So the US Army has no mid-level ADA systems. It has a very limited SHORAD capability with infantry Stingers and the handful of Avengers/Linebackers still in service and it has strategic level SAM systems that can engage mid-level targets (THAAD and Patriot), but those systems are not mobile enough for tactical use. The Army hasn't had a mid-level ADA system since Chapparal and I-Hawk were cancelled. Why not do something simple and make a HIMARS canister compatible with the AMRAAM missile? The AMRAAM has its own on board radar, so it would be fire and forget, and already present ADA radars could be used for target acquisition. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
In short no idea Installing AIM-120 is bad idea. You need to amend engine burn (and the engine) to start from 0 speed to have some range. You need to amend the entire list of limits (like vibration) not to kill it in a prolonged march on rough terrain (meaning to make it less fragile), all the amendments will come to a fact that it will be simpler and cheaper to make a new missile. But yeah, first they will want to spend a hundred or two million dollars. Check SLAMRAAM, NASAMS, AMRAAM-ER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAMRAAM The issue is addressed, very, very, slowly
But as your own link confirms, ground launched AMRAAMs already exist. Why would it be difficult to make say a four box launcher that fits inside a standard HIMARS unit?
It's because of the way the US military operates. The first priority in a conventional war would be for the US to gain and maintain air superiority before launching a ground invasion. So we basically aren't going to fight until we have control of the skies. ADA is there to protect ground assets from air threats and since we (would) rule the skies beforehand the US government sees no real reason to invest in sophisticated ADA. They figure Patriots are good enough. Enemy air will need something to bomb and the US Air Force and Navy are there to make sure they never get close enough to bomb anything. The reason countries like Russia and China develop these nasty ADA weapons is strictly because they know the US will more than likely control the skies in whatever war we happen to fight so they have to defend against us. We know that too which is why we aren't developing any.
Trump should ask Putin about ADA. Between the two of them I bet they could come up with something really cool.
We wouldn't be able to maintain air superiority against a major power like Russia or China. At best, we could hope for temporary air superiority over a specific battlefield.
Over a specific battlefield is the whole point. Our FOB's would be protected with the ADA that we have which is pretty decent, Patriots and Avengers. It's not like we don't have any ADA at all we just don't have 100 different types of SAMs and stuff like the Russians do because we simply don't need it. The reason the Russians and Chinese build all that stuff is because they know the second a real war kicks off the US is to be bombing the living crap out of them non stop before they ever see a US ground force and will continue to support our ground forces with CAS. Basically our ground troops don't have to worry about getting bombed by enemy SU-25s or Hind's, our Air Force and Navy simply wouldn't allow it. If we couldn't adequately protect our ground forces via US air superiority then we won't be sending ground forces to that specific battlefield. Everywhere our ground forces go there is an AWACS plus multiple fighters doing overlapping BARCAP missions. We'd shoot them down before they got close enough to hurt our ground troops and for the ones that somehow managed to not get shot down those ground troops have Avengers and Patriot batteries that follow them around. Outside of the most remote covert SpecOps missions there's no US ground forces in the world in a potential danger zone that don't have intercept and CAS aircraft sitting QRF ready to scramble to help them if necessary. It's US doctrine, our boys on the ground don't move unless they have air support. Especially in a conventional war. It would be VERY hard for any foreign military to actively bomb US ground forces. Our ability to gain and maintain air superiority is the number 1 priority that we have. And until we get it, the Marines and Army boys aren't going that way. Desert Storm is an example of how we fight, even though Iraq isn't Russia or China but you get the picture. We bomb the living crap out of you, gain control of the sky, ensure we can maintain control of the sky, THEN send in the ground units. That's our MO, if we can't do that then we aren't attacking that place. And we sort of also maintain the somewhat conceited, although justified, notion that no stable legitimate government with a conventional military is dumb enough to actually declare war on the United States. It's usually the US attacking, not vice versa, which is why the majority of our weapons are offensive and not defensive types. We have a few that are decent enough to get the job done like the Patriot missile system but if those things are ever actually launching SAMs at enemy aircraft then that means our warfighting system has broken down BIG TIME. If an enemy military unit is ever able to punch through our airborne defensive net then we have got some HUGE problems on our hands.
It confirms that someone had the same idea as you . Ground launched AIM 120 was built, tested and closed. The reasons I can only guess. The obvious is the fact that you need a much more powerful engine to lift the missile from 0 alt, 0 speed. This changes the picture entirely. New engine means more weigh, which means new center of mass, which needs to rearrange the fins, the fin control machines, basically everything. This is why they turned to Sea Sparrow which starts from the ground (sea) level. Not so obvious are the different requirements from Air force, Army and Fleet. Vibration issues: Air force missile has to survive the vibrations coming from a short burst of Vulcan. And thats it, it should not be extra durable it should be as light as possible. Army missile has to survive rough storage and handling, a certain drop test on a ground, lack of maintenance and verification equipment (which is plentiful at the airfield) and vibration caused by a logistical truck on rough terrain. Stand-by time for air is 6 hours, standby for army is 24x7 for half a year. What happens to the gyroscopes? The missile has to be durable. Fleet needs a missile that can live in a sault of the open sea with associated corrosion hazards. All these improvements are not needed in the other branches, but they make the missile costly and heavier. There is no ultimate missile system that can answer all the requirements simultaneously. I think they will play with Sparrow, and define and develop a new version based on, but not copying AIM120 and Sparrow design.
During the Vietnam War 1/2 of all Air Force and Navy aircraft over North Vietnam were shot down by AAA (Anti Aircraft Artillery) The U.S. Army started replacing all of its AAA with missiles during the late 1950's and early 60's. I remember the Hawk SAM, they were on top of Monkey Mountain over looking DaNang. Air Defense isn't my department but the Hawk missile was an excellent AA missile so I was told by Marine Hawk battery members but if I remember correctly a Hawk battery required so many different radars, I think four of five radars to accomplish its mission. Where's Mushroom ? He's the expert on the PF on air defense, he is an Oozlefinch. But I digress. But AAA maybe coming back to the U.S. Army. Gun powder anti aircraft artillery. Related:
Yep, cancelled, the info in wiki is correct http://dau.dodlive.mil/2014/11/13/a...he-value-of-technology-readiness-assessments/ Table 1. 14. But why the surprise? AMRAAM-ER should give 50% range increase. It is quite clear that an air launched modification in ground launched mode will not be able to compete with ground launched missile in ground launch mode.
And what I'm saying is if Norway has worked the kinks out and proven AMRAAMs work as a ground launched system, why can't we use them?
Am here, the evacuation kinda kept my access limited for a few days. As of this time, the US Army has 3 different ADA systems. STINGER-AVENGER. This is our low level highly mobile system. Both have a range of 275 km, but are line of sight and optically acquired, for short to the edge of medium range aircraft threats. Then you have PATRIOT. This is our Medium Range system. Range of 20-160km depending on threat and missile used. This is the workhorse system and is also fairly mobile. Tear down and set up each takes around an hour, so add 2 hours to the transit time and that is how long it takes to move a Battery of 6 launchers. Finally you have THAAD. Range of over 200km, this is the long range air and missile defense system. In all honesty, there is really no need to acquire a replacement for the ranges, but there is for the age of the main system. PATRIOT is a Reagan deployed era system, based upon a Kennedy era proposal. The entire system is horribly outdated, and all we are doing is placing a bandaid on top of a bandaid at this point. MEADS was the planned replacement system for PATRIOT, originally drafted in 1999. But in the last 15+ years it has largely been trapped in limbo. The last President tried to cancel it, but the Pentagon largely ignored it, continuing testing anyways. And the best thing about MEADS is that it largely uses off the shelf parts, even the PAC3 launching canisters from PATRIOT. I know the guys that work on PATRIOT would love a replacement. In 2012 I was the only guy in my Battalion that was older than the launcher we operated.
Now to cover some other systems. Yea, for the AIM-120 there have been two proposals. The first was SLAMRAAM, which basically put the AIM-120 on a HMMWV. It is a workable concept, some use it. But the survivability of the system was called into question and the US largely dumped it. As far as the AIM-120 on HIMARS, that was purely a test project to see if it could be adapted to a more durable launching system. HIMARS is not an ADA system, that was purely a "proof of concept" test (along the lines of launching an ICBM from the back of a cargo aircraft). The proof of concept did show that if this was pursued in the future, it would likely be as a modification to be used on MEADS if it is ever developed, or into a completely new system based on a HEMTT truck system. The main reason why HIMARS was selected for the test is that the US is moving completely away from trailer mounted ADA systems, and instead moving to systems integrated into their trucks. This is why PATRIOT looks completely different than THAAD or MEADS.
Trying hard to spear some time to read through GAO and defense reports, it is frustrating, their fish language is horrific, and I presume that the major parts are censored out I cant point a finger at the reason why exactly it was cancelled, only presumptions...
In short, it was because we already have a system that performs the same role. AVENGER. AVENGER uses a vehicle mounted STINGER system which can provide air defense coverage as far as the human can see. It is basically a direct observation system. For anything longer range, we then have PATRIOT. SLAMRAAM would have fit some kind of weird middle ground between the two. It would have been dependent upon outside target acquisition like RADAR, which would have eliminated a big part of it's advantage being invisible until it fires (AVENGER like STINGER uses IR tracking, no signals to detect prior to being launched). SLAMRAAM would have fit somewhere between our two main systems, and had no real advantage over either. So the Army passed on it, preferring to spend the money and resources in MEADS. Although adding AIM-120 missiles to MEADS was an eventual goal, to increase it's versatility against conventional aircraft (PAC-3 is a great ABM weapon, but not as good in an anti-aircraft role).
Well thanks for your comments but it is either I do not understand the realities of a tank column on the move, or this column is basically naked against a SU25T Mi24 Mi8 Ka50 Vihr and Attack missile systems. Vihr and Attack are laser guided supersonic AT missile systems. Their range is above 10km. You can expect 12 to 24 missiles on single Mi8. Now if I understand the concept, the Mi8 hovers behind a hill or a tree line. Jumps up, takes out one-four targets, jumps down, relocate repeat. This is a very affordable and cheap example, Mi8 is a simple and cheap and available to everyone. Vihr and Attack are very old you can have 10 for price of a Maverick. Taking into account recent range upgrades of Kornet, it is possible that modern versions can be fired from 20km. (New Kornet simply doubled its range, no idea if this is an advertisement exaggeration, the new missile has same dimensions. But this should be taken into account, missile engines have vastly improved in last 15 years) But returning to the scenario. How many eyes 4 Avengers rolling in a column can have on the horizon at all times? It takes hell of a time to scan horizon for Mi8 hovering at 8km, 2 meters above the treetop line. Add fatigue, add dust from armor, or rain or snow, add surprise. Stinger FIM-92 is not going to lock on such a distance, no way. Stinger will simply not reach the target. It is not about Russia vs US scenario, it is about. Helicopter in hover mode versus an armor column. A system that constantly scans the horizon in auto mode (without tired personal), on the move, with an AA missile capable of reaching at least 12km (I mean real kilometers, not the ones used in advertisement leaflets, otherwise lets make it 25) would be a fantastic sale piece on current market. Why Russian have this sort, Europe has such solutions, why not US? I'we read the reports and I cant get a general idea. The marines cancelled. The GAO was furious with expenses. But military gave even more money. Critical information was prone to leakage (what are they talking about?) Raytheon failed to meet criterias. Military was not able to set criterias. Raytheon stated they are not responsible performance of the missile (???). Raytheon was blaming everyone around for something blacked out. GAO guys are asses thats for sure, their patience was tested . Tests wear done, everyone was happy, than something went wrong . A lot of info in the reports is blacked out, possible the reasons why it was cancelled. No idea, I do not understand a thing
Not at all, that is what AVENGER is for. The Marine Corps cancelled the AVENGER because it simply did not fit into their operational doctrine. Nothing to do with any kind of performance. The Marine Corps is based around supporting 3 Light Infantry Divisions. These Divisions are entirely foot mobile, and other then a few division level logistical support units that is how they operate. AVENGER once again was this kind of weird middle ground for the Corps that simply did not fit in. However, the Corps does field mobile 3 man LAAD (Low Altitude Air Defense) teams which operate out of a standard HMMWV with STINGER missiles. But since the missiles are not integrated into any kind of vehicle, they can also operate completely in a MANPAD operation and without the vehicle at all. And unit scouts and RADAR is what we use to detect threats to a column on the move. Helicopters are the biggest threat in this kind of situation, and the main way to detect them is simply to position scouts 10 miles or so in each avenue of approach. That is also often where you find MANPAD units with STINGER missiles. And the problem most times with distance is simply terrain and people. Whenever a system is line of sight, that is what your firing limit. How far away you can see without obstructions, and how far a human can actually see.
Stinger doesn't cut it vs helicopters according to this documentary. Expected helicopter casualties = zero. [video=youtube;3enx0IvWV64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3enx0IvWV64[/video]
You seem to be missing a key part of how the military and combat operations actually work. To be effective a weapon system does not have to destroy the target. It simply has to make it either break off from it's target, or to damage it so it can no longer prosecute the attack. The helicopter is not shot down, big deal. I can bet you dollars to doughnuts though that any helicopter pilot is going to break contact right away and move as fast as they can out of the area of danger. Mission accomplished. And no, I am not going to watch a 40 minute documentary to figure out what you are trying to get at. But if it is talking about the HIND in Afghanistan, here are a few things most do not realize. For one, the majority of missiles used there were not actually STINGER, but REDEYE. Physically very similar, but the missile in STINGER is much smarter and more advanced. And the missile has been upgraded a lot also. The newest model came out about 10 years ago, and has over twice the explosive power of the older models. It is also faster and has greater range. And yea, I have taken part in STINGER operations (simulated) against the HIND. One disadvantage of the thing, you know it is coming long before it gets within range. A STINGER team would have 3 or 4 missiles prepared as soon as they heard it's distinctive sound. And most teams operate with a secondary team a couple of miles away. But tell me, what would you use against a HIND, since you seem to think they are ineffective?
In the US war game shown in the video. The stingers all die. Things didn't go the way you predicted at all. It might interest you to watch as it is a US training exercise in which 2 captured soviet style helicopters with US pilots are pitted against US ground forces. They do not break off and run. They are not denied the air. They rule the battlefield and annihilate their opposition. Against a Hind? I would not use a stinger. I would dig in and wait for it to run out of fuel. Any pilot worth his salt can mask for sound. Flying at treetop level, you don't have time to acquire the target before it has flown past. You don't have to take my word for it. That video will have one of your own superiors explaining it to you if you can be bothered to watch. P.S. the Stinger is a decidedly unimpressive weapon. In Iraq, the most effective weapons vs the Apache was the RPG 7. 300 of them, deployed in trench systems. Dumbfire missiles, but masses of them.
Interesting, since the Soviets lost 74 Hinds in Afghanistan, the vast majority to Stingers. That's the difference between war sims and actually taking a SAM up the ass...
Tell you what, here is a video you can watch. [video=youtube;trOlpA6UhnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trOlpA6UhnY[/video] It is much shorter, and shows actual STINGER operations against a HIND helicopter, an AN-2 Colt, and other things. This is a Marine Corps LAAD team (3 Marines) along with an Army Soldier (me) taking part in STINGER operations, a war game exactly like you describe. And excuse me, mask the sound of a helicopter? We are talking real world here, we heard that thing long before we were able to see it. And no, I am still not watching your 30+ minute long video. Mine though is only 6 minutes long, and is "real world". BTW, the HIND we engaged at the start was "hit" with 3 missiles, and was determined to have sustained significant damage, which saved the PATRIOT battery it engaged shortly after the video ended. You see, I do not take your word for it because I have done it in real life. That is the difference between an amateur and a professional. And when it comes to ADA, I am a professional. That is why I am frequently pulled into discussions like this.
