PAC-3 MSE

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
3 June 2011
Messages
17,232
Reaction score
8,819
Pics (finally) from one of the PAC-3 MSE tests. The MSE has a bigger, dual-pulse motor, and different control surfaces. The 2nd pulse burn can be seen in the 2nd picture.

Links dead - Admin]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A PAC-3 MSE test at White Sands. The target missile was launched from Ft Wingate near the Arizona border and about 200 miles away and due west of Albuquerque. This makes for an interesting flight path crossing through a good chunk of New Mexico air space (or maybe just "space").

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFnC-6NipxM
 
Not an uncommon launch site. Here's one with a pair of PAC-2s shooting down a Juno over the same trajectory:

Links dead - Admin]

If you search Youtube for "missile wingate" there are a lot of shots of residents shooting footage at dusk of the target vehicle contrails.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fredymac said:
A PAC-3 MSE test at White Sands. The target missile was launched from Ft Wingate near the Arizona border and about 200 miles away and due west of Albuquerque. This makes for an interesting flight path crossing through a good chunk of New Mexico air space (or maybe just "space").

Was looking at this a little closer and is that white area insulation? (See below.) If that's the case, given that you don't see that on ESSM, SM-2/6, PAC-2, S-300, etc. that thing must really move.
 

Attachments

  • PAC-3 MSE.jpg
    PAC-3 MSE.jpg
    81.1 KB · Views: 328
http://aviationweek.com/defense/lockheeds-annual-pac-3-order-grows-145-billion
 
I remember I once, years ago, managed to stumble onto some NATO issued pdf where PAC-3 (non MSE) range against aerodynamic targets was stated. And my memory has it as something like 60 or 70 kilometers. But I can not find any similar documents anymore.

Does anyone have any similar document or a credible source stating PAC-3 (MSE or non MSE, doesn't matter) range against aircraft?
 
I remember I once, years ago, managed to stumble onto some NATO issued pdf where PAC-3 (non MSE) range against aerodynamic targets was stated. And my memory has it as something like 60 or 70 kilometers. But I can not find any similar documents anymore.

Does anyone have any similar document or a credible source stating PAC-3 (MSE or non MSE, doesn't matter) range against aircraft?

I've read it described as "in excess of 50 km" for the baseline PAC-3. Don't remember where. That said, given that the MSE is now the production standard I seriously doubt that the weapon would be the first choice against aircraft. Cheaper PAC-2 interceptors are probably the more optimized interceptor for those targets with the $5 Million MSE reserved for more stressing Ballistic Missiles which is the primary target they were/are designed to defeat. I've always wondered if they'll look to upgrade those PAC-2 rounds given that they offer quite an affordable option for AAW given that LTFI is also going to be optimized for the TBM and possibly hypersonic threat which would make it even more expensive than the MSE.
 
Last year, in response to a request from the U.S. Government, Lockheed Martin accelerated efforts to produce more of the world’s most advanced air defense missile than ever before and recently completed production of its 1000th PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptor.

“We continue to see strong demand for PAC-3 MSE around the world and are committed to producing as efficiently as we can to ensure our customers have our unique missile defense technology to deter even the most advanced threats,” said Brenda Davidson, vice president of PAC-3 Programs.

Lockheed Martin has steadily increased production numbers of PAC-3 MSE since achieving a full rate production decision in 2018 and is expecting to increase to annual production of 500 PAC-3 MSEs by 2024. The increased capacity will be supported in part by an 85,000-square-foot building expansion at the Camden, Arkansas, facility, expected to begin production operations in the second quarter of 2022.

An evolution of the battle-proven PAC-3 CRI, the PAC-3 MSE boasts a dual-pulse solid rocket motor, providing increased performance in altitude and range to defend against incoming threats, including tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft.

 
Last edited:

NASAMS.

 
NASAMS.

NASAMS 1 or 2?

From your link:

Ukrainian officials have asked for the missile defense system, known as a NASAMS system, given the weapons can hit targets more than 100 miles away, though the Ukrainian forces will likely need to be trained on the systems, a source said. The NASMAS system the same one that protects Washington, DC, and the area around the nation's capital.

That does not compute.
 
Next question: will these new AAA systems be delivered soon enough to affect the outcome of current fighting in Ukraine?
 
What will these do that Ukraine's S-300s can't?
 
What will these do that Ukraine's S-300s can't?

Be resupplied from the West for starters.
Have they used or lost all of their S-300s?

They have lost a lot (~12 launchers at least) and expended tons of missiles. Not for nothing the UA gov has been asking for Patriot and other medium/long-range SAMs for a long time. There have been schemes to give them S-300 or S-400 from current operators but only a bit of that has happened. So yeah, the odds are their S-300 stocks are pretty low.

Also, NASAMS isn't really an S-300 replacement. More like Buk (SA-6), which Ukraine also operates and has used a ton of.
 
Lockheed Martin, Grand Prairie, Texas, was awarded a $2,451,432,304 modification (P00084) to contract W31P4Q-20-C-0023 for Phased Array Tracking Radar Intercept on Target (PATRIOT) Advanced Capability-3 missile production. Work will be performed in Grand Prairie, Texas, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2029. Fiscal 2023 missile procurement, Army funds; and 2023 Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $2,451,432,304 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.

 
So what does PAC-3 MSE do better than SM-3? Cost less?
SM-3 is exoatmospheric only, and the current 1B is a big, expensive missile. SM-6 has some terminal anti-ballistic capability in the atmosphere, but it doesn't have MSE's terminal maneuverability and is more focused on long range engagement. Lockheed seems to be pitching Naval MSE as both a terminal BMD solution and potejtially as useful for some hypersonic threats. We know LM was eliminated from the MDA's Glide Phase Interceptor program, so at least some of this is probably their attempt to undermine support for GPI with an "off the shelf" solution.
 
SM-3 is exoatmospheric only, and the current 1B is a big, expensive missile. SM-6 has some terminal anti-ballistic capability in the atmosphere, but it doesn't have MSE's terminal maneuverability and is more focused on long range engagement. Lockheed seems to be pitching Naval MSE as both a terminal BMD solution and potejtially as useful for some hypersonic threats. We know LM was eliminated from the MDA's Glide Phase Interceptor program, so at least some of this is probably their attempt to undermine support for GPI with an "off the shelf" solution.

GPI is intended to be a long range weapon for mid course interception while MSE would be a terminal/point defense layer against ballistic or hypersonic targets. That said, using MSE does give them a slice of the pie.
 
Does PAC 3 MSE need a booster? And If it would have one Like SM-6s how would it Impact its Performance on the positive Side?
 
It would probably at least need the little ejector booster used to lift and orient SM-2 from a vertical cell. Probably no more than that, for terminal point defense.
 
It would probably at least need the little ejector booster used to lift and orient SM-2 from a vertical cell. Probably no more than that, for terminal point defense.

I'm not sure it even needs that. The motor on MSE is sophisticated and already has a boost phase and two-pulse sustain built into it. The MEADS launcher was just off vertical and demonstrated an over-the-shoulder launch with an MSE missile flying out "behind" the launcher. If MSE can do that, it can easily get up and out of a Mk 41 cell and turn itself over onto the target using the attitude control thrusters without needing a separate booster can of any sort.

And one of LM's selling points for Naval PAC-3 MSE is that it could come off the same assembly line as the Army rounds with no differences in the missile itself (now that they've added S-band datalink to the baseline MSE). Adding a booster negates that, because the tail of the Navy missile has to be different to attach the booster, the wiring harness has to be different to talk to the booster, etc.

1696017144133.png
 
Remember reading that they estimated approx one third of the ESSM rocket motors propellant expended on launch and orientating missile in direction of the target from a Mk41 VLS cell, would this apply to Patriot MSE and if so how much would a ejector booster extend Patriot's range.
 
Remember reading that they estimated approx one third of the ESSM rocket motors propellant expended on launch and orientating missile in direction of the target from a Mk41 VLS cell, would this apply to Patriot MSE and if so how much would a ejector booster extend Patriot's range.

I'd question that figure. ESSM uses a quite short booster can, probably less than a tenth of the length of the main motor, to eject and point the VLS missile at launch.
 
The first part of a launch is at relatively low speed, so based on KE (0.5mv^2) the energy/propellant used should be small.
 
I'd question that figure. ESSM uses a quite short booster can, probably less than a tenth of the length of the main motor, to eject and point the VLS missile at launch.

Perhaps an eject and orientation booster based on the VL-ASROC's Mk-114 booster?
 
Perhaps an eject and orientation booster based on the VL-ASROC's Mk-114 booster?

The Mk 114 is quite long. Not sure it fits under a 17-ft PAC-3 MSE in a Mk 41 canister.

And to what end are we doing this? MSE has the -- combat demonstrated -- range and performance for terminal defense against hypersonic missiles and TBMs. For longer-range TBMD engagements, the Navy already has SM-6 (and even SM-3).
 
The Mk 114 is quite long.

How long is the Mk-114? The only measurement I know for sure about it is its diameter (14.1").

Not sure it fits under a 17-ft PAC-3 MSE in a Mk 41 canister.

I checked the Mk-41 wikipedia article and:

The height (determining missile length) of the launcher comes in three sizes: 209 inches (5.3 m) for the self-defense version, 266 in (6.8 m) for the tactical version, and 303 inches (7.7 m) for the strike version.

I don't know about the 209" tactical canister but the 303" strike version should be able to fit a PAC3 with with an attached Mk-114 booster or a booster based on it.
 
How long is the Mk-114? The only measurement I know for sure about it is its diameter (14.1").



I checked the Mk-41 wikipedia article and:



I don't know about the 209" tactical canister but the 303" strike version should be able to fit a PAC3 with with an attached Mk-114 booster or a booster based on it.

Even if it is physically possible, it still circles back to "why?" MSE does the job for which it was intended quite well. The Navy already has a missile to fill the longer-range TBMD roles. What is gained by cobbling together MSE with an oversized booster?
 
it still circles back to "why?" MSE does the job for which it was intended quite well.

I suppose it would be done if one were looking at an extended range variant of the PAC-3

What is gained by cobbling together MSE with an oversized booster?

It's an interesting question about why, I suppose it would be done for a hypothetical PAC-3 ER. As for an oversized booster, well, there is the Mk-135 (Used to launch the current Tomahawk variant) and although it has less thrust (6,000Lb vs 11,000Lb) it has a longer burn time (12s vs 5s) and it is more compact (600Lb vs ~900Lb for the Mk-114) as it's only 24.5" long.

Whether or not a boosted PAC-3 would ever be considered is debatable, I suppose it would be done if a need for it was seen.
 
I suppose it would be done if one were looking at an extended range variant of the PAC-3



It's an interesting question about why, I suppose it would be done for a hypothetical PAC-3 ER. As for an oversized booster, well, there is the Mk-135 (Used to launch the current Tomahawk variant) and although it has less thrust (6,000Lb vs 11,000Lb) it has a longer burn time (12s vs 5s) and it is more compact (600Lb vs ~900Lb for the Mk-114) as it's only 24.5" long.

Whether or not a boosted PAC-3 would ever be considered is debatable, I suppose it would be done if a need for it was seen.
Army might want an MSE-ER, Navy has SM2s and SM6s.
 
As for an oversized booster, well, there is the Mk-135 (Used to launch the current Tomahawk variant) and although it has less thrust (6,000Lb vs 11,000Lb) it has a longer burn time (12s vs 5s) and it is more compact (600Lb vs ~900Lb for the Mk-114) as it's only 24.5" long.

Lower thrust and longer burn time being exactly what one looks for in a *checks notes* terminal defense weapon engaging high-velocity targets.

No, wait, I think I'm wrong. I think that's exactly what one doesn't want.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom