiles per tube. Sure you take a hit to magazine depth, but you get your capability much quicker.

Or just buy some darn NASAMs, there's a use for them. After 6-10 years and you decide you don't want them anymore you can donate them to Taiwan or anywhere else. Or upgrade the NASAMs to use AIM-260s for another defensive layer.
Click to expand...
IIRC, magazine depth is one of the key items in the system.

AMRAAMs have a 19" wingspan, while AIM9Xs appear to have an 11" wingspan. So you'd basically trade 4x AIM9s for 1x AMRAAM.
 
Shoes31 said:
Whats the issue with using AMRAAM sized missile in the current launcher? Wingspan clearance? I like the idea of developing a new missile for this role that's sized right, but any such development will take 4+ years to complete so you need an interim solution.
Click to expand...
Magazine size has been an important consideration for the program since its earliest days, through to its purchase of the interim Iron Dome (and not say NASAMS), and during the current enduring shield system development with the Block 1 missile. Not sure what options Raytheon has presented as far as modifying its interceptors like the AIM-120 to meet that need but since they had a RFI to respond to and have a in production franchise, they would have considered it as an option though proving it out against large caliber rockets (a block 2 threat set) would probably take some work and push them to the development side rather than a minor mod. The Army program seems to be hinting that what industry presented as off the shelf (or near off the shelf) solutions were not all that great..In addition to whatever RTX or LM may have presented we know that a modified Tamir ("Tamir 2") was also an option on the program.

Shoes31 said:
Or just buy some darn NASAMs, there's a use for them.
Click to expand...
NASAMS is a full fledged air defense system with its own Command and Control and other equipment. Army's IFPC Increment 2 is basically an organically IAMD-BCS compatible launcher and interceptor AUR magazine that utilizes the existing Army C2 system (IBCS) as its command and control and runs on Army's common fire control network leveraging ofshoots of that program (IFCN, RIG-360 uplinker etc). If the Army wanted to buy a complete Air Defense system without the consideration of it fitting in into its composite IAMD battalion (first being fielded in Guam in a couple of years) and acting as an interoperable stand alone layered SHORAD system, it would have just continued buying Iron Dome because it would have gotten them that.

NASAMS makes a lot of sense for the USAF air base defense needs given it utilizes non cannisterized AUR's in USAF inventory with USAF capability to move those rounds across theaters for its own needs. There is scope to buy more NASAMS and meet that interim need through the mid 2020's to the early to mid 2030s to give the Army more time to field a layered IFPC capability. But as is, NASAMS is not a real option to meet the Army's IFPC needs..
 
Did wonder if the Army after finding no off–the-shelf suitable missile for Enduring Shield launcher was looking for a missile similar to the proposed 2019 Raytheon Peregrine with the same reach as an AIM-120D but only half the size at 6 ft long and only 150 lbs, but do wonder of the probability of the Army obtaining the necessary $$$ in development funding.
 
Peregrine is basically RTX's version of the HALFRAAM where LM already had shown up in that space with CUDA. Neither of those have claimed any capability to defeat rockets and both were intended to solve the problem of air force aircraft magazine sizes (IWB). Not sure whether the Army would specify HTK but a substantially more capable missile in the Tamir form factor probably would fit the bill. They could look at using composites, HLG or even air-breathers. There is also the AIM-9X Block 3 that Raytheon could revive which would basically add a larger motor to the missile..

I don't think the Army will have any problem obtaining funding for the block 2 program. With IFPC going into LRIP with the first award expected in the coming couple of months, the Army would begin the process of fielding 200+ launchers into its force...those would need a new missile as the 9X does not serve the entire program threat set.
 
Shoes31 said:
Or just buy some darn NASAMs,
Click to expand...

We have, just very quietly. There are a couple of NASAMS batteries around Washington, DC.

I suspect hands-on experience with those is why we haven't bought more.
 
I don't think it's negative experience so much as having different GBAD priorities. THAAD, Patriot and related programs suck up a lot of resources and then there's a jump down to focus on highly mobile systems, there's only so much funding even in the US. Ukraine likes NASAMs a lot but if you asked them to choose between it and Patriot I bet I know which they'd pick. AMRAAM-ER and a return of more mobile launchers might make it more appealing going forward.
 
TomS said:
I suspect hands-on experience with those is why we haven't bought more.
Click to expand...
It does not meet the Army needs for several reasons including a big one in that the Army wants launchers and missile magazines..and not a full fledged AD system with its own C2, own equipment etc. If the Army wanted a turnkey full fledged ADS it would have kept buying Iron Dome which has a magazine size (and cost) that's closer to what Army desires. They stopped doing that as the threat changed towards cruise missiles warranting something different and one that could fully integrate into AIAMD and enable composite formations.

Should the Army look to integrate NASAMS style launcher into IFPC for US Air Force base defense needs? That would make a lot of sense since the AF has active missile programs and inventories. But that's literally the only requirement for which adapting elements of NASAMS might be useful to the US DOD.
 
bring_it_on said:
It does not meet the Army needs for several reasons including a big one in that the Army wants launchers and missile magazines..and not a full fledged AD system with its own C2, own equipment etc. If the Army wanted a turnkey full fledged ADS it would have kept buying Iron Dome which has a magazine size (and cost) that's closer to what Army desires. They stopped doing that as the threat changed towards cruise missiles warranting something different and one that could fully integrate into AIAMD and enable composite formations.

Should the Army look to integrate NASAMS style launcher into IFPC for US Air Force base defense needs? That would make a lot of sense since the AF has active missile programs and inventories. But that's literally the only requirement for which adapting elements of NASAMS might be useful to the US DOD.
Click to expand...
I thought they already demonstrated NASAMS and IFPC integration?
 
Shoes31 said:
I thought they already demonstrated NASAMS and IFPC integration?
Click to expand...
IFPC is an effort that's developing a launcher that organically integrates with Army IAMD (BCS). That is, IBCS is the C2 and commands the IFPC launcher (Enduring Shield) and magazine. NASAMS is an air defense system utilizing proprietary launcher, Kongsberg FDC, and other elements. Whether its LTAMDS, IFPC-Inc 2 (ES), or Sentinel A4, the Army is no longer pursuing systems that require or are required to integrate with legacy or proprietary C2 syastems. All these elements work with IBCS (so much so that the Army did not even require LTAMDS to be backwards compatible with legacy PATRIOT (though RTX is developing that internally for export) ).

I'm sure there would have been attempts to tie NASAMS into Army networks so that it plays well with Army systems. But its a fundamentally different approach to what the Army is doing in just buying or developing individual elements (radars, launchers or effectors) and integrating it directly on its own C2 and fire control network allowing composite battalions to be created (like the Guam ADS battalion).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom