Register here

Author Topic: Patriot SAM replacement  (Read 116515 times)

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