Army delays IFPC Inc 2 program operational assessment to ‘early’ FY25

WASHINGTON — The US Army is postponing a key assessment of its Enduring Shield air defense missile launcher prototype by nearly a year, the result of a delay from manufacturer Dynetics, Breaking Defense has learned. 

Although the long-term impacts aren’t clear, the delay could threaten the expected fielding date for the system, which is viewed as a key part of the service’s air defense modernization effort. While the service first began acknowledging that supply chain issues could delay deliveries of the launcher in late 2022, had contended the testing schedule would not be impacted.

The Army selected the Enduring Shield prototype launcher, paired with Raytheon’s ground-launched AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, for its Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) program in 2021, with full knowledge that Dynetics, a subsidiary of Leidos, was offering a developmental design for the launcher. The plan at the time, though, was to begin receiving launcher prototypes by Sept. 30, 2022. That date came and went without a single delivery of the launcher, and the company and service have since been incrementally inching back that milestone with hopes now of the first delivery occurring sometime between July and September 2023. 

“IFPC Inc 2 launcher prototype deliveries are planned for [the fourth quarter of] FY23 to support government system-level testing,” an Army program spokesman told Breaking Defense on Wednesday in an emailed response to a series of questions.

“Delivery challenges are attributed to supply chain issues and will be mitigated by streamlining system level testing,” he later added.

The spokesman did not disclose if the Army has also delayed the previously set March 2024 date for receiving all 16 launcher prototypes and 60 “fieldable” interceptor prototypes. However, he said the larger test plan has now been altered. 

He explained that despite the delivery delay, the service is “successfully demonstrating” that the launchers can be integrated with its new Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) in the Government System Integration Lab at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., If Dynetics begins launcher prototype deliveries by the end of FY23, the service will spend the majority of FY24 continuing that integration and risk reduction work, along with qualification and developmental testing, and validating that “system of systems” is interoperable — the IBCS, Sentinel radar and the IFPC Inc 2 launchers.

Once development testing is completed in FY24, the Army plans to begin its operational assessment of the air defense weapon with the goal of wrapping it up in “early” FY25, the spokesman added.

“This schedule aligns the IFPC operational assessment with a system-of-system integrated fires test campaign (testing IBCS, Sentinel and IFPC [Inc 2] launchers as a system of systems), system deliveries, and available resources,” he wrote.

While that new plan accounts for expected deliveries and combined testing, it is also a one-year departure from the initial goal to conduct that assessment around the October–December 2023 timeframe, or early FY24, in order to have the new air-defense capability ready by FY26 for soldiers in the first battalion.

The Army did not disclose if its new plan will also delay that fielding date by one year.

Specific details about the source of Dynetics’ supply chain woes are not readily available and the company did not immediately respond to questions today. However, in January a company spokeswoman told Breaking Defense that it is continuing to work with the Army’s program office and industry base to resolve the issues.

“The team is committed to meeting the Army’s test needs during this phase of the program,” the spokeswoman wrote at the time. “We have an open and collaborative relationship with our customer in which we maintain flexibility and work together to solve these challenges.”

As for the interceptor portion of the program, the IFPC Inc 2 product office is coordinating with the Joint United States Navy and United States Air Force office to receive the AIM-9X missiles for testing and evaluation in FY23 through FY24, the Army spokesman explained. 

Although the Army’s upcoming test plan will be geared towards ensuring the launcher is interoperable with the lBCS and other components of the Army’s air defense architecture, the service is also looking to ensure that past thermal problems associated with launching the AIM-9X from the ground have been overcome. 

“Dynetics and Raytheon have implemented [all-up round magazine] AUR-M design features to mitigate thermal management risks from the ground-launched AIM-9X configuration,” the Army spokesman told Breaking Defense earlier this year. “The design features have successfully completed contractor sub-system level tests and will undergo government system level tests.”

Windy Road 

Army officials have weathered a long road littered with speed bumps on its quest to field an air defense weapon designed to down incoming cruise missiles, unmanned aircraft systems, and rockets, artillery, and mortars. By creating such a launcher-interceptor duo, the Army envisions that it will play a central role in protecting places like the US territory of Guam from incoming threats.

That path included canceling a previous iteration of the program under which Dynetics was helping to design the Multi-Mission Launcher (MML) that also used the AIM-9X Sidewinder as the baseline weapon. According to an October 2018 report to Congress, the service killed the initiative, in part, over the MML reload and refill procedures and thermal issues associated with launching the AIM-9X Sidewinder Block II from the ground.

Lawmakers then required the service to field an interim solution and the Army ultimately opted to buy two Iron Dome batteries that it has now fielded and trained soldiers on how to use. However, service officials have raised cybersecurity concerns about integrating the Israeli-made batteries into its larger air defense architecture; those launchers are now residing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, and the service has not decided if it will deploy them.

Concerns about Iron Dome may have also contributed to the service’s decision to shun the capability in favor of the Dynetics’ Enduring Shield bid when it made its competition decision in 2021 and awarded the initial $237.38 million to cover work over 2.5 years.

But now as it looks to prove that it can get IFPC Inc 2 right this time, it is also looking ahead at future interceptor iterations and awarding a production contract.

Long Game 

The testing delay doesn’t seem to be stopping service officials from eyeing the path ahead for IFPC Inc 2, with a number of notable solicitations issued this year.

In January, for example, the Army issued an informal solicitation for a second interceptor that can also be fired from the Enduring Shield launcher. 

“The new interceptor will utilize an open system architecture approach to establish lethal kinetic effects against select targets within the IFPC Inc 2 threat set, specifically supersonic cruise missiles and large caliber rockets,” the service wrote. “The new interceptor requires future capability growth with minimal levels of system redesign to address objective level threat sets.”

The weapon should also be able to target unmanned aerial systems and subsonic cruise missiles, and the Army said its tentative plan is to award companies with prototyping contracts. Then in the FY25-FY26 timeframe it plans to conduct a technology demonstration to include a digital simulation and either a hardware-in-the-loop and/or a live fire demonstration.

The second big ask came in May when the Army issued a “request for information” for companies to produce the IFPC Inc 2 launcher during low-rate initial production and full-rate production. The service noted that it intends to award a production contract in the third quarter of FY24, before it anticipates completing the operational assessment with the weapon. The plan, at least in early May, was to buy 24 IFPC Inc 2 low-rate production units in FY24, another 47 units in FY25, and then begin full-rate production in FY26; it is not clear if this target date could also be delayed.

It would be an unusual move if the service award such production contract to a new company, and the public document notes that proposals must be of an “equivalent design, configuration, and performance,” and must not “result in substantial duplication of cost.”

The Army spokesman explained in May that the request is simply part of the required Federal Acquisition Regulation process, and the service will use responses to inform the acquisition strategy.