Patriot SAM Developments

1k per year is insufficient, as is 2k. Not to mention the cost of Patriot is going to become a huge issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
greedo said:
1k per year is insufficient, as is 2k. Not to mention the cost of Patriot is going to become a huge issue.
Click to expand...

Agree, but you have to start somewhere. Ultimately a much cheaper, less capable alternative needs to be developed. For the moment this the thing available.
 
One can look at a single system and its planned ramp and call it insufficient. That's really not how it needs to be done. They are not just buying more of Patriot like they did 10 or 15 years ago. There's Patriot, there's IFPC, there's MSHORAD increments, and a whole host of counter small UAS. Inside Patriot there's MSE, ACE, and a low cost interceptor effort that may match or exceed MSE's production rate. Under IFPC two or more OEM's may be producing interceptors simultaneously. Same for CsUAS missiles. Its a much broader portfolio than the 'jsut buy more patriot or thaad' approach of the last decades. Its the diversity of effectors both in terms of Patriot, and new ADS's being fielded that is the investment focus and ultimately what will make the ADA more effective.
 
Last edited:
It seems like Germany will produce Pac 3 MSEs, but I would take this with a huge grain of salt. I heard the German press statement and Pistorius only talked about Pac 2s.
Germany’s arm of pan-European missile maker MBDA is already making Patriot air-defense interceptors of the older PAC-2 generation. Production of the latest PAC-3 MSE interceptor is set to begin at the company’s plant in Schrobenhausen later this year, Pistorius told reporters.

In addition, officials from both countries will consider which components of the Tomahawk cruise missile Germany could supply, he told reporters.
Click to expand...
Artikel
 
Aegrotare said:
It seems like Germany will produce Pac 3 MSEs, but I would take this with a huge grain of salt. I heard the German press statement and Pistorius only talked about Pac 2s.

Artikel
Click to expand...
From your link -

"Correction: An initial version of this story incorrectly quoted Pistorius as saying PAC-3 MSE interceptor production would begin in Germany. Pistorius instead said PAC-2 GEM-T production was set to begin there."
 
Ainen said:
Ukraine routinely leaked shaheds in dozens per night even at height of interceptor drone effectiveness. Should US have intercepted that badly, entirety of middle east would by now turn into a smoking wreck.
Click to expand...
Turns out there were tons of leakers and alot of the bases in the Middle East did get turned into smoking wrecks...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boeing lands $14.7B PAC-3 seeker deal to support production ramp​

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/boeing-lands-147b-pac-3-seeker-deal-support-production-ramp
Boeing has received a seven-year, $14.7 billion undefinitized contract from Lockheed Martin to triple production of PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement seekers -- putting a price on a supplier expansion first outlined in April as part of the Pentagon's broader push to sharply increase interceptor output. The award, announced by Boeing Oct. 5, makes the seeker maker a major recipient of the spending flowing through Lockheed under a seven-year PAC-3 MSE production framework the government and prime contractor finalized this summer
Click to expand...
 
NMaude said:
No doubt increasing the production rate through a second production line, hopefully this will result in a drop in the PAC-3 missile's unit price.
Click to expand...
Probably not much, but it should at least increase availability. IMO it will take a brand new design to fully address cost, and said design will require some cost vs capability trade offs.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Is it really putting PAC-3s on Burkes or is it just integrating those into a common network? Because I'm not keeping tab on this and PAC-3 seems like a duplication of ESSM Blk2 kinematics.
Click to expand...
Different specialization.

ESSM is optimized for cruise missiles, mostly at low altitude. PAC3 is optimized for things coming in at high altitude, like ballistic missiles or high-supersonic/hypersonic high divers.

Also, PAC3s don't quad-pack. I'm not sure they even dual-pack. So PAC3s are really more a replacement for SM2 than ESSM.



joshjosh said:
PATRIOT struggling to differentiate warheads from decoys and falling missile fragments, shoots at everything:
Click to expand...
If it's still coming in a ballistic path, it's going to get engaged according to the old SAFEGUARD** logic. Constant bearing decreasing range means it's going to land on your head.

Habitual Line Crosser has talked about how if you flip the switch to "weapons free" on Patriot the whole systems says it is engaging absolutely everything that isn't positively identified as friendly in the system.

** Yes, the 1960s-70s ABM system. Raytheon recycled the SAFEGUARD logic for dealing with incoming ballistic missiles as opposed to aircraft or cruise missiles.



Forest Green said:
U.S. Navy Requests 405 Patriot PAC-3 MSE Interceptors
Click to expand...
There are ~75 Burkes in service. Assume that ~25 of them would be getting ready to deploy. 405 PAC3s would be enough to load every single one of those 25 Burkes with 16 PAC3s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
** Yes, the 1960s-70s ABM system. Raytheon recycled the SAFEGUARD logic for dealing with incoming ballistic missiles as opposed to aircraft or cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

Do you have any details or links to websites describing the SAFEGUARD logic?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Also, PAC3s don't quad-pack. I'm not sure they even dual-pack. So PAC3s are really more a replacement for SM2 than ESSM.
Click to expand...
Correct - PAC3 doesn’t dual pack in its current production state. I’m struggling to find the source but recall LM recently proposing a modified version that would dual pack in Mk41, but it was dependant on the Army as lead customer also accepting the changes.
 
bobthemonkey said:
Correct - PAC3 doesn’t dual pack in its current production state. I’m struggling to find the source but recall LM recently proposing a modified version that would dual pack in Mk41, but it was dependant on the Army as lead customer also accepting the changes.
Click to expand...
It requires folding fins and no one wanted to make changes to the production line. Also given the exhaustion of PAC3 resources I am confident no one is making that change, and I believe the USN is doing this as a temporary move until it develops a quad pack solution.

PAC3 would operate as a terminal ballistic missile defense system roughly in the same way as ESSM would operate as terminal defense for cruise missiles. There really is not a USN analog for that role; it’s ABM missiles are area coverage assets and SM-2 is not really capable of this mission.
 
The Naval MSE is, for now, nothing but an Army MSE missile capable of communicating with AEGIS. It has to prove itself out in terms of performance in a maritime environment against targets the Army has not tested the missile against (supersonic cruise missiles, sea skimming missiles etc). Once it does that, the Navy then has to decide whether it wishes to modify a baseline missile that's already priced at $4 Million a pop so that it packages better in the VLS. I think there's limited upside in that with a new clean sheet program a more likely possibility with the naval MSE program focusing on buying the variant that maintains the form factor commonality with the Army.
 
Right now the Navy's only endoatmospheric BMD missile is the SM-6, but there aren't many of those to go around and there are a lot of things the Navy would rather be doing with those. PAC-3 integration gives the Navy a new source of missiles from an entirely different supply chain. In the more distant future, the terminal stage of the NMM will provide BMD capability for every variant.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
Right now the Navy's only endoatmospheric BMD missile is the SM-6, but there aren't many of those to go around and there are a lot of things the Navy would rather be doing with those. PAC-3 integration gives the Navy a new source of missiles from an entirely different supply chain
Click to expand...
The MSE is even more 'stretched' relative to the SM-6. Count the number of Patriot users, and the need to replenish thousands of missiles used up, donated, or otherwise needed. But yes, broadly it adds a second source so the Navy can fill its inventories faster. But, as mentioned earlier, there are things that need to be proven first. So far, no one has actually tested the MSE against a supersonic air breathing target, let alone one that's sea skimming. So all that needs to be validated under the AEGIS C2 for the weapon system.
 
bring_it_on said:
But, as mentioned earlier, there are things that need to be proven first. So far, no one has actually tested the MSE against a supersonic air breathing target, let alone one that's sea skimming. So all that needs to be validated under the AEGIS C2 for the weapon system.
Click to expand...
Why would you use an MSE against either of those targets? The Navy has ESSMs and SM2s, both designed for supersonic air breathing targets at low altitude. MSE is 100% a self-defense ABM for a ship.

MSE is basically nothing more than a gap filler from now until NMM enters service, too.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom