Register here

Author Topic: Patriot SAM replacement  (Read 116517 times)

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3333
Patriot SAM replacement
« on: August 04, 2008, 02:26:01 pm »
I have been doing some research on my old newspaper clips and found that one dated 06-September-1992:

Quote
The Pentagon is going to replace the Patriot SAM system with a new generation weapon. Lockheed and Westinghouse had been selected for the development

Anybody knows what is the refered system: the PAC-3?

Thanks in advance
Antonio





« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 11:42:17 pm by PaulMM (Overscan) »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2008, 02:54:57 pm »
My WAG would be that PAC-3 and THAAD are what came of that though there may not be a direct lineage between that effort and the end result.  Don't recall when they began work on THAAD off the top of my head but Desert Storm was definitely a wake-up call re: missile defense.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2008, 10:33:14 am »
I have been doing some research on my old newspaper clips and found that one dated 06-September-1992:

Quote
The Pentagon is going to replace the Patriot SAM system with a new generation weapon. Lockheed and Westinghouse had been selected for the development

Anybody knows what is the refered system: the PAC-3?

Thanks in advance
Antonio



PAC-3 is the latest version of the Patriot Advanced Capability upgrades, this version being the most extensive changes so far.   All of the PACs were designed to  increase Patriot's capabilities in the ATBM role as well as improve performance against manned aircraft, but PAC-3 also included an additional new missile optimized for ATBM, which apparently is smaller than regular Patriot, because four of them fit in one regular Patriot tube.  This missile is also called "PAC-3" by the Army, and I believe it's also known as "Guided Enhanced Missile" in some circles.   Don't know much about its performance except that it's a lot more maneuverable




« Last Edit: August 25, 2008, 10:59:45 am by overscan »

Offline Andreas Parsch

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2008, 01:32:02 am »
[...] but PAC-3 also included an additional new missile optimized for ATBM, which apparently is smaller than regular Patriot, because four of them fit in one regular Patriot tube.
Indeed. Diameter/weight for "regular" Patriot missiles (MIM-104) is 41 cm/900 kg, and for the PAC-3 missile it's only 25 cm/320 kg.

Quote
This missile is also called "PAC-3" by the Army, and I believe it's also known as "Guided Enhanced Missile" in some circles.
The GEM ("Guidance Enhanced Missile") is the MIM-104D version of the original Patriot missile.

Quote
Don't know much about its performance except that it's a lot more maneuverable
It has to be, since in the ATBM role it is supposed to work as a hit-to-kill missile  ;).





[/quote]

Offline GAU-8 Avenger

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2009, 05:20:52 pm »
I know I am bringing this back from the dead, but I didn't know if a new topic would be appropriate.

The US has certainly put a ton of work into ABM systems like THAAD, and the relatively short-range PAC-3. However I don't see a long-range SAM designed to kill aircraft for Patriot's supposed replacement MEADS. It looks like MEADS is only designed to use the PAC-3 MSE at the moment. The PAC-3 can certainly kill aircraft but it is certainly lacking range compared to the larger PAC-2 GEM+ missile. Are there plans to integrate the PAC-2 into MEADS or is there some sort of new missile in development?


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2009, 09:41:08 pm »
It's not obvious that PAC-3 will really be all that lacking in range.  The version planned for MEADS is called the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement missile, which adds larger strakes, tail fins, and motor to the original PAC-3, increasing range by up to 50 percent. 

But there have been other proposals for anti-aircraft wepons.  I think AMRAAM was mentioned at one point as a low-cost nont-developmental complement to PAC-3.  The Germans also proposed a ground-launched version of Meteor, but that fell through.  In 2007, they awarded a contract for development of a version of IRIS instead (IRIS-T SL). From a presentation on the MEADS site, it looks like this actually resides on a different launch vehicle but is integrated into the MEADS battle management system.  It's also limited to German forces only -- the US and Italians appear to be sticking with PAC-3 MSE as the only missile in MEADS.



Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2013, 06:43:58 am »
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) - Lockheed Martin has received a $308 million contract modification for the production of PAC-3 missiles from the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command. In addition to that windfall Lockheed officials met Monday for a digital conference to discuss weapons systems advancement over the past fifty years and what’s expected on the horizon. Lockheed officials briefed reporters and global military personnel via phone updating participants on the status of several weapons systems including Aegis BMD, MEADS and PAC-3, while also looking back at trails Lockheed has blazed. They are, after all, the developer of the first operational hit-to-kill missile.
 
“Hit-to-kill technology remains today the heart and foundation of several of the weapons systems employed by the missile defense agency,” explains THAAD program director Mathew Joyce. Joyce says the first Pacific interception of an intercontinental ballistic missile in the mid 80′s laid the foundation for missile defense in the U.S. “Taking that from a concept to an actual weapons system and to see it actually be developed and now in the field defending our country and our allies – it’s just an exciting thing to be a part of.” Joyce says one of the most integral partnerships exists among the actual war fighters in the field. “They push us, they really do,” says Joyce. “They get an in-depth understanding of how our weapons systems work and then they push us asking ‘why can’t you do this, why can’t you do that?’, and if you listen well enough you can improve.”
 
And improve they have, says Joyce. He says the level of accuracy and ability to successfully replicate defense systems has come quite a long way over the past half-century. “That would have been unthinkable 30 years ago, and we’ve made it – I don’t want to say routine – but understandable and there are next generation things out there that yes, will blow your mind.”
 
In addition to Fiscal Year 2013 missile and command launch system production for the U.S. Army, the contract marks the first Foreign Military Sale of the PAC-3 Missile to Kuwait. Kuwait is the sixth international customer for the PAC-3 Missile. The contract includes production of 244 hit-to-kill PAC-3 Missiles, 72 launcher modification kits and associated tooling, as well as program management. This is the 14th production buy of the PAC-3 Missile Segment by the U.S. government. “Kuwait’s purchase of PAC-3 Missiles will provide its defense forces with a superior air and missile defense capability,” said Richard McDaniel, vice president of PAC-3 Missile programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “This is another example of the growing global interest for the PAC-3 Missile’s capabilities.”
 
In 2009, Taiwan became the fifth international customer for the PAC-3 Missile, joining the Netherlands, Germany, Japan and the United Arab Emirates in fielding the system. Production will take place at Lockheed Martin’s manufacturing facilities in Dallas and Lufkin, Texas; Chelmsford, Mass.; Ocala, Fla.; and Camden, Ark. Deliveries will begin in 2014. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor on the PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade to the PATRIOT air defense system. The PAC-3 Missile Segment consists of the PAC-3 Missile, a highly agile hit-to-kill interceptor, the PAC-3 Missile canisters (each of which hold four PAC-3 Missiles, with four canisters per launcher), a fire solution computer and an enhanced launcher electronics system and launcher support hardware.
 
Lockheed Martin is a world leader in systems integration and the development of air and missile defense systems and technologies, including the first operational hit-to-kill missile. It also has considerable experience in missile design and production, infrared seekers, command and control/battle management, and communications, precision pointing and tracking optics, as well as radar and signal processing. The company makes significant contributions to all major U.S. missile defense systems and participates in several global missile defense partnerships.
 
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is a 2012 recipient of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for performance excellence. The Malcolm Baldrige Award represents the highest honor that can be awarded to American companies for their achievements in leadership, strategic planning, customer relations, measurement, analysis, workforce excellence, operations and results. Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 116,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation’s net sales for 2012 were $47.2 billion.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See bolded  :o  interesting comment
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline MC72

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2013, 07:55:47 pm »
The Patriot PAC-3 carries no explosive payload, and its effectiveness is to make a direct impact by a kinetic warhead.
The main innovation of the kinetic head of the PAC-3 with respect to the precedents (Standard SM-3) with liquid hydrazine, is that the kinetic warhead is equipped with a cilindrical ring equipped with 180 micro-rockets controlled in rapid succession by the missil guide
MC72

Always around

Offline MC72

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2013, 08:05:14 am »
This is the same technology in Laboratory Test 20 or 30 years ago, know as "Brilliant Pebble" program; Now reduced in the warhead of the PAC-3


Always around

Offline MC72

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2013, 08:34:47 am »
Particular detail of the PAC-3 kinetic ring system with 180 micro-Rocket


Always around

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2013, 01:09:27 pm »
PAC-3 and a KKV aren't the same thing at all except by the most superficial definition. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2013, 11:36:11 am »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2015, 04:31:10 pm »
DoD Officials Near Decision on Future of Patriot Missile System


Quote
WASHINGTON — Key Pentagon officials met this week to make critical decisions on the future of the Army's air and missile defense architecture, and while the service is not making recommendations in favor of any one radar for the system, the way forward must include an ability to target threats from 360 degrees — something the current Patriot system can't do.

Raytheon's Patriot has been the Army's cornerstone air-and-missile defense system for 40 years. But the service wants to replace the stovepipe system over time with a more integrated one.

It's clear from Army slides outlining findings from an analysis of alternatives conducted over the past year that the preference is to develop a newer 360-degree radar that meets emerging requirements and would keep pace with the more challenging threat environment expected in the future.

But developing a new radar, rather than upgrading the Raytheon-made Patriot, would cost more than the Army has in its budget for such an effort, according to the slides — marked "for official use only" and obtained by Defense News. The full analysis of alternatives is classified as secret, according to the documents.

The Army can afford to modernize Patriot and give it 360-degree capability, the slides show, but it is predicted  that the missile wouldn't be able to keep up against a wide range of modern and future threats even with a baseline upgrade.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) would have to give the Army more money if the Pentagon reaches a consensus that it should develop a newer radar instead of upgrading its Patriots with Raytheon's game-changing gallium nitride (GaN) active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, currently in development.

An OSD study advisory group met on Nov. 12 to determine the right path. The decisions made this week and in the coming months will decide the fate of the Patriot system and could open the door for other defense contractors to play a major role in the Army's future missile defense architecture.

The Army is budgeted in its five-year plan to start a competition for the radar in fiscal year 2017.

The analysis considered the baseline option of a Patriot system with an AESA radar, a Patriot AESA radar with three antenna arrays (enabling Patriot to see behind itself), a multifunction fire control radar (MFCR), an MFCR with a surveillance radar, and the Marine Corps' Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) made by Northrop Grumman.

According to the slides, the analysis set out to study the life-cycle costs, performance, schedule, technology, operational impacts and affordability of each alternative compared to the baseline Patriot system and examined what trades existed.

The Army looked at the risk and the cost associated with each alternative in order to fully integrate them into its future Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS). Northrop Grumman is developing and will field IBCS — the brains of the future missile defense system — in fiscal year 2019.

And the analysis considered the growth potential for each option to defend against an evolving lower-tier threat, according to the slides.

To focus the study, the Army made several assumptions. For one, it assumed that any alternative could be fully integrated into the AIAMD network. Raid vignettes were designed to represent a single battery's capability.

The Army also evaluated the cost based on 91 procured radars — four prototypes and 87 production assets — and 485 launchers consisting of four prototypes and 481 production assets.

The service figured the program schedule would reach initial operational capability ideally by fiscal year 2026 and procurement quantities would stay at 15 battalions as described in a Nov. 7, 2014, materiel development decision.

To assess capabilities, alternatives were weighed against the most stressing tactical ballistic missile threat to the front, according to the document.

Overall, the Army determined the baseline Patriot option had the highest operations and maintenance costs. However, the Patriot upgrades stay within the Army's cost target and would show improvements over the baseline option in addressing threats.

Replacement alternatives with X-band interceptor communication arrays were determined to be the most costly, exceeding Army cost targets. But they "have the most improvement" over the baseline Patriot, according to the slides.

G/ATOR's average procurement unit cost is between $147 million and $254.6 million, MFCR is predicted to cost $223.9 million per copy and the MFCR with a surveillance radar is estimated to cost $326.4 million.

Every option analyzed received "high risk" rankings overall of not meeting the anticipated program schedule.

The baseline Patriot and the upgraded Patriot, according to a chart within the slides, both rank as "high risk" for not meeting the schedule in the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase and the production and deployment (P&D) phase. Both would need 88 months of schedule and might need another year or two to further reduce risk.

The Patriot baseline risk in the EMD phase is driven by the time required to build three radars and P&D risk is driven by the production and calibration time for the radars and launchers. The chart notes that three to four production quality systems are needed for operational test and evaluation.

The upgraded Patriot's EMD risk is based on software development to move from a sectored field of view to a 360-degree capability.

The G/ATOR system — which would need 118 months to move through the acquisition cycle — was assessed as having high schedule risk in both the technology maturation and risk reduction phase (TMRR) and the EMD phase. The program could see schedule slippage, the Army predicts, anywhere from 14 to 18 months.

The TMRR and EMD risk for G/ATOR is due to the need to develop and integrate adjunct equipment to allow it to detect missile threats in the lower tier, the slides show.

Both the multifire control radar and the MFCR paired with a surveillance radar presented low risk in the TMRR and P&D phases, but moderate risk in the EMD phase. Both options would need 118 months to get through all three phases and could be delayed from one to five months to drive out risk.

EMD risk for the MFCR is driven by production of radars with GaN technology and also by integrating the radar into the AIAMD network.

The Army concluded that upgrades and replacement radar options take nearly the same amount of time to field. The baseline Patriot would reach initial operational capability in fiscal year 2027, upgraded Patriot in early fiscal 2028, MFCR and MFCR with surveillance capability in late fiscal '28. G/ATOR would take the longest to reach initial operational capability, according to the slides, reaching the milestone past fiscal 2029.

The study also found the Patriot AESA radar designs represent the lowest failure and reliability risk. While Raytheon is well on its way to delivering a robust gallium nitride radar, the Army notes that there's a steep learning curve in GaN technology for some vendors.

While the analysis was primarily focused on options for a radar, it devoted some thought to a new near-vertical launcher to replace the currently fielded Patriot launcher.

The study determined that performance would be better with a near-vertical launcher (set at a 70-degree launch point) but that the baseline Patriot launcher (with a 30-degree launch point) can fit more interceptors. The slides indicate that a new launcher could be adjusted to fit more interceptors, but added that the missile load-out capacity is the "key driver" in launcher performance.

The Army also noted that the performance issues are threat-dependent and can be mitigated by the positioning of the launcher and that future improvements could include remote slewing.

Lockheed Martin's Medium Extended Air Defense System's near-vertical launcher was also included on the chart addressing schedule risk and received low risk ratings in the TMRR phase and the P&D phase, but high risk ratings in the EMD phase.

"EMD risk is driven by possible interface redesign if new prime mover is utilized," the slide reads.

According to the slides, a final report on the analysis of alternatives is due in mid-December and an AIAMD assessment white paper is expected to be delivered in mid- to late December.

If the Army decides to hold a competition for a new radar, Raytheon's competition will likely be Lockheed Martin, which has spent the last 15 years developing the Medium Extended Air and Missile Defense System (MEADS) that includes a 360-degree radar with the United States, Germany and Italy.

The US decided against buying MEADS, and after closing out the technology-development phase of the program decided not to even harvest the technology coming from the program for use in its missile defense programs. But Germany is planning to continue developing MEADS with Lockheed and MBDA Deutschland. Italy is waiting for Germany to mint its development deal before getting on board.


Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2015, 06:10:20 pm »
Hopefully a replacement for PAC-2 is in the cards, and that they don't toss capability out the window by replacing it with MEADS.  (They already have the MEADS missile, PAC-3 MSE, I'm talking about a replacement missile for the PAC-2 missile.  Hopefully something with more range and a lot more speed.)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 06:36:51 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2015, 07:58:42 pm »
There is an interesting tension with the Patriot replacement. The US Army ADA has several growing threats:
1) SHORAD threats from UAVs and stand-off guided bombs
2) Increased air-breathing threats against maneuver forces from decreased USAF air superiority capability
3) Increased cruise missile / ballistic missile threat against US bases (USAF in particular)

Those three threats require different solutions and are maturing at the same time. I don't know how the Army plans to deal with it, but it is going to be a formidable problem.

We haven't even considered the threat to US rear bases (Hawaii and CONUS) from long range land attack cruise missiles. As this threat matures, then the US will need to devote defensive assets to CONUS bases.

It might be worthwhile to look at the Russian division of labor for air defenses, to me that division seems more sensible than the present US arrangement.