US Army explores rapid deployment of advanced air defence prototypes

The US Army is exploring innovative ways to deploy advanced air and missile defence systems still in the prototype stage, a move prompted by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George.

Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano mentioned in an interview with Defense News, “The chief has challenged us to identify opportunities and present options for accelerating the Integrated Battle Command System, the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor, and some capabilities of the Indirect Fire Protection Capability to the field”, Caliber.Az reports, citing foreign media.

Both the Raytheon-developed LTAMDS and Leidos’ Dynetics-made IFPC have achieved successful test results over the past year. Raytheon’s land and air defence systems president, Thomas Laliberty, stated, “We’ve seen great success on the test range. We produced six production-representative units and delivered them faster than any radar of this scale has ever been made.”

Laliberty added that while the large live-fire tests garner the most attention, numerous other tests have been conducted to ensure that systems like LTAMDS are ready for deployment. The program executive office is collaborating with Army staff and the Army Futures Command’s air-and-missile defence cross-functional team at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, to evaluate potential actions. This assessment includes the option of deploying the systems to areas of operation under US Central Command, US European Command, or US Indo-Pacific Command in a combined capacity, according to Lozano. 

“There are many pros and cons to consider with this approach,” he noted. The assessment will also include an evaluation of the reliability of the prototypes. For example, the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) has achieved full operational capability and is in the early stages of fielding, while the LTAMDS radar, intended to replace the Patriot air and missile defense system, is currently undergoing prototype testing. The Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) is also in its early testing phases. 

One significant advantage of deploying these prototypes to soldiers in the field is the real-world feedback they would generate, enabling the Army to enhance and adapt the systems more swiftly, Lozano explained. “We're exploring where to deploy these systems for maximum benefit to the soldiers, especially since troops are currently engaged in an active counter-unmanned aircraft systems fight in CENTCOM,” he noted. “We have soldiers forward-deployed in Poland operating Patriot systems and others in the 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command active in INDOPACOM alongside the 1st Multidomain Task Force.” Poland has committed to purchasing LTAMDS and is already integrating IBCS into its Patriot batteries. 

However, the Army is also assessing how these prototypes can complement existing base program efforts, Lozano added. “CENTCOM presents a great opportunity to provide capabilities to soldiers, but it is a harsh operational environment, and the associated risks differ,” he cautioned. One challenge would be the logistics of deploying testers and evaluators, as they would be in an active conflict zone, and “we want to ensure we don’t detract from ongoing missions there,” Lozano said. 

In EUCOM, ongoing operations could yield valuable real-world data for the prototypes, but there is a shortage of suitable test ranges, he noted. Additionally, certain capabilities may be better suited for specific theaters and missions. “For instance, IFPC could be ideal for CENTCOM, whereas LTAMDS may not be as applicable,” Lozano stated. In INDOPACOM, the Army is collaborating with the 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command to evaluate the advantages of equipping a unit with LTAMDS or IBCS. One benefit is that the theatre boasts three major test ranges: the Reagan Test Center at Kwajalein Atoll, the PMRF in Hawaii, and the Kodiak Range in Alaska. 

Additionally, having capabilities in the Pacific could assist in “activities related to deterring China,” Lozano stated. The Army plans to develop potential strategies over the next 90 days, involving high-level officials such as the Army vice chief of staff and the acquisition chief. “I expect that by early next year, we’ll have a solid plan that we would like to implement,” Lozano remarked. “Every combatant command is significant... Instead of overwhelming one command with all these capabilities, we’re aiming for an equitable distribution that is also beneficial to the command, the program office, and the Army staff to accelerate the development of these capabilities.”

By Naila Huseynova