Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 7,238
- Reaction score
- 11,677
So question, can the SM-6s it can carry be used for air defence as well?
So question, can the SM-6s it can carry be used for air defence as well?
That's what I was thinking, seems like a missed opportunity otherwise. With any luck it might morph into a mobile Aegis Ashore system.Perhaps IBCS will ultimately link to them. Pretty sure they are handing off target solutions to individual MIM-104 launchers now.
The thing that the Russians will complain about will be SM-3s pretty much being a hop skip and a jump away once you integrate an air capability into the system.That's what I was thinking, seems like a missed opportunity otherwise. With any luck it might morph into a mobile Aegis Ashore system.Perhaps IBCS will ultimately link to them. Pretty sure they are handing off target solutions to individual MIM-104 launchers now.
That’s already being built in Guam with LTAMDS, sentinel A4 and SPY-7. I suspect when used there, the network will command SM-6 for air defense. Outside that chain, it’s not funded at the moment. You would need some sort of RIG-360 enhancement to support SM-6 or a new SM-6 datalink like the one planned earlier. You would also need to make the launcher IFCN compatible. All of that is not funded and the Guam architecture is going to be unique to that application.That's what I was thinking, seems like a missed opportunity otherwise. With any luck it might morph into a mobile Aegis Ashore system.Perhaps IBCS will ultimately link to them. Pretty sure they are handing off target solutions to individual MIM-104 launchers now.
There are already SM-3s in Eastern Europe though.The thing that the Russians will complain about will be SM-3s pretty much being a hop skip and a jump away once you integrate an air capability into the system.
There are already SM-3s in Eastern Europe though.The thing that the Russians will complain about will be SM-3s pretty much being a hop skip and a jump away once you integrate an air capability into the system.
Hence it's irrelevant either way.And they never stop complaining.
"60 pound rounds." More like 100lbs for a 155mm isn't it?Why the Army wants to slap robot arms onto its mobile artillery pieces
The Army is developing a robotic arm to load howitzers.taskandpurpose.com
"60 pound rounds." More like 100lbs for a 155mm isn't it?Why the Army wants to slap robot arms onto its mobile artillery pieces
The Army is developing a robotic arm to load howitzers.taskandpurpose.com
Who benefits from this?Lawmakers: Army should consider new alternatives to extended range howitzer - Breaking Defense
Before the Army launches a competition next year to select an ERCA platform integrator, Congress wants to know if a new howitzer is a better option.breakingdefense.com
Seems like every time the Army innovates in-house, Congress squashes itThose who want to build new howitzers as opposed to the Army's plan of carrying out modifications in house.
Seems like every time the Army innovates in-house, Congress squashes itThose who want to build new howitzers as opposed to the Army's plan of carrying out modifications in house.
Congress isn't quashing anything. It wants to have options to either fund an Army run modification program with ERCA-modifications to existing vehicles, or a new-build production program using the same ERCA-modifications. It will allow the Army to buy/modify 20 prototypes until it provides that assessment.Seems like every time the Army innovates in-house, Congress squashes itThose who want to build new howitzers as opposed to the Army's plan of carrying out modifications in house.
Appreciate the correction.Congress isn't quashing anything. It wants to have options to either fund an Army run modification program with ERCA-modifications to existing vehicles, or a new-build production program using the same ERCA-modifications. It will allow the Army to buy/modify 20 prototypes until it provides that assessment.Seems like every time the Army innovates in-house, Congress squashes itThose who want to build new howitzers as opposed to the Army's plan of carrying out modifications in house.
It seems a bit late for that now. It depends whether they want competition or quicker ISD.There is a desire in Congress for a look at having a wider competition for manufacturers to submit their vehicle carrying ERCA's gun, vaguely similar to how the OMFV competitors are offering their vehicles with XM913, rather than Army's plan to integrate their whole weapon system onto a platform. I don't know if they have the votes to actually get that through if Army really pushes back.
I thought the whole point of the longer barrel was less propellant than an L52 for the same distance.
I was under the impression that it was never quite fully expanded until the shell left the barrel.No, it's to give you enough volume to fully expand a larger amount of propellant.
I was under the impression that it was never quite fully expanded until the shell left the barrel.No, it's to give you enough volume to fully expand a larger amount of propellant.
I was under the impression that it was never quite fully expanded until the shell left the barrel.No, it's to give you enough volume to fully expand a larger amount of propellant.
I wonder if MRC can fire Op-Fires too? That would be better than using a different launcher.
The U.S. Army’s Strategic Mid-Range Fires (SMRF) System
(Formerly Mid-Range Capabilities [MRC] System)
Yeah, different trailors with the same HEMMT tractor. Like pretty much all things US Army. DARPA is specifically shooting for a a TEU sized TEL container with all the power and communications equipment for transmitting guidance to the missile integral to the container unit. The idea is that an existing palletized load system can be turned into a TEL with no modifications, just a different container.So same truck, different tubes.
Since the TEL is a coffin-type launcher wouldn't the Tomahawks being launched be CGM-109 instead of BGM-109 and the SM-6s the CIM-174 instead of BIM-174?
True, nobody calls Harpoons 'BGM-84s' just because the launcher gets placed on land. Although I wonder whether ownership changes matters - Army vs Navy.And since the goal here is for the missile in canister to be exactly interchangeable with the Navy versions, I will not be shocked if they stay as RGM-109 and RIM-174. Why add separate inventory numbers for identical missiles?