Patriot SAM replacement

Marines operate/are developing Iron Dome (IDDS) via integration with their in service radar (TPS-80) and other Marine C2 elements under the MRIC effort. I can see them advance MRIC to add capability via integration of the Stunner interceptor solution on an upgraded or new MRIC launcher. The digital TPS-80 (AN/TPY-5(V)1) should be able to match or exceed the performance of David Sling's sensor system. While the USMC can certainly integrate a Naval MSE variant (with the tri band missile communication data-link) on an appropriate launcher solution, I don't see the service go in for a $4+ Million interceptor in the MSE that would require some trades elsewhere (to balance the budget) and would mean getting in line with other US (Army and Navy) and international customers ahead of the service for future deliveries.
 
Switzerland Sees More Patriot Delays, Eyes Alternative Bidders

Switzerland in March said it was looking for additional suppliers after the U.S. last year said it would delay delivery of the RTX Patriot systems. Bern, at the time, was led to believe the delays could span 4-5 years and costs could be 50% higher. On May 13, the Swiss government said it has now been told the wait could be 5-7 years given the fighting in Iran, with costs set to increase further.
Click to expand...
The U.S. government has now presented Switzerland with options on how to proceed, the Swiss Defense Ministry said, without offering details. All options will mean higher costs and delays. Given that, Switzerland will continue to hold off on FMS payments.
Click to expand...
 
U.S. Army looks for $1M missiles to replace expensive interceptors

"The RFI’s architecture reflects how seriously the Army is taking the cost problem. Rather than simply asking for a cheaper complete missile, the document separates the challenge into components, inviting specialist suppliers to compete on rocket motors, seekers, and fire control independently, with a fifth track for weapon system integrators who would assemble best-of-breed components into a complete round using a Modular Open Systems Approach. That disaggregation strategy mirrors how commercial technology industries have driven down costs through competitive component markets rather than vertically integrated sole-source development, and it represents a meaningful departure from how the Army has traditionally procured missile systems, where a prime contractor typically controls the entire supply chain from seeker to motor to warhead."

See:

https://defence-blog.com/u-s-army-looks-for-1m-missiles-to-replace-expensive-interceptors/
 
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2054917594759520340
View: https://x.com/brody_franzen/status/2054917594759520340?s=20
Click to expand...
The way these startups are being presented as a threat to legacy defense contractors demonstrates a basic lack of understanding in how the US defense industry works as a whole.

Legacy defense contractors are limited in the types of COTS parts (commercial off the shelf) we can use. MIL-SPEC parts (Military Specification) refers to highly regulated, custom-engineered products built specifically to meet strict Department of Defense (DoD) standards for extreme environments, durability, and reliability.

These startups aren't trying to redefine the industry, they're simply taking advantage of the lesser requirements the DoW has opened up. By loosening the restrictions, Expensive and limited supplies of MIL-SPEC parts are no longer required which allows these smaller companies to simply go to Lowe's and HD to buy materials.

They talk only about the cheap interceptors and some vague mentions of the fire control systems. Nothing about the canisters needed to house them. Nothing about protection from lightening, stray bullets or blast debris. Nothing about a TIVS system (thermal initiated venting).

To be fair, I welcome these open requirements and startups. The more we have, the better our defense. Just need to keep things in perspective.
 
missile_man said:
They talk only about the cheap interceptors and some vague mentions of the fire control systems. Nothing about the canisters needed to house them. Nothing about protection from lightening, stray bullets or blast debris. Nothing about a TIVS system (thermal initiated venting).

To be fair, I welcome these open requirements and startups. The more we have, the better our defense. Just need to keep things in perspective.
Click to expand...

This is simply an initial solicitation from the Army, not a detailed set of requirements which I assume each interested vendor or sub-system provider will eventually get if and once this effort matures and advances into its next stages.

The Army has smartly realized that its current crop of requirements lead to a legacy prime (this is less of an issue than made out to be as the legacy primes are merely responding to customer requirements) delivering a $4 Million plus entry level Patriot interceptor and a $500K+ SHORAD interceptor (IFPC) that neither meets the services own objective requirements against an abbreviated SHORAD threat set nor the complete threat set. Economies of scale really don't reduce costs all that much for these systems as doubling of PAC-3 MSE production have basically just about allowed EOS to keep up with inflation and future deliveries at the much higher rates are still expected to cost $4+ million a pop. Moreover, Army's buying practices, program office choices, lack of IP, and sole source awards, vendor lock the service for decades.

Meanwhile, the Army has seen sub $500K interceptors shoot down rockets, and CRBM class weapons and on some rare occasions even longer ranged ballistic missiles. All in actual combat. Likewise, current SRBM defeat options (like the Stunner and Barak MX) out there are probably running at half the cost of the PAC-3 MSE if not less. These are not systems or costs from Russia or some third world economy with dirt cheap labor or USSR inhereted legacy R&D / industrial base. These are coming from what is now arguably the most tested missile defense capability in the world (Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow) and a developed high-income western economy.

If the Army can push out some of the most expensing and stressing requirements from its current Patriot interceptor mainstay it can perhaps hope to land at that $1 Million price tag. But even if it overshoots by 50-100% it will still end up at less than half the cost of a MSE round at prototype production volumes. That's a huge win especially as the Army will be forced to expand Patriot missile inventories, and even force structure in the coming decades as the current TBM defeat force is inadequate for the threats of INDOPACOM. It doesn't take away from the need to field thousands of PAC-3 MSE's and LT-FI's but it does give you a multi fold increase in total system inventory which is what we don't have now. The Army had to re-route PAC-2 GEM/T's ordered by FMS customers to CENTCOM. This after just 30 days of conflict with Iran. Now imagine even pretending to have the capability against the PLA rocket force.

There is absolutely nothing stopping from a Lockheed Martin or RTX to show up with an internally developed interceptor costing sub $1 Million and capable of defeating the specified threat set. They certainly have deep pockets to develop something like this.
 
Last edited:
TLDR, 48N6, turns out, is a darn attractive missile.

Not the most capable interceptor out there because of seeker limitations, just a spammable heavy interceptor doing it all (from ballistic strike to anti ballistic defense), yet produced in tens of thousands.

Same advantage as pantsir really, but working in it's intended role unlike the latter.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:

Army plans major Future Interceptor funding surge in FY-28 after modest recent investment​

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...ng-surge-fy-28-after-modest-recent-investment
The Army spent years nursing a missile defense program with roughly $8 million a year. Now it wants nearly $1.7 billion over four years to build it. The service’s latest budget request calls for $332.8 million in fiscal year 2028 for its Future Interceptor program -- a dramatic acceleration for an effort that has subsisted on concept-definition work and modeling and simulation since launching in FY-20
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom