Back to news

March 11, 2020 | International, Land

US Army to conduct shoot-off for future indirect fires protection

By: Jen Judson

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army plans to conduct a shoot-off to evaluate the best options for a future indirect fires protection capability to defend against rockets, artillery and mortars as well as cruise missile and drones, according to a report sent to Congress and obtained by Defense News.

The shoot-off that will take place at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, is fashioned much in the same way the Army recently conducted its “sense-off” to choose a new air and missile defense radar that will replace the sensor in the Army's current Patriot system, Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson, who is in charge of the Army's air and missile defense modernization effort, told Defense News in a March 9 interview.

The Army has been trying to formulate its enduring Indirect Fires Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) system for several years. It purchased two Iron Dome batteries, produced through a partnership between Rafael and Raytheon, to serve as an interim solution for cruise missile defense. The acquisition was congressionally mandated. Those batteries will be delivered by the end of the year, Gibson said.

The enduring system will defeat subsonic cruise missiles with an objective requirement to defeat supersonic variants as well as group two and three UAS and RAM threats, according to the report. The Army's Sentinel A3 and future A4 version will serve as the radar for IFPC, and its command-and-control system will be the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, or IBCS, which is also the brains for the Army's future Integrated Air and Missile Defense system that will replace Patriot.

The intention for IFPC is to protect critical fixed or semi-fixed assets and is intended to be a more mobile solution than one that would suffice at a forward operating base, Gibson described, and it will fill in gaps between tactical short-range air defense and strategic air and missile defense such as the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System.

The Army's analysis, according to the report, included looking at solutions both from the Israel Missile Defense Organization and from U.S. industry. It determined, when considering integration with IBCS and Sentinel as well as the possible schedule, that risks exist for both the U.S. and Israeli solutions.

“Given the assessed risks with the potential enduring IFCP Inc 2 solutions, the Army requires additional performance data against IFPC Inc 2 threats,” the report stated. “The Army will use a competitive process consisting of two phases to reduce program risk, while considering cost and schedule parameters.”

In the first phase, industry will participate in a shoot-off demonstration using proposed launcher and interceptor solutions integrated into IBCS and Sentinel.

IBCS is entering a limited-user test in May after struggling through a previous limited-user test several years ago. The system has been delayed for various reasons and likely won't reach initial operational capability until the third quarter of fiscal 2022.

Sentinel A4 is also not operational, so the shoot-off will use the less capable A3 variant.

Following the shoot-off, the Army will evaluate proposals and data from the event, analyzing digital simulation data to make a “Best Value determination” to pick one vendor to move forward, according to the report.

The shoot-off is planned for the third quarter of FY21. The Army aims to deliver initial capabilities by FY23.

To make a determination on the way forward, the Army conducted analysis for an enduring IFPC solution in FY19 to include taking technical data from its Expanded Mission Area Missile program of candidate interceptors.

The verification phase evaluated Raytheon's Low-Cost Active Seeker as well as its SkyHunter interceptor (the U.S. variant of Rafael's Tamir missile used in Iron Dome) and Lockheed Martin's Miniature Hit-to-Kill missile. All three of the interceptors were characterized as possible candidates for an IFPC interceptor.

The Army originally planned to develop and field its own multimission launcher as part of the enduring IFPC solution but canceled that program in favor of finding a more technologically mature launcher.

The service evaluated whitepapers for IFPC launchers and determined that those proposed required further development, prototyping and integration work to be used as a dedicated IFPC component, according to the report.

The analysis also found the Iron Dome launcher and Tamir interceptor's performance “is highly reliant” on its own battle management system and multimission radar, and the report determined that “for Iron Dome's launcher and Tamir interceptors to be a viable option for Enduring IFPC Inc 2, the [battle management and weapons control] and [multimission radar] functions require transferring into the Army's IBCS.”

And current data provided from the Israeli organization has not included component-level models such as the missile seeker, missile guidance and control, and missile fusing needed to verify that the launcher and missile would work with IBCS, the report stated.

“The tightly coupled nature of Iron Dome components within the Iron Dome architecture and a lack of sufficient technical data requires further development, prototyping and integration in order to provide a potential Enduring IFPC Inc 2 capability,” the report noted.

Through analysis, the service determined that the U.S.-based Expanded Mission Area Missile candidates met range and maneuverability requirements and would be able to tie into Sentinel A3 by FY23 and A4 by FY25.

The Tamir interceptor's performance data proves its effectiveness when used within the Iron Dome system, but since data is lacking, it's uncertain how well it might perform when linked through IBCS to the Sentinel radar. Tamir, however, is likely to perform similarly to the LCAS missile, according to the report.

While analysis shows that the interceptors are “likely” to meet enduring requirements, the shoot-off demonstration will “increase the Army's confidence in interceptor performance within the AIAMD architecture,” the report states.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/03/09/army-to-conduct-shoot-off-for-future-indirect-fires-protection-capability/

On the same subject

  • From CamoGPT to life skills, the Army is changing how it trains troops

    October 17, 2024 | International, Land

    From CamoGPT to life skills, the Army is changing how it trains troops

    Gen. Gary Brito, head of Army Training and Doctrine Command, discusses what training updates mean for new and career soldiers.

  • L'Espagne investit pour moderniser ses avions de combat Eurofighter Typhoon

    December 20, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    L'Espagne investit pour moderniser ses avions de combat Eurofighter Typhoon

    Le gouvernement espagnol a débloqué une enveloppe de plus de 7 Md€ afin de mener trois programmes de modernisation. Le Ministère de la défense espagnol a annoncé le 14 décembre qu'une enveloppe de plusieurs milliards d'euros avait été débloquée afin de conduire trois programmes d'armement. Le conseil des ministres a ainsi autorisé un investissement de 7,331 Md€ pour la conduite de programmes pluriannuels de défense. Cette enveloppe doit permettre de financer trois programmes jusqu'en 2032. Gr'ce à ces 7 Md€, l'Espagne va pouvoir s'équiper de cinq frégates F-110, de 34 blindés VCR 8x8 et entamer la modernisation de sa flotte d'avions de combat Eurofighter Typhoon. Les dépenses autorisées pour l'Eurofighter sont donc revues à la hausse. 906 M€ devraient ainsi être alloués à la modernisation des appareils jusqu'en 2023. Gr'ce à cette décision, « la Défense pourra moderniser et adapter ces appareils en les équipant de nouvelles technologies », a déclaré le ministère de la défense espagnol. L'Espagne est partie prenante du programme Eurofighter aux côtés de l'Allemagne, de l'Italie et du Royaume-Uni. L'ejercito del aire dispose actuellement de 69 appareils sur les 73 commandés. Les quatre aéronefs restants devraient lui être remis au cours de l'année 2019. La flotte devrait ensuite rester en service jusqu'en 2045. http://www.air-cosmos.com/l-espagne-investit-pour-moderniser-ses-avions-de-combat-eurofighter-typhoon-118485

  • The future of the US surface fleet: One combat system to rule them all

    January 15, 2019 | International, Naval

    The future of the US surface fleet: One combat system to rule them all

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Navy's surface fleet moves into 2019, a radical shift is coalescing among its leaders: a move away from a model that has driven the way the service has built its ships for decades. When the Navy built its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, installing the Aegis combat system into the hull meant a large suite of hardware — computers, servers, consoles and displays — designed and set up specifically to run Aegis software. Any significant upgrades to the suite of systems already installed, or to the Aegis system in general, required cutting a hole in the ship and swapping out all the computers and consoles — a massively expensive undertaking. And what's more, Aegis isn't the only combat system in the fleet. Raytheon's Ship Self-Defense System runs on many of the amphibious ships and the Ford-class carriers. Both classes of littoral combat ship run different combat systems, one designed by Lockheed Martin and the other by General Dynamics. And in regard to the ships themselves, there are multiple, siloed systems that don't feed into the main combat system. If Navy leaders get their way, that's going to change. What the surface fleet wants is a single combat system that runs on every ship, and runs everything on the ship, and that doesn't mind what hardware you are running so long as you have the computing power for it. The goal here is that if a sailor who is trained on a big-deck amphibious ship transfers to a destroyer, no extra training will be necessary to run the equipment on the destroyer. “That's an imperative going forward — we have to get to one, integrated combat system,” Rear Adm. Ron Boxall, the chief of naval operations' director of surface warfare, said in a December interview at the Pentagon with Defense News. Boxall describes the current situation to an integrated combat system as the difference between a flip phone and an iPhone. When buying a flip phone, most of the hardware and software are already included, leaving you with a limited ability to upgrade the phone. And if you want to run more advanced applications, you need a new phone. Instead, Boxall wants the combat systems to run like the iPhone. “For us to get faster, we either have to keep going with the model we had where we upgrade our flip phones, or we cross over the mentality to where it says: 'I don't care what model of iPhone you have — 7 or X or whatever you have — it will still run Waze or whatever [applications] you are trying to run,” he said. On a ship, that means that if the Navy adds a new radar, missile or laser, the software that runs the new equipment is developed as an application that interfaces with the single integrated combat system, the way Waze integrates with the iPhone or Android software. This has the benefit of having everything linked into the central nervous system for operators in the combat information center, sonar control, on the bridge or in the ship's intelligence-gathering center. It also means that new systems are quickly integrated, skipping the expensive process of ripping out old servers and consoles. And it means the companies that develop the myriad combat systems in service today — say, Raytheon or Lockheed Martin — won't have a lock on developing software for Navy ships because the Navy wants the combat system to be developed with interfaces that are accessible by outside application developers. “We need to continue down the path to be more aggressive and get a lot more competition in the open-architecture space,” Boxall said. “I wouldn't call it completely open, but as open as we can be, and then share that with people who can, if they are properly classified and secured, they should be able to come into a common space and apply their expertise to develop products that we may or may not want to buy. That's where I'd like to get to.” The vision The grand vision for this operating system from the deck-plates perspective would be the merging what are, today, disparate functions into one unified system, said Bryan McGrath, a retired destroyer skipper and consultant who heads The FerryBridge Group. One of the areas in which this segmentation creates limitations falls between the combat information center — which collects and displays information gathered by ships' sensors — and the intelligence hub known as the Ship's Signals Exploitation Space — which uses top-secret sources to collect data on the theater in which the ship is operating. “We need to break down the barrier between CIC and SSES, and the barrier is both a physical bulkhead and computing systems and platforms,” McGrath said. “That's what an integrated combat system is: You have the traditional combat system function, and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance functions — non-real-time and [top-secret information] functions — merged into one multilevel security-protected computing platform.” In that scenario, if SSES receives information that three Iranian F-14 jets took off from Bushehr Air Base, a watchstander in the combat information center with the proper security clearance could see what information SSES has on the aircraft and their mission while stripping out top-secret information such as sources and methods that SSES needs to protect. And once CIC has a radar track associated with that intelligence, all SSES data will get merged into it so decision-makers in combat have the necessary intel at their fingertips. But the logic applies to all the ship's sensors, not just intelligence collection data. The unified combat system would associate every piece of sensor data with the track being displayed in CIC, McGrath said. Everyone connects to a single system that gives every watchstander all the information they need on every track, both real-time and non-real-time data. “The integrated combat system includes all mission areas,” he said. “It's electronic warfare, it's anti-submarine warfare — we don't segment out air and missile defense and electronic warfare, they are all just applications within the combat system. The Navy has to stop thinking of SESS, sonar, combat, electronic warfare and the bridge as different and separate elements. They have to be part of the whole.” Staggering costs There's a number of obstacles to getting the surface fleet on a unified system, but one that could be insurmountable: the staggering cost of replacing the fleet's outdated computer hardware. The Common Source Library, developed for the Navy by Lockheed, begins moving the Navy down this path of a single, unified combat system. The CSL is essentially the iOS of an iPhone: The Navy can use CSL to program applications that run sensors and weapons systems. So, if the Navy has a new missile system it wants to run, the software application to run it will be designed to run off of the CSL — and ships with the CSL will be able to rapidly integrate it, just like downloading the latest navigation or gaming software for a smartphone. But the issue is that CSL requires specific hardware to function, said Tony DeSimone, chief engineer of Lockheed Martin integrated warfare systems and sensors, in a roundtable with reporters late last year. “One of the challenges the Navy has, the constraints, is the hardware and infrastructure to support a [common integrated combat system],” DiSimone said. “So while we are marching forward with the capability to be open and take in apps, there is an antiquated architecture out there and there is hardware that doesn't support it. ... You can't run [integrated operating] systems today on UYK-43s. You're just not going to be able to do it. So let's gut them and put some blade servers in, and we'll work with you.” The UYK-43 was once the Navy's standard 32-bit computer for surface and submarine platforms. The issue with replacing a fleet full of ancient computers that run old combat systems is the astronomical cost. For example, when the Navy converted the cruiser Normandy into an Aegis Baseline 9 ship, which includes updated displays and blade servers, it cost the service about $188 million and nearly a year offline. When you stretch that over dozens of surface combatants in need of updated computers, you start eating up billions of dollars and lose decades of operational availability. So while CSL does give the Navy an interface with which developers can create applications to run various systems, it's all for naught if the service doesn't have the right equipment. “Our Common Source Library has made us radar-agnostic,” said Jim Sheridan, vice president of Lockheed Martin's naval combat and missile defense systems. “We're also weapons-agnostic. The blocker is that we are not infrastructure-agnostic.” Furthermore, even if the Navy did back-fit all the surface ships with updated servers, you'd need to get various companies to play nice in the sandbox by sharing proprietary information for the benefit of a unified combat system. Ultimately, however, the Navy must affect a paradigm shift that decouples the computer suites that run its combat systems from the system itself, Boxall said. “You can either upgrade the existing ships on that model, which is expensive and you rip the ship apart to do it — cost hundreds of millions of dollars and a year offline — or you design the ship with the idea that you are going upgrade the hardware over its time, and you separate the hardware/software layers,” Boxall said. “We know Aegis,” he added. “What we don't know [is how to] upgrade Aegis at the pace I think we need moving forward in the future. We don't have a structure in place and a process by which we do that upgrades with speed. “When we buy Aegis, it's kind of flip-phone technology: You buy the software and the hardware together. And you can upgrade it, it's just hard to do. If we don't go to a more adaptable model, we are not going to be able to pace the threat.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/01/14/the-future-of-the-us-surface-fleet-one-combat-system-to-rule-them-all/

All news