NLOS-LS cancelled

[Waylander]

Army Cancels NLOS-LS Missile System; LCS Implications Could Be Big | Defense Tech

Looks like the NLOS missile is dead and gone.
As this has impacts on both, the US Army and the US Navy, I placed these news in this section.
Another goldplated program goes down the tube. Not that this is surprising after the long list of failed tests.

Looks like GMLRS and Excalibur remain the armys main PGMs but I think they can live way better with this than the USN which now has a huge problem with the LCS ASuW package.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

What was the NLOS supposed to replace anyway?

 

[Bonza]

Army Cancels NLOS-LS Missile System; LCS Implications Could Be Big | Defense Tech

Looks like the NLOS missile is dead and gone.
As this has impacts on both, the US Army and the US Navy, I placed these news in this section.
Another goldplated program goes down the tube. Not that this is surprising after the long list of failed tests.

Looks like GMLRS and Excalibur remain the armys main PGMs but I think they can live way better with this than the USN which now has a huge problem with the LCS ASuW package.

Well, to be fair the Army has only recommended cancellation, it isn't quite cancelled yet. I don't know what its chances for sticking around are, though.

How far along was the development of the surface warfare module for the LCS, do you know? I'm curious as to how difficult it will be to find a replacement, if NLOS-LS does get canned. Are there major differences between how NLOS-LS would be integrated and used on the LCS as opposed to likely replacement systems?

 

[Waylander]

Is there even a real replacement?
One could try to bolt some hellfires onto the LCS. They may lack the proposed range of NLOS but with their 8km they should be usefull against small threats which may attack in swarms. And they are not that big and expensive. With NLOS one would shoot 1/2 a Tomahawk worth of money at a speedboat...

The army already has GMLRS and Excalibur so they can hit high value targets with PGMs up to 40km away at short notice. How often is there a target 100km away which can't get serviced by an airstrike and for which such a small missile is sufficient...?

 

[kato]

Is there even a real replacement?

Rig a Harpoon with five or six BLU-108 instead of the original warhead. Takes care of the area fire aspect at least.

 

[Bonza]

Is there even a real replacement?
One could try to bolt some hellfires onto the LCS. They may lack the proposed range of NLOS but with their 8km they should be usefull against small threats which may attack in swarms. And they are not that big and expensive. With NLOS one would shoot 1/2 a Tomahawk worth of money at a speedboat...

The army already has GMLRS and Excalibur so they can hit high value targets with PGMs up to 40km away at short notice. How often is there a target 100km away which can't get serviced by an airstrike and for which such a small missile is sufficient...?

I was wondering if they could possibly leverage the JAGM program (or parts of it anyway), should they require an alternative. Range wise, NLOS seems pretty hard to beat compared to missiles of a similar size. And from what I understand the LCS could potentially carry a hell of a lot of them if appropriately configured. This is why I'm wondering about how NLOS-LS is supposed to be employed on the LCS, as compared to a potential replacement - I guess it depends on how significant the range and missile numbers associated with NLOS are to how the LCS is supposed to fight in the anti-surface role. Apologies for putting so much emphasis on a single system, I know there's more to a warship than one component, I'm just curious as the properties of NLOS seem quite distinct as far as the naval anti-surface application goes.

You're right about the cost, it seems pretty high (Army budget for 2011 pegged it at $466,000 per missile apparently, though Raytheon said average unit production price would be much lower), and as you mentioned, what kind of surface targets is it suitable for engaging?

I wonder, would it be easier be upgrade the anti-surface capability of the drones and rotorcraft carried by LCS rather than onboard capability? It couldn't keep up with NLOS in some areas certainly, so maybe it would only be appropriate as a stopgap measure. But could the overall anti-surface capability be significantly improved? Just a thought anyway, chances are I'm barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I was wondering if they could possibly leverage the JAGM program (or parts of it anyway), should they require an alternative. Range wise, NLOS seems pretty hard to beat compared to missiles of a similar size. And from what I understand the LCS could potentially carry a hell of a lot of them if appropriately configured. This is why I'm wondering about how NLOS-LS is supposed to be employed on the LCS, as compared to a potential replacement - I guess it depends on how significant the range and missile numbers associated with NLOS are to how the LCS is supposed to fight in the anti-surface role. Apologies for putting so much emphasis on a single system, I know there's more to a warship than one component, I'm just curious as the properties of NLOS seem quite distinct as far as the naval anti-surface application goes.

You're right about the cost, it seems pretty high (Army budget for 2011 pegged it at $466,000 per missile apparently, though Raytheon said average unit production price would be much lower), and as you mentioned, what kind of surface targets is it suitable for engaging?

I wonder, would it be easier be upgrade the anti-surface capability of the drones and rotorcraft carried by LCS rather than onboard capability? It couldn't keep up with NLOS in some areas certainly, so maybe it would only be appropriate as a stopgap measure. But could the overall anti-surface capability be significantly improved? Just a thought anyway, chances are I'm barking up the wrong tree.

There's an Israeli designed weapon system that seems an almost carbon-copy of NLOS-LS floating around...

Perhaps they'll have a bit more success with such a system and if so, perhaps it may be attractive to US forces?

 

[Waylander]

You mean this one?
Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (IAI) Media Room

It looks interesting although it lacks an active seeker which is importand for the ASuW role.
It also has "just" a range of 50km but as I said before, who really needs a range of >120km with such a small missile anyway...

 

[Firn]

You mean this one?
Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (IAI) Media Room

It looks interesting although it lacks an active seeker which is importand for the ASuW role.
It also has "just" a range of 50km but as I said before, who really needs a range of >120km with such a small missile anyway...

IMHO they have chosen the diameter with 150mm very well if it allows the easy use of all the submunitions of the 155mm rounds. I recon that it does, as the walls are much thinner for rockets. (Ironically I wrote in a older post, an answer in the SWJ, that a 150mm rocket would be possibly the best new "medium" rocket caliber for a MRLS for the same reasons)

Firn

 

[Firn]

This might be the key difference between the two systems:

Jumper:

The missile is 1800 mm long, has a diameter of 150 mm, and weighs 63 kg. The missile is equipped with a GPS/INS and 4 steering fins at its tail. In addition, the missile can home to a laser designation.

Thus, a significant effect is achieved against a variety of target types, especially in urban operations where collateral damage is a major concern. The missile is armed with several possible warheads for fire missions that require prompt and accurate response.

Precision Attack Munition (PAM)

Used to attack vehicles, armor, bunkers, and other targets of opportunity. Uses 3 modes of guidance, GPS/INS, semi-active laser homing, and autonomous imaging infrared. Carries a multi-mode warhead effective against several types of targets. It also includes an online library of pictures of targets, so that it can visually identify what it is homing in on.

The third modus adds a lot of complexity to the whole missile.


The Jumper should be able to carry at least two BONUS or SMart submunitions, I wonder how large their search radius is. Observed precision engagement should be easily possible with a combination of GPS/INS and laser homing. Basically the observer sends back the target grid and gets the info about the flight path and time to impact. Moving targets must thus only be lasered in the last seconds.

Smart guys should be able to weave the smart submunitions, laser homing and the GPS/INS systems toghter. Through the laser homing capability the missile computer should be easily capable to get the rough GPS grid of the lasered target (could be a tree near the tank) and fly to the point x 1-2km away and 800 m above it to release SMart and Bonus. (The laser cone gives the vector from the momentary position/grid x to the position of the target y, the lenght is solved by the GPS determined height of the target on the surface of the earth) This would allow the observer to evade the laser warning systems and to update the current position of a moving target. With some experience he might laser a point a certain distance ahead to increase the chances of success. I can see it working.

I like the overall missile in a box concept, it has a lot of advantages and makes counter-battery work a lot harder as you can disperse your systems easily and keep a lot of silent boxes in reserve.


Firn

 

[Waylander]

Jup, the missing active seeker is also what I thought is the biggest difference/problem.

Your idea might work but is only usefull when the system is used by the army or navy to engage targets which are spotted by forward elements.

The idea of firing a bunch of these missiles against a swarm of small boats or even FACs is not going to work. And that is one of the primary missions of the LCS after all. But in the end I always thought of this as a little bit dubious.

 

[Firn]

Jup, the missing active seeker is also what I thought is the biggest difference/problem.

Your idea might work but is only usefull when the system is used by the army or navy to engage targets which are spotted by forward elements.

It should be workable but there a quite some details to work out.

Personally I think that the "blind" interdiction with autonomous guided munitions covers only a rare spectrum of the fire support missions, at least on land. In our usual cluttered environment it would be highly unusual and very controversial indeed to allow a weapon system such a high degree of liberty, while in wartime I can not imagine it to be highly efficient. Thus they will of course mostly rely on the observation and targeting by third-party sources, having only a larger degree of autonomy.

The seas and skies are far smoother backgrounds for fire-and-forget systems.

The idea of firing a bunch of these missiles against a swarm of small boats or even FACs is not going to work. And that is one of the primary missions of the LCS after all. But in the end I always thought of this as a little bit dubious.

Also in this case logic and reality dictates that we have some information about the presumed targets we want to destroy. Be it an organic or networked sensor system, be it aerial, aquatic or terrestrial, be it human or machine or whatever combination of the former, the information will have to flow somehow from somewhere.

Jumper should be able to work just fine as a CIWS system. Add one or two integrated high-quality EO system in the mast covering the whole azimuth and a good deal of elevation. Slave a laser designator to them and network them with the radar and GPS/INS of the ship. Let the Jumper jump in clever intervals and you should deal with the threat in the nearer vicinity with little problems. Use compact UAV like the Scaneagle to increase the reach and quality of your EO informations and your laser homing. Against capable enemies with high-tech equipment and a well trained crew you will have to cut the slack of long-winded processes and you will also have to engage with poorer information.


Firn

 

[Firn]

Some bits about the Jumper:

The missile is 1800 mm long, has a diameter of 150 mm, and weighs 63 kg. The missile is equipped with a GPS/INS and 4 steering fins at its tail. In addition, the missile can home to a laser designation.

Thus, a significant effect is achieved against a variety of target types, especially in urban operations where collateral damage is a major concern. The missile is armed with several possible warheads for fire missions that require prompt and accurate response.

While it might prove to be a bit of a challenge a version with an EO sensor package and a similar guidance system similar to one used by the Spike ATGM should be duable. Some range might be have to be sacrificed. This should make it more attractive against that dreadful swarm of boats who seems to be one of the most fearful dangers for western navies - at least in the minds of some.

A rocket pod for lenghtened and adjusted 150 mm Jumpers could make a lot of sense for MLRS already in service. In this case the steering and propulsion mechanism will need some work. More space available means an easier integration of additional sensor suites, more payload and more range. The old MLRS has still a huge advantage over this new container concept: it is able to rapidly concentrate through a lot of "dumb" and cheap rockets devastating firepower. TCS (Trajectory Correction Systems) offers also an interesting "new" path to rocket artillery.


Firn

 

[huskerguy7]

It didn't seem to be working out well. There wasn't much confidence.

Now I wander what they'll put on the LCSs.

 

[stoker]

It didn't seem to be working out well. There wasn't much confidence.

Now I wander what they'll put on the LCSs.

Would it be practical to put on a navalised ( stabilized system) of the MLRs.

You could have either the basic (HIMARS type) 6 tube system, or the (Bradley type) 12 tube, and/or, a 6 tube GMLRS/ 2 tube ATACMS.

The GMLRS rockets give a range up to 70 km's, and, the ATACMS will give ypou a range of 300 km's.

The whole system could be mounted aft, on the flight deck.

This MLRS system on a LCS would basically be for shore bombardment in support of the Army/Marines.

The main problem I can see would be the safe storage of the rockets?

This system would be basically useless to counter the mythical small boat swarms, but, I believe these would be best countered by CIWS, or 35mm, 40mm, or 57mmm AHEAD type munitions.

 

[Waylander]

But that would leave the LCS without it's helicopter. This is a no go as the helicopter is an integral Part of the LCS concept. And battling it out with a bunch of small boats who are at least as heavily armed as a LCS with some additional ACs isn't ideal.

 

[stoker]

But that would leave the LCS without it's helicopter. This is a no go as the helicopter is an integral Part of the LCS concept. And battling it out with a bunch of small boats who are at least as heavily armed as a LCS with some additional ACs isn't ideal.

Yes, you are correct, but, that is the whole ideal behine the LSC concept.

I appreciate some people would like to turn the LCS in to some type of an Aegis type cruiser,
but that's not what the LCS concept is all about, the LCS provides a very fast hull for different scenario's, i.e., anti mine, ASW, ASuW, etc,etc.

The LSC will take on the appropiate module/ crew to carry out that basic/singular task, also the LSC will usually operate mainly as a part of a combined fleet and will be tasked in the littoral arena. side of these operations.

My ideal for the MLRS module, is for the LCS to operate purely in support with Guided Tactical missiles, the same as the Army does with the HIMAR vehicle.

You may have any number of LSC's/MLRS ( from just 1 to up to 10 or more), basically they would provide shore bombardment in support of Army/Marine units, similar to that of the role the obsolete battleships did.

As soon as the LSC finished with supportiung the troops, it would return to Base the MLRS module would be remove and replace with what ever module/ and crew that was require for its next task.

 

[fretburner]

Seems like the Navy is taking over the project: House Authorizers Shift NLOS R&D Funding to Navy

The LCS will not be toothless after all

I wonder what the Army will do if the Navy make this work?

 

[marcellogo]

Bah...

Seems like the Navy is taking over the project: House Authorizers Shift NLOS R&D Funding to Navy

The LCS will not be toothless after all

I wonder what the Army will do if the Navy make this work?

I think that the real answer it is always the same:another goldplated program without any clear operative meaning.
Suicide swarms of evil smallboat attacking a proud USN vessel?
It is the scenario? Ok, so what it is the necessity of a tenths miles range for intercepting something that have to get in visual contact with its target to become a threath?
For this kind of threaths a consistent tnumber of twin 40 mm boford (italian Lupo and Maestrale class) or of OTO 76mm are more than enought.

Obviously , simply going coping something that an allied has implemented abut 30 years ago it is something american defence procurement sistem can't accept.

 

[shanes_world_05]

Cheeky question

I did see some purpose behind this system originally (I could easily be wrong) as long as it could be produced in sufficient quantity at reasonable cost. My thinking was that it would have been light weight, modestly easy to hide (its a box) and could be mounted to trucks or ships maybe even my car....well probably not. It seemed that the potential was there to tie it over to a VL SHORAD system for some commonality. Again no expert, know well to little about electronics and programming (I just a mechanincal kinda guy).
But from this the VL Mica system has a range of 12 km. Seems to be selling and apparantly the missle itself travels at about mach 3.5 - 4 ish. It weighs about the same as a few other ATGMS but with I imagine less of a charge onboard.
Would this be sufficient as a tank killer and everything below tank? Maybe some sort of optimisation for a dual purpose round and perhaps a almost anti everything missle?
Hoping to much? It is 12 km range as opposed to whatever NLOS-LS was supposed to end up but as a fixer er upper maybe? Also the guidance I think for MICA is radar guided with a brief window for update but not sure how this would tie in.... over to you guys who would know more.