Perhaps the principal reason that the NetFires program wasn't terminated with the rest of the FCS program as a whole,

could be the fact that it isn't a US Army-specific system: it's also intended to be an important surface strike weapon for the LCS ships.

Cancel the NLOS-LS, and the LCS will be expected to do all its surface fighting with its guns, and anything the helos and UAVs can deploy.

Without the range the PAMs offer, it would be foolish to bring a ship the size of an LCS closer into the coastal areas.

So the Army and the Navy will use them.

Wonder if the Airforce could design a self-deploying air-drop variant of the container...just to get into the game.

 

Don't know that I've seen this proposed yet: Maybe a sealed unit that Navy subs could deposit on the sea-floor and activate later at which point it would inflate floatation devices, bob to the surface and launch with the subs at a very safe distance.

 

 

Air-drop capability is part of the original design requirements, but it is for SOC and Airborne use, not Airforce.

 

The Airforce and Navy submarines would do better with single missiles units than the 15 round container/launcher.  The Airforce could drop launch them from modified cargo planes.  The submarines will need to theirs encapsulated for underwater launch from submarines.

 

The concept of a sub deposited stay-behind launcher on the seabed was discussed earlier on this board and does not appear practical due to inherent problems with water seals, depth requirements (for concealment and external transport), and control (no radio underwater).

I was waiting for someone else to chime in on it, but apparently no one remembers (or cares) that the LAM portion of the NetFires system has been shelved (budgets, technical difficulties, the usual).

 

There had been talk previously of the possibility of an air-launched PAM derivative that would fill-in for the now defunct JCM Joint Common Missile.

While certainly the potential is obviously there, the problem is,

much like the Hellfire's airframe, the PAM's design isn't really configured for use from fast movers.

Helos, UAVs, and any of the speculated COIN aircraft the US is tinkering with (Super Tucano, AT-6) would suitably deploy it, possibly even the A-10 (max speed loaded seldom exceeds 400mph).

But without structural and aerodynamic modification (meaning $$$), it isn't going to work from faster jets, so the only powered munitions available to them will be Mavericks (much heavier), much larger ASMs like the SLAM/Harpoon variant, JSOW, and JASSM types (all considerably larger and more expensive, not something for everyday plinking of tanks, trucks, and other low value or small targets).

 

The other option available for fast jets would be a powered SDB, equipped with a low/medium impulse sustainer (it doesn't need to go Mach 3) that gets it to a possibly-mobile target faster.

There is also the chance that more and more development with laser guidance will yield high-velocity guided rockets suitable for use from fast jets,

but again the PAM's range of up to 40km will be hard to rival in a laser-guided rocket design.

 

Question there is though: would a helicopter even be required to fire off at a target some 20+miles distant?

My guess is, the NetFires system, except on the LCS, will be used to compliment both tube artillery and mortars, and longer-ranged GMLRS rockets, so it's maximum range approaching 40km will, my guess, seldom be called upon.

How do these things range in price versus a cannon-fired 155mm Excalibur?

For situations where the roar of tube artillery isn't welcome (near-urban areas) or where forward installations just don't have access to other artillery and air support, then in those instances the NetFires standing alone as the sole fire support system makes sense.

But don't let them fool you: the military will never just drop these off in the middle of nowhere, unattended (like the brochure suggests) and unguarded,

not when the risk is too great of an insurgent accidently stumbling onto a CLU setting by itself in some remote locale.

He won't be able to use it, no, but he could damage it enough (shoot at it, etc) that we can't use it, either.

but I'm glad LAM is shelved.  Please explain to me, gently, I can learn, but I don't need a snarky lecture.  Any way, I'm glad LAM is canceled, never knew why we needed it?  I mean everyone and his brother has a UAV, a RECOVERABLE Reconnaissance Asset, why would we EVER want a non-recoverable Asset like LAM?  Really think on it, LAM was a UAV you can't recover and have to blow up EVERY flight?  Why not just use Pioneer/FireScout/Predator/Warrior (IIRC) to spot the target for the PAM?

 

Am I crazy for thinking that NetFires needed an associated recce asset...in my mind and possible TO&E's I always pair a NetFires Box with some kind of recce asset, to form my own Reconnaissance Strike COmplex, any way.

 

But if there was a reason for LAM I'm all ears.