Inside Defense "Army pours another $2 billion into IBCS; development cost 215% above original estimate
By Jason Sherman / September 26, 2022"

The Army committed an additional $1.6 billion in research and development funding to rectify the Integrated Air and Missile Defense program -- including the IAMD Battle Command Systems (IBCS) -- raising total start-up funding for the project to $5.1 billion, more than three times the original 2009 promise of $1.6 billion. The increase is part of a nearly $2 billion hike in the total cost of the IAMD program, pushing the total estimated acquisition cost from $7.9 billion to $9.8..

"including the IAMD Battle Command Systems (IBCS)" anyone know what else included in IAMD program other than the IBCS
 
IAMD capabilities includes the engagement operations centers, integrated fire control network, the integrated fire control relay hardware, plug and fight kits for sensors, RIG-360 etc etc and the battle command system software (I-BCS) that ties all of these to themselves and to third party hardware. The entire system should go through the Full rate production decision sometime in the next 4-6 months. Last year's production contract covers the first 160 systems for the Army and Poland.
 
IAMD capabilities includes the engagement operations centers, integrated fire control network, the integrated fire control relay hardware, plug and fight kits for sensors, RIG-360 etc etc and the battle command system software (I-BCS) that ties all of these to themselves and to third party hardware. The entire system should go through the Full rate production decision sometime in the next 4-6 months. Last year's production contract covers the first 160 systems for the Army and Poland.

Need to correct myself here. Turns out that earlier this year, the Army has separated the RIG-360 effort from AIAMD. It is now its own program and is moving forward. The Army also recently revealed that it expects AIAMD IOC in April 2023.
 
Last edited:
They are currently projecting a 3-month delay to fielding the first four radars. Given the development and complexity, and challenges with SC and COVID impact, that's not all that bad (if they can meet the Dec 2023 deadline). It works out in the end given that there's been a 3-4 month delay in IBCS IOT&E completion which (IBCS IOC and fielding with 3-43) is a prerequisite to fielding LTAMDS.
 

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/43352...intercepts-target-missile-defense-flight-test


The mystery RIG-360 device was used in this recent IBCS test, unshackling PAC-3 from MPQ-65/TPY-2 for uplink comms.
 
" The service is close to approving full-rate production for IBCS after years of delay'. The Army’s LTAMDS has also struggled through development and has seen several schedule slips. Raytheon Technologies ran into problems building its first prototypes designed to replace the Patriot air defense radars. The LTAMDS program had to adjust the schedule based on system integration challenges and supply chain issues caused by the coronavirus pandemic. As of last fall, the service was still aiming to deliver four of them by the end of 2023. "

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/def...o-defend-guam-from-newer-threats-due-in-2024/
 
The Army last week executed a live-fire test of the Patriot air defense system -- pitting a developmental PAC-3 software upgrade to address more advanced threats -- against a medium range ballistic missile target at a test site in the Western Pacific.

 
The Air Force will spend its FY-2024 RDT&E money on integrated its TPY-4 radar with the Army's Integrated Fire Control network (IFCN) and the Navy/MCs CEC/CTC. The service has also included 3 TPY-4's as part of its FY-2024 LRIP buy request to build upon the six radars it included to begin the program (FY22 and 23 buys). So far we have or plan to have LTAMDS, Sentinel A-4, SPY-7 (Guam), TPS-80 and now TPY-4 all capable of operating on the Army's IFCN and with IBCS. By the end of the decade this will include the TPY-2 as well. That's a very diverse list of next generation sensors and capabilities which is quite unique in the field of command and control systems when it comes to ground air defense systems.

FY2024 funding will support continued capability development for the 3DELRR system. Development of the system will consist of electronic protection (EP) techniques, classification and clutter algorithms, and enhanced radar capabilities across various operating environments. FY2024 funds will support integration of the 3DELRR system with the United States Army using the Integrated Fire Control Network (IFCN) interface and the United States Navy & Marine Corps using the Cooperative Engagement Capability/Composite Tacker Network (CEC/CTC) interfaces
 

Attachments

  • TPY-4.jpg
    TPY-4.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 72

FWIW re TPY-4 radar, AESA software defined GaN L-band, stare range 1000 km /540 nm, transportable via c-130.
Northern Command FY2024 unfunded priority for nine, presuming not to use with Patriot missiles?
NORAD chief seeks 3DELRR radars to fill homeland defense 'surveillance gaps' in FY-24 wish list
By Jason Sherman / March 22, 2023 at 1:24 PM

The head of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace and Defense Command has identified a $211.5 million project not funded in the Pentagon's fiscal year 2024 budget request that would buy nine Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long Range Radars to monitor domestic airspace if Congress were to provide additional funding. Gen. Glen VanHerck, the dual-hatted commander of U.S. NORTHCOM and bi-national NORAD, has identified the 3DELRR acquisition as a main project in a larger $376 million collection of FY-24 unfunded priorities...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...and-defense-surveillance-gaps-fy-24-wish-list
 
That's a very diverse list of next generation sensors and capabilities which is quite unique in the field of command and control systems when it comes to ground air defense systems.
I forgot to mention that in addition to these sensors, IBCS/IFCN will also integrate with multiple launchers and fire units. PATRIOT for starters, but ultimately Enduring Shield, THAAD and the CAMM launcher as well.

 
That's a very diverse list of next generation sensors and capabilities which is quite unique in the field of command and control systems when it comes to ground air defense systems.
I forgot to mention that in addition to these sensors, IBCS/IFCN will also integrate with multiple launchers and fire units. PATRIOT for starters, but ultimately Enduring Shield, THAAD and the CAMM launcher as well.

What is "Enduring Shield"?
 
What is "Enduring Shield"?
Thats the IBCS compatible multi-mission launcher developed for the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Inc. 2. Priority set 1 is being developed with the launcher and AIM-9X Blk II missiles to target UAVs and subsonic cruise missiles. Priority set 2 is going to be competitively acquired and will add defeat of large caliber rockets and supersonic CMs. This is envisioned as a multi mission system capable of launching everything down to a stinger/JAGM like weapon and all the way up to AMRAAM ER class systems to provide lower tier counter rocket, CM, and UAV capability.

 
What is "Enduring Shield"?
Thats the IBCS compatible multi-mission launcher developed for the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Inc. 2. Priority set 1 is being developed with the launcher and AIM-9X Blk II missiles to target UAVs and subsonic cruise missiles. Priority set 2 is going to be competitively acquired and will add defeat of large caliber rockets and supersonic CMs. This is envisioned as a multi mission system capable of launching everything down to a stinger/JAGM like weapon and all the way up to AMRAAM ER class systems to provide lower tier counter rocket, CM, and UAV capability.


Ah, ok. Didn't the Army build a mobile launcher for the same? Something like MML? Is that still something that will see service? A palletized solution is very relocatable, but it seems to me you would also want something that could be attached to a maneuver force.
 
Initially single, but ability to go twin pack. sounds as if they would want the Army to accept the twin pack mods, rather than have two variants in production.

It’s about 2/3rds of the way into the article linked to in the tweet.
I think they need to go for slightly bigger VLS cells.
 
Didn't the Army build a mobile launcher for the same? Something like MML? Is that still something that will see service? A palletized solution is very relocatable, but it seems to me you would also want something that could be attached to a maneuver force.

MML failed due to limitations around how it was reloaded and overheating of interceptors. It evolved into the current launcher. IFPC is for fixed/semi-fixed site defense. Army presently does not have an analog of it for the MSHORAD program though has in the past looked at longer ranged Stryker based air defense solutions than the current Stinger/Stinger replacement variants of MSHORAD.
 
A U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command Technical Center team once again successfully used a low-cost, unguided target to improve America’s missile defense forces.

The Economical Target-2, or ET-2, is a ballistic missile target designed to fly a ballistic flight path and demonstrate defensive protection capability, launched from White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, April 26. The purpose of the flight was to serve as a search track for the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor, or LTAMDS, radar.

“My experience leading up to the launch was exciting,” said Anne E. Wolf, ET-2 test director, Targets Test Directorate, USASMDC Technical Center, where she coordinated between the range and the launch team. “This was my first time in the role of test director. It was a great learning experience and a lot of fun. With all tests, there are unexpected hurdles. Our team overcame everything that came our way and had a successful mission. It is amazing to get to work with people like our government and contractor teams.

“I am proud of this team and all the hard work they have put in this target,” she added. “With every launch, we have lessons learned. It’s been great to see our team get better with each new mission.”

Like SMDC’s Zombie missile targets, the ET-2s repurpose demilitarized Army motors and gives them life as targets. Although they do not have the accuracy of the guided Zombie targets, the command can provide this target at a fraction of the cost for situations where the target accuracy is a lower priority.

The ET-2 target was developed as a follow-on from the ET-1 target program. The ET-1 targets group started development in 2010 and flew a risk reduction flight in February 2012. The ET-2 program started development early in 2020 and is an upgraded version of the ET-1 target with a longer range motor.

Olivia Miller, ET-2 pad chief from the Targets Test Directorate in the SMDC Tech Center, said the Army continually needs low-cost targets for missile tests and ET-2 targets help the Army with modernization by allowing for more frequent testing to occur within budget constraints. As new, improved missile defense technology is developed, flight tests are needed to demonstrate capabilities and increase efficiency of fielded technology.

“I would say that our mission was successful on multiple accounts,” Miller said. “We tracked down and eradicated issues that arose in our February mission, leading to a much smoother countdown. Despite increased winds on launch day, our trajectory remained within range safety parameters, allowing us to launch as planned. Most importantly, our customer was able to successfully track ET-2.”

In her role as pad chief, Miller remotely elevated and rotated the target launcher to nominal launch settings, as well as make adjustments throughout the count based on updated wind data.

Miller said ET-2 provides customers with a low cost target with which they can test, mature, and validate their systems and software. The ET-2 mission is important because every successful launch allows our customers to further prepare their system for deployment.

“Being a part of the target launch team is exciting because every launch is different,” Miller said. “I’ve learned that even if we are launching the same target every time, something unexpected will inevitably happen during countdown. We have to react and adjust to these situations in order to give ourselves every opportunity to launch. After overcoming those obstacles as a team, seeing the target leave the rail is that much more rewarding.”

 
Too long for Mk-72.

That's what I suspected however it would be interesting to see what improvement to the PAC-3's kinematic performance in a field test or two at White Sands would be.
 
Mating the MSE to a Stunner booster will likely keep it VLS compatible. That said, with the Army's future lower tier interceptor entering production later this decade, that is probably a better missile system to integrate a tri-band data-link on and share between IAMD, and AEGIS.
 

Attachments

  • m02012061300071.jpeg
    m02012061300071.jpeg
    140.8 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
Mating the MSE to a Stunner booster will likely keep it VLS compatible. That said, with the Army's future lower tier interceptor entering production later this decade, that is probably a better missile system to integrate a tri-band data-link on and share between IAMD, and AEGIS.
Any details on that? Is it supposed to be better than PAC-3 MSE?
 
Mating the MSE to a Stunner booster will likely keep it VLS compatible. That said, with the Army's future lower tier interceptor entering production later this decade, that is probably a better missile system to integrate a tri-band data-link on and share between IAMD, and AEGIS.
Any details on that? Is it supposed to be better than PAC-3 MSE?
Yes. Details are few but the overall Army description is that it needs to fly farther, higher and faster than the current PATRIOT missile capability to defeat more stressing ballistic missile threats. Probably includes some limited capability against glide vehicles as well. If you look at where we currently are, the MSE missile's kinematic capability exceeds the current PATRIOT radar..with LTAMDS coming online in a couple of years, the MSE capability will be maximized. Through the Lower Tier Future Interceptor (LTFI), the Army will likely look for an interceptor that can utilize the full envelope of the new AESA radar.
 
Mk 114 is at least as long as Mk 72, maybe longer.

In regards to the Mk-114 booster do you know how long it is and how much it weighs? The only things I've been able to find out about it are its' diameter (14.1") and performance (11,000Lb thrust for 5 seconds).
 
It was recently pointed out to me on Twitter that we've actually sent IBCS equipment / EOCs etc over to Ukraine as part of the PATRIOT package. This means that that's how Ukraine's PATRIOT and sentinel radars will likely be networked for expanded coverage. Also a great opportunity for real time operator feedback.
 
It was recently pointed out to me on Twitter that we've actually sent IBCS equipment / EOCs etc over to Ukraine as part of the PATRIOT package. This means that that's how Ukraine's PATRIOT and sentinel radars will likely be networked for expanded coverage. Also a great opportunity for real time operator feedback.
That's surprising...I would have thought exposing such a modern data network would be more of a war reserve item. But perhaps the real combat experience was too good to pass up.
 
They're not having problems with the radar itself, at least not that have been reported to date, and TPY-4 is less mobile than LTAMDS. I think they're still having trouble getting the smaller "secondary" arrays, which give each trailer 360 degree coverage, integrated in a satisfactory way. I imagine the worst-case for this system is to delete those, or place them on a secondary trailer, and work around the problems that creates.
 
They're not having problems with the radar itself, at least not that have been reported to date, and TPY-4 is less mobile than LTAMDS. I think they're still having trouble getting the smaller "secondary" arrays, which give each trailer 360 degree coverage, integrated in a satisfactory way. I imagine the worst-case for this system is to delete those, or place them on a secondary trailer, and work around the problems that creates.
Wouldn't that kinda defeat the purpose of a new radar? I thought the 360 degree coverage was one of the main reasons for it?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom