• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Patriot SAM replacement

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
45
I have been doing some research on my old newspaper clips and found that one dated 06-September-1992:

The Pentagon is going to replace the Patriot SAM system with a new generation weapon. Lockheed and Westinghouse had been selected for the development
Anybody knows what is the refered system: the PAC-3?

Thanks in advance
Antonio
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
My WAG would be that PAC-3 and THAAD are what came of that though there may not be a direct lineage between that effort and the end result. Don't recall when they began work on THAAD off the top of my head but Desert Storm was definitely a wake-up call re: missile defense.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,734
Reaction score
20
pometablava said:
I have been doing some research on my old newspaper clips and found that one dated 06-September-1992:

The Pentagon is going to replace the Patriot SAM system with a new generation weapon. Lockheed and Westinghouse had been selected for the development
Anybody knows what is the refered system: the PAC-3?

Thanks in advance
Antonio
PAC-3 is the latest version of the Patriot Advanced Capability upgrades, this version being the most extensive changes so far. All of the PACs were designed to increase Patriot's capabilities in the ATBM role as well as improve performance against manned aircraft, but PAC-3 also included an additional new missile optimized for ATBM, which apparently is smaller than regular Patriot, because four of them fit in one regular Patriot tube. This missile is also called "PAC-3" by the Army, and I believe it's also known as "Guided Enhanced Missile" in some circles. Don't know much about its performance except that it's a lot more maneuverable
 

Andreas Parsch

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
243
Reaction score
1
F-14D said:
[...] but PAC-3 also included an additional new missile optimized for ATBM, which apparently is smaller than regular Patriot, because four of them fit in one regular Patriot tube.
Indeed. Diameter/weight for "regular" Patriot missiles (MIM-104) is 41 cm/900 kg, and for the PAC-3 missile it's only 25 cm/320 kg.

This missile is also called "PAC-3" by the Army, and I believe it's also known as "Guided Enhanced Missile" in some circles.
The GEM ("Guidance Enhanced Missile") is the MIM-104D version of the original Patriot missile.

Don't know much about its performance except that it's a lot more maneuverable
It has to be, since in the ATBM role it is supposed to work as a hit-to-kill missile ;).





[/quote]
 

Lampshade111

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
2
I know I am bringing this back from the dead, but I didn't know if a new topic would be appropriate.

The US has certainly put a ton of work into ABM systems like THAAD, and the relatively short-range PAC-3. However I don't see a long-range SAM designed to kill aircraft for Patriot's supposed replacement MEADS. It looks like MEADS is only designed to use the PAC-3 MSE at the moment. The PAC-3 can certainly kill aircraft but it is certainly lacking range compared to the larger PAC-2 GEM+ missile. Are there plans to integrate the PAC-2 into MEADS or is there some sort of new missile in development?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,253
Reaction score
146
It's not obvious that PAC-3 will really be all that lacking in range. The version planned for MEADS is called the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement missile, which adds larger strakes, tail fins, and motor to the original PAC-3, increasing range by up to 50 percent.

But there have been other proposals for anti-aircraft wepons. I think AMRAAM was mentioned at one point as a low-cost nont-developmental complement to PAC-3. The Germans also proposed a ground-launched version of Meteor, but that fell through. In 2007, they awarded a contract for development of a version of IRIS instead (IRIS-T SL). From a presentation on the MEADS site, it looks like this actually resides on a different launch vehicle but is integrated into the MEADS battle management system. It's also limited to German forces only -- the US and Italians appear to be sticking with PAC-3 MSE as the only missile in MEADS.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,020
Reaction score
203
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) - Lockheed Martin has received a $308 million contract modification for the production of PAC-3 missiles from the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command. In addition to that windfall Lockheed officials met Monday for a digital conference to discuss weapons systems advancement over the past fifty years and what’s expected on the horizon. Lockheed officials briefed reporters and global military personnel via phone updating participants on the status of several weapons systems including Aegis BMD, MEADS and PAC-3, while also looking back at trails Lockheed has blazed. They are, after all, the developer of the first operational hit-to-kill missile.

“Hit-to-kill technology remains today the heart and foundation of several of the weapons systems employed by the missile defense agency,” explains THAAD program director Mathew Joyce. Joyce says the first Pacific interception of an intercontinental ballistic missile in the mid 80′s laid the foundation for missile defense in the U.S. “Taking that from a concept to an actual weapons system and to see it actually be developed and now in the field defending our country and our allies – it’s just an exciting thing to be a part of.” Joyce says one of the most integral partnerships exists among the actual war fighters in the field. “They push us, they really do,” says Joyce. “They get an in-depth understanding of how our weapons systems work and then they push us asking ‘why can’t you do this, why can’t you do that?’, and if you listen well enough you can improve.”

And improve they have, says Joyce. He says the level of accuracy and ability to successfully replicate defense systems has come quite a long way over the past half-century. “That would have been unthinkable 30 years ago, and we’ve made it – I don’t want to say routine – but understandable and there are next generation things out there that yes, will blow your mind.”

In addition to Fiscal Year 2013 missile and command launch system production for the U.S. Army, the contract marks the first Foreign Military Sale of the PAC-3 Missile to Kuwait. Kuwait is the sixth international customer for the PAC-3 Missile. The contract includes production of 244 hit-to-kill PAC-3 Missiles, 72 launcher modification kits and associated tooling, as well as program management. This is the 14th production buy of the PAC-3 Missile Segment by the U.S. government. “Kuwait’s purchase of PAC-3 Missiles will provide its defense forces with a superior air and missile defense capability,” said Richard McDaniel, vice president of PAC-3 Missile programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “This is another example of the growing global interest for the PAC-3 Missile’s capabilities.”

In 2009, Taiwan became the fifth international customer for the PAC-3 Missile, joining the Netherlands, Germany, Japan and the United Arab Emirates in fielding the system. Production will take place at Lockheed Martin’s manufacturing facilities in Dallas and Lufkin, Texas; Chelmsford, Mass.; Ocala, Fla.; and Camden, Ark. Deliveries will begin in 2014. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor on the PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade to the PATRIOT air defense system. The PAC-3 Missile Segment consists of the PAC-3 Missile, a highly agile hit-to-kill interceptor, the PAC-3 Missile canisters (each of which hold four PAC-3 Missiles, with four canisters per launcher), a fire solution computer and an enhanced launcher electronics system and launcher support hardware.

Lockheed Martin is a world leader in systems integration and the development of air and missile defense systems and technologies, including the first operational hit-to-kill missile. It also has considerable experience in missile design and production, infrared seekers, command and control/battle management, and communications, precision pointing and tracking optics, as well as radar and signal processing. The company makes significant contributions to all major U.S. missile defense systems and participates in several global missile defense partnerships.

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is a 2012 recipient of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for performance excellence. The Malcolm Baldrige Award represents the highest honor that can be awarded to American companies for their achievements in leadership, strategic planning, customer relations, measurement, analysis, workforce excellence, operations and results. Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 116,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation’s net sales for 2012 were $47.2 billion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See bolded :eek: interesting comment
 

MC72

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
The Patriot PAC-3 carries no explosive payload, and its effectiveness is to make a direct impact by a kinetic warhead.
The main innovation of the kinetic head of the PAC-3 with respect to the precedents (Standard SM-3) with liquid hydrazine, is that the kinetic warhead is equipped with a cilindrical ring equipped with 180 micro-rockets controlled in rapid succession by the missil guide
MC72
 

MC72

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
72
Reaction score
2
Particular detail of the PAC-3 kinetic ring system with 180 micro-Rocket

 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
PAC-3 and a KKV aren't the same thing at all except by the most superficial definition.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
DoD Officials Near Decision on Future of Patriot Missile System


WASHINGTON — Key Pentagon officials met this week to make critical decisions on the future of the Army's air and missile defense architecture, and while the service is not making recommendations in favor of any one radar for the system, the way forward must include an ability to target threats from 360 degrees — something the current Patriot system can't do.

Raytheon's Patriot has been the Army's cornerstone air-and-missile defense system for 40 years. But the service wants to replace the stovepipe system over time with a more integrated one.

It's clear from Army slides outlining findings from an analysis of alternatives conducted over the past year that the preference is to develop a newer 360-degree radar that meets emerging requirements and would keep pace with the more challenging threat environment expected in the future.

But developing a new radar, rather than upgrading the Raytheon-made Patriot, would cost more than the Army has in its budget for such an effort, according to the slides — marked "for official use only" and obtained by Defense News. The full analysis of alternatives is classified as secret, according to the documents.

The Army can afford to modernize Patriot and give it 360-degree capability, the slides show, but it is predicted that the missile wouldn't be able to keep up against a wide range of modern and future threats even with a baseline upgrade.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) would have to give the Army more money if the Pentagon reaches a consensus that it should develop a newer radar instead of upgrading its Patriots with Raytheon's game-changing gallium nitride (GaN) active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, currently in development.

An OSD study advisory group met on Nov. 12 to determine the right path. The decisions made this week and in the coming months will decide the fate of the Patriot system and could open the door for other defense contractors to play a major role in the Army's future missile defense architecture.

The Army is budgeted in its five-year plan to start a competition for the radar in fiscal year 2017.

The analysis considered the baseline option of a Patriot system with an AESA radar, a Patriot AESA radar with three antenna arrays (enabling Patriot to see behind itself), a multifunction fire control radar (MFCR), an MFCR with a surveillance radar, and the Marine Corps' Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) made by Northrop Grumman.

According to the slides, the analysis set out to study the life-cycle costs, performance, schedule, technology, operational impacts and affordability of each alternative compared to the baseline Patriot system and examined what trades existed.

The Army looked at the risk and the cost associated with each alternative in order to fully integrate them into its future Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS). Northrop Grumman is developing and will field IBCS — the brains of the future missile defense system — in fiscal year 2019.

And the analysis considered the growth potential for each option to defend against an evolving lower-tier threat, according to the slides.

To focus the study, the Army made several assumptions. For one, it assumed that any alternative could be fully integrated into the AIAMD network. Raid vignettes were designed to represent a single battery's capability.

The Army also evaluated the cost based on 91 procured radars — four prototypes and 87 production assets — and 485 launchers consisting of four prototypes and 481 production assets.

The service figured the program schedule would reach initial operational capability ideally by fiscal year 2026 and procurement quantities would stay at 15 battalions as described in a Nov. 7, 2014, materiel development decision.

To assess capabilities, alternatives were weighed against the most stressing tactical ballistic missile threat to the front, according to the document.

Overall, the Army determined the baseline Patriot option had the highest operations and maintenance costs. However, the Patriot upgrades stay within the Army's cost target and would show improvements over the baseline option in addressing threats.

Replacement alternatives with X-band interceptor communication arrays were determined to be the most costly, exceeding Army cost targets. But they "have the most improvement" over the baseline Patriot, according to the slides.

G/ATOR's average procurement unit cost is between $147 million and $254.6 million, MFCR is predicted to cost $223.9 million per copy and the MFCR with a surveillance radar is estimated to cost $326.4 million.

Every option analyzed received "high risk" rankings overall of not meeting the anticipated program schedule.

The baseline Patriot and the upgraded Patriot, according to a chart within the slides, both rank as "high risk" for not meeting the schedule in the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase and the production and deployment (P&D) phase. Both would need 88 months of schedule and might need another year or two to further reduce risk.

The Patriot baseline risk in the EMD phase is driven by the time required to build three radars and P&D risk is driven by the production and calibration time for the radars and launchers. The chart notes that three to four production quality systems are needed for operational test and evaluation.

The upgraded Patriot's EMD risk is based on software development to move from a sectored field of view to a 360-degree capability.

The G/ATOR system — which would need 118 months to move through the acquisition cycle — was assessed as having high schedule risk in both the technology maturation and risk reduction phase (TMRR) and the EMD phase. The program could see schedule slippage, the Army predicts, anywhere from 14 to 18 months.

The TMRR and EMD risk for G/ATOR is due to the need to develop and integrate adjunct equipment to allow it to detect missile threats in the lower tier, the slides show.

Both the multifire control radar and the MFCR paired with a surveillance radar presented low risk in the TMRR and P&D phases, but moderate risk in the EMD phase. Both options would need 118 months to get through all three phases and could be delayed from one to five months to drive out risk.

EMD risk for the MFCR is driven by production of radars with GaN technology and also by integrating the radar into the AIAMD network.

The Army concluded that upgrades and replacement radar options take nearly the same amount of time to field. The baseline Patriot would reach initial operational capability in fiscal year 2027, upgraded Patriot in early fiscal 2028, MFCR and MFCR with surveillance capability in late fiscal '28. G/ATOR would take the longest to reach initial operational capability, according to the slides, reaching the milestone past fiscal 2029.

The study also found the Patriot AESA radar designs represent the lowest failure and reliability risk. While Raytheon is well on its way to delivering a robust gallium nitride radar, the Army notes that there's a steep learning curve in GaN technology for some vendors.

While the analysis was primarily focused on options for a radar, it devoted some thought to a new near-vertical launcher to replace the currently fielded Patriot launcher.

The study determined that performance would be better with a near-vertical launcher (set at a 70-degree launch point) but that the baseline Patriot launcher (with a 30-degree launch point) can fit more interceptors. The slides indicate that a new launcher could be adjusted to fit more interceptors, but added that the missile load-out capacity is the "key driver" in launcher performance.

The Army also noted that the performance issues are threat-dependent and can be mitigated by the positioning of the launcher and that future improvements could include remote slewing.

Lockheed Martin's Medium Extended Air Defense System's near-vertical launcher was also included on the chart addressing schedule risk and received low risk ratings in the TMRR phase and the P&D phase, but high risk ratings in the EMD phase.

"EMD risk is driven by possible interface redesign if new prime mover is utilized," the slide reads.

According to the slides, a final report on the analysis of alternatives is due in mid-December and an AIAMD assessment white paper is expected to be delivered in mid- to late December.

If the Army decides to hold a competition for a new radar, Raytheon's competition will likely be Lockheed Martin, which has spent the last 15 years developing the Medium Extended Air and Missile Defense System (MEADS) that includes a 360-degree radar with the United States, Germany and Italy.

The US decided against buying MEADS, and after closing out the technology-development phase of the program decided not to even harvest the technology coming from the program for use in its missile defense programs. But Germany is planning to continue developing MEADS with Lockheed and MBDA Deutschland. Italy is waiting for Germany to mint its development deal before getting on board.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
Hopefully a replacement for PAC-2 is in the cards, and that they don't toss capability out the window by replacing it with MEADS. (They already have the MEADS missile, PAC-3 MSE, I'm talking about a replacement missile for the PAC-2 missile. Hopefully something with more range and a lot more speed.)
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
527
Reaction score
4
There is an interesting tension with the Patriot replacement. The US Army ADA has several growing threats:
1) SHORAD threats from UAVs and stand-off guided bombs
2) Increased air-breathing threats against maneuver forces from decreased USAF air superiority capability
3) Increased cruise missile / ballistic missile threat against US bases (USAF in particular)

Those three threats require different solutions and are maturing at the same time. I don't know how the Army plans to deal with it, but it is going to be a formidable problem.

We haven't even considered the threat to US rear bases (Hawaii and CONUS) from long range land attack cruise missiles. As this threat matures, then the US will need to devote defensive assets to CONUS bases.

It might be worthwhile to look at the Russian division of labor for air defenses, to me that division seems more sensible than the present US arrangement.
 

Void

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
131
Reaction score
3
sferrin said:
Hopefully a replacement for PAC-2 is in the cards, and that they don't toss capability out the window by replacing it with MEADS. (They already have the MEADS missile, PAC-3 MSE, I'm talking about a replacement missile for the PAC-2 missile. Hopefully something with more range and a lot more speed.)
There isn't any good reason why MEADS could not accommodate a longer range missile.

If one is actually needed, which is questionable in itself.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
Void said:
sferrin said:
Hopefully a replacement for PAC-2 is in the cards, and that they don't toss capability out the window by replacing it with MEADS. (They already have the MEADS missile, PAC-3 MSE, I'm talking about a replacement missile for the PAC-2 missile. Hopefully something with more range and a lot more speed.)
There isn't any good reason why MEADS could not accommodate a longer range missile.

If one is actually needed, which is questionable in itself.
You mean aside from the fact that the US Army isn't interested in MEADS? And given that even the latest PAC-2 missile has less than half the range of SM-6, yeah, it needs more range.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
The radar AOA sounds interesting (only if we actually had the slides). They do at some point have to factor in Low-Observable aircraft, unmanned vehicles and cruise missiles which are now showing up in Russian systems (operational or not). If this system is to mature post 2025 they have to certainly look at LO or VLO threats, and high speed threats. Some of the cost arguments look a bit strange to me. Lockheed already has the UHF surveillance radar for the MEADS that the program itself is aiming to operationalize before the turn of the decade. Why would this paired with another radar be a high risk item? Surely we haven't gotten so bad at managing a program that we can't develop an X band 2 or three faced radar paired with Lockheed's radar and have it operational before the end of next decade especially given the number of companies producing radars (Lockheed recently announced they are working on an X band Gallium Nitride radar) .

@Scott, Raytheon (see attached ..) is working on a couple of new possible interceptors for integration on the current or future systems.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
bring_it_on said:
@Scott, Raytheon (see attached ..) is working on a couple of new possible interceptors for integration on the current or future systems.
Yeah, these are all small, short range missiles. Low Cost Interceptor, IRIS-T, SLAMRAAM, (even the ER variant of that only has about half the range of PAC-2). The Advanced Threat Interceptor looks interesting. Even just sticking a Mk72 booster on Patirot from SM-2 Block IV/SM-3/SM-6 would give it a good bump.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
Low cost short ranged weapons are nice things to have I guess when the threat is that of a saturated attack from UAV's, fighters and cruise missiles. The stunner seems like a logical companion to the Pac-3 in my opinion. Booster on the MSE also makes sense provided you don't loose magazine depth in the launchers which I guess was one of the main reasons to go in for 16 per launcher because of the H2K advantage.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
bring_it_on said:
Low cost short ranged weapons are nice things to have I guess when the threat is that of a saturated attack from UAV's, fighters and cruise missiles. The stunner seems like a logical companion to the Pac-3 in my opinion. Booster on the MSE also makes sense provided you don't loose magazine depth in the launchers which I guess was one of the main reasons to go in for 16 per launcher because of the H2K advantage.
I mean put the booster on PAC-2/GEM/GEM+/GEM2. The "big missile". And yeah, all the short range stuff makes sense if you're worried about some local throwing a UAV over the base fence but if you want to secure a decent amount of airspace all the short ranged stuff is fairly useless.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,253
Reaction score
146
I have vague memories of a stretched PAC-3 proposed as a naval TMD missile -- quadpacked in a VLS. Maybe Pegasus or Perseus?

Probably not enough range to replace PAC-2, but I don't remember details. Anyone?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
TomS said:
I have vague memories of a stretched PAC-3 proposed as a naval TMD missile -- quadpacked in a VLS. Maybe Pegasus or Perseus?

Probably not enough range to replace PAC-2, but I don't remember details. Anyone?
The PAC-3 I recall was just the standard model. 4 to a cell.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,253
Reaction score
146
I figured it out. There was an ERINT (pre PAC-3) development concept as a naval point defense missile for anti-air use, not TBMD.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
TomS said:
I figured it out. There was an ERINT (pre PAC-3) development concept as a naval point defense missile for anti-air use, not TBMD.
That must have been old. :)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
It appears that the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) MSE capability may be the end of the development road in the short term at least, although there will be future software and minor hardware updates to the missiles in due course. Trotsky said that "based on the budgets in the United States and the austere budgets in many other countries, I don't think we're necessarily going to see a PAC-4, a bigger, better version of MSE. What I think you'll see is integration of the components that already exist so that they work together better".

The MSE is expected to achieve its initial operating capability in the third quarter of 2015.
 

Attachments

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
527
Reaction score
4
sferrin - I am curious as to why do you think the US needs an air defense missile with greater range than the PAC-2?

Personally, I think the US Army should look for a low cost (< $500,000) interceptor (and suitably low cost defense system) with the objective of defeating subsonic cruise missiles. Such a defensive system will be necessary to defend airbases / naval bases in the rear area against air and submarine launched land attack missiles. Ideally, the defense is cheap enough to almost render non-stealthy subsonic cruise missiles obsolete against defended targets. This seems to be a more pressing requirement than PAC-2 replacement, in the near term.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
DrRansom said:
sferrin - I am curious as to why do you think the US needs an air defense missile with greater range than the PAC-2?

Personally, I think the US Army should look for a low cost (< $500,000) interceptor (and suitably low cost defense system) with the objective of defeating subsonic cruise missiles. Such a defensive system will be necessary to defend airbases / naval bases in the rear area against air and submarine launched land attack missiles. Ideally, the defense is cheap enough to almost render non-stealthy subsonic cruise missiles obsolete against defended targets. This seems to be a more pressing requirement than PAC-2 replacement, in the near term.
Because PAC-3 (even MSE) can only cover a small area and even the latest PAC-2 variant has limited coverage against TBMs. Currently if you want to protect a bigger bubble than PAC-3 MSE against missiles you'll need to bring in one of the very limited number of THAAD units. Essentially what I'm saying is the Patriot system needs an SM-6 analog.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
They'll have to do a cost analysis for those situations. Given the Patriot replacement magnitude, it all comes down to what capability gets in and what has to be delegated to the THAAD and its future iterations. It may just be better to buy some extra THAAD batteries for those instances that requires patriot augmentation with something that is higher capability. I don't think they are looking at taking out fighters from 200 km away from ground launchers but if the air-superiority capability is reduced then it may become an option that they'd explore. At the moment the PAC 3 MSE will pretty much be the main weapon but it comes in at around $3 Million iirc so a stunner at around $500,000 is an excellent choice to pair with the MSE given that Raytheon is a sub-contractor, we paid a portion of its development and that it is significantly mature and de-risked. The problem they'll face going forward will be the radars and affording such large scale replacement. Its quite clear even from their own AOA that MEADS like approach using a Surveillance radar and an X band FCR makes the best capability choice but is unaffordable most likely because they do not want a rotating array so would require new fixed X band FCR. Raytheon's interim GaN update does provide 360 degree coverage with the S band radar but still has greater coverage in the frontal sector and smaller arrays in the back. I don't see why they can't just develop a new X band sensor and use the existing Lockheed MEADS surveillance radar if there is enough money to go in for a 2 radar setup..I don't think there is enough money there to look at an SM6 like weapon..they can perhaps get the stunner or a similar weapon and hope to in the future incrementally enhance the MSE.

One positive that Northrop Grumman has been able to achieve is the sensor interoperability with other army and DOD assets that was recently demonstrated when the AN/MPQ-64 cued the MSE to a low flying cruise missile target. That was promising and may allow them to significantly reduce the cost of the sensors buy building plug and play capability.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
bring_it_on said:
They'll have to do a cost analysis for those situations. Given the Patriot replacement magnitude, it all comes down to what capability gets in and what has to be delegated to the THAAD and its future iterations. It may just be better to buy some extra THAAD batteries for those instances that requires patriot augmentation with something that is higher capability. I don't think they are looking at taking out fighters from 200 km away from ground launchers but if the air-superiority capability is reduced then it may become an option that they'd explore. At the moment the PAC 3 MSE will pretty much be the main weapon but it comes in at around $3 Million iirc so a stunner at around $500,000 is an excellent choice to pair with the MSE given that Raytheon is a sub-contractor, we paid a portion of its development and that it is significantly mature and de-risked.
Er, PAC-2 is used all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfOTEMGhASc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AAXaTbBP34

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HevaNzsMys
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
^ I meant the main weapon as far as modernization thrust is concerned..
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
bring_it_on said:
^ I meant the main weapon as far as modernization thrust is concerned..
But they just modernized the PAC-3 missile. That's what the PAC-3 MSE / MEADS missile is. ??? PAC-2 is getting long in tooth. It's had warhead and guidance upgrades over the years but that's about it.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
580
Reaction score
5
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
It doesn't make sense for the U.S. to develop naval and land-based SAMs in parallel.
The Russians/Soviets used the same missiles in both land-based and naval applications for decades (while NATO had at least widespread dual use of surface and air-launched missiles; Sparrow/Sea Sparrow, Aspide, Sidewinder/Chapparal).
The French and Italians do the same with Aster/SAMP-T.

The USN so far merely mated a modified AMRAAM seeker to a Standard missile (SM-6), after developing ESSM instead of using some modified AMRAAM (which is also used in HUMRAAM).

The diversity should rather be in seekers (to make countermeasures more difficult) than missile families.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
I know but I doubt they'll somehow find money to modernize the PAC-2 beyond just upgrades. I don't see a serious need to develop a significantly longer ranged A&MD weapon when they don't have the money to fully fund the system modernization with the highest capability systems (unless the army makes more money available). The fastest option would be to just add THAAD batteries and perhaps procure a few more of them when money becomes available. Stunner has a better chance if Raytheon can demonstrate the $500,000 claimed sticker price.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
lastdingo said:
It doesn't make sense for the U.S. to develop naval and land-based SAMs in parallel.
Different requirements. (environmental, physical etc. Same reason using a SAM as an AAM isn't a slam dunk.)


lastdingo said:
The USN so far merely mated a modified AMRAAM seeker to a Standard missile (SM-6), after developing ESSM instead of using some modified AMRAAM (which is also used in HUMRAAM).
ESSM has WAY more kinematic capability than SLAMRAAM. (SLAMRAAM-ER isn't in service.)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
Well ESSM has enough kinetic performance over the AMRAAM for Raytheon to base their AMRAAM-ER on it..
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
bring_it_on said:
Well ESSM has enough kinetic performance over the AMRAAM for Raytheon to base their AMRAAM-ER on it..
I think you meant SLAMRAAM-ER. There is no air-launched version.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
Technically speaking, Raytheon calls the missile AMRAAM-ER ;) although SLAMRAAM-ER would definitely be more appropriate way to market it .

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/air_and_ground.html

Its an AMRAAM ESSM hybrid..

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=23897.0
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,192
Reaction score
390
bring_it_on said:
Technically speaking, Raytheon calls the missile AMRAAM-ER ;) although SLAMRAAM-ER would definitely be more appropriate way to market it .

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/air_and_ground.html

Its an AMRAAM ESSM hybrid..

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=23897.0
Huh. Wonder when they changed it. Wish they'd stayed with the original design (though the new one with the grafted on AIM-120 airframe section is probably cheaper).
 

Attachments

Top