Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military developing 'loitering' and 'sleeping' weapons
AP ^ | JIM KRANE

Posted on 02/07/2003 2:32:56 PM PST by Rain-maker

Military developing 'loitering' and 'sleeping' weapons

By JIM KRANE
The Associated Press
2/7/03 1:59 PM

NEW YORK (AP) -- They sleep. They hide. And when an enemy sticks his neck out, they kill.

The Defense Department is preparing new weapons that can loiter over a battlefield or sneak into enemy territory and "sleep" until an appropriate military target blunders into their sights.

Some weapons envisioned are mere concepts and may never be produced. Others, like Lockheed Martin's 5-foot-long Loitering Attack Missile, are already being tested.

The idea, developers and contractors say, is that the best way to hit an elusive target is to hide a weapon inside enemy territory ahead of time.

In the Gulf War, U.S. forces were unable to find and strike a single Iraqi mobile Scud missile launcher, a failure that has catalyzed a slew of new military technology aimed at narrowing the delay between spotting and destroying a target.

Loitering weapons are "the next big step in combat effectiveness," said Glenn Buchan, a RAND expert in unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites. "You hang around an area so you can see the target before it shoots, and kill it before it hides."

The Lockheed missile, for example, sprouts wings and fins and flies to a map coordinate. It then can wander above the area for 45 minutes, using a laser-radar seeker to search the ground for a target to destroy, said Steve Altman, development manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas.

The LAMs are fired from a rectangular launch box that can sit on the back of an Army Humvee, Altman said.

"These missiles are at your side, almost like a sidearm," he said. "It's nice to find your enemy while he's way far away from you, before he starts shooting at you."

Lockheed plans a second test flight of the LAM this month. Lockheed hopes to deliver the missile to the Army in time to go into service in 2008, Altman said.

The LAM's 45 minutes of loiter time doesn't allow it the patience of an unmanned aerial vehicle, which can hover over a battlefield for hours, waiting for a target. UAVs armed with air-to-ground missiles have already killed people targeted by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Yemen.

For the next generation of UAVs, the Pentagon wants still longer dwell time so they can "sit above an area for a very long time, to track a small band of terrorists or watch for an armored column," said Michele Flournoy, a senior adviser at Center for Strategic and International Studies.

At the Army's Aviation and Missile Command in Ft. Eustis, Va., officials have proposed a small UAV that could ferry supplies to forward troops -- or fly small bombs into enemy targets.

The Pentagon is considering whether to fund the program, called Quick Delivery, for rapid development, according to a pamphlet from Ft. Eustis. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Don Sewell declined to discuss the proposal.

Sleeping weapons under consideration by the Air Force would actually spend most of their time on the ground as simple sensors that can transmit electronic data.

The sensor-bombs would be dropped from airplanes onto enemy territory and would hide until detecting a target and being commanded to destroy it. One version under consideration wakes up, pops open and fires a missile, said Steve Butler, engineering director at the Air Armaments Center at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

"If you had an area that you believed was a launch site for Scuds or other time-critical targets, you might drop some of these things into the area," Butler said. "The concept of loitering is to dig a little burrow and hide out until you're called to act."

The design requires adding a weapon and firing mechanism to ground sensors already in use to transmit pictures, recordings, vibrations or the metal composition of enemy vehicles.

"If you want to listen to a remote runway, to be aware of planes coming and going, you could drop one of these sensors in the woods nearby and have it wake up every time a plane flies in or out," said Butler. "Add a weapon to one of them and you've got a whole new concept."



TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: looselips; microwave; weapons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 02/07/2003 2:32:56 PM PST by Rain-maker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
The next time I see a sign outside the 7-11 that says "No Loitering", I'm gonna lay rubber getting out of the parking lot...
2 posted on 02/07/2003 2:34:40 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
Ah, the gift that keeps on giving!
3 posted on 02/07/2003 2:35:09 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker

Net Fires (Advanced Fire Support System)

NetFires is a technology demonstration program focused on beyond line-of-sight fires for the Army's Future Combat System. The program is DARPA managed using combined DARPA-Army S&T funding. Proof of principle test flights are scheduled to begin in FY03. The programs technology demonstration elements include: container launch unit (CLU); loitering attack missile (LAM); and precision attack missile (PAM).

The Netfires (formerly Advanced Fire Support System) program will develop and test a containerized, platform-independent multi-mission weapon concept as an enabling technology element for FCS. NetFires will provide rapid response and lethality in packages requiring significantly fewer personnel, decreased logistical support and lower life-cycle costs, while increasing survivability compared to current direct fire gun and missile artillery. The original concept was called "Rockets in a Box."

NetFires will allow FCS to defeat all known threats, will be air deployable in C-130 (and smaller) aircraft, and will enhance the situation awareness and survivability of FCS by providing standoff target acquisition and extended-range, non-line-of-sight engagements. The program will develop and demonstrate a highly flexible modular, multimission precision missile and a loitering attack missile that can be remotely commanded. Both missile types will have a self-locating launcher and a command and control system compatible with FCS.

Net Fires is one alternative system the Defense Department is looking at to provide artillery support in place of the Crusader artillery system. Defense officials want to stress accuracy in artillery fire and bring to Army and Marine Corps groundpounders the same capabilities that precision- guided munitions have brought to Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps aviators.

It is a concept for a vertical-launch set of missiles with a command and control system in a box. It was designed to be platform-independent. Normal cannon and other rocket artillery systems depend on their launch platforms. The round in its launch canister is a complete entity. Being in a box means Net Fires launchers can be mounted on a Humvee or a truck, or set up on the ground, he said. The idea is to let the Army's Future Combat System integrate Net Fires into the different launch configurations.

The system as designed today is a box with 16 sections. Fifteen hold rockets, and the last contains command and control gear. The box has its own power system. The rockets fire from the canister like the Navy's Vertical Launch System. Back-blast follows the missile out the front of the launcher so there's no impact on any transport vehicle.

The rocket system is "soft launch," meaning that the rocket doesn't experience high G's as would an artillery shell traveling at high speed. There's just enough to get (the missile) out of the box and move it forward. Planners have found that vertical launch is better from the standpoint of tactical deployment. This also enables the system to engage targets in all 360 degrees.

Net Fires will have two missiles.

The first is a Precision Attack Missile being developed by Raytheon Corp. The missile travels at high speed for minimal time to target or to reach maximum range. It will have a solid-fuel rocket motor, an uncooled infrared seeker and will mount a substantial warhead. This is the heavy tank killer.

The second is a Loitering Attack Missile (LAM) being developed by Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon. It will carry a laser detection and ranging ("ladar") seeker, a turbojet motor, and wings that extend on launch. The missile will have a 70-kilometer range with a 30-minute loiter time. It will be able to loiter over targets of interest, do automatic target recognition and attack targets on its own.

Both missiles will have an onboard datalink. With proper integration into the Future Combat System, which is one of the challenges of the project, Tousley said, Net Fires rounds could be directed to the target by forward observers, unmanned sensors or "whoever is forward."

Any needed target updates could be sent to the missile through the datalink. The missiles then would be fired into a Global Positioning System "basket." On the way there, the rounds are handed off to forward personnel or unmanned sensors such as a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle. This gives the capability to interact -- if the target is moving there is a need to update the location. It gives capability, but it is going to mean challenges operationally.

Some testing of the system has already taken place. Testing will continue into 2004. The Army then would decide whether to continue the program. If all goes well, Net Fires could be ready for units in 2008.


 


4 posted on 02/07/2003 2:35:15 PM PST by Rain-maker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
Can America keep a lid on anything?
5 posted on 02/07/2003 2:35:27 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Can America keep a lid on anything?

This actually might have been leaked deliberately, making Saddam think that we have some of these already, forcing him to constantly change his defensive tactics.

6 posted on 02/07/2003 2:37:22 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
I wonder if they also bother passersby, asking for spare change ...
7 posted on 02/07/2003 2:40:21 PM PST by strela (If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you oughta go back home and crawl under your bed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Boy, I hope so . . . 'Cause I just cannot understand why we'd tip off the world what we're working on and what we believe is the "the next big step."
8 posted on 02/07/2003 2:40:52 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
the best way to hit an elusive target is to hide a weapon inside enemy territory ahead of time.

Hmm. I always thought these were called "mines." I guess this would be a smarter version?

9 posted on 02/07/2003 2:41:24 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
Sounds like soomething out of "The Terminator" movies.
10 posted on 02/07/2003 2:41:34 PM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
Sleep well, Saddam.
11 posted on 02/07/2003 2:44:32 PM PST by geedee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker

12 posted on 02/07/2003 2:47:19 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
Hmm. I always thought these were called "mines." I guess this would be a smarter version?

Yes. In 10-20 years, the mines will be smart enough to exchange sensor readings with each other and coordinate an attack. Can you imagine an entire division getting ambushed at one time?

13 posted on 02/07/2003 2:49:11 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
In Star Craft (a game) they called them "spider mines". You'd plant one and when someone went near it it sprung out the ground and ran after you finally exploding.
14 posted on 02/07/2003 3:19:04 PM PST by Bogey78O (It's not a Zero it's an "O")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Can America keep a lid on anything?
 
This stuff has been out since early last year.
 
Black Ops stuff you won't see in the press. Like photos of  the ram-jet Aurora.
 
Key sites for latest in military stuff that is what the DoD want  you to know
and is usually 5-10 year old tech:
 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html
 
http://www.janes.com/
 
 
Get ready for the e-bomb, coming to Iraq soon:
 

High-power microwave (HPM) / E-Bomb

References

 

High-power microwave (HPM) sources have been under investigation for several years as potential weapons for a variety of combat, sabotage, and terrorist applications. Due to classification restrictions, details of this work are relatively unknown outside the military community and its contractors. A key point to recognize is the insidious nature of HPM. Due to the gigahertz-band frequencies (4 to 20 GHz) involved, HPM has the capability to penetrate not only radio front-ends, but also the most minute shielding penetrations throughout the equipment. At sufficiently high levels, as discussed, the potential exists for significant damage to devices and circuits. For these reasons, HPM should be of interest to the broad spectrum of EMC practitioners.


15 posted on 02/07/2003 3:53:55 PM PST by Rain-maker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Can America keep a lid on anything?

In the run-up to Desert Storm, as well as at various times during the '80's, our Armed Forces saw fit to allow video of certain testing programs to be shown by the media.

I'm sure it's done for a reason, and I'm sure the information content of the releases is very carefully calibrated.

(steely)

16 posted on 02/07/2003 4:03:09 PM PST by Steely Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bkwells
ping.
17 posted on 02/07/2003 4:05:41 PM PST by snippy_about_it ( Pray for our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O
Man, that's enough to give you nightmares!
18 posted on 02/07/2003 4:42:09 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
smart enough to exchange sensor readings with each other and coordinate an attack

Cool. As long as they stay dumb enough not to turn on you, of course. I keep imagining the evil snowmen that Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) would create that would come to life and try to kill him.

19 posted on 02/07/2003 4:44:12 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
Probably a challenge/response, along with just not going into places where we seeded the mines. Or maybe we can send a signal to the mines: "Don't shoot at traffic heading north through gridsquare 54-09 until we say otherwise."
20 posted on 02/07/2003 4:46:22 PM PST by Poohbah (Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson