Patriot SAM Developments

Scott Kenny said:
There's even less in common between the 1991 SM2 and the 2025 SM2 than there is between the 1991 Patriot and the 2025 Patriot.
Click to expand...

If you were talking about Aegis as a whole you would be correct, but to say that the SM-2 Block III is massively different from what it was in the 1980s is laughably incorrect. SM-2 still uses more or less the same motor, airframe, and warhead as it did at the end of the Cold War. All of the in-service variants use a RF seeker that has only received modest improvements since then.


The Patriot interceptor family has gone through far greater changes. In addition to GEM, which was a bigger upgrade over its predecessor than any of the Block III variants of SM-2 were, Patriot introduced an entirely new HTK missile family whose genesis is thirty years newer than any of the members of the Standard family prior to the full caliber SM-3 Block II and SM-6 Block IB, which finally adopted vaguely modern design and construction methodologies. RIM-66M on the other hand is a weapon hamstrung around 1950s and 60s technological constraints.


There are reasons why everyone who knew missile defense twenty years ago told the Navy that their SBT requirements would be best served by a variant of MSE, not a RIM-156 derivative like the Navy wanted and got. Because the reality was and remains that MSE is a far better terminal interceptor. The combination of it being far faster, far better terminal agility, a seeker that is over a generation more advanced, and hit to kill approach are what has allowed MSE to engage significantly more complex BMD targets in testing, while maintaining a similar defended area to SM-6 Block 1.


When comparing complete systems, for the lower tier BMD mission the only component of Aegis that is comprehensively more capable is the radar, which significantly outranges the MPQ-65A. MSE is in fact actively limited by the current radar system, which does not have the ability to detect RVs at distances where MSE is kinematically capable of intercepting. This is the driver for major investments by both the Army and Navy in their systems—Patriot-THAAD integration by the Army, and SM-6 counter-HGV capabilities, which it is only receiving before MSE because SM-6 has a radar with enough oomph to support it. But the driving interest for Aegis-MSE integration is HGVs and other advanced threats, because for that mission space MSE is straight up better

And pretty soon the in-service SM2 will have the same active seeker as the SM6. Though I still think there's a reason to keep the dual IIR/radar seeker versions around as well. Wouldn't be surprised if the variant after SM2 Active has an added IIR seeker to help counter radar-stealthy aircraft and missiles.
Click to expand...

There isn't the physical space for the IR seeker in the IIIC design, that is all taken up by seeker power and control electronics. The MHIP seeker is also ancient, dating back to the eighties, and requires replacement to be effective against modern threats.
 
totallyaverage said:
If you were talking about Aegis as a whole you would be correct, but to say that the SM-2 Block III is massively different from what it was in the 1980s is laughably incorrect. SM-2 still uses more or less the same motor, airframe, and warhead as it did at the end of the Cold War. All of the in-service variants use a RF seeker that has only received modest improvements since then.
Click to expand...
I thought the SM2s got a new motor and revised strake shape in the early 2000s?


totallyaverage said:
There isn't the physical space for the IR seeker in the IIIC design, that is all taken up by seeker power and control electronics. The MHIP seeker is also ancient, dating back to the eighties, and requires replacement to be effective against modern threats.
Click to expand...
Seeker power and control may be share-able with the IR seeker (depends on architecture of each). You'd definitely be able to share guidance control between the two.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I thought the SM2s got a new motor and revised strake shape in the early 2000s?
Click to expand...

No, the Mk 104 motor remains the same overall design that was introduced on the RIM-66G. The strakes weren't changed on Block III prior to the IIIC, which introduces a totally new design. But there isn't any plan to replace the motor at the moment, at that point just build a new weapon that isn't an extremely upgraded Terrier.

Seeker power and control may be share-able with the IR seeker (depends on architecture of each). You'd definitely be able to share guidance control between the two.
Click to expand...

As in, the new seeker takes up so much space it renders installation of an IR seeker infeasible.
 
totallyaverage said:
No, the Mk 104 motor remains the same overall design that was introduced on the RIM-66G. The strakes weren't changed on Block III prior to the IIIC, which introduces a totally new design. But there isn't any plan to replace the motor at the moment, at that point just build a new weapon that isn't an extremely upgraded Terrier.
Click to expand...
Huh. Didn't realize the rocket motor was that old.


totallyaverage said:
As in, the new seeker takes up so much space it renders installation of an IR seeker infeasible.
Click to expand...
And I was discussing ways in which you could leverage the new seeker to work with an IR seeker that is scabbed onto the side of the missile.
 
breakingdefense.com

RTX deepens footprint in UAE with gallium project and counter-drone facility - Breaking Defense

The American company said gallium has "applications across many different sectors ... [for] the defense industry, the supply of gallium is critical as it is a key component of defense products including advanced radars."
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Gallium is necessary for the compound Gallium Nitride (GaN), which is used in radars as well as Gem-T missiles, part of patriot PAC-3 missile defense system.
Click to expand...
 
A couple of snippets from the May GAO report on Defense of Guam, on January 7, 2025, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the MDA to terminate development of the TPY-6 radar and the integration of the TPY-2 into the IBCS no later than 2030 and achieve full integration by 2033, eight years seems very slow?

 
Last edited:
Cordy said:
integration of the TPY-2 into the IBCS no later than 2030 and achieve full integration by 2033, eight years seems very slow?
Click to expand...

Okay. Why do you think that is? What is the funding profile for this 'integration'?

On the TPY-6, something is seriously wrong if in the '2030's' you still need a giant naval S-band radar to be put on a island because the Navy needs its own radars to launch its interceptors. Tracks from ships and TPY-2 should be used to guide SM-3 and SM-6's. If that is not possible then that is a serious problem with those BMD interceptors and concept of operations and they should probably take them out of the equation for land based defense/GDS.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Okay. Why do you think that is? What is the funding profile for this 'integration'?

On the TPY-6, something is seriously wrong if in the '2030's' you still need a giant naval S-band radar to be put on a island because the Navy needs its own radars to launch its interceptors. Tracks from ships and TPY-2 should be used to guide SM-3 and SM-6's. If that is not possible then that is a serious problem with those BMD interceptors and concept of operations and they should probably take them out of the equation for land based defense/GDS.
Click to expand...
My understanding was IBCS was specifically designed to easily integrate other radars and it would appear if full integration is taking eight years so its not that easy to add an additional radars.

As far as know the X-band TPY-2 is not integrated with Aegis to guide SM-3 and SM-6, don't know the size of the TPY-6 but is was not a giant radar as it was classed as transportable, not mobile, it was the same S-band as the Navy SPY-1 and SPY-6 radars used to guide SM-3 and SM-6 and if the missiles launched from Guam presume MDA thought it adequate, rather than spend $billions on Aegis Ashore as in Poland and Romania?
 
TYP-6 was to provide 360 volume air search, as TyP-2 is x band and only illustrates down the threat axis. Sans TYP-6, 360 long range coverage would fall on the LTAMD radar. I question why aegis would even be involved at that point; better to integrate SM-3/6 with IBCS alone.

TPY-6 is(was?) to be relocatable but effectively static in peacetime. The concern with Aegis ashore was a lack of any mobility at all and the concentration of all radars and fire control in one building. TYP-6 at least dispersed these and potentially would allowed some movement, or allow a unit along a less vulnerable axis to replace a damaged unit at the cost of coverage. I am assuming it was cancelled largely for cost reasons but I have not seen a reason given.
 
Cordy said:
My understanding was IBCS was specifically designed to easily integrate other radars and it would appear if full integration is taking eight years so its not that easy to add an additional radars.
Click to expand...

To integrate legacy sensors or command and control units into IBCS, the program needs to develop the A/B kits to facilitate full integration. This is how, for example, the legacy Sentinel A3 and PATRIOT sensor are currently integrated into IBCS. IBCS itself is designed around modular open systems architecture standards. IBCS has a lot on its plate given the added missions (IFPC and other sensor integrations) not to mention its own upgrade path to full operational capability. BMD sensor and C2 integration into IBCS also requires extensive testing which is both expensive and time consuming. Which then goes to my point earlier, what was the funding profile for development of the TPY-2 integration specific kits and what was the funding profile for the software development and test schedule. Going into the background/history of that might help answer the question you posed.

Cordy said:
don't know the size of the TPY-6 but is was not a giant radar as it was classed as transportable, not mobile, it was the same S-band as the Navy SPY-1 and SPY-6 radars used to guide SM-3 and SM-6 and if the missiles launched from Guam presume MDA thought it adequate, rather than spend $billions on Aegis Ashore as in Poland and Romania?
Click to expand...

Let's talk dimensions, size, cost and what exactly that 'transportable' nature entailed. GDS is an extremely expensive system. Navy has ships..and Army will field LTAMDS and TPY-2 there. More can be added. Sentinel A4's and TPY-4's are planned there as well. There are space sensor layers being developed. Why then, do they need to introduce a completely new radar probably 2x the size of the largest radar on the island just so that the Navy's missiles can actually do their job? This seems the opposite of 'integration' and wasteful. If the Navy interceptors cannot work outside of AEGIS sensors and C2 then that is a problem worth solving as opposed to re-creating a baby AEGIS system on the island.

PATRIOT, Sentinel, TPY-4 radars, launchers, C2 are all truly mobile systems. Even those hideously bulky MRC launchers are in theory transportable. The billions spent into stationing them on Guam can be justified because they can very easily be moved around over time as needed or if priorities change. The added force structure and equipment is a net add as the Army and JF is severely underfunded when it comes to cruise and ballistic missile defense capability. I doubt that will be true for the AEGIS infrastructure on the island. That's likely going to remain there even though they may create some form of transportability on paper..

Josh_TN said:
I question why aegis would even be involved at that point; better to integrate SM-3/6 with IBCS alone.
Click to expand...
Given the Standard Missile is vendor locked (for what half a century now?), one can hope that the GPI will be the first true plug-play BMD interceptor across land and sea applications.

In theory, the X-band RIG-360 missile communication system being fielded by Army's IAMD battalions should allow them to integrate SM-6's but that is not currently funded and Raytheon does not appear to have invested its IR&D dollars towards demonstrating that like say Lockheed has done with the naval MSE.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Shows Patriot scoring 4/4 on Kinzhals.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931982506821112128
View: https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1931982506821112128
Click to expand...


Why post made up claims by the Ukrainian version of Bagdad Bob that can’t be verified? Ukraine claims 100% to 98% interceptions every time and then there are dozens of videos from Ukraine of missiles and drones impacting targets or Russians themselves posting drone footage of strikes. There was also a CCTV video of what was allegedly a Patriot firing missiles and then an Iskandar hitting in the vicinity of where those missiles were fired from.

View: https://youtu.be/-76tCLufWi0


Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1911694941216010469
View: https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1911694941216010469
Click to expand...

Ukraine doesn’t have $50 billion dollars to “buy” Patriots. Ukraine’s entire foreign exchange reserves is less than $37 billion…

There is also nothing to give as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Japan’s Mitsubishi heavy industries can only manufacture 1080 missiles a year that go to 19 different countries.




“The main additional military aid Ukraine has requested from the Trump administration is more Patriot missiles and launchers, “which, frankly, we don’t have,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last Tuesday.”
 
Last edited:
IMO, the U.S./NATO needs to build a lot more NASAM launchers, or something like it. That would allow for a variety of in inventory missiles to be employed on a high mobility system. This would not work against ballistic missiles but it would help with most everything else.

Expanding MSE production is also necessary of course.
 
Josh_TN said:
IMO, the U.S./NATO needs to build a lot more NASAM launchers, or something like it.
Click to expand...

Counting bigger than MANPADS, but smaller than Patriot/SAMP/T, and mostly leaving out older weapons, for NATO and NATO-aligned countries:
(X+X+X = delivered, ordered, options)

Austria:
  • 0+4 IRIS-T SLM btty (3xTEL)
  • 0+4 IRIS-T SLS btty (3xTEL)
Belgium
  • 0+10 NASAMS btty (4xTEL)
Bulgaria:
  • 1+0+5 IRIS-T SLM btty (?xTEL), Air Force
  • 0+0+1 IRIS-T SLX btty (?xTEL)
Canada:
  • Nothing beyond RBS-70.
Cyprus
  • 2 Barak MX btty (?xTEL)
  • 6 Aspide btty (4xTEL, 130x Aspide)
  • 1 Tor M1 btty (6xTLAR, 150x 9M331)
  • 2 Buk-M1-2 btty (4xTELAR)
Czechia:
  • 0+4 Spyder MR btty (?xTEL, Derby)
Denmark:
  • 2 IRIS-T SLM btty (?xTEL)
  • 1 MICA VL btty (2xTEL)
  • 1 NASAMS btty (?xTEL), temporary lease until IRIS-T SLM
Estonia:
  • 0+3 IRIS-T SLM btty (?xTEL)
France
  • 10 Crotale NG btty (3xTEL, VT-1)
  • 1+11 MICA VL btty (?xTEL, MICA IR, MICA RF), replacing Crotale NG.
Finland:
  • ? Ito-90M btty (20 or 21xTEL on Sisu XA-181, Crotale-NG)
  • 8 Ito-12 (NASAMS 2) btty (3xTEL, AMRAAM/AMRAAM-ER)
  • ? David's Sling btty (?xTEL)
Germany:
  • ? LVS NNbS btty (100xTEL, IRIS-T SLS on Boxer FlaRakPz). Bundesheer
  • 2+6 IRIS-T SLM btty (3xTEL). Luftwaffe, ultimately at least 12 batteries
  • ? IRIS-T SLX btty (?xTEL). Luftwaffe.
  • Bundeswehr reportedly wants 30 weapon loads per TEL implying up to 18,000 SLS missiles + 4,320 SLM
Greece
  • 0+? undetermined btty under Achilles Shield programme
  • 9 Crotale NG btty (2xTEL, VT-1). Air Force
  • 2 Crotale NG btty (2xTEL, VT-1). Navy
  • 400x VT-1
  • 21 Tor M-1 btty (4xTLAR, 9M331). Army.
  • 4 Tor M-1 btty (4xTLAR, 9M331). Air Force, to transfer to Armenia or Ukraine
Hungary:
  • 7 NASAMS btty (?xTEL, AMRAAM/AMRAAM-ER)
  • 180x AMRAAM, 60x AMRAAM-ER
Italy:
  • 0+6 Grifo btty (3xTEL, CAMM-ER). Army
  • 2+2 MAADS btty (3xTEL, CAMM-ER). Air Force
Latvia:
  • 0+3 IRIS-T SLM batteries (?xTEL)
Lithuania
  • 3 NASAMS 3 btty (4xTEL, AMRAAM/AMRAAM-ER)
Luxembourg
  • 0+1 NASAMS 3 btty (3xTEL)
Netherlands
  • 2 NASAMS 2 btty (3xTEL, AMRAAM/AMRAAM-ER)
  • 0+6 NASAMS 3 btty (3xTEL, AMRAAM/AMRAAM-ER)
  • 0+6 x NOMADS btty (3xTEL, AIM-9X?)
  • 174x AMRAAM-ER ordered
Norway:
  • 4+4 NASAMS 3 btty (4xTEL, AIM-120C-8)
  • 1 NOMADS/MGBAD btty
    • 6xTEL on ACSV G5, IRIS-T SLS (withdrawn), or AIM-9X Blk 2),
    • 3xTEL on M1152A1 for AMRAAM).
    • NASAMS compatible C2, for Brigade Nord
Poland:
  • 2 Mala Narew btty (2xTEL, CAMM)
  • 0+22 Narew btty (2xTEL CAMM-ER)
  • At least one mention of a 100 TEL order. So increasing TELS to 4/btty?
  • 1000 CAMM-ER missiles on order
  • CAMM-MR under joint UK/Polish development
Romania
  • 0+6 Spyder SR btty (?xTEL, Python 5 - and reportedly Piorun, not clear how/if that's integrated into Spyder)
  • 0+6 Spyder MR btty (?xTEL, Derby)
Slovakia
  • ? Barak MX btty (?xTEL)
Slovenia
  • 0+3 IRIS-T SLM btty (?xTEL)
Spain
  • 4 NASAMS 2 btty (?xTEL). Being upgraded to NASAMS 2+
Sweden:
  • 2 Lvrbs 98/Elde 98 btty (IRIS-T SLS, 2xTEL)
  • 0+7 IRIS-T SLM btty (?xTEL).
  • Sweden has apparently only ordered 2 radars for IRIS-T SLM, so is likely planning to integrate a Giraffe variant.
  • 450 IRIS-T SLS missiles on order
Switzerland:
  • 0+5x IRIS-T SLM btty (?xTEL).
Turkey
  • ? HISAR-A btty (3xTEL, HISAR-A, HISAR-A+). Being upgraded to HISAR A+
  • 3+? HISAR-O btty (3xTEL, HISAR-O). May be fitted with HISAR-RF later.
United Kingdom
  • 4+? Sky Sabre batteries (6xTEL, CAMM), Army
  • Each battery is capable of operating as 2 independent 3xTEL fire groups, but it is unclear if they are completely equipped at this level, and if the new 6 TEL order is a new battery, or filling out the existing structure.
  • Repeated statements from senior Army officers implying CAMM-ER or -MR in future
United States
  • ?+? Enduring Shield btty (4xTEL, AIM-9X), US Army
  • ?+6 NASAMS btty (?xTEL) US Army
  • ?+? MRIC/Iron Dome (?xTEL, Tamir). USMC is planning 15 air defence batteries, but it's unclear how many will get MRIC and how many MADIS/L-MADIS with 30mm+Stinger
Ukraine:
  • 6+6 IRIS-T SLM batteries (2xTEL)
  • 3+9 IRIS-T SLS batteries (2xTEL)
  • I'm not clear if Germany's May 2025 order for 6 SLS/SLM batteries for Ukraine, with options for 4 more, is in addition or part of this
  • 15 NASAMS 3 btty (3xTEL) Definitely 13 batteries, but I think the odds and sods add up to a further two complete batteries
  • ? Raven batteries (ASRAAM, 8+5xTEL)
  • ? Gravehawk btty (17xTEL, R-73)
  • ? Frankensam btty (?xTEL, RIM-7P Sea Sparrow, AIM-9)
  • 2 Crotale NG btty (3xTEL, 50xVT-1)
 
Last edited:
DWG said:
Turkey
  • ? HISAR-A btty (3xTEL, HISAR-A, HISAR-A+). Being upgraded to HISAR A+
  • 3+? HISAR-O btty (3xTEL, HISAR-O). May be fitted with HISAR-RF later.
Click to expand...
Turkey has never had a robust land-based air defense in its history, even when Saddam was launching Scuds on neighbouring countries' population.

According to our estimates, there are currently five Hisar-O+ batteries in service (which is a ridiculously low number).

hisar.jpg


Turkey also has a NASAMS equivalent, but we still don't know whether it has finished development or if an order has been placed by the military.

GfeoBI1XAAEL5D7


Aselsan/Roketsan is continuously scaling up the production of air-defense missiles. A recently opened facility will enable them to produce at least one long-range battery system (Siper), along with an unspecified quantity of other air-defense equipment (e.g., Hisar-O+), per quarter starting in Q1 2026, in addition to their existing capacity.

There are currently two Siper Block-1 IADS batteries in service.

Siper-Hava-Savunma-Kapak.jpg
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom