Register here

Author Topic: Patriot SAM replacement  (Read 70129 times)

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7321
  • _ \\ //
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #330 on: July 11, 2017, 01:42:44 pm »
Not to mention that the government is hanging on by a thread as it is.
To the Stars

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #331 on: July 11, 2017, 04:43:47 pm »
Romania cleared to buy Patriot missile defense system


Quote
The State Department has cleared the sale of seven Patriot missile defense systems for Romania just days after announcing a roadmap forward for landing the system in Poland.

The potential sale, which could be worth up to $3.9 billion, covers seven Patriot Configuration 3+ units, complete with radars, control station, antenna, launching stations and power plants.

Also included are 56 Patriot MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missile-TBM missiles and 168 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement missiles, according to a Tuesday notice posted on the website of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #332 on: July 11, 2017, 04:44:27 pm »
Problems is arising here in Sweden.

CEO of Raytheon Europe have sent a personal letter to our defense minister. The problem is that such a thing is not allowed here. The authority's handles all such things here independently, in this case the Defence Materiel Administration.

It can mean problem if Patriot is chosen as the winner instead of the SAMP/T. The french will then probably appeal the decision, pointing to interference, and the whole procurement will have to be done again from the start.

Is MEADS competing?
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #333 on: July 12, 2017, 07:15:16 am »
Interestingly, the White House lists as one of its objections to the House version of the bill,  the LTADMS language inserted by the HASC -

Quote
Modernization of Army Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS): The Administration objects to section 1683, which would direct the Secretary of the Army to issue an acquisition strategy no later than April 15, 2018, for a 360-degree lower tier air and missile defense sensor that achieves initial operational capability by January 1, 2022, and completes fielding to all Army units by January 1, 2026. The requirements and timelines in this provision are not feasible. They would prevent the Army from developing LTAMDS integrally as part of its phased modernization approach for integrated air and missile defense based on Army and Joint Staff validated requirements. Additionally, the Administration opposes the provision’s direction to transfer the acquisition responsibility of the sensor to the Missile Defense Agency should the Army not issue the strategy in time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/12/hr-2810-national-defense-authorization-act-fiscal-year-2018

Based on the current Army plan they intend on taking about a decade to reach IOC for a new sensor. Not too shabby given that they started thinking of this problem in what the late 90s if not earlier?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 06:33:44 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #334 on: July 14, 2017, 07:35:52 pm »

Appendix II: The Lower Tier Air and Missile
Defense Analysis of Alternatives Guidance
Compared to GAO’s Best Practices for an Analysis of Alternatives Process
Defense Analysis of Alternatives Guidance Compared to GAO’s Best Practices for an Analysis of Alternatives Process


Quote
As part of our review of the Patriot system, we assessed the extent to which the Department of Defense’s (DOD) guidance for conducting its Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense (LTAMD) analysis of alternatives (AOA), which is evaluating material modernization solutions for the current Patriot radar and launcher for use with the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAM) Battle Command System (IBCS), meets GAO best practices and found that the guidance documents substantially met GAO standards to be considered reliable. We compared the processes outlined in the LTAMD AOA guidance documents to GAO best practices because the LTAMD AOA report was not available at the time of our review.
The LTAMD AOA guidance documents provide the AOA study team with a high-level roadmap for how to conduct the LTAMD AOA by outlining processes to identify and select the alternatives, metrics, models, and scenarios for use throughout the AOA process.

 While we cannot make conclusions about the final AOA report until it is finalized and released, by comparing the processes described in the LTAMD AOA guidance documents to the 22 GAO best practices, we can make conclusions on the quality of the processes used to develop it. If the processes are of high quality, then the AOA study team has a good roadmap, which, if followed, could produce a high-quality, reliable AOA. Based on our analysis, the LTAMD AOA process described in its guidance met or substantially met the criteria to be considered well-documented, comprehensive, unbiased, and credible.

While we found that the LTAMD AOA guidance documents met or substantially met 18 of the 22 best practices GAO established for the AOA process to be considered reliable, our review also found that contrary to GAO best practices, the final AOA report will not select a preferred solution. Specifically, the LTAMD AOA guidance did not instruct the study team to assign relative importance to the criteria that are used to compare the options or to select a preferred solution for a modernized radar and launcher as part of the final AOA report. According to CAPE officials involved in the LTAMD AOA efforts, the purpose of this AOA is to provide an analytic comparison of the options based on the criteria but to then allow external decisionmakers to determine the relative importance of each criterion and derive their own preferred solution. CAPE’s position is that GAO’s best practice of assigning relative importance to criteria is not appropriate for strategic investment decisions such as this. In contrast, GAO best practices recommend that solutions be compared based on pre-established criteria that reflect the relative importance of the criteria because not reflecting its relative importance up front can oversimply results and potentially mask important information leading to an uninformed decision. In addition, GAO best practices state that a preferred alternative should be identified and a rationale for that decision be included as part of an AOA report. While a recommended solution in the AOA report does not have to be binding, without one, decisionmakers outside of the AOA process may misinterpret the analysis within the AOA report and potentially come to a biased decision.

https://www.scribd.com/document/353806459/GAO-LTAMDS-2016
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #335 on: July 15, 2017, 10:08:48 am »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline JakobS

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #336 on: July 15, 2017, 04:52:47 pm »
Is MEADS competing?

No, only already fielded systems is being considered.

Interestingly, the White House lists as one of its objections to the House version of the bill,  the LTADMS language inserted by the HASC -

Quote
Modernization of Army Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS): The Administration objects to section 1683, which would direct the Secretary of the Army to issue an acquisition strategy no later than April 15, 2018, for a 360-degree lower tier air and missile defense sensor that achieves initial operational capability by January 1, 2022, and completes fielding to all Army units by January 1, 2026. The requirements and timelines in this provision are not feasible. They would prevent the Army from developing LTAMDS integrally as part of its phased modernization approach for integrated air and missile defense based on Army and Joint Staff validated requirements. Additionally, the Administration opposes the provision’s direction to transfer the acquisition responsibility of the sensor to the Missile Defense Agency should the Army not issue the strategy in time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/12/hr-2810-national-defense-authorization-act-fiscal-year-2018

Based on the current Army plan they intend on taking about a decade to reach IOC for a new sensor. Not too shabby given that they started thinking of this problem in what the late 90s if not earlier?

So we may be seeing a new radar a bit earlier than what they are aiming for currently? Personally I find i a bit silly that it will take such a long time to field a new radar for Patriot. Seems like it's already been discussed for 10 years..

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #337 on: July 15, 2017, 05:13:25 pm »
Quote
So we may be seeing a new radar a bit earlier than what they are aiming for currently?

Unlikely. The White House has cited this as an objection to the HASC bill and the US Army will fight it hard as well. I'd be surprised if this language eventually makes it up the chain. I don't think its a problem of the Army taking too long to decide or pick a path, but its a matter of making sure you can choose a road that is affordable. This is a major challenge and the Army does not seem to have the institutional support to reprogram funding to commit a higher sum. This is where the MDA could do better, they are generally better at putting forward a narrative and seeking higher funding levels for their activity. Plus their entire focus is Missile Defense so that helps as well imho.

Quote
Personally I find i a bit silly that it will take such a long time to field a new radar for Patriot.

The problem is that in the absence of adequate funding (either the budget or the authority to move money around to prioritize it) the Army will keep on studying it and go slowly towards a path. IBCS is now delayed by 4 years but it will still be a highly needed capability for the early 2020sbut the saving grace is that the PAC-3 MSE has IOC'd. What they need is exactly what they came up with for MEADS but that is not what they can afford ( A surveillance radar and a high frequency MFCR). So in the absence of more cash they will likely look to squeeze out an upgrade to the main radar even though a completely clean sheet sensor is the need of the hour given the looming hypersonic cruise missile threat.

IBCS should provide a fairly significant leap when it comes to interoperability but they need to move to a new radar and a new launcher but buying 80-100 radars is not within their budget if they look to go for the best capability they can field. Forget about fielding an equal or appropriate number of additional dedicated surveillance sensors like the MEADS LFS or even the USAF's 3DELRR.

MDA seems to have surplus cash sitting around  ::)..HASC just added close to half a billion to their budget for Israeli missile defense programs. Now if only LTADMS got this much love, we may actually have something concrete that we can afford. $500 Million could get you 10% of your projected LTADMS requirement or get you better capability.

Quote
No, only already fielded systems is being considered.

That is unfortunate. MEADS is quite mature and will be ordered this year. Its plug and fight capability would have worked nicely for a country like Sweden that has its own sensors that it could incorporate since it also uses the IRIS-T missile.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 05:39:05 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline JakobS

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #338 on: July 17, 2017, 03:01:52 am »
Unlikely. The White House has cited this as an objection to the HASC bill and the US Army will fight it hard as well. I'd be surprised if this language eventually makes it up the chain. I don't think its a problem of the Army taking too long to decide or pick a path, but its a matter of making sure you can choose a road that is affordable. This is a major challenge and the Army does not seem to have the institutional support to reprogram funding to commit a higher sum. This is where the MDA could do better, they are generally better at putting forward a narrative and seeking higher funding levels for their activity. Plus their entire focus is Missile Defense so that helps as well imho.

Ah, then I see.

That is unfortunate. MEADS is quite mature and will be ordered this year. Its plug and fight capability would have worked nicely for a country like Sweden that has its own sensors that it could incorporate since it also uses the IRIS-T missile.

MEADS is a really good concept, but it falls short with the lack of a long range interceptor. It's great for missile defense, but currently unable to project a large anti-acess bubble for fighter jets. That have a high priority here with closing of the Baltic Sea.

An upgraded PAC-2 with an active seeker and smaller, modern electronics that leaves room for more fuel would be an ideal low risk solution IMO, but since Raytheon is producing that missile....
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 03:04:06 am by JakobS »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #339 on: July 17, 2017, 07:53:01 am »
But the Aster-30 is a medium range SAM as well so I don't see a long range interceptor option unless Sweden goes for the Patriot and gets the PAC-2.  Is long range surface to air interception a part of their doctrine? Is this something they are actively seeking? If so, they'll have to essentially ask for a new interceptor as short of the Patriot with its TVM based PAC-2 you aren't going to get something that has 150+ km capability and is operational.

Quote
An upgraded PAC-2 with an active seeker and smaller, modern electronics that leaves room for more fuel would be an ideal low risk solution IMO, but since Raytheon is producing that missile....

I can see that work for a Patriot user but if you are looking at a new missile, may as well look to create a PAC-3 PAC-3 MSE derivative where you can still pack 6-8 large diameter missiles within the same launcher.

Quote
MEADS is a really good concept, but it falls short with the lack of a long range interceptor.

As things currently stands, SAMP/T does not yet field an AESA. They may move to a larger S band AESA but that is still being discussed and is not an active program of record. MEADS has 2 sets on offer that gone through flight testing and are ready to order. Patriot too will be fielding an AESA by the early 2020s and with the Polish contract likely to be firmed by the end of 2018 (for the remaining 6 batteries) this will be firm as well. So if you look at things there are certain advantages to going for either MEADS or Patriot when it comes to sensors and networking particularly the plug and fight nature of MEADS and IBCS which is of particular importance since the German MEADS configuration would as part of the package integrate IRIS-T which the Swedes use anyway. 
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 04:10:19 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline JakobS

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #340 on: July 23, 2017, 07:16:14 am »
But the Aster-30 is a medium range SAM as well so I don't see a long range interceptor option unless Sweden goes for the Patriot and gets the PAC-2.

It's correct that SAMP/T is a medium range system, but depending on the target the range is still 3-4 times as large as MEADS.

Is long range surface to air interception a part of their doctrine? Is this something they are actively seeking? If so, they'll have to essentially ask for a new interceptor as short of the Patriot with its TVM based PAC-2 you aren't going to get something that has 150+ km capability and is operational.

It's an important part of the new system. I would actually dare to say that it is more important than the anti-ballistic capability, that is not much talked about at all.

The most important thing for the Swedish military, in case of a conflict, is to hold onto the island of Gotland in the middle of the baltic. With 6 system of SAMP/T (assuming 2 systems operating together on the same location) the whole cost of southern Sweden can be closed of. With Patriot that capability would be even greater. That's just something the current MEADS can't do.

When talking about SAM-system range isn't everything, and there is a lot more variables that affect how it works. Range is however one of the more important factor of the system.



I can see that work for a Patriot user but if you are looking at a new missile, may as well look to create a PAC-3 PAC-3 MSE derivative where you can still pack 6-8 large diameter missiles within the same launcher.

A PAC-3 derivative would however be more expensive. The diameter would probably be increased enough that a new launcher would be required just as with the PAC-2. If the wings on the PAC-2 were changed to be foldable a vertical launcher with 8 missiles would be possible just in the same way.

As things currently stands, SAMP/T does not yet field an AESA. They may move to a larger S band AESA but that is still being discussed and is not an active program of record.

Hard to say about that, Singapore specified that they did not care for the Arabel radar and wanted the Ground Master 200 which is an AESA. Hard to say if their SAMP/T's are operational yet or not as the country is very secretive about such things, but they have had the radars for a few years:



If SAMP/T is chosen for us SAAB would supply the main radar, more specifically the GaN-based Giraffe 4A that Sweden have already ordered a few examples of:



And the already fielded Giraffe AMB for close-in defense above the trees:


If Patriot is chosen swedish sensors would be integrated further down the road when IBCS is ready. Probably not as main sensor though.

One of the things against the Patriot is that the army fear they will have to pay deeply for the future upgrades with IBCS and the new main sensor. Waiting for the new sensor is not an alternative, but sitting on ~8 of the current sensor of no use in 10 years time, when the new radars have been bought, is also not a very good option.

However, a strong thing talking for Patriot is that it is american. If we here in Sweden get into a real conflict with russia we sure as hell is not going to call on France to save us. It will be America all the way.

The biggest defense exercise here in Sweden since the cold war will take place this fall. All of the sudden France is very willing to participate with the SAMP/T system. America will also participate with the *surprise* Patriot system. However America have always participated in or exercise drills for the last two decades, unlike France who just want to sell it's system.

So if you look at things there are certain advantages to going for either MEADS or Patriot when it comes to sensors and networking particularly the plug and fight nature of MEADS and IBCS which is of particular importance since the German MEADS configuration would as part of the package integrate IRIS-T which the Swedes use anyway.

Personally I favor the Patriot system. If the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (who handles all acquisitions to the defense forces) is free to go by the requirements and by the systems characteristics the SAMP/T will win. However it seems lately that the politicians have stepped in (as the purchase is of such a big nature, second only to JAS Gripen in cost) and that talks for the Patriot.

We will have to wait and see which one is picked.

Under current plans a system will have to be picked ASAP, as the plan is to have the first units in place for 2020. However there is no rush to pick a system IMO. There is absolutely no money for it under the current budget and there is no signs that enough money will be contributed by the politicians.

The army even specifically specified in this years budget basis that the acquisition will have to be pushed down the road unless more funds is made available. And we are talking big funds, not peanuts (around 1 billion USD for 2019-2020, which is a lot if your yearly budget is only around ~6 billion USD).

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #341 on: July 23, 2017, 10:17:56 am »
Quote
It's correct that SAMP/T is a medium range system, but depending on the target the range is still 3-4 times as large as MEADS.

I don't know how you are deriving at that conclusion. Could you show me exactly which specific missions enable SAMP/T to put up to 4 times the envelope of MEADS?

Quote
It's an important part of the new system. I would actually dare to say that it is more important than the anti-ballistic capability, that is not much talked about at all.

So if that is the case both MEADS and SAMP/T wouldn't even be able to compete since they both offer medium range capability.

Quote
With 6 system of SAMP/T (assuming 2 systems operating together on the same location) the whole cost of southern Sweden can be closed of

Closed off to what threat?

Quote
When talking about SAM-system range isn't everything, and there is a lot more variables that affect how it works. Range is however one of the more important factor of the system.

Right and could you share with me the SAM envelope of MEADS with the MSE against a Mach 0.8 target flying at 25,000 ft? The same for other systems.

Quote
A PAC-3 derivative would however be more expensive. The diameter would probably be increased enough that a new launcher would be required just as with the PAC-2. If the wings on the PAC-2 were changed to be foldable a vertical launcher with 8 missiles would be possible just in the same way.

8 PAC-2s into the existing Patriot launcher? Are you serious?

Quote
Hard to say if their SAMP/T's are operational yet or not as the country is very secretive about such things, but they have had the radars for a few years:

Could you show me a full envelope developmental and operational test program of the missile, command and control and this radar?

Quote
If SAMP/T is chosen for us SAAB would supply the main radar, more specifically the GaN-based Giraffe 4A that Sweden have already ordered a few examples of:

So it will be a developmental project and not an operational system since no such configuration exists, has been developed or has been tested. They cannot legally imho prohibit MEADS which is a tested system ready for production, and then turn around and seek a developmental, non-tested SAMP/T system. Or Patriot for that matter unless they take a few years to move and Raytheon can demonstrate actual intercepts with their AESAs or offer some sort of buy back program.

Quote
One of the things against the Patriot is that the army fear they will have to pay deeply for the future upgrades with IBCS and the new main sensor. Waiting for the new sensor is not an alternative, but sitting on ~8 of the current sensor of no use in 10 years time, when the new radars have been bought, is also not a very good option.

IBCS would make it cheaper and not more expensive. It is an open architecture and then entire premise behind it is to make upgrades and cross-system interoperability easier. Given a SAMP/T developmental project that involves integrating and testing a non-native radar into the system there is no advantage that such a system offers over a Patriot AESA that by 2018 would be on order for delivery in the early 2020s around the same time IBCS is operationalized with the US and Poland. MEADS will probably still deliver in the early to mid 2020s and there is no way a custom SAMP/T variant can be created with new radar integrated, fully tested etc before then. So we are essentially talking about similar timelines for all three systems. MEADS probably suits Sweden the most, given that IRIS-T would already be integrated allowing them to add a third indigenous AESA into the family.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #342 on: July 26, 2017, 03:13:27 pm »
Marines at MCAS Cherry Point Demonstrate the Future of Air Command and Control Operations





Interestingly, in terms of T/R Module count the TPS-80 is almost half the size of the EASR yet it was once considered as a contender iirc.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 03:54:20 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #343 on: August 01, 2017, 06:54:13 am »
LTAMDS Timeline from the FY18 Budget Request. Also, they want to have three contractors in the early stage. Interesting to see what solution Northrop Grumman presents.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1364
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #344 on: August 02, 2017, 02:40:04 am »
LTAMDS and 3DELRR program timeline that I've managed to put together based on the FY17 and 18 budget documents. This could possibly change next year but as far as I know this is where things stand at the moment.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 03:01:01 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown