The Army has changed its acquisition plan for its Indirect Fire Protection Capability, meant to avert rockets, artillery, and mortars and also cruise missiles and drones, in several ways.
Now, before Congress hands over the money for that program, it wants more information how the service will proceed and just how much funding it’ll must have.
Congress is giving the Army 30 days at night enactment with the fiscal 2019 appropriations bill to make a report that will give lawmakers a better sense from the program and its true financial needs.
“The conference agreement sports ths Army’s pursuit of this defensive capability; however, the conferees remain concerned that this current budget request will not support any alteration of acquisition strategy or procurement and integration of obtainable interim defense capabilities and is inexecutable as requested,” lawmakers write in the conference report released Sept. 13.
It is expected how the FY19 defense spending bill will pay off the full House and Senate soon.
The Army decided it would delay moving forward in to the engineering and manufacturing development phase with the IFPC Increment 2 program caused by a should re-prioritize development target countering cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft systems, rather than taking on the rocket, artillery and mortar (RAM) threat.
The threat of cruise missiles has proliferated in recent years, as well as the Army doesn’t have much in the way of the power to defend fixed sites from such threats.
With its FY19 budget request, the Army included new funding to qualify a second interceptor because of its multi-mission launcher as part in the IFPC program, while requesting funding needed to continue research and development efforts.
After denying it would need an interim solution in March in the Association from the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, the service decided in April it needed an interim cruise missile protection chance to add while it continued to build up the IFPC Inc. 2 system on account of challenges with the baseline program along with the need prioritize cruise missile defense capability.
Israeli company Rafael’s Iron Dome is a possible solution, as outlined by both service and company officials.
The Army requested $173.2 million for AIM-9X interceptors, multi-mission launcher components and also other costs, conferees note within their report. Additionally, the service has another $50 million left in FY18 funding to make use of toward the effort.
The service also requested $208.7 million for continued research, development, make sure evaluation funding to the program. Prior funding also remains considering that the Army didn’t move into an EMD phase.
The conference committee notes in the report that this Army is pursuing “alternate courses of action” in advance of an EMD decision to add the event and integration of your alternate interceptor. The effort to qualify another interceptor is already underway.
But the Army’s promises to adopt an interim cruise missile solution are murkier.
The FY19 National Defense Authorization Act necessitates Army to get an interim solution and offers $87 million in additional funding to do this, contingent on actual defense appropriations.
The conference committee acknowledges the Army offers to conduct analysis of “at least two other distinct weapons systems,” nonetheless it still wants specifics of results in the service’s internal review, revised acquisition strategy and resulting resourcing requirements so that you can provide proper funding.
The report, based on the conferees, includes an analysis and tips about the multiple courses of action under review, the price estimates per way you can forward over the Army’s five-year budget plan as well as a program schedule per.
Analysis and recommendations for interim capabilities and proposed acquisition schedule should also be included.
A plan on what to spend prior year available funding and current IFPC resources line-by-line across 5yrs for both this program of record and also other interim choices are also requested as part from the report, and also a prefer to address any identified shortfalls for the program or possible interim solutions through reprogramming of accessible resources as well as other means.
At the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville last month, Col. William Darne, the Army’s air-and-missile defense cross-functional team’s chief of staff, said there are cruise missile defense systems available today which may have proven that they may pursue the threats the Army is wanting to defeat.
But, he added, there are a whole host of challenges connected with which system to choose, along with the Army is considering issues with interoperability and integration, among variables.
Darne noted the Army was reviewing possibilities now and was making a strategy closely with this program office to create a remedy. He said funding was part with the challenge but there needs to be clarity within a month or two.