Patriot SAM Developments

Last edited:
Last edited:
Patriot Missile Delivery to U.S. Completed: First Shipment of “Licensed Goods” Weapons Export
www.asahi.com

米国へパトリオット引き渡し完了　「ライセンス品」の武器輸出第1弾：朝日新聞

木原稔官房長官は20日午前の記者会見で、米国企業のライセンスを得て日本国内で製造された地対空ミサイル「パトリオット」の米国への引き渡しが、同日までに完了したと明らかにした。他国企業の許可を得て日本で…
www.asahi.com www.asahi.com
This marks the first case since the lifting of restrictions in December 2023 on exporting finished weapons classified as “licensed goods”—items manufactured in Japan under permission from foreign companies.
 
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.
 
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...
Both. Aparently availability is the goal.
 
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...
ESSM Blk2 doesn't have ABM defeat though.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
Given the lack of videos of interceptions (especially by their Pantsirs), I would guess that fighters and attack helicopters made up a substantial proportion. Maybe the Emirati Navy was responsible for some.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/2030664175811199400
View: https://x.com/i/status/2030664175811199400

The UAE MOD posted a compilation of Apache gun camera videos of interceptions. Fuzed shells for the 30mm would definitely be helpful, but it doesn't look like they are strictly necessary. The Apache's kinematics don't give it a huge advantage over the Shahed in terms of speed, but it's better than the V-1 interception situation in 1944. With a Longbow radar and Hellfires and Falcos, it could do very well as a low-altitude, low-speed interceptor.
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...
The ESSM is designed pretty specifically for point-defense against supersonic cruise missiles, so the PAC-3 is a better option against ASBMs.
www.twz.com

Patriot PAC-3 Missile Puts Crosshairs On Replacing Navy's Long-Serving SM-2

Putting the proven PAC-3 MSE missile on warships could fill a notable niche, and possibly a looming supply gap, in the Navy’s layered air defenses.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
The SM-2 is an old missile and a PAC-3 could fill almost all of the roles of an SM-2MR while adding ABM capability. The number of PAC-3s and the fact that they are currently in production is also a plus.

Personally, I would prefer a mix of PAC-3 CRIs for point-defense against ASBMs, and maybe ASCMs if they are as effective as ESSMs in that role, and a larger missile like the Talon that can take advantage of the Mk 41's volume envelope.
 
influenceofhistory.blogspot.com

Missile Loadouts: Arleigh Burke (1991-2018)

Naval history and theory focusing on force structure, weapons, and other technology. Emphasizing post WWII history and learning lessons from the past.
influenceofhistory.blogspot.com influenceofhistory.blogspot.com

I know this page has been posted on the forum many times before, but when it comes to the naval PAC-3 MSE question, there is one very important thing to keep in mind. Even though an SM-2MR and SM-2ER take up the same cell in a Mk 41 launcher, the Navy never invested in large numbers of Mk 41-compatible SM-2ER Blk IV missiles, and they may not actually be deployed anymore. That means that, even today, the majority of the SAMs that a DDG carries at any given time are SM-2MRs, which are there to provide mass against large raids of subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles.

I have seen range figures for the SM-2MR of up to 90 miles (150 km), but I don't know what kind of engagement scenario that refers to (interception range for high-altitude, non-maneuvering target; range at launch against a supersonic ASCM; etc). The PAC-3 MSE appears to have a similar, if slightly lower, range against aerodynamic targets. Given that, the sacrifice in range against aerial targets is probably more than made up for by the PAC-3's ABM capability.

The fact that a third of a Burke's Mk 41 cells are taken up by Tomahawks is where the USVs come in. If they do that and use a mix of PAC-3 CRIs and MSEs (if CRIs can also replace ESSMs and be quad-packed), the loadout could be something like:
16 x SM-3
16 x SM-6
50 x PAC-3 MSEs
32 x PAC-3 CRIs
6 x VLAs
 
Last edited:
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...

PAC3 MSE would be far superior in kinematics and divert, though inferior in magazine depth.
 
Talking about possible Patriot development I wonder if the US Army might take a leaf out of the Ukrainian army's playbook and develop a SSM version of the Patriot PAC2 (Something akin to the early 80s T-16) to supplement the PrSM just like how the Ukrainians developed an SRBM version of the SA-12 Gladiator SAM called the FP-7?​
 
NMaude said:
Talking about possible Patriot development I wonder if the US Army might take a leaf out of the Ukrainian army's playbook and develop a SSM version of the Patriot PAC2 (Something akin to the early 80s T-16) to supplement the PrSM just like how the Ukrainians developed an SRBM version of the SA-12 Gladiator SAM called the FP-7?​
Click to expand...
The PrSM is basically the same diameter but a little shorter to fit in HIMARs and M270 launchers operated by the Field Artillery, who have the equipment and training to employ surface-to-surface weapons. A Patriot-derived SSM wouldn't have any actual launch vehicle in the US Army because US Patriot launchers are trailers. The MAN truck-mounted launchers would be a viable choice for a non-US operator, and they also include a turntable to adjust launch azimuth, so developing a new launcher on a HEMTT or PLS could be workable. PAC-3 CRIs are similar in diameter to 227mm MLRS rockets, so a Patriot SSM launcher might also be able to carry up to 16 GMLRS rounds, but that would require entirely new pods compared to the HIMARS/M270 pod system.
 
Going the other way, would it make sense to make a HIMARS compatible Patriot?
 
Not James Stockdale said:
The PrSM is basically the same diameter but a little shorter to fit in HIMARs and M270 launchers operated by the Field Artillery, who have the equipment and training to employ surface-to-surface weapons. A Patriot-derived SSM wouldn't have any actual launch vehicle in the US Army because US Patriot launchers are trailers. The MAN truck-mounted launchers would be a viable choice for a non-US operator, and they also include a turntable to adjust launch azimuth, so developing a new launcher on a HEMTT or PLS could be workable. PAC-3 CRIs are similar in diameter to 227mm MLRS rockets, so a Patriot SSM launcher might also be able to carry up to 16 GMLRS rounds, but that would require entirely new pods compared to the HIMARS/M270 pod system.
Click to expand...
There is also the question of Why?

Why was Patriot missiles for land, when the PAC2s are still very deadly to jets and we have a health Rocket Launch system with oddlies of far better Rockets in stockpile and a running factory.

The SA12s use in land attack roles had none of that. It very much a case of We have these, they are useless in their original primary role but we are desperate for anyweapon so we can't throw them out. What can we use them for? Lets remanufacture them into SSM. Brillant it will cover down a need job we dont have.
 
NMaude said:
Talking about possible Patriot development I wonder if the US Army might take a leaf out of the Ukrainian army's playbook and develop a SSM version of the Patriot PAC2 (Something akin to the early 80s T-16) to supplement the PrSM just like how the Ukrainians developed an SRBM version of the SA-12 Gladiator SAM called the FP-7?​
Click to expand...

No. To the extent they are doing that it is Typhon.
 
NMaude said:
As far as I know the FP-7 is a new build SSM based on the SA-12.
Click to expand...

That is probably more of a war time expedite to fill a role for which Ukraine has no equivalent weapon. The U.S. already has purpose built GLMS-ER/ATACMS/PrSM, with SM-6 and tomahawk pressed into the longer ranges.
 
Josh_TN said:
That is probably more of a war time expedite to fill a role for which Ukraine has no equivalent weapon. The U.S. already has purpose built GLMS-ER/ATACMS/PrSM, with SM-6 and tomahawk pressed into the longer ranges.
Click to expand...

Good points but in regards to an SRBM variant of the Patriot I was referring to the Martin Marieta T-16 developed and tested in the Assault Breaker programme back in the early 1980s.
 
NMaude said:
Talking about possible Patriot development I wonder if the US Army might take a leaf out of the Ukrainian army's playbook and develop a SSM version of the Patriot PAC2 (Something akin to the early 80s T-16) to supplement the PrSM just like how the Ukrainians developed an SRBM version of the SA-12 Gladiator SAM called the FP-7?​
Click to expand...
For what purpose?
 
Big_Zukini said:
For what purpose?
Click to expand...

Supplimenting PrSM production, the wars in Ukraine and Iran have shown that prolonged modern high-intensity wars require a large supply of guided missiles of various types and this would be taking advantage of an existing missile production line.
 
NMaude said:
Supplimenting PrSM production, the wars in Ukraine and Iran have shown that prolonged modern high-intensity wars require a large supply of guided missiles of various types and this would be taking advantage of an existing missile production line.
Click to expand...
Patriot production is more strained and important, and PrSM are never going to be a premier strike weapon with the sheer abundance of options of attack options, compared with IAMD which has no such level of variety.

I assume you are inspired by the SM-6, but I don't see the SM-6 being employed for ground strike in practice as long as ABM supply is strained.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Patriot production is more strained and important,
Click to expand...

With the events of the last four years it's very clear that new Patriot production lines need to be established to massively increase the production rates of those missiles.
 
Last edited:

U.S. Navy Requests 405 Patriot PAC-3 MSE Interceptors​

www.navalnews.com

U.S. Navy Requests 405 Patriot PAC-3 MSE Interceptors - Naval News

In the Presidential Budget Request published on the 3rd of April, the U.S. Navy has requested a buy of 405 Patriot PAC-3 MSE (Missile Segment Enhancement) interceptors to be utilized on U.S. Navy Guided Missile Destroyers (DDGs).
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
NMaude said:
Talking about possible Patriot development I wonder if the US Army might take a leaf out of the Ukrainian army's playbook and develop a SSM version of the Patriot PAC2 (Something akin to the early 80s T-16) to supplement the PrSM just like how the Ukrainians developed an SRBM version of the SA-12 Gladiator SAM called the FP-7?​
Click to expand...
There was once an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) proposal to OSD Advanced Systems & Concepts for utilizing obsolete Patriots for ground attack. It was not selected/funded. This might have been around the time the original Warbreaker was at Darpa, but don't recall a necessary connection.
 
jsport said:
There was once an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) proposal to OSD Advanced Systems & Concepts for utilizing obsolete Patriots for ground attack.
Click to expand...

Are there any reports about this proposal on the DTIC website?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom