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.
 
bring_it_on said:
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
 
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyj--wTJeh4
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/12/cyber-ew-are-secret-missile-defense-weapons-too-secret-to-use/

Maybe not a missiles at all?

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.
 
http://www.asdnews.com/news-64971/Flight_Test_Proves_Ballistic_Missiles_No_Match_for_Latest_Patriot_Upgrade.htm
 
"Greater range". So 18 miles for PAC-3 MSE vs 12 for PAC-3. (Vs 100+ for PAC-2)
 
sferrin said:
"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.
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
"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.
 
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.
 
Sea Skimmer said:
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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • Poland Patriot.png
    Poland Patriot.png
    1 MB · Views: 260
sferrin said:
Sea Skimmer said:
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).
 
marauder2048 said:
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?
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • Raytheon Concept 360 Patriot.jpg
    Raytheon Concept 360 Patriot.jpg
    57.4 KB · Views: 377
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
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.
 
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.
 
From a 2014 article on Low Cost Interceptors offered by Raytheon as part of Wisla (Poland):

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.
 
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.
 
With the advent of UAVs & CMs, ground based AD systems need to have 360 coverage.
 
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.
 
bring_it_on said:
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.
 
bring_it_on said:
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...
 
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.
 
bring_it_on said:
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.
 
^ 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?
 
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.
 
DrRansom said:
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.
 
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
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.
 
DrRansom said:
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
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.
 
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLIXvR3akwI
 
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.
 
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.
 
DrRansom said:
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.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
jsport said:
DrRansom said:
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
 
bring_it_on said:
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.
 
DrRansom said:
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.
 
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom