Register here

Author Topic: Patriot SAM replacement  (Read 76224 times)

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1414
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #420 on: November 14, 2017, 06:42:06 am »
US Army progresses IBCS testing



Quote
The US Army has completed another stage in the testing of the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) being developed by Northrop Grumman. The test, known as a soldier checkout event (SCOE), took place at Tobin Wells in Fort Bliss, Texas, during a three-week period in August and involved soldiers from Fort Bliss and Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

IBCS is an IAMD command and control (C2) capability. It will integrate current and future air and missile defence systems in an open architecture, enabling users to employ a range of sensors and weapons. It uses common software and creates standard interfaces, providing expanded sensor and weapon system combinations through an integrated fire-control network. It will replace seven legacy C2 systems.

The SCOE used IBCS as the common C2 system across battalion and battery-level operations using Sentinel and Patriot radars and Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-2, PAC-3, and PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors to fight 26 simulated air battles against hundreds of tactical ballistic missile threats. It concluded with a 72-hour endurance run of the system that included 18 additional air battles.

A Limited User Test (LUT) in April 2016 had identified a number of shortcomings in the system software. Speaking at the 2017 Association of the US Army annual convention in Washington in October, Dan Verwiel, vice-president and general manager, missile defense and protective systems, Northrop Grumman told Jane’s that “those [LUT] results were not unexpected to us and the intention was to identify the problems. The focus in the last year has been to rectify them and we’ve made really good progress”.

He said the SCOE met all the requirements of today, such as the 72-hour endurance run, but there will be more demanding requirements to achieve initial operating capability (IOC), which is timetabled for 2022
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 06:51:11 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #421 on: November 14, 2017, 09:26:13 am »
Please resize those images.

I second the request, far too big to be of use and they do not need to be that big.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7582
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1414
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #423 on: November 15, 2017, 10:15:21 am »
Dubai Airshow 2017: Raytheon to offer SM-6 for Patriot to replace MSE interceptor
Jon Grevatt, Jane's Defense Industry


Quote
Raytheon plans to integrate its RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), better known as the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), into the latest iteration of its Patriot medium-range air and missile defence system. The concept is to offer a new option for a high-end interceptor for the Patriot system that would be a substitute for the missile currently installed to neutralise exoatmospheric threats: the Lockheed Martin Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) hit-to-kill interceptor.

Speaking at the Dubai Air Show on 12 November, Bruce D Brown, Raytheon’s senior manager for Air and Missile Defense Systems (AMDS) business development, explained that the existing investment and experience in the “combination of the PAC [system architecture] and TPY-2 [ballistic missile defence radar] are a great basis for the system. Then you add the US Navy investment in SM-6 and the MDA [Missile Defense Agency] investment in the SM-3, and then you can insert those competencies into a land-based system. Thus, the integration of SM-6 into the [system] provides a more capable missile in comparison with MSE.

“It is extremely fast and manoeuvrable,” he added. “The integration is made possible by our having invested into a digital datalink that converts S- and C-band seekers to be able to communicate with an X-band radar.

“The added benefit of the SM-6 is that it creates multi-mission capacity in the [Patriot] because it has a secondary anti-surface mission capability that MSE does not,” said Brown. “This answers the demands from our customers to have the ability to employ [the system] in multi-domain battle scenarios. Above all, the SM-6 price point is cost-effective and competitive with MSE due to the economies of scale created by the number of units we produce.”
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9711
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #424 on: November 15, 2017, 10:45:46 am »
That makes no sense.  12 MSEs on one mobile launcher vs needing to build an entire Aegis Ashore facility for SM-6.  PAC-3 MSE almost certainly has better point defense capability, and is likely cheaper as well.  If you're trying to defend the entire country, sure, SM-6.  But that would be in ADDITION to PAC-3 MSE, not instead of it.  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1692
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #425 on: November 15, 2017, 11:35:56 am »
It's an extremely garbled account for one particularly on the datalink/seeker bands.

From the FBO posting above and the slide (my highlights), MDA and the Army are looking at a
lower-tier interceptor and better THAAD/Patriot integration.  But there's also the THAAD-ER
effort. I get the impression that Raytheon is trying to preempt both.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9711
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #426 on: November 15, 2017, 12:02:16 pm »
It's an extremely garbled account for one particularly on the datalink/seeker bands.

From the FBO posting above and the slide (my highlights), MDA and the Army are looking at a
lower-tier interceptor and better THAAD/Patriot integration.  But there's also the THAAD-ER
effort. I get the impression that Raytheon is trying to preempt both.

Raytheon would need both SM-6 and SM-3 to fully replace THAAD.  (Presuming SM-6 is as good as THAAD in endoatmospheric shots, not something I'd bank on.) And wouldn't "lower tier" be PAC-3 MSE? 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 12:05:24 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1414
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #427 on: November 15, 2017, 12:08:41 pm »
SM6 on SBT mission cannot cover the IRBM envelope like the THAAD (non ER) can and although it may be cost competitive with the PAC-3, 16/12 PAC-3/MSE/ can be carried on each launcher. Not sure how much greater the SM6 engagement range is against a TBM threat compared to the MSE but it may have advantage there.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 12:10:48 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9711
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #428 on: November 15, 2017, 12:14:13 pm »
Not sure how much greater the SM6 engagement range is against a TBM threat compared to the MSE but it may have advantage there.

It might have more range than MSE but AFAIK it hasn't been tested against maneuvering RVs.  PAC-3 was able to shoot down maneuvering Pershing II RVs (and that was back in 2000 with the original PAC-3). 

« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 12:16:04 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #429 on: November 15, 2017, 12:38:57 pm »
Raytheon attempted to sell just the upgrade to the Patriot radar which the Army nixed in favor of a competition for a 360 deg. sensor.  Just another marketing attempt to fit the Army's needs with their product line.  Think the Army will pass on this as well.  What I can't figure out is why would you want to put PAC-3MSE's on a THAAD launcher?  The Patriot launcher trailer and HEMTT tractor isn't good enough?  Needless cost for new integration IMO.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1692
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #430 on: November 15, 2017, 01:20:33 pm »
What I can't figure out is why would you want to put PAC-3MSE's on a THAAD launcher? 

Better mobility and quicker reloadability?

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1692
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #431 on: November 15, 2017, 01:46:48 pm »
Raytheon would need both SM-6 and SM-3 to fully replace THAAD.  (Presuming SM-6 is as good as THAAD in endoatmospheric shots, not something I'd bank on.) And wouldn't "lower tier" be PAC-3 MSE?

MDA's view on "lower tier" seems to include SM-6.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9711
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #432 on: November 15, 2017, 02:31:06 pm »
I don't doubt that as it's also a SAM.  What I question is it's effectiveness compared to PAC-3 MSE against the most difficult targets.  (Also you need a whole building to deploy it instead of a truck.  ;) )
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9711
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #433 on: November 15, 2017, 02:33:44 pm »
What I can't figure out is why would you want to put PAC-3MSE's on a THAAD launcher? 

So you don't have to co-locate an entire Patriot battery with THAAD for a dozen or two PAC-3 MSEs. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: Patriot SAM replacement
« Reply #434 on: November 15, 2017, 03:15:02 pm »
Just thought that all you would need to do is order the launchers and the HEMT's tractors and attach them to the THAAD battery.  Doubt if the missile cares what automotive components got it to the launch point.  Do you see them cutting the number of THAAD's in a battery in favor of carrying PAC-3MSE's?  As it stands now each battery has 6 launchers with 8 THAAD's for 48.  Would they go to 4 X 8 for 32 THAAD's and 2 X 12 for 24 PAC-3MSE's or would they add launchers?