What's new

Featured In Test, US Army Defense System Destroys Cruise Missiles While Under Jam Attack

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
16,980
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
Army air and missile defense soldiers simultaneously shot down two simulated cruise missile targets while under electronic warfare attack, thanks to a new radar-linking system.

The soldiers, from 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, are participating in a limited user test of the Army Integrated Battle Command System, or IBCS, at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. The test successfully linked two Patriot radars and two Sentinel radars to three Patriot launchers spread out across the desert.

The radars detected two MQM-178 cruise missile drone targets flying challenging maneuvers at low altitude and relayed target information, triggering a battery to fire two Patriot PAC 3 cost-reduction initiative (CRI) interceptor missiles to simultaneously destroy both threats, Army officials said.

"Normally, we would probably fire two interceptors at each of these targets because we wouldn't have as much of the awareness of the flight patterns of those cruise missiles, because we would only be using a Patriot radar to prosecute them," Col. Tony Behrens, director of Army Capability Manager at Army Air & Missile Defense Command, told defense reporters during a telephonic discussion Thursday.

"But because we were able to integrate several radars far forward of where the launchers were, we were able to buy that time back and allow the commander on the ground to engage with a single PAC 3 CRI," he said. "The benefit to that is it will save us interceptors in the future battle, whereas normally we would run out of interceptors while the threat kind of built itself out."

Army modernization officials said the test was made more complex through an electronic warfare attack that jammed one of the radars in the relay chain, but the self-healing network still completed the relay of information so the proper Patriot launchers could engage the threats.

"The key thing today is we did it in the dirt, and we did it live against live targets," Gen. Mike Murray, head of Army Futures Command, told reporters. "This is a major, major milestone, not only for the air defense community, but for the Army as a whole."

This was a much different outcome than the first limited user test of IBCS, which suffered multiple software challenges and resulted in the program being delayed by four years, Defense News reported.

The Army is scheduled to complete this latest limited user test by the end of September and, if all goes well, make a production decision in November, officials said. The Army plans to put the program through the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase in a year and begin fielding it in fiscal 2022.

But before that happens, the service will conduct a "more challenging" test next week against a cruise missile and a ballistic missile, Murray said.

"So, it's near simultaneous engagements against two different types of targets presenting different threat profiles," he said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news...s-cruise-missiles-while-under-jam-attack.html
 
. . . . . .
Their techs, which are of no importance to you, proved the best support against our adversaries in recent past.
Must be why American systems make up the backbone of your air force
Depends on who your opponents are. and how you use them. So what backbone of PAF are you talking of? PAF backbone is now JF17s and heterogeneous systems with large amount of Chinese equipment..
 
.
So far US weapons have been only good for intimidating small third world countries. If you have sense let's hear your viewpoint.

Are you comparing them to a certain/certain country/countries? Or commenting that the capability is over-exaggerated to attract sales?
 
.
Are you comparing them to a certain/certain country/countries? Or commenting that the capability is over-exaggerated to attract sales?
looking at outcomes (ignoring Fox news and other poodle outlets) I would say gross over exaggeration to acquire and squander public money.
 
.
Depends on who your opponents are. and how you use them. So what backbone of PAF are you talking of? PAF backbone is now JF17s and heterogeneous systems with large amount of Chinese equipment..

No, the backbone of PAF is F-16 Block 52s
 
. . .
Always work good in test under test conditions.
Test conditions in this case = simulating a particular operational scenario in which actual cruise missiles were used to simulate LO class maneuvering targets and the defense system was subjected to EW on top - this is highest level of complexity in the "testing regime." More complex testing is possible in a conventional war no less.

Fundamental objective of testing is to verify whether a 'defense article' will satisfy its operational requirements (or not) under specified conditions.

Intercepting cruise missiles is technically very challenging and operationally very difficult accomplishment for 'any' defense system in the world. This particular test suggest that high performance interceptors should be accorded excellent radar coverage (multiple radar systems) to deliver better results in the battlefield (i.e. intercepting LO class maneuvering targets which may arrive from any direction). Saudi need to take notes.
 
.
looking at outcomes (ignoring Fox news and other poodle outlets) I would say gross over exaggeration to acquire and squander public money.

Have no two opinions on that, manufacturing costs, technical expertise being cutting edge as well as great build quality and having a healthy profit, probably explain the high prices. Most of the high costs, is economic related, so can't really compare with say, China. Even then, as most Chinese systems still pale in comparison, the price gap is still justified, hence the demand for US systems globally.
 
. .

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom