Article Archive: Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Air Defense: SLAMRAAM Dies From Loneliness
   Next Article → NAVAL AIR: India Shows How It Is Done
January 11, 2011: The U.S. Army has finally, after over a decade of development, and no orders, cancelled its SLAMRAAM antiaircraft missile system. The U.S. defense budget is being cut, and those items lower on the "must have" list are being eliminated. Some $3 billion has been spent on SLAMRAAM so far, and it would cost another $12 billion to put it into production.

For SLAMRAAM there is another problem. Put simply, in the U.S. military, ground based air defense systems get no respect. It took two decades to develop the current Patriot system, and most of the money the system received since it entered service in 1984, has gone for developing an anti-missile capability. The "problem" is that American warplanes have controlled the skies for over sixty years, and U.S. ground forces have not felt compelled to spend a lot on anti-aircraft systems. There is a portable missile (Stinger) for the troops, mainly to be used against enemy helicopters. But there's never been much in between stuff that you can carry on your back, like Stinger, and high end systems like Patriot (which has never shot down an enemy aircraft, but have destroyed several friendlies so far.)

SLAMMRAAM has been ready for production for over five years. However, although the U.S. has developed SLAMRAAM, the U.S. Army has not yet agreed to use it, although several foreign countries (Norway, Egypt, UAE) have.

SLAMRAAM is not a unique design. In the past, there have been improvised systems, that usually had vehicles equipped with larger heat seeking missile, like the Sidewinder. Such a system, called the Chaparral, was used by the U.S. Army from the late 1960s to the late 1990s. A replacement system, Avenger, now using Stinger missiles, was introduced in 1993. But what the army really wanted was SLAMRAAM, using a larger air-to-air missile (AMRAAM). But all the army needed was shorter range system that could deal with enemy helicopters (believed to be more common than enemy jets in future wars).

SLAMRAAM has been in development since the late 1990s. The army has been criticized for taking so long, especially since the Norwegians put together a very similar system in the late 1990s. This is what inspired the U.S. Army and Marines to do the same. But it was not a high priority project. The main technical problem with these systems is integrating the missiles' control system into an air defense radar network. The Norwegians simply used the older HAWK missile system (which Patriot replaced). The U.S. Department of Defense was supposed to just adapt the Norwegian system for American use.

Five years ago, The U.S. Marine Corps cancelled their version of SLAMRAAM (called CLAWS, or Complementary Low Altitude Weapons System.) The marines didn't have the money, and didn't see an urgent enough need to go find the money. Air defense was not a big deal when American fighters rule the skies.

The U.S. Army had started work on SLAMRAAM two years after the marines began developing CLAWS. This system initially mounted four U.S. Air Force AMRAAM radar guided air-to-air missile on a hummer. A firing battery consists of one fire-control center, a radar (with a 75 kilometer range) and four to eight hummers carrying missiles. The missiles have an effective range of 25 kilometers, and can knock down cruise missiles, as well as helicopters. It was the need to knock down cruise missiles that has kept the army going.

The AMRAAM is the most modern air-to-air missile in American service, and has its own radar for making its final approach to its target. The Norwegian system (using AMRAAM) has been seen deployed around Washington DC, along with U.S. Army Avengers, for the last seven years, as a defense against any terrorist aircraft attempting to attack. The SLAMRAAM concept, as first developed in Norway, has been adopted by several other countries (including Spain and Kuwait).

A box launcher is used by the Norwegian system (called NASAMS). The ground launched AMRAAM can hit targets as high as 4,200 meters (13,000 feet). NASAMS was developed so that it could easily work with different search radars. The AMRAAM SAM costs more (about $600,000 each) compared to the air-to-air version (about $380,000), but is basically the same missile. The four meter (twelve foot) long AMRAAM has a 22.7 kg (fifty pound) warhead, and can take down just about anything that flies, including wide-body commercial transports.

The army is has been taking a lot of heat from Congress over the delays in getting SLAMRAAM into service. But with a war on, SLAMRAAM was a low priority project that was being given just enough money and attention to keep the lights on, not to push the system out the door and into the hands of the troops who don't really need it at the moment. Thus the cancellation of SLAMRAAM is really no surprise to those who follow U.S. Army air defense issues, and everyone else really doesn't care.

 

Next Article → NAVAL AIR: India Shows How It Is Done
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
cwDeici       1/14/2011 9:58:58 AM
This seems like a mistake, but then again if I set the defense budget for the USA it'd be 1 trillion dollars atm. (I'd make it up by exploiting some easy target countries that've had it coming.)
 
Then again SLAMRAAM is probably full of bad mistakes.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       1/14/2011 9:59:32 AM
A mistake that is, to neglect the proper development of a branch of weapons.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       1/14/2011 10:02:51 AM
Hmmm, from what I see it wasn't mishandled that badly...
 
well I guess having very superfluous capabilities is wasteful... but then it's valuable to keep things going.
 
Well, I think this should've been done in an economic manner to sell to other countries. Seems to have been some interest with Norway, Egypt and the UAE for such a slow project. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/15/2011 3:48:19 AM

Well, I think this should've been done in an economic manner to sell to other countries. Seems to have been some interest with Norway, Egypt and the UAE for such a slow project. 

Actually, the Norwegians developed it.  No reason that they cannot sell it others who have access to the AMRAAM missiles.
 
The really good part is that they can apparently use HIMARS to launch these missiles, instead of a dedicated vehicle.  This could significantly enhance operational flexibility.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       1/15/2011 4:01:50 AM




Well, I think this should've been done in an economic manner to sell to other countries. Seems to have been some interest with Norway, Egypt and the UAE for such a slow project. 




Actually, the Norwegians developed it.  No reason that they cannot sell it others who have access to the AMRAAM missiles.

 

The really good part is that they can apparently use HIMARS to launch these missiles, instead of a dedicated vehicle.  This could significantly enhance operational flexibility.


The British need a naval SAM that works. Guess what is across the North Sea? Hey, Navy, are you listening? 
 
Quote    Reply

Privateer       1/15/2011 4:50:20 AM
 Huh, what do the Brits have to with it?

There's really no use beating a dead horse, H., we all know by now that you, for some unexplanable reason, don't like the Mica, Aster and Meteor, or everything even remotely French. Repeating the same old claims over and over again isn't really funny at all. Well, maybe except for the usual bunch of French or Euro bashers who regularly come together at SP for a circle-jerk in the Rafale or F-35 threads... http://strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emteeth.gif" alt="" />
 
And please don't start using old posts from old threads as "proof" or useless dubious internet links again, we had the same discussion a while ago, and we all know it degenerated to insults.
 
Quote    Reply