What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

WASHINGTON: As the Army urgently rebuilds its long-neglected artillery branch, it’s test-firing some impressive hardware in the southwestern desert and over the Pacific. But all those technologies, the Army’s artillery modernization director told me, are in service to a single purpose:

After decades of depending on air support, the Army needs its own long-range precision firepower to blow holes in high-tech defenses so US aircraft, warships, and ground troops can pour through.

No one wonder weapon can solve this problem on its own, Brig. Gen. John Rafferty told me in an interview ahead of this week’s successful Precision Strike Missile test. Instead, it requires a complete toolkit of complementary weapons with overlapping ranges, each optimized for a different set of targets at a different level of the future fight.

The Portfolio’s Progress

“Our analysis has been focused on how we’ll fight with these things,” Rafferty told me,” how they complement one another to take down the A2/AD [Anti-Access/Area Denial] complex to open those windows of opportunity for the joint force.”

“At the tactical level, that’s ERCA,” he said. Extended Range Cannon Artillery is an upgraded Paladin armored howitzer with an extra-long barrel, supercharged propellant and advanced ammunition that hit targets over 40 miles away in a recent test. Originally, the Army had focused on the new rocket-boosted XM1113 shell, but the March test proved it was possible to tweak the existing precision-guided Excalibur to reach similar ranges, Rafferty told me. He doesn’t see the two rounds as redundant, however. Excalibur will offer precision, the XM1113 wide-area suppression.

“For theater opening, that’s PrSM, knocking down some of the sophisticated air defense or maritime targets,” Rafferty said. The Precision Strike Missile has proven its ability to hit targets as close as 53 miles in last week’s test. (Short-range shots are actually harder because the sudden deceleration stresses the missile). The prototype should max out in long-range-shots next year at over 300, but a future upgrade could fly over 400. PrSM is sleeker, longer-ranged, and smaller than the Reagan-era ATACMS it replaces, yet hits with the same force thanks to more advanced explosives.

“At the strategic level, that’s strategic fires opening the door for the joint force,” he said:

The high-cost, high-performance option here is the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, a rocket-powered boost-glide missile that was test-fired in March for the first time in three years. The expected range is classified but could easily be thousands of miles.

Hypersonics are so cutting-edge – and correspondingly expensive – that they’re being developed by a special Army organization, Lt. Gen. Neil Thurgood’s Rapid Capability & Critical Technologies Office, as part of a joint effort with the Navy. Rafferty’s Long-Range Precision Fires Cross Functional Team will take over the program as it moves from prototype to production, and it’s already working out training and tactics.

The hypersonic missile set to enter service in 2023, Rafferty said, will probably be an “exquisite” weapon that must be reserved for the hardest and most critical targets. So, to barrage larger numbers of softer targets, Rafferty’s team is developing the Strategic Long-Range Cannon, a supergun using gunpowder to launch guided projectiles over one thousand miles. While a full-up SLRC prototype won’t be test-fired until 2023, two “test assets” are already launching simulated projectiles called slugs.

“There are skeptics,” Rafferty admits. “But every time we get a chance to engage the skeptics with our technical experts, they generally walk away thinking, ‘that could work.’ And if it does, then it’s a capability we ought to have in the Army.”

In this big picture, even a thousand-mile supergun is just one more useful tool in the toolkit, and no one tool is irreplaceable. Rafferty’s boss, Army Futures Command chief Gen. John Murray, has even said: “If the Strategic Long-Range Cannon does not deliver, we have hypersonics.”

But how do all these different weapons add up to more than the sum of their parts?

Many Weapons, One Mission

“How it’s all linked together: It starts with the operational concept,” Rafferty said. “When you look at Multi-Domain Operations” – the Army’s concept for future conflict – “and then what I think will emerge as a joint operational concept by the end of the year” – what the Pentagon’s calling Joint All-Domain Operations – “the fundamental problem is layered enemy standoff.”

Great power competitors like China and Russia, and even regional threats like North Korea and Iran, are painfully aware of how American airpower reigned unchecked over Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Serbia. So they’ve invested heavily in the kind of long-range, precision-guided weapons that were once an American monopoly. The resulting Anti-Access/Area Denial defenses combine surface-to-air missiles to keep out US aircraft; surface-to-surface weapons to hit airbases, aircraft carriers, and ground forces; radars, drones, and satellites to detect and target the Americans at a distance; plus supporting forces from fighter jets to submarines to mines.

With adversaries investing so heavily in countering US airpower, Rafferty said, “it really then has to be surface-to-surface fires that begin to reduce the enemy integrated air defenses and long-range artillery that make up that layered standoff of A2/AD.” That means the Army has to switch from being a consumer of the other services’ long-range fire support to a provider of long-range firepower to support the other services.

The problem is the Army largely neglected its artillery for the last three decades, just as it neglected other essentials of large-scale conventional conflict such as anti-aircraft defense and electronic warfare. Now it’s scrambling to rebuild all three, with artillery taking pride of place.

“Think about the experimentation with Multi-Domain Task Forces,” Rafferty told me. Starting with an experimental unit in the Pacific, he said, “the pilots were successful enough in showing what could be done, centered around a field artillery brigade as the headquarters, with additional intelligence, cyber, and electronic warfare capability.

“The Army is committed to Multi-Domain Task Forces beyond just the initial pilot,” he went on, with a second MDTF being stood up in the Pacific and a third in Europe. To coordinate long-range firepower at a higher level, he said, “we’re developing the Theater Fires Command. That will give us the ability to employ strategic fires at a theater level and integrate coalition partners.”

Why are these new formations necessary? “We’re not structured now to fight and win with the systems that we’re going to deliver in the not too distant future,” Rafferty said bluntly. The Army will need new organizations, new tactics, and new training to make the most of the new hardware.

That’s why Rafferty’s Cross Functional Team, while it has representatives from all across the Army, is based at Fort Sill, the intellectual home of the artillery. “Here at Fort Sill,” he told me, “we can make sure that our doctrine is right and the training base is established so we’ve got artillerymen ready to man the systems.”

“Early in the morning when I go out and do PT, I see privates who are just getting started with their Army careers, and you have officers here for the basic and the advanced courses, and non-commissioned officers that are back here for professional military education,” Rafferty told me. “And you realize that you’re looking at the future hypersonic section chief, or a first sergeant of an ERCA battery, or the battery commander firing the first PrSM missile.”

“It does keep you pretty well grounded,” he said. “You realize that this is real and that these soldiers are counting on us to deliver.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05...3.1146247346.1588285507-1284686552.1572645892

i acted a little over excited.:p:P but according to this article they have two prototypes already.
 
i acted a little over excited.:p:P but according to this article they have two prototypes already.

53 miles and possibly 400 miles is a lot different than “1000s” of miles. It’s simple physics, without a motor to continue speed gravity and Newton’s laws will act upon object and slow it down.
 
53 miles and possibly 400 miles is a lot different than “1000s” of miles. It’s simple physics, without a motor to continue speed gravity and Newton’s laws will act upon object and slow it down.
bro it's initial speed is so high and that covers the lack of propulsion part.
 
I just said the letter is old from the days that attack happened. Beck in the time it was declared as fake by Pentagon and the senator whom the letter is ent to als said he never received such letter. If IRGC has any video it's time they showed it.
g hajizade said in a tv show about qased slv i think when show man ask about al asad he said we have video but we show it in a tv for people in tv show about this attack but dont say when you can go see that video in near end of it he said but why they dont show it i dont know why .the usa g.must say its fake if dont say what he must say if they say its true they must go to war or .... like now
 
g hajizade said in a tv show about qased slv i think when show man ask about al asad he said we have video but we show it in a tv for people in tv show about this attack but dont say when you can go see that video in near end of it he said but why they dont show it i dont know why .the usa g.must say its fake if dont say what he must say if they say its true they must go to war or .... like now

I remember he said that they have footage. We don’t know what the footage is. Time will tell. Patience.
 
I remember he said that they have footage. We don’t know what the footage is. Time will tell. Patience.

That's actually a good point, if their is some sort of footage, it might cause pressure for the U.S president to do retaliatory attacks if it looks real bad for the Americans.
 
If the Americans try to retaliate after a video of casualties is released then that will damage their reputation even more, because it shows they knew the truth but wanted to keep it hidden to avoid looking very weak. Their best option is just to deny the authenticity of any clips that is released.
 
Success of the Ain Al-Assad strike by Iran, considered air defense failure according to Rand Inst. U.S has adamantly denied the presence of any air defense a Ain Al-Assad during that time. Interesting.


Because there wasn’t.

If you don’t believe me, go buy commercial satellite photos of the base and surrounding area days before the attack.

In this day and age any amateur internet sleuth could debunk the government if they lied about air defense systems being there.

Fact is there isn’t many Patriot missiles to go around in the world or the Middle East. Al Assad base was not a strategic priority for missile attacks, it’s not even a US base.
 
Because there wasn’t.

If you don’t believe me, go buy commercial satellite photos of the base and surrounding area days before the attack.

In this day and age any amateur internet sleuth could debunk the government if they lied about air defense systems being there.

Fact is there isn’t many Patriot missiles to go around in the world or the Middle East. Al Assad base was not a strategic priority for missile attacks, it’s not even a US base.
Since you are half american you should support your folks this much.
 
Because there wasn’t.

If you don’t believe me, go buy commercial satellite photos of the base and surrounding area days before the attack.

In this day and age any amateur internet sleuth could debunk the government if they lied about air defense systems being there.

Fact is there isn’t many Patriot missiles to go around in the world or the Middle East. Al Assad base was not a strategic priority for missile attacks, it’s not even a US base.

You're kidding. Right? Ain Al-Assad is the largest US military base in Iraq. It is used by both Iraqi and US forces. The base is also used by the British forces.

Iran hit the US part of the base and even CNN reported it and interviewed US troops there. You have recently been disreputing yourself by posting comments that shows you know nothing about what you talk about.

If the US doesn't have AD for its largest military asset in Iraq, that's their problem.
 
You're kidding. Right? Ain Al-Assad is the largest US military base in Iraq. It is used by both Iraqi and US forces. The base is also used by the British forces.

Iran hit the US part of the base and even CNN reported it and interviewed US troops there. You have recently been disreputing yourself by posting comments that shows you know nothing about what you talk about.

If the US doesn't have AD for its largest military asset in Iraq, that's their problem.

Then post proof. Instead of propaganda conjecture.

You do realize you can order commercial satellite photography? Right? Post proof there was ADs at the base at time of attack.

Literally not a single reputable open source disputes that claim. It can be easily proven if US is lying in that matter.

Al-Assad is an Iraqi military base NOT US military base, you should probably learn the difference. US military bases are sovereign territory, Al-Assad is still an Iraqi military base.

There are Patriot missile batteries in Baghdad and there are batteries NOW in Al-Assad, but at the time there was not batteries surrounding Al-Assad.

Again if you have proof that there was please do post it. If you can’t then you are the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
 
Then post proof. Instead of propaganda conjecture.

You do realize you can order commercial satellite photography? Right? Post proof there was ADs at the base at time of attack.

Literally not a single reputable open source disputes that claim. It can be easily proven if US is lying in that matter.

Al-Assad is an Iraqi military base NOT US military base, you should probably learn the difference. US military bases are sovereign territory, Al-Assad is still an Iraqi military base.

There are Patriot missile batteries in Baghdad and there are batteries NOW in Al-Assad, but at the time there was not batteries surrounding Al-Assad.

Again if you have proof that there was please do post it. If you can’t then you are the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
When did I claim there was AD there? I said if there was no AD, it's the US problem.

What do you mean by US bases are sovereign territory? Since when a US base inside Iraq is sovereign territory? Under what international laws? LOL What do you mean by Al-Assad is an Iraqi base in the first place? The US and the British are obviously using it. So, you think that a military base is like an apartment that has a legal owner or what?
 
When did I claim there was AD there? I said if there was no AD, it's the US problem.

What do you mean by US bases are sovereign territory? Since when a US base inside Iraq is sovereign territory? Under what international laws? LOL What do you mean by Al-Assad is an Iraqi base in the first place? The US and the British are obviously using it. So, you think that a military base is like an apartment that has a legal owner or what?

Again you show your lack of knowledge.

It’s because the number of THAAD and Patriot missile batteries is rather limited. It is impossible for US to cover every military base in the world it has forces at with air defense systems. US has acknowledged the short supply.

And you should probably go learn that military bases are SOVEREIGN territory just like embassies are SOVEREIGN territory. When a country agrees to HOST another military’s foreign forces it signs a CONTRACT with that country. For example Russia or iran would sign a contract with Syria for a military base that is covered for 99 years (example). The contract stipulates the rights of the foreign country and that “piece of land” becomes that country’s “property” for the specified time. This means that a Syrian military cannot magically walk into a Russian or Iranian military base without permission.

This is why Iranian constitution BANS foreign military bases on its soil because it is deemed a breach of sovereignty.

Al-Assad is an Iraqi military base under the control of the Iraqi government. US is merely stationed alongside the forces there. They don’t have full control over the base nor is it sovereign territory of US.
 
Again you show your lack of knowledge.

It’s because the number of THAAD and Patriot missile batteries is rather limited. It is impossible for US to cover every military base in the world it has forces at with air defense systems. US has acknowledged the short supply.

And you should probably go learn that military bases are SOVEREIGN territory just like embassies are SOVEREIGN territory. When a country agrees to HOST another military’s foreign forces it signs a CONTRACT with that country. For example Russia or iran would sign a contract with Syria for a military base that is covered for 99 years (example). The contract stipulates the rights of the foreign country and that “piece of land” becomes that country’s “property” for the specified time. This means that a Syrian military cannot magically walk into a Russian or Iranian military base without permission.

This is why Iranian constitution BANS foreign military bases on its soil because it is deemed a breach of sovereignty.

Al-Assad is an Iraqi military base under the control of the Iraqi government. US is merely stationed alongside the forces there. They don’t have full control over the base nor is it sovereign territory of US.
If it's limited, why are they bringing Patriot SAMs now?

And you should probably learn that even embassies are not sovereign territory. Stop making up things out of your ***. LOL Al-Assad was a US base and it was hit. Period.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom