Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

The Indirect Fire Protection Capability has several components. The Enduring IFPC (Increment 2) system is the kinetic interceptor portion of it and the most mature with 1-51 already beginning to take possession of its first systems. The IFPC-HEL, and IFPC-HPM are the Directed Energy portions with the HPM systems delivered to first platoon and HEL systems expected next year, Those both should be ready (if sucessfull) to transition to programs of record and production sometime in the 2027-2029 timeframe. MDAC is the latest element within IFPC but also its least mature so a lot will depend on what they develop and how it performs when they put the initial operational prototyping systems through their paces. You can expect it to be a couple of years behind the DE systems so probably a 2030 program transition if it shows promise. With US DOD's funding for Israeli Iron Beam funding outpacing US Army's IFPC-HEL and Navy HELIOS funding, I suspect at some point, Congress may wish to introduce the 100kW class Iron Beam to the IFPC mix as well.
 
Last edited:
The IFPC HEL is as yet not a Program of Record, the CRS reports FY2025 budget request shows a reduction of $327 million from FY2024 budget plan to only $31.6 million for RDT&E and no procurement funding plan due to Army 'changing priorities', whereas Enduring Shield shows procurement of 44 systems for $658 million for the first installation in 2027 for Guam, so would think it very unlikely that even if HEL does go ahead it will be years before operational, we have seen the time DE M-SHORAD prototypes in development since 2019 and as yet no indication if it will be procured whereas M-SHORAD was fully operational in 2021 after 2018 contract award with 162 funded and talk of 312 or even 361 in total.

PS Re IFPC-HPM do you have any indication of range, understand very short e.g. one mile?
 
Cordy said:
The IFPC HEL is as yet not a Program of Record
Click to expand...
Did I indicate that it was? I wrote:
IFPC-HEL, and IFPC-HPM are the Directed Energy portions with the HPM systems delivered to first platoon and HEL systems expected next year..Those both should be ready (if successful) to transition to programs of record and production sometime in the 2027-2029 timeframe.
Click to expand...

That is consistent what the PEO and OEMs are saying and even with what the the Google-fu experts at CRS state in their reports (I think).

If you pay attention to what I wrote, you will see me making the point that since the Army is having to balance priorities and investments thus adversely impacting its IFPC-HEL plans, the Congress has kept steady investments into Iron Beam making it a little more likely to see it through to actual fielding in numbers (it is also less ambitious) which the Congress could then ask the Army to buy. Not too different to how the Army was forced to buy interim Iron Dome.

The rest of the points are comparing very different programs (DE-MSHORAD to MSHORAD and DE-MSHORAD to IFPC-HEL) with challenges, opportunities and technologies that share very little in common.

That MSHORAD was more mature and expected to be fielded in numbers 4-6 years ahead of anything on the DE MSHORAD side of the house is/was not exactly a secret. It was the plan so you are simply stating the obvious there. MSHORAD was integrating mature tech and a missile that has been in the Army inventory for decades. DE-MSHORAD and subsequent efforts (like MSHORAD Inc 3 which is the actual MSHORAD (Inc 1 was originally called IMSHORAD and Inc 4) are simply at a different technology maturity curve and thus require more time to develop, operationally prototype, learn from those efforts and transition to broader acquisition. Sequencing these over the course of a decade is both prudent from "develop and mature the tech" side of the house and also the budgetary stand point.

PS Re IFPC-HPM do you have any indication of range, understand very short e.g. one mile?
Click to expand...

Range depends on type of target, and the number of systems devoted to a particular sector and the actual system being chosen. Leonidas is a very scalable system (ExDECS will field the smaller maneuver oriented array and they've already shown a podded system that can extend the range of ground based systems) and HPM effects can be concentrated and are cumulative. Army's directive currently focuses on the inner-most layer (FPF) of its indirect fires protection capability to be HPM. If it choses to extend that to other layers, solutions will be presented to it by Epirus and others. Air Force will take delivery of Defend soon which has those requirements for air-base protection. That will have longer range and more challenging targets (cruise missiles). Army right now does not have that plan. They have the outermost kinetic layer, a HEL layer inside of that, and HPM as its innermost layer. That can all change as they play around and learn from systems.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your input but would mention that as I'm sure you already know CRS is reporting that the Army has currently budgeted to eliminate IFPC HEL funding in FY2026, which does not appear compatible with what said you said your hearing from PEO and OEM.
 
Cordy said:
Thanks for your input but would mention that as I'm sure you already know CRS is reporting that the Army has currently budgeted to eliminate IFPC HEL funding in FY2026, which does not appear compatible with what said you said your hearing from PEO and OEM.
Click to expand...
On IFPC-HEL, the Army has cut down money on its prototyping effort and has removed production funds planned until it knows how effective the systems are based on the first units experience with the first two systems.

How is that inconsistent with:

Those both should be ready (if successful) to transition to programs of record and production sometime in the 2027-2029 timeframe.
Click to expand...

Until the Army knows what it wants based on hands on experience, it cannot program funds into the FYDP. When it does, it will. It is that simple.

The first platoon has IFPC-HMP in hand and is probably going to deploy at least half of the systems to theater before the end of the year. DE-MSHORAD is deployed already as an operational prototype. All these things will be well tested (by operational prototyping standards) by 2027-2029 which is when some of them may be able to transition to a program. Army has said they will wait till they get some operational prototyping test data before making a decision hence zero'd out funding until that is available possibly adding 1-2 years to each of those efforts (thus 2027-2029). Epirus on its part thinks that they can get into LRIP production by around 2026 if they committ to it asap or around 2027-2028 if they take their time to evaluate the operational prototypes and continue that program for a while longer.

PSA: I am positive the CRS reports don't include anything that can't be obtained from 30 minutes of google but its worth checking in what others might have to say especially those running these programs.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Until the Army knows what it wants based on hands on experience, it cannot program funds into the FYDP. When it does, it will. It is that simple.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that is exactly what he Army did in prior years before this year for FY2025 budget when they cut $4.8 billion from planned future IFPC HEL spending
bring_it_on said:
DE-MSHORAD is deployed already as an operational prototype. All these things will be well tested (by operational prototyping standards) by 2027-2029 which is when some of them may be able to transition to a program.
Click to expand...
Would note the Army did carry out operational tests with the four prototypes earlier this year in the Middle East and was disappointed in the results and its currently an open question if the Army will continue invest more money into the DE M-SHORAD or if they have decided to cut their losses and perhaps why made the decision to fund the hypervelocity HGWS.

bring_it_on said:
PSA: I am positive the CRS reports don't include anything that can't be obtained from 30 minutes of google but its worth checking in what others might have to say especially those running these programs.
Click to expand...
I have more faith in the CRS experienced army specialist writer Andrew Feickert than it appears you do though can understand your view.
 
Cordy said:
My understanding is that is exactly what he Army did in prior years before this year for FY2025 budget when they cut $4.8 billion from planned future IFPC HEL spending
Click to expand...
Which is consistent with the Army saying that they will be evaluating and these upcoming evaluations will determine future resourcing. Which is exactly what I wrote in that if they like what they see IFPC HEL and HPM should move to a PoR around 2027-2029. It is also consistent with what industry has publicly indicated. You can wait till a CRS reporter sources these things and puts it on paper to believe it. That's your choice.

Cordy said:
Would note the Army did carry out operational tests with the four prototypes earlier this year in the Middle East and was disappointed in the results and its currently an open question if the Army will continue invest more money into the DE M-SHORAD or if they have decided to cut their losses and perhaps why made the decision to fund the hypervelocity HGWS.
Click to expand...
Army did not conduct testing in the ME (DEMSHORAD prototypes were put through phases of testing and exercises at Yuma). It conducted an operational deployment of the prototypes there. With very early stage systems and users that lacked mature and well developed manuals, doctrine or experience. Operational prototypes are inherently 60-70% solutions and that experience will lead the Army to its requirements for the PoR transition.

Right now, there are deliberations in the program office on whether 20-30kW is the sweet spot for a mobile system or whether 50kW is the way to go and the Army is prototyping a 20kW (scalable to 30kW) system and integrating on JLTV to further inform these efforts. The 50kW DE requirement could potentially move to a fixed system though as I have written, current experiences will inform this which is exactly why I am putting a 2027-2029 timeframe around it contingent on a whole host of factors including program success, budgets and political decisions.
Cordy said:
I have more faith in the CRS experienced army specialist writer Andrew Feickert than it appears you do though can understand your view.
Click to expand...
Problem isn't your faith in Andrew F. Its not chasing down a primary source and se what they have had to say. Just because CRS hasn't covered it or overlooked it..or didn't bother on covering certain things doesn't mean those things didn't happen or should be ignored or there are not nuances about the program that the CRS fails to capture (for whatever reason).

I would advise that you read what I wrote again and again until it becomes clear that I did in no way indicate that IFPC-HPM and IFPC-HEL were programs of record because you seem to have taken that as something as I said or perhaps you just decided to build a strawman..Either way..they are not PoR. All I said was that the could be in the 2027-29 timeframe based on progress that the program has indicated in its recent public interactions or what industry has communicated. You can go ask the CRS folks to speak to industry or ask the program office and neither would find that assertion remotely controversial. A lot of this will be informed by testing that is occuring and that will occur over the next year and a half.
 
Last edited:

The MDACS part of Army effort for a lower cost anti CM and UAS capability than IFPC DEW​

Senate appropriators scrutinize Army's new-start Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System​

Inside Defense Dan Schere / August 6, 2024

The Senate Appropriations Committee does not believe the Army's new Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System effort should be funded in fiscal year 2025, pointing to what lawmakers believe is a flawed acquisition strategy for that program and the Strategic Capabilities Office's Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System -- a similar program with overlapping capabilities. The Army had included nearly $67 million in research, development, test and evaluation funding for MDACS in FY-25, and last month the Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies office began...
 
breakingdefense.com

Industry lining up to produce new supersonic cruise missile interceptor under Army IFPC program - Breaking Defense

Anduril is looking to compete as a prime contractor and subcontractor, while Boeing eyes plan to form its team.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

www.twz.com

Tiny Jets Masquerading As Cruise Missiles Featured In Michigan Airpower Exercise

Tiny and nimble microjets are playing an important role in mimicking cruise missile and drone threats, including those to the homeland.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

breakingdefense.com

MDA task force to examine new threats, like hybrid air-missile tactics: Chief - Breaking Defense

"Missions are ramming into each other, overlapping each other. The integration challenge is large," Lt. Gen. Heath Collins said. "[S]ilos exist between services, between entities within the services, between MDA."
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Last edited:
Indirect Fire Protection Capability-High Power Microwave system to counter swarm attacks from small unmanned aerial systems, those weighing 55 pounds or less.
Epirus was awarded $66.1 million contract January 2023 for four IFPC-HPM prototypes, now following on from the trials Army awarding Epirus a Gen II contract, Army saying Epirus “is the only responsible source capable of developing and delivering the prototypes within the required schedule,” and that competition “is not practicable and will not meet mission fielding requirement”, initial delivery is planned for the first quarter of FY-26.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/army-issues-sole-source-notice-intent-enhanced-ifpc-hpm-prototype
 
Cordy said:
Indirect Fire Protection Capability-High Power Microwave system to counter swarm attacks from small unmanned aerial systems, those weighing 55 pounds or less.
Epirus was awarded $66.1 million contract January 2023 for four IFPC-HPM prototypes, now following on from the trials Army awarding Epirus a Gen II contract, Army saying Epirus “is the only responsible source capable of developing and delivering the prototypes within the required schedule,” and that competition “is not practicable and will not meet mission fielding requirement”, initial delivery is planned for the first quarter of FY-26.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/army-issues-sole-source-notice-intent-enhanced-ifpc-hpm-prototype
Click to expand...
Hasn't the Army had Epirus compete on other HPM programs? That makes it a lot easier for them to argue/prove that Epirus is a good answer to their sole-source contract without running a competition.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hasn't the Army had Epirus compete on other HPM programs? That makes it a lot easier for them to argue/prove that Epirus is a good answer to their sole-source contract without running a competition.
Click to expand...
Epirus competed for and won the IFPC-HPM prototyping contract. This is an extension of that contract for additional gen-ii prototype systems with several upgrades to include higher performance, C2 integration and a few other things.
 
sferrin said:
Wow. Just...wow. After they've cancelled how many SP howitzer attempts, now they have to buy foreign because of their own ineptness?
Click to expand...
That's a sponsored article presented by Rheinmetall. Crusader, NLOS-C and ERCA were cancelled in the last 25 years. Crusader worked but was killed for cost, NLOS-C died when FCS went down but there wasn't anything wrong with the gun at the time. ERCA, well, the war in Ukraine changed a lot of minds about what an SPG needs to be and ERCA doesn't seem to be it even if they stuck with it long enough to iron out the wrinkles.
 
Moose said:
That's a sponsored article presented by Rheinmetall. Crusader, NLOS-C and ERCA were cancelled in the last 25 years. Crusader worked but was killed for cost, NLOS-C died when FCS went down but there wasn't anything wrong with the gun at the time. ERCA, well, the war in Ukraine changed a lot of minds about what an SPG needs to be and ERCA doesn't seem to be it even if they stuck with it long enough to iron out the wrinkles.
Click to expand...
ERCA's corpse isn't even cold yet. Grab the paddles and give THAT a jolt.
 
sferrin said:
ERCA's corpse isn't even cold yet. Grab the paddles and give THAT a jolt.
Click to expand...
The ERCA corspe is basically The M109 with a nose job...

Very much a FA18 to the F18 there. But the F18 has everything the FA18 does but for a longer gun and an autoloader. Everything else, electrical, comms, drive train, main hull and turret is basically the same.

Issue is that no one can agree on what the gun needs.

Does need to pump out 4 shots in 10 seconds? Does it need 50 miles of range? How long should it last wear wise?
Plus the Ukraine induce question of
Do we need to go from the 30 shots up to 90? Should we shove more armor or less on it? Tracked or Wheeled?
All or none of the above?

Then you have the whole deal with new Shells giving even the 38s range of over 70 kilometers.

The Army wonders hard enough to hurt itself.
 
Firefinder said:
The ERCA corspe is basically The M109 with a nose job...

Very much a FA18 to the F18 there. But the F18 has everything the FA18 does but for a longer gun and an autoloader. Everything else, electrical, comms, drive train, main hull and turret is basically the same.

Issue is that no one can agree on what the gun needs.

Does need to pump out 4 shots in 10 seconds? Does it need 50 miles of range? How long should it last wear wise?
Plus the Ukraine induce question of
Do we need to go from the 30 shots up to 90? Should we shove more armor or less on it? Tracked or Wheeled?
All or none of the above?

Then you have the whole deal with new Shells giving even the 38s range of over 70 kilometers.

The Army wonders hard enough to hurt itself.
Click to expand...
They could start with, "something better than what we got".
 
sferrin said:
ERCA's corpse isn't even cold yet. Grab the paddles and give THAT a jolt.
Click to expand...
ERCA was required to be backwards-compatible with existing ammunition, but copper driving bands cannot take the speed of the ERCA supercharge.

Not sure if I've said it in this thread before, so:

The answer is M109A8 or whatever the next number is, with 52cal barrels installed at the next time the gun tubes get replaced. FFS, gun tubes are a wear item, they get replaced every ~3000 rounds fired.

The Army can literally do this for little to no extra money. Replacing the barrels is already a scheduled thing. Stop making 39cal barrels at Watervliet etc and make 52cal tubes. Take old tubes and melt them down to make into new longer tubes. Including the 39cal tubes in storage, once we get a good number of tubes in reserve.
 
sferrin said:
They could start with, "something better than what we got".
Click to expand...
Issue is what we got is pretty damn good.

Like the M109 has everything BUT the autoloader and Long Barrel that the PZH2000 or K9 does.

Hell it has better fire control system, able to automatically lay the gun off of a counterfire or fist team data digitally.

Like yes the M109 been around since Nam BUT.

The Modern A7 is a complete different beast to the Vietnam Nil or even the A6.
 
Scott Kenny said:
ERCA was required to be backwards-compatible with existing ammunition, but copper driving bands cannot take the speed of the ERCA supercharge.

Not sure if I've said it in this thread before, so:

The answer is M109A8 or whatever the next number is, with 52cal barrels installed at the next time the gun tubes get replaced. FFS, gun tubes are a wear item, they get replaced every ~3000 rounds fired.

The Army can literally do this for little to no extra money. Replacing the barrels is already a scheduled thing. Stop making 39cal barrels at Watervliet etc and make 52cal tubes. Take old tubes and melt them down to make into new longer tubes. Including the 39cal tubes in storage, once we get a good number of tubes in reserve.
Click to expand...
www.thedefensepost.com

Israel Fields ‘World’s First Fully Automatic’ 155mm Howitzer

The Israel Defense Forces has fielded the 155mm Roem/Sigma self-propelled howitzer following a series of tests.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com

According to The Judean, the gun’s European variant will have an even greater firing range of up to 80 kilometers (50 miles).

It features a modified Oshkosh 10×10 military truck chassis, including an armored cabin at the front for blast and mine protection.
Click to expand...

1728399159199.png
 
HyFonic said:
It's entirely possible, but as Scott said, it assumes JAGM doesn't have the same inherent issues as Hellfire, which it very well could.
I think the real big question that needs to be asked is how important is it for the Stout to be able to engage ground targets, and does it need more than a 30mm to do so.

The Moog turret is about as modular as it gets, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue to integrate JAGM if that is the root they go. It's mentioned by name in the turret's brochure after all.
Click to expand...
@Kat Tsun said somewhere that the Hellfire capability was to faciliate a BLOS anti-helicopter/MALE UAV capability to replicate some of the lost potential of FOG-M/SLAMRAAM in an over-reverse slope S2A engagement. Given that only JAGM possess an identical propulsive capability (except the MR) and the MSHORAD Strykers are already getting their second SVULs I'd suggest this change is suggesting at an updated approach to SHORAD, specifically engagement authority which also coincides with the recent hunt for promising energetics.

So:
  • MSHORAD Inc1 will deliver the anti Grp1/2 UAS capability as promised and with an increased magazine.
  • DE MSHORAD for CRAM needs.
  • An emergence of satellite jammers to deal with the more prevalent RPV swarms.
  • Enduring Shield now engage CMs/BMs/larger UAS that operate above the cloud level/near-standoff distance.
  • Or LTAMDS gets all the S2A slow-mover intercept responsibility. Preferably with a depressed launch PAC-2.
 
MSHORAD is really optimized after Group 2 and 3 capability in addition to FW/RW capability. Army's Group 1/2 defeat optimized platforms for CsUAS mission is the LIDS/MLIDS which has a Stryker variant in the works. Eventually, MSHORAD will begin blending these capabilities to allow mission configuration.

DEMSHORAD is likely to split the CRAM role and focus on Counter UAS (Group 1 -3 ) defeat.

Enduring Shield has no BM defeat requirements. It has a counter large caliber rocket requirement for block 2 and beyond.

There are no new PAC-2's in the Army's future.
 
Seems like the initial Army test vehicles will be based on an M109 chassis rather than the air-mobile vehicle envisioned by USAF. Not too surprising since the gun and the radar are the priorities.
 
It’s classic RCCTO MO. They’ll field operational prototypes relatively quickly handing off to the PO to walk back some of RCCTO decisions to get to a configuration that is ultimately useful. We’re seeing that initial soldier and COCOM feedback from a few RCCTO systems including Typhon. But upside is that we’re getting this into actual soldier hands as opposed to it dying in the S&T world.
 
That’s just for what’s included in the battery being put on contract. They do that on some other systems as well. They can increase inventory of just rounds separately but these are early days.
 
TomS said:
18 HVP per gun seems a bit anemic. Presumably that is just ready ammo?
Click to expand...
That's a little light even for ready ammo, but that's likely due to not having a running assembly line for ammo yet. Remember that the hand-assembled Excalibur rounds were something absurd like 250k/rd and the next year they were 68k each when the assembly line started.
 
Needs to be considered that thats JUST for the HVPs.

These things also being carrying multiple Standard rounds from the M107 to the XM1155s as well since they also be doing standard flak and arty work.
 
bring_it_on said:
MSHORAD is really optimized after Group 2 and 3 capability in addition to FW/RW capability. Army's Group 1/2 defeat optimized platforms for CsUAS mission is the LIDS/MLIDS which has a Stryker variant in the works. Eventually, MSHORAD will begin blending these capabilities to allow mission configuration.

DEMSHORAD is likely to split the CRAM role and focus on Counter UAS (Group 1 -3 ) defeat.

Enduring Shield has no BM defeat requirements. It has a counter large caliber rocket requirement for block 2 and beyond.

There are no new PAC-2's in the Army's future.
Click to expand...
Yeah I didn't think there was thickness hole
DrRansom said:
I don't like the new tendency of the US Military to "signal to industry" come up with something to fix some very difficult niche capability.

If the US Army wants improved propellent recipes, then they have to fund the basic research to find them. If propellent ISP can't be improved, research and develop alternate missile designs (no fins, lifting body, etc.), that achieve the mission. Or, if you don't have the money, say you'll issue a contract to anyone who shows up with a set of capabilities so private R&D has a guaranteed payoff.

But making speeches about how somebody should do something seems the effective route of all.
Click to expand...
Haven't there been major breakthroughs in rotating detonation-engines? I heard they were applying the tech to more than just GE's/DARPA's 6th Gen Hypersonic turbine based combined dual-mode Ramjet (Scramjet) with Rotating Detonation-engine Combustion...
I heard they (DoD) were going to apply this to essentially all rockets, they were talking like this was going to be the new rocket propulsion technology...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom