Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Bronezhilet

Anti-air thread: Everything that goes up must come down, and we'll help you go down

Recommended Posts

Quote

In Russia, mass production of the Vityaz-PVO S-350 anti-aircraft missile system has begun, Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko said.

1555067691_orig-1-1510505455.jpg

 

Quote

   Krivoruchko noted that the new S-350 Vityaz system will replace the S-300PS created in 1983 in the military. One launcher of the new complex can accommodate 12 missiles, against 4 on the S-300PS.

   The maximum radius of destruction of aerodynamic targets is 60 kilometers at an altitude of up to 30 kilometers, and ballistic ones - 30 in range and 25 km height.

   The plans of the Ministry of Defense, announced earlier, said to be the purchase of at least 38 sets of S-350.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=295f8755e33d97ad9e0005273d1fbb56&tab=core&_cview=0



The U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC) - New Jersey 07806-5000, in support of the Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Armaments Center, is issuing a request for information for market research purposes only to understand industry capability to provide a vehicle-based cueing sensor capable of providing real-time alerts to an existing on-board precision fire control radar (PFCR). 
The cueing sensor (including but not limited to radar, EO/IR, active/passive) would be vehicle mounted (configurable to be mounted onto Army Ground Combat vehicles including HMMWV, Bradley, Stryker, Abrams, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle [JLTV], and next generation combat vehicles), small, lightweight, affordable, and be suitable for stationary and on-the-move operations.


 

As a result of issuing this Request for Information (RFI), the Government expects to receive white papers describing proposed concepts and technologies. The RFI responses should identify sensor designs that will support the Armaments Center system concept and include a credible development path, with rough order magnitude estimates provided on costs and timeline.

 

This information will be used to:

(1) Determine the ability of current and near-term emerging technology to support this mission; 
(2) Identify feasible system concept alternatives; 
(3) Determine the approximate/relative cost information for each proposed concept via a rough order of magnitude; and 
(4) Determine the technical approach, physical and estimated performance characteristics, and achievable goals associated with each proposed concept. 
The responder/responder teams must possess the necessary skill, facilities, and expertise to produce a prototype system capable of being demonstrated in both a stationary and on-the-move configuration against a variety threats, primarily small Radar Cross Section (RCS) aerial targets.
Potential candidates should have expertise in sensor design and development. The subject matter may be considered to be a "critical technology" and therefore subject to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrictions. Subject to approval, competition is limited to U.S. sources.


 

No award is intended as a result of this request for information.

 


The NAICS Code for this effort is 541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences.

 


1. Requirements
a. Threshold:
i. Ability to detect Group 1 UAS in 360 degrees of coverage from a stationary vehicle.
1. Group 1 UAS defined as:
a. < 20 lbs takeoff weight
b. < 1,200 ft AGL operating altitude
c. < 100 kts

ii. Detections must be processed to declare a formal Cue to BLADE PFCR. Cues will have the following features:
1. Localize the target in both Az and El to not more than +/- 7.5 degrees. 
2. Declared at a range of not less than 3 km, with a range accuracy of 100m.
3. Cues must be updated at no less than a 1Hz rate. 
iii. Day/night all weather capable. 
iv. Cues must be provided/updated on no less than 5 simultaneous targets. 
v. Cues must not be provided on nuisance targets (birds for example), and stationary or wind-blown natural clutter. No more than five (5) false cues can be declared for every 100 nuisance targets detected. 
vi. SWAP requirements
1. Power 1KW integrated onto M-ATV.
2. Mast height limitation?
3. Environmental conditions: "clear-air environment".
4. Ruggedization to Industrial quality standards.
5. Expect to be able to provide data to external system through standard communication channel.

b. Objective: 
i. Ability to detect Group 1 UAS in 360 degrees of coverage from a moving vehicle.
ii. Detections must be processed to declare a formal cue to BLADE PFCR. Cues will have the following features:
1. Localize the target in both Az and El to not more than +/- 2.5 degrees. 
2. Declared at a range of not less than 5 km.
3. Cues must be updated at no less than a 5 Hz rate.
4. Cues must provide an estimate of target range-rate.
iii. Day/night all weather capable. 
iv. Cues must be provided/updated on no less than 10 simultaneous targets. No more than one (1) false cue can be declared for every 100 nuisance targets detected.
v. Ruggedization to military specifications (MIL SPEC)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDF reports of an air defense exercise of an "unprecedented scale", involving the Iron Dome and Patriot being live fired against target drones a large number of times over 1 night. Will update when I can.

 

Delegations of experts from the US and Greece were present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For now only in Hebrew:

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/38228

 

The David's Sling system is out of yet another competition, this time worth $8 billion. Rafael needed a permit from the MoD, which the MoD didn't supply. They also failed to comment on why the export permit was not granted.

The Swiss competition, Air 2030, is the 2nd competition in which the David's Sling was supposed to participate, and brings its total immediate export potential to a whopping $20 billion. 

 

It bears extreme similarity to the Polish program, in that Israel voluntarily withdrew from the bid, or did not participate in the first place, most likely by the request of the USA. It then means the US is likely to include the Stunner interceptor as part of the deal as a compensation. In the Polish program, the Stunner interceptors were 10% of the cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

For now only in Hebrew:

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/node/38228

 

The David's Sling system is out of yet another competition, this time worth $8 billion. Rafael needed a permit from the MoD, which the MoD didn't supply. They also failed to comment on why the export permit was not granted.

 The Swiss competition, Air 2030, is the 2nd competition in which the David's Sling was supposed to participate, and brings its total immediate export potential to a whopping $20 billion. 

  

It bears extreme similarity to the Polish program, in that Israel voluntarily withdrew from the bid, or did not participate in the first place, most likely by the request of the USA. It then means the US is likely to include the Stunner interceptor as part of the deal as a compensation. In the Polish program, the Stunner interceptors were 10% of the cost. 

Contrary to Iron Dome, US paid for David's Sling R&D so they have part of its intellectual property. As a consequence they have every right to veto its export sale abroad. Incorporating the Stunner interceptor into PAC-3 is a smart way of boosting its capabilities and sale prospect. But the lack of a proper and operational 360 degree AESA radar will make the Swiss think twice before choosing the PAC-3. The Swiss could ask Raytheon to pick the EL-M 2084 multi-mission radar from Elta but it is wishful thinking.
 

The $8 billion figure is misleading because it is the budget allocated for both the futur Swiss air force's F-18 fighter replacement AND a new SAM system. The Swiss needs 2 SAM batteries so the cost would not exceed the $1 - $1.5 billion figure, far from the Polish PAC-3 overall cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Adraste said:

Contrary to Iron Dome, US paid for David's Sling R&D so they have part of its intellectual property. As a consequence they have every right to veto its export sale abroad. Incorporating the Stunner interceptor into PAC-3 is a smart way of boosting its capabilities and sale prospect. But the lack of a proper and operational 360 degree AESA radar will make the Swiss think twice before choosing the PAC-3. The Swiss could ask Raytheon to pick the EL-M 2084 but it is wishful thinking.
 

The $8 billion figure is misleading because it is the cost of both the futur Swiss air force's F18 replacement AND a new SAM system. The Swiss needs 2 SAM batteries so the cost would not exceed approximatively $1 - $1.5 billion, far from the Polish PAC-3 overall cost. 

Thanks for the correction on the cost. 

 

The David's Sling is not unique here, as the Iron Dome's R&D was also paid in part by the US. It could, however, explain why outside the US, these systems have been marketing failures. 

It can also be further used as an example to debate whether or not Israel should continue accepting US monetary aid. Back in the 80's it was needed, but today not as much. There is a solid case to be made that the aid program now hurts Israel's defense industry, and the monetary gain may be overshadowed by a net loss on vetoed sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 Thanks for the correction on the cost. 

 

The David's Sling is not unique here, as the Iron Dome's R&D was also paid in part by the US. It could, however, explain why outside the US, these systems have been marketing failures. 

 It can also be further used as an example to debate whether or not Israel should continue accepting US monetary aid. Back in the 80's it was needed, but today not as much. There is a solid case to be made that the aid program now hurts Israel's defense industry, and the monetary <gain may be overshadowed by a net loss on vetoed sales.

Iron Dome was started as an exclusive Rafael venture (thus Rafael should theorically own all the IP) while David's Sling is a Rafael - Raytheon JV. Iron Dome was probably already sold to Singapore although it is a well-guarded secret. I don't see Iron Dome export as being impeded by the US, they even recently purchased 2 batteries for themself thus being the first operator officially outside Israel. As the first operational and effective  C-RAM and SHORAD system, Iron Dome should sell like hot cake if and when the need arises worldwide.

 

As far as David's Sling is concerned, the israeli defence cos can still benefit tremendously as sub-contractors for the PAC-3 by correcting its weakness (radar, cost-effective interceptor). And technology wise, the Stunner is rumored to be the IAF next-gen air-air missile with no US tech and funding involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Adraste said:

Iron Dome was started as an exclusive Rafael venture (thus Rafael should theorically own all the IP) while David's Sling is a Rafael - Raytheon JV. Iron Dome was probably already sold to Singapore although it is a well-guarded secret. I don't see Iron Dome export as being impeded by the US, they even recently purchased 2 batteries for themself thus being the first operator officially outside Israel. As the first operational and effective  C-RAM and SHORAD system, Iron Dome should sell like hot cake if and when the need arises worldwide.

 

As far as David's Sling is concerned, the israeli defence cos can still benefit tremendously as sub-contractors for the PAC-3 by correcting its weakness (radar, cost-effective interceptor). And technology wise, the Stunner is rumored to be the IAF next-gen air-air missile with no US tech and funding involved.

Please re-read what I said about the Iron Dome. I said that its export potential is hindered by the US's involvement, but not hindered in the context of selling to the US itself.

 

Perhaps the US provided the same funding (and it most certainly does fund the Iron Dome) but refrained from demanding a share of the intellectual property, because its own industries do not produce any VSHORAD system that it can compete with, while the David's Sling is a very dangerous opponent to the Patriot in the long range air defense market.

 

If the US sees it as an interest, they will demand some IP in return for the funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Please re-read what I said about the Iron Dome. I said that its export potential is hindered by the US's involvement, but not hindered in the context of selling to the US itself.

  

Perhaps the US provided the same funding (and it most certainly does fund the Iron Dome) but refrained from demanding a share of the intellectual property, because its own industries do not produce any VSHORAD system that it can compete with, while the David's Sling is a very dangerous opponent to the Patriot in the long range air defense market.

 

If the US sees it as an interest, they will demand some IP in return for the funding.

 

I understand your first point but let me disagree with you. Until recently, Iron Dome was marketed mainly as a semi-mobile C-RAM system which very few countries needed except maybe South Korea thus limiting its potential worldwide. Now that Iron Dome's live testing and process qualification against conventional threat such as cruise missile, UAV or air-launched PGM are in full swing, the export opportunities will multiply.

 

The development of Iron Dome's spin-off variant such as the naval C-Dome and the fully-mobile all-in-one I-Dome should only emphasize my point.

 

Possibly as a payback, the US may strike a deal with Israel to include x percent of US-made components for particular markets such as NATO, like they are already doing with the US-funded IAF's Iron Dome batteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iron Dome was, from the very beginning, capable against fixed wing aircraft at mid-high altitude (up to 10km IIRC). 

Its first successful test against cruise missiles was done years ago.

 

The C-Dome is actually far less suitable for export than the standard Iron Dome because the naval IADS market is dominated by the high end interceptors, and shore defense revolves mainly around ABMs.

 

The US is buying the Iron Dome because its industries do not yet have a proper competition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno how reliable this is.

https://defence-blog.com/army/russia-looking-for-replacement-for-troubled-pantsir-air-defense-system.html

The Russian Armed Forces are looking more advanced and cost-effectivity air defense system to replace “troubled” Pantsir (SA-22 according to the NATO designation) anti-aircraft defense system. According to sources in the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the Russian Army and Navy are dissatisfied with Pantsir complex and looking on absolute new air defense systems. For the army, the Pantsir air defense system proved too heavy, complex and not effective to protect against most of the potential threats. To protect the ships in the coastal zone and in harbors, the naval version of Pantsir has also become too expensive and not very effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

   Not very, Defence blog is one ukrainian guy writing articles. For majority of his articles it is ok, but Russian-related ones are at times questinable. Last time i heard anything about Pantsir development is that new version is being under work on new Kamaz-assembled chassis, photos of prototype i posted in this thread a year ago IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2019/0515/144052355/detail.shtml

 

Quote

May 15. The Iraqi government has decided to purchase the S-400. On this, as reported by RIA Novosti, said Iraqi Ambassador to Russia Haidar Mansur Hadi.

 

   According to him, there is no "road map" that would determine the exact dates of the transaction. "As for the problems and the solution of these problems with the Americans, that is, the relevant diplomatic channels," he added, answering a question about possible obstruction from the United States. Now Washington is trying to prevent the supply of S-400 systems to Turkey, for which they signed a contract in 2017, the agency reminds.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Not very, Defence blog is one ukrainian guy writing articles. For majority of his articles it is ok, but Russian-related ones are at times questinable. Last time i heard anything about Pantsir development is that new version is being under work on new Kamaz-assembled chassis, photos of prototype i posted in this thread a year ago IIRC.

I think he's not a bad journalist. He's just not a professional one. 

He makes some rookie mistakes like publishing articles based on yet unconfirmed information, as if it was factual, without mentioning it's not yet confirmed. But overall still worth reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   MINSK, May 16. / Tass /. The upgraded export version of the Pantsir-S1M anti-aircraft missile-cannon complex has the ability to effectively hit all types of UAVs, taking into account the experience gained in Syria. About this on Thursday, Deputy Director General of the holding "High-precision complexes" for foreign economic activity, Sergei Mikhailov told to TASS.
   “The main thing is that the types of targets has been greatly expanded, taking into account the results we obtained following the Syrian events. Corresponding improvements have been made. Now we are working more effectively on all unmanned aerial vehicles,” Mikhailov said.
   In addition, the radius of engagement of the complex increased to 30 km thanks to the new rocket. "Increasing the range to 30 km by introducing a new rocket. Accordingly, there will already be two types of rockets: these are the so-called short-range and long-range ones," he explained.
   Mikhailov said that the new complex is designed for the external market. Now "Pantsir-S1M" is in the final stages of preliminary tests at one of the landfills of Russia. "It is being tested at the test site in Russia /.../

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ordered the first experimental/test batch of the latest 30-millimeter shells with programmable fuze. State tests will begin soon, TASS reports on May 20 with reference to Alexander Kochkin, deputy general director of the Tekhmash concern.

 

   “Today we are producing the first batch of these munitions and are already entering the state testing stage. I think that next year this work will be completed, ”Kochkin said, noting that the Ministry of Defense had already ordered a batch of shells.

   Kochkin said that the use of new ammunition will require the modernization of existing models of equipment. However, it is possible to use such 30-millimeter shells both in aviation, and in ground forces, and in naval equipment.

   Earlier, the managing director of the NPO Pribor, Yuri Nabokov, said that Russian systems with a progammable detonation munition will be cheaper than their world counterparts, since they use a laser that only requires the installation of a laser control unit, and not a thorough modernization of the entire combat vehicle.

https://iz.ru/879812/2019-05-20/minoborony-zakazalo-pervuiu-partiiu-snariadov-s-upravliaemym-podryvom

 

   I thought that they already undegone state trials, but looks like they are not. ALthough such type of 30 mm shells was already tested on Pantsirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...