THAAD Development

spikedpsycho said:
RAND and MIT both question legitimate representations SM-3
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://web.mit.eduPDF
A Technically Detailed Description of Flaws in the SM-3 and GMD ...
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that you didn’t link properly, and that this is the THAAD thread not the SM-3 thread, what relevance does a sixteen year old essay have given the actual combat interceptions made by SM-3 of Iranian MRBMs and possibly an IRBM (a potential intercept against an attack on Diego Garcia having been made since my last post)?
 
https://www.state.gov/united-arab-e...minal-high-altitude-area-defense-integration/

The Government of the United Arab Emirates has requested to buy one (1) long-range discrimination radar integrated with Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD); twelve (12) Sentinel A4 uplinkers; two (2) THAAD C3 Fire Control and Communications (TFCC) tactical operations stations; and two (2) THAAD C3 TFCC launch and control stations. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included: array faces; subarray suites; active elements; synthesizer cabinets; local oscillator distribution cabinets; environmental control unit cabinets; power conversion cabinets; energy storage cabinets; radar processor group cabinets; mission processor group cabinets; display consoles; auxiliary cooling group 500-ton chillers; five years of sustainment support; construction; training; publications and technical data; encryptors; communications and communications security equipment; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; spares; training devices; and other related elements of logistics and program support.
Click to expand...

New configuration for THAAD battery:

Fixed site LRDR as the primary radar, with Sentinel A4 as uplinkers for the missile.

Procured along with the original THAAD C3 TFCC so unlikely to be based on IBCS.

No mention of additional launchers and missiles so I assume UAE will just use them with their existing batteries.
 
EmoBirb said:
That's the wrong equation. It took 1 drone to destroy 1 radar. That's like 10-20K at most exchanged for several billions. How many ballistic missiles went for it (presumably none) and how many were intercepted by that specific battery is not known and nobody credible pretends otherwise. If you believe that Iran launched 1000 missiles at a single THAAD battery, I think you should consider to broaden the amount of sources you follow.

But that the cost factor favors ballistic missiles and drones over destroyed billion dollar installations across the region and several hundred expended interceptor missiles, that is the simple logic behind such exchanges.

But that's besides the point. There is no concrete information about THAAD performance as of now. So this kind of discussion is ultimately futile. The only thing based on empiric evidence we can conclude is that THAAD, like various other SAM systems is susceptible to drones.
Click to expand...
THAAD interceptors are not used against ABT.
 
Rosdivan said:
Aside from the fact that you didn’t link properly, and that this is the THAAD thread not the SM-3 thread, what relevance does a sixteen year old essay have given the actual combat interceptions made by SM-3 of Iranian MRBMs and possibly an IRBM (a potential intercept against an attack on Diego Garcia having been made since my last post)?
Click to expand...
Was it written by Postol? He's the one who both said missile defense was a complete joke but that setting up a missile defense site in Europe would be so destabilizing it would guarantee WW3 because it would defeat a Russian first strike.
 
Sferrin said:
Was it written by Postol? He's the one who both said missile defense was a complete joke but that setting up a missile defense site in Europe would be so destabilizing it would guarantee WW3 because it would defeat a Russian first strike.
Click to expand...
Lol
 
Sferrin said:
Was it written by Postol?
Click to expand...

What is up with him and his odd biases? I remember reading something like 20 years ago an article to do with ABM research where he made some claims concerning the test set up of an ABM test which struck me as mendacious.
 
Postol is more than a bit of a nut. He has some valid points regarding real weaknesses (past and present) in certain US systems, but he constantly exaggerates things massively out of proportion, and baselessly assumes that zero improvement is possible over time, while dismissing many major real practical solutions to the issues he raises for unclear reasons (which are rarely sound or well-reasoned).

Many of his arguments hinge on results from 30+ year old tests of initial prototype systems, and frequently assume that a virtually infinite number of unrealistically perfect decoys can be packed into tightly space and throw weight limited missile platforms.

His arguments that IR-only seekers are incapable of reliable decoy discrimination against certain forms of decoys are shaky but have some legitimate foundations. However he avoids addressing the issue of X band radar. A LRDR-style site employing X band radar can eliminate upwards of 90% of the "issues" he brings up with decoy discrimination.

I do agree that with sub-X band radar solutions, it's probably impossible to reliably discriminate all forms of decoys, and that he has some very valid critiques there.

It is also quite amusing that he constantly nitpicks the oddest minor details in many tests, even when these nitpicks are irrelevant or no longer present in newer tests. He also seems incapable of nuance, and believes developmental tests should jump straight from prototype to max-difficulty intercept simulations, which is hilariously unrealistic.
 
JTR said:
Postol is more than a bit of a nut. He has some valid points regarding real weaknesses (past and present) in certain US systems, but he constantly exaggerates things massively out of proportion, and baselessly assumes that zero improvement is possible over time, while dismissing many major real practical solutions to the issues he raises for unclear reasons (which are rarely sound or well-reasoned).

Many of his arguments hinge on results from 30+ year old tests of initial prototype systems, and frequently assume that a virtually infinite number of unrealistically perfect decoys can be packed into tightly space and throw weight limited missile platforms.

His arguments that IR-only seekers are incapable of reliable decoy discrimination against certain forms of decoys are shaky but have some legitimate foundations. However he avoids addressing the issue of X band radar. A LRDR-style site employing X band radar can eliminate upwards of 90% of the "issues" he brings up with decoy discrimination.

I do agree that with sub-X band radar solutions, it's probably impossible to reliably discriminate all forms of decoys, and that he has some very valid critiques there.

It is also quite amusing that he constantly nitpicks the oddest minor details in many tests, even when these nitpicks are irrelevant or no longer present in newer tests. He also seems incapable of nuance, and believes developmental tests should jump straight from prototype to max-difficulty intercept simulations, which is hilariously unrealistic.
Click to expand...
That reminds me a lot of James G. Burton, im guessing he is part of that same crowd.
 
What I know about Postol is he likes making allegations that he knows are false, but require divulging classified information to refute them. Supposedly, he's done this so much, people in the think tanks along the Washington Beltway nicknamed it as 'going Postol'.
 

Lockheed launches new Alabama missile facility to support DOD munitions surge​

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...-missile-facility-support-dod-munitions-surge
Lockheed Martin today broke ground on a new missile production facility in Alabama that the company says will support expanded manufacturing of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors as the Pentagon and industry push to rapidly increase munitions output. The new 87,000-square-foot “Building 47” facility in Troy, AL will support the quadrupled production of THAAD interceptors and future work tied to the Next Generation Interceptor program
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2057735385271124264
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/2057735385271124264?s=20
 
Last edited:
Hull down said:
@EmoBirb, out of curiosity what makes you laugh at this? Do you have reason to doubt the numbers? Just curious
Click to expand...
I don't laugh at the numbers, which admittedly seem more than optimistic but that's besides the point.

I'm more amused by the "AI" buzzword being thrown around in the tweet underneath. AI this, AI that and shareholders gobble it up. I found that amusing yes, is your curiosity now satisfied?
 
EmoBirb said:
I don't laugh at the numbers, which admittedly seem more than optimistic but that's besides the point.

I'm more amused by the "AI" buzzword being thrown around in the tweet underneath. AI this, AI that and shareholders gobble it up. I found that amusing yes, is your curiosity now satisfied?
Click to expand...
Buzzword or not, developing and implementing AI driven solutions to increase overall production isn't cheap. It requires substantial investment from both the company and the government.

I've worked in defense for almost 15 years, the last 4 on the THAAD Interceptor. If we're going to achieve the rates the US Army wants, we need dedicated AI driven solutions. I don't think you grasp just how difficult these things are to produce, from winding the canister to delivery of an AUR.
 
missile_man said:
Buzzword or not, developing and implementing AI driven solutions to increase overall production isn't cheap. It requires substantial investment from both the company and the government.

I've worked in defense for almost 15 years, the last 4 on the THAAD Interceptor. If we're going to achieve the rates the US Army wants, we need dedicated AI driven solutions. I don't think you grasp just how difficult these things are to produce, from winding the canister to delivery of an AUR.
Click to expand...
Problem is how do you get A.I. (Claude for example) into an ITAR program? I can think of stuff I'd love to turn a team of agents loose on but I wouldn't even know where to start to get that kind of approval, given the glacial pace even ordinary stuff takes to get implemented.
 
Sferrin said:
Problem is how do you get A.I. (Claude for example) into an ITAR program? I can think of stuff I'd love to turn a team of agents loose on but I wouldn't even know where to start to get that kind of approval, given the glacial pace even ordinary stuff takes to get implemented.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong, but simply outside my scope, but I can relate to some degree.

Right now, LM Aeronautics (F-35), LM Missiles &Fire Control (PAC-3/THAAD/HIMARS, etc) LM Space and LM Rotary and Mission Systems all have their own ERP. We can't see each others.. that's changing.

Lockheed Martin’s 1LMX (OneLM Transformation) is a massive digital modernization program that shifts our end-to-end business operations to a centralized SAP S/4 HANA cloud architecture.

At MFC, we were the first to transition in January. It wasn't a very smooth transition. I can't imagine how something this massive is tackled.
 
missile_man said:
Lockheed Martin’s 1LMX (OneLM Transformation) is a massive digital modernization program that shifts our end-to-end business operations to a centralized SAP S/4 HANA cloud architecture.

At MFC, we were the first to transition in January. It wasn't a very smooth transition. I can't imagine how something this massive is tackled.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there's ever an actually-smooth transition. There's always learning curves on the new stuff, always some weird thing that got missed when scoping the project and is way more critical than the people writing the scope thought it was...
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure there's ever an actually-smooth transition. There's always learning curves on the new stuff, always some weird thing that got missed when scoping the project and is way more critical than the people writing the scope thought it was...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but some of the issues were just frustrating and embarrassing because they impacted a valued vendor. Yes, it was due to the overall lack of execution of the strategy team, but it still could have been caught on my side and avoided. Hindsight really is 20/20, but I simply hate avoidable mistakes.

It's not unusual to receive letters from sailors, soldiers and airmen praising the effectiveness of our products. But, on occasion they come with a specific anecdote describing an Interceptor taking out a ballistic missile targeting their position. And that's when it really hits home. If you make a mistake working at a bank, someones paycheck is late.

We make a mistake and someone's not coming home. The amount of pride we all put into our work is real and mistakes can cost lives.
 
missile_man said:
Yes. But different applications require different tolerances. General machining and masking for chemplating vs critical guidance systems.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the same tolerance could be insane/stupid on one component/process and a piece of cake on another. I was wondering if it was a misapplication or a necessity.
 
missile_man said:
You're not wrong, but simply outside my scope, but I can relate to some degree.

Right now, LM Aeronautics (F-35), LM Missiles &Fire Control (PAC-3/THAAD/HIMARS, etc) LM Space and LM Rotary and Mission Systems all have their own ERP. We can't see each others.. that's changing.

Lockheed Martin’s 1LMX (OneLM Transformation) is a massive digital modernization program that shifts our end-to-end business operations to a centralized SAP S/4 HANA cloud architecture.

At MFC, we were the first to transition in January. It wasn't a very smooth transition. I can't imagine how something this massive is tackled.
Click to expand...
We're going through the S/4 HANA implementation . "Wasn't very smooth" seems to be a common theme. "Here's a sandbox to play in. Oh, it's broken but we're working on it."
 
Sferrin said:
Sure, but the same tolerance could be insane/stupid on one component/process and a piece of cake on another. I was wondering if it was a misapplication or a necessity.
Click to expand...
You could certainly make a case, but the drawings are in place to support the requirements from the MDA. Requirements include everything from water intrusion to lightning strikes. We follow the drawings precisely at ever stage of production. While drawing updates are not uncommon, it takes a long time to do so and requires government approval. The government doesn't like changes.
 
Sferrin said:
We're going through the S/4 HANA implementation . "Wasn't very smooth" seems to be a common theme. "Here's a sandbox to play in. Oh, it's broken but we're working on it."
Click to expand...

I used to work in Production Planning. So glad wasn't in that role during the transition.
 
Sferrin said:
Sure, but the same tolerance could be insane/stupid on one component/process and a piece of cake on another. I was wondering if it was a misapplication or a necessity.
Click to expand...
The tolerances are dictated by the drawing of the engineering part number for that specific part. Some parts may require a simple anodize while others are more complex machined parts with tight tolerances on the masking prior to chemplating as well as final inspections on a CMM and/or surface measurements.

Any out of tolerances have to be reviewed by a material review board consistenting of engineering, quality and government for approvals to either a repair, use-as-is or scrap. And these are just mechanical. I'm not suggesting they're not needed, but it does goes to show how serious the US defense industry takes even the smallest defect.
 
missile_man said:
The tolerances are dictated by the drawing of the engineering part number for that specific part. Some parts may require a simple anodize while others are more complex machined parts with tight tolerances on the masking prior to chemplating as well as final inspections on a CMM and/or surface measurements.

Any out of tolerances have to be reviewed by a material review board consistenting of engineering, quality and government for approvals to either a repair, use-as-is or scrap. And these are just mechanical. I'm not suggesting they're not needed, but it does goes to show how serious the US defense industry takes even the smallest defect.
Click to expand...
One of my hats is supplier MRB ME. I know all about that stuff. Too much, unfortunately.
 
Sferrin said:
One of my hats is supplier MRB ME. I know all about that stuff. Too much, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Copy that. I feel ya. I don't visit suppliers very often. Only a handful of times. Most of my travel .are to other LM sites. Arkansas, East Texas, Florida, Alabama and NY.
 
Both PAC-3 MSE and THAAD production scaling and increased contract activity will be a good test for what the legacy OEM's have been saying privately and sometime publicly for years which is 'award larger contract / increase production lots and unit cost should dramatically improve'. So far, despite of this, at least on the PAC-3 MSE, unit cost reduction on account of higher production has not really managed to do anything other than keep up with inflation. I expect both to get slightly expensive as suppliers ramp up or new ones are brought online. Much like offensive fires this is an area I'm sure new entrants are exploring approaching with highly vertically integrated solutions (vs current primes that are basically sub contracting out most critical components).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom