Army Tests Samar Interceptor

[tomahawk6]

The tests seems to be the result of the increasing threat posed by UAV/drones.Gives the commander a way to defeat that threat.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/05/13/Tamar-missile-fired-from-US-Army-Multi-Mission-Launcher/2001463154852/

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M., May 13 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army successfully fired a Tamir missile from its newest launch platform April 14 at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

The missile successfully destroyed a drone as part of an engineering demonstration of the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept system.

The system features a truck-mounted Multi-Mission Launcher that fires a variety of interceptor missiles depending on the threat.

The Tamir was originally intended as an interceptor for countering rockets, artillery and mortars, according to the Army, and is also used in Israel's Iron Dome Weapon System.

 

[Kirkhill]

More on the Multi-Mission Launcher mentioned in T6's post:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2016/04/07/us-armys-multi-mission-launcher-defeats-cruise-missile-uas-threat/82765932/

Current missiles test fired include:

AIM-9X
Stinger
MHTK (Miniature Hi-To-Kill)
Hellfire-Longbow
Tamir

A related system is Kongsberg's NASAMs MML launcher which launches:

AMRAAM - AIM-120
ESSM
AIM-9X

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/groundbasedairdefencesystems/nasams/

And they both seem to be melding with HIMARs launching the MRL, GMRLS, ATACMs missiles.

Kongsberg also offers its Naval Strike Missile / Joint Strike Missile in a ground launched configuration.

Is this what the Army should be looking at for its GBAD/LRPRS systems for 4 RCA?
At what point does this type of system become indistinguishable from the naval counterparts currently in service?
Is a truck always necessary and would Canadian doctrine be comfortable with dispersing ground mounted MMLs in numbers appropriate to the situation?

 

[tomahawk6]

Mobility is an issue so a truck is as good a platform as any.

 

[Kirkhill]

Mobility is an issue so a truck is as good a platform as any.

Agreed, but the ground mount has merits for semi-permanent installations and heliborne transport.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

More on the Multi-Mission Launcher mentioned in T6's post:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army/2016/04/07/us-armys-multi-mission-launcher-defeats-cruise-missile-uas-threat/82765932/

Current missiles test fired include:

AIM-9X
Stinger
MHTK (Miniature Hi-To-Kill)
Hellfire-Longbow
Tamir

A related system is Kongsberg's NASAMs MML launcher which launches:

AMRAAM - AIM-120
ESSM
AIM-9X

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/groundbasedairdefencesystems/nasams/

And they both seem to be melding with HIMARs launching the MRL, GMRLS, ATACMs missiles.

Kongsberg also offers its Naval Strike Missile / Joint Strike Missile in a ground launched configuration.

Is this what the Army should be looking at for its GBAD/LRPRS systems for 4 RCA?
At what point does this type of system become indistinguishable from the naval counterparts currently in service?
Is a truck always necessary and would Canadian doctrine be comfortable with dispersing ground mounted MMLs in numbers appropriate to the situation?

After the Falkland war, I would think that the Exocet has been successfully test fired  :nod:.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't recall any Exocets being fired from Ground mounted launchers during the Falklands.

My reference was to ground mounted missile launchers like the one the US Army is testing, the Kongsberg NASAMs systems uses and the HIMARs/MRLS systems employ.

My thinking is that the MML systems for the army, and the commonality of missile systems, seems to me to be pushing armies into something akin to the Mk41 VLS system - a ready use storage system.  The added advantage is that the army doesn't suffer from the same space constraints so is neither limited in the number of MML boxes tied into the launch control system nor to their geographic dispersion.

I kind of think it would be interesting if, on the first day ashore,  a CH-148 could sling half a dozen boxes of ESSMs into the beachhead and tie them into the CIC of one of Her Majesty's Canadian Ships.  72 hours later, when the battery is fully bedded in and the Battery Launch Centre and Radars are up and running then the Ships can retire to a safer distance from shore.  That would suggest to me that the Army and the Navy use identical/compatible missile launch systems.  Army GBAD and LRPRS and Navy CSC missile systems as a joint project.

 

[winnipegoo7]

I don't recall any Exocets being fired from Ground mounted launchers during the Falklands.

HMS Glamorgan got hit with one and HMS Avenger probably dodged one (and might have shot one down?).

 

[tomahawk6]

The israelis created the Pereh launcher which looks like a Merkeva tank.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-disguises-missile-launcher-inside-a-tank/

 

[Kirkhill]

HMS Glamorgan got hit with one and HMS Avenger probably dodged one (and might have shot one down?).

I stand corrected.  Apologies OGBD.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I don't recall any Exocets being fired from Ground mounted launchers during the Falklands.

My reference was to ground mounted missile launchers like the one the US Army is testing, the Kongsberg NASAMs systems uses and the HIMARs/MRLS systems employ.

My thinking is that the MML systems for the army, and the commonality of missile systems, seems to me to be pushing armies into something akin to the Mk41 VLS system - a ready use storage system.  The added advantage is that the army doesn't suffer from the same space constraints so is neither limited in the number of MML boxes tied into the launch control system nor to their geographic dispersion.

I kind of think it would be interesting if, on the first day ashore,  a CH-148 could sling half a dozen boxes of ESSMs into the beachhead and tie them into the CIC of one of Her Majesty's Canadian Ships.  72 hours later, when the battery is fully bedded in and the Battery Launch Centre and Radars are up and running then the Ships can retire to a safer distance from shore.  That would suggest to me that the Army and the Navy use identical/compatible missile launch systems.  Army GBAD and LRPRS and Navy CSC missile systems as a joint project.

The problem with your proposal, Chris, is that ESSM is a missile that requires a radar to illuminate to target, so it can fly to the reflected energy.  You need a radar with the launcher. Your idea might work, if you picked a different missile type.

 

[Kirkhill]

The NASAMs system also works with AIM-120 and AIM9X, which I believe are both in the RCAF inventory.  But even if you stayed with the ESSMs couldn't the ship's radar manage the contacts during the initial phase until the Battery's MMRs (possibly the new Israeli EL/M-2084s that Rheinmetall is supplying?) are in the field and integrated? 

It seems to me the system could be even more effective if it were linked back to an AAD ship that still had the SM3s or even the SM6s.

The NASAMs system is designed for dispersed/distributed operations.

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/groundbasedairdefencesystems/nasams/

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It is a lot more complicated than that, Chris.

First, as SKT indicated, ESSM drives itself to a radar illuminated target. You radar illuminating the target will, by definition, be mostly reflected back down the bearing it came from, which requires the missile and radar to be co-located. Any other bearing than straight back will reflect lower strengths of signal (i.e. the further away from the bearing, the least the strength of the selected signal, as per a dispersion pattern graph). In fact, the missile uses this very strength of reflection as its basis for making a decision on how to steer: It steers to maintain the strongest signal in its sight.

Second, the ESSM's of your ship are programmed for your ship. This means that the fire control radar not only sends a specific frequency radar signal (which your land base station taking over from the ship would also have to use) but incorporates a signature of your ship's radar signal, which it follows. This is so that in a multiple ship engagement, my ESSM's follow my signal and don't get confused by the fire control radar of another ship. This would have to be reprogrammed before land station can use the missile.

Finally, the onboard fire control radars of ships are not the best suited to carry out air engagement over land, especially for the short range, self defence missiles like the ESSM. That's because they are optimized for last ditch defence against sea skimming missiles. When dealing with over land targets they get too much radar clutter from the land itself and targeting becomes extremely difficult.

If your intent is beach AA protection, why not use manpads until the GBADS can be landed? Especially considering that our "landings" nowadays are more dispersed than a single point beach, with helicopter air assault insertion being the preferred method.