I'm trying to wrap my mind around it,

but what my brain is telling me is,"isn't the CLU (Command Launch Unit, or whatever the NLOS-LS "brain" in the one "cell" is supposed to be called) supposed to receive GPS, or whatever other networked sensory input, and determine its own location, then forward that info into the individual missiles as they are prepped prior to launch?"

 

(Command electronics breakdown can be seen upper left 2nd page of this pdf...certainly these parts could've changed and/or been reconfigured over the past few years, so take with a grain of salt.)

 

I would think there's some sort of bit test/data test that goes on between the launch control electronics in the CLU and the missile, just as in about every other guided missile system I've known (TOW and Javelin being my area).

 

I'm not expecting any of you guys here to have the exact answers on this, but value your opinions and any expertise in the suject matter regardless,

yet I still find it odd to hear it explained that the missile itself didn't "know where it was" at its launch (or for seconds thereafter), when such information seems, at least from my perspective based on guided missile electronics, seems to be something that the command electronics should be conveying to the missile as it's being readied ("spun up") for firing...

 

We know how to do INS,

we know how to do GPS,

we know how to do IR and laser seeking,

we know how to design missiles capable of withstanding launch stresses,

so is the problem then in the software that tries to get all these parts talking to each other and working together in unison,

or is there seriously something wrong in how the engineers and designers physically put those parts together (signal/data bus failures?) ?

 

 

As crazy as this sounds, but if the two machine languages cannot measure alike and talk to each other, you can miss or fail to establish control guidance.

 

Remember the Mars probe that we lost because we had some idiots who used instructions that were inches, pounds, seconds written; instead of centimeters, newtons, seconds for which the clocks and trajectory plans were set?   

 

That is one just one of many hundreds of possibilities at hand. At this point I think its a telemetry glitch inside the CLU along with a GCU card failure. 

 

Shrug. They should have run a validation series before the LUT. What's a few million and a fix, when you're about to blow a multi-billion dollar contract?  

 

H.

 

that indicates occupational cultural issues, engineering and process mapping failures.  it means that fundamental checks and balances, peer reviews and the fundamental engineering process was busted.

I'd be hastily reviewing the engineering process if it was something this simple and "trivial"

 

It could happen inside a project that spiraled out of management control, that had a bifurcated chain of responsibility and whose engineering sub-tasks were unit isolated from each other because of two HOSTILE corporate cultures, not only among the main civilian vendor firms involved, but between the two end user services. I'm just saying.....  the Army Navy game is not just American football.

 

The more I look at it, the more it stinks in miniature, like the F-111/F-35/MEADS fiascoes. 

 

H.

 

...that something being the fact that this program shouldn't be as...disappointing, as we're seeing it has become.

 

I know well enough that developing such complex systems isn't worry-free, and  unforeseen glitches and technical hurdles should be expected, but for the money involved for all the more this system really is (compared to the overall complexities of an entire fighter aircraft, naval vessel, or AFV family), you'd think we'd have more successes to show for it this far along (time, effort, and money sunk into it so far): having beeen at Redstone Arsenal way back in 1990 when Javelin used to be referred to as the AAWS-M (Advanced Assault Weapon System- Medium, or something or other),

I don't ever remember it mentioned that Javelin, being a first true fire-and-forget capable man-portable ATGM,

was anywhere near as troublesome as the PAM has turned out to be (and Javelin has far less internal volume for all the digital electronic bells and whistles than PAM has...).

 

What I'm watching now is some of the hype surrounding recent JAGM (Joint Air-to-Ground Missile) tests,

with recent captive carries and simulated (key word there) releases of test rounds proving successful, etc.

Of course, that is a far cry from its multi-aspect seeker functioning properly, as well.

 

End all be all, if JAGM works, that might be the closest substitute for PAM (NetFires missile),

even though, again, it will cost more in time and money to make it VLS-compatible with an LCS mission module...

 

Size-wise, a Hellfire in theory could surrogate for a PAM, but Hellfire's range,

and comparatively limited guidance options (laser homing or mm wave)

negates a lot of engagement options that PAM's multi-seeker could've given

(Hellfire needing a laser designator or Longbow-like radar system for operation).

Then there's Brimstone, which for all intents and purposes you might as well just call a mm wave Hellfire, anyway...(still need a compatible search/designator radar in the loop, which the A160 Hummingbird, FireScout, or other UAV/UAS could be equipped with,....).

 

Money-wise, JAGM actually stands a better chance of cross-service cost savings on commonality issues,

as USAF, USN, and USMC are looking for it as a Maverick supplement/eventual replacement, and US Army and USMC are looking at it as a Hellfire supplement/eventual replacement.

 

....then again, I had a lot of hope/faith that Netfires was going to pan out,...obviously it hasn't.

So in the same boat, I'm not going to start touting the merits of JAGM and its years-long on-again, off-again development cycle.

 

On another note, I see that the USN (in conjunction with USMC) has finally gotten the APKWS (in whatever iteration) into LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production), after how many years of delays, cancellations, and re-openings of the various 70mm PGM programs.

It is a far cry from being even remotely close to a PAM's capabilities,

but theoretically a lot of those multi-tube 70mm rocket pods could be mounted into the space of an LCS mission module...

 

H.,

at one point in these discussions (here or another thread) you mentioned maybe a Stinger-type mod could take the cancelled PAM's place.

I was thinking more along the lines of a modified RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile), or even new-generation Chaparral based around AIM-9X hardware,

but somewhere in between we'd have the possibility of creating a true multi-purpose mission module (even useful for land-based use in connex (freight container) form),

that could be loaded out like a mini-VLS, with both anti-air and anti-surface missiles by the dozens (couple hundred, even? And far, far more cheaply than those theoretical Arsenal Ships armed with a few hundred multi-million-dollar heavyweight missiles...)

 

I remember those big 52-round Mighty Mouse rocket pods mounted at the wingtips of F-89 Scorpions of the 1950s...although the Mighty Mouse would be woefully lacking in range if configured (in its original physical dimensions) as a VLS missile (laser seeker, mm wave, or even IR/UV like Stinger),

it still offers a fascinating potential just in the sheer number that a given ship

(or aircraft, or land-based "battlefield fire systems module") could carry at-the-ready.

 

Perhaps more missiles physically smaller than PAM, with single seekers rather than multi- types, could give LCS and whatnot a sufficient fire support capability.

 

...or

NLOS LS is limited to a missile about 1.7-2.0 meters long to fit in the can. Stinger will fit. Hellfire will fit (need a new long burn motor [can we build a solid fuel ramjet that small?] to achieve the desired range.). Some of the missiles you suggest will not. Its the C-130 PROBLEM with a vengeance since the can is only 1.25 men tall.   

 

If the Navy designed it, then it would have been a TEL can with about 9 missiles on a rotator turnstile or hinged erector. Heavier longer missiles (current types in inventory) would be in the 3-4 meter length range and usable.

 

Nobody ever said the Army was smart.   

 

H.

1)  On missile sizes and motors...

The only missile I mentioned that would be too long in the vertical sense (VLS ready) would be AIM-9 derivatives,...but they would have the benefit of being able to be hauled around horizontally (lengthwise), so height wouldn't be an issue, except depending on launcher configuration.

 

FWIW, there have been tests with the Hummvee-mounted SLAMRAAM launcher using AIM-9(X's?) in surface-launched mode, so we know it's doable, at least from a rail system (to my knowledge, there are no VLS cells anywhere sized around the AIM-9 airframe,...although those single ESSM round cells might be multi-round configurable to cropped-fin/folding-fin AIM-9xs, albeit atr a range reduction...).

 

As to longer-ranged flight motors: at a 70mm overall diameter, the only way Stinger goes farther is with a longer motor casing, thus longer missile (or sacrfice an already small, but combat proven, warhead). Benefit of Stinger, though, is it isn't afraid (read: too delicate) of being hauled around horizontally in containers.

NetFires missiles, I don't know about, as to whether they are only transportable in the upright/vertical (ready-launch config) orientation. It would be totally stupidly designed if they were so limited, for a round that small.

 

As to the C-130 thing...yeesh, again, I need not be reminded of the choking limitations LM's golden albatross (golden, because it is useful to some extent, but albatros because more and more we're realizing how much and where it limits us).

For the record, I serioysly doubt the whole notion of just air-dropping NetFires CLUs here and there hither and yon (somewhere in the battle area) and letting them figure out all on their own where they are in the network and communicate that info to the units who would use it.

Rather, for security reasons, these would only be operated nearby friendly forces (not dissimilar to a firebase-sort-of operation). So for that, why bother then being hampered by vertical orientation during transport, because it would be pointless then to even need to remote-airdrop these things into places where either fixed wing cannot land, or helicopters or trucks cannot carry it there instead.

 

Back to motors: PAM and LAM aren't much bigger than Hellfire now. LAM actually had (or would have had) flight power provided by a liquid-fueled miniature turbine engine, whose fuel supply unfortunately limited the LAM's warhead (last I heard it was a multiple EFP) to half the weight/size that of PAM's.

Is there a suitable turbine then that would work in an extended range Hellfire?

Possibly, but again, at the expense of slower flight speed and smaller warhead.

 

Thing here though, is: why is it needed for LAM to do its ~40km range?

Is it out of a US Army fear of longer-ranged tube artillery (52-cal 155's) that US tube artillery struggles to accurately reach,

or some USN fear of small-to-medium AMs and naval guns?

Saw something some years back about Hellfire developments that would've taken its range (air launched) to 30km.

Can it do that now (high altitude release) ? I don't know.

But do we absolutely need a 40km missile?

Why not  25?

Or 50?

Or whatever...?

 

And I'm curious what exactly are the warhead size determining factors: obviously the JAGM, closer to Hellfire in size, could never match the ~300pound warhead destructiveness (?) of some Mavericks.

So do we need PAM's Hellfire sized ~10-14kg warhead, something b