10 juillet 2018 | International, Terrestre

Army Anti-Aircraft Stryker Can Kill Tanks Too

By

With its eyes firmly on Russia, the US Army is racing to field 8×8 Strykers with an array of weapons that can down enemy aircraft — from drones to helicopters to jets — and incidentally make enemy tanks think twice. The first prototypes will be delivered next year, with up to 144 (four battalions) by 2022, although the contract details are still being negotiated.

With the IM-SHORAD (Initial Maneuver Short Range Air Defense) Stryker, “you'll have more combat power, more lethality, than the Bradley fighting vehicle,” says Ed House, the retired Army infantry colonel who runs the program for Leonardo DRS.

Now, before everyone gets too excited, this doesn't mean the new Stryker is a substitute for the Bradley as an infantry assault vehicle. The Stryker's got lighter armor, and wheels instead of tracks, so it can't handle all the threats or terrain a Bradley can. Plus, this variant's interior volume will be largely filled with spare missiles, leaving little room to carry troops.

But it does raise intriguing tactical possibilities for IM-SHORAD Strykers to take up positions right behind the frontline forces — ideally on hills with good fields of fire — to provide both air defense and long-range shots against enemy armor. It's similar to how the German's famous 88mm high-velocity cannon of World War II did double duty as flak gun and tank killer.

Rolling Arsenal

Put together by Leonardo DRS and then installed on the Stryker by the vehicle's original manufacturer, General Dynamics Land Systems, the package includes an intimidating arsenal of weapon — and the flexibility to add more:

  • Two Hellfire missiles, capable of hitting both air and ground targets. Hellfire has not only a larger warhead than the Army's standard Stinger anti-aircraft missile (18-20 pounds vs. 6.6) but a long range than the TOW anti-tank missiles on its M2 Bradleys and ATGM Strykers (5 miles vs. at most 2.8).
  • Four Stinger missiles for less well-armored aircraft targets, in a new quad launcher put together by Raytheon.
  • A 30mm automatic cannon, an upgraded model (M230LF) of the gun on the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter and considerably more powerful than the Bradley's 25 mm.
  • A standard 7.62mm machinegun as backup and to kill targets that don't merit a 30 mm round, such as slow-moving drones and infantry in the open.
  • An electronic warfare package to jam drones' control links without having to shoot them.
  • A Rada multi-mission radar to track both air and ground targets.

What's more, the weapons are all mounted on a multipurpose unmanned turret, Moog's Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform (RIwP, pronounced “rip”), which House said could take a wide range of alternative layouts as technology, tactics, and threats evolve. It could also be adapted to other vehicles, with Leonardo having tried a counter-drone version on an M-ATV truck.

“It takes us about four hours to put the RIwP turret on an M-ATV,” House told me. While they've haven't put one on a Stryker yet, once General Dynamics preps a Stryker — which includes cutting the appropriate hole in the top armor — “it won't be any harder to mount it on the Stryker.”

The loaded turret weighs less than the TOW missile turret already installed on the Stryker's anti-tank variant, he said. (By contrast, a rival proposal from General Dynamics and Boeing involved a much larger turret that would have required cutting off the back half of the Stryker's cargo bay).

With the turret installed and loaded, the vehicle has two Hellfires and four Stingers ready to fire and more would be carried in the hull. The three-man crew should be able reload the Stingers and the 30mm without leaving the vehicle, although they'd be partially exposed in an open hatch. The Hellfires, however, are simply too big and heavy to fit through the hatches, so the crew would have to get out and clamber on top of the vehicle to reload those. That's an awkward operation under fire and another reason the IM-SHORAD Stryker shouldn't hang out in range of enemy machineguns alongside the Bradleys.

If fewer or no reloads are needed for a particular mission, House said, some or all of the Stryker's cargo/passenger area would be available for supplies or troops. But with Short-Range Air Defense identified as one of the Army's glaring shortfallsagainst a modern adversary like Russia or China, the IM-SHORAD Stryker probably won't have much time for odd jobs.

Rushing vs. Russia

The Army is rushing to fill multiple gaps in Europe, not just air defense. It's developing a new scout helicopter and adding Trophy Active Protection Systems(APS) to its M1 Abrams heavy tanks to protect them from Russian anti-tank missiles. But while armored brigades of M1 tanks and M2 Bradleys regularly deploy to Europe, the heaviest force stationed there permanently is mounted on Strykers. So the Army is rushing to upgun these relatively lightweight armored vehicles with anti-armor weapons from 30 mm cannon to Javelin anti-tank missiles, as well as the effectively dual-purpose IM-SHORAD package.

How fast is that schedule?

  • September 2017: The Army conducts a SHORAD “shoot off” of potential systems.
  • February 2018: Army issues a Directed Requirement for what they call an “initial material solution” for SHORAD.
  • April: The Army holds an industry day with interested companies.
  • May: An Army panel evaluates companies' White Paper proposals and selects Leonardo DRS for the weapons, turret, and electronics (the Mission Equipment Package); Raytheon for the upgraded Stinger Launcher (which the government then provides to Leonardo); and General Dynamics to integrate everything on the Stryker.
  • August 31: The Army's target date to award contracts.
  • Mid-2019 (3Q FY19): First prototype to be delivered.
  • 2020: First IM-SHORAD battery deployed.
  • 2022: Up to four IM-SHORAD battalions fielded.

At this point the Army may either keep upgrading IM-SHORAD — note it's called the “initial” solution, not the “interim” one as is sometimes reported — or choose another system. Different missiles, improved electronic warfare, and entirely new weapons such as lasers are all options, with 50 kilowatt lasers planned for 2023.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/army-anti-aircraft-stryker-can-kill-tanks-too/

Sur le même sujet

  • Want Siri or Alexa ready for tactical ops? This Army command is working on it.

    27 juillet 2018 | International, C4ISR

    Want Siri or Alexa ready for tactical ops? This Army command is working on it.

    By: Todd South ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. — As the Army improves its mission command posts, one of the key areas where it has made changes is how soldiers can operate computers for everything from sharing information to tracking friendly and not-so-friendly forces. Staff at the Army's Research Development Engineering Command have upgraded items from tablet-style computers, display systems and ways to use voice commands rather than keyboards for controlling devices. During a recent display at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, soldiers who work as trainer/observers at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, gave demonstrations of the new capabilities for the Tactical Computing Environment. Sgts. 1st Class Sheena Ferrell and Ramon Contreras Jr. showed how soldiers using the new devices can share “one common operating picture” with each other. Users can track individual vehicles on the wide-ranging training area, mark obstacles, terrain features, enemy positions and other items with preprogrammed symbols and use a chat feature to send messages or attachments to other soldiers. Alongside those efforts is another piece of software that gives soldiers a Siri or Alexa-type voice command capability, but contained to the device, rather than relying on the computing cloud or an Internet connection. The program, Single Multimodal Android Service for Human Computer Interaction, or SMASH, has been a part of the larger effort to improve Expeditionary Mission Command across the Army. Users can simply speak commands such as “Show Blue Force layers,” or “big picture,” to have icons or elements appear or disappear on the digital map. Another quick-use feature is to mark specific incidents for later use in after action reports. The demonstrator gave the example of selecting a shorthand for marking a spot for a roadside bomb, speaking the words “French fries,” and the device immediately marked and alerted the map, which would also be relayed to those sharing the same features. Some lower tech but important additions are portable, roll-up displays, and software called Display Viewer Application that replaces a massive hardware device used to share computer screen displays across a closed, Local Area Network within the command post. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/07/26/want-siri-or-alexa-ready-for-tactical-ops-this-army-command-is-working-on-it

  • Patria and the Finnish Defence Forces updated their strategic partnership agreement

    1 février 2024 | International, Sécurité

    Patria and the Finnish Defence Forces updated their strategic partnership agreement

    The close cooperation between Patria and the Finnish Defence Forces began over 100 years ago

  • After a leadership shakeup at General Dynamics, a murky future for submarine building

    29 octobre 2019 | International, Naval

    After a leadership shakeup at General Dynamics, a murky future for submarine building

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — Submarine building, the pride of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding efforts over the past decade, is facing a mountain of uncertainty, a point underscored by the replacement of senior members of General Dynamics leadership, compounding delays with construction of the Virginia-class submarine and nagging questions about the quality of the work after a high-profile welding issue threatened to trip up the Columbia-class ballistic missile sub program at the starting line. Adding to the uncertainty for General Dynamics, which operates the Electric Boat shipyard in Connecticut, are indications that profits from constructing Virginia-class subs may be slipping. And challenges in training new workers in the complex world of building subs as well as concerns that the Columbia program might negatively affect General Dynamics' bottom line are impacting General Dynamics' partner yard Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Virginia, as well as the U.S. Navy. Furthermore, a contract for the significantly larger Block V Virginia-class submarine, expected to be one of the largest in the Navy's history, has been repeatedly delayed amid disputes over labor rates, sources told Defense News. That contract is more than a year past due, according to Navy budget documents. In September, General Dynamics pushed out Electric Boat President Jeffrey Geiger. Industry and Navy sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Geiger's replacement was the culmination of mounting frustration on the part of the Navy. That came to a head when quality control issues surfaced with missile tubes in production destined for the Virginia Payload Module, Columbia-class subs and the United Kingdom's replacement ballistic missile sub. Geiger's ouster came on the heals of General Dynamics replacing long-time executive John Casey as head of the Marine Systems division when he retired earlier this year. The shakeup, delays and lingering issues put the Navy and the submarine-building enterprise at a crossroads. It's clear that the Navy's efforts to ramp up production of its Virginia-class attack boats ahead of Columbia have encountered myriad issues and delays. But while delays may be acceptable for the Virginia program, the interconnected nature of submarine building means those delays could eek into a program that the Navy has for years insisted cannot be delayed any further: the replacement of its aging Ohio-class ballistic missile subs, part of the nuclear deterrent triad. The Navy has said Columbia must be ready for its first patrol in 2031 to ensure the nation doesn't fall below a dangerous threshold where retiring Ohio-class submarines leaving the country without an adequate number of boats to execute its deterrent strategy. But to head that off, the Navy may have reduce its expectations of the industrial base's capacity to build submarines, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank and a retired submarine officer. “The Navy is going to have to reduce its appetite for submarine capacity while it gets the construction process in a better position,” he said. “All of the things we have seen in the past year in the submarine-building enterprise are the results of the ramped-up production levels and the challenges that EB [Electric Boat] faces in hiring more workers up in Connecticut. “They've been growing capacity, investing in infrastructure; they're trying to hire a bunch of workers and design engineers. [But] there just isn't a large workforce of those kinds of people up there as opposed to in Hampton Roads or the Gulf Coast. So there are a lot of challenges in ramping up production to [increase] Virginia-class production and, in addition, starting Columbia and beginning the Virginia Payload Module-equipped Virginias, which is a 30 percent larger submarine.” A bridge to Columbia In March, Defense News reported that all the Virginia-class submarines under construction were between four and seven months behind schedule. Naval Sea Systems Command pointed to the cumulative effect of ramping up to building two Virginia-class submarines per year. In a statement, the service's top acquisition official said the Navy was continuing to confront material, labor and shipyard infrastructure issues. Labor issues in particular hit the Newport News yard, which told investors in a recent earnings call that profits had slipped by about 23 percent on the Virginia sub building because of delays associated with labor issues. In the face of the mounting issues, the Navy should be willing to make difficult choices to get back on an even footing, Clark said. “Are we going to make some tough choices and dial back submarine construction deliberately to make sure we can get Columbia started correctly?” he asked. “And that means maybe we slow down Virginia, maybe we go to one per year for at least a couple of years to catch up.” Clark said the Navy should continue to fund two submarines per year but should expect that they will take longer to build while General Dynamics and Newport News stabilize their labor and parts issues. Paring back submarine production is a tough pill to swallow for the Navy, as it's been fighting for years to prevent a shortfall of attack submarines in the coming decade. The Navy expects its inventory of attack boats to drop from 52 to 42 by the late 2020s as Cold War-era Los Angeles-class attack subs retire. Furthermore, there's the question of whether scaling back production might invite a funding cut, which could make matters worse. The supplier and labor issues, after all, primarily stem from the 1990s when the Navy all but stopped buying submarines, which resulted in a contraction of the number of businesses that built submarine parts and a loss in skilled laborers who knew how to build them. Less funding would likely have a detrimental effect on sub-building efforts, said Bill Greenwalt, a former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer. “Under our current budget and appropriations process, slowing down — which likely implies cutting program funding — would exacerbate industrial base problems as it already has in the past due to lack of program demand,” Greenwalt said. “Congress and the Navy need to be prepared for industrial base surprises and seriously face the past problem of the underfunding of naval shipbuilding.” “A flexible schedule and more realistic and flexible funding mechanisms will be needed to meet whatever industrial base challenges ... will inevitably arise,” he added. “In the near term we may even need to look at some of our allies' capabilities to meet shortfalls and help us keep on schedule until we rebuild U.S. capacity.” Greenwalt's view tracks with that of General Dynamics, according to a source with knowledge of the company's thinking on the difficulties it has faced. The company considers ramping up production on the Virginia-class sub as essential to building a sufficient labor force and supplier capacity so the resources are available to build Columbia class on schedule, the source said. ‘Two-hump camel' The Navy's top acquisition official, James Geurts, has similarly described the issue. On the possibility of building a third Virginia-class submarine in 2023, Geurts told the House Armed Services Committee's sea power panel in March that it would benefit the Columbia-building effort. “We can get some of the additional workforce trained up, get some more of the supplier base and get some of the supplier builds out of the way before Columbia gets here,” he said. Officials everywhere seem to agree that the labor force is the most critical factor when it comes to getting submarine building on track. In an exit interview with Defense News in August, outgoing Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said turnover at shipyards was a challenge but also an exciting chance to build a new generation of skilled labor. “We're asking a lot of the submarine industrial base right now to continue with Virginia, two to three per year including that payload module, and deliver Columbia,” Richardson said. “And the workforce is going through a transformation. “The people who built and delivered the Virginia program, the Los Angeles program and Seawolf — those folks are retiring. We used to have this two-hump camel in terms of the demographics of the shipyard: You had the Cold Warriors and you had the post-9/11 folks. And that Cold War hump is gone. And I think that although it's going through some friction right now, it's really inculcating, indoctrinating and educating a brand-new workforce.” Richardson also sounded a note of warning about work quality, saying that the managers overseeing the work for the submarine-building enterprise must be on top of their jobs. “We've had some welding issues: We've got to be on that,” he said. “[It's] a lot closer oversight as we educate this new team.” Clarification: The story has been updated to better reflect the arguments surrounding the future of submarine building. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/28/after-a-leadership-shakeup-at-general-dynamics-a-murky-future-for-submarine-building/

Toutes les nouvelles