Patriot SAM replacement

[bring_it_on]

I guess now the Army can move quicker now that these two radars will likely share common technologies. Hope Raytheon shares an image of their demonstrator radar..

 

[bring_it_on]

Northrop Grumman confirms it did not bid in 3DELRR recompete

Raytheon and Lockheed both bid in the second round, but Northrop confirmed to Inside the Air Force May 18 it did not. The company declined to comment on its reason for not competing. Lockheed told ITAF it did bid and is still evaluating whether it will protest the new award to Raytheon.

Without an explanation from Northrop, it's unclear why the company chose not to bid on the effort. However, a primary reason for its initial protest was the service's failure to communicate consistent instruction around whether bidders could include future IRAD investments in their cost proposals. When preparing bids for the first competition, both Raytheon and Northrop asked the service if they could consider future IRAD in their proposals. When the service denied the request, Northrop accepted it and Raytheon inquired further. The service ultimately changed its stance, but did not communicate that change to Northrop.

The Air Force did not provide more information about how its second RFP addressed IRAD investment by press time (May 18).

The Air Force's 3DELRR deputy program manager, Lt. Col. Michael Alexander, said in a May 17 email the recompete delayed the program 31 months and pushed initial operational capability to 2023 and full operational capability to 2029. To mitigate the impact of the delay, the Air Force amended the second solicitation to include full-rate production options "in order to maximize benefits of a competitive environment and set the table for faster fielding of capability after government testing," according to a May 11 press release.

 

[bring_it_on]

A Modified Stunner/Sky-Ceptor?

FY18 - Advanced Missile Demo - Low-cost Extended Range Air Defense

Description: This effort matures key technologies of a lower-cost interceptor system with a low- to medium-altitude, medium-to long-range capability. This effort will enable lower cost interceptor integration into a net-enabled Air and Missile Defense Task Force for the protection of high value assets. Technologies will address the defeat of air defense threats such as UAS and Cruise Missile threats with secondary capabilities against Large Caliber Rockets (LCR), Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM), and Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (TASMS).

FY 2016 Accomplishments:
Completed design and began static testing of solid rocket motor; completed target generator for hardware-in-the-loop calibration and testing of active radar seeker, guidance electronics, and control system; completed wind tunnel testing and aerodynamic analysis of interceptor.

FY 2017 Plans:
Continue component development and maturation for low-cost air defense interceptor system; complete static testing and evaluation of solid rocket motor design; continue development of secure digital data link, flight termination system, and control actuation system; complete development, fabrication, and integration of guidance electronics unit (GEU); and begin subsystem test and evaluation; complete hardware-in-the-loop simulation tools and apparatus required to test interceptor navigation instrumentation, data link components, and control system technologies; and evaluate navigation instruments for eventual flight demonstration testing.

FY 2018 Plans:
Will mature the low-cost air defense interceptor system with integrated solid rocket motor, digital data link, mission computer,
power system, and flight termination system and demonstrate in ballistic flight testing; provide system analysis via hardwarein-the-loop flight simulation of the digital data link, mission computer, power system, navigation system, and control actuation
system.

 

[bring_it_on]

New Raytheon radar showcases reliability, 360-degree capability

PELHAM, N.H., May 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company's (NYSE: RTN) newest integrated air and missile defense radar has been busy since its debut at the 2016 Winter AUSA tradeshow. The gallium nitride-powered Active Electronically Scanned Array proposed upgrade to the Patriot(TM) Air and Missile Defense has surpassed more than 1,000 hours of operation in just over a year, which is half the time of a typical testing program.

"We achieved this milestone so quickly because of our successful experience developing and maturing GaN for programs like the U.S. Navy's Air and Missile Defense Radar," said Doug Burgess, director of AESA programs at Raytheon's Integrated Defense Systems business. "We're ready to take the next step and get this radar into the hands of our customers."

During the course of the 1,000 hours, Raytheon's GaN-based AESA prototype radar routinely demonstrated 360-degree capability by working together with a second GaN-based AESA antenna that was pointed in a different direction. As targets flew out of one array's field of view and into another, the two arrays seamlessly passed information back and forth, tracking the target continuously. The main array also detected and tracked tactically maneuvering fighter jets and thousands of other aircraft.

"Raytheon's GaN technology is backed by 19 years of research and $300 million in investment, while our competitors are either new to the market or primarily build GaN for commercial applications," said Ralph Acaba vice president of Integrated Air and Missile Defense at Raytheon's Integrated Defense Systems business. "When national security is on the line you want highly reliable, proven technology that is certified by the U.S. Department of Defense for use in military radars."

Raytheon's GaN-based AESA radar will work with the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System and other open architectures. It maintains compatibility with the current Patriot Engagement Control Station and full interoperability with NATO systems.

A number of current and expected future Patriot Air and Missile Defense System partner nations in Europe and Asia have expressed interest in acquiring GaN-based AESA.Poland submitted a Letter of Request for GaN-based AESA Patriot on March 31. Raytheon's GaN-based AESA technology also meets Germany's requirements for the German Taktisches Luftverteidigungssystem, or TLVS, tactical air and missile defence system.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Army had awarded Lockheed and others R&D contract under APASS..Not sure if actual test hardware came out (they are still working through it till next year) of it but something that could well be considered for future Patriot (PAC-3) upgrades.

Affordable Active Phased Array Sensor Systems

It is the Government's intent to award a cost plus fixed fee, five year, indefinite delivery indefinite quantity with task orders type contract for the Affordable Phased Array Sensor System (APASS) Program under the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (USA AMRDEC). The AMRDEC seeks innovative technologies to advance capabilities in applied sensors guidance electronics for Radio Frequency (RF) and Millimeter Wave (MMW) technologies. The objective of this development program is to design, fabricate, and demonstrate an affordable, solid-state, form-factored all-weather Active Electronically Steered Array (AESA)-based seeker with the capability to engage ground targets, cruise missile, UAV, and rotary aircraft threats, and to serve as a building block for radar system development that could serve surveillance or fire control functions.The proposed period of performance is from 28 February 2013 through 27 February 2018. Based upon market research, the Government is not utilizing the policies contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12. Authority cited: Statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition for the requirement is 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by paragraphs 6.302-1 of the FAR, entitled, "Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements." This acquisition will be sole source to Lockheed Martin Corporation, 5600 W Sand Lake Rd MP-265, Orlando, FL 32819. Lockheed Martin possesses a unique capability for the specific sensor component design and test requirements involved with this acquisition. Consequently, they are the only source known to the Government at this time that is currently capable of resolving technological problems with sensor system prototypes that may arise during development and testing given their previous successful performance in design, demonstration and development of thermal management techniques. Lockheed Martin is the sole designer and manufacturer of the current prototypes; no other company is known at this time that is capable of performing the unique design, development, integration and test requirements required under this acquisition for phased array sensors of tactical grade quality. Lockheed Martin utilized their own proprietary data/processes to design and develop this emerging technology; therefore, Lockheed Martin is the only source currently capable of providing the specialized design, development, integration and test for continuing development and modifications to this unique and proprietary concept. EXPORT .

IN BRIEF: Lockheed Martin to provide Army with radar sensors for missile guidance

U.S. Army missile experts needed advanced radar missile seekers for air- and ground-based systems across several frequencies. They found their solution from the Lockheed Martin Corp. Missiles and Fire Control segment in Orlando, Fla. The Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., awarded Lockheed Martin an $8.2 million contract for Affordable Phased Array Sensor Systems (APASS) technology for a variety of applications. The APASS Ka-Band Medium Power Development program, sponsored by the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) at Redstone Arsenal, is developing phased-array radar technology for sensors guidance using RF and millimeter wave technologies. The program is developing affordable, solid-state, all-weather active electronically steered array (AESA) radar seekers to enable missiles to attack enemy ground targets, cruise missiles, unman-ned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and helicopters, and to serve as a building block for future radar technologies for surveillance or fire control.

 

[bring_it_on]

A Modified Stunner/Sky-Ceptor?

FY18 - Advanced Missile Demo - Low-cost Extended Range Air Defense

Utilization of a Low Cost Interceptor (LCI) for Cost Effective Air Defense against Low Tech Threats

III. Threat Set

The emerging threat set is a relatively low cost airborne vehicle or cruise missile with less capability than a sophisticated cruise missile, but just as lethal. Low cost makes it affordable for rouge nations to obtain large quantities and use them against military installations and unsuspecting civilian population centers.

The threat set consists of relatively unsophisticated airborne vehicles, such as first generation cruise missiles, unmanned air vehicles, and fixed and rotary wing aircraft that have been equipped with simple navigation aids for autonomous delivery of conventional or biological weapons. The following threat types and cases make up 80 to 90 percent of the full threat spectrum and include:

* Reworked/retrofitted anti-ship cruise missiles
* Retrofitted drone type aircraft
* Retrofitted manned aircraft and kit planes
* Patrolling UAVs and UAVs equipped with ordinance

Low Cost Interceptor Development and Design

The development of the LCI has been an iterative and multi-level process that has traded cost, requirements and performance. A system requirements review (SRR) and system and subsystem preliminary design reviews (PDR) in 2002, led to the initial design shown in Figure 2. A key requirement for the missile was the ability to engage targets at ranges in excess of 100 km. Major subcontractors supporting Miltec on this effort included Northrop Grumman Electronics Division (responsible for the seeker), Aerojet Corporation (responsible for the propulsion system) and MPC Products (responsible for the control actuation system).

Miltec is responsible for the air frame and avionics, as well as integration, assembly and testing. Off the shelf components and existing technologies are incorporated into the design as a cost saving measure whenever possible. Throughout the program, we’ve traded costs against performance to maintain the low cost aspect of the interceptor. Efforts in this early phase included a control actuation system prototype, static fire testing of the solid rocket motor, wind tunnel testing, and the development and testing of avionics testbed.

In August of 2004, USASMDC/ARSTRAT awarded a follow-on contract to the initial BAA, which included a basic and two optional tasks within the contract:

 Basic - Conduct of a Short Hot Launch (SHOTL) Flight Test at Redstone Arsenal
 Option 1 - Conduct of a Critical Design Review (CDR)
 Option 2 - Conduct of a Controlled Vehicle Flight Test

Preparation for the SHOTL Test began in September of 2004, with a scheduled launch in August of 2005 – a period of less than one year. Miltec received a HAWK Launcher as Government Furnished Equipment and developed a design that would replace one of the launcher sections with a rail. A surrogate propulsion unit was selected which replicated the initial launch environment, but facilitated the missile staying within the confined range fans of Redstone Technical Test Center (RTTC) Test Area 1. Components for a Ground Test Unit (GTU) and Flight Test Unit (FTU) were procured and using Miltec and RTTC facilities, the two units were integrated, assembled and ground tested. On 3 August 2005, the SHOTL test was successfully conducted, and achieved the primary tests objectives of:

Measuring Induced Missile Tip-off Rates and Launch Data
 Validating the LCI Launcher Design and Mechanical Interface to the Missile
 Establishing and Practicing Miltec IA&T, Range and Launch Procedures
 Demonstrating Program Maturity

In March 2005, while preparations for the SHOTL Flight Test were progressing, Miltec received contractual direction to modify the design of the LCI so that the missile would be capable of launching within the Surfaced Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (SLAMRAAM) architecture. This contractual change, directed by the Commanding General of USASMDC/ARSTRAT, resulted from AMRAAM escalating costs and failure to meet the objective range of the SLAMRAAM requirements. Miltec was directed to take the 10” missile design, capitalize on efforts to date, and redesign the missile to a 7” configuration that fit within the volume and weight constraints of AMRAAM. The resultant design, shown in Figure 3, is currently undergoing subsystem and component tests.

One key outcome of efforts to date has been the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between USASMDC/ARSTRAT and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Eglin Air Force Base for joint development efforts between LCI and the AFRL’s Multimode Advanced Radar Seeker (MARS) Program. The MARS program is using the gimbal and antenna assembly developed and tested under LCI for a 2009 scheduled captive carry flight test (Figure 4). LCI is leveraging from this effort through the MARS procurement of the electronics backend assembly and modifications to the aircraft and flight schedules. Both of these programs have benefitted from the internal research and development (IRAD) funded Northrop Grumman efforts in the Common Miniature Ku/Ka (CMK) program. The seeker is KU band, and the antenna is electronically steered for elevation and mechanically controlled for azimuth.

The 7” design missile has a dual pulse solid rocket motor, with a first pulse that boosts the interceptor to cruise velocity and a second pulse that produces the necessary endgame velocity and acceleration necessary to defeat the threat. LCI also has an innovative clamshell design for the control actuation system (CAS), designed by MPC Products, that allows the CAS to be installed or removed from the interceptor without interference from the rocket motor blast tube.
The program has separate contractor and government cost analysis teams. These teams monitor the efforts, update cost estimating relationships and vendor provided quotes and analyses, and update the cost models on a continuous basis to ensure LCI remains a cost effective missile. There have been several independent reviews of the cost model and LCI remains a viable and, as importantly, affordable missile.
With successful completion of the propulsion system in 2009, the program is on schedule to conduct a controlled vehicle flight test in 2010.

Conclusion:

The LCI will have the ability to intercept relatively unsophisticated cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, remotely piloted vehicles, drones/decoys, and fixed and rotary wing aircraft, all of which are capable of carrying conventional and weapons of mass destruction warheads. It thus enhances the capability of current and future Air and Missile Defense (AMD) systems to counter the air threat, and provides the AMD commander with another option for the air defense battle. Use of LCI against these unsophisticated threats provides significant munitions cost savings (cost per round, as well as cost per kill), and allows preservation of higher cost, more capable interceptors for more stressing threats.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1921.msg184584.html#msg184584

 

[bring_it_on]

US Army to hold competition for Patriot radar replacement

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army intends to hold a competition to replace its Patriot air-and-missile defense radar and plans to begin analysis of materiel solutions in fiscal year 2018, according to a service spokesman.

The service has spent years grappling with when and how it will replace its current Raytheon-manufactured Patriot system first fielded in 1982. At one point, the U.S. Army planned to procure Lockheed Martin's Medium Extended Air Defense System as the replacement, but it canceled its plans to acquire the system, opting instead to procure key components of a new Integrated Air and Missile Defense System, or IAMD, separately.

Northrop Grumman is developing the IAMD’s Integrated Battle Command System, the command and control architecture for the system. The U.S. Army also plans to use the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement missiles in the future system.

Key to the future system is to have a 360-degree threat detection capability achieved through a new radar. The current radar has blind spots.

The U.S. Army spent the past year trying to decide whether it would simply upgrade Patriot’s radar or replace the sensor outright.

“The Lower-Tier Air-and-Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) program — currently pre-decisional — is planned for a full-and-open competition to deliver the best materiel solution to that meets the U.S. Army requirements,” Army spokesman Dan O’Boyle told Defense News in a statement this week.

The service plans to use a Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction phase, Milestone A, “to develop a mature effort, foster competition, assess industry readiness, reduce programmatic and technical risks, as well as reduce total ownership costs,” he said.

While the program’s timeline has yet to be fully determined, the U.S. Army plans to conduct a formal Milestone A in the fiscal year 2018 time frame, O’Boyle added.

Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have been vocal about a desire to compete for the new IAMD radar, but it’s possible other companies will produce capable offerings.

Both companies swiftly responded to a request for information released in the summer of 2016 asking for possible radar capabilities for a future missile defense system with the sensor expected to reach initial operational capability prior to fiscal year 2028.

The U.S. Army spent some time over the past year conducting a number of industry visits not only to collect data, but to look at technologies as well as manufacturing capabilities and capacities, Col. Rob Rasch, the Army's deputy program executive officer for Army Missiles and Space, told Defense News earlier this year. At the time, he said, the Army was very close to finalizing a strategy for procuring or upgrading a radar.

Raytheon is expected to promote its Patriot Gallium Nitride (GaN) active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the future radar. It unveiled its system at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, in March 2016. Fully built and functioning, Raytheon has been putting the system through its paces in tests since its debut.

Raytheon said, following the RFI release, that it had responded to the request with a comprehensive vision of the next generation of air-and-missile defense radars.

Lockheed is still developing the MEADS system with Germany and Italy after the U.S. dropped out of the program, and its MEADS 360-degree radar could be a contender for the competition, but it is also possible the company brings other capabilities to the table.

The company showcased its new TPY-X GaN-based, digital AESA radar at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, in August 2016, that it plans to bring to market this year for long-range surveillance and search.

And Lockheed recently demonstrated it could bring a new radar to the field within a few years, such as the Q-53 radar, born from urgent operational needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Long Range Discrimination Radar in Alaska, which will come online in 2020, and the Air Force’s Space Fence, which will be operationalized in the Kwajalein Atoll by 2019.

For the U.S. Army’s radar replacement, “we think we can deliver the radar pretty darn quick once we understand the requirements and go through the competition. It won’t take the war fighter seven years to get it,” Brad Hicks, Lockheed’s vice president for Mission Systems and Training, said at the time of the RFI’s release.

What the Army chooses for its future radar could impact future decisions of many foreign countries looking to have air-and-missile defense systems that are interoperable with U.S. forces' equipment. Poland has been in the market for an air-and-missile defense system for many years and has wanted to ensure commonality with the U.S. system and most recently Romania announced it would buy Patriot systems. Meanwhile, Germany would like to see other foreign countries buy into the MEADS solution when it is ready for prime time.

 

[bring_it_on]

Memorandum of Intent Between the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the Minister of National Defense of the Republic of Poland Concerning PATRIOT Defense Capabilities

In his Jetter of June 9, 2017, to Polish Minister of National Defense Antoni Macierewicz,
U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis wrote that the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation
Agency (DSCA) and the U.S. Department of the Army would outline the estimated timeline
for Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Letters of Offer and Acceptance (LOAs) to respond to
Poland's request for procurement of the PATRIOT missile system and other elements of
Poland missile defense.

The U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Defense Exports and Cooperation
outlined a phased approach to meeting Poland's missile defense requirements.
In the spirit of our strong commitment to Poland's defense, deepening defense cooperation,
and support for Poland's urgent need for an air and missile defense capability, the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) intends to expeditiously address development and
presentation of LOAs to the Republic of Poland for the PA TRI OT capabilities described
herein. The U.S. DoD also intends to pursue vigorously the integration of the requested
capabilities while adhering to U.S. laws and regulations. In particular, the U.S. DoD is to
comply with all technology release authorities, policy clearances, and Congressional
approvals.

The U.S. DoD intends to pursue the PATRIOT requirement as follows:

Phase I. The U.S. Army intends to deliver an LOA to Poland for the PATRIOT/
Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) system by December 2017. The U.S. DoD
intends to offer the U.S. Army Configuration that includes four (4) Firing Units of
PATRIOT Configuration 3+ with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement and the IBCS. The
U.S. DoD is unable to provide current PATRIOT configuration radars for lease or buy-back.
Projected delivery will begin in 2022, and initial operational capability is expected in 2023.

Phase II. Ba~ed on WISLA requirements provided by the Ministry of National
Defense of the Republic of Poland, and as part of a Polish FMS case, the U.S. DoD intends
to pursue, within the statutory and regulatory framework of the Security Cooperation
enterprise, integration of SkyCeptor, 360 degree Active Electronically Scanned Array radar,
and Polish indigenous sensors into the Polish WISLA architecture. The ability of the U.S. DoD to implement this integration effort depends on the receipt of additional technical and
scheduling information from Poland as well as higher release authorities. Delivery of a

Phase II amended LOA is projected by the end of calendar year 2018.
Additionally, the U.S. DoD intends to transfer the maximum level of technology allowable
under U.S. policy, associate-0 with the 69 areas, which includes the 12 critical areas briefed
by the Polish Ministry of National Defense, to be provided formally to the U.S . DoD. These
critical areas include technology associated with a proposed U.S. radar and SkyCeptor
missile.

The Minister of National Defense of the Republic of Poland intends to support purchase,
sustainment, and deployment of the defense capabilities described herein by making
arrangements for a payment method that guarantees funds are received on a timely basis
from the Republic of Poland.

This Memorandum of Intent is not considered legally binding under international Jaw. This
document does not create any authority to perform any work or obligate or create any
binding commitment under the national Jaws of the United States of America or the
Republic of Poland to make or provide any financial or nonfinancial contribution or to
deliver any defense article to or perform any defense service for the other for any purpose.

 

[jsport]

Thank you BIO for the past two posts. Quite interesting.

 

[JakobS]

Problems is arising here in Sweden.

CEO of Raytheon Europe have sent a personal letter to our defense minister. The problem is that such a thing is not allowed here. The authority's handles all such things here independently, in this case the Defence Materiel Administration.

It can mean problem if Patriot is chosen as the winner instead of the SAMP/T. The french will then probably appeal the decision, pointing to interference, and the whole procurement will have to be done again from the start.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Not to mention that the government is hanging on by a thread as it is.

 

[bring_it_on]

Romania cleared to buy Patriot missile defense system

The State Department has cleared the sale of seven Patriot missile defense systems for Romania just days after announcing a roadmap forward for landing the system in Poland.

The potential sale, which could be worth up to $3.9 billion, covers seven Patriot Configuration 3+ units, complete with radars, control station, antenna, launching stations and power plants.

Also included are 56 Patriot MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missile-TBM missiles and 168 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement missiles, according to a Tuesday notice posted on the website of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

 

[bring_it_on]

Problems is arising here in Sweden.

CEO of Raytheon Europe have sent a personal letter to our defense minister. The problem is that such a thing is not allowed here. The authority's handles all such things here independently, in this case the Defence Materiel Administration.

It can mean problem if Patriot is chosen as the winner instead of the SAMP/T. The french will then probably appeal the decision, pointing to interference, and the whole procurement will have to be done again from the start.

Is MEADS competing?

 

[bring_it_on]

Interestingly, the White House lists as one of its objections to the House version of the bill, the LTADMS language inserted by the HASC -

Modernization of Army Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS): The Administration objects to section 1683, which would direct the Secretary of the Army to issue an acquisition strategy no later than April 15, 2018, for a 360-degree lower tier air and missile defense sensor that achieves initial operational capability by January 1, 2022, and completes fielding to all Army units by January 1, 2026. The requirements and timelines in this provision are not feasible. They would prevent the Army from developing LTAMDS integrally as part of its phased modernization approach for integrated air and missile defense based on Army and Joint Staff validated requirements. Additionally, the Administration opposes the provision’s direction to transfer the acquisition responsibility of the sensor to the Missile Defense Agency should the Army not issue the strategy in time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/12/hr-2810-national-defense-authorization-act-fiscal-year-2018

Based on the current Army plan they intend on taking about a decade to reach IOC for a new sensor. Not too shabby given that they started thinking of this problem in what the late 90s if not earlier?

 

[bring_it_on]

Appendix II: The Lower Tier Air and Missile
Defense Analysis of Alternatives Guidance
Compared to GAO’s Best Practices for an Analysis of Alternatives Process
Defense Analysis of Alternatives Guidance Compared to GAO’s Best Practices for an Analysis of Alternatives Process

As part of our review of the Patriot system, we assessed the extent to which the Department of Defense’s (DOD) guidance for conducting its Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense (LTAMD) analysis of alternatives (AOA), which is evaluating material modernization solutions for the current Patriot radar and launcher for use with the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAM) Battle Command System (IBCS), meets GAO best practices and found that the guidance documents substantially met GAO standards to be considered reliable. We compared the processes outlined in the LTAMD AOA guidance documents to GAO best practices because the LTAMD AOA report was not available at the time of our review.
The LTAMD AOA guidance documents provide the AOA study team with a high-level roadmap for how to conduct the LTAMD AOA by outlining processes to identify and select the alternatives, metrics, models, and scenarios for use throughout the AOA process.

While we cannot make conclusions about the final AOA report until it is finalized and released, by comparing the processes described in the LTAMD AOA guidance documents to the 22 GAO best practices, we can make conclusions on the quality of the processes used to develop it. If the processes are of high quality, then the AOA study team has a good roadmap, which, if followed, could produce a high-quality, reliable AOA. Based on our analysis, the LTAMD AOA process described in its guidance met or substantially met the criteria to be considered well-documented, comprehensive, unbiased, and credible.

While we found that the LTAMD AOA guidance documents met or substantially met 18 of the 22 best practices GAO established for the AOA process to be considered reliable, our review also found that contrary to GAO best practices, the final AOA report will not select a preferred solution. Specifically, the LTAMD AOA guidance did not instruct the study team to assign relative importance to the criteria that are used to compare the options or to select a preferred solution for a modernized radar and launcher as part of the final AOA report. According to CAPE officials involved in the LTAMD AOA efforts, the purpose of this AOA is to provide an analytic comparison of the options based on the criteria but to then allow external decisionmakers to determine the relative importance of each criterion and derive their own preferred solution. CAPE’s position is that GAO’s best practice of assigning relative importance to criteria is not appropriate for strategic investment decisions such as this. In contrast, GAO best practices recommend that solutions be compared based on pre-established criteria that reflect the relative importance of the criteria because not reflecting its relative importance up front can oversimply results and potentially mask important information leading to an uninformed decision. In addition, GAO best practices state that a preferred alternative should be identified and a rationale for that decision be included as part of an AOA report. While a recommended solution in the AOA report does not have to be binding, without one, decisionmakers outside of the AOA process may misinterpret the analysis within the AOA report and potentially come to a biased decision.

https://www.scribd.com/document/353806459/GAO-LTAMDS-2016

 

[bring_it_on]

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

 

[JakobS]

Is MEADS competing?

No, only already fielded systems is being considered.

Interestingly, the White House lists as one of its objections to the House version of the bill, the LTADMS language inserted by the HASC -

Modernization of Army Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS): The Administration objects to section 1683, which would direct the Secretary of the Army to issue an acquisition strategy no later than April 15, 2018, for a 360-degree lower tier air and missile defense sensor that achieves initial operational capability by January 1, 2022, and completes fielding to all Army units by January 1, 2026. The requirements and timelines in this provision are not feasible. They would prevent the Army from developing LTAMDS integrally as part of its phased modernization approach for integrated air and missile defense based on Army and Joint Staff validated requirements. Additionally, the Administration opposes the provision’s direction to transfer the acquisition responsibility of the sensor to the Missile Defense Agency should the Army not issue the strategy in time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/12/hr-2810-national-defense-authorization-act-fiscal-year-2018

Based on the current Army plan they intend on taking about a decade to reach IOC for a new sensor. Not too shabby given that they started thinking of this problem in what the late 90s if not earlier?

So we may be seeing a new radar a bit earlier than what they are aiming for currently? Personally I find i a bit silly that it will take such a long time to field a new radar for Patriot. Seems like it's already been discussed for 10 years..

 

[bring_it_on]

So we may be seeing a new radar a bit earlier than what they are aiming for currently?

Unlikely. The White House has cited this as an objection to the HASC bill and the US Army will fight it hard as well. I'd be surprised if this language eventually makes it up the chain. I don't think its a problem of the Army taking too long to decide or pick a path, but its a matter of making sure you can choose a road that is affordable. This is a major challenge and the Army does not seem to have the institutional support to reprogram funding to commit a higher sum. This is where the MDA could do better, they are generally better at putting forward a narrative and seeking higher funding levels for their activity. Plus their entire focus is Missile Defense so that helps as well imho.

Personally I find i a bit silly that it will take such a long time to field a new radar for Patriot.

The problem is that in the absence of adequate funding (either the budget or the authority to move money around to prioritize it) the Army will keep on studying it and go slowly towards a path. IBCS is now delayed by 4 years but it will still be a highly needed capability for the early 2020sbut the saving grace is that the PAC-3 MSE has IOC'd. What they need is exactly what they came up with for MEADS but that is not what they can afford ( A surveillance radar and a high frequency MFCR). So in the absence of more cash they will likely look to squeeze out an upgrade to the main radar even though a completely clean sheet sensor is the need of the hour given the looming hypersonic cruise missile threat.

IBCS should provide a fairly significant leap when it comes to interoperability but they need to move to a new radar and a new launcher but buying 80-100 radars is not within their budget if they look to go for the best capability they can field. Forget about fielding an equal or appropriate number of additional dedicated surveillance sensors like the MEADS LFS or even the USAF's 3DELRR.

MDA seems to have surplus cash sitting around :..HASC just added close to half a billion to their budget for Israeli missile defense programs. Now if only LTADMS got this much love, we may actually have something concrete that we can afford. $500 Million could get you 10% of your projected LTADMS requirement or get you better capability.

No, only already fielded systems is being considered.

That is unfortunate. MEADS is quite mature and will be ordered this year. Its plug and fight capability would have worked nicely for a country like Sweden that has its own sensors that it could incorporate since it also uses the IRIS-T missile.

 

[JakobS]

Unlikely. The White House has cited this as an objection to the HASC bill and the US Army will fight it hard as well. I'd be surprised if this language eventually makes it up the chain. I don't think its a problem of the Army taking too long to decide or pick a path, but its a matter of making sure you can choose a road that is affordable. This is a major challenge and the Army does not seem to have the institutional support to reprogram funding to commit a higher sum. This is where the MDA could do better, they are generally better at putting forward a narrative and seeking higher funding levels for their activity. Plus their entire focus is Missile Defense so that helps as well imho.

Ah, then I see.

That is unfortunate. MEADS is quite mature and will be ordered this year. Its plug and fight capability would have worked nicely for a country like Sweden that has its own sensors that it could incorporate since it also uses the IRIS-T missile.

MEADS is a really good concept, but it falls short with the lack of a long range interceptor. It's great for missile defense, but currently unable to project a large anti-acess bubble for fighter jets. That have a high priority here with closing of the Baltic Sea.

An upgraded PAC-2 with an active seeker and smaller, modern electronics that leaves room for more fuel would be an ideal low risk solution IMO, but since Raytheon is producing that missile....

 

[bring_it_on]

But the Aster-30 is a medium range SAM as well so I don't see a long range interceptor option unless Sweden goes for the Patriot and gets the PAC-2. Is long range surface to air interception a part of their doctrine? Is this something they are actively seeking? If so, they'll have to essentially ask for a new interceptor as short of the Patriot with its TVM based PAC-2 you aren't going to get something that has 150+ km capability and is operational.

An upgraded PAC-2 with an active seeker and smaller, modern electronics that leaves room for more fuel would be an ideal low risk solution IMO, but since Raytheon is producing that missile....

I can see that work for a Patriot user but if you are looking at a new missile, may as well look to create a PAC-3 PAC-3 MSE derivative where you can still pack 6-8 large diameter missiles within the same launcher.

MEADS is a really good concept, but it falls short with the lack of a long range interceptor.

As things currently stands, SAMP/T does not yet field an AESA. They may move to a larger S band AESA but that is still being discussed and is not an active program of record. MEADS has 2 sets on offer that gone through flight testing and are ready to order. Patriot too will be fielding an AESA by the early 2020s and with the Polish contract likely to be firmed by the end of 2018 (for the remaining 6 batteries) this will be firm as well. So if you look at things there are certain advantages to going for either MEADS or Patriot when it comes to sensors and networking particularly the plug and fight nature of MEADS and IBCS which is of particular importance since the German MEADS configuration would as part of the package integrate IRIS-T which the Swedes use anyway.

 

[JakobS]

But the Aster-30 is a medium range SAM as well so I don't see a long range interceptor option unless Sweden goes for the Patriot and gets the PAC-2.

It's correct that SAMP/T is a medium range system, but depending on the target the range is still 3-4 times as large as MEADS.

Is long range surface to air interception a part of their doctrine? Is this something they are actively seeking? If so, they'll have to essentially ask for a new interceptor as short of the Patriot with its TVM based PAC-2 you aren't going to get something that has 150+ km capability and is operational.

It's an important part of the new system. I would actually dare to say that it is more important than the anti-ballistic capability, that is not much talked about at all.

The most important thing for the Swedish military, in case of a conflict, is to hold onto the island of Gotland in the middle of the baltic. With 6 system of SAMP/T (assuming 2 systems operating together on the same location) the whole cost of southern Sweden can be closed of. With Patriot that capability would be even greater. That's just something the current MEADS can't do.

When talking about SAM-system range isn't everything, and there is a lot more variables that affect how it works. Range is however one of the more important factor of the system.

I can see that work for a Patriot user but if you are looking at a new missile, may as well look to create a PAC-3 PAC-3 MSE derivative where you can still pack 6-8 large diameter missiles within the same launcher.

A PAC-3 derivative would however be more expensive. The diameter would probably be increased enough that a new launcher would be required just as with the PAC-2. If the wings on the PAC-2 were changed to be foldable a vertical launcher with 8 missiles would be possible just in the same way.

As things currently stands, SAMP/T does not yet field an AESA. They may move to a larger S band AESA but that is still being discussed and is not an active program of record.

Hard to say about that, Singapore specified that they did not care for the Arabel radar and wanted the Ground Master 200 which is an AESA. Hard to say if their SAMP/T's are operational yet or not as the country is very secretive about such things, but they have had the radars for a few years:

If SAMP/T is chosen for us SAAB would supply the main radar, more specifically the GaN-based Giraffe 4A that Sweden have already ordered a few examples of:

And the already fielded Giraffe AMB for close-in defense above the trees:

If Patriot is chosen swedish sensors would be integrated further down the road when IBCS is ready. Probably not as main sensor though.

One of the things against the Patriot is that the army fear they will have to pay deeply for the future upgrades with IBCS and the new main sensor. Waiting for the new sensor is not an alternative, but sitting on ~8 of the current sensor of no use in 10 years time, when the new radars have been bought, is also not a very good option.

However, a strong thing talking for Patriot is that it is american. If we here in Sweden get into a real conflict with russia we sure as hell is not going to call on France to save us. It will be America all the way.

The biggest defense exercise here in Sweden since the cold war will take place this fall. All of the sudden France is very willing to participate with the SAMP/T system. America will also participate with the *surprise* Patriot system. However America have always participated in or exercise drills for the last two decades, unlike France who just want to sell it's system.

So if you look at things there are certain advantages to going for either MEADS or Patriot when it comes to sensors and networking particularly the plug and fight nature of MEADS and IBCS which is of particular importance since the German MEADS configuration would as part of the package integrate IRIS-T which the Swedes use anyway.

Personally I favor the Patriot system. If the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (who handles all acquisitions to the defense forces) is free to go by the requirements and by the systems characteristics the SAMP/T will win. However it seems lately that the politicians have stepped in (as the purchase is of such a big nature, second only to JAS Gripen in cost) and that talks for the Patriot.

We will have to wait and see which one is picked.

Under current plans a system will have to be picked ASAP, as the plan is to have the first units in place for 2020. However there is no rush to pick a system IMO. There is absolutely no money for it under the current budget and there is no signs that enough money will be contributed by the politicians.

The army even specifically specified in this years budget basis that the acquisition will have to be pushed down the road unless more funds is made available. And we are talking big funds, not peanuts (around 1 billion USD for 2019-2020, which is a lot if your yearly budget is only around ~6 billion USD).

 

[bring_it_on]

It's correct that SAMP/T is a medium range system, but depending on the target the range is still 3-4 times as large as MEADS.

I don't know how you are deriving at that conclusion. Could you show me exactly which specific missions enable SAMP/T to put up to 4 times the envelope of MEADS?

It's an important part of the new system. I would actually dare to say that it is more important than the anti-ballistic capability, that is not much talked about at all.

So if that is the case both MEADS and SAMP/T wouldn't even be able to compete since they both offer medium range capability.

With 6 system of SAMP/T (assuming 2 systems operating together on the same location) the whole cost of southern Sweden can be closed of

Closed off to what threat?

When talking about SAM-system range isn't everything, and there is a lot more variables that affect how it works. Range is however one of the more important factor of the system.

Right and could you share with me the SAM envelope of MEADS with the MSE against a Mach 0.8 target flying at 25,000 ft? The same for other systems.

A PAC-3 derivative would however be more expensive. The diameter would probably be increased enough that a new launcher would be required just as with the PAC-2. If the wings on the PAC-2 were changed to be foldable a vertical launcher with 8 missiles would be possible just in the same way.

8 PAC-2s into the existing Patriot launcher? Are you serious?

Hard to say if their SAMP/T's are operational yet or not as the country is very secretive about such things, but they have had the radars for a few years:

Could you show me a full envelope developmental and operational test program of the missile, command and control and this radar?

If SAMP/T is chosen for us SAAB would supply the main radar, more specifically the GaN-based Giraffe 4A that Sweden have already ordered a few examples of:

So it will be a developmental project and not an operational system since no such configuration exists, has been developed or has been tested. They cannot legally imho prohibit MEADS which is a tested system ready for production, and then turn around and seek a developmental, non-tested SAMP/T system. Or Patriot for that matter unless they take a few years to move and Raytheon can demonstrate actual intercepts with their AESAs or offer some sort of buy back program.

One of the things against the Patriot is that the army fear they will have to pay deeply for the future upgrades with IBCS and the new main sensor. Waiting for the new sensor is not an alternative, but sitting on ~8 of the current sensor of no use in 10 years time, when the new radars have been bought, is also not a very good option.

IBCS would make it cheaper and not more expensive. It is an open architecture and then entire premise behind it is to make upgrades and cross-system interoperability easier. Given a SAMP/T developmental project that involves integrating and testing a non-native radar into the system there is no advantage that such a system offers over a Patriot AESA that by 2018 would be on order for delivery in the early 2020s around the same time IBCS is operationalized with the US and Poland. MEADS will probably still deliver in the early to mid 2020s and there is no way a custom SAMP/T variant can be created with new radar integrated, fully tested etc before then. So we are essentially talking about similar timelines for all three systems. MEADS probably suits Sweden the most, given that IRIS-T would already be integrated allowing them to add a third indigenous AESA into the family.

 

[bring_it_on]

Marines at MCAS Cherry Point Demonstrate the Future of Air Command and Control Operations



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHI6toprhJg

Interestingly, in terms of T/R Module count the TPS-80 is almost half the size of the EASR yet it was once considered as a contender iirc.

 

[bring_it_on]

LTAMDS Timeline from the FY18 Budget Request. Also, they want to have three contractors in the early stage. Interesting to see what solution Northrop Grumman presents.

 

[bring_it_on]

LTAMDS and 3DELRR program timeline that I've managed to put together based on the FY17 and 18 budget documents. This could possibly change next year but as far as I know this is where things stand at the moment.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ksV279Kvs0

Claims 20% the cost of current interceptors for the Skyceptor. Assuming this is after the changes made to the weapon to be integrated with the patriot radar and IBCS this puts it at roughly $600-$800 K range.

 

[bring_it_on]

A Modified Stunner/Sky-Ceptor?

FY18 - Advanced Missile Demo - Low-cost Extended Range Air Defense

Description: This effort matures key technologies of a lower-cost interceptor system with a low- to medium-altitude, medium-to long-range capability. This effort will enable lower cost interceptor integration into a net-enabled Air and Missile Defense Task Force for the protection of high value assets. Technologies will address the defeat of air defense threats such as UAS and Cruise Missile threats with secondary capabilities against Large Caliber Rockets (LCR), Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM), and Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (TASMS).

FY 2016 Accomplishments:
Completed design and began static testing of solid rocket motor; completed target generator for hardware-in-the-loop calibration and testing of active radar seeker, guidance electronics, and control system; completed wind tunnel testing and aerodynamic analysis of interceptor.

FY 2017 Plans:
Continue component development and maturation for low-cost air defense interceptor system; complete static testing and evaluation of solid rocket motor design; continue development of secure digital data link, flight termination system, and control actuation system; complete development, fabrication, and integration of guidance electronics unit (GEU); and begin subsystem test and evaluation; complete hardware-in-the-loop simulation tools and apparatus required to test interceptor navigation instrumentation, data link components, and control system technologies; and evaluate navigation instruments for eventual flight demonstration testing.

FY 2018 Plans:
Will mature the low-cost air defense interceptor system with integrated solid rocket motor, digital data link, mission computer,
power system, and flight termination system and demonstrate in ballistic flight testing; provide system analysis via hardwarein-the-loop flight simulation of the digital data link, mission computer, power system, navigation system, and control actuation
system.

...

 

[bring_it_on]

Sentinel A4 Industry day slides from late last year

 

[bring_it_on]

Lockheed LTAMDS Prototype -

Lockheed Martin is developing new air and missile defense radar technology to ensure the U.S. Army has a 360-degree capable sensor ready to address current and emerging air and ballistic missile threats.

This fractional array is representative of Lockheed Martin’s potential Lower Tier Air & Missile Defense Sensor solution, scalable to the Army’s requirements to replace the aging Patriot MPQ-65 radar. This array will be used to mature technology and verify system performance.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF_0_CpwSPI

 

[bring_it_on]

Lockheed Martin Unveils Next Generation Missile Defense Sensor Technology

HUNTSVILLE, Ala., Aug. 7, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin will unveil its next generation air and missile defense radar demonstrator at the annual Space & Missile Defense Symposium this week in Huntsville, Alabama. The active electronically scanned array (AESA) Radar for Engagement and Surveillance (ARES) is a representative full-scale prototype of the technology to support a modern, 360-degree capable sensor that the U.S. Army will use to address current and emerging air and ballistic missile threats.

This fractional array is representative of Lockheed Martin's potential Lower Tier Air & Missile Defense Sensor solution, built on a modular and scalable architecture to scale to the Army's requirements, once finalized, to replace the aging Patriot MPQ-65 radar. The array on display in Huntsville will be used to mature technology and verify performance to ensure uniform 360 degree threat detection and system performance.

"Incremental upgrades to the existing Patriot radar no longer address current sustainment issues, current threat performance shortcomings, or provide growth for future and evolving threats," said Mark Mekker, director of next generation radar systems at Lockheed Martin. "Lockheed Martin is prepared to offer a next generation missile defense system that will leverage advances in radar technology to provide a modular, scalable architecture and reduce the total cost of ownership well over its 30 year lifecycle."

View a brief video of the demonstrator.

Lockheed Martin's active electronically scanned array (AESA) technology incorporates gallium nirtride (GaN) transmitter technology and advanced signal processing techniques including recently developed and proven 360 degree sensor/fire control algorithms based on advanced threat sets. These technologies and concepts have been fully integrated into both demonstration and production systems resulting in the industry's first fielded ground based radars with GaN technology.

The AESA technology is also in use in the AN/TP/Q-53 radar system, which Lockheed Martin designed, developed and delivered to the Army on an urgent need timeline in under 36 months, and which continues to be scaled to address emerging threats.

"Our solution for the U.S. Army's new air and missile defense sensor is not a new-start program. It's a combination of technology maturation over several years and includes capability leveraged from our current development programs and battlefield-proven radars. We rely heavily on our modern radar systems such as the Q-53 and the Long Range Discrimination Radar to rapidly bring low-risk, proven technology to the warfighter," Mekker said. "We look forward to the opportunity to participate in this competition that will ultimately drive up performance and reduce costs for the U.S. Army."

As a proven world leader in systems integration and development of air and missile defense systems and technologies, Lockheed Martin delivers high-quality missile defense solutions that protect citizens, critical assets and deployed forces from current and future threats. The company's experience spans radar and signal processing, missile design and production, hit-to-kill capabilities, infrared seekers, command and control/battle management, precision pointing and tracking optics, as well as threat-representative targets for missile defense tests.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD9EkatS2X0

 

[marauder2048]

Any idea on AN/TPQ-53 array dimensions?

 

[bring_it_on]

Any idea on AN/TPQ-53 array dimensions?

Haven't come across any but it should be much smaller than TPS-80 and MEADS MFCR. The latter is a 2m /6.5 ft by 2m /6.5 ft approximately. IIRC Lockheed was responsible for the signal and data processing on both MEADS radars so they should be able to offer a highly capable sensor. I always envisioned their technical solution being similar to the 10,000 element MEADS MFCR but with a US Antenna and possibly a slightly smaller array given more powerful and technologically advanced GaN MMIC technology. That seems to be panning out given what they have revealed. But will it matter in the end? This will be a major upset given the financial incentive for Raytheon to win and let the DOD fund their radar antenna upgrade plan since the international installed base is huge leaving plenty of money on the table for them.

 

[sferrin]

A Modified Stunner/Sky-Ceptor?

FY18 - Advanced Missile Demo - Low-cost Extended Range Air Defense

Description: This effort matures key technologies of a lower-cost interceptor system with a low- to medium-altitude, medium-to long-range capability. This effort will enable lower cost interceptor integration into a net-enabled Air and Missile Defense Task Force for the protection of high value assets. Technologies will address the defeat of air defense threats such as UAS and Cruise Missile threats with secondary capabilities against Large Caliber Rockets (LCR), Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBM), and Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (TASMS).

FY 2016 Accomplishments:
Completed design and began static testing of solid rocket motor; completed target generator for hardware-in-the-loop calibration and testing of active radar seeker, guidance electronics, and control system; completed wind tunnel testing and aerodynamic analysis of interceptor.

FY 2017 Plans:
Continue component development and maturation for low-cost air defense interceptor system; complete static testing and evaluation of solid rocket motor design; continue development of secure digital data link, flight termination system, and control actuation system; complete development, fabrication, and integration of guidance electronics unit (GEU); and begin subsystem test and evaluation; complete hardware-in-the-loop simulation tools and apparatus required to test interceptor navigation instrumentation, data link components, and control system technologies; and evaluate navigation instruments for eventual flight demonstration testing.

FY 2018 Plans:
Will mature the low-cost air defense interceptor system with integrated solid rocket motor, digital data link, mission computer,
power system, and flight termination system and demonstrate in ballistic flight testing; provide system analysis via hardwarein-the-loop flight simulation of the digital data link, mission computer, power system, navigation system, and control actuation
system.

Well this looks interesting:



Definitely doesn't look like Stunner / Sky Ceptor.

 

[bring_it_on]

That appears to be a surface to surface weapon. The Surface to Air weapon is the Low Cost Extended Range Air Defense (LOWER-AD)

 

[sferrin]

That appears to be a surface to surface weapon. The Surface to Air weapon is the Low Cost Extended Range Air Defense (LOWER-AD)

It's definitely not LRPF (length to diameter is way off). Some other missile?

 

[bring_it_on]

Any idea on AN/TPQ-53 array dimensions?

Not definitive but I think a ballpark figure for antenna length and width can be derived at using the M1083 as a reference. Others that are good at this sort of analysis can chip in but my guess is that it is 8-10 ft. by 6-8 ft for the antenna.

http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_m1083.php

While Lockheed can probably exceed the MEADS/MFCR performance which will be more than plenty for the 360 PAC-3 MSE round it would still leave some doubt in my mind whether such a radar can perform the surveillance mission as well as the larger antenna on the Raytheon C-Band AESA. MEADS benefits (or did) from having the LFS and the US Army won't probably be able to afford a dedicated surveillance sensor (even something like the 3DELRR) to complement an X-band radar. From the DefenseNews reporting, it seemed that the Patriot AOA reinforced the MEADS AOA as far as the technical superiority of a dedicated MFCR and LFS and it seems that other air-defense systems such as the SAMP/T are heading towards that direction as well (they are exploring an S-Band sensor to complement the current X band PESA).

 

[TomS]

That appears to be a surface to surface weapon. The Surface to Air weapon is the Low Cost Extended Range Air Defense (LOWER-AD)

It's definitely not LRPF (length to diameter is way off). Some other missile?

I suspect it's basically a GMLRS-sized missile with really extended range. It shows up a couple of places in the brief below, and in one place the name is superimposed over an MLRS launch photo:

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2014/fuze/steele.pdf

 

[sferrin]

That appears to be a surface to surface weapon. The Surface to Air weapon is the Low Cost Extended Range Air Defense (LOWER-AD)

It's definitely not LRPF (length to diameter is way off). Some other missile?

I suspect it's basically a GMLRS-sized missile with really extended range. It shows up a couple of places in the brief below, and in one place the name is superimposed over an MLRS launch photo:

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2014/fuze/steele.pdf

I keep wondering why they don't jump all over the Boeing/SAAB MLRS/SDB. Would be perfect and relatively cheap/easy to field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkkfE5yHejc

 

[TomS]

This seems to be next-gen technology:

https://www.army.mil/article/133250

AMRDEC engineers are also researching the Low Cost Tactical Extended Range Missile, which has a longer term focus to develop technologies that enable dramatic range extension and operation in degraded environments such as a GPS-denied environment.

"We will be developing advanced propulsion technologies that will extend the range well beyond 300 kilometers and novel and unique navigation technologies that will reduce dependence on GPS for precision effects," Turner said.