Register here

Author Topic: Patriot SAM replacement  (Read 116516 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.

Offline Void

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 129
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2015, 11:17:44 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.)

There isn't any good reason why MEADS could not accommodate a longer range missile.

If one is actually needed, which is questionable in itself.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2015, 11:31:56 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.)

There isn't any good reason why MEADS could not accommodate a longer range missile.

If one is actually needed, which is questionable in itself.

You mean aside from the fact that the US Army isn't interested in MEADS?  And given that even the latest PAC-2 missile has less than half the range of SM-6, yeah, it needs more range. 
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 11:38:28 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2015, 04:00:11 am »
The radar AOA sounds interesting (only if we actually had the slides). They do at some point have to factor in Low-Observable aircraft, unmanned vehicles and cruise missiles which are now showing up in Russian systems (operational or not). If this system is to mature post 2025 they have to certainly look at LO or VLO threats, and high speed threats. Some of the cost arguments look a bit strange to me. Lockheed already has the UHF surveillance radar for the MEADS that the program itself is aiming to operationalize before the turn of the decade. Why would this paired with another radar be a high risk item? Surely we haven't gotten so bad at managing a program that we can't develop an X band 2 or three faced radar paired with Lockheed's radar and have it operational before the end of next decade especially given the number of companies producing radars   (Lockheed recently announced they are working on an X band Gallium Nitride radar) .

@Scott, Raytheon (see attached ..) is working on a couple of new possible interceptors for integration on the current or future systems.
 

« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 05:44:20 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2015, 09:07:09 am »
@Scott, Raytheon (see attached ..) is working on a couple of new possible interceptors for integration on the current or future systems.

Yeah, these are all small, short range missiles.  Low Cost Interceptor, IRIS-T, SLAMRAAM, (even the ER variant of that only has about half the range of PAC-2).  The Advanced Threat Interceptor looks interesting.  Even just sticking a Mk72 booster on Patirot from SM-2 Block IV/SM-3/SM-6 would give it a good bump.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2015, 09:28:36 am »
Low cost short ranged weapons are nice things to have I guess when the threat is that of a saturated attack from UAV's, fighters and cruise missiles. The stunner seems like a logical companion to the Pac-3 in my opinion. Booster on the MSE also makes sense provided you don't loose magazine depth in the launchers which I guess was one of the main reasons to go in for 16 per launcher because of the H2K advantage.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2015, 09:41:14 am »
Low cost short ranged weapons are nice things to have I guess when the threat is that of a saturated attack from UAV's, fighters and cruise missiles. The stunner seems like a logical companion to the Pac-3 in my opinion. Booster on the MSE also makes sense provided you don't loose magazine depth in the launchers which I guess was one of the main reasons to go in for 16 per launcher because of the H2K advantage.

I mean put the booster on PAC-2/GEM/GEM+/GEM2.  The "big missile".  And yeah, all the short range stuff makes sense if you're worried about some local throwing a UAV over the base fence but if you want to secure a decent amount of airspace all the short ranged stuff is fairly useless.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2015, 10:15:30 am »
I have vague memories of a stretched PAC-3 proposed as a naval TMD missile -- quadpacked in a VLS.  Maybe Pegasus or Perseus?

Probably not enough range to replace PAC-2, but I don't remember details.  Anyone?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2015, 10:20:15 am »
I have vague memories of a stretched PAC-3 proposed as a naval TMD missile -- quadpacked in a VLS.  Maybe Pegasus or Perseus?

Probably not enough range to replace PAC-2, but I don't remember details.  Anyone?

The PAC-3 I recall was just the standard model.  4 to a cell. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2015, 10:50:54 am »
I figured it out.  There was an ERINT (pre PAC-3) development concept as a naval point defense missile for anti-air use, not TBMD.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2015, 11:55:13 am »
I figured it out.  There was an ERINT (pre PAC-3) development concept as a naval point defense missile for anti-air use, not TBMD.

That must have been old:)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2015, 01:20:02 pm »
Quote
It appears that the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) MSE capability may be the end of the development road in the short term at least, although there will be future software and minor hardware updates to the missiles in due course. Trotsky said that "based on the budgets in the United States and the austere budgets in many other countries, I don't think we're necessarily going to see a PAC-4, a bigger, better version of MSE. What I think you'll see is integration of the components that already exist so that they work together better".

The MSE is expected to achieve its initial operating capability in the third quarter of 2015.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2015, 01:48:07 pm »
sferrin - I am curious as to why do you think the US needs an air defense missile with greater range than the PAC-2?

Personally, I think the US Army should look for a low cost (< $500,000) interceptor (and suitably low cost defense system) with the objective of defeating subsonic cruise missiles. Such a defensive system will be necessary to defend airbases / naval bases in the rear area against air and submarine launched land attack missiles. Ideally, the defense is cheap enough to almost render non-stealthy subsonic cruise missiles obsolete against defended targets. This seems to be a more pressing requirement than PAC-2 replacement, in the near term.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2015, 02:07:19 pm »
Well there already exists a solution for that...

« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 02:36:39 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2015, 02:44:56 pm »
sferrin - I am curious as to why do you think the US needs an air defense missile with greater range than the PAC-2?

Personally, I think the US Army should look for a low cost (< $500,000) interceptor (and suitably low cost defense system) with the objective of defeating subsonic cruise missiles. Such a defensive system will be necessary to defend airbases / naval bases in the rear area against air and submarine launched land attack missiles. Ideally, the defense is cheap enough to almost render non-stealthy subsonic cruise missiles obsolete against defended targets. This seems to be a more pressing requirement than PAC-2 replacement, in the near term.

Because PAC-3 (even MSE) can only cover a small area and even the latest PAC-2 variant has limited coverage against TBMs.  Currently if you want to protect a bigger bubble than PAC-3 MSE against missiles you'll need to bring in one of the very limited number of THAAD units.  Essentially what I'm saying is the Patriot system needs an SM-6 analog. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2015, 03:18:22 pm »
They'll have to do a cost analysis for those situations. Given the Patriot replacement magnitude, it all comes down to what capability gets in and what has to be delegated to the THAAD and its future iterations. It may just be better to buy some extra THAAD batteries for those instances that requires patriot augmentation with something that is higher capability. I don't think they are looking at taking out fighters from 200 km away from ground launchers but if the air-superiority capability is reduced then it may become an option that they'd explore. At the moment the PAC 3 MSE will pretty much be the main weapon but it comes in at around $3 Million iirc so a stunner at around $500,000 is an excellent choice to pair with the MSE given that Raytheon is a sub-contractor, we paid a portion of its development and that it is significantly mature and de-risked. The problem they'll face going forward will be the radars and affording such large scale replacement. Its quite clear even from their own AOA that MEADS like approach using a Surveillance radar and an X band FCR makes the best capability choice but is unaffordable most likely because they do not want a rotating array so would require new fixed X band FCR. Raytheon's interim GaN update does provide 360 degree coverage with the S band radar but still has greater coverage in the frontal sector and smaller arrays in the back.  I don't see why they can't just develop a new X band sensor and use the existing Lockheed MEADS surveillance radar if there is enough money to go in for a 2 radar setup..I don't think there is enough money there to look at an SM6 like weapon..they can perhaps get the stunner or a similar weapon and hope to in the future incrementally enhance the MSE.

One positive that Northrop Grumman has been able to achieve is the sensor interoperability with other army and DOD assets that was recently demonstrated when the AN/MPQ-64 cued the MSE to a low flying cruise missile target. That was promising and may allow them to significantly reduce the cost of the sensors buy building plug and play capability.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 05:03:23 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2015, 05:03:21 pm »
They'll have to do a cost analysis for those situations. Given the Patriot replacement magnitude, it all comes down to what capability gets in and what has to be delegated to the THAAD and its future iterations. It may just be better to buy some extra THAAD batteries for those instances that requires patriot augmentation with something that is higher capability. I don't think they are looking at taking out fighters from 200 km away from ground launchers but if the air-superiority capability is reduced then it may become an option that they'd explore. At the moment the PAC 3 MSE will pretty much be the main weapon but it comes in at around $3 Million iirc so a stunner at around $500,000 is an excellent choice to pair with the MSE given that Raytheon is a sub-contractor, we paid a portion of its development and that it is significantly mature and de-risked.

Er, PAC-2 is used all the time. 





"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2015, 05:05:00 pm »
^ I meant the main weapon as far as modernization thrust is concerned..
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2015, 05:11:51 pm »
^ I meant the main weapon as far as modernization thrust is concerned..

But they just modernized the PAC-3 missile.  That's what the PAC-3 MSE / MEADS missile is.  ???  PAC-2 is getting long in tooth.  It's had warhead and guidance upgrades over the years but that's about it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2015, 05:20:20 pm »
It doesn't make sense for the U.S. to develop naval and land-based SAMs in parallel.
The Russians/Soviets used the same missiles in both land-based and naval applications for decades (while NATO had at least widespread dual use of surface and air-launched missiles; Sparrow/Sea Sparrow, Aspide, Sidewinder/Chapparal).
The French and Italians do the same with Aster/SAMP-T.

The USN so far merely mated a modified AMRAAM seeker to a Standard missile (SM-6), after developing ESSM instead of using some modified AMRAAM (which is also used in HUMRAAM).

The diversity should rather be in seekers (to make countermeasures more difficult) than missile families.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2015, 05:21:28 pm »
I know but I doubt they'll somehow find money to modernize the PAC-2 beyond just upgrades. I don't see a serious need to develop a significantly longer ranged A&MD weapon when they don't have the money to fully fund the system modernization with the highest capability systems (unless the army makes more money available). The fastest option would be to just add THAAD batteries and perhaps procure a few more of them when money becomes available. Stunner has a better chance if Raytheon can demonstrate the $500,000 claimed sticker price.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 06:14:24 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2015, 05:27:59 pm »
It doesn't make sense for the U.S. to develop naval and land-based SAMs in parallel.

Different requirements.  (environmental, physical etc.  Same reason using a SAM as an AAM isn't a slam dunk.)


The USN so far merely mated a modified AMRAAM seeker to a Standard missile (SM-6), after developing ESSM instead of using some modified AMRAAM (which is also used in HUMRAAM).

ESSM has WAY more kinematic capability than SLAMRAAM.   (SLAMRAAM-ER isn't in service.)

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2015, 05:40:34 pm »
Well ESSM has enough kinetic performance over the AMRAAM for Raytheon to base their AMRAAM-ER on it..
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2015, 05:45:53 pm »
Well ESSM has enough kinetic performance over the AMRAAM for Raytheon to base their AMRAAM-ER on it..

I think you meant SLAMRAAM-ER.  There is no air-launched version.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 05:47:52 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2015, 06:02:34 pm »
Technically speaking, Raytheon calls the missile  AMRAAM-ER ;) although SLAMRAAM-ER would definitely be more appropriate way to market it .

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/air_and_ground.html

Its an AMRAAM ESSM hybrid..

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=23897.0
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 06:18:01 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2015, 06:28:07 pm »
Technically speaking, Raytheon calls the missile  AMRAAM-ER ;) although SLAMRAAM-ER would definitely be more appropriate way to market it .

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/air_and_ground.html

Its an AMRAAM ESSM hybrid..

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=23897.0

Huh.  Wonder when they changed it.  Wish they'd stayed with the original design (though the new one with the grafted on AIM-120 airframe section is probably cheaper).

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2015, 06:32:27 pm »
I think it was just the cheapest way they could improve the SLAMRAAM. They may just use it as a backup for the Stunner for those nations in the Middle East that can't buy the stunner for political reasons. In all their US Army targeted material they have showcased the stunner as an optional add on weapon but I do recall some of their marketing stuff to poland included options for SLAMRAAM or the stunner.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2269
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2015, 09:16:19 pm »
Technically speaking, Raytheon calls the missile  AMRAAM-ER ;) although SLAMRAAM-ER would definitely be more appropriate way to market it .

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/air_and_ground.html

Its an AMRAAM ESSM hybrid..

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=23897.0
The nickname combat pilots use for the AIM-120s is "Slammer." Thus, SLAMRAAM-ER. -SP
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2015, 05:21:24 am »
I thought SLAMRAAM was for Surface Launched AMRAAM.

Raytheon's choice of background music is not for everyone but the 2nd half of this video shows it being used.


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2015, 06:15:06 am »
Quote
I thought SLAMRAAM was for Surface Launched AMRAAM.

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

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #44 on: December 05, 2015, 09:37:35 am »
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/12/cyber-ew-are-secret-missile-defense-weapons-too-secret-to-use/

Maybe not a missiles at all?

Quote
There are so many different technological means available,” said Macy, at various levels of classification: “the black programs, the grey programs, the white programs.” When a launch occurs — or, better yet, when you get intelligence a launch may happen — which techniques do you use, in what combination and what order, under what circumstances against which adversaries? The tactical and technical complexities must be thought through, field-tested, and practiced well in advance, Macy said, because there’s no time to jury-rig defenses once a missile’s in the air.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2015, 09:39:25 am by bobbymike »
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #46 on: December 17, 2015, 04:25:19 pm »
"Greater range".  So 18 miles for PAC-3 MSE vs 12 for PAC-3.  (Vs 100+ for PAC-2)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #47 on: December 17, 2015, 05:34:35 pm »
"Greater range".  So 18 miles for PAC-3 MSE vs 12 for PAC-3.  (Vs 100+ for PAC-2)

Tends to be cruelly highlighted when they use Patriot-as-a-Target (PAAT) for PAC-3 MSE engagements.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #48 on: December 17, 2015, 06:44:56 pm »
"Greater range".  So 18 miles for PAC-3 MSE vs 12 for PAC-3.  (Vs 100+ for PAC-2)

Tends to be cruelly highlighted when they use Patriot-as-a-Target (PAAT) for PAC-3 MSE engagements.

They're both good, they just have different strengths and weaknesses.  I think the way the media just tosses acronyms around though confuses people. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #49 on: December 17, 2015, 07:28:59 pm »
Unless it simply doesn't have enough battery power or overheats, either of which is possible the speed of PAC-3MES plus the two pulse motor really ought to allow it to loft to a ~100km kind of range if with reduce probability of a kill. If it can really do this or not is unknown but the US never gave a clear statement on the true maximum range of PAC-2 either. We do know the early big Patriot could not loft, and the later ones could.

MEADS was for a time supposed to have a second longer range missile under the LCI program, which worked on three different weapons, one was a weaponized MALD decoy, the other was a ESSM sized low cost SAM that was to go about 100km in a semi ballistic flight, but this was downgraded to an AMRAAM sized missile at some point, which actually got as far as unguided test flights to prove the motor and airframe. The reason to downsize was so much larger numbers could be carried, and so it could be shared with SLAMRAAM batteries. Both approaches died early in the Iraq war for funding shifts.

The goal for cost was something like 100,000 dollars, and they would have had little if any capability against manned aircraft because of the ways that would be accomplished in what still were fairly large weapon, but the point was dealing with standoff drones and large numbers of cruise missiles. Things that would not even known they were under attack let alone able to evade.

A analysis of bad alternatives for upgrading the complete Patriot is now underway, so something like the PAC-M project or LCI may make a comeback to restore or expand firing range.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #50 on: December 17, 2015, 08:01:52 pm »
Unless it simply doesn't have enough battery power or overheats, either of which is possible the speed of PAC-3MES plus the two pulse motor really ought to allow it to loft to a ~100km kind of range if with reduce probability of a kill.

To go those kinds of ranges you have to loft it and I'd be surprised if either PAC-3 or PAC-3 MSE is very stable at high altitude.  Pretty much every source I've ever seen gives 12 miles for PAC-3 and "+50%" for PAC-3-MSE. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2015, 06:59:49 pm »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #52 on: December 22, 2015, 09:54:59 am »
 Raytheon's short term plans when it comes to Patriot upgrades.

Patriot gains: Raytheon prepares to deliver the latest radar systems to Poland
Jane's Defence Weekly  Nov. 2015

The United States and Poland are working out details of a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Poland of Raytheon's Patriot air- and missile-defence system that is likely to result in Poland being the first country to receive the Patriot's upgraded active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system.

The Polish government announced that it had selected the Patriot system in April 2015, after which began the government-to-government discussions, John Baird, vice-president of Poland programmes for Raytheon, told IHS Jane's  .

The programme has not changed much from the original proposal, Baird noted.

There are three phases. Phase 1 is the initial deployment of the MPQ-65 Phase III (Patriot III Plus): the most modernised version being offered by Raytheon. This capability is currently in production. The goal is to deliver systems to Poland as fast as possible, Baird said.

Phase 2 is a development programme, followed by Phase 3, which had been referred to as Patriot Next Generation but is now called Poland Patriot by the US government, Baird added.

It is in Phase 3 that Poland's Patriot radar system will be upgraded with an AESA and gallium nitride (GaN) front end. The upgrade will also enable Raytheon to incorporate two smaller panels in the back of the system.

"[It] is smaller-sized but the same technology utilising common electronics and common software [found] inside the current Patriot radar to get a full 360° coverage and capability without rotating," Baird said.

The AESA GaN upgrade introduces the latest technology to the radar systems. Primarily it provides better thermal conductivity, which improves performance.

"You can actually have a much more efficient radar solution in a much smaller [space]," Baird said. "It leverages all the existing years of experience in operations and tactical test of the radar software and most of the hardware, so you are reusing a lot of that capability. It allows us to do an upgrade a lot faster."

Although the more advanced AESA GaN radar is a fixed system, Baird noted it can still reorient itself in different directions, "so the primary target line can change, but it still has a full 360 [degree coverage area] without a rotating capability".

Raytheon has built a prototype of the smaller quarter-sized radar panel, which is undergoing testing at the company's facility in Pelham, New Hampshire. It has been integrated with a US Patriot radar demonstrating the capability of the hardware and software of the 360° capability, Baird said.

"We are in the final stages of building a full-scale demonstrator for the front panel. That will be ready in early 2016, so we will have a full-up front panel GaN radar and one of the quarter-size panels for the back," he said.

Poland would likely receive the upgraded AESA GaN patriot radars a few years after the country gets its first fire units under Phase 1. Poland is requesting those first Patriot configuration III Plus systems by 2018, with the remaining units by 2025, Baird said.

The MPQ-65 Phase III Plus is in line with the US Army's current Patriot system. Poland's initial two units will be retrofitted to the MPQ-65 AESA GaN standard. Initially eight batteries were planned to be in service by 2025; however, this number is subject to change until the contract is finalised.

The second major component of the AESA GaN radar is focused on command and control (C2) systems. The current Patriot system has four major end items: two at the far unit level (one for engagement operations and one for planning operations); and two at the battalion level (one for engagement and one for planning).

In the upgrade to AESA GaN, all four of those major end items are integrated into Raytheon's common hardware and software suite that is role-selectable, Baird said.

"So the same physical shelter would do all of those roles [or any combination thereof] depending on how you signed in as an operator. It gives it more operational flexibility, more contingency operations or commonality, which is one of the things Poland really wanted," he said.

Another area included in the upgrade is an elevated launcher. Baird said there has also been a lot of discussion about the missile mix that Poland is pursuing.

"[There] is still strong interest in the future low-cost interceptor, and as part of [that] to get a little bit more performance out of the [PAC-3] missile segment enhancement [MSE], they are considering a multi-elevation launcher which takes the current Patriot launcher and allows it to do two different angles," he said. "One is the current lower angle for longer range and one is the higher angle for what I call more 360 [degree] additional coverage for higher [ground-based midcourse]."

There are also smaller details being worked out between the United States and Poland, for example, on what type of shelter, what type of trucks, and the type of prime movers. Some of the equipment will be adapting to the Polish requirement, Baird added.

For example, the electrical power plant (EPP) in the current Patriot configuration is a large trailer mount that feeds the radar and engagement control station (ECS). It has dual power plants for redundancy. In the upgraded configuration the EPP would just feed the radar, so that the full power plant is available to the radar for additional power, Baird said.

ECS would be replaced by the Common Command and Control (CC2). This is role-selectable and one of the roles it plays is the ECS, he added. "It also replaces the tactical planner shelter configuration, which is a separate shelter for the planning element," Baird said.

Polish operators will then be able to actually do those tasks in the same shelter or two shelters, he added. And by dedicating EPP to just the radar, operators could add a separate generator to CC2 and then physically separate CC2 from the system - something that cannot be done with the current configuration, Baird noted.

"Part of the upgrades take the umbilical cord between the ECS and the radar, which has a physical limit because of the cabling, and replaces that with a fibre-optic connection to the radar so you can [remotely operate] it up to 1 km away now," he said.

The upgrades are designed so that they are retrofitable to all of the current fleet of Patriot radar systems, with Baird saying several countries have expressed an interest in it. "Some customers really want the AESA front end, some don't [want] the 360° [capability] and others do [want it]. You can have either. You don't have to have the whole package. You can just upgrade the front panel and everything works," he said.
However, for now the plan is for Poland to get something as fast as they can to give them a capability against current threats, he said.

Poland also has a requirement for Raytheon to partner with the Polish defence industry, Baird said. "We are still working towards the goal of 50% of the contract value will go into Poland's defence industry, in partnership with their defence consolidation [Poland's PGZ defence company which has replaced Polish Defence Holding].

"There is also a companion activity being initiated as part of, what Poland calls, a new offset lot from last year. It will be a series of technology and knowledge transfers in parallel - between Raytheon and the Polish defence industry - in conjunction and aligned with the work-share scope of the actual contract," Baird said.

The objective is to enhance Poland's defence industries so they can be brought more in tune with export markets and the latest technologies, he said. Baird, however, added that there is no official requirement for 50% for offsets.

"If you do some research on the new offset law in Poland they have gone away from [an] economic stimulus package for offsets to what they are calling direct offsets. They are gearing it around technology and knowledge transfer that will help [their defence industry] become more self-sufficient in the long term," he said.

What the Polish government has done is develop capabilities categories and there is a certain number of categories of technology that they are looking to get transferred, Baird added.

"There is no value associated with them as far as a percentage of the programme, so the 50% number is actually a work-share contract percentage, not offsets," he said.

Although Poland is on the US-approved export list for end-item technology, there are some restrictions for protecting components that must be built in the United States, Baird added.

The United States and Poland are also working out details of how the Patriot systems will be maintained and supported. It is not fully clear yet what Poland is looking for, Baird said.

There have been a number of meetings between the United States and Poland focusing on getting the letter of request (LoR) signed and approved. Once that is done, it will start the FMS process for generating a full proposal, he added.

When it comes to sustainment of Patriot, Baird noted that every country does it a little bit differently. Some countries prefer to have the US government and the contractor provide support, while other countries set up their own depots with their own people and then reach back to the United States and Raytheon when needed.

"I think Poland is looking at a long-term partnership between Raytheon and PGZ. There will be military depot level support and then contractor support, primarily led by PGZ long [term] but probably with Raytheon for the next two to three years as PGZ ramps up," Baird said.

"It depends on how that transfer of knowledge goes and how well and quickly we can get PGZ up to speed on the system, operations and maintenance at the depot level. That is part of what we are discussing right now."

Along with the United States and Poland working out the contractual language, the two sides are also having to learn new terminology. In the United States the terms 'fire unit' and 'battery' are interchangeable; in Poland a battery is two fire units, Baird said. "Typically in Poland their terminology is two fire units per battery and two batteries per squadron. A squadron is equivalent to a battalion in the United States."

The numbers are also part of the current discussions, Baird said, explaining that "originally we were looking at eight fire units".

There is the potential for that number to increase to 16 fire units, he added. However, just how many fire units Poland buys will not be known until a contract is signed sometime in 2016, Baird said.

As far as the number of launchers and missiles Poland would get, that is part of the same discussion, he added.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2015, 09:20:42 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2015, 10:31:01 am »
Unless it simply doesn't have enough battery power or overheats, either of which is possible the speed of PAC-3MES plus the two pulse motor really ought to allow it to loft to a ~100km kind of range if with reduce probability of a kill.

To go those kinds of ranges you have to loft it and I'd be surprised if either PAC-3 or PAC-3 MSE is very stable at high altitude.  Pretty much every source I've ever seen gives 12 miles for PAC-3 and "+50%" for PAC-3-MSE.

On the PAC-2/GEM-T side, I'm wondering if the missile is TVM limited rather than kinematically limited.

I'm also surprised there has been more discussion about what else can fit in the THAAD launcher (aside from THAAD-ER).


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2015, 11:25:31 am »
I'm also surprised there has been more discussion about what else can fit in the THAAD launcher (aside from THAAD-ER).

Like what?  Do you have any links?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2015, 11:41:12 am »
There was a talk a while ago about a common launcher being proposed but I guess there hasn't been a lot of activity since.

Coming back to the list of bad alternatives that Sea Skimmer mentioned, the timelines seem really astonishing in addition the some of the radars being thrown around in the mix. A 360 Patriot Upgrade will be costly, but Raytheon can upgrade the antennas and retain much of the software. However the coverage in the rear would not be as extensive. Then they throw in the Gator which would have to rotate, in which case there is the MEADS X-band sensor that they could use an equally if not more mature sensor (with new software). Lockheed already has a mature surveillance radar but then that would double the sensors in the system.

They are apparently going to begin funding one or more of these solutions in the FY17 request so I guess we'll know soon enough. I wonder what happened to Raytheon's earlier plans of incorporating larger antennas for the rear coverage.

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

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2015, 03:28:38 pm »
I'm also surprised there has been more discussion about what else can fit in the THAAD launcher (aside from THAAD-ER).

Like what?  Do you have any links?

Purely my own (probably unoriginal) thinking.  How about PAC-3 MSE with a 16 inch diameter x 3 ft long booster (might resemble the booster for Stunner) ?  I think that would still fit and stay within the canister weight limits.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #57 on: December 23, 2015, 10:51:36 pm »
Quote
On the PAC-2/GEM-T side, I'm wondering if the missile is TVM limited rather than kinematically limited.

I'm also surprised there has been more discussion about what else can fit in the THAAD launcher (aside from THAAD-ER).

Could be a bit of both but there must be a lot they could have done had they invested in the GEM-T some more. One interesting thing coming out of the AOA for the radar is that the most expensive option is for a MEADS like setup with a surveillance radar and an MFCR. I guess if they do decide to go down this path they would need a new long range interceptor as well for the late 2020's and beyond.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 10:54:17 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2015, 05:44:21 pm »
From a 2014 article on Low Cost Interceptors offered by Raytheon as part of Wisla (Poland):

Quote
The deal would also encompass an optional co-developed advanced low-cost interceptor (LCI).John Baird, vice-president of Poland IAMD for Raytheon Integrated Missile Defense Systems, told IHS Jane's that Raytheon is offering four LCI options based on components of existing missiles that could be combined and integrated to provide additional capability. Two are based on Stunner configurations - the interceptor developed by Raytheon and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Two are new, currently conceptual, missile options, both "based on other missiles that would be put together in a different way" and which can be retrofitted with any Patriot system. "All of those that we'll put on the table will be the Polish Ministry of Defence's options to consider and recommend to industry so that they can be part of a decision on which path to go based on schedule, cost, budget and so on", he added.

If they are looking at low flying cruise missiles, a two-staged CUDA looks like a competitor to a Stunner based option for a Low(er) cost interceptor.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2015, 06:28:32 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #59 on: January 05, 2016, 12:36:50 pm »
Decision on replacing Patriot radar is high on to-do list for 2016 Insidedefense.com

The Army enters the new year with a series of key investment decisions looming about the way ahead for replacing parts of the aging Patriot system or maintaining the technology at an acceptable level.

According to Pentagon sources, a high-level meeting on the subject between Army officials and representatives of the Office of the Secretary of Defense in November yielded no actual decision other than a plan to revisit the issue in a few months.

"The ground radar meet did not pick a material solution and deferred that discussion until the Army goes forward with a milestone decision in the second quarter of fiscal year 2016," likely the end of March, one official said.

On the table are a number of variants for what officials have begun calling the "Lower-Tier AMD Capability," particularly the radar equipment required to spot incoming missile threats. The shortlist of alternatives includes roughly a half-dozen systems, including sensors used in the Patriot program and the Medium Extended Air Defense System.

The two competing programs pit defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon against each other in a fight that goes back several years. Lockheed Martin has attempted to market its MEADS weapon to European countries -- Germany said it would use it -- but officials at the Defense Department have shown no signs so far to revisit the program in earnest.

With a decision still outstanding on a new Patriot radar, Lockheed sees another chance to enter the U.S. market, which would arguably dwarf whatever European nations can spend.

Raytheon, on the other hand, finds itself fending off another challenge to the decades-long dominance of its Patriot system. The company has crafted proposals for updating the weapon, but some defense officials now believe a more comprehensive overhaul is needed to avoid playing costly catch-up with shortcomings in the years ahead.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has opted to exclude funding for a new ground-based launcher of missile interceptors from consideration in the budget plan for FY-17 and beyond, Inside the Army reported earlier this year.

The decision was reached after Army officials argued against beginning such an acquisition program before other major elements of the service's air and missile defense portfolio, namely a new ground radar, are further analyzed.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #60 on: January 05, 2016, 01:45:00 pm »
With the advent of UAVs & CMs, ground based AD systems need to have 360 coverage.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #61 on: January 05, 2016, 04:05:07 pm »
That they have to have 360 degree coverage has been known for well over a decade now :) The problem is what type of sensor, what frequency, and how to pay for up to 100 new radars. Another way to look at this is that 10-15 years down the road, when all the potential capability of the IBCS is fielded do you need one large 360 degrees sensor or can a comprehensive picture for engaging targets be formulated through a collection of already fielded sensors? How will DEW's play into defending against UAV's and cruise missiles etc.. The PAC-3's capability to engage targets using AN/MPQ-64 may perhaps open the door to fielding more affordable main sensor, perhaps even going in for the 50% approach by simply choosing an upgrading the existing radar family. Additional cost would be to both upgrade the launchers, and make the entire system more mobile (again something identified for MEADS). They'll also need at some point in time a new PAC-2 class weapon, as well evolve the PAC-3 MSE and perhaps look at the low-cost interceptor as well. I would still go in for the MEADS surveillance radar, for 360 degree surveillance and pair that up with an MFCR, but the problem is that this was deemed as the most or second most expensive option that the Army has.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 03:07:32 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #62 on: January 05, 2016, 05:08:29 pm »
Decision on replacing Patriot radar is high on to-do list for 2016 Insidedefense.com

The Army enters the new year with a series of key investment decisions looming about the way ahead for replacing parts of the aging Patriot system or maintaining the technology at an acceptable level.

According to Pentagon sources, a high-level meeting on the subject between Army officials and representatives of the Office of the Secretary of Defense in November yielded no actual decision other than a plan to revisit the issue in a few months.

"The ground radar meet did not pick a material solution and deferred that discussion until the Army goes forward with a milestone decision in the second quarter of fiscal year 2016," likely the end of March, one official said.

On the table are a number of variants for what officials have begun calling the "Lower-Tier AMD Capability," particularly the radar equipment required to spot incoming missile threats. The shortlist of alternatives includes roughly a half-dozen systems, including sensors used in the Patriot program and the Medium Extended Air Defense System.

The two competing programs pit defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon against each other in a fight that goes back several years. Lockheed Martin has attempted to market its MEADS weapon to European countries -- Germany said it would use it -- but officials at the Defense Department have shown no signs so far to revisit the program in earnest.

With a decision still outstanding on a new Patriot radar, Lockheed sees another chance to enter the U.S. market, which would arguably dwarf whatever European nations can spend.

Raytheon, on the other hand, finds itself fending off another challenge to the decades-long dominance of its Patriot system. The company has crafted proposals for updating the weapon, but some defense officials now believe a more comprehensive overhaul is needed to avoid playing costly catch-up with shortcomings in the years ahead.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has opted to exclude funding for a new ground-based launcher of missile interceptors from consideration in the budget plan for FY-17 and beyond, Inside the Army reported earlier this year.

The decision was reached after Army officials argued against beginning such an acquisition program before other major elements of the service's air and missile defense portfolio, namely a new ground radar, are further analyzed.
Thank you for posting BIO.
Think the Army is right to delay pending further analysis especially given drastically proliferating threats and where  technology and cost takes one. Given the history and now future issues, one can't envy the decision makers.

 Hoping a scaleable family of missiles which can perform more than one task are given a look. At one time old Pats were being looked at for ground attack and of course the Standard ground attack was also purposed.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #63 on: January 05, 2016, 05:21:28 pm »
That they have to have 360 degree coverage has been known for well over a decade now :) The problem is what type of sensor, what frequency, and how to pay for up to 100 new radars. Another way to look at this is that 10-15 years down the road, when all the potential capability of the IBCS is fielded do you need one large sensor or can a comprehensive picture for targeting be formulated through a collection of already fielded sensors? How will DEW's play into defending against UAV's and cruise missiles etc.. The PAC-3's capability to engage targets using AN/MPQ-64 may perhaps open the door to fielding more affordable main sensor, perhaps even going in for the 50% approach by simply choosing an upgrading the existing radar family. Additional cost would be to both upgrade the launchers, and make the entire system more mobile (again something identified for MEADS). They'll also need at some point in time a new PAC-2 class weapon, as well evolve the PAC-3 MSE and perhaps look at the low-cost interceptor as well. I would still go in for the MEADS surveillance radar, for 360 degree surveillance and pair that up with an MFCR, but the problem is that this was deemed as the most or second most expensive option that the Army has.

3DELRR really needs to be resolved before the Army can move forward.

The MEADS MFCR and LFS look very promising as does the forthcoming GaN version of G/ATOR. Same with the daughter-array'ed Patriot radar.

AN/TPQ-53 also has a latent CM/UAV/air-breathing detection and tracking capability that had to be throttled back (via SW) to reduce the false positive rate in the counterfire role.

*BUT* there's only so much DoD trusted foundry capacity out there...
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 05:40:18 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #64 on: January 05, 2016, 05:33:56 pm »
The 3DELRR although higher frequency to the current S band options, would still not be as capable as an X band sensor, and would still require modification to enable 360 degrees coverage if the Army persists with a non-rotational approach to going about it. Interestingly, the defetnsenews article looking at the various alternatives did not mention this sensor as one of the options looked at (iirc). Lockheed have acknowledged (Janes), that it is working on an X-band Gallium Nitride radar which I suspect has something to do with this analysis of alternatives especially given the fact that a lot of the back end work for the MEADS X-band still leverages the common processors etc lockheed developed for the program. They could be trying to put something together using their work on MEADS, and pairing that with a new 360 degree array designed by them. Certainly there is significant advantage to having component commonality between the engagement and surveillance radars in a system if that is the approach lockheed is thinking about picking. the MEADS UHF AESA aside, lockheed has a number of other surveillance radars it can offer for the role.

On raytheon's side, the GaN Patriot sensor still retains quite a few analog systems from what I have read and the army itself deems it a less capable option to an X-band sensor even though from a power perspective the sensor moves to 130-140 KW from 110 or so KW with the current radar. I think ultimately it will come down to compromises as these things usually do. Interestingly, the more one looks at the trades the more one realizes that we have been down this road before with MEADS. That radar (s) setup was essentially a compromise that traded off a rotating array drawback for 360 degree coverage and paired that with a surveillance radar. If I am not mistaken the MEADS operational concept was envisioned to have certain instances with  2 X-band sensors per deployment with one having the ability to be directed towards a high threat sector..

The foundry issue is also very very interesting and important (thanks for bringing it up) especially with most OEM's offering GaN products. There is far greater supply of S-band components thanks to the surge in requirements with the space fence, AN/TPS-80, LRDR and large requirement for the AMDR than there is for X-band components. Industrial capacity will surely influence the decision to go for GaA or GaN if a higher frequency sensor (C, X band) is chosen.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 05:52:05 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #65 on: January 05, 2016, 06:14:06 pm »
The 3DELRR although higher frequency to the current S band options, would still not be as capable as an X band sensor, and would still require modification to enable 360 degrees coverage if the Army persists with a non-rotational approach to going about it. Interestingly, the defetnsenews article looking at the various alternatives did not mention this sensor as one of the options looked at (iirc). Lockheed have acknowledged (Janes), that it is working on an X-band Gallium Nitride radar which I suspect has something to do with this analysis of alternatives especially given the fact that a lot of the back end work for the MEADS X-band still leverages the common processors etc lockheed developed for the program. They could be trying to put something together using their work on MEADS, and pairing that with a new 360 degree array designed by them. Certainly there is significant advantage to having component commonality between the engagement and surveillance radars in a system if that is the approach lockheed is thinking about picking. the MEADS UHF AESA aside, lockheed has a number of other surveillance radars it can offer for the role.

On raytheon's side, the GaN Patriot sensor still retains quite a few analog systems from what I have read and the army itself deems it a less capable option to an X-band sensor. I think ultimately it will come down to compromises as these things usually do. Interestingly, the more one looks at the trades the more one realizes that we have been down this road before with MEADS. That radar (s) setup was essentially a compromise that traded off a rotating array drawback for 360 degree coverage and paired that with a surveillance radar. If I am not mistaken the MEADS operational concept was envisioned to have certain instances with  2 X-band sensors per deployment with one having the ability to be directed towards a high threat sector..

The foundry issue is also very very interesting and important (thanks for bringing it up) especially with most OEM's offering GaN products. There is far greater supply of S-band components thanks to the surge in requirements with the space fence, AN/TPS-80, LRDR and large requirement for the AMDR than there is for X-band components. Industrial capacity will surely influence the decision to go for GaA or GaN if a higher frequency sensor (C, X band) is chosen.

Quick reply:

IIRC, each 3DELRR competitor submitted a radar with a different operating band. I wasn't really suggesting it would be organic  to the Patriot replacement battery just that industry and DoD
as whole (as the USMC is a silent partner here) need 3DELRR to be resolved before embarking on another major ground-based radar program for a whole host of reasons.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 06:17:13 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #66 on: January 05, 2016, 06:36:16 pm »
^ For the 3DELRR Lockheed offered a GaN L-Band radar (TPY-X family), Northrop Grumman a GaN S-Band sensor leveraging the AN/TPS-80, while Raytheon chose a C-band radar. I just assumed that Raytheon keeps it. AN/TPS-80 was considered in the Alternatives looked at by the Army. Any idea when the final decision is due regarding that program?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 06:42:27 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #67 on: January 05, 2016, 06:58:17 pm »
Is there any appetite for pursuing mobile radar options, like the Russian Nebo-M or Big Bird radars? Mobility may be necessary to survive future precision guided weapon battlefields.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #68 on: January 05, 2016, 07:03:31 pm »
Is there any appetite for pursuing mobile radar options, like the Russian Nebo-M or Big Bird radars? Mobility may be necessary to survive future precision guided weapon battlefields.

Neither Big Bird or Nebo (or Tombstone for that matter) work on the move.  For all intents and purposes they're fixed targets.
"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 #69 on: January 06, 2016, 06:21:10 am »
Is there any appetite for pursuing mobile radar options, like the Russian Nebo-M or Big Bird radars? Mobility may be necessary to survive future precision guided weapon battlefields.

Neither Big Bird or Nebo (or Tombstone for that matter) work on the move.  For all intents and purposes they're fixed targets.

They're fixed targets which can reposition in about 10 minutes. That alone would make them hard to pin down for cruise missile attack.

If you envision using the Patriot to defend airbases, being able to move within a cruise missile targeting cycle could improve their survivability quite a lot.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #70 on: January 06, 2016, 06:26:51 am »
Is there any appetite for pursuing mobile radar options, like the Russian Nebo-M or Big Bird radars? Mobility may be necessary to survive future precision guided weapon battlefields.

Neither Big Bird or Nebo (or Tombstone for that matter) work on the move.  For all intents and purposes they're fixed targets.

They're fixed targets which can reposition in about 10 minutes.

Be that as it may, shutting down your radar to move it when you know an attack is coming in would seem to defeat the purpose of HAVING the radar.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #71 on: January 06, 2016, 08:18:46 am »
Quote
They're fixed targets which can reposition in about 10 minutes. That alone would make them hard to pin down for cruise missile attack.

If you envision using the Patriot to defend airbases, being able to move within a cruise missile targeting cycle could improve their survivability quite a lot.

How's that different from the way the current Patriot can operate if required?

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pictures/2012_12_121203b-patriot/20121204_121121a-014.jpg

MEADS sensors should also have enough mobility since they can also operate without completely detaching  from the vehicle.

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

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #72 on: January 06, 2016, 11:06:18 am »
Typically, mobile radars displace to pre-surveyed sites where they've pre-registered clutter maps (and just need to do a quick update) or where they have *very* strong confidence in their ability to predict the clutter map.

JLENS (or another aerostat based system) with an organic C-RAM  as part of the battery (say MHTK) could surveil a very large area and would be largely immune to SEAD/DEAD.

You'd still want the road mobile radars that can emplace on the march but I would think you'd want to be MEADS MFCR or AN/TPQ-53 size to get quick emplacement.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #73 on: January 06, 2016, 12:34:57 pm »
Bring-it-on - thanks for the picture. I had not seen the Patriot radar in mobile configuration.

Marauder - I know that MEADs is, in general more mobile than the Patriot. But the US Army is, for now, not buying MEADs. JLENS mobility was, apparently, not as good as initially advertised. It's recent failure probably means the program is dead.

Why mobility? If a missile battery is defending a fixed site, e.g. Patriots defending Guam from cruise missile attack, then it is possible to pre-site several radar positions. Two radar systems could then spend the time rotating between different sites, one on, the other off. To suppress that battery, the attacker would have to either target each site, which wastes long range weapons, or rely on more advanced missiles, which decreases overall attack strength. A fixed site which does not change within several hours can be much more easily targeted by a simple submunition warhead.

This is especially important if attacking missiles are cheaper than defending missiles, which appears to be the case for the foreseeable future.


But, this is a question for a detailed study and I'd be interested if the Army studies anything along these lines.

It also raises questions of what the future of US Air Defense should be, but that's beyond Patriot SAM replacement.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #74 on: January 06, 2016, 01:41:06 pm »


This is especially important if attacking missiles are cheaper than defending missiles, which appears to be the case for the foreseeable future.

Is exactly an argument for a family of scaleable cheaper multi-use missiles. As attackers are drastically proliferating. even that solution may not be enough. Issues like those associated w/ MEADS (a pretty good system by real accounts) development and adoption occuring again will completely doom any defense.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #75 on: January 06, 2016, 02:48:01 pm »
Quote
Marauder - I know that MEADs is, in general more mobile than the Patriot. But the US Army is, for now, not buying MEADs. JLENS mobility was, apparently, not as good as initially advertised. It's recent failure probably means the program is dead.

They have kept it funded in the FY16 budget, and it should live in the FY17 budget as well. The sensors are priceless, especially the combination of a surveillance and X-band radar. Secondly, the IBCS is still tasked with integrated JLENS capability further down the road which will be incredible important for OTH targeting. The sensors will be extremely expensive to mount on another platform, and the surveillance radar will be virtually impossible particularly for a platform that has persistence.

Quote
Marauder - I know that MEADs is, in general more mobile than the Patriot. But the US Army is, for now, not buying MEADs. JLENS mobility was, apparently, not as good as initially advertised. It's recent failure probably means the program is dead.

While defending fixed sites you can also protect by forward-deploying large number of affordable interceptors for terminal destruction of cruise missiles etc. Ultimately, the threat for those sites is a huge raid from TBM's since if it ever escalates there should be air-air capability to provide defense as well.

Quote
This is especially important if attacking missiles are cheaper than defending missiles, which appears to be the case for the foreseeable future.

Depends upon the weapon, and how it is delivered. Its just not the cost of the shot, but the cost-to get the shot off at a time of war. As the Stunner has shown, you can go fairly low if your aim is to develop cruise missile and anti-air capability at an affordable interceptor cost.

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

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #76 on: January 06, 2016, 02:53:10 pm »


This is especially important if attacking missiles are cheaper than defending missiles, which appears to be the case for the foreseeable future.

Is exactly an argument for a family of scaleable cheaper multi-use missiles. As attackers are drastically proliferating. even that solution may not be enough. Issues like those associated w/ MEADS (a pretty good system by real accounts) development and adoption occuring again will completely doom any defense.

But you aren't doing a MEADS approach. What you are doing is integrating new radar-sensors into the IBCS that you are already building, and from what it looks like have been doing it quite successfully. The interface of IBCS is owned by the Pentagon, and at the moment Northrop grumman is the prime integrator. Current sensors that will be combined using IBCS are the Patriot sensors, AN/MPQ-64  and eventually the JLENS sensors (or whatever follows). Other sensors you can add are the G/ATOR, 3DELRR of the USAF, and newer sensors. With Patriot component replacement you are essentially creating plug and play elements for the IBCS unlike MEADS where they essentially creating a new system from scratch (and despite of the long delay, they have created a very capable one at that). The long delays with the MEADS, and the lack of funded adoption of additional interceptors (No PAC-2, No SLAMRAAM for example) and the rise of IBCS that essentially delivers a product around the same time as MEADS means that for the US Army, MEADS became pointless especially when the size of the US Army order trumps other MEADS customers. With MEADS, its developing OEM's had control of the system, with IBCS US DOD has control and can choose any contractor to do additional upgrades, or integrate additional systems.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/294039280/IBCS-datasheet

https://www.scribd.com/doc/294006072/Northrop-Grumman-Ready-to-Prove-IBCS-Can-Link-Different-Sensors-and-Shooters?secret_password=lEQizDcwbMxSOypSNfkS
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 04:12:49 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2016, 03:17:47 pm »
Depends upon the weapon, and how it is delivered. Its just not the cost of the shot, but the cost-to get the shot off at a time of war. As the Stunner has shown, you can go fairly low if your aim is to develop cruise missile and anti-air capability at an affordable interceptor cost.

Thing is, from an offensive standpoint you can go REALLY cheap.  Imagine an SRBM/IRBM/MRBM with, say, a 3,000lb payload that chucks out SDB equivalents.   You could make the booster dumb as a post, really cheap.  All it has to do is have enough accuracy to get the truckload of RVs into the basket where the terminal guidance could take over.  Think what it would take to intercept a dozen RVs.  And that's just one missile.  If I were China I'd turn those things out like cars and use them to saturate any target in the South China Sea.  Considering the variety of TELs they're also turning out, pretty soon they're going to have a conventional ballistic missile for almost any occasion and in numbers.  We keep talking about Prompt Global Strike but they are WAY ahead.  They aren't trying to go Global but it won't be long and they'll have enough to rain conventional warheads down anywhere they want in the West Pacific.  The only realistic counter to something like that will be railguns and DEWs.  No other way to shift the low side of the cost equation back to the defense.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2016, 03:59:45 pm »
Bring-it-on - thanks for the picture. I had not seen the Patriot radar in mobile configuration.


Why mobility? If a missile battery is defending a fixed site, e.g. Patriots defending Guam from cruise missile attack, then it is possible to pre-site several radar positions. Two radar systems could then spend the time rotating between different sites, one on, the other off. To suppress that battery, the attacker would have to either target each site, which wastes long range weapons, or rely on more advanced missiles, which decreases overall attack strength. A fixed site which does not change within several hours can be much more easily targeted by a simple submunition warhead.


A continuously  "advancing by bounds" ground mobile radar scheme starts to make E-2D look cheap but I guess you would get the advantage of a bi-static configuration if you emplaced randomly and had good datalinks.

Also I'm not sure how ground mobile radars help against the low-flying cruise missile threat unless they are displacing to fixed sites that have good elevation and permit a 360 view.
There aren't many such sites and the simple submunition warhead threat as you point out would make it very dangerous for a softish ground vehicle to even approach one of the sites (e.g. UXO).

The US government owns a number of tethered radar aerostats of which JLENS is just one. Aside from maybe a MALE UAV carrying a radar reflector, I tend to think that aerostats
are the cheapest and most effective way to do OTH work. 
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 04:05:21 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2016, 04:11:10 pm »
Depends upon the weapon, and how it is delivered. Its just not the cost of the shot, but the cost-to get the shot off at a time of war. As the Stunner has shown, you can go fairly low if your aim is to develop cruise missile and anti-air capability at an affordable interceptor cost.

Thing is, from an offensive standpoint you can go REALLY cheap.  Imagine an SRBM/IRBM/MRBM with, say, a 3,000lb payload that chucks out SDB equivalents.   You could make the booster dumb as a post, really cheap.  All it has to do is have enough accuracy to get the truckload of RVs into the basket where the terminal guidance could take over.  Think what it would take to intercept a dozen RVs.  And that's just one missile.  If I were China I'd turn those things out like cars and use them to saturate any target in the South China Sea.  Considering the variety of TELs they're also turning out, pretty soon they're going to have a conventional ballistic missile for almost any occasion and in numbers.  We keep talking about Prompt Global Strike but they are WAY ahead.  They aren't trying to go Global but it won't be long and they'll have enough to rain conventional warheads down anywhere they want in the West Pacific.  The only realistic counter to something like that will be railguns and DEWs.  No other way to shift the low side of the cost equation back to the defense.

No doubt hence the quite aggressive push to get EMRG technology mature. However, regardless, sensor discrimination, and survivability is still an issue and here it was a misplaced concern that DRRANSOM had that somehow you could just put your truck into gear and drive off to avoid an attack and do it consistently, and repeatedly and gain survivability. Although mobility does make the sensor somewhat more survivable, it is far important to ensure adequate mobility so that it can keep up with advancing troops, and that seems to be the lesson MEADS learnt from Patriot.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 04:25:46 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #80 on: January 06, 2016, 04:51:46 pm »

Thing is, from an offensive standpoint you can go REALLY cheap.  Imagine an SRBM/IRBM/MRBM with, say, a 3,000lb payload that chucks out SDB equivalents.   You could make the booster dumb as a post, really cheap.  All it has to do is have enough accuracy to get the truckload of RVs into the basket where the terminal guidance could take over.  Think what it would take to intercept a dozen RVs.  And that's just one missile. 

Maybe the "SDB equivalents" is throwing me, but wouldn't this imply a low altitude, relatively low velocity submunition dispersal? It would seem you could play roughly the same trick on the defense with an ATACMS
that puts a cluster of parachute retarded MHTKs in the basket.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #81 on: January 06, 2016, 10:38:48 pm »

Thing is, from an offensive standpoint you can go REALLY cheap.  Imagine an SRBM/IRBM/MRBM with, say, a 3,000lb payload that chucks out SDB equivalents.   You could make the booster dumb as a post, really cheap.  All it has to do is have enough accuracy to get the truckload of RVs into the basket where the terminal guidance could take over.  Think what it would take to intercept a dozen RVs.  And that's just one missile. 

Maybe the "SDB equivalents" is throwing me, but wouldn't this imply a low altitude, relatively low velocity submunition dispersal? It would seem you could play roughly the same trick on the defense with an ATACMS
that puts a cluster of parachute retarded MHTKs in the basket.
Just read that as 'a lot of little precision warheads'
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 Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #82 on: January 07, 2016, 04:49:26 am »
All of which are illegal under the idiotic CCM treaty, unfortunately. So until sane governments get back into office and that piece of badly written rubbish is junked, such an option won't be available to NATO.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #83 on: January 07, 2016, 05:04:24 am »

Thing is, from an offensive standpoint you can go REALLY cheap.  Imagine an SRBM/IRBM/MRBM with, say, a 3,000lb payload that chucks out SDB equivalents.   You could make the booster dumb as a post, really cheap.  All it has to do is have enough accuracy to get the truckload of RVs into the basket where the terminal guidance could take over.  Think what it would take to intercept a dozen RVs.  And that's just one missile. 

Maybe the "SDB equivalents" is throwing me, but wouldn't this imply a low altitude, relatively low velocity submunition dispersal? It would seem you could play roughly the same trick on the defense with an ATACMS
that puts a cluster of parachute retarded MHTKs in the basket.
Just read that as 'a lot of little precision warheads'

This.  Think Mach 6 - 7 SDBs deployed from a ballistic missile.  Obviously they wouldn't have the maneuverability of SDBs (though if you made them boost-glide warheads RVs . . .), and they'd have to have completely different aerodynamics; something more appropriate for hypersonic reentry.  Throw a dozen of these on the front end of a conventional IRBM.  3 of them could throw 36 at Okinawa.  Consider that policy is to launch 2 interceptors at each target and that's 72 THAADs you've just soaked up with 3 relatively cheap ballistic missiles.  Pretty much the entire battery.
"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 #84 on: January 07, 2016, 08:24:25 am »
sferrin raises a good point about sub-munitions. Ballistic missiles have the capacity to throw more targets at a missile defense than can be defended by interceptors. Which causes more problems for a campaign level scenario, where a missile battery will have to defend a target for days to weeks. That puts a premium on any defensive strategy which doesn't require using any interceptors at all. Hence, there should be investigation other passive defensive strategies like mobility / dispersion / decoys.

bring_it_on - the US military has consistently failed to destroy mobile missile launchers of any type. Saddam kept his SCUDs operational in Gulf War 1 and managed to pull of missile launches in Gulf War 2. NATO failed to defeat outdated Serbian air defenses in Allied Force and, consequently, had an effective decrease of air power in that conflict. Libya saw SCUD attacks even after Allied air superiority. From this experience, I believe that mobility is a very valuable defensive technique. As the US needs a way to defend bases and forces while using as few missiles as possible, see above, mobility should be investigated.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #85 on: January 07, 2016, 10:29:11 am »
sferrin raises a good point about sub-munitions. Ballistic missiles have the capacity to throw more targets at a missile defense than can be defended by interceptors. Which causes more problems for a campaign level scenario, where a missile battery will have to defend a target for days to weeks. That puts a premium on any defensive strategy which doesn't require using any interceptors at all. Hence, there should be investigation other passive defensive strategies like mobility / dispersion / decoys.

bring_it_on - the US military has consistently failed to destroy mobile missile launchers of any type. Saddam kept his SCUDs operational in Gulf War 1 and managed to pull of missile launches in Gulf War 2. NATO failed to defeat outdated Serbian air defenses in Allied Force and, consequently, had an effective decrease of air power in that conflict. Libya saw SCUD attacks even after Allied air superiority. From this experience, I believe that mobility is a very valuable defensive technique. As the US needs a way to defend bases and forces while using as few missiles as possible, see above, mobility should be investigated.

How do mobility, dispersion and decoys help you defend a fixed site from cruise missile attack? The Serbs (for example) had all of the above and negligibly attrited the cruise missile salvos.
Especially if the CMs are carrying a large number of dumb, area-effect submunitions you have to kill them before they can dispense which requires continuous OTH surveillance.

There are only a handful of known, cost-effective ways to do this none of which involve mobility (unless you trivially count AWACS), dispersion and decoys.

The fractionated ballistic missile payload threat has a complementary counter: the fractionated kill-vehicle. If the RVs have active or passive seekers you can counter them non-kinetically
with decoys and the like but that would be more of a last-ditch thing for leakers.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #86 on: January 07, 2016, 10:42:57 am »
The fractionated ballistic missile payload threat has a complementary counter: the fractionated kill-vehicle.

Still going to be murder on cost.  Each KKV of an MKV costs more than a (relatively) simple SDB/RV.  Also those mini-KKVs have a limited divert capability.  Depending on when the attacking missile dispersed it's RVs they could be spread out too far for one MKV to cover.   Also, now you've replaced your PAC-3 or THAAD with something big enough to carry an MKV and that's going to cost too.

If the RVs have active or passive seekers you can counter them non-kinetically with decoys and the like but that would be more of a last-ditch thing for leakers.

If they're using GPS/intertial that might be tough to do.  Sure, you could take out the eyes of those collecting targeting data but that won't help against fixed targets.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #87 on: January 07, 2016, 11:15:40 am »
The fractionated ballistic missile payload threat has a complementary counter: the fractionated kill-vehicle.

Still going to be murder on cost.  Each KKV of an MKV costs more than a (relatively) simple SDB/RV.  Also those mini-KKVs have a limited divert capability.  Depending on when the attacking missile dispersed it's RVs they could be spread out too far for one MKV to cover.   Also, now you've replaced your PAC-3 or THAAD with something big enough to carry an MKV and that's going to cost too.


I'm not convinced on the exchange ratio cost advantage for the attacking RV; it has to surive separation, carry a real payload and survive re-entry to  low altitude possibly including ground penetration. The KKV cost drivers
would be primarily in guidance (could be cheap semi-active) and lateral/axial propulsion. The defending missile can be less costly (smaller payload, shorter range) than the offensive missile but as you point out it would be
larger than PAC-3 or THAAD but they are both moving to larger missiles anyway assuming THAAD-ER becomes a reality.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #88 on: January 07, 2016, 11:33:34 am »
I'm not convinced on the exchange ratio cost advantage for the attacking RV; it has to surive separation, carry a real payload and survive re-entry to  low altitude possibly including ground penetration.

We're not talking ICBM range so the re-entry requirements wouldn't be anywhere near as tough.  Separation isn't really an issue as it's been done for over half a century.  And the payload only has to be large enough to do the job.  If you're killing an aircraft shelter, considering your KE value as well, you're not going to need much.  Consider that an SDB will do it.  Now make it hit at Mach 6-8 and your required size goes down.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they could get the weight down to 150 - 200 pounds per unit including the structure necessary to hold them in place during boost.  If you're going after a soft target you could make them smaller and put more of them on the missile.

The KKV cost drivers
would be primarily in guidance (could be cheap semi-active) and lateral/axial propulsion. The defending missile can be less costly (smaller payload, shorter range) than the offensive missile but as you point out it would be.

PAC-3s are about $5 million, SM-3s $17 million or so and the Block IIAs something like $30 million. 

« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 11:35:51 am 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 #89 on: January 07, 2016, 11:51:37 am »
marauder - you move the radars around so they're harder to destroy before the main attack approaches. For example, a possible attack could use IRBMs to hit defensive radars and crater the runway, then cheap cruise missiles fly in to destroy the rest of the base.

As for the rest of your comments, you are too fixated on the idea of using interceptors against incoming missiles. Interceptor missiles simply cost too much to be bought in bulk, the bulk necessary to sustain a military force throughout a conflict. Decoys / dispersion / electronic warfare are necessary as a first method of defense, not last. Worse, we don't even know if interceptors are capable against the most advanced attacking missiles.

Can interceptors reliably shoot down hypersonic gliders? In a major raid against an airbase, a few hypersonic gliders would work wonders as a highly reliably SEAD, clearing the way for less technologically demanding weapons. The advances in missile technology are not in favor of interceptors; hence the rapid push to EM railgun and lasers. In this situation, passive defense measures may be the most reliable method.


sferrin - a PAC-3 costs $5mil? That's a pretty nasty cost, as I thought those would be the budget option against sub-munitions. Against cruise missiles or stand-off PGMs, which may cost around $1 million, ridiculous. The problem gets worse, as every military branch now has to worry about cruise missile attacks against any base, from CONUS up to the front line. Are there enough Patriot batteries to cover the major possible targets?


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2016, 12:18:44 pm »
All of which are illegal under the idiotic CCM treaty, unfortunately. So until sane governments get back into office and that piece of badly written rubbish is junked, such an option won't be available to NATO.

The treaty doesn't apply at all to:

1) Weapons with submunitions weighing more than 20 kg, regardless of any other features.

2) Weapons with submunitions weighing more than 4 kg, as long as the weapon has less than 10 submunitions and those submunitions are individually guided and contain electronic self-destruct and deactivation mechanisms.

So a bus dispensing SDBs is in no way covered by the CCM -- the submunitions would weigh much more than 20 kg, and if you used a smaller submunition, they'd all fall under the second clause anyway.

All the CCM deals with are small, dumb submunitions dispensed in large numbers
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 12:29:16 pm by TomS »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #91 on: January 07, 2016, 12:27:48 pm »
What we need with the MSE is large scale production. With a string of announcements of Patriot and/or MEADS selections/upgrades I guess we may well get to that level in a few years (by 2018) when the program enters full rate production.

Quote
sferrin - a PAC-3 costs $5mil? That's a pretty nasty cost, as I thought those would be the budget option against sub-munitions. Against cruise missiles or stand-off PGMs, which may cost around $1 million, ridiculous. The problem gets worse, as every military branch now has to worry about cruise missile attacks against any base, from CONUS up to the front line. Are there enough Patriot batteries to cover the major possible targets?

If your threat is that from cruise missiles, particularly the nasty ones that fly low and have stand-off range then you go after them using an affordable interceptor, not something that is designed to intercept tactical ballistic missiles and air-breathing threats. A SLAMRAAM, or AMRAAM-ER should do the trick at a 1/3 or so cost since that missile is smaller and has economies of scale going for it. FY16 AMRAAM costs around $1.5 Million. If you can make it hit-to-kill and develop something like a boosted CUDA, or buy the Stunner you can probably get below the $1 Million threshold. For shorter ranged, faster cruise missiles, you have the PAC-2/3/MSEs, and of course the enemy has to get to launch position where your air-assets come into play as well. The Israelis are doing this already.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 12:45:11 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2016, 12:38:14 pm »
MSE with full scale production just imposes a cost constraint on the US. If a cruise missile can be shot down by a $500k Stunner, buying Stunners for anti cruise missile role saves the US $4.5 million. That money can be pushed into buying offensive weapons, which are very much lacking in the Army. Heck, I've wondered if the Iron Dome interceptor can be used for anti-cruise missile missions. Shift all the cost and technology to the radar and engagement system then use the cheapest weapon possible to shoot them down.


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2016, 12:47:47 pm »
MSE with full scale production just imposes a cost constraint on the US. If a cruise missile can be shot down by a $500k Stunner, buying Stunners for anti cruise missile role saves the US $4.5 million. That money can be pushed into buying offensive weapons, which are very much lacking in the Army. Heck, I've wondered if the Iron Dome interceptor can be used for anti-cruise missile missions. Shift all the cost and technology to the radar and engagement system then use the cheapest weapon possible to shoot them down.

I was just adding a similar thing into my reply as you were typing. The US has looked at these sort of weapons, and we have a study here that looks at even cheaper low-cost interceptors. With Hit-To-Kill, you can bring size and cost down as the Stunner has showed, particularly if it can be standardized (or components of it) with a larger missile program. The CUDA concept looks promising to me for such a role and the stunner essentially does that with a dual mode seeker. You can go even cheaper for even cheaper munitions.

The IBCS essentially allows you to do this, and if you go back a few pages you'll see that Raytheon has plans to offer different interceptors at different price points. Cheaper integration of nodes especially when the interface is Army/DOD owned should make this much faster, cheaper and increase flexibility.

Another thing to look at the cost curve once higher rate production takes over. Compare the LRIP PAC-3 MSE cost to the 100+ SM6 (?) cost in the FY16 budget -

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/15-F-0540_SM-6_SAR_Dec_2014.PDF
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 03:06:19 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2016, 01:11:08 pm »
I'm not convinced on the exchange ratio cost advantage for the attacking RV; it has to surive separation, carry a real payload and survive re-entry to  low altitude possibly including ground penetration.

We're not talking ICBM range so the re-entry requirements wouldn't be anywhere near as tough.  Separation isn't really an issue as it's been done for over half a century.  And the payload only has to be large enough to do the job.  If you're killing an aircraft shelter, considering your KE value as well, you're not going to need much.  Consider that an SDB will do it.  Now make it hit at Mach 6-8 and your required size goes down.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they could get the weight down to 150 - 200 pounds per unit including the structure necessary to hold them in place during boost.  If you're going after a soft target you could make them smaller and put more of them on the missile.

The KKV cost drivers
would be primarily in guidance (could be cheap semi-active) and lateral/axial propulsion. The defending missile can be less costly (smaller payload, shorter range) than the offensive missile but as you point out it would be.

PAC-3s are about $5 million, SM-3s $17 million or so and the Block IIAs something like $30 million.

Those RV velocities strike me as being much closer to the ICBM range. Do you have full specs on the SS-20 RVs for comparison (or another MIRV'ed IRBM of your choice)?

Some of SM-3's costs are driven by shipboard basing; TDACS is very expensive but mandated by the prohbition on liquid fuels.

There are other ways to drive down costs but in any event the Army is going to need to start contemplating MRBM/IRBMs to hedge against a Russian INF breakout (de facto or de jure).
Finding a way to easily switch between offensive and defensive payloads should be another avenue of exploration.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2016, 01:35:27 pm »
I'm not convinced on the exchange ratio cost advantage for the attacking RV; it has to surive separation, carry a real payload and survive re-entry to  low altitude possibly including ground penetration.

We're not talking ICBM range so the re-entry requirements wouldn't be anywhere near as tough.  Separation isn't really an issue as it's been done for over half a century.  And the payload only has to be large enough to do the job.  If you're killing an aircraft shelter, considering your KE value as well, you're not going to need much.  Consider that an SDB will do it.  Now make it hit at Mach 6-8 and your required size goes down.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they could get the weight down to 150 - 200 pounds per unit including the structure necessary to hold them in place during boost.  If you're going after a soft target you could make them smaller and put more of them on the missile.

The KKV cost drivers
would be primarily in guidance (could be cheap semi-active) and lateral/axial propulsion. The defending missile can be less costly (smaller payload, shorter range) than the offensive missile but as you point out it would be.

PAC-3s are about $5 million, SM-3s $17 million or so and the Block IIAs something like $30 million.

Those RV velocities strike me as being much closer to the ICBM range.

ICBMs are more like Mach 23 - 25 (and slowing as they get into the denser lower atmosphere).  By comparison Pershing II was about Mach 8 for 1100 mile range.  That also accounts for the huge difference between the HTV-2 flying at Mach 20 (launched via Minotaur/Peacekeeper) and the US Army's much slower maneuvering RV program.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #96 on: January 07, 2016, 01:36:29 pm »
MSE with full scale production just imposes a cost constraint on the US. If a cruise missile can be shot down by a $500k Stunner, buying Stunners for anti cruise missile role saves the US $4.5 million. That money can be pushed into buying offensive weapons, which are very much lacking in the Army. Heck, I've wondered if the Iron Dome interceptor can be used for anti-cruise missile missions. Shift all the cost and technology to the radar and engagement system then use the cheapest weapon possible to shoot them down.

Stunner is more like  3X that price, couldn't handle the same target set and has no loadout benefit.  AI3 and MHTK do all of what Iron Dome offers on cost or perf but with greater loadout.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #97 on: January 07, 2016, 03:14:53 pm »
I'm not convinced on the exchange ratio cost advantage for the attacking RV; it has to surive separation, carry a real payload and survive re-entry to  low altitude possibly including ground penetration.

We're not talking ICBM range so the re-entry requirements wouldn't be anywhere near as tough.  Separation isn't really an issue as it's been done for over half a century.  And the payload only has to be large enough to do the job.  If you're killing an aircraft shelter, considering your KE value as well, you're not going to need much.  Consider that an SDB will do it.  Now make it hit at Mach 6-8 and your required size goes down.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they could get the weight down to 150 - 200 pounds per unit including the structure necessary to hold them in place during boost.  If you're going after a soft target you could make them smaller and put more of them on the missile.

The KKV cost drivers
would be primarily in guidance (could be cheap semi-active) and lateral/axial propulsion. The defending missile can be less costly (smaller payload, shorter range) than the offensive missile but as you point out it would be.

PAC-3s are about $5 million, SM-3s $17 million or so and the Block IIAs something like $30 million.

Those RV velocities strike me as being much closer to the ICBM range.

ICBMs are more like Mach 23 - 25 (and slowing as they get into the denser lower atmosphere).  By comparison Pershing II was about Mach 8 for 1100 mile range.  That also accounts for the huge difference between the HTV-2 flying at Mach 20 (launched via Minotaur/Peacekeeper) and the US Army's much slower maneuvering RV program.

I was thinking Mach 6 - 8 *terminal* RV velocities.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 03:17:55 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #98 on: January 07, 2016, 03:55:47 pm »
Regardless, an RV launched by an IRBM is going to impact with much more kinetic energy than a subsonic SDB.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #99 on: January 07, 2016, 05:38:49 pm »
Regardless, an RV launched by an IRBM is going to impact with much more kinetic energy than a subsonic SDB.

Well that's the understatement of the day  :P

Just trying to get a sense of the interceptor's axial and divert requirements to counter your threat.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #100 on: March 03, 2016, 02:53:21 am »
Pentagon budget 2017: Army's request will fund Lower Tier Missile Defense capability studies - Janes
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #101 on: March 03, 2016, 05:01:43 am »
Looks like they're talking about just the radar.  And here I was hoping for a mini-HEDI.   :(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #102 on: March 10, 2016, 09:35:25 am »
Modernization upgrades may keep Patriot in operation until something truly different in concept (or price) comes along.




Offline Void

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 129
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #103 on: March 10, 2016, 03:21:45 pm »
Geez that is sad.

They had MEADs and they just threw it away, and will now spend all this money to upgrade the archaic Patriot.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #104 on: March 10, 2016, 04:13:59 pm »
Geez that is sad.

They had MEADs and they just threw it away, and will now spend all this money to upgrade the archaic Patriot.

The wrinkle in all of this is the new Polish government resuming negotiations with Lockheed on MEADS for the Wisła competition.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #105 on: March 10, 2016, 05:08:22 pm »
Geez that is sad.

They had MEADs and they just threw it away, and will now spend all this money to upgrade the archaic Patriot.

I take it you are unaware they use the same missile?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
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 Void

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 129
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #107 on: March 12, 2016, 05:52:44 pm »
I take it you are unaware they use the same missile?

I am not unaware.

But the missile is a fairly small part of the system. Sticking in a new missile in an ancient SAM system does not make it new.

There is a reason it costs about $200 million a year just to support each battery. And it's not the missiles.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #108 on: March 12, 2016, 06:08:59 pm »
I take it you are unaware they use the same missile?

I am not unaware.

But the missile is a fairly small part of the system. Sticking in a new missile in an ancient SAM system does not make it new.



You keep saying ancient.  Do you honestly believe the system hasn't been upgraded over the years?  Furthermore MEADS is inferior in some regards due to it's lack of a long range missile.  It would take more batteries to provide the same amount of coverage.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #109 on: March 13, 2016, 12:02:18 pm »
There are three components for the Patriot system upgrade. The first was the introduction of the MSE. That happened recently with its induction. The second was getting the IBCS contracted and developed. IBCS is just a few years away from IOC, and Northrop Grumman has really opened the system and has created an architecture that the Army owns allowing them to compete various enhancement and interoperability initiatives such as getting JLENS integrated, getting the Sentinel integrated as has been demonstrated. The third phase was always to upgrade the sensor. The MEADS approach would have been the best perhaps with a fixed x-band radar to accompany a UHF radar. That approach would also be the most expensive. While the GaN Patriot does offer a relatively low-risk path to upgrade it is still an upgrade when many believe that they need to pursue a totally new sensor. The current AOA is looking at that, and a few pages back there is a defensenews article that that discusses the options. The GaN patriot would still have to compete going forward. Lockheed Martin will most offer an X-Band radar, also using GaN with Northrop Grumman offering a version of their GATOR. Raytheon has in the past looked at least 2 configurations for a 360 degree upgrade (artwork posted earlier) while they have also considered a clean sheet X-band design also utilizing GaN that they now are offering for AN/TPY-2 production. By the end of this CY we should know a lot more about what direction the Army takes but eventually it would depend upon the next POTUS and what resources are projected over the next 5-10 years.

Quote
You keep saying ancient.  Do you honestly believe the system hasn't been upgraded over the years?  Furthermore MEADS is inferior in some regards due to it's lack of a long range missile.  It would take more batteries to provide the same amount of coverage.

Thats a minor problem since a long range interceptor for the MEADS is only a function of investment. The problem with MEADS is acquisition cost and getting it to be compatible with IBCS which the Army, rightly sees as its future architecture. The best option, provided availability of funds would be to pick up elements of the MEADS such as surveillance radar which lockheed has designed around commonality with the FCR. You can then look to integrated the PAC-2 with the FCR or develop a new interceptor which would be required for the 2030's anyways. Patriot replacement isn't projected to be in service till the second half of the 2020's anyways if not early 2030's.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 12:05:43 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #110 on: March 13, 2016, 01:21:02 pm »
The RFI for a GaN based AESA Patriot radar replacement/upgrade went out on Friday. They are looking at L, S, C, or X frequency bands which I found interesting given the three different bands offered by the three competitors for 3DELRR (which is supposed to award this month).  Might necessitate some MRFDL modifications; PAC-3 MSE supports at least X-band and C-band.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #111 on: March 14, 2016, 12:24:30 pm »
RFI: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3f1a8cff92f6fb867108ab02efb3a424&tab=core&_cview=0


Quote
LTPO-GSE requests information on AESA Antenna radar technology already developed or in development that could be utilized to upgrade or replace the PATRIOT radars fielded by the US Army and International Partners. LTPO-GSE will assess industry responses for AESA Antenna upgrades to the existing PATRIOT radar and/or responses to replace the existing PATRIOT radar with an AESA Antenna based radar. The maturity of the AESA Antenna technology must be at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6 or higher and manufacturing processes must be at a Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of 6 or higher, or have the ability to reach a TRL/MRL of 6 or higher within eighteen (18) months after award of a technology maturation and risk reduction type contract. The objective of this RFI is to assess current, gallium nitride (GaN) based AESA Antenna capabilities within the US defense electronics industrial base, particularly as they relate to existing and future PATRIOT radar specifications and capabilities. The key objective for a potential PATRIOT radar replacement or upgrade to AESA Antenna technology is to reduce overall radar Operation & Support (O&S) cost out to FY40 while maintaining and/or improving radar performance against emerging threats. Goals of the PATRIOT 30 year strategy are to reduce the PATRIOT radar O&S cost and to extend the service life of PATRIOT legacy missiles to 40 years.


Responses to this RFI will be in the form of yes or no to the specific questions, listed below, with a brief justification or rationale not to exceed 200 words per question.


All responses are to be unclassified.


1. Has the respondent received a TRL 6 or higher rating for GaN-based AESA and Transmit and Receive (T/R) technology in one or more of the following frequency bands L, S, C, or X?


2. Has the respondent received an MRL 6 or higher rating for GaN-based AESA and T/R technology in one or more of the following frequency bands L, S, C, or X?


3. Does the respondent have an active facility security clearance that allows generating, processing, storing, sending and receiving of CLASSIFIED information/data and the ability to development/test hardware and software at the Secret or higher level? Please provide your companies active Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code.


4. Does the respondent have in place the infrastructure and ability to support a large scale development and production for AESA technology?


5. Does the respondent have demonstrated experience in exporting AESA technology that was originally developed for US Department of Defense Military applications?

6. Does the respondent have experience or capability in design, development and demonstration of receiver, exciter and waveform generator technology at a TRL6 or higher in one or more of the following frequency bands L, S, C, or X?


7. Does the respondent have experience and the capability/infrastructure to perform calibration/alignment of AESA antennas in one or more of the following frequency bands L, S, C, or X?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #112 on: March 14, 2016, 12:29:04 pm »
Thats a minor problem since a long range interceptor for the MEADS is only a function of investment.

The same could be said about just about any short coming of any system.  That nobody has even speculated about a longer range missile for MEADS suggests one isn't in the cards anytime soon.  In the meantime the Patriot system has both the longer ranged PAC-2 and the missile from the MEADS system. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #113 on: March 14, 2016, 02:26:02 pm »
Thats a minor problem since a long range interceptor for the MEADS is only a function of investment.

The same could be said about just about any short coming of any system.  That nobody has even speculated about a longer range missile for MEADS suggests one isn't in the cards anytime soon.  In the meantime the Patriot system has both the longer ranged PAC-2 and the missile from the MEADS system.

The interceptor development cost however, is much less than the cost to develop new radars, and other equipment. However, the biggest problem is that IBCS is the cornerstone of air-defense systems for the US Army going forward, and MEADS uses its own management elements which are not owned by the Army. The Army would need a new interceptor anyways going forward to eventually replace the Pac-2 in the 2030s and beyond unless they choose to stick with existing interceptors for a long long time. The biggest problem with MEADS radars is the cost, even though the X band and UHF band radars share commonality. At best they'll most likely upgrade the existing patriot radars..They have however conceded that an X-band FCR is the best from a technical stand-point, and I guess even better when accompanied with a Surveillance radar.

Acquiring MEADS as is, is probably not an option anymore given the money invested in the IBCS, and the fact that it will most likely IOC around the same time MEADS does, buying some of the sensors could have been but now appears unlikely.

On the investment portion for MEADS, the US which would have been the system's largest operator, isn't even buying it and the others barely have enough cash to finish development of the baseline and add a cheaper interceptor (IRIS-T) for a while. Its rather unfortunate given the money spent and the potential.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 02:44:03 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #114 on: March 14, 2016, 03:53:30 pm »
Thats a minor problem since a long range interceptor for the MEADS is only a function of investment.

The same could be said about just about any short coming of any system.  That nobody has even speculated about a longer range missile for MEADS suggests one isn't in the cards anytime soon.  In the meantime the Patriot system has both the longer ranged PAC-2 and the missile from the MEADS system.

The interceptor development cost however, is much less than the cost to develop new radars, and other equipment. However, the biggest problem is that IBCS is the cornerstone of air-defense systems for the US Army going forward, and MEADS uses its own management elements which are not owned by the Army. The Army would need a new interceptor anyways going forward to eventually replace the Pac-2 in the 2030s and beyond unless they choose to stick with existing interceptors for a long long time. The biggest problem with MEADS radars is the cost, even though the X band and UHF band radars share commonality. At best they'll most likely upgrade the existing patriot radars..They have however conceded that an X-band FCR is the best from a technical stand-point, and I guess even better when accompanied with a Surveillance radar.

Acquiring MEADS as is, is probably not an option anymore given the money invested in the IBCS, and the fact that it will most likely IOC around the same time MEADS does, buying some of the sensors could have been but now appears unlikely.

On the investment portion for MEADS, the US which would have been the system's largest operator, isn't even buying it and the others barely have enough cash to finish development of the baseline and add a cheaper interceptor (IRIS-T) for a while. Its rather unfortunate given the money spent and the potential.

They've demonstrated MEADS element (LFS and FCR) integration with IBCS. JLENS got a reprieve in the FY2017 budget but if it doesn't enter series production then LFS would be a reasonable substitute.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 05:26:44 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #115 on: March 14, 2016, 04:12:31 pm »
Thanks Marauder2048, do have any writeup on MEADS, IBCS demonstrations?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #116 on: March 14, 2016, 06:03:56 pm »
Thanks Marauder2048, do have any writeup on MEADS, IBCS demonstrations?

Please refer to the November 2013 update.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 06:05:31 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #117 on: March 19, 2016, 06:12:09 pm »
...
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 01:51:41 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #118 on: March 21, 2016, 12:45:30 am »
Drop-in replacement. Bu-dum tish

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #119 on: March 21, 2016, 08:02:02 am »
Not related to the Patriot, but the USAF's decision could impact how the three manufacturers position themselves for the eventual RFP. Decision on the 3DELRR is expected by end of March.

« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 08:12:40 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #120 on: March 22, 2016, 06:09:10 pm »

Vendor competition for lower-tier antimissile radar could begin this year - February 16, 2016


The Army is expected to move forward with a competition for a Patriot-replacement radar this year if the Office of the Secretary of Defense approves an analysis of alternatives, according to just-released budget documents and service officials.

The budget proposal for fiscal year 2017, released Feb. 9, sheds new light on one of the most closely watched efforts in the Army's portfolio: how to upgrade or replace the legacy Patriot system, and at what cost. For the first time, the service has created a separate pot of money for a Lower Tier Missile Defense Capability, away from the customary and hugely expensive general accounts for sustaining the Patriot fleet.

Officials want $35 million to integrate a new Gallium Nitride array antenna into the "baseline" Patriot, replacing the Passive Electronic Scanned Array technology with an Active Electronic Scanned Array, according to an Army budget document. Equipped thusly, the antimissile system would be able to defeat threats from a greater distance, the Army argues.

The Army plans to award one or more contracts for technology maturation and risk reduction in March 2017, according to the document. Out of the total funding, officials envision spending $26 million on that phase.

While the budget document suggests the service is going merely for a Patriot sensor modification, one key official said the proposal is meant to set a baseline and should not be understood as a programmatic signpost. That is because an analysis of alternatives of various radar-system candidates has yet to be approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, according to Barry Pike, program executive officer for missiles and space.

"The AOA analysis is pretty much done from the Army's point of view, but OSD has not done everything they want to do to verify that the analysis is complete," Pike told Inside the Army in a brief interview. Once the analysis is considered sufficient, the requirements formulated in it will be used to build the final acquisition strategy, he added.

Pike allowed that the outlines of the Lower Tier Missile Defense Capability, as presented in the budget, could be seen as creating a "dichotomy," following the logic of, "'Well, Army had this concept to go do this, the requirements are going to be reshaped, which may reshape what it is that we actually end up doing.'"

He said that the Army’s missile defense strategy is centered on keeping Patriot relevant while searching for better technology at the same time. "That's where we've had this vigorous discussion on: 'Why do we need to keep Patriot modernized and updated to the threat? Can’t we just go buy this other thing?' Well, that other thing doesn't really exist to the requirements that are still being shaped because the AOA is still going on."

The analysis of alternatives considered upgrading the Patriot radar, adopting or adjusting existing offerings -- including the fire-control radar of the Medium Extended Air Defense System -- and creating a new system from scratch. While the results are tightly guarded by the Army, officials now privately say that the service is settling on a new direction.

"Things have changed since the AOA and we are pushing for a 360-degree-capable effort either through an upgrade or new build," one service source said, referring to the ability to detect threats -- and fire at them -- from all directions. "We're at the start point in the POM build and now have other wickets we must go through on our way to a milestone A” decision, which must be adjudicated by the Defense Acquisition Board, the source added. “Decisions have not been made but the AOA has shaped a revised approach."

POM is shorthand for program objective memorandum, the Defense Department's six-year spending plan.

Pike stressed that competition in the new radar program would be paramount. He said the service wants to pick “as many contractors as we can afford” for a risk-reduction phase next spring.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #121 on: March 22, 2016, 06:17:37 pm »
""That's where we've had this vigorous discussion on: 'Why do we need to keep Patriot modernized and updated to the threat? Can’t we just go buy this other thing?' Well, that other thing doesn't really exist to the requirements that are still being shaped because the AOA is still going on.""

Sounds like the reason they passed on MEADS is because they want something better.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #122 on: March 23, 2016, 02:15:31 am »


Sounds like the reason they passed on MEADS is because they want something better.

At best what they may get is an upgraded Patriot radar with some 360 degree coverage, and other improvements. A dual radar setup, like the MEADS would have worked better, they practically admit as much but currently such a path is unaffordable.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #123 on: March 23, 2016, 01:34:49 pm »
""That's where we've had this vigorous discussion on: 'Why do we need to keep Patriot modernized and updated to the threat? Can’t we just go buy this other thing?' Well, that other thing doesn't really exist to the requirements that are still being shaped because the AOA is still going on.""

Sounds like the reason they passed on MEADS is because they want something better.
I think MEADS probably SIG's right in the sour spot where the cost of fully committng to it is ot of proportion with the performance upgrade versus continuing to develop Patriot. They don't just want something better, they feel they need more to justify the cost.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #124 on: March 23, 2016, 03:02:18 pm »


Sounds like the reason they passed on MEADS is because they want something better.

At best what they may get is an upgraded Patriot radar with some 360 degree coverage, and other improvements. A dual radar setup, like the MEADS would have worked better, they practically admit as much but currently such a path is unaffordable.

The Army is also looking at upgrading ~200 Sentinel A3 radars to an AESA-based A4 configuration in an attempt to increase range out beyond 130 km. 

The Army has a new FMTV prime mover for the Sentinels and the IBCS test back in November used composite tracks from Sentinel and Patriot to facilitate a PAC-3 intercept.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #125 on: March 23, 2016, 03:15:01 pm »
""That's where we've had this vigorous discussion on: 'Why do we need to keep Patriot modernized and updated to the threat? Can’t we just go buy this other thing?' Well, that other thing doesn't really exist to the requirements that are still being shaped because the AOA is still going on.""

Sounds like the reason they passed on MEADS is because they want something better.
I think MEADS probably SIG's right in the sour spot where the cost of fully committng to it is ot of proportion with the performance upgrade versus continuing to develop Patriot. They don't just want something better, they feel they need more to justify the cost.

That may be it. Also, MEADS adoption would also throw out any competition at this point which may raise objections. Cost is definitely a factor, as is time-frame. The way it is going MEADS may take a decade to reach full operational capability, and Raytheon can certainly make the point that they can get upgrade Patriots incrementally faster and cheaper even though the end result may not be as capable, or have as much room to grow.

As Marauder2048 said earlier, and the recent congressional opposition to JLENS may create a room for lockheed to bring in their surveillance radar which would be quite mature by the time the MEADS IOC's..
« Last Edit: March 24, 2016, 11:31:24 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #126 on: March 25, 2016, 09:15:02 am »
Developments in battlefield networking and sensor fusion are probably putting a lot of decisions on hold while things settle out on what the end results will be.  The Army IBCS seems to be a CEC on land and that probably portends something analogous to "distributed lethality" making its' way into consideration.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #127 on: March 25, 2016, 10:14:25 am »
One would hope CEC would encompass sea, land, and air seamlessly.  One big pot of data with targets and assets in it wherein the system matches them up.  (God help you if the enemy hacks into it of course.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #128 on: March 26, 2016, 09:51:41 am »
Software based warfare is buried deep but hints of it occasionally break through.  The probable use of "Suter" by Israel (or a home grown variant) shows the vulnerability that can be exploited.  The US seems to be aware of this and has incorporated cyber warfare as part of Red Flag.  Nerd-to-Nerd combat with the Ruskies.

http://defense-update.com/features/2008/may08/suter_v.htm

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/503204/cyber-the-new-red-flag-battleground.aspx


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #129 on: March 28, 2016, 12:10:52 pm »
Long-term 'bridging strategy' eyed for Patriot-radar replacements


The Army may be looking for an eventual replacement of its Patriot sensors, but that time is considered so far in the future that modernization investments for the legacy equipment are due sooner, a senior official said.

The assessment, delivered by the head of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Lt. Gen. David Mann, last week, puts cold water on the expectation that a recent analysis of alternatives for an eventual replacement of lower-tier antimissile equipment will manifest itself anytime soon.

"We need to have a bridging strategy," Mann said at a briefing with reporters on March 22. "Patriot is going to be with us for many, many years. So, the current radar that we have, in order to be able to maximize the MSE missile and other capabilities, we need to make kind of like a bridging strategy."

MSE stands for Missile Segment Enhancement. The sophisticated but expensive interceptor can be shot from the Patriot weapon as well as the competing Medium Extended Air Defense System, which Germany is eyeing.

"We need to make some investments in terms of modernizing the current Patriot radar as we look to the future, whatever the department decides in terms of a new radar to replace it," Mann continued. "After that decision is made, it will take some time to outfit the 15 battalions that we have. So, we can't wait -- we need to make some investments right now in upgrading the current fleet as we progress to a new capability."

According to a recent request for information to industry for new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar technology, the Army intends to keep Patriot around for another 30 years or so. While the language of the request states that the service wants to "replace or upgrade" the legacy equipment, it suggests that the Army may be banking simply on purchasing what Patriot maker Raytheon is offering in the way of upgrades.

"We have not made a final decision," Mann said. "We are still looking at what everybody is proposing out there. Obviously, we are looking heavily, or very, very closely, or carefully, at the Raytheon AESA radar. But again, waiting for a final decision by the department."

The Army information request envisions technology "already developed or in development that could be utilized to upgrade or replace the Patriot radars fielded by the Army and international partners." To be considered for the business, companies must offer a technology readiness level and manufacturing readiness level of 6, respectively.

Budget documents released last month suggest that the Army is readying a competition for a Patriot-replacement radar this year if the Office of the Secretary of Defense approves an analysis of alternatives. For the first time, the service has created a separate pot of money for a Lower Tier Missile Defense Capability, away from the customary and hugely expensive general accounts for sustaining the Patriot fleet.

While the budget document suggests the service is going merely for a Patriot sensor modification, one key official said the proposal is meant to set a baseline and should not be understood as a programmatic sign post. That is because an analysis of alternatives of various radar-system candidates had yet to be approved by the Office of the Secretary of Defense as of last month, Barry Pike, program executive officer for missiles and space, said in a Feb. 11 interview.

Mann, referring to Germany's decision to field a MEADS-based antimissile system, said U.S. and European officials should take care to ensure their equipment remains compatible.

"I think it's very very important that we emphasize the importance of being able to integrate different platforms, different capabilities onto a network," he said. "And so, we're working very closely with our European allies to make sure that we achieve that integration of whatever system our European partners decide to purchase."

MEADS maker Lockheed Martin hopes that Germany adopting the system will lead other countries on the continent to do the same.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #130 on: March 31, 2016, 12:11:32 pm »
Just thinking aloud if the Army can incorporate the new Air Force 3DELRR radar into the network they will have a 360 deg. sensor for detecting air and missile targets.  It's unclear to me whether this radar can detect ballistic missiles as the verbiage I've seen just uses the word missiles.  I suppose it could me just air breathing cruise missiles.

Both Patriot launchers and radars are on turntables.  Can I assume they can rotate a few degrees to change their field of view if needed?  If so won't this combined with the above give the Army a rudimentary 360 degree system without the need for 3 Patriot fire units at every site?

Mark

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #131 on: March 31, 2016, 12:27:15 pm »
That will definitely be one of the options looked at by Raytheon as it tries to gauge the US Army's appetite for cost. The 3DELRR offered by Raytheon operated in the C-Band so it would definitly work as a more expensive developmental option to the upgraded Patriot. 

Quote
It's unclear to me whether this radar can detect ballistic missiles as the verbiage I've seen just uses the word missiles.  I suppose it could me just air breathing cruise missiles.

Much like the G/ATOR, they would have to do a lot of work to turn the 3DELRR into a future Patriot replacement sensor.

From the article posted on Page -1

Quote
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.

I'm assuming here that the MFCR and Surveliance in the bold portion above refers to the two MEADS radars?? I assume the risk in the MEADS sensors comes from the software, since the US Army always wanted its own software different from the other MEADS partner, even prior to MEADS termination.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 12:34:45 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #132 on: March 31, 2016, 01:56:19 pm »
Just thinking aloud if the Army can incorporate the new Air Force 3DELRR radar into the network they will have a 360 deg. sensor for detecting air and missile targets.  It's unclear to me whether this radar can detect ballistic missiles as the verbiage I've seen just uses the word missiles.  I suppose it could me just air breathing cruise missiles.

Both Patriot launchers and radars are on turntables.  Can I assume they can rotate a few degrees to change their field of view if needed?  If so won't this combined with the above give the Army a rudimentary 360 degree system without the need for 3 Patriot fire units at every site?

Mark

3DELRR is supposed to be IBCS compatible. Whether it can provide midcourse updates to the missile during flyout is going to depend on which vendor wins the recompete; only Raytheon's offering was in-band with respect to
current Patriot missile datalinks.

The post above about AESA upgrades for the 360 deg. Sentinel radars (which would be in-band with respect to Patriot) strikes me as one of the more interesting recent developments.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #133 on: March 31, 2016, 03:22:31 pm »
The other 2 radars were in the S and L band. S-band Northrop Grumman offering shared commonality with the G/ATOR which is already doing the rounds as a potential candidate but is unlikely. Lockheed's L-band 3DELRR would seem an extremely unlikely solution given the challenges the patriot system requires. I really don't see them choosing a lower frequency than the C band GaN Patriot, or C-Band Raytheon 3DELRR.

Quote
The post above about AESA upgrades for the 360 deg. Sentinel radars (which would be in-band with respect to Patriot) strikes me as one of the more interesting recent developments.

Do you think they'll try scaling it up or just go for a dispersed sensor setup using the upgraded Patriot (no 360 degrees coverage) supplemented with longer ranged AESA Sentinel?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 03:24:26 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #134 on: March 31, 2016, 04:41:26 pm »
Wasn't thinking of using the 3DELRR radar for missile guidance updates.  What I had in mind is using it as a surveillance sensor for initial track and cueing the existing Patriot radar.  It would tell the Patriot where to look and the system would slew the antenna to the new azimuth.  Missile updates would occur as they do now.  That would keep integration costs down.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #135 on: March 31, 2016, 04:48:11 pm »
Quote
Wasn't thinking of using the 3DELRR radar for missile guidance updates.  What I had in mind is using it as a surveillance sensor for initial track and cueing the existing Patriot radar.

In that case a C band sensor helping a similar sensor would be quite pointless. Lockheed has an in-developmenet, funded UHF Surveillance radar with 360 degrees capability, and long range should the JLENS get cancelled.



Also, this bit from a paper on MEADS is an interesting perspective on the AOA for that system:

Quote
Sensor trade studies considered a broad range of radar operating frequencies for the MEADS sensors,fromVHFtoX-Band. Bothsingle-radaranddual-radar configuration were considered. A split function, dual-band sensor suite was determined to require the fewest end items and lowest Life Cycle Cost.
We selected UHF for the surveillance function, and X-Band for the precision tracking, discrimination, and fire control functions. The UHF band is preferable for efficient wide area search, while X-Band is capable of great precision and accuracy for tracking, and wide bandwidth for discrimination. The reference MEADS fire unit includes one UHF Surveillance Radar (SR) and two X-Band Multifunction Fire Control Radars (MFCRs); a single radar design at any compromise frequency would require more total radar units to handle the specified threat.
Figure 6 shows the MEADS ground sensors. The SR is a rotating, solid state, phased array radar,with an integrated IFF antenna above the main radars ntenna. Like wise the MFCR i sa rotating, solid state, phased array radar, but it has an optional ESM subsystem in addition to IFF. Both sensors can operate in a staring mode to cover a limited azimuth sector or a rotating mode to cover 360'. The two systems utilize a common Power/Communications Unit and Commercial Power Interface Unit (CPIU). While the two radars are very different in RF frequency, they share a common mechanical platform and digital signaVdata processor.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 05:57:05 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #136 on: March 31, 2016, 04:56:52 pm »
Raytheon rolls out new radar, dubbed Patriot AESA


The new and improved Patriot radar is taking off on a road trip around the country and the first stop was here in Huntsville at the Association of the United States Army Global Force Symposium. The updated Patriot AESA radar is made of Gallium Nitride, or GaN, and is the latest update to the system which is managed at Redstone Arsenal.

"The Patriot AESA is the next generation of the Patriot radar. As the threat evolves so does the Patriot to outpace the threat," explained Douglas Burgess Director for Raytheon's Patriot AESA Programs.

"The radar is the eyes and ears of the system. it is constantly looking to see if any threats are coming and it is the first one to detect and tell the rest of the system or the operators that there is potentially a hostile threat coming their way," Burgess explained.

The GaN is a critical part of the updated radar.

"That gives us an opportunity for more power, more capability," said Burgess. "The way I like to say it is, the normal Patriot operates at 10 and with this now we can turn the volume up to 30."

Gallium Nitride is also more efficient in that less fuel is required to power the radar, making this an almost "green" upgrade as well.

The new system provides 360 degrees of rotation, ensuring full coverage of the protected area and,according to a release from Raytheon, also uses an active electronic scanning array radar.

"Instead of shining a powerful, single transmitter through many lenses, the new array uses many smaller transmitters, each with its own control. The result is a system that is not only more flexible, with an adjustable beam for many different missions, but also more reliable; it still works even if some of the transmitters do not."

The $200 million project was fully funded by Raytheon and integrating the GaN technology onto the Patriot radar has been in the works for approximately 2 years.

Raytheon officially rolled out the prototype on Tuesday at AUSA and is hoping to spur up some interest from top Army leadership, and then eventually, our partner nations. Raytheon is now beginning testing on the new radar with the hopes of potentially fielding the system in a few years.

"It really depends on the customer. It could be 2, 3, 4 years but it really just depends on the requirements that the customer has."
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 05:00:28 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #137 on: March 31, 2016, 06:17:21 pm »
Wasn't thinking of using the 3DELRR radar for missile guidance updates.  What I had in mind is using it as a surveillance sensor for initial track and cueing the existing Patriot radar.  It would tell the Patriot where to look and the system would slew the antenna to the new azimuth.  Missile updates would occur as they do now.  That would keep integration costs down.

Gotcha; As part of the AOA, The Army looked at 3DELRR as an outright Patriot radar replacement. Since 3DELRR will be IBCS capable regardless of the winner, having 3DELRR perform initial track/cueing +handoff to Patriot is doable.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #138 on: April 01, 2016, 06:29:10 am »
PAC-3 MSE continues successful missile engagements

Quote
Lockheed Martin's PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhanced (MSE) successfully engaged a threat representative ballistic missile target during a 17 March demonstration of the Patriot missile defence system at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

This was the third of four planned developmental tests of the Patriot Post Deployment Build (PDB)-8 system. Developmental testing will complete in 2016 and the army's PDB-8 operational tests will begin in 2017.

During the 17 March test, a Patriot Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) system tracked and engaged the ballistic missile target, which was subsequently destroyed by a PAC-3 MSE interceptor, Scott Arnold, vice president of PAC-3 programmes for Lockheed Martin, told IHS Jane's  on 22 March.

"In this particular flight test, it went up against a short range ballistic missile, which was intercepted at high altitude by the [PAC-3] MSE with a 'hit-to-kill' direct body impact," Arnold said.

The PAC-3 MSE is capable of intercepting a threat at roughly double the altitude of the PAC 3 missile, Arnold added. According to IHS Jane's Land Warfare Platforms: Artillery & Air Defence  , the PAC-3 MSE has a reach (altitude against a ballistic missile target) of up to 148,829 ft.

The PAC-3 MSE launch was followed by the launch of a Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile - Tactical (GEM-T) ballistic missile interceptor, both targeting a threat-representative ballistic missile target. While the PAC-3 MSE uses 'hit-to-kill' to terminate a target, the GEM-T interceptor flies close to the threat and explodes. The 17 March test demonstrated the ability to launch both missile types against a single threat.

For the most recent PDB-8 test, Lockheed Martin provided software upgrades and enhancements for both the ground equipment as well as for the missile, Arnold noted.

"We upgraded software to the fire solution computers, the launcher electronic systems, the system guidance computer, the system inertial measurement unit, the radio frequency downlink device, and the missile seeker," he said.

Lockheed Martin, which declared initial operational capability for the PAC-3 MSE in September 2015, has been cleared to offer the missile to 20 countries.

"At the flight test event [the US Army] had five current Patriot customers who came out to see the test and three prospective new Patriot buyers that witnessed the test," Arnold said. "We expect the first international [PAC-3 MSE] customer to be on board this year."


The PAC-3 MSE has a larger dual-pulse solid rocket motor, larger control fins, and an upgraded support system. Besides extending the reach of the missile, the upgrades improve the performance against missile threats, according to Lockheed Martin.

The PAC-3 MSE's continues to demonstrate its advanced capability against air breathing and ballistic missile threats. Once the US Army decides on a path forward for its Low Tier Air & Missile Defense system, introducing a 360° radar will add even greater capability to the MSE, Lockheed Martin has said.

However, the army will need to publish its Analysis of Alternatives before any talk of procuring a system can begin.

Germany has been considering the PAC-3 MSE as the primary interceptor for its Taktisches Luftverteidigungssystem (TLVS) air and missile defense system, writes Robin Hughes  .

However, concerns over the cost of the interceptor have delayed a German Air Force procurement commitment, with discussions ongoing at industry level on how many systems will be procured. A decision is expected later this year - and could potentially include more than originally outlined, Brigadier General Michael Grossmann told the Defence IQ Integrated Air & Missile Defence conference in London on 16 March.

TLVS is based on Lockheed Martin's Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and uses components developed by the company including the battle manager, radars, and launcher, and will fire the PAC-3 MSE. Germany's Federal Office of Bundeswehr for Equipment, Information Technology, and In-Service Support (BAAINBw) has contracted Diehl Defence's IRIS-T SL (Surface Launched) interceptor as the medium range component for TLVS.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 06:32:26 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #139 on: April 01, 2016, 07:56:58 am »
High altitude PAC-3 MSE performance is probably due to the maneuvering thrusters at the nose. That would give the missile better maneuverability in the thin atmosphere.

The issue is slant-range / covered area.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #140 on: April 01, 2016, 08:19:55 am »
I guess that would also depend upon what the target is, a TBM at distance or an air breathing threat flying at mid-low altitude.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #141 on: April 01, 2016, 04:13:18 pm »
High altitude PAC-3 MSE performance is probably due to the maneuvering thrusters at the nose. That would give the missile better maneuverability in the thin atmosphere.

The issue is slant-range / covered area.

If GEM-T is indeed TVM rather than kinematically limited, then the range bump that the AESA-based Patriot radar provides automatically bumps the effective range of GEM-T.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #142 on: April 01, 2016, 04:38:53 pm »
High altitude PAC-3 MSE performance is probably due to the maneuvering thrusters at the nose. That would give the missile better maneuverability in the thin atmosphere.

The issue is slant-range / covered area.

Yeah, I think that article is a bit misleading.  148,000ft (28 miles) slant range.  No way is that altitude capability.  And those thrusters won't help up high, if anything they would make things worse.
"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 #143 on: April 01, 2016, 06:10:55 pm »
Why would the side thrusters make the PAC-3 worse at high altitudes?  I thought they could turn the missile beyond aerodynamic forces, useful when pressure drops at high altitude?

I interpreted the statement as the PAC-3 MSE can make an interception at a higher altitude than a PAC-2. The PAC-2, restricted to thrust vector and aerodynamic lift, would have less turning capacity at high altitude than the PAC-3 MSE. But the PAC-2, with a larger motor, has a longer fly-out range.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #144 on: April 01, 2016, 06:21:05 pm »
More on the 3delrr

Air Force anticipates software, material risks in 3DELRR development


The Air Force is tracking several risk areas in development of the Three Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar, even as it works toward making a new contract award sometime this spring.

The Government Accountability Office released its annual review of selected Defense Department acquisition programs March 31, and included a report on the 3DELRR program. The report notes that while more detailed risk assessments will be completed once the service selects a system design, the service is assessing a number of inherent risk areas, including software development and integration and semiconductor technology.

Because 3DELRR is a software-heavy system, the program has identified its development as a high-risk area. If the design isn't adequate it could disrupt system integration and add cost and schedule delays.

"Program officials also stated that integrating the extensive amount of re-used software code contributed to the level of risk, but noted that each contractor is planning to mature and test software prior to installation and integration into the system," the report states.

The program will also incorporate a new semiconductor technology that uses gallium nitride-based modules to transmit and receive electromagnetic signals. Past systems have used gallium arsenide modules. The report states that introduction of a new material could pose schedule risks, but those risks may be balanced by the potential for greater efficiency.

"While the use of gallium nitride may present some risks for the program, as long-term reliability and performance of this material are unknown and could affect radar sensitivity and power requirements, it has the potential to provide higher efficiency with lower power and cooling demands than legacy semiconductor technology," the report states.

The Air Force awarded Raytheon a 3DELRR development contract in October 2014. Competitors Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman protested the award with GAO, and before the agency could make a ruling in the case, the Air Force opted to take corrective action and re-evaluate the proposals. The re-bid was stalled, however, when Raytheon appealed the Air Force's decision in Federal Claims Court. The court ruled in favor of the Air Force, Raytheon appealed the ruling, and its appeal was denied in October 2015.

The GAO report notes that additional development risks may be uncovered once the Air Force selects a design, but states that software development will remain a risk, regardless of who wins the contract.

The Air Force this week unloaded $16 million in research and development contracts for Gremlins, a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency program that aims to create unmanned, air-recoverable munitions.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #145 on: April 01, 2016, 06:36:18 pm »
Why would the side thrusters make the PAC-3 worse at high altitudes?  I thought they could turn the missile beyond aerodynamic forces, useful when pressure drops at high altitude?

The location of the thrusters (ahead of, or close to, the CG) means if your airframe is unstable (due to aerodynamic controls losing effectiveness) there's nothing to keep the front end in front.  Tail-mounted TVC can keep the pointy end in front but those side thrusters will just push it around. 

I interpreted the statement as the PAC-3 MSE can make an interception at a higher altitude than a PAC-2.

How so?  This is what they said:

"The PAC-3 MSE is capable of intercepting a threat at roughly double the altitude of the PAC 3 missile, "

So the MSE has double the altitude capability of the vanilla model PAC-3.  The only thing they said about PAC-2 is that it uses an exploding warhead rather than hit-to-kill.

The PAC-2, restricted to thrust vector and aerodynamic lift, would have less turning capacity at high altitude than the PAC-3 MSE. But the PAC-2, with a larger motor, has a longer fly-out range.

PAC-2 doesn't have any form of TVC.  IMO neither one would be stellar turners at 80,000 feet let alone almost double that. 

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #146 on: April 01, 2016, 07:33:01 pm »
Why would the side thrusters make the PAC-3 worse at high altitudes?  I thought they could turn the missile beyond aerodynamic forces, useful when pressure drops at high altitude?

A large low-pressure region develops immediately downstream of the side thruster due the jet's interaction with the freestream; the resulting pressure gradient can severely attenuate or even reverse the pitching moment induced by the thruster.

There are clever ways of scheduling thruster firings to overcome this and I thought the jet interaction got better at higher altitudes.


Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #147 on: April 01, 2016, 07:37:39 pm »
Based on this: http://www.meads-amd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FactSheet_PAC31.pdf  The max load-out of PAC-3MSE's on a launcher is 12.  Also you can mix 6 of the MSE's with 8 of the standard PAC-3's. It may have been posted before but it's news to me.

For a slant range of 148,000 ft. you have an altitude capability of  approximately 104,000 at a flight 45 degrees from the horizon.  If the  fly out is 30 degrees the altitude is 74,000 ft.

Wouldn't control effectiveness be influenced by Q?  At higher speeds Q is greater and it's not linear but a second order equation.  The question is does the effects of lower air density at altitude or Q govern?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #148 on: April 01, 2016, 07:47:07 pm »
Based on this: http://www.meads-amd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FactSheet_PAC31.pdf  The max load-out of PAC-3MSE's on a launcher is 12.  Also you can mix 6 of the MSE's with 8 of the standard PAC-3's. It may have been posted before but it's news to me.

Probably running into a weight limit for the launcher as the PAC-3 MSE fits the same cell-size as the original PAC-3. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #149 on: April 01, 2016, 07:49:12 pm »
There is a reduction in load out on the patriot launcher as well. I believe its 16 PAC-3's vs 12 MSE's with the mix being on the patriot launchers. MEADS launcher carries 8 MSE rounds.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 07:54:27 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #150 on: April 02, 2016, 04:05:57 pm »

How so?  This is what they said:

"The PAC-3 MSE is capable of intercepting a threat at roughly double the altitude of the PAC 3 missile, "


Whoops.... Thanks for the clarification.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #151 on: April 03, 2016, 09:33:31 pm »

Wouldn't control effectiveness be influenced by Q?  At higher speeds Q is greater and it's not linear but a second order equation.  The question is does the effects of lower air density at altitude or Q govern?

To grossly oversimplify, the pitching moment induced by the side thruster is a function of ambient pressure; there's amplification of the pitching moment (generally positive but can be negative) at higher ambient pressure (lower altitude) because of a high pressure region that forms upstream of the thruster jet.  That amplification drops off as ambient pressure drops off and is not offset by the thruster force which is actually increasing with decreasing ambient pressure.  Hope that makes sense.

In any event, here's some nice 1080p footage of PAC-3 MSE in flight.


Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #152 on: April 04, 2016, 03:45:05 pm »
marauder,

Thanks.  I understand.

Mark

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #153 on: April 05, 2016, 06:01:22 pm »
Old video that showcases Raytheon's early concepts to transform Patriot and IBCS into an integrated 360 degree capability

« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 06:49:01 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #154 on: April 05, 2016, 07:02:05 pm »
On the old material front, does anyone have imagery for the Patriot Anti-Cruise Missile (PACM) project which was a PAC-2 with an active, Ka-band seeker, divert thrusters and an aimable kinetic energy rod warhead? 

Apparently PACM had two successful intercepts against cruise missile surrogates back in 1999. 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #155 on: April 05, 2016, 07:47:35 pm »
What I can gather on the Patriot Anti‐Cruise Missile is that it was a retrofit planned that added a new, active seeker onto existing PAC-2's with perhaps additional modifications, for an affordable cost. Here is an old Defense Daily article on it:

Quote
Raytheon's (RTNA/RTNB) Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM) program has cleared its first funding hurdle, as the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) last week agreed to add $60 million in FY '00 to fund improvements to 200 older Patriot and Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) missiles for cruise missile defense.

The SASC approved the $60 million increase for PACM production contingent upon two successful flight tests of the missile to be conducted this July.

Ed Franklin, vice president of Raytheon Systems Company's Air and Missile Defense division in Bedford, Mass., told Defense Daily last week in a telephone interview that Congress was leaning toward funding PACM. Other industry sources, however, said that there was significant opposition in the Senate Appropriations Committee to the full $60 million addition.

PACM must now clear the other defense committees, including the SAC, the House Armed Services Committee and the House Appropriations Committee, and the conferences between the House and Senate for FY '00 defense funding.

The Army has directed Raytheon not to jeopardize funding for the PAC-3 program which involves Lockheed Martin (LMT), Raytheon, and Boeing (BA). DoD budget limits, scheduling problems for the test flight program, and cost overruns have caused the Pentagon to reduce its objective number of PAC-3 missiles from 1,200 to 560--thus increasing the unit cost of the missile from $1.2 million to more than $2 million, an industry source said.

PAC-3 is to be able to counter theater ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

Despite the cost growth, PAC-3 has recorded one successful "hit to kill" intercept. Earlier Patriots, by contrast, have a "blast fragmentation warhead" which would be used in the PACM program. Boeing, which builds the PAC-3 seeker, and Lockheed Martin, which builds the PAC-3 missile, believe the "blast fragmentation warhead" is unproven against cruise missiles. The companies also contend that, if anything, the Army should use a congressional add of $60 million to help the service to buy back PAC-3 missiles to reach the objective number of 1,200.

Raytheon has built six PACM seekers at its plants in Bedford, Quincy and Andover, Mass. Assuming such seekers are installed on 500 of the older Raytheon-built Patriots, the cost per seeker is estimated to be between $400,000 and $700,000--the latter being the government's estimate and the former being Raytheon's estimate.

"PACM has a number of key features which enhance effectiveness in countering the advanced cruise missile threat," according to a report last month to Congress from the Army's Air and Missile Defense Program Executive Office in Huntsville, Ala. "The 16-inch diameter of the current Patriot missile makes room for a relatively large radar antenna. The aperture (area) of the antenna directly relates to the ability of the radar to detect small radar cross section targets."

The PAC-3 missile has a smaller 10-inch diameter, meaning the PACM seeker could not be installed on that missile.

"The Patriot Weapon System has highly effective techniques to defeat electronic countermeasures," according to the Army report to Congress. "PACM retains all the potential for this demonstrated capability while supplementing it with the significant added benefit of an active radar seeker. PACM is a far more capable cruise missile killer than any fielded version of Patriot."

Asked whether PACM's technology permits it to counter cruise missiles more effectively than PAC-3, Franklin replied that Raytheon believes PACM represents a "significant" improvement to PAC-3 against cruise missiles but that details on such an improvement were classified.

The Army and Raytheon negotiated on a series of flight tests this summer, talks which resulted in a determination that the Army should, as a risk reduction measure, first conduct a test using a standard PAC-2 missile and the upgraded PAC-3 radar and software, Franklin said. In July, the PACM missile is to be tested with the PAC- 3 radar.

"We're confident on the software and the radar. We're very confident on the missile," Franklin said. "But we only have four PACM missiles. You ought to be prudent in the way you build up to these tests."

Asked whether PACM was a threat to the PAC-3 program, Franklin replied, "I would be less than realistic if I said you couldn't view this as a threat. It's not intended to be a threat. That's clearly not our intent. We view it as a very smart way of upgrading the Patriot inventories. It doesn't take the place of a PAC-3. It's not a hit-to- kill missile. I view PACM as an adjunct of PAC-3."

Post PACM tests, Raytheon offered to put an active Ka band seeker, replace the warhead and create a HTK variant of the PAC-2 with other upgrades as well. That is a concept we should be looking at now given the PAC-2 inventory..

Raytheon proposes upgrade for Patriot

Quote
Raytheon has proposed adding a new front end to older MIM-104 Patriot air-defence interceptor missiles in the US Army's inventory to increase their lethality and give them a 'hit-to-kill' capability comparable to the service's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile, writes Michael Sirak.

The concept would incorporate an active Ku-band seeker and thruster on to the existing PAC-2 missile as part of its service-life extension programme (SLEP), replacing its passive seeker and blast-fragmentation warhead.

These new components, company officials say, would give the missile the ability to manoeuvre in the terminal phase of its flight to collide with and destroy incoming ballistic or cruise missiles as well as aircraft and unmanned air vehicles. This enhanced lethality over blast-fragmentation warheads, they say, is especially important against weapons of mass destruction warheads.

The concept leverages the PAC-2's greater kinematic range and keep-out altitude over the PAC-3, the company says. An active seeker would also allow the PAC-2 to receive in-flight target updates from distributed sensors to enable over-the-horizon 'engage-on-remote' scenarios.

David Hartman, Raytheon's business development manager for theatre missile defence programmes, said the company believes the concept, known as 'PAC-2 Hit-to-Kill', could be done quickly and affordably. A PAC-2 Hit-to-Kill interceptor would be about a quarter of the cost of the PAC-3 missile, he noted. The upgrades would also include software modifications.

Together with the PAC-3, Raytheon says the PAC-2 Hit-to-Kill missile would comprise a more potent Patriot fleet than the US Army currently envisions for the remainder of the Patriot's service life to 2028. The army's current SLEP will upgrade PAC-2 and PAC-2 Guidance Enhanced Missiles (GEMs) to the PAC-2 Guidance Enhanced Missile+ configuration. This variant, which retains a blast-fragmentation warhead, integrates improved warhead fusing and a surface acoustic oscillator to improve performance against cruise missiles.

The US Army and the Office of the US Secretary of Defense have been briefed on the PAC-2 Hit-to-Kill concept. Army officials, while acknowledging the concept's promise, are hesitant to embrace it because of the funding challenges they already face in fielding the PAC-3, which is manufactured by Lockheed Martin. Although the service requires about 2,200 PAC-3 missiles, it has funding for only 1,120 units in its future budget.

"PAC-2 [Hit-to-Kill] is a good idea and I admire the competition Raytheon is doing. But I don't have money to develop that," said Shelba Proffitt, acting Programme Executive Officer for Air and Missile Defense. "I am very happy with the PAC-3 . . . if I had money, I would buy PAC-3, which is developed and proven." The PAC-3 missile is moving into its operational testing phase after a highly successful developmental testing stage. The army has already received 16 PAC-3 low-rate initial production missiles.

Hartman said the new seeker is a derivative of the dual-band variant Raytheon developed under the Patriot Anti-Cruise Missile concept, which it pursued to give legacy Patriot missiles capabilities against robust cruise missiles so that the army could retain its PAC-3s to counter ballistic missiles. The army chose not to adopt this design.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 08:17:58 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #156 on: April 06, 2016, 05:10:55 am »
If they turned PAC-2 into a hit-to-kill weapon, and repackaged the front end, they could probably squeeze a not insignificant amount of fuel into the freed up space. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #157 on: April 06, 2016, 05:37:55 am »
^ That was my thinking as well. The longer ranged AESA radar, and the integration thanks to dispersed AN/MPQ-64A3's netted through IBCS could open up long range opportunities against air-breathing threats. Don't know when the next major upgrade is due for the PAC-2's but this was and still is a solid proposal While magazine capacity, and ballistic missile defense is driving decisions and rightly so, there will be a point in time when the Patriot system would have to consider the stress posed by very stealthy UCAV's, stealthy cruise missiles, stealth fighters and perhaps even stealth bombers. Knowing that decisions made over the next 5 years will take a decade or more to show up (taking MEADS as an example) they better get working on this now!.  While ballistic missiles will continue to stress Patriot and THAAD, given their modernization trajectory it won't be surprising to see stealthy UCAV's and even stealthy long range strike bombes coming out of China.

Of course, since then Raytheon has come out and said that they are working on an advanced capability interceptor, but shared nothing else about it. They could also leverage the SM6 seeker and lower cost further. I just find it tough to believe that given the budget, they can barely fund a radar upgrade and perhaps new or heavily modified launchers when they have a lot of technology in place to revamp the entire system including a clean sheet radar, and deeper integration with other ABM elements (TPY-2's). What is worrisome is that ex-Patriot users like Germany by adopting MEADS haven't really shown any intention to getting a long range interceptor to replace the outgoing PAC-2 capability with their legacy patriot. What happens with MEADS deploys in the future and the footprint is the IRIS-T and PAC-3MSE? The Advanced Threat Interceptor proposal from Raytheon could be a bridge weapon that could work with both the MEADS and upgraded-Patriots since there is a common long term requirement to upgrade all spheres of IAMD.

Quote
"We are looking at some options for a partner for LCI; we currently have joint ventures with Rafael for Stunner and have considered Deihl and the IRIS-T. We have also looked at [co-opting] our own AMRAAM and AMRAAM-ER for Next-Generation Patriot. We have not made any decisions yet," he said. Beyond LCI, Glaeser note that Raytheon is looking at developing an Advanced Threat Interceptor (ATI) to better tackle high-altitude threats.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 06:51:45 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #158 on: April 06, 2016, 08:06:21 am »
By adding propellant and going with a HTK warhead to the PAC-2 airframe will it become a THAAD junior?  If so it may compete for funds for that system. IT might enhance BMD by making more firing units available for destroying MRBMs.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 08:13:58 am by Mark S. »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #159 on: April 06, 2016, 08:33:48 am »
By adding propellant and going with a HTK warhead to the PAC-2 airframe will it become a THAAD junior?  If so it may compete for funds for that system. IT might enhance BMD by making more firing units available for destroying MRBMs.

It wouldnt become a THAAD junior (THAAD is a high altitude system) or threaten it since it would still cover altitudes that the THAAD doesn't, and the fact that it would cover the entire spectrum of the AMD threat (Ballistic Missiles, Cruise Missiles, and Manned / Unmanned Aircraft) while THAAD is purely an ABM system.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 09:07:03 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #160 on: April 06, 2016, 09:56:20 am »
By adding propellant and going with a HTK warhead to the PAC-2 airframe will it become a THAAD junior?

Not even close.  THAAD can operate in space.  More like a short-range SM-6. SM-6 isn't hit-to-kill but that's probably the closest analog. 
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 10:02:21 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #161 on: April 06, 2016, 10:13:44 am »
Quote
More like a short-range SM-6. SM-6 isn't hit-to-kill but that's probably the closest analog.

Thats exactly what I think would be the right type of weapon (medium range SM6) to complement the PAC3 and PAC3MSE along with other lower cost interceptors. Ideally you'd want a new missile, but you could repackage a lot from the SM6 to save money.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #162 on: April 06, 2016, 11:03:30 am »
Ideally you'd want a new missile, but you could repackage a lot from the SM6 to save money.

Such a PAC-2 would have nothing from the SM-6.  The divert system would be new, and if you were going to give PAC-2 a new guidance system, I'd think it'd have that from PAC-3 repackaged rather than the AMRAAM/SM-6 guidance system.  The latter has never been used in hit-to-kill applications and may not have the accuracy.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #163 on: April 06, 2016, 11:04:37 am »
Ideally you'd want a new missile, but you could repackage a lot from the SM6 to save money.

Such a PAC-2 would have nothing from the SM-6.  The divert system would be new, and if you were going to give PAC-2 a new guidance system, I'd think it'd have that from PAC-3 repackaged rather than the AMRAAM/SM-6 guidance system.  The latter has never been used in hit-to-kill applications and may not have the accuracy.

I wasn't referring to the PAC-2HTK but a new missile under the ATI that could use the seeker and other components from the SM6. The PAC-2 HTK would essentially be modifications to the existing inventory which should be done regardless since the patriot isn't going anywhere for decades and even when they modernize there would be older systems in the field for all of its operators.  The PAC-2 HTK would surely acquire some of the SM6's capability for OTH and should also improve on the range.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 11:08:33 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #164 on: April 06, 2016, 08:09:18 pm »
Bring-it-on from your post above:  "The concept leverages the PAC-2's greater kinematic range and keep-out altitude over the PAC-3, the company says. An active seeker would also allow the PAC-2 to receive in-flight target updates from distributed sensors to enable over-the-horizon 'engage-on-remote' scenarios."

The proposed new variant it seems will have a higher altitude capability.  Engage-on-remote may leverage the TPY-2 or other sensors as you have mentioned like JLENS. 

Is this a solution to a high speed, high altitude cruise missile or glider? There's probably a band from 60K to 120K (or more) that may  stress both the PAC-3 and THAAD.  To high and fast for PAC-3 and to low for THAAD. 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #165 on: April 12, 2016, 08:44:33 am »
Key Army panel to weigh new air-defense investments


A key Army panel is slated to discuss the costs for upgrading the venerable Patriot system's radar this week, as proposed near-term investments exceeding $1.5 billion on the legacy technology raise questions about the service's commitment to finding a replacement.

Officials said a meeting of the Army Requirements Oversight Council is set for April 14 about the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor and its way ahead toward a milestone A decision, the most preliminary in a series of three decision points. Officials are expected to "get requirements approved and concurrence on acquisition approach" for that program, according to a service source.

While development for the notional sensor is expected to cost $35 million in fiscal year 2017 and between roughly $80 million and $90 million in each of the four years thereafter, the discussions take place before the backdrop of service plans to spend much more significant sums on fixing the reliability of the Patriot radar at the same time.

According to briefing slides presented to lawmakers as part of budget briefings in February, the service is planning a "Patriot Radar Evolution" for which officials would pay roughly $1.5 billion between FY-17 and FY-21. Raytheon, the maker of Patriot, practically stands to get the money on a sole-source basis, a plan that has previously drawn fire from Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has yet to formally approve an analysis of alternatives for what a new sensor replacing the Patriot radar would look like. "We had a meeting a couple weeks ago and OSD seemed okay with the analysis," the service source said. Still, the analysis technically remains under review by Pentagon analysts, with no decision made on a way ahead.

Officials have said for some time that the service favors the development of a new sensor featuring gallium nitride technology and a 360-degree surveillance capability. A decision against one of the alternatives reviewed, the fire-control radar of the Medium Extended Air Defense System, means that past U.S. development spending of $2 billion on that radar would go entirely unused.

MEADS was developed by the United States, Germany and Italy. While Washington exited the program some years ago, Germany last year decided to pursue it alone. The system features an active phased array radar (AESA), 360-degree surveillance and launch capability, but its sensor runs on gallium arsenide technology, versus the more powerful gallium nitride-based method the Army says it must have.

Meanwhile, service officials project a milestone A decision for the LTAMDS program this fall or winter, with an industry solicitation for a technology maturation and risk reduction phase released at that time. The race for that program will be competitive, officials have said, which means companies other than Raytheon can partake.

According to the Army budget briefing for lawmakers, a new sensor could be fully fielded around FY-27.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 08:49:46 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #166 on: April 12, 2016, 01:05:58 pm »
Seems like the program is Raytheon's to loose.  If they can keep their price acceptable to the Army and demonstrate the GaN technology is ready for use it would be difficult for another vendor to grab the contract.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #167 on: April 12, 2016, 03:04:23 pm »
It would be quite unfortunate if the deal to replace such high number of Patriot legacy radars would not be competed especially given the amount of work on sensors that has occurred thanks to USMC, MEADS partner-nation, and even USAF funding when it comes to sensors that could potentially serve the Patriot Next generation system in some capacity or the other. What is even more strange is that they anticipate a 12 year development cycle for an upgraded sensor that looks to retain a lot of the Patirot's legacy software. I am sure however that Lockheed can compete here by offering an upgrade MEADS sensor with US made GaN T/R modules and also compete with the UHF AESA for a potential surveillance option. The amount of money that is being spoken off however over the next 4-5 years is unlikely to be sufficient to fund a brand new radar developmental program.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #168 on: April 12, 2016, 04:27:46 pm »
I can't see where it would take 12 years to upgrade the sensor when the two main competitors both have systems that use GaN components in operation now.  L-M with MEADS and Raytheon with TPY-2 and 3DELRR.  Neither should have to work from scratch.  The long pole in the tent would be software.  I think it's a done deal for Raytheon. Whether that's good is another matter. 

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #169 on: April 12, 2016, 04:45:59 pm »
Strictly speaking, neither G/ATOR nor 3DELRR has been eliminated from the AoA but I'm not holding out hope for the former. 
On the Patriot software front, there's a considerable amount of ongoing development activity so the "legacy" build will look very different by the time a new array is ready.
So with these investments and the murky technical and manufacturing data rights situation for Patriot, there's some unavoidable (but not inevitable) sole-source momentum.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #170 on: April 12, 2016, 05:32:12 pm »
Quote
L-M with MEADS and Raytheon with TPY-2 and 3DELRR.

LM sources GaAs modules from Europe for the MFCR (iirc). They'd need to work with Cree or Qorvo to upgrade that sensor with GaN. Even then, the MEADS sensor's software for the US was always meant to be different and I am not sure whether any of that unique software had been developed before we withdrew support as far as procurement is concerned. 3DELRR could definitely be used by Raytheon, since it operates in the same band however why bother when you have a very good change of winning with a much less riskier proposal. I don't blame Raytheon, there's just not enough money out there unless some is injected rather quickly. If they are going to spend 3 times as much to enhance the legacy patriot it would be an uphill task to convince the Army to not upgrade the radar but field  a new sensor that starts from scratch. The downside is obviously that the aspects of mobility, and footprint would likely remain where they are which was one of the goals for the MEADS program and something a next-generation patriot should have aspired to be better at.

Lockheed however is working on an undisclosed X-band radar:

Besides Space Fence and 3DELRR, Lockheed Martin is also doing a tremendous amount of activity in GaN with S-band, Bruce added.

"We have some GaN radar technology in an X-band radar product under development. We are going across in the radar domain across all frequencies. This could even drive up into Ku-band. GaN is being looked at in any place where you need high efficiency and high power," he said.


https://www.scribd.com/doc/283494441/Cooling-Down
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 03:13:23 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #171 on: April 13, 2016, 03:01:31 pm »
My thinking was more along the lines of a Raytheon 3DELRR win means the Army can piggy back either directly (joint acquisition) or indirectly (C-band GaN T/R gets cheaper).
3DELRR as an organic part of the Patriot Brigrade would greatly reduce the search burden during combined TBM/air-breathing raids.

It's been pointed out that in combined TBM/air-breathing raids, the advantage of 360 coverage for the MEADS MFCR vanishes as the high revisit rate requirements for the TBMs (> 1 Hz)
means that the MFCR pretty much has to stop and stare at the TBM threat sector. 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #172 on: April 13, 2016, 04:18:05 pm »
^ Isn't that why they plan (ed) on deploying (full capability) with two MFCR's and one surveillance radar?

The reference MEADS fire unit includes one UHF Surveillance Radar (SR) and two X-Band Multifunction Fire Control Radars

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4993.msg277829.html#msg277829
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 04:27:18 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #173 on: April 13, 2016, 06:22:33 pm »
^ Isn't that why they plan (ed) on deploying (full capability) with two MFCR's and one surveillance radar?

The reference MEADS fire unit includes one UHF Surveillance Radar (SR) and two X-Band Multifunction Fire Control Radars

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4993.msg277829.html#msg277829

The composition of the fire units has fluctuated over the years; it was originally one MFCR and one SR then two MFCRs and one SR post MS-B in recognition of the issue described above.
The MEADS literature circa 2015 (after the German selection) shows a single MFCR; a prior version (circa 2010) shows two MFCRs.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 06:24:28 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #174 on: April 14, 2016, 12:41:34 pm »
How many places in the world are you going to face a 360 deg. theater ballistic missile threat?  I can only think of Pacific islands with the assumption that a peer competitor uses a boomer or surface ship to launch them.  The boomer idea in my opinion is far fetched because using one for theater work would eliminate it from a strategic second strike reserve and probably get it sunk.  Now having to deal with 360 deg. airborne threats is very plausible.  It may be that Raytheon's idea of smaller arrays on the back of the shelter housing the main array accounts for this scenario.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #175 on: April 14, 2016, 07:27:08 pm »
You're right. The TBM threat is typically from a fixed sector and the need for 360 coverage is motivated almost exclusively by the air-breathing threat.
It's just that in a combined TBM/ABT raid, your 360 precision tracking sensor typically has to fixate on the TBM threat sector leaving you more exposed to the 360 ABT threat.

MEADS wants you to buy two MFCRs for that scenario. Raytheon wants you to buy the rear AESA panels for Patriot.
The US Army thinks that a combination of AESA'ed 360 Sentinels and AESA'ed single panel Patriots will suffice. 

I'm holding out for 3DELRR as a supporting element but for the island scenario you mentioned you really need something like JLENS which to the present
administration's credit they are sticking with despite the bad PR.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #176 on: April 15, 2016, 05:17:38 am »
Speaking of the 3DELRR, did Raytheon ever release a graphic or present a mock up for their design?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #177 on: April 15, 2016, 07:56:14 am »
I've been looking for artwork or a model of 3DELRR for  a year and haven't found it yet.  Maybe it's unique and revolutionary.   As for JLENS the only drawback in my mind is it's not as survivable as a ground based sensor.  I remember back in the 80's AvLeak had a article about a radar that was pointed upward with  hemispherical array on top of it to sweep the beam around.  I wouldn't want to do the math but if they could make that work!!!

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #178 on: April 15, 2016, 09:29:20 am »
Quote
As for JLENS the only drawback in my mind is it's not as survivable as a ground based sensor.

Depends on how you deploy it. If it is a Pacific Island, far away from the threat its pretty safe, or at least as safe as anything else. If you plan on taking it to the front-lines of combat, I would agree its not a very safe way to provide long range surveillance.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 09:55:05 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #179 on: April 15, 2016, 11:12:14 am »
I've been looking for artwork or a model of 3DELRR for  a year and haven't found it yet.  Maybe it's unique and revolutionary.   As for JLENS the only drawback in my mind is it's not as survivable as a ground based sensor.  I remember back in the 80's AvLeak had a article about a radar that was pointed upward with  hemispherical array on top of it to sweep the beam around.  I wouldn't want to do the math but if they could make that work!!!

Well to be fair given the nature of the protest and the issue surrounding source selection they are probably being cautious as to not talk about. However it is rather strange that they put a lot of effort in marketing the GaN antenna (rear) panel on the Patriot system a few years ago, when in 2013 they were already demonstrating a GaN C-Band Full scale Prototype to the USAF

Quote
Raytheon proposed a C-band solution for its 3DELRR capability, but declined to comment on its selection.

Andrew Hajek, Raytheon's 3DELRR programme director told IHS Jane's  that "Raytheon is proud to have successfully completed its pre-Engineering, Design, and Manufacturing phase for 3DELRR. We conducted a successful Preliminary Design Review, and held a compelling demonstration of our gallium nitride [GaN]-based C-Band full-scale prototype."

He added that "We met all air force requirements, and we demonstrated unprecedented track accuracy for ground-based surveillance radar. Our 3DELRR solution is based upon [more than] 10 years of company investment in ... GaN technology".

All three bids for 3DELRR included GaN-based solutions for the transmit and receive modules.

"Our GaN enables implementation of low-risk, cost-effective capabilities in any expeditionary radar system. In addition to enhanced track accuracy, these capabilities include positive identification and robust performance in ever-evolving threat and electronic environments," Hajek said.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 11:13:51 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #180 on: April 15, 2016, 11:45:17 am »
Don't know why JLENS would be less survivable than a ground based sensor.  Most of the ground based threats would be within JLENS EO/IR and GMTI detection ranges and the
aerostat material construction would defeat the fuzes on most anti-radiation and A2A missiles.

It's definitely one of those assets that you protect with C-RAM and because of its detection range capability you don't need to position it anywhere close to the front lines.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #181 on: April 16, 2016, 02:44:54 am »
One thing we've learned is that the JLENS aerostat really is vulnerable to environmental hazards:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/breaking-jlens-aerostat-breaks-loose-over-pennsylvania/

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #182 on: April 16, 2016, 03:50:33 am »
One thing we've learned is that the JLENS aerostat really is vulnerable to environmental hazards:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/breaking-jlens-aerostat-breaks-loose-over-pennsylvania/

I actually miss them driving to work every morning :)
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #183 on: April 16, 2016, 10:06:15 am »
Patriot discussed starting 3:00 or so. Also, THAAD_ER (That thread is now locked???) discussed beginning 17:10



Army PEO Missile & Space statement : http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS29/20160414/104621/HHRG-114-AS29-Wstate-PikeB-20160414.pdf
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 10:56:03 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #184 on: April 17, 2016, 06:21:09 am »
From CSISMD (@Missile_Defense) , Red-1970's technology , Yellow - 80's, and Green - 90's

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

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #185 on: April 18, 2016, 09:14:32 am »
More IBCS testing this time involving mixed PAC-2/PAC-3 firings.  The video shows the PAC-2 intercept but unfortunately doesn't include the PAC-3 intercept.



On April 8, U.S. Army soldiers executed a successful dual engagement flight test of the Northrop Grumman Corporation-developed Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) to identify, track, engage and defeat ballistic and cruise missile targets. Proving any-sensor, best-shooter capability, the IBCS used tracking data from Sentinel and Patriot radars and provided the C2 for a Patriot Advanced Capability Three (PAC-3) interceptor to destroy a ballistic missile target and a PAC-2 interceptor to destroy a cruise missile target.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #186 on: April 18, 2016, 10:23:03 am »
Congress will get a bite at Army's antimissile-modernization analysis


Lawmakers can expect to review an analysis of alternatives about Army plans to modernize its lower-tier air-defense radars, an elusive study expected to guide billions of dollars in future investments, according to a key service official.

Barry Pike, the program executive officer for missiles and space told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee on April 14 that the analysis for the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor still had not passed a "sufficiency evaluation" by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Absent that office's formal blessing, however, Army officials are moving forward with plans "from their perspective," Pike told Inside the Army in a brief interview. At issue is how the Army will proceed with modernizing its radars connected to the aging Patriot missile-defense system, what a new sensor must be able to do, and how to synchronize the investments and fielding paths for both programs.

The Army plans to spend upwards of $1.5 billion on updating the Patriot radar in the next five years, running the risk of squeezing a more comprehensive upgrade out of the air-defense portfolio, despite stated intentions to field a replacement.

Asked why Pentagon analysts have yet to approve the Army analysis, Pike said, "It just takes time."

The prospect of lawmakers getting to review the study could change the trajectory for how the Army approaches the matter. While many in the service envision banking on Patriot updates for several more decades, either by choice or necessity, at least one lawmaker, subcommittee chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL), signaled a willingness to get personally involved in the decision-making.

Even with scheduled upgrades, Rogers contended at the hearing last week, "we will have a radar system with components that in some cases are 58 years old."

When asked for systems that the Army could introduce to the air-defense portfolio more quickly, Pike referred to the outstanding analysis of alternatives. The study examined fielded and developmental radars throughout the military services, potential modifications to those, as well as from-scratch developments.

While the analysis is still considered technically unfinished, Army officials have privately said that the service favors a new sensor boasting dual-frequency capability, longer range, a 360-degree field of vision, and gallium nitride technology, among other features.

"Once it is complete and delivered to Congress, as part of the law, then we'll be able to go forward with an acquisition strategy and a formal schedule and materiel solution, none of which we have currently today," Pike told Rogers.

Army leaders met during the afternoon of April 14 for an Army Requirements Oversight Council on the nascent Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor program. Officials said it was unclear to what extent the requirements discussion for that program would be influenced by the sizable cost of the sustaining Patriot in parallel.

Pike told ITA the issues are "linked to some extent."

He added that the fielding time for the new sensors, 2028, was not "set in stone" with so many moving parts in the planning process still unfolding. A Defense Acquisition Board meeting, chaired by Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall, is scheduled for sometime in June. Before that, typically within a month of the April 14 AROC meeting, Army acquisition leaders will assess their strategy during an Army Systems Acquisition Review Council, or ASARC, Pike said.

The timing of the analysis' release to lawmakers could affect decisions made this spring. A spokesman for the Office of the Secretary of Defense did not return a reporter's question about the status of the study.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #187 on: April 18, 2016, 11:32:08 am »
One thing we've learned is that the JLENS aerostat really is vulnerable to environmental hazards:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/breaking-jlens-aerostat-breaks-loose-over-pennsylvania/

In fairness, the wind velocities that broke the JLENS tether would have already forced almost all ground-based 360 radar systems into stowed position.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 11:34:11 am by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #188 on: April 20, 2016, 11:44:55 am »
House panel pushing Army toward larger missiles, April 20, 2016


A panel of House lawmakers is urging the Army to examine the utility of employing more powerful missiles for both air defense and strike missions.

The House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee included two passages to that effect in the draft mark-up of the fiscal year 2017 defense authorization bill. One expresses support of Army efforts to develop a land-based anti-ship missile, the other pushes the service to extend the range of its surface-to-air missiles.

According to the legislation, the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center already is developing "concepts and technologies" enabling the service to conduct "land-based offensive surface warfare." Among the technologies under consideration is re-purposing the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and the Multiple Launch Rocket System for an anti-ship mission.

"The committee supports the Army's Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM) effort and understands the Army has programmed funding across the Future Years Defense Program in order to continue to integrate and demonstrate this capability through live-fire testing," lawmakers wrote.

Hitting ships with munitions developed for land targets can be done, but the missiles generally need greater range and the ability to hit moving targets from far away. Army officials in South Korea tested an Excalibur guided artillery round against a barge several years ago. Out of two shots, one was a hit.

A congressional staffer said the issue has been of "sustained interest" to some subcommittee members in recent years. Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in 2014 brought into play the idea of a forward-deployed Army "coastal artillery," to be used for securing vitally important shipping lanes in the Asia-Pacific.

The proposed legislation tasks the Army with delivering a briefing by Feb. 1, 2017, on the service's plans for the LBASM program, including a projection on schedule and funding.

A separate provision decries that the service's surface-to-air missiles have "significant less range" against aircraft targets than "many foreign threat systems," namely those fielded by Russia and China. Lawmakers are concerned that the proliferation of those weapons would leave the United States behind, effectively making contested airspace no-go zones for American fighter jets in future conflicts.

The committee requests a briefing on the "potential requirement" for longer-range SAM systems, including "the potential upgrade of current systems or an entirely new system."
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #189 on: April 20, 2016, 11:49:41 am »
I was thinking about this the other day.  What's US Army policy about dropping booster stages hither and yon? 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #190 on: April 20, 2016, 12:15:21 pm »
I was thinking about this the other day.  What's US Army policy about dropping booster stages hither and yon? 
I've been a proponent of "big dumb boosters" with brilliant warheads for some time. Seem like an easy way to enhance offensive strike capability.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 09:12:36 pm by bobbymike »
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 Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #191 on: April 20, 2016, 12:27:26 pm »
I fail to see where the range of our SAMs will leave us behind and contribute to our inability to penetrate the envelope of enemy systems with our aircraft.  Seems to me the range of the SAM is tied to the area you want to cover per battery.

As for a surface attack system wouldn't the AGM-158C LRASM work?   

The Nike Hercules had known booster drop areas but with that missile the booster was used just to gain altitude and not to extend the range of the missile by flying out further from the launch site itself.  How much would we gain by doing that today?  The Patriot seems to have the same range as the Nike. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #192 on: April 20, 2016, 12:43:02 pm »
I fail to see where the range of our SAMs will leave us behind and contribute to our inability to penetrate the envelope of enemy systems with our aircraft.  Seems to me the range of the SAM is tied to the area you want to cover per battery.

And if you want to cover a larger area with the same number of batteries you need a longer range missile.

As for a surface attack system wouldn't the AGM-158C LRASM work?

Why would you want that if you could do better?  Band-aid solutions are not long-term solutions. 

The Nike Hercules had known booster drop areas but with that missile the booster was used just to gain altitude and not to extend the range of the missile by flying out further from the launch site itself.

Fairly certain that increasing speed and altitude extended the range and that a Nike Hercules sans-booster wouldn't go anywhere near as far. 

How much would we gain by doing that today?  The Patriot seems to have the same range as the Nike.

But it doesn't have the range of SM-6.  You have the choice of a larger missile (S-400 40N6) or multistage. 
"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 #193 on: April 20, 2016, 01:02:03 pm »
Two thoughts:

1. The US Army has a massive artillery disadvantage against the Russians. That, to me, is more pressing than solving the coastal artillery problem. MRLS and Paladin are both outmatched by their equivalent Russian systems.

2. The USAF seems to be drifting towards a localized air supremacy model, where AF pushes forward to achieve supremacy in limited time / space. This matches the advances in mobile / survivable Russian & Chinese ADA. In that environment, the current Army air defenses are inadequate to UAV and fixed with aircraft threat.

I wonder if the latter lead the congress to encourage the US Army to get longer ranged air defenses.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #194 on: April 20, 2016, 03:04:52 pm »
Quote
As for a surface attack system wouldn't the AGM-158C LRASM work?   

It would work well, especially given Lockheed is demonstrating booster integration at the moment.

Quote
Why would you want that if you could do better?  Band-aid solutions are not long-term solutions. 

They'll likely struggle to get something better than the LRASM, or Tomahawk given the current stream of funding even for the upcoming larger anti surface weapon competition. 

Quote
But it doesn't have the range of SM-6.  You have the choice of a larger missile (S-400 40N6) or multistage.

They probably don't need to got that crazy large either. An incremental improvement over the PAC-2 range should do the trick while still keeping 4 a launcher profile of the existing PAC-2's. A multi pulse motor with a smaller warhead could extend the range considerably if they still wanted to retain mobility and footprint. In fact they could leverage the existing SM6 components given the success it has had against air breathing and ballistic targets. I haven't seen the 40N6 and its associated launcher, how big is the missile and launcher?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 03:26:46 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #195 on: April 20, 2016, 04:15:53 pm »
Think any improvements to or replacement of Patriot should have a range a little beyond the range of the predominate type of peer competitor stand-off munition.  You won't give it the range to defeat a 500 mile cruise missile but certainly something to handle one of 150 to 200 miles.  It's a matter of risk and using other systems to take-out those targets that you can't.  I would guess that there are more stand-off munitions with less than 200 mile range than there are of those above that number.

Maybe they should try to harden the SM-6 to work in the off-road environment or as others have said repackage the components.  You also have the 8 round launch vehicle for the THAAD system to carry larger missiles.

I think we'll see the new USAF cruise missile adapted to other uses from it's initial strategic nuclear mission in time.  That will probably be the Tomahawk replacement.




Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #196 on: April 20, 2016, 04:52:59 pm »
Now what happens if that 200 mile stand off munition, is launched from a Low Observable, UAV/UCAV or fighter?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #197 on: April 20, 2016, 05:00:05 pm »
Quote
Why would you want that if you could do better?  Band-aid solutions are not long-term solutions. 

They'll likely struggle to get something better than the LRASM, or Tomahawk given the current stream of funding even for the upcoming larger anti surface weapon competition. 

The fact remains, LRASM was never meant as anything but a "get something, anything, ASAP" interim band-aid.  You DON'T want to get locked into that.  It's one thing if they say, "TS, if you need something find something as cheap as possible", quite another to volunteer, "hey, I'll take the old POS since you're askin'".

Quote
But it doesn't have the range of SM-6.  You have the choice of a larger missile (S-400 40N6) or multistage.

They probably don't need to got that crazy large either. An incremental improvement over the PAC-2 range should do the trick while still keeping 4 a launcher profile of the existing PAC-2's. A multi pulse motor with a smaller warhead could extend the range considerably if they still wanted to retain mobility and footprint. In fact they could leverage the existing SM6 components given the success it has had against air breathing and ballistic targets. I haven't seen the 40N6 and its associated launcher, how big is the missile and launcher?

•  You could keep 4 per launcher but you might need to go with a bigger launcher.  You don't need a Nike Hercules sized missile. 
•  You can be mobile with a larger missile than PAC-2  (See S-400, S-300V, etc.)
•  No SM-6 components.  SM-6 is designed to sit in a nice climate controlled cell (which is why Aegis ashore needs a friggin' building instead of throwing them on a truck). 
•  Not sure on the 40N6 but the S-400 "big" missiles are 4000lbs+ which is about double PAC-2 and about 30% more than SM-6.
•  If you're going to skimp on warhead size you're going to need to go with hit-to-kill because at high altitude you need a bigger warhead to have the same effect in thin air. 

A couple likely constraints are going to be the requirement for air mobility, no dropping boosters, and solid rocket propulsion.  (The Nike Hercules batteries had specific fenced off drop areas for the boosters.)  Dropping boosters over the ocean is one thing, but you can't always know where you might need to setup your SAM system, what the shot geometry might be, etc. when on land.  If it were me I'd probably go with something say 3000lbs, dual burn motor, 200lb warhead, thruster system up front like PAC-3, TVC vanes in the nozzle, PAC-3 guidance system.  Don't know if cold-launch makes enough difference to bother with it.  And I'd damn sure want a better reload system than what they currently use. 


"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #198 on: April 20, 2016, 05:08:39 pm »
Quote
The fact remains, LRASM was never meant as anything but a "get something, anything, ASAP" interim band-aid.  You DON'T want to get locked into that.  It's one thing if they say, "TS, if you need something find something as cheap as possible", quite another to volunteer, "hey, I'll take the old POS since you're askin'".

Thats all well and good. Ideally you would want a clean sheet but where is the money for such a weapon? Lets see how ambitious they get with a new AshM. I am skeptical.

Regarding, the long range missile with a new launcher, we are in a situation where we can't really fund a clean sheet radar and the Congress is thinking about cutting even existing Patriot modernization roadmap to pay for a band-aid radar. Somehow, I seriously doubt we all develop an extremely large, and capable weapon introducing a new launcher into the patriot family. It would be an achievement if they can get the PAC-3MSE acquisition to hold in terms of quantity and acquire the AESA Patriot upgrade even though it will still recycle the legacy sensor and only upgrade it. This after $2 Billion invested in MEADS development, that we no longer want.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #199 on: April 20, 2016, 05:24:21 pm »
If Congress wants the US Army to replicate the S-300/S-400, then congress should give the US army money to do that. The better have a stronger reason than Russian toys envy.

Wouldn't it just be cheaper to resurrect SHORAD if you're worried about hostile air?

Mobility and air mobility can all be had, but that will involve the US trying to catch up on a decade + of Russian SAM development. Expensive, expensive.

In addition to this request, the army also needs long ranged fires and, apparently, an AShM capability. The underinvesment in Artillery and ADA are coming back hard.

Sferrin, now I get why land based missiles tend to be single stage...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #200 on: April 20, 2016, 06:09:03 pm »
Quote
The fact remains, LRASM was never meant as anything but a "get something, anything, ASAP" interim band-aid.  You DON'T want to get locked into that.  It's one thing if they say, "TS, if you need something find something as cheap as possible", quite another to volunteer, "hey, I'll take the old POS since you're askin'".

Thats all well and good. Ideally you would want a clean sheet but where is the money for such a weapon? Lets see how ambitious they get with a new AshM. I am skeptical.

Regarding, the long range missile with a new launcher, we are in a situation where we can't really fund a clean sheet radar and the Congress is thinking about cutting even existing Patriot modernization roadmap to pay for a band-aid radar. Somehow, I seriously doubt we all develop an extremely large, and capable weapon introducing a new launcher into the patriot family. It would be an achievement if they can get the PAC-3MSE acquisition to hold in terms of quantity and acquire the AESA Patriot upgrade even though it will still recycle the legacy sensor and only upgrade it. This after $2 Billion invested in MEADS development, that we no longer want.

Yeah, I find myself scratching my head a lot these days.  They're actually considering restarting F-22 production, bringing carrier construction down to 4yrs vs 5, a new bomber, new missile, new SSBN, F\X, F-XX, etc. etc. . . .but they're consistently cutting the defense budget (procurement specifically- idiots that they are, they ALWAYS go for that).  I'm of the opinion, "yeah, I'll believe it when I see it but I may as well play along".
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #201 on: April 20, 2016, 06:14:30 pm »

Sferrin, now I get why land based missiles tend to be single stage...



Go to 3:22.  They're actually following the booster with the camera.  The upper stage booked it off to the right.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #202 on: April 20, 2016, 06:45:04 pm »


•  You could keep 4 per launcher but you might need to go with a bigger launcher.  You don't need a Nike Hercules sized missile. 


A couple likely constraints are going to be the requirement for air mobility, no dropping boosters, and solid rocket propulsion.  (The Nike Hercules batteries had specific fenced off drop areas for the

Kinda goes back to my musings over "what else will fit in the THAAD launcher?"

Also not sure SRMs would be necessarily be a requirement given the Army's now extensive experience with safely handling THAAD and its liquid DACS. 

You might contemplate a variant of the axial HAN thruster that Aerojet looked at for the NCADE second stage along with all of the AF-M315E development the Army and the Air Force are sponsoring.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #203 on: April 21, 2016, 02:29:46 am »
US Army IAMD test moves the system closer to LRIP decision



The US Army has conducted a successful engagement against dual missile threats, demonstrating the ability to use sensors from one air defence system and interceptors from another, operating on the Integrated Force Control Network (IFCN) and under the control of Northrop Grumman's Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS).

The IBCS enabled the army's IAMD programme to manage multiple threats and augment army sensor data to form a single integrated air picture. The IBCS then selected a Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 interceptor and a Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile - TBM (GEM-T) interceptor to defeat a cruise missile surrogate target and a short-range tactical ballistic missile (SRTBM) arriving at the same time, according to Northrop Grumman.

"Employing track data from Sentinel and Patriot radars, this test demonstrated the army's capability to identify, track, engage, and kill targets using multiple types of interceptors from one air defence system and remote sensors from another air defence system operating on the Integrated Fire Control Network (IFCN) under the control of the IBCS," an army spokesperson told IHS Jane's  on 19 April.

This was the third successful demonstration of Northrop Grumman's IBCS since its initial test in June 2015.

The IBCS replaces seven legacy command and control (C2) systems, and using Northrop Grumman's Modular Open Systems Approach, the IBCS is able to integrate current and future sensors and weapon systems as well as interoperate with joint C2 and the ballistic missile defence system.

The Limited User Test, conducted from March to the end of April 2016, will provide data for transitioning the programme into low-rate initial production (Milestone C).

During the 8 April test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the SRTBM surrogate, a Patriot as a Target (PAAT), flew a ballistic trajectory and the cruise missile surrogate, an MQM-107 drone target, flew a low-altitude trajectory against an asset defended by a US Army IAMD (AIAMD) task force.

"The task force comprised a Battalion Engagement Operations Center (EOC), two non-collocated Battery EOCs with a Patriot radar, a remote IFCN Relay connected to two Patriot launchers equipped with PAC-3 missiles, a remote IFCN Relay connected to two Patriot launchers equipped with GEM-T missiles, and two remote Sentinel radars connected to IFCN Relays, all operating on the IFCN," the army spokesperson said.

"As designed, the IBCS correctly used the sensors' composite tracking data to calculate the necessary engagement solution resulting in the PAC-3 and GEM-T missiles successfully engaging and killing the SRTBM and cruise missile surrogate targets."

The AIAMD supports integration at the system component level (for example, launchers and sensors) into an AIAMD System of Systems (SoS) network, which enables the architecture to exploit the full combat potential of army capabilities.

"AIAMD provides for the movement of critical information/decision aids from sensors and weapons to the right decision-maker, at the right time, to support mission objectives. The IBCS EOC provides the common mission command capability and the 'plug & fight' A/B-Kits, including the IFCN capability for fire-control connectivity, and enable distributed operations," the spokesperson said. The AIAMD SoS represents a shift from a traditional system-centric weapons system acquisition to a component-based acquisition approach. AIAMD provides for the full, net-centric, 'plug & fight' integration of existing and future air and missile defence forces and systems.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #204 on: April 21, 2016, 05:01:07 am »


•  You could keep 4 per launcher but you might need to go with a bigger launcher.  You don't need a Nike Hercules sized missile. 


A couple likely constraints are going to be the requirement for air mobility, no dropping boosters, and solid rocket propulsion.  (The Nike Hercules batteries had specific fenced off drop areas for the

Kinda goes back to my musings over "what else will fit in the THAAD launcher?"

Believe me, you're not the only person that contemplates that.  ;)  (Though I lean more towards the original 10-wheel launcher.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
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 DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #206 on: April 21, 2016, 08:12:59 am »
Kinda goes back to my musings over "what else will fit in the THAAD launcher?"

Also not sure SRMs would be necessarily be a requirement given the Army's now extensive experience with safely handling THAAD and its liquid DACS. 

You might contemplate a variant of the axial HAN thruster that Aerojet looked at for the NCADE second stage along with all of the AF-M315E development the Army and the Air Force are sponsoring.

Perhaps the Army ADA could use the THAAD launcher for theater / strategic air defense roles?

THAAD Launcher --> S-400/500 role
Patriot Launcher --> S-300 role

I wonder if they could use THAAD-ER development to create a surface to air missile using the booster. If THAAD-ER is designed to engage hypersonic gliders, it could have the dynamic ability to engage aircraft.


Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #207 on: April 21, 2016, 03:09:24 pm »
SM-6 is designed to sit in a nice climate controlled cell (which is why Aegis ashore needs a friggin' building instead of throwing them on a truck). 
SM-6 is not being used by Aegis Ashore, and the weather is not why the Mk41 modules are mounted in fixed structures.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #208 on: April 21, 2016, 03:15:51 pm »
Aren't the Mk41s over 24feet long?
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #209 on: April 21, 2016, 03:25:45 pm »
SM-6 is designed to sit in a nice climate controlled cell (which is why Aegis ashore needs a friggin' building instead of throwing them on a truck). 
SM-6 is not being used by Aegis Ashore, and the weather is not why the Mk41 modules are mounted in fixed structures.

*sigh*  The only difference between SM-3 and SM-6 is the front end.   Hell, most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between an SM-2 Block IV, an SM-3, and an SM-6 unless they knew what to look for.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 03:32:23 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #210 on: April 21, 2016, 03:28:29 pm »
Aren't the Mk41s over 24feet long?

Nope.  Cell is 258". (SM-3 is as long as it can be at 21' 6")  Even the larger Mk57 PLS on the Zumwalts is only 23'.  The larger VLS system South Korea is working on is suppose to have cells almost 26 feet long though.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 03:30:05 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #211 on: April 22, 2016, 08:45:50 am »
I meant the entire structure, not just the Mk41 cell itself.

Since the SM-3 is over 21 feet long, that would require the Mk41 "Strike Length" module rather then the "Tactical Length" module.

The height of the entire package is 25.25 feet (303 inches).

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #212 on: April 22, 2016, 09:34:45 am »
I meant the entire structure, not just the Mk41 cell itself.

Since the SM-3 is over 21 feet long, that would require the Mk41 "Strike Length" module rather then the "Tactical Length" module.

The height of the entire package is 25.25 feet (303 inches).

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf

Yep.  Thought you were talking about the cell alone.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #213 on: April 23, 2016, 06:33:27 am »
This could potentially further complicate Patriot modernization plans:

House Draft Policy Bill Aims To Kill Off JLENS
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #214 on: April 23, 2016, 08:34:47 am »
Not necessarily.  The USN doesn't have JLENS.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #215 on: April 23, 2016, 08:55:39 am »
I meant the sensor AOA and choices made because of this. JLENS offered Long Range surveillance through a dedicated sensor. In the absence of JLENS a two radar (Surveillance and MFCR) looks more attractive even though it still doesn't provide OTH capability.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #216 on: April 23, 2016, 09:10:28 am »
I meant the sensor AOA and choices made because of this. JLENS offered Long Range surveillance through a dedicated sensor. In the absence of JLENS a two radar (Surveillance and MFCR) looks more attractive even though it still doesn't provide OTH capability.

I think ultimately Patriot would get CEC (if it doesn't already have it) so that would be come less of an issue.  I'd still prefer we kept JLENs as it can't sit up there a whole lot cheaper than having E-3s circle 24/7.  I would not be at all surprised if the only reason JLENS got killed is because some politician was embarrassed that one got loose.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #217 on: April 23, 2016, 09:11:47 pm »
Some updates on the recent work Raytheon is doing on the AESA

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpulaski.pl%2Fradary-kierowania-ogniem-oferowane-silom-zbrojnym-rp-w-ramach-postepowania-na-zestawy-rakietowe-obrony-powietrznej-sredniego-zasiegu-wisla-rozwoj-i-potencjal-transferu-tech%2F&edit-text=&act=url

Quote
I think ultimately Patriot would get CEC (if it doesn't already have it) so that would be come less of an issue.  I'd still prefer we kept JLENs as it can't sit up there a whole lot cheaper than having E-3s circle 24/7.  I would not be at all surprised if the only reason JLENS got killed is because some politician was embarrassed that one got loose.

Continous E3 support would no doubt be welcomed but I doubt they would rely on it as the only means to obtain 360 degree surveillance. Not only did the request such a capability or MEADS, but also had it as a high performance option in the current AOA. Not to mention that it was part of the Air Defense enhancement in general hence JLENS's existence and funding.  JLENS would have provided them a very neat ability to use a low and high frequency sensor to both provide surveillance but for also OTH targeting. Now that this capability is in danger they would have to reassess and look at other options to get some sort of capability back through other means.  But of course they could rely on outside support, but that applies to practically anything including the primary sensor and not looking at 360 degree capability for example.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 04:39:24 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #218 on: April 25, 2016, 08:24:31 pm »
HASC Concerned with Army’s Patriot Radar Replacement Plan


Quote
WASHINGTON — The House Armed Services Committee singled out, in a short summary of issues addressed in its defense policy bill, what it believes is a sluggish plan to field a new radar for the US Army's air and missile defense architecture that would replace the Patriot system’s radar.

The committee is so concerned with the Army's plan, or lack thereof, that it wants to withhold program office funding until the service develops a new plan to replace the Patriot radar system, according to the chairman’s mark of the fiscal 2017 bill.

“The Army strategy would delay fielding a new radar, despite high-technology readiness levels, until 2028; this means our warfighters will be deployed with a 58-year-old radar before they get a modernized capability,” the summary reads. “The current Army strategy is a case study in how a broken acquisition system results in unacceptable delays in providing the warfighter the technology they need, paced ahead of adversary threats.”

HASC lawmakers would withhold 50 percent of 2017 funding for the Patriot capability until the Army could show its modernized Patriot radar would be interoperable with the ballistic missile defense system and other air and missile defense capabilities. Also, the Army chief and secretary would be required to determine whether the requirement to pursue a modernized radar is suitable for acquisition through an Army Rapid Capabilities office and would have to submit the terms of a competition for the radar that would ensure fair competition, according to the HASC's Strategic Forces Subcommittee's mark released last week.The Army is expected to hold a competition for a new radar that would be incorporated into its Integrated Air and Missile Defense system, but not much has been detailed on the service's plan to move forward.

Two major air and missile defense systems makers — Raytheon and Lockheed Martin — are poised to submit solutions for a new radar now.

Raytheon's bet on a new radar for its Patriot system is now fully functional and made its public debut at the Association of the US Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, in March.

Raytheon’s Gallium Nitride (GaN) Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is a sizable bet. The company has invested more than $200 million to develop GaN technology over 16 years, augmented with US government investment. The Patriot system was fielded to the Army in 1982 and Raytheon has continuously upgraded the system with investments from the US and 13 partner nations. The system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040.If or when 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 technologyfor 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.New slides obtained by Defense News from an industry day this month indicate the Army doesn’t intend to move very quickly on a new radar, with plans to field it as late as 2028. The slides indicate the Army plans to move into a technology development phase later this year, but wouldn’t get to the engineering and manufacturing development phase until 2020.

The Army has a bridging strategy to modify the existing Patriot system through sole-source upgrades and the focus on that could be contributing to the slower pace of procuring a future radar through a competition.


The Army completed an analysis of alternatives, which it has kept close-hold. Defense News obtained a “for official use only” copy of slides late last year outlining findings from the AOA conducted over the course of 2015. The full analysis is classified as secret, according to the document.

It’s clear from the slides 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 Patriot, would cost more than the Army has in its budget for such an effort.

The slides show the Army can afford to modernize Patriot and give it 360-degree capability, 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.

An Office of the Secretary of Defense study advisory group met last November to determine the right path, but sources say more needed to be discussed and fleshed out following the meeting. More discussions were scheduled for this spring.

This is not the first time Congress has withheld Patriot funding to get more clarity on the program’s modernization strategy. Congress has regularly done so as it continues to be dissatisfied with Army-provided details on its modernization strategy and cost of Patriot upgrades.

Seems like a case of " We don't have money to pay for this, so stretch out the program to a gazillion years". God forbid we actually had been required to do a complete overhaul of the system at the same time..
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 08:44:49 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #219 on: April 26, 2016, 03:42:25 am »
HASC Concerned with Army’s Patriot Radar Replacement Plan


Quote
WASHINGTON — The House Armed Services Committee singled out, in a short summary of issues addressed in its defense policy bill, what it believes is a sluggish plan to field a new radar for the US Army's air and missile defense architecture that would replace the Patriot system’s radar.

The committee is so concerned with the Army's plan, or lack thereof, that it wants to withhold program office funding until the service develops a new plan to replace the Patriot radar system, according to the chairman’s mark of the fiscal 2017 bill.

“The Army strategy would delay fielding a new radar, despite high-technology readiness levels, until 2028; this means our warfighters will be deployed with a 58-year-old radar before they get a modernized capability,” the summary reads. “The current Army strategy is a case study in how a broken acquisition system results in unacceptable delays in providing the warfighter the technology they need, paced ahead of adversary threats.”

HASC lawmakers would withhold 50 percent of 2017 funding for the Patriot capability until the Army could show its modernized Patriot radar would be interoperable with the ballistic missile defense system and other air and missile defense capabilities. Also, the Army chief and secretary would be required to determine whether the requirement to pursue a modernized radar is suitable for acquisition through an Army Rapid Capabilities office and would have to submit the terms of a competition for the radar that would ensure fair competition, according to the HASC's Strategic Forces Subcommittee's mark released last week.The Army is expected to hold a competition for a new radar that would be incorporated into its Integrated Air and Missile Defense system, but not much has been detailed on the service's plan to move forward.

Two major air and missile defense systems makers — Raytheon and Lockheed Martin — are poised to submit solutions for a new radar now.

Raytheon's bet on a new radar for its Patriot system is now fully functional and made its public debut at the Association of the US Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, in March.

Raytheon’s Gallium Nitride (GaN) Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is a sizable bet. The company has invested more than $200 million to develop GaN technology over 16 years, augmented with US government investment. The Patriot system was fielded to the Army in 1982 and Raytheon has continuously upgraded the system with investments from the US and 13 partner nations. The system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040.If or when 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 technologyfor 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.New slides obtained by Defense News from an industry day this month indicate the Army doesn’t intend to move very quickly on a new radar, with plans to field it as late as 2028. The slides indicate the Army plans to move into a technology development phase later this year, but wouldn’t get to the engineering and manufacturing development phase until 2020.

The Army has a bridging strategy to modify the existing Patriot system through sole-source upgrades and the focus on that could be contributing to the slower pace of procuring a future radar through a competition.


The Army completed an analysis of alternatives, which it has kept close-hold. Defense News obtained a “for official use only” copy of slides late last year outlining findings from the AOA conducted over the course of 2015. The full analysis is classified as secret, according to the document.

It’s clear from the slides 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 Patriot, would cost more than the Army has in its budget for such an effort.

The slides show the Army can afford to modernize Patriot and give it 360-degree capability, 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.

An Office of the Secretary of Defense study advisory group met last November to determine the right path, but sources say more needed to be discussed and fleshed out following the meeting. More discussions were scheduled for this spring.

This is not the first time Congress has withheld Patriot funding to get more clarity on the program’s modernization strategy. Congress has regularly done so as it continues to be dissatisfied with Army-provided details on its modernization strategy and cost of Patriot upgrades.

Seems like a case of " We don't have money to pay for this, so stretch out the program to a gazillion years". God forbid we actually had been required to do a complete overhaul of the system at the same time..

Sounds to me like they are trying to force the army to adopt MEADS, probably alongside a new missile.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #220 on: April 26, 2016, 05:49:30 am »
I don't think that is the case although there is no doubt some motive in some corners to have at the very least some MEADS capability adoption. However, they are essentially asking for the Army to field an upgraded sensor, and do so in a timely fashion. This follows the Acquisition agility initiatives and the act. Any potential full-on sensor replacement would obviously allow Lockheed, to enter and compete with what could be a sensor heavily influenced by the MEADS MFCR, and also opens them to offering the surveillance radar. Lockheed would still need to upgrade the sensor, since the Army, much like the USN and the USAF has determined that they want to switch over to gallium nitride for future sensor requirements. Lockheed could upgrade the MEADS sensor by sourcing GaN modules from the US, however that would obviously come with risk on cost and timelines. Ultimately though, the sensor upgrades would naturally be followed by interceptor upgrades and as sfferin and others have mentioned launcher upgrades. One of the key requirements for MEADS was deployability and the footprint and even if they don't adopt MEADS they would like to transform the Patriot where they improve these aspects of the system.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #221 on: April 26, 2016, 06:51:37 am »
I don't think that is the case although there is no doubt some motive in some corners to have at the very least some MEADS capability adoption. However, they are essentially asking for the Army to field an upgraded sensor, and do so in a timely fashion. This follows the Acquisition agility initiatives and the act. Any potential full-on sensor replacement would obviously allow Lockheed, to enter and compete with what could be a sensor heavily influenced by the MEADS MFCR, and also opens them to offering the surveillance radar. Lockheed would still need to upgrade the sensor, since the Army, much like the USN and the USAF has determined that they want to switch over to gallium nitride for future sensor requirements. Lockheed could upgrade the MEADS sensor by sourcing GaN modules from the US, however that would obviously come with risk on cost and timelines. Ultimately though, the sensor upgrades would naturally be followed by interceptor upgrades and as sfferin and others have mentioned launcher upgrades. One of the key requirements for MEADS was deployability and the footprint and even if they don't adopt MEADS they would like to transform the Patriot where they improve these aspects of the system.
Is gallium nitride the only reason the Army wants to wait till 2028 for new radar? Seems like a long time to wait. Didn't know there were new AESA/radar developments requiring such time. or is this just money?

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #222 on: April 26, 2016, 07:15:46 am »
The main reason is probably them stretching out the program to stay within budget.  The radar prototype is currently in contractor testing and there are multiple GaN radars that would have been fielded by then.  MDA has also begun transitioning the AN/TPY-2 TRIMMs to gallium nitride based on the FY16 budget. Their desire to upgrade and/or replace the patriot sensor is quite old, and both Raytheon and Lockheed have been, for some years now marketing their product with an eye out for a potential replacement that has so far yet to arrive. AESA, or even Gallium Nitride AESA isn't the likely problem, its institutional support from the various stakeholders that would have to provide funding and that includes the Congress. You can't NOT compete Patriot because there are multiple OEM's out there that could offer a high quality product, you can also NOT adopt MEADS since that would also essentially tantamount to a sole source award.

If they do however decide to go ahead with a competition (whatever timeline they eventually support) it would be interesting to see how Lockheed counters Raytheon's advantage of having the PAC-2 - TVM capability. 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 10:19:00 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #223 on: April 26, 2016, 05:13:31 pm »
The main reason is probably them stretching out the program to stay within budget.  The radar prototype is currently in contractor testing and there are multiple GaN radars that would have been fielded by then.   MDA has also begun transitioning the AN/TPY-2 TRIMMs to gallium nitride based on the FY16 budget.

Good point; The GaN based AN/TPS-80 (possibly in Block III trim) and 3DELRR will have IOC'ed by 2020. Lots of knowledge points to harvest there on someone else's dime.

Quote
The slides show the Army can afford to modernize Patriot and give it 360-degree capability, 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.

A lot of the benefit of a longer range missile comes from "forward pass" and "engage on remote" capabilities; JLENS has facilitated "forward pass" interceptions of SLAMRAAM and PAC-3 has done EOR in testing so a good chunk of CEC is there and all of it will be there with IAMD/IBCS.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 05:15:48 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #224 on: April 27, 2016, 04:49:20 am »
Thanks for the graphic. Hopefully the 3DELRR would be definitively awarded by mid-year and Raytheon can talk a little more freely regarding a potential new sensor that could come in as the higher performance offering. The dual freq. data link looks quite interesting, do you know if the Sentinel provided cues through the data link or did IBCS route it back to the Patriot radar? I think we'll get a lot more information on the various options from Raytheon and Lockheed by October (AUSA). It would also be interesting to see whether Lockheed releases more information on their GaN X-Band efforts, which have a very strong chance of being their efforts towards the Patriot market. With Gallium Nitride enabling wide-band X high power amplifiers and those now being offered by both of Lockheed's preferred suppliers, they can potentially get significantly better performance compared to the current MEADS sensor and could offer G/ATOR like GaA to GaN transition right through development and testing.

http://www.triquint.com/products/p/TGA2238
http://www.triquint.com/products/p/TGA2590


InsideDefense report from April 19 on the new legislation language:

Quote
The Army wants to spend upwards of $200 million in FY-17 on Patriot improvement and modernization, according to a budget briefing for lawmakers from February. The envisioned amount over the next four years tops $1.5 billion. The funding would eventually lead to a new Patriot radar around FY-21, the Army hopes.

According to the new legislation, 50 percent of Patriot funding would be withheld until several conditions are met. For one, the Missile Defense Agency director must "certify" that the new radar will be interoperable with the Ballistic Missile Defense System "and other air and missile defense capabilities."

Second, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must vouch for the modernized system's "modularity" sought by combatant commanders, and the prospect of the system meeting "validated and objective warfighter requirements" for air and missile defense.

Finally, the Army chief of staff, in coordination with the service secretary, owes lawmakers a determination about the potential value of pursuing the program through the service's newly established Rapid Capabilities Office, versus more traditional acquisition channels.

Service leaders also must ensure that the radar-modernization program is a "fair competition for all competitors," according to the legislation.

Lockheed Martin has been trying to cut into Raytheon's market with hardware from the Medium Extended Air Defense System, once meant to replace Patriot. Pentagon officials quit the program years ago, while former program partner nation Germany last year decided to continue development.

According to the proposed legislation, the Army leadership also is on the hook for certifying that a modernized Patriot radar is "the most modern rapid deployment acquisition program possible at low risk," or they must present a revised acquisition strategy to congressional defense committees and wait 30 days before executing it.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 06:25:24 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #225 on: April 27, 2016, 06:02:09 pm »
Thanks for the graphic. Hopefully the 3DELRR would be definitively awarded by mid-year and Raytheon can talk a little more freely regarding a potential new sensor that could come in as the higher performance offering. The dual freq. data link looks quite interesting, do you know if the Sentinel provided cues through the data link or did IBCS route it back to the Patriot radar?

I tend to think the IBCS interceptions were Engage On Remote with Sentinel providing the initial cue and then updates through the IFCN which the Patriot radar then relayed to the interceptor.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #226 on: April 29, 2016, 07:24:21 am »
From the Raytheon  conference call :

Quote
What we're seeing beyond that is a demand on the Patriot system for an advanced AESA radar with 360 capability, and that demand is essentially – the primary part of that demand is coming from international. We also are seeing it from the U.S. Army. That's their roadmap to add a 360-degree AESA capability to the Patriot system. So we have invested in that technology. I mean it goes all the way back to the GaN work that we'd done almost going 15, 20 years ago, but leading up to how we won the AMDR program using that technology, but now it's transitioning into the Patriot system......

And Rob, one thing we're seeing is a little different this year at Missiles is we're seeing the demand across the entire portfolio of Missiles, all of our franchises, the Paveways, the TOWs, AMRAAMs, the 89Xs the CRAMs, the Griffins, and even a resurgence on our Gen T missiles for Patriot. So it's not like it's in one area. It's across the whole portfolio.....


Interestingly Raytheon booked a $625 Million International Classified contract for its Space and Airborne Systems division

Quote
A few key bookings in the first quarter included $646 million on AMRAAM at Missiles, and at SAS, over $650 million on an international classified contract
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 07:30:29 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #227 on: May 31, 2016, 02:32:36 am »
Poland mulls WISLA options



The costs of the prospective Next-Generation Patriot 360º Gallium Nitride (GaN) active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar are 'beyond the resources of the country's budget', according to Brigadier General Adam Duda, the chief of Poland's Armaments Inspectorate. The AESA radar is being offered as a co-development programme by Raytheon as part of its wider solution for WISLA's medium-range air defence requirement.

Designated a 'medium-range' capability for long-range air defence, and point defence against short-range ballistic missiles, WISLA will, in Polish service, replace Soviet-era legacy systems (including Wega S-200C (SA-5 Gammon) and Newa SC (S-125, SA-3 Goa) systems) now deemed inadequate against the contemporary and evolving longer-range air threats. The short-to-intermediate ballistic threats will be addressed by land-based Standard Missile-3 Blocks IB and IIA Aegis Ashore interceptors based at Redzikowo from 2018, as part of the US Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System Phased Adaptive Approach Phase III. Meanwhile, a short-range air and missile defence capability requirement will be delivered through the Narew programme.

"Our original assumptions about a strong involvement in the co-development of the [Next-Generation Patriot] 360º radar have been revised by the price - which is unacceptable, [and] beyond the capabilities of our budget," Gen Duda said.

Poland has reserved PLN16 billion (USD4 billion) to acquire eight WISLA batteries. Gen Duda noted the Armaments Inspectorate has now drafted new versions of request for the Post Deployment Build-8 (PDB-8) upgrade of the Patriot system. This provides for the possible acquisition of the Raytheon 120º field-of-view AN/MPQ-65 passive electronically scanned array radar as a temporary alternative to the Next-Generation Patriot. PDB-8 "is 60-70% cheaper" and "feasibly far easier to acquire in the timeframe laid out by the Armaments Inspectorate", according to him.

The decision to move forward on a Next-Generation Patriot solution hinges on US Army's decision on the Lower Tier Air Missile Defense Sensor, expected in the third or fourth quarter of 2016. The Polish Ministry of National Defence (MND) interim has resumed discussions with Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) International as a backup for WISLA. MEADS - a multi-national joint venture between MBDA Italy, MBDA Germany, and Lockheed Martin in the United States - was originally excluded from WISLA negotiations in 2014 because it was not a fielded system. However, Germany's selection in June 2015 of the MEADS as the principal solution for its Taktischen Luftverteidigungssystem multi-role adaptive design requirement has put MEADS back on the table.

Gen Duda also confirmed that the transfer of missile technologies will be the main criterion for selecting the Narew winner and has rejected any possibility of combining both the WISLA and Narew in any way. "Narew will be decided on who gives best [missile Transfer of Technology - ToT] terms," he said.

A decision on purchasing 19 Narew batteries is planned for the end of 2016, with the delivery of the first seven batteries scheduled before 2022.

Gen Duda said that if both programmes were combined, the Kongsberg/Raytheon national advanced surface-to-air missile system (NASAMS) would, in theory, automatically become the winner for Narew. The Polish MND awarded Kongsberg a USD177 million contract to supply a Coastal Defence System (CDS) based on its naval strike missile to the Polish Navy in December 2014. Part of the contract provides for the integration into the CDS of Poland's PIT Radwar's TRS-15 radar and Transbit's communication system.

"CDS was the first step in our 'step-wise' approach to engage Polish industry," Hans Christian Hagen, the vice-president of Business Development told IHS Jane's  . The second step for Narew includes offering production of NASAMS launchers and Fire Distribution Centers. Further, in May 2016, Kongsberg signed a letter of intent with Poland's state-owned PGZ Group, for the potential development and production of a new Polish-Norwegian surface-to-air missile to complement the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, currently used with NASAMS in a surface-to-air role.

Poland is unlikely to become the first purchaser of the Next-Generation Patriot active electronically scanned array radar, and will likely wait on the results of US Army's Analysis of Alternatives for Lower Tier Air Missile Defense System before proceeding. In the interim, the Ministry of National Defense will consider the Post Deployment Build-8 or even a complete MEADS-based solution for WISLA. For the Narew system, Gen Duda said that primary missiles under consideration include Kongsberg/Raytheon National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, Diehl Defence's IRIST-T-SL ,and MBDA's VL MICA and CAMM. However, he did not mention the Israel Aerospace Industries Barak 8-SR or Rafael Advanced Defence Systems SPYDER systems.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2016, 02:35:43 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #228 on: June 02, 2016, 02:46:01 am »
ILA 2016: Raytheon pushes Patriot to Germany in anticipation of MEADS failing TLVS milestones




Raytheon is in discussions with Germany to potentially resubmit its Patriot ground-based air defence system for the country's Tactical Air Defence System (TLVS - Taktische Luftverteidigungssystem) requirement should the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) fail to meet any of its mandated milestones.Speaking at the ILA Airshow in Berlin on 1 June, Dr Luder Hogrefe, Managing Director of Raytheon Anschutz, said that, having initially lost out to the MBDA-Lockheed Martin MEADS system in 2015, the company is now talking to the German government to potentially reintroduce the Patriot into the TLVS programme should its competitor fail any of the three targets required before a development contract is awarded.

"The German Air Force based its TLVS decision on MEADS, but the German government has asked if MEADS can be delivered on time. MEADS has six milestones that it must fulfil - three before the development contract, and three in the first three years of the contract. The German government needs a fallback position with the Patriot [should these not be achieved], and we are in continuous discussions with the government to get this fallback position more formalised," he said.

Germany decided in June 2015 to buy the MEADS for its TLVS tactical air defence requirement. The final development and actual procurement is expected to come at the cost of an additional EUR3-4 billion (USD3.35-4.47 billion) for the Bundeswehr, with between 8 to 10 batteries to be procured in total.

Raytheon's offer of the Patriot to Germany is based on its expectation that MEADS will fail to deliver on the promised timeline. "MBDA has to fulfil certain milestones, [and] there is an understandable fear that it will be another catastrophe like the [delayed European-developed] A400M [transport aircraft]," Hogrefe said.

"It is currently planned that a development contract will be awarded by the end of 2016, but this is not going to happen. If all of the three milestones are met, and this will be judged independently, then the best case scenario is a development decision in the first quarter of 2017," he added. "We expect there to be serious question about MEADS though, which will push any decision to mid-2017, which is when the German election is due. No decisions get made during an election, and so we expect a decision not to be made until 2018."

The MEADS programme dates to the early 1990s, with a development memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the US, Italy, and Germany being signed in 2004. Applications included protection of deployed forces and selected critical assets against attacks by tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and aircraft.

Germany envisioned that MEADS would replace all its existing Patriot systems, but in February 2011 the project was dealt a blow when the US Department of Defense announced that it was to cease its participation. Following this announcement, Germany and Italy agreed with the US in October 2011 to revise the MoU and restructure the MEADS programme, enabling all three countries to harness and leverage MEADS technology following the 2013 demonstration phase.

Raytheon has exploited the uncertainty that surrounded the MEADS programme following the withdrawal of the US, with overtures being made to Berlin for a number of years already.

Dating back to 2010 the company has made offers to the German government to upgrade the country's existing Patriot systems to the most up-to-date 'Configuration 3+' standard, and to integrate IRIS-T and any other MEADS capabilities (the Patriot system having already successfully engaged a test target with the Lockheed Martin MEADS PAC-3 MSE missile).

With 13 operators of the Patriot today (including Germany itself), Raytheon is highlighting the interoperability and growth path as reasons why the German government should reconsider its TLVS decision. Regardless of whether MEADS or Patriot ultimately wins out in the end, though, the TLVS system is expected to become operational from about 2025.

One of the key capabilities that Raytheon is pushing for its Patriot offer to Germany is the new 360° active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

While previous incarnations of the Patriot system have been able to locate, track, and engage threats from one direction, Raytheon has now developed a new gallium nitride (GaN) solid-state AESA radar that offers full-hemispherical coverage, and so is able to deal with threats coming from different directions at the same time.

It should be noted that the MEADS system too offers this full-hemispherical coverage, a feature that Raytheon used to discount by saying that 'if you have to deal with a 360° ballistic missile threat to your country, then you've got bigger problems than [a missile defence system] can help you solve'. However, the growth of unmanned aircraft and other air breathing threats such as cruise missiles that can be guided to their targets has led Raytheon to reconsider its earlier position and to now offer the full-hemispherical solution also.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #229 on: June 12, 2016, 07:21:41 am »
...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #230 on: June 12, 2016, 10:05:04 am »
On a related note: Poland and Baltic states explore anti-aircraft shield (ft.com, registration may be required.)
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #231 on: June 13, 2016, 04:10:17 pm »
...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #232 on: June 14, 2016, 02:35:16 am »
Eurosatory: Raytheon’s strategic approach


With the NATO conference in Warsaw coming up soon, Raytheon is developing its industrial strategy for Europe.

Chris Lombardi, vice president of business development for the European region, told Shephard that the existing economic and security environment requires an affordable approach.

He said that they are explaining to European governments how they can improve their security without having to spend too much money.

This is the holy grail of defence procurement. But Lombardi said this can be achieved by acquiring proven equipment that is interoperable with existing systems used by European militaries.

He would say that of course as Raytheon’s Patriot air and missile defence system is popular on the continent, but he also argued that the budget situation is becoming stricter as government funds are diverted away from all departments – including defence – to be used to manage the migrant crisis.

Furthermore, any investment by European governments in their military will mean more of the money used to develop local industry, which itself needs a higher level of involvement.

To meet these requirements, Lombardi said that Raytheon intends to achieve 50% local industry involvement in the Polish Wisla programme and that they are in discussions with the Polish government about how to achieve this across the life of the programme.

It is planned that this target can be achieved not just through support arrangements but with the introduction of more Polish components and systems to Patriot as they are developed and Lombardi said this would include larger components and sub-systems in the second and third phases of the introduction.

He added that Raytheon was also in talks with the German government over their TVLS air defence programme, which has been awarded to rivals Lockheed Martin and MBDA with MEADS but Lombardi believes that this programme will slip and offer an opening to Patriot.

There are also plans to upgrade Germany’s existing Patriot system to allow it to operate out to 2035. He said that Raytheon can integrate the IRIS-T system from Diehl and the MEADS launcher from MBDA if required and that they can do this quicker than MEADS itself would be introduced.

Lastly Lombardi said that Raytheon was in talks with Turkey about introducing Patriot as their air and missile defence system in light of the Syrian situation and that this could be provided via FMS under a government-to-government agreement or through direct sale.


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

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #233 on: June 16, 2016, 03:26:41 am »
Italy Weighs Its Options on Missile Defense


The MEADS Lives, with both Germany and Italy having committed to it with the former also acquiring it. I think the achilles heal for the system is still the absence of a medium-long range interceptor. It will hurt them against the Patriot with its PAC-2, and with the SAMP-T+ in places like Sweden and Turkey where the focus is across the IAMD mission. Come to think of it, its one of the areas where the MEADS and Patriot users can come together and fund something that eventually replaces/upgrades the PAC-2 . I just think its much better short term investment than getting IRIS-T integrated.

Both the Patriot and MEADS (and NASAMS for that matter) could use longer ranged active missiles both in the medium ranged class (Perhaps an ESSM Block III with an enlarged motor and Block II Active/Passive seeker?) and in the medium-long range class (150-200 km).  Between the PAC-3/MSE, ESSM Blk. II (Guidance and seeker designed to eventually support longer ranged intercepts through adoption of a larger motor) and the SM6 they pretty much have the technology required to draw something up.

Quote
Anderson said it made sense to use X-band radar for the seeker update because high-frequency radar is ideal for precision tracking, and its commonality with the ships' existing systems will allow the upgrade to be easily integrated.

"It's a very elegant, very efficient solution for that radar to stay in the similar frequency range, and it does the job just fine," Anderson added.

The process of determining which upgrades to pursue involved a tug of war between the priorities of some of the NATO nations in the ESSM consortium. The group includes Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Canada, Portugal, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Greece and the United States, and the platforms that member nations use to launch the Sea Sparrow vary. All the member countries use the ESSM except for Portugal and Belgium, which use the RIM-7, an older version of the missile. Anderson said the consortium is currently at work drawing up a new memorandum of understanding, which he expects to be signed in about two years. By that time, Anderson believes most of the countries in the group will be on board with ESSM.

"Everybody's mission is going to be slightly different by definition and their employment is going to be slightly different depending on their ship capabilities and their ship architectures, so there's always some negotiation, most especially in the requirements, and we're seeing that now in Block II," Anderson said.

The existing ESSM is used primarily for ship self-defense, but Anderson said that some member nations can't afford the Standard Missile or a platform to launch it, so they use the ESSM to defend high-value targets at close range as well. Those countries would prefer to see the defensive high-value unit capabilities ofESSM enhanced, possibly by adding a more robust motor. Anderson said that changes along those lines are still a possibility for future iterations of ESSM. However, an ESSM with a longer motor might not necessarily fit into the launchers used by all of the countries in the consortium. Anderson said it was possible that they might eventually produce two versions of the ESSM to accommodate the needs of all of the consortium members.

"That's something we're looking at for the future, maybe as a Block IIA or maybe as a Block III," Anderson said. "As we're doing the ESSM Block II, we're leaving design margin in everything we do to be able to accommodate a potentially longer motor in the future without having to go back and spend the money redoing the guidance section design that we just got finished with, so we're designing for growth."

 
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 05:34:14 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #234 on: June 22, 2016, 04:52:05 pm »
Lots of interesting discussion :

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

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #235 on: July 01, 2016, 07:33:27 pm »

Sferrin, now I get why land based missiles tend to be single stage...



Go to 3:22.  They're actually following the booster with the camera.  The upper stage booked it off to the right.

More recent  systems such as the SAMP/T shed the first stage over land. In fact, the ASTER-30's first stage is 300+ kg.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/aster-30/



Some interesting tweets :

« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 07:42:21 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #236 on: July 02, 2016, 02:36:02 am »
Did someone hack their Twitter accounts?
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #237 on: July 02, 2016, 05:32:39 am »
Yes, very strange given that 58% of the EMD cost was US, and they have even categorically refused to absorb elements of the MEADS system. This after first determine a need for 360 degree cruise missile defense what 15-20 years ago? (probably earlier). On the 360 degree capability comment, I think it was specifically meant to showcase that capability through the IBCS, Patriot and and sentinel collaboration.  That should be doable in the short term as IBCS is fielded. For practically anything else including the AESA Patriot (with 360 degree arrays) or 3DELRR, we're probably looking at a decade to 15 years to get full capability to the frontline units.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2016, 10:54:29 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #238 on: July 04, 2016, 05:27:19 pm »
Poland moves towards multi-billion-euro Patriot missile deal



Quote
Warsaw (AFP) - Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz on Monday said he would ink a letter of intent with US defence firm Raytheon to buy a Patriot missile system valued at an estimated 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion).

The EU member's previous government had said in April it planned to buy the Patriot system, but soon after coming into power in November the current conservative administration placed a question mark over the purchase.

Macierewicz himself had said at the time: "The price is much higher, the delivery time much longer... in short, this contract is practically non-existent."

On Monday Macierewicz said Poland was able to move ahead with the plan because Raytheon had pledged that 50 percent of the missile system spending would be on works "done in Poland by Polish arms firms".

"That being the case, we're signing the letter of intent," Macierewicz said, quoted by the Polish news agency PAP.

He said that meant Raytheon would be the "most likely" maker of Poland's missile defence system.

The defence ministry had said in April that it wanted to acquire eight missile batteries by 2025, with two of them to be delivered within three years of signing a deal.

The Eurosam consortium including MBDA France, MBDA Italy and France's Thales Group had been the other party in the running for the missile deal.

« Last Edit: July 05, 2016, 02:44:18 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #239 on: July 09, 2016, 04:03:53 am »
Request for Information (RFI) for Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS)

Quote
The US Army LTPO is interested in receiving information on potential materiel solutions that can be utilized to upgrade or replace the Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept of Target (PATRIOT) radars fielded by the US Army. The information received from this request will be used by the LTPO to shape the requirements and acquisition program for LTAMDS to include informing senior US Army acquisition officials of the potential materiel solution trade space for LTAMDS during upcoming acquisition milestone events. The maturity of the sensor technology associated with any potential materiel solution must be at a minimum Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 5 and Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of 5, by 4QFY17, to support current US Army acquisition program plans that include a Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase followed by Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), production, and fielding phases.


A key objective for the LTAMDS acquisition program is to upgrade or replace the current PATRIOT radar to improve the operational effectiveness against the emerging threat while reducing sustainment cost associated with the current radar. Industry is requested to provide potential materiel solutions to meet these objectives with an average production unit cost (APUC) of less than $50M. The LTAMDS materiel solution must meet or exceed all LTAMDS requirements recently approved via the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC) process and all existing PATRIOT radar requirements required to operate within the US Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) network to include (not all-inclusive list):


a. Perform required surveillance, classification, discrimination and identification functions against the required threat set specified in latest version of the Army Air and Missile Defense (AAMD) System Threat Assessment Report (STAR), dated 12 March 2015;
b. Perform required fire control functions in support of the PATRIOT PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) class of missile interceptors at a minimum;
c. Operate with an existing generator in the Army inventory capable of providing up to 300 kilowatts (KW);
d. Meet existing mobility and transportability requirements;
e. Improve reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM).
f. Implementation of the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) for software architecture development.


The LTPO has developed a classified document as an attachment to this RFI that must be requested separately. It provides key performance guidelines that a LTAMDS materiel solution must meet to satisfy LTAMDS mission objectives. These performance guidelines are derived from key LTAMDS AROC performance requirements and key requirements associated with operating with existing major end items within the US Army IAMD architecture.


Industry is requested to provide conceptual materiel solutions and associated program schedules to inform the definition of the LTAMDS program. Industry solutions that support LTAMDS requirements but exceed the $50M APUC target will substantiate the cost benefit trade. LTAMDS solutions that require changes to other IAMD or PATRIOT equipment (e.g. generator, prime mover, interceptor) to realize program performance objectives or meet the APUC target will provide clear definition of changes required to the external equipment.


The information received in response to this RFI will be assessed on behalf of the LTPO by a team of subject matter experts from the US Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI), Wyle-CAS, Dynetics, University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), and Torch Technologies. The focus of this assessment will be to provide information regarding:


1) The materiel solution trade space for TMRR program phase;
2) The best value solutions within target APUC constraint;
3) The feasibility of program plans with an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) prior to FY28.
4) The critical technologies to be addressed during the TMRR program phase;
5) The technical requirements associated with the TMRR phase;
6) Software architecture development process for modularity


Due the short suspense for information requested via this RFI, responses should include the following in priority order:


1) Description of the materiel solution design concept;
2) APUC based on a purchase or retrofit of 80 radars phased over 10 years (note: include upgrade kit and radar integration & test cost for upgrade solutions);
3) Program plan that includes TMRR, EMD, testing, production, and IOC fielding dates;
4) Critical technologies to be matured during the TMRR phase;
5) Feedback on LTAMDS requirement guidelines.
6) Feedback from Industry to include a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost for the possible use of a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Level of Effort (LOE) type contract during the TMRR Program phase which includes the following:
(1) Demonstration of maturation against three Knowledge Points (KP):
(a) KP1: State of Critical Technology Elements (CTE) Maturity below:
(i) High Power Amplifiers (Transmit/Receive Module (TRM))
(ii) Low Noise Amplifier (TRM)
(iii) Limiter (TRM)
(iv) Low Noise Oscillator (Exciter)
(b) KP2: State of Integration of CTEs into Higher Level Assembly below:
(i) Transmit/Receive Channel Line Replaceable Units
(ii) Exciter
(iii) Alternating Current (AC)/Direct Current (DC) and DC/DC Power Supplies
(c) KP3: State of Prototype Design
(i) Antenna Performance
(ii) Cooling System
(iii) Power Supplies
(iv) Integrated Prototype
(2) Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
(3) CTE Maturation: Ability to mature CTE technology and manufacturing readiness to sufficient levels that allow entry into the EMD Program phase.



As a condition of responding to this RFI, it is a requirement that the responder have a Defense Security Service (DSS) approved facility for storing and processing classified information. Responders must request the classified RFI requirement document, entitled "Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) Requirement Guidelines" via e-mail. Requests for this classified document shall be sent to US Army Contracting Command, NJ (ACC-NJ), ATTN: Michael Mannarino at the following e-mail address: michael.a.mannarino10.civ@mail.mil. Telephone requests WILL NOT be honored. Requests must reference this RFI and include: company name, company and government entity (CAGE) code, classified mailing address, and appropriate point of contact information. Requests for this document must be made within 3 calendar days of the date of this notice, but it's recommended that the request be made as soon as possible due to the short suspense of this RFI. After validation by the LTPO Security Office of each interested responder's security accreditation and eligibility to receive the classified document, a complete copy, along with the appropriate security classification guide, will be mailed to each validated responder.


Responses to this RFI should only include potential LTAMDS solutions that have been successfully demonstrated in a similar application or those that are in a lab-prototype stage (TRL 5/MRL 5 or higher). Multiple solutions/responses are acceptable. Each solution/response submission should be independent of each other and include a white paper of no more than 20 pages. Responses shall be submitted with no less than size 10 font.


An Industry Day will be held on 21 July 2016 at the Lower Tier Project Office, 106 Wynn Drive, Huntsville Alabama, 35806, to address questions submitted by the contractors. Questions shall be submitted no later than 15 July 2016 to the RFI POC Michael Mannarino, US Army Contracting Command, ACC-NJ, via e-mail: michael.a.mannarino10.civ@mail.mil. Contractors wishing to participate in the Industry Day shall submit the names of all attendees to Mr. Michael Mannarino by 15 July 2016 who will coordinate with LTPO Security and provide further instructions on visitor requests and clearances.


Based on the responses, the LTPO, solely at its discretion, may request unfunded, follow on, face-to-face meetings. RFI responses must be received by 1700 CDT, 2 August 2016 to support upcoming LTAMDS acquisition milestone events. All responses must be submitted in writing. Unclassified responses will be received via mail or by email. Mailed unclassified responses should be sent to PEO Missiles and Space, Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTG/Greg Smith, Bldg. 5250, Martin Rd., Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898. Emailed unclassified responses should be sent to the following e-mail address: gregory.l.smith247.civ@mail.mil. All classified response information will be accepted by mail only; please mark it accordingly, and send via proper channels. Classified information can be sent either via USPS or FedEx. Classified information sent via USPS should be sent to PEO Missiles and Space, Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTG, Bldg. 5250, Martin Rd., Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898. The inner wrapping shall be addressed to: ATTN: SFAE-MSL-LTG (Mr. Greg Smith). Classified information sent via FedEx should be sent to the Lower Tier Project Office (LTPO) 106 Wynn Drive, Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTG, Huntsville, AL 35805. The inner wrapping shall be addressed to: ATTN: SFAE-MSL-LTG (Mr. Greg Smith).


Acknowledgement of receipt will be issued. If response includes proprietary information, please mark it accordingly. Appropriate proprietary claims will be honored and protected to prevent improper disclosure.



** ATTENTION: The LTPO plans to use non-Government support contractors in assessing industry responses resulting from this RFI. Thus, if responses include proprietary information, it must be marked accordingly. Each respondent must be willing to sign non-disclosure agreements with these non-Government support contractors so the LTPO can properly protect the proprietary information submitted. The following list of non-Government support contractors will be used during this assessment. To facilitate the non-disclosure agreement process, requests for non-Government support contractor POC information must be e-mailed to Michael Mannarino:


1) Dynetics, Inc., PO Box 5500, Huntsville, AL 35814

2) Wyle-CAS Inc., 100 Quality Circle, Huntsville, AL 35806


3) Torch Technologies, 4035 Chris Dr, Suite C, Huntsville, AL 35802


4) Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation (GTARC) 505 10th St NW Atlanta, GA 30318


5) The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35899


In accomplishing their duties relating to the review process, the above mentioned firms may require access to Proprietary Information contained in the industry responses. Therefore, pursuant to FAR Part 9.505-4, these firms must execute an agreement with each industry respondent that states that they will (1) protect the respondent's information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than which it was furnished. To expedite the review process, each industry respondent is requested to contact the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to submission of their response(s). Each industry respondent shall submit copies of the agreements with their response(s) or provide a definitive statement that the industry respondent does not consent to the release of the information to the aforementioned firms.


As a reference the AN/TPS-80 has an APUC of around $38-$40 Million

------

« Last Edit: July 09, 2016, 12:33:40 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #240 on: July 09, 2016, 07:54:38 pm »
Quote
b. Perform required fire control functions in support of the PATRIOT PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) class of missile interceptors at a minimum;


There's a typo in the original FBO RFI: should be PATRIOT/PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3). For a brief second, I thought they were dropping the requirement to support GEM rounds.

Quote
As a reference the AN/TPS-80 has an APUC of around $38-$40 Million

Interesting point of comparison but that includes elements beyond the array (comms, power) and the Patriot GaN array that Raytheon
has shown is 40% larger (by area) than the G/ATOR array.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #241 on: July 09, 2016, 09:42:35 pm »
True given the nature of the G/ATOR acquisition. The advantage with Raytheon's likely proposal will be that it will leverage the work already done with the configuration 3 upgrade so that would be tough for others to compete against. I guess it all depends upon the other requirements in the accompanying classified document and whether 360 degree capability is sought (couldn't find the March,2015 STAR) as a baseline or as an upgrade.

That 50 million price will be a challenge if they add the two rear arrays as well (together they make up half the front array),  if the requirement is for 360 degree capability from the beginning.  I guess if the 3delerr holds,  it could allow Raytheon the opportunity to lower component cost for GaN.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2016, 08:41:13 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #242 on: July 10, 2016, 08:06:44 pm »
True given the nature of the G/ATOR acquisition. The advantage with Raytheon's likely proposal will be that it will leverage the work already done with the configuration 3 upgrade so that would be tough for others to compete against. I guess it all depends upon the other requirements in the accompanying classified document and whether 360 degree capability is sought (couldn't find the March,2015 STAR) as a baseline or as an upgrade.

That 50 million price will be a challenge if they add the two rear arrays as well (together they make up half the front array),  if the requirement is for 360 degree capability from the beginning.  I guess if the 3delerr holds,  it could allow Raytheon the opportunity to lower component cost for GaN.


Agreed. $50 million APUC sounds tight for a new main array and two daughter arrays.  I get the impression that there's more an emphasis on exploiting the enhanced range/altitude capability of PAC-3 MSE against the TBM threat so (improved) single sector coverage is sufficient.

At present, IAMD only requires 360 coverage against the non-ballistic threat. If they do in fact bump all of the Sentinels to the AESA configuration you would have a setup where Patriot could "forward pass" to the Sentinels to tackle the 360 ABT threat.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #243 on: July 11, 2016, 02:34:41 am »
I tend to believe this as well, that the IBCS would be the source of the 360 degree capability as opposed to 3 arrays on the primary radar. Although the sentinel cue behind the radar would still require some wizardry in placing a number of radars to cover all possible threats since its still the Patriot radar communicating with the interceptor (unless I have it wrong).

Having said that, I haven't come across the document referenced in the RFI but I'm pretty sure that 360 degree capability (with cruise missiles in mind) has been a desired requirement in a number of documents over the last 10-15 years so it would be strange not to ask for it in this instance (or possessing it not to be a competitive advantage in case competitors show up with that capability). Upgrading the main array to GaN AESA, at least on the sets that have the digital processors and other configuration 3+ changes makes a ton of sense from a cost and timeline perspective. Raytheon can on its own develop the real arrays and market them to those that need that capability. Personally, I'd just buy a smaller number of 3DELRS or G/ATORS to supplement the main array in high stress situations especially when its quite likely that that sensor was designed with Army IBCS in mind.

But from a competition perspective, unless they restrict themselves to the PAC-3 and not the entire family of interceptors this rules out or makes it extremely tough to compete against the legacy radar - upgraded if you are a Lockheed or a Northrop.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #244 on: July 11, 2016, 01:29:26 pm »
Army seeks contractor input on Patriot radar successor


The Army is reaching out to industry for a potential upgrade or replacement of its venerable Patriot radar, according to a notice on the Federal Business Opportunities website.

A request for information posted July 6 seeks input on "potential materiel solutions for a Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS)."

The Army Lower Tier Project Office, within the Program Executive Office Missiles & Space, issued the call for "information on potential materiel solutions that can be utilized to upgrade or replace the Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept of Target (PATRIOT) radars fielded by the U.S. Army."

The RFI stipulates a required Technology Readiness Level and Manufacturing Readiness Level of 5, in order to accommodate the Army's planned acquisition strategy. This includes "a Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase followed by Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), production, and fielding phases."

The response date for the RFI is July 28. Submissions will be reviewed on behalf of the LTPO by "a team of subject matter experts from the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI), University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), Wyle-CAS, Dynetics and Torch Technologies."

The LTPO, located in Huntsville, AL, will hold an industry day for LTAMDS on July 19 "to address questions submitted by the contractors."

Congress has taken steps to restrict the Army's expenditures for Patriot modernization. The fiscal year 2017 defense policy bill passed by the House imposes conditions on the service's efforts to modernize its lower-tier air and missile defense.

According to the legislation, of the funds authorized for Patriot, "not more than 50 percent may be obligated or expended until" three criteria are met. The Missile Defense Agency director must certify the interoperability of the modernized Patriot with the ballistic missile defense system and other deployed or planned air and missile defense systems. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must certify that the modernized systems will meet modularity standards established by the geographic combatant commands, as well as warfighter requirements. Additionally, the Army secretary and chief of staff must notify the defense committee whether the requirements for the lower-tier system "are appropriate for acquisition through the Army Rapid Capabilities Office" and outline the terms of a planned competition for the program.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #245 on: July 11, 2016, 06:54:28 pm »
I tend to believe this as well, that the IBCS would be the source of the 360 degree capability as opposed to 3 arrays on the primary radar. Although the sentinel cue behind the radar would still require some wizardry in placing a number of radars to cover all possible threats since its still the Patriot radar communicating with the interceptor (unless I have it wrong).

It's more of a "remote fire" scenario; i've found the attached graphic (from Young's "Complex Systems Engineering Applications for Future BMC2") to be useful in keeping track of the various IFC schemes.
Sentinel is in the appropriate band to interact with PAC-3 MSE and the Army puts the Sentinel AESA  bump ("Sentinel A4") relatively on-par with the new Patriot sensor. 

But a C-band 3DELRR that can produce FCQ tracks would be ideal. 

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #246 on: July 12, 2016, 02:44:24 am »
Thanks for those graphics..It will be interesting to see what happens once the AOA is completed and the program moves to an RFP. Are there any timelines for the AN/MPQ-64 to switch over to an AESA array? I think ultimately, IBCS opens up the sensor requirements to multiple OEM's and multiple solutions. Lockheed has acknowledge that it itself is working on a new X- Band GaN AESA and could also compete in this space.

..
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 05:48:05 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #247 on: July 12, 2016, 11:28:50 am »
US Army declares IOC for Lockheed Martin's PAC-3 MSE

Lockheed Martin's PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhanced (MSE) successfully intercepted a surrogate tactical fighter aircraft target in the final demonstration of the Post Deployment Build (PDB)-8 Patriot developmental test phase.

The programme will now head into the operational test phase in 2017, which will clear the way for fielding of all the PDB-8 capabilities.

Additionally, in early July, the US Army declared initial operational capability (IOC) for MSE, which means the army now has one unit fully equipped with the MSE capability, Scott Arnold, vice president of PAC-3 programmes for Lockheed Martin missiles and fire control, told IHS Jane's  on 11 July.

The latest Patriot Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) system test, which took place 8 July, was the fourth and final event associated with the PDB-8 developmental test phase. As part of this test phase, Lockheed Martin delivered a number of new capabilities to MSE, Arnold said.

The software upgrades included: improved guidance software, upgrades to the inertial measurement unit, MSE's seeker, the datalink, as well as upgrades to the ground equipment software, Arnold said.

He was unable to provide any specific information on the upgrades.

Arnold added, "We put [in] new capabilities to be able to give overmatch capability to the latest threats that we see, both for tactical ballistic missiles, aircraft, or air-breathing targets and cruise missiles."

Lockheed Martin is also upgrading the PAC-3 launcher to the 903 configuration, which will enable the army to shoot the MSE.

In the 8 July test, MSE was flown against a QF-4, which is a remotely piloted, simulated, fixed-wing aircraft target.

"The target was aerodynamically controlled and manoeuvring," Arnold said.

For this test event the equipment was manned by soldiers from the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade's 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, making it the first time an army unit has fired an MSE production missile, Arnold added.

"So even though this was developmental testing [the army] brought in a unit early to man the equipment," he said. "They did an excellent job, completed the engagement and defeated the target."

MSE is a hit-to-kill missile destroying threats by the sheer force of a collision.

MSE not only brings an improved launcher but a dual-pulse solid rocket motor, larger control fins, and upgraded support systems. The enhancements will almost double the missile's reach and improve performance, according to Lockheed Martin.

MSE will bring added lethality to the Patriot IAMD. The system will be equipped with the hit-to-kill MSE interceptor as well as the Guidance Enhanced Missile - TBM (GEM-T), which flies close to a threat and explodes. Using a mix of interceptors is not only seen as a cost-effective method for intercepting targets, but it will provide commanders with operational flexibility.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #248 on: July 12, 2016, 11:52:47 am »
Thanks for those graphics..It will be interesting to see what happens once the AOA is completed and the program moves to an RFP. Are there any timelines for the AN/MPQ-64 to switch over to an AESA array?

The FBO release has Sentinel A4 Low Rate Initial Production in FY 2023 and Full Rate Production in FY 2025 at ~ 30 arrays/year.


I think ultimately, IBCS opens up the sensor requirements to multiple OEM's and multiple solutions. Lockheed has acknowledge that it itself is working on a new X- Band GaN AESA and could also compete in this space.

Wonder how much of Lockheed's efforts are directed towards risk reduction for AMDR-X?


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #249 on: July 12, 2016, 12:00:54 pm »
Thanks. Could very well be the case regarding Lockheed's IRAD.

Meanwhile on the never ending 3DELRR saga -

Quote
The 3DELRR Program will produce and field the radar system for the United States Air Force (USAF) that meets the Service’s theater battlespace awareness needs in the current and emerging threat environment. 3DELRR will be the principle USAF long-range, ground-based sensor for detecting, identifying, tracking and reporting aerial targets for the Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC) through the Theater Air Control System (TACS). It will replace the legacy USAF AN/TSP-75 radar system that is becoming unsupportable. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Theater Battle Control Division, 5 Eglin Street Bldg. 1624, Hanscom AAFB, MA 01731 intends to issue an amendment to solicitation FA8730-13-R-0001 for contract award on a limited competition basis for the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) Low-Rate-Initial Production (LRIP), Interim Contractor Support (ICS) and Full Rate Production (FRP) of the 3DELRR. The Government anticipates release of the amended solicitation on or about 26th Jul 2016 and contract award in 2nd Quarter FY17.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 01:05:02 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #250 on: July 12, 2016, 06:59:10 pm »
Raytheon Touts Patriot Anti-Missile Performance in Yemen War

FARNBOROUGH, England — Raytheon has claimed a Patriot anti-missile system used by Saudi Arabia has had a “100 percent success rate” in intercepting missile attacks by Yemeni rebels.

Speaking at the Farnborough Air Show on Tuesday, Ralph Acaba, Raytheon’s vice president for Integrated Air and Missile Defense, said the Raytheon system employed by a Saudi-led coalition had successfully handled “well over a couple of dozen intercepts” of missiles over the last year.

“Every target engaged was destroyed,” he said.

The Saudi-led coalition has been fighting against Shiite Houthi rebels, which are battling Yemen’s recognized government.

There have been numerous reports of the rebels firing ballistic missiles, including Scuds, at coalition or Yemeni government targets. On June 21, the coalition said a ballistic missile fired towards the central Yemeni city of Marib was “destroyed with no damage” by an intercept.

Speaking at Farnborough, Raytheon managers said the firm has meanwhile signed up Poland’s leading state-run defense group PGZ as a local partner on Poland’s expected Patriot acquisition.

The deal is due to be run as an FMS program.

Raytheon has said it will also offer the system to Germany should Germany decide to backtrack on its decision to buy Lockheed Martin’s MEADS system.

It was reported on July 10 that Germany may not finish negotiations over the MEADS system by the end of the year, as was planned.

“A few days ago there was an announcement out of the MoD to parliament that there was a risk that the MEADS contract will not be concluded by the end of this year,” said Acaba. “There continue to be challenges in closing that procurement and we stand ready to support the ministry of defense if and when they need us.”

Wes Kremer, president of Integrated Defense Systems, said operational use of Patriot, including in Yemen, gave the system an advantage over MEADS, which has yet to be deployed.

“Patriot is a great example of the 13 partner nations working together, and for example Patriot has been engaging ballistic missiles in Yemen,” he said.

“And so for each one of those intercepts we learn and we are able to extract data to make our radar algorithms better, and we update our software,” he said. “Each of the partners pays in a share into that fund where we update our algorithms, but then its available to all the partners,” he said.

“Germany has chosen to go a different path, and as we saw Germany set up milestones that have to be met, and the notification in parliament that they may not meet the contracting milestone shows there are challenges,” he added.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/farnborough/2016/07/12/raytheon-touts-patriot-anti-missile-performance-yemen-war/86998912/

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #251 on: July 14, 2016, 05:05:06 pm »
U.S. and Dutch Soldiers set up a MIM-104 Patriot Missile battery at White Sands Missile Range as part of an emergency rapid deployment exercise.


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

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #252 on: July 15, 2016, 12:16:25 pm »
Lockheed Martin Will Pursue New Army Missile Defense Sensor
Proven radar technology is best match to Army's requirements


BETHESDA, Md., July 15, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is responding to a U.S. Army request for a Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS). The industry-wide competition will provide a radar solution that operates in the Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) network and replaces the current Patriot radar.

The Army's stated objective for the LTAMDS acquisition program is to upgrade or replace the current Patriot radar to improve the operational effectiveness against the emerging threat while reducing sustainment cost associated with the current radar. The new sensor also is required to meet mobility and transportability requirements, and improve reliability, availability and maintainability at a defined cost target.

"With this request for information, the Army recognizes that a new radar is required to meet the current and emerging air and missile defense threats. This is an important milestone, another clear indication that the Army recognizes the aging Patriot weapon system is insufficient to meet modern air and missile defense operational requirements," said Tim Cahill, vice president, Air and Missile Defense. "We welcome the opportunity to provide state-of-the-art radar technology that will address the operational and logistic deficiencies of the Patriot."

Lockheed Martin is the only company producing active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars for the Army and is the only U.S. company producing and exporting gallium nitride (GaN)-based AESA radars. Lockheed Martin will leverage the $3 billion of investments in radar technology programs such as Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), Space Fence, Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR), 3D Expeditionary Long Range Radar (3DELRR), AN/TPQ-53 and Aegis.

"Leveraging our existing technology, a multi-function, 360-degree IAMD radar can be developed to exceed the LTAMDS requirement on a better schedule than a costly Patriot upgrade solution," said retired Rear Adm. Brad Hicks, vice president, Mission Systems and Training. "Our radar solution will meet the Army's specific requirements and extend our strong collaboration within the missile defense community."

For additional information, visit our website: www.lockheedmartin.com/us/what-we-do/aerospace-defense/radar.html.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline