Air Defense Systems have already begun to think through, and integrate small, short range and highly mobile Directed Energy effectors for protecting the high value elements. See👇, where Raytheon's #HELWS is protecting a Sentinel radar via direct integration with NASAMS C2.
Even the small, relatively low-cost 10/15 kW class HELWS have a 3-4 km stand-off range against the relevant Group 1 and 2 UAS threat set. In addition to decoying, and deception they will be a great value add in adding survivability back into mobile air-defense systems.
"During the live-fire exercise, the HELWS received cues from the NASAMS FDC and used automated target cueing and a full spectrum of electro-optical/infrared sensors to track, identify and quickly take down drones at tactically relevant distances. HELWS took down 9 G-1 & 2 drones"
This also holds true for fixed and semi-fixed site defense where you don't have the ability to be constantly moving. We've already seen the 10kW HELWS forward deployed by the USAF to provide Group 1/2 defense and counter ISR capability at forward operating bases.
We often fixate on high power (50-300kW) HELWS that generally tend to support SHORAD, CRAM & CMD needs. As important as they are, the value of smaller, highly mobile/deployable cheaper & more numerous, 10-20kW class systems aimed at Counter G1/2 & LM mission cannot be overstated
HELWS utilizes modular Lithium ion based battery pack that can be scaled given platform volume and payload availability. Throwing a 15kW HELWS module on something like a JLTV would be quite a handy and easy to mass produce package for force protection and other similar roles.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why Is the US Air Force investing in a family of high speed weapons when it is also producing tens of thousands of much lower cost JASSM-ER and low-cost cruise missiles? 🧵👇 goes into this in a bit more detail. 1/7 #HighSpeedStrike #Hypersonic
First, let’s look at why high-speed weapons are useful. The 📸👇 captures the challenge. Strike weapons need to deliver range, overcome challenges associated with time and track custody, and be survivable against modern integrated air defense systems. The balance between these three main requirements drivers is crucial. This is why, no single class of weapons can solve all problems. 2/7
Subsonic missiles are very efficient and offer one of the most cost-effective way to achieve long range strike. Their lack of speed, time-of-flight, and depending on the weapon, survivability against sophisticated IADS will always remain a challenge. Cheaper and simpler high speed weapons like modified ground launched ballistic missiles (for Air Launch) or ALBMs offer high speed, mid-long range performance but are still vulnerable against BMD systems. Highly advanced boost glide systems are expensive, technically challenging to develop and produce affordably, and fly slower than traditional ALBMs. But their ability to operate at lower altitudes makes them significantly more survivable. Likewise, air—breathing hypersonics are significantly more efficient, package better (smaller / lighter and easier to carry for tactical platforms) but pose technical challenges in development and testing across the envelope and scaling to longer ranged systems. The threat, to a large degree, dictates the portfolio of capabilities needed. 3/7
Something I’ve been calling for here for at least half a decade if not more. This is the correct way to signal intent to industry and Congress and secure funding for production ramp. 👍
This 4x ⬆️ in the acquisition objective for the PAC-3 MSE also puts into perspective the recent US Army interest in qualifying a second seeker into missile system. With 13,000+ missiles being the objective, the Army can affordable recompete the seeker.
As I have noted before, PAC-3 MSE's kinematic performance exceeds the ability of legacy PATRIOT radar & limits engagement to sub 1,500 km ranged TBMs. This is changing with MSE being integrated into THAAD, MSEs block V seeker, and IAMD & LTAMDS radar.
I'm often asked, why ⤵️costs $100K. Coyote includes features that are highly desirable for its intended role of protecting fixed/semi fixed sites (large OCONUS installations). If all we want is a cheap point defense solution look no further than the standard or L3/TSC upg APKWS.
Its actually quite sensible to have options across the performance & cost spectrum against G2 and 3 threats while focusing more on EW, DEW or gun based solutions for smaller G1 drones. Fielding layered capabilities is highly desirable.
There are genuine needs that cannot be met with a one size fits all solution or just fielding more guns/CIWS or similar systems. Considerations include launcher emplacement, areas of an installation you don't want to engage (or even fly) targets over & having the speed and range
"We were tasked in Jan 2023 to deliver BMD capability to 🇺🇦..the training occurred at Fort Sill, and in April we conducted a validation exercise in 🇵🇱. #PATRIOT was transferred to protect Kyiv in late April & at 02:30 AM [May 04] it engaged the first ALBM " Col Rosanna Clemente
"We parachuted a [ADA] team into 🇺🇦..and they did an assessment in December of 2021..They took some of our #PATRIOT folks/planners. They spent some time with the Ukrainians and looked at the problem set that..2 months later they were absolutely facing" BG Maurice Barnett
"If you want to see some place that's already doing composite go to any major city in 🇺🇦..You all will probably see this in the news in the next few months or so..the team has done a phenomenal job of moving the ball [on integration]" BG Maurice Barnett
The Joint Simulation Environment #JSE is DOD’s next-gen digital test & training range made up of cockpits, domed simulators & a/c software. It enables pilots to fly wartime scenarios in a near-exact virtual environ & a/c developers to push systems to extreme limits.. ~ US Navy
Navy and AF pilots will begin training together in NAWCAD’s JSE this summer, and the JSE is now part of the DOD’s formal curriculum for its tactical weapons schools. This includes the Navy’s TOPGUN & Air Force’s 6th Weapons Squadron ~ US Navy
NAWCAD will incorporate additional test & training cockpits including the F/A18 Hornet, EA18 Growler, and E-2 platforms in its Patuxent River facility, and deploy its second training system onboard a Navy carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), this year.
The DOD is moving ahead with rapidly developing an Imaging Infrared Seeker seeker for the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System. Emphasizing low cost & optimized to defeat the Small UAS threat, DOD wants the seeker to cost <$10K to keep the overall CsUAS #APKWS+ cost under $50K.
DOD wants the low cost imager to be capable of detecting small objects at ranges exceeding 2km, within a field-of-view that the target has a high probability of detection in a lock-on-after-launch scenario. OEM's would need to partner with BAE to integrate solutions on APKWS.
Baseline APKWS costs $25K while the counter UAS variant featuring an upgraded PF that combines target proximity detection & point detonation and currently runs around $40K per AUR. It has already been shown to defeat Groups 2 & 3 UAS targets. 👇