Double combat power at a fraction of the cost
Preserving peace and stability around the world calls for an “overmatch,” an affordable solution that offers greater range, precision and combat power than that of potential adversaries. Raytheon is answering the call with the new DeepStrike® missile, a longer-range weapon based on advanced technologies that will allow the U.S. Army to field twice as many missiles on its existing launch vehicles.
The new DeepStrike missile was developed for the Army’s Precision Strike Missile requirement. The launcher will fire two missiles from a single weapons pod, an innovative and differentiated design that slashes the cost to the customer and doubles the combat power. The missile flies farther, packs more punch and incorporates a more superior guidance system than the current weapon, which is rapidly becoming obsolete.
Raytheon’s DeepStrike missile will integrate with the M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS® rocket launchers. The range and speed of the new missile will enable Army combat units to engage targets over vast geographic areas in high-threat environments.
As the next generation of surface-to-surface weapon for the Army, the DeepStrike missile will:
- Offer a low-cost solution.
- Double the firepower.
- Defeat fixed land targets at 300-499 kilometers.
- Improve lethality and target set over current systems.
- Provide flexibility in the future battlespace.
Raytheon is a preferred provider of overmatch solutions for both U.S. and international ground forces. The company is also building partnerships with international firms to offer new combat solutions based on existing technologies and future innovations.
Learn more about Raytheon’s Precision Weapons.
HIMARS® is a registered trademark of Lockheed Martin Corporation
And for/from our polish friends, „Israelienii sunt gata să sprijine Homarul”:
https://www.defence24.pl/izraelczycy-gotowi-do-wsparcia-homara
Polonezii au dreptate sa caute solutii proprii. Au o baza industriala semnificativa si incearca sa si-o dezvolte. Incercarea de a obtine o relativa independenta fata de sursa principala de inzestrare este solutia urmata de statele importante, vezi Coreea se Sud, Japonia, chiar Turcia, etc, state care si-au dezvoltat solutii proprii, alternative la solutia tehnicii aliatului principal. Daca ai baza industriala, bani si viziune, cam asta ar trebui facut.
Continuarea inzestrarii cu Himars si accesul la vectorul de 499km, in paralel cu o colaborare cu IMI, spre ex, pt un vector de 300 km cu acces la coduri si arhitectura deschisa.
Acum un an, doi, credeam că modelul polonez este cel mai bun model de urmat pentru înzestrare.
Ceea ce spui e ok ca și concept, numai că polonezilor le lipsește partea de finalizare, în principiu, nu-și asumă decizia.
Bugetul lor militar e aproape dublu față de al nostru. Au comisii, comitete, subcomisii și subcomitete care fac analize pentru toate categoriile de arme. Partea proastă e că toate aceste adunări drenează banii din apărare, iar când vine vorba de decizie politică, se codesc să o adopte.
Ca atare să vorbim un pic despre ”realizările” polonezilor:
– au Rosomak vreo 1000 de bucați. au si Spike. Le-au trebuit peste 10 ani să le integreze. Asta datorită optoelectronicelor diferite. Abia anul ăsta au reușit. Asta venind la pachet cu niște costuri deloc neglijabile. Spre deosebire de ei, noi le avem și pe MLI-uri, și pe Pume, și le mai tragem și de la sol, toate cu certificare.
– AA long range. S-au negociat polonezii cu transferul de tehnologie că au luat 4 baterii cu promisiunea IBCS (battleship Galactica) la un preț de 5.5 miliarde USD. transferul de tehnologie contand intr-un tun de 30 mm. Bașca au achiziționat 208 rachete PAC 3 MSE antibalistice și nicio rachetă PAC 2 GEM-T pentru avioane. Noi am luat 7 baterii iar rachete și de unele, și de altele, la 3.9 miliarde USD. Câți bani s-au sifonat pe analize din bugetul polonez în anii de indecizie? Ah, au luat niște Boinguri pentru VIP și au reparat niște poduri că…
Partea maximă de mandrie națională mi-a fost oferită de Raytheon care a cerut singurel Aerostarului să contribuie cu niște componente la radarele noastre și ale altora poate:D.
– Elicoptere. Au făcut o analiză super. vorbesc pe bune. Ai noștri au citit-o și o cotim spre Bell (Venom/Viper) în detrimentul Airbus. Părerea personală este că e loc pentru ambii constructori la noi.
Polonezii n-au decis nimic. Ba da. I-au trimis pe francezi la plimbărică. Vor AH 64 Longbow, evident cu transfer de tehnologie.
Și încă un lucru: Pumele noastre SOCAT sunt cele mai de atac elicoptere din flancul estic al NATO. Așa vechi cum sunt.:D.
– AA SHORAD/VSHORAD în Polonia analize, la noi un program care va fi finalizat cum ne-am obișnuit.
-corvete/fregate E scandal în Polonia că au refuzat fregatele Adelaide din Australia. Ei vor produce fregatele lor în șantiere poloneze. Nimic greșit, numai că încă nu e nimic decis, program, cerințe… La noi se va lua o decizie privind câștigătorul prin Octombrie. Și oricine ar câștiga, (sper Damen) va livra mult peste ceea ce avem acum.
-sistem de lansator multiplu cu rachete cu bataie mare. Polonezii ne copie, după ce ani la rând au vrut transfer de tehnologie pentru ATACMS, și n-au primit decât pentru GMLRS. Acum la ei e nasol că IMI le-a venit cu o ofertă de nerefuzat și sunt cumva între ciocan și nicovală. Va mai dura probabil până vor lua o decizie. Alți bani irosiți. Noi am semnat și livrat banii pentru prima baterie. Și sunt conviins ca Raytheon implicat și la Patriot, ne va oferi posibilitatea să fabricăm / asamblam GMLRS aici.
– TBT. avem PV, sper și Agilis. Rosomakul polonezilor e echivalent cu P III C.
– Tancuri. Nu avem graniță terestră cu rușii încă, și o să le vedem probabil după 2026.
– Avioane. Polonezii stau mult mai bine la număr și calitate, dar sunt nemulțumiți de nivelul transferului de tehnologie oferit de LM. Noi așteptăm să vedem ce tip vor fi cele 36-40 de F16. Eu ași face un efort prelungit pe 10-15 ani și ași lua ceva care poate fi upgradat la nivel V. Să moară dușmanii de ciudă.
Ca atare, nu-i mai consider pe polonezi ca fiind liderul estului în materie de proiecție a forțelor, pentru simplu fapt că de ani buni, își irosesc resursele și bat pasul pe loc.
De fapt mint: polonezii sunt liderii estului prin faptul că posedă un mare ego și nu pot trece peste asta.
Uite ce zic polonezii despre F-urile noastre, dar in special ce spune consulul da Silva,
https://www.defence24.pl/rumunia-kupi-kolejne-piec-f-16-w-planie-36-maszyn
Nu e prea magulitor, asa xa la partea de finalizare, nici noi nu prea stralucim intotdeauna..
Yes, it’s true what you write but also simplify matters and even distort .. unfortunately, there is no time to write more, topics were already discussed here on the forum, for example about the Wolverine turret integration. In 2019, the production of the Polish turret begins. The purchase of a medium-range system will differ from the Romanian purchase. MLU Romanian f16 to V standard, rather unrealistic for several reasons. Romania may be the leader of Central Europe only, it has no economic and political resources, maybe some time, it is difficult to assess now. Poland is not the leader of the region, and when it was not … interestingly, the development of cooperation has been heading north for some time and not for the middle European
O. Romania is not a leader by no means. About upgrading the F-16. There will be a trend, in a few years, to upgrade the fleet to V standard. The V standard will be the new MLU, so, per se, there is not a big deal doing so. The problem here is a little different, in my opinion. There is possible to upgrade the F-16A/B Bl. 15 to a fully V standard, considering the fact that some of it’s systems are analog? What would be the limit of an upgrade? We all know that SABR AN/APG-83 AESA can be fitted in an A/B, but the rest of the upgrade can be accomplished? If you read the study made by da Silva in 2011 for PoAF, you’ll see that the PoAF intended to upgrade it’s fleet to V since then. Why they sell the oldest of their planes and buy more recent ones, (A/B or C/D’s it’s no clear)? Are they considering some limitations for doing so?The RoCAF F-16 Bl.20. Some say there are C/D’s Bl.30 with A/B’s tails, so their ability to be upgraded is a little different from a standard A Bl.15. Who knows..
Well, older versions have limitations that do not allow MLU to be standardized to V level. It’s best to buy f16 from block 40 up
BL-20 is already able to receive V standard. – see Taiwan
https://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/concepte-f-16v-un-standard-prea-indepartat-pentru-fortele-aeriene-romane
Marius, Bl.20 este ceva foarte ”exotic”, adica un Bl.30 cu ampenaj vertical de A, spun unii.. Adica un C ‘deghizat” in A.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15530#p196391
Is going to be hard ..
O. No. It will not be as hard. The new 229 can be fitted in without modifications and SABR is quite enough and can be put in without any structural modification. A large degree of the V standard can be achieved. Have Glass II can be applied. Maybe it will not be 100% V, but it will be quite enough.
It is very hard to believe that MLU will remain the same in 10 or 15 years from now..
OK. if we are not talking about a full MLU, everything is correct. it is also worth remembering that the new F models have wings with a different structure.
Regards to U !
Best regards to you too! Remember, you and us are destined to be together if something bad is going to happen. We should hope for the best, but preparing for the worst.
There are few limitations regarding analog FBW, but there are not major draw backs.
Yep.. this is whay I said about bl40
About polish. I admire them, (you), for trying so hard. It is, still, an example to follow.
„Rosomak has about 1,000 pieces. and Spike. It took them over 10 years to integrate them. That’s because of different optoelectronics. Only this year they did. That comes packing with some negligible costs”
10 years would be in 2021 🙂 More, it’s not sure if the integration will be done.
„They will produce their frigates in Polish sites.”
Ha ha ha. Only normal people in Poland are talking about frigates. Most of them wants corvettes or even missile boats like Osa. 🙂
„The Poles have copied us after years of wanting technology transfer for ATACMS, and they have received only for GMLRS.”
No, Poles didn’t want a technology transfer for ATACMS but Lockheed Martin don’t want to give us a technology transfer even for GMLRS. So watch out.
Se pare ca au urmat linia celor de la IMI care au scos in 2014 Predator Hawk, o versiune mai a rachetei LORA. E drept ca Predator Hawk a fost anuntata cu o raza de 300km dar nimeni nu stie daca asta e raza reala.
Si pentru LORA se vorbea despre o raza de 250-300km, in functie de incarcatura de lupta, iar acum unele surse spun ca are raza de 400km.
Depinde de incarcatura de lupta.pui maximum-are raza mai mica.micsorezi incarcatura de lupta zboara mai departe.asa este si iskanderul
Noi am luat deja 54 ATACMS, cam puține, astea cu rază sporită poate după 2026.
Eh, de cand n-am mai avut articol in engleza… 🙂
hai ca pana la 499km mai e putin!
La 499 km multe locatii din jurul nostru sunt „in range”. De aceea cred ca e o decizie politica achizitia lor. Cum rusii au amplasat Iskander in Kaliningrad tot ce e posibil..
499 sa nu intre la categoria de rachete balistice? miroase a incercare de a evita vreun tratat de inarmare
Yeap.
Mai incearca.
Deci asta e un fel de ATACMS numai ca incap doua pe lansator (ala pe care il luam noi) si e mai imbunatatita plus un pret mai bun sau macar egal ?
Damn. Vreau!
Aparent americanii vor sa inlocuiasca ATACMS cu astea ceea ce are sens.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/03/raytheon-targets-army-multi-domain-systems-like-deepstrike/
Racheta asta s-ar putea sa poata sa loveasca si tinte navale in miscare.
Another requirement is the ability to hit moving targets on both land and sea, a key element of the multi-domain thrust.
499 de km poveste în limita juridica de 300 km. Este interzis exportul de vectori cu raza de acțiune peste aceasta limită.
Cel puțin așa știu eu.
MTCR:
„1.A.1. Complete rocket systems (including ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles,
and sounding rockets) capable of delivering at least a 500 kg „payload” to a
„range” of at least 300 km.
1.A.2. Complete unmanned aerial vehicle systems (including cruise missiles, target
drones and reconnaissance drones) capable of delivering at least a 500 kg
„payload” to a „range” of at least 300 km.”
http://mtcr.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MTCR-TEM-Technical_Annex_2018-03-22.pdf
„Payload”
The total mass that can be carried or delivered by the specified rocket system or
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system that is not used to maintain flight.
Note:
The particular equipment, subsystems, or components to be included in the
„payload” depends on the type and configuration of the vehicle under
consideration.
Technical Notes:
1. Ballistic Missiles
a. „Payload” for systems with separating re-entry vehicles (RVs) includes:
1. The RVs, including:
a. Dedicated guidance, navigation, and control equipment;
b. Dedicated countermeasures equipment;
2. Munitions of any type (e.g. explosive or non-explosive);
3. Supporting structures and deployment mechanisms for the munitions
(e.g. hardware used to attach to, or separate the RV from, the bus/postboost
vehicle) that can be removed without violating the structural
integrity of the vehicle;
4. Mechanisms and devices for safing, arming, fuzing or firing;
5. Any other countermeasures equipment (e.g. decoys, jammers or chaff
dispensers) that separate from the RV bus/post-boost vehicle;
6. The bus/post-boost vehicle or attitude control/velocity trim module not
including systems/subsystems essential to the operation of the other
stages.
b. „Payload” for systems with non-separating re-entry vehicles includes:
1. Munitions of any type (e.g. explosive or non-explosive);
2. Supporting structures and deployment mechanisms for the munitions that
can be removed without violating the structural integrity of the vehicle;
3. Mechanisms and devices for safing, arming, fuzing or firing;
4. Any countermeasures equipment (e.g. decoys, jammers or chaff
dispensers) that can be removed without violating the structural integrity
of the vehicle.
2. Space Launch Vehicles
„Payload” includes:
a. Spacecraft (single or multiple), including satellites;
b. Spacecraft-to-launch vehicle adapters including, if applicable,
apogee/perigee kick motors or similar manoeuvering systems and
separation systems.
3. Sounding Rockets
„Payload” includes:
a. Equipment required for a mission, such as data gathering, recording or
transmitting devices for mission-specific data;
b. Recovery equipment (e.g. parachutes) that can be removed without
violating the structural integrity of the vehicle.
4. Cruise Missiles
„Payload” includes:
a. Munitions of any type (e.g. explosive or non-explosive);
b. Supporting structures and deployment mechanisms for the munitions that
can be removed without violating the structural integrity of the vehicle;
c. Mechanisms and devices for safing, arming, fuzing or firing;
d. Countermeasures equipment (e.g. decoys, jammers or chaff dispensers)
that can be removed without violating the structural integrity of the
vehicle;
e. Signature alteration equipment that can be removed without violating the
structural integrity of the vehicle.
5. Other UAVs
„Payload” includes:
a. Munitions of any type (e.g. explosive or non-explosive);
b. Mechanisms and devices for safing, arming, fuzing or firing;
c. Countermeasures equipment (e.g. decoys, jammers or chaff dispensers)
that can be removed without violating the structural integrity of the
vehicle;
d. Signature alteration equipment that can be removed without violating the
structural integrity of the vehicle;
e. Equipment required for a mission such as data gathering, recording or
transmitting devices for mission-specific data and supporting structures
that can be removed without violating the structural integrity of the
vehicle;
f. Recovery equipment (e.g. parachutes) that can be removed without
violating the structural integrity of the vehicle.
g. Munitions supporting structures and deployment mechanisms that can be
removed without violating the structural integrity of the vehicle.
„Range”
The maximum distance that the specified rocket system or unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) system is capable of travelling in the mode of stable flight as
measured by the projection of its trajectory over the surface of the Earth.
Technical Notes:
1. The maximum capability based on the design characteristics of the system,
when fully loaded with fuel or propellant, will be taken into consideration in
determining „range”.
2. The „range” for both rocket systems and UAV systems will be determined
independently of any external factors such as operational restrictions,
limitations imposed by telemetry, data links or other external constraints.
3. For rocket systems, the „range” will be determined using the trajectory that
maximises „range”, assuming ICAO standard atmosphere with zero wind.
4. For UAV systems, the „range” will be determined for a one-way distance
using the most fuel-efficient flight profile (e.g. cruise speed and altitude),
assuming ICAO standard atmosphere with zero wind.
Chestia insa e ca noi vorbim de MTCR Treaty intre 35 de tari, cand aici e vorba de INF Treaty intre SUA si Rusia (care limiteaza la 500km….tot ce ceea ce a existat intre „short range” de 500-1000km si „intermediate range” de 1000-5500km…fiind eliminat, indiferent ca vectorii purtau incarcatura nucleara sau conventionala; peste 5500km „all bets are off”). Exceptand vectorii lansati de pe platforme marine.
China nu face parte din nici unul din cele doua tratate.
Si nici noi (doar ne-am aratat disponibilitatea pentru MTCR si facem parte din HCoC).
Poate gresesc, dar retin ca citisem in urma cu cativa ani buni, ca fiind prospeti in NATO. Adica avem restrictii,: Max. 120 Helicoptere de lupta ,325 avioane de lupta. max. 2500 Tancuri,..max 2100 blindate,.. nici o racheta peste 350 km, doar 120 bucati cu raza de 350km,…
https://fas.org/nuke/control/cfe/text/abudapest.htm
@ Mersi mult ,Razvane .
Nici mie nu mi se pare ca polonezii s-au miscat extraordinar la inzestrare, imi place mai mult cum au achizitionat cehii.
Pumele noastre socat nu-s cele mai de atac elicoptere de pe flancul estic, chiar daca ii scoatem din calcul pe turci (cu T 129) si greci (cu Apache), Mi 24 (pe care il au siungurii si polonezii si toti ceilalti estici) e peste Puma, ale noastre au avantajul avionicii si al armamentului. Poti spune ca e cel mai bun aparat CSAR din zona.