There is a gap especially in the upper altitudes. Filling that gap requires a faster missile capable of engaging targets at significantly higher altitudes than MSE. That is precisely what the Army's Lower tier future interceptor prorgram is aiming to do. SM-2 does not help out at all with that.
I'm not really tracking. The SM-3 missile is primarily a Midcourse interceptor. THAAD, PAC-3 MSE and CRI are all terminal phase interceptors.
Interdasting.
Its been a known gap for many many years. It's been informing the case for the LT-FI for a number of years now.
Copy that. I'm familiar with efforts for a next generation LT interceptor but last I heard those efforts were cancelled. All I recall are adding some upgrades and capabilities to the PAC-3 MSE, but I don't know the specifics.
aviationweek.com
So it looks like funding was paused or held back.U.S. Army Upbeat On Revival Of Lower-Tier Future Interceptor | Aviation Week Network
A year after the U.S. Army appeared to turn its back on a program to develop a future lower-tier missile interceptor, the program may be back on the agenda.
There's a range/altitude limit above PAC3 and below THAAD (apparently exo-atmospheric only?).
IMO there is. SM3 is exo-atmospheric only, so has a pretty tall minimum engagement height. It's looking like GPI will be covering that gap, as GPI appears to be an SM3 stack up through the TSRM but has an endo-atmospheric capable KV sitting on top of the TSRM.
I wouldn't say that. Certainly not as agile against highly maneuverable threats like HGV's as the Stunner missile has no DACS for extremely rapid attitude adjustments outside of or in the upper atmosphere. Which is why the Navy wants these to help with AShBM & ASh-HGV defense. That plus their production rates are increasing dramatically and only going to grow, which I'm certain is affecting the price in a very good way as well so...
Lockheed Martin, Pentagon strike deal to triple PAC-3 missile production
Lockheed Martin, Pentagon strike deal to triple PAC-3 missile production | InsideDefense.com
Lockheed Martin said it has reached a landmark framework agreement with the Defense Department that would more than triple production of its Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptor, highlighting how surging demand for air and missile defense is driving a rethink of...insidedefense.com
That would be a really bad move. While magazine size matters, what's in those loaded magazines also matters. It does not matter what volume you can put up if the interceptors you have locked and loaded are sub optimal for the threat. The MSE is right for today's and future threats and has room to grow. A lower cost interceptor solution made a lot of sense when IFPC did not exist and PATRIOT was expected to cover everything. Now that IFPC exists that effort is what will field the sub Million dollar munitions. MSE and LT-FI need to focus on the advanced TBM and HGV threats. Not to mention hypersonic cruise missiles. The 'pressure' for magazine size can be very easily relieved by increasing the MSE production rate (we've gone from sub 500 a few years ago to 600+ now and funding for 2000 or more over the next 7 years) and setting IFPC interceptor production rate in excess of 2,000 per year (combination of AIM-9X and the second interceptor). We are also producing Tamir domestically now and you can also look to produce a hybrid US variant of the missile for added capacity.
Not at this time. The OEM did not agree to / was incapable of fully integrating the missile into the Army's open architecture driven Enduring Shield solution utilizing army standard sensors, datalinks and fire control networks. USMC agreed to use Iron-Dome components mixed with USMC systems so was able to be interoperable.
Yup. THAAD not far behind.
Will they be investing to increase THAAD and Tomahawk production? If so, do we know at which rate they will be produced?
Has the USN ever procured MSEs before? This could be the first step towards finally replacing the SM-2.
The USN has openly been working on integrating PAC-3 into Aegis for a couple of years, but this is the first time a procurement request has hit the books.
They've developed a single-pack canister for the Mk 41 and have integrated PAC-3 with Aegis. As long as the ship has the correct baseline, it's good to go.
I believe so
AEGIS is updated to work with the missile. The PAC-3 MSE missile is just a regular missile straight off the regular production line. Part of the reason they went with a single-pack canister is to avoid introducing a new variant, which the Navy didn't want to pay for.
No. MSE is way more expensive with less range.
Range matters in terms of number of shots in case of leakers.
