Patriot SAM Developments

CordyB said:
Anyone know what are the testing and budget gaps concerns with the Raytheon LTAMDS, contract awarded Oct. '19 and planned to be operational 4th qtr. FY'22, but officially only achieved Milestone C as of April 2025. Program cost estimate $13 billion for 94 radars, $5.35 billion contracts awarded to date.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...oduction-despite-testing-concerns-budget-gaps
Click to expand...
Came across an earlier March '26 article from InsideDefense saying DOTE reporting that final production build standard delayed to 4th qtr '28 and the initial manufactured radars used in operational testing and those in LRIP are not 'representative' of the final version presumably due to the problems encountered in testing, which do not appear that minor due to the time delays involved if accurate.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/dote-ltamds-production-schedule-shifts-right-nearly-year
 
Defense Updates uploaded this video concerning the USN using the PAC-3 the other day:


The United States Navy is advancing efforts to integrate the Patriot surface-to-air missile system into the Aegis Combat System to strengthen maritime air and missile defense capabilities.Lockheed Martin disclosed at the Sea Air Space 2026 Symposium on April 21, that it has been awarded a formal contract by the Navy to integrate PAC-3 MSE (Missile Segment Enhancement) interceptors with the Aegis system. The initial phase of the contract is valued at approximately $93 million, with total program costs expected to exceed $200 million over its duration.​
Click to expand...
Jason Reynolds, Vice President and General Manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, IAMD, said,“We’ve been working on this for nearly a decade at Lockheed Martin . Investing our own [resources] to bring this capability into reality. And what we’re gonna do is show you that these battle-tested capabilities are going to be working better together.”​
Click to expand...
In parallel, the US Navy has requested more than $1.73 billion in its Fiscal Year 2027 budget to procure approximately 405 Patriot interceptors. As outlined in the request, the service considers PAC-3 MSE integration with Aegis to provide an additional layer of defense against “a wide range of threats, including tactical ballistic missiles, air-breathing threats, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial systems.”​
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how PAC-3 MSE interceptor is set to bolster US navy air defense capacity?
#defenseupdates #PAC3MSE #usnavy
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:50 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN
02:24 BACKGROUND
04:00 PAC-3 MSE
05:51 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
There still is undoubtedly a window of vulnerability through the end of the decade. After that, increases in production kick in and there is an avalanche of new strike weapons (eg FAMM, MACE, LCCM). But current gap is real, and particularly for defensive weapons like Patriot, it is not going anywhere soon.
 
I had thought the issue with Iron Done for the army was that it could not be integrated with their other AD systems?
 
What about co manufacturing w rheinmetal just announced?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Josh_TN said:
I had thought the issue with Iron Done for the army was that it could not be integrated with their other AD systems?
Click to expand...
The Army did not want IDDS to be integrated with its AD systems. The Army wanted components of the IDDS, namely the launcher, and interceptor to be independently commanded by US Army's native C2 system (IBCS) and preferred short range radar (Sentinel). Operating within a unified fire control network that IAMD (Patriot) will operate in and that eventually THAAD will also join. Rafael was willing to integrate the full IDDS with existing US Army air defense systems but did not at the time show an ability to do what the Army was asking for. It has since changed strategy (now that selling complete IDDS to US Army is a dead end) and is offering a C2 and radar agnostic enhanced Tamir interceptor (currently being developed under US Army contract awarded earlier this year) that can integrate with an existing US Army SHORAD system (IFPC) running on a common C2 and fire control network.

Whether it is Counter UAS, or HIMAD, the Army is not acquiring turnkey air defense systems anymore. It is integrating current and future radars, launchers, and missiles into an existing OMS compliant, non proprietary, C2 and Fire Control network (IFCN and IBCS and IBCS-M). All future solutions have to converge into those systems.
 

Thanks, that explains it. It sounds like they are perusing a policy similar to the USAFs WOSA standard, where they own all of the software and have open source formats for all inputs and outputs to avoid vendor lock and broaden the potential manufacturer base?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Josh_TN said:
Thanks, that explains it. It sounds like they are perusing a policy similar to the USAFs WOSA standard, where they own all of the software and have open source formats for all inputs and outputs to avoid vendor lock and broaden the potential manufacturer base?
Click to expand...
Army is acquiring the technical baseline for IBCS. It owns the system. Army can award follow on modernization contracts to anyone it pleases. For example IBCS-M, the C-UAS C2 system replacing the legacy FAADC2 is being developed by Anduril and based on its Lattice. Anduril beat out Northrop Grumman on that competition. Same with the IFCN which is a digital software defined fire control network relay system. Version 2 went to the same vendor (Northrop and team) but the standard is owned by the Army and it can compete future modernization.
 
https://www.defensenews.com/global/...ernative-freyja-and-want-it-flying-in-a-year/

9 European nations back plan to get a anti-ballistic missile system in operation within a year using Ukrainian FP-7.X interceptor missiles combined with European radar and C&C. The interceptor missiles which can intercept missiles at an altitude of 15 miles cost only $700k per shot compared to $4m and 24 month build time for Patriot missiles.
 
Last edited:
The most important part of the data package for Ukraine might end up being the software. With that, Ukraine might be able to make a low cost alternative interceptor, like the aforementioned FP-7.X, plug-and-play compatible with the Patriot radar and launch control system.
 
If they are just making a PAC-2 analog, perhaps that could be achieved quickly by western standards. I do not see PAC-3/MSE happening this decade.
 
Lockheed Martin Announces Lower-Cost Patriot Interceptor

LONDON—Lockheed Martin on July 20 announced at the Farnborough Airshow it will produce a new, cheaper Patriot PAC-3 interceptor targeting the European market, though the effort comes as the Pentagon is also pressing for cheaper air defenses.

The new Patriot PAC-3 Adapted Capability Effector (PAC-3 ACE) will reach initial production within 36 months, the company says. Lockheed Martin did not disclose the target cost or what specific differences set it apart from the approximately $5 million-per-round PAC-3 MSE interceptor. Lockheed Martin is collaborating with U.S. and European industry partners and suppliers on the new effort, the company says.
Click to expand...
 

U.S. Army Is Buying Older PAC-2 Patriot Missiles For The First Time In Decades​

Raytheon has touted a new domestic order for PAC-2-series interceptors for the Patriot surface-to-air missile system. This is the first time the U.S. military has bought any new PAC-2s in more than 30 years
Click to expand...

Lockheed predicting 'higher than historic' margins in missiles due to framework deals​

https://www.twz.com/land/u-s-army-i...atriot-missiles-for-the-first-time-in-decades
Lockheed Martin's Missiles and Fire Control division is on a path to grow faster than ever before thanks to framework agreements with the Pentagon to ramp up production of certain munitions, company executives told shareholders this morning during a call to discuss the company's second-quarter earnings results. In the second quarter alone, MFC sales increased by 19% year over year while profit jumped by 24%, Mark Kvasnak, Lockheed’s vice president of investor relations, said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile Lockheed looks to Produce New ACE Patriot for half price.
As Iran War and defending Israel from its own behavior has consumed 67% stock pile.

Procuring missiles on a budget means production on a budget. Peace time industry only produces an average 100 missiles a year which in an actual war or even protracted engagement can be exhausted in less 2 weeks.
Missiles need be produced in automotive style assembly lines where production numbers in 500-1000 a Month. TWO out of every 10 randomly picked from litter must be tested in live firing conditions for actual purpose either launcher system exactly as navy would use and by naval personnel. This would permit sailors to actually train even when not at sea.
SM2 which normally cost 2 million dollars per unit would be reduced and amortized down to low as 200,000. Small missiles like sea sparrow normally cost 700,000 would low 40,000. Even smaller missiles like Stinger for less 10,000. MORE point the missiles can be tested against ironically themselves. 1 thru 8 would be production batches 9 and 10 would be used in live firings one as adversary and other as defender of variants. I'm sure automobile makers would love make disposebale target drones.

During 2024 Houthi fired anti ship silkworm missiles at US navy, the destroyer fired SM2 and sea sparrows to destroy one target essentially 11 million dollars worth stuff to destroy surplus. That needs change.

missile longevity can be addressed with recycling programs. Once a missile is 2-3 years old it is removed from service and recycled, only warhead chemical longevity needs be destroyed or disposed of in live firings. Factory would essentially stay open 365 days a year. This would also create a surplus stockpile. We stockpile bullets and artillery shells.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2074864844436562250
View: https://x.com/defense_news/status/2074864844436562250?s=20

Ukraine to get ‘license’ for making Patriot interceptors, Trump pledges​

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...or-making-patriot-interceptors-trump-pledges/
Click to expand...
License reconsidered:
https://abcnews.com/Politics/revers...e-licenses-produce-patriot/story?id=135266819
President Donald Trump on Friday reversed course on his offer earlier this month to give Ukraine a license to produce Patriot air defense systems, saying during a Cabinet meeting that "we have not agreed to that."

"We have to be very careful about letting somebody build them," Trump said as he gathered his top officials at Camp David. "You have to be very judicious, but you have to be very careful. Now, we have not agreed to that. We're talking about it. But it's a hard thing to give away that kind of technology."
[...]
Trump called it a "big step" to provide such a license, and then suggested that Ukraine or any other nation given the sensitive technology could one day turn and use such weapons against the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
On the PAC-3 Advanced Capability Effector, JJ Gertler had this to say on the July 23 Air Power Podcast:

They're not building a cheaper PAC-3 that we're used to. The missile that they announced is optimized for air breathing threats. What they're doing is taking out the capability against ballistics and hypersonics. It's a lower-performance missile optimized to go against things that are more like CCAs, fighters, and bombers than high-altitude high-speed missiles.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen this made explicit by Lockheed or the DOD, but JJ seems pretty certain.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/202...E-TM-A-High-Performance,-Low-Cost-Interceptor
 
Removing the thrusters in the nose and the active homing system seems like the quickest way to make more. Possibly the dual thrust motor as well.
 
NMaude said:
What would replace the active seeker?
Click to expand...

GEM 2

But quite honestly, patriots at half price are a bandage, not a solution.

Eventually we need to make SAMs as open architecture as strike weapons, and let market forces provide better solutions. And I thithe Army is on that path, but it’s going to take some time, and the solutions are not replacements for very high end ABM missiles.
 
Josh_TN said:
GEM 2

But quite honestly, patriots at half price are a bandage, not a solution.

Eventually we need to make SAMs as open architecture as strike weapons, and let market forces provide better solutions. And I thithe Army is on that path, but it’s going to take some time, and the solutions are not replacements for very high end ABM missiles.
Click to expand...
The fundamental problem with mix-and-match SAMs is that they are defensive weapons. The attacking force chooses the targets and delivery systems, so they can easily choose what strike weapons to use. The defending force is waiting for the enemy to launch their own aircraft or weapons, so they can't wait until they see the inbound raid to choose what missiles to load. Tactically speaking, the missile that can engage the most types of threats (UAVs, aircraft, TBMs, hypersonics, etc.) is going to be the best option, even if that missile costs a lot more than missiles specifically designed against each threat.

The other issue is that SAMs rely on their fire control systems for targeting to a much greater extent than strike weapons rely on their own delivery systems. An air defense system relies on search radars, fire control radars, fire control systems, and intra-battery communications before the missile is even told to launch. Because of that, the missile does not exist in a design vacuum - reliance on TVM, SARH, or radio command all require a radar and fire control system capable of providing that support to the missile. The alternative is active radar homing, which reduces reliance on ground-based radars to the maximum extent, but that is the solution that costs the most.
 
According to Axios:

First flight is expected in early 2028. Ramped-up production, using separate lines, would follow. International manufacturing is under consideration.

It will have the same outer mold line as the high-end PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement, will fit in the same canister and will work in 12-packs on the M903 launcher.

It will have a new seeker, with the maker as of last week still to be determined.

It's designed to take out ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and aircraft. There will be range and sophistication sacrifices given the price.
Advertised at less than half the price of a PAC-3 MSE, it could cost somewhere around $2 million a pop.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom