Patriot SAM replacement

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
479
Reaction score
974
If it rotated why would you need three arrays?

instant situational awareness, critical for hypersonic threats and orientation main mast always on the most dangerous direction
imho azimuth turn ability is necessary (as on legacy radar)

methode%2Ftimes%2Fprodmigration%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F1f56a4a8-5f95-31ac-94ab-e206550591d7.jpg
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
As per Raytheon is not a mock-up and an actual prototype in support of the program. The article posted earlier goes into how the stabilization mechanism is different (relevant portion quoted below). I would not call this a massive radar from a logistical or mobility perspective (relative to what it is replacing). Yes it is about 2.5 meters longer than the legacy radar but you get quite a bit in return for that. And the radar meets the Army's required mobility needs and utilizes the same movers and air-lift compared to the radar it is replacing. A large GaN AESA antenna on a high performance radar is going to consume a lot of power and is going to require a lot of cooling when it is in this frequency range. There are very limited options to avoid that. You can go for a more efficient lower frequency radar, reduce the volume search, range, and other performance requirements, or use a rotating radar to achieve 360 degree. The Army had made it clear that it was not willing to compromise on performance for the sake of 360 degree coverage so Raytheon needed to achieve both as the Congress inserted a 360-degree language in the NDAA and even though the Army did not specify a 360 degree sensor it was quite clear that they would want one that could at the very least grow to meet that requirement. One way they could have made it smaller is by placing the CEU on a separate mover like they do on the TPY-2 but that would have probably not met mobility or operational needs and would have increased the airlift requirement.

The radar that Raytheon specifically designed for the Army uses next-generation gallium nitride technology and is 7 feet longer but 11 inches more narrow than the radar unit. But it no longer requires outrigger stabilizing legs. Rather, the system is held stable by jacks underneath, which means its takes up less space on the sides, according to Bob Kelley, Raytheon’s director of domestic integrated air and missile defense programs for business development and strategy.

If it rotated why would you need three arrays?

No it does not need to rotate - that is the entire point of developing a staring sensor. Raytheon has disclosed that the rear panels are designed to offer more than 2x the search range of the current Patriot radar which would be plenty of rear sector performance given the LTAMDS mission. They are sized to perform the full spectrum of PATRIOT's mission. There will also be other sensors operating as part of the PATRIOT battalion and within the broader IAMD fold covering other vectors and airspace. I did reach out to a Raytheon team member to see if the radar can slew and whether that capability will be carried over from the legacy sensor into the fielded LTAMDS sensors. Haven't heard back but I would be highly surprised if the final variant of their sensor doesn't offer that capability in some shape or form. There is some indication that the ability to slew is built into the design and may show up in the final delivered product..
 

Attachments

  • LTAMDS_RTN_PDF.png
    LTAMDS_RTN_PDF.png
    1 MB · Views: 123
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
No it does not need to rotate - that is the entire point of developing a staring sensor.

Yeah, it was a rhetorical question. :) With three arrays you get 360 coverage at all times albeit more range in the direction the large array is staring.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
I`m almost surprised that they just didnt come up with a railroad locomotive style turntable setup that the existing radar trailer could just be parked on and physically rotated instead.

It was a conscious decision on Raytheon's part not to go with a rotating design which would have been much simpler, cheaper but would not have performed as well. Raytheon on a number of occasions have commented that they discarded a rotator as they deemed it to be inadequate to best meet the performance requirements the US Army had set for them. They chose to go with a full mission spectrum simultaneous 360-degree capability. Hence the substantial increase in size of the rear panels compared to to what they had planned on the PATRIOT AESA upgrade or what their competition appears to have proposed. I think the question that still needs to be answered is whether this sensor can be slewed. Hopefully that will be known soon.
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
...
 

Attachments

  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-012.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-012.jpg
    698.2 KB · Views: 106
  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-010.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-010.jpg
    650.1 KB · Views: 83
  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-009.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-009.jpg
    530.8 KB · Views: 85
  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-008.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-008.jpg
    423.4 KB · Views: 84
  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-007.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-007.jpg
    530.4 KB · Views: 91
  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-006.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-006.jpg
    632.4 KB · Views: 97
  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-004.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-004.jpg
    622.5 KB · Views: 102
  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-005.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-005.jpg
    604.7 KB · Views: 106
  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-003.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-003.jpg
    428.5 KB · Views: 92
  • 10172019_ray (1)-page-002.jpg
    10172019_ray (1)-page-002.jpg
    701.8 KB · Views: 94

Mark S.

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
29
A work in progress. Slide 4 shows a more complete trailer but in it the unit is bolted to it to prevent it from being slewed. The jacks showed are the crank down variety used on the typical over the road semi trailers and the forward rails seem small when compared to the 3-axle design of the rear. Raytheon builds radars and does it well. I'm sure they'll get someone to clean up the trailer design.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
A work in progress.

I thought it was obvious that this was a prototype and same would be the case with the 6 that are to be delivered to the US Army for fielding by late 2022 following which production decision would be made for follow on orders. There are graphics where the rear assembly is not bolted, hence why I dropped a query to them to clarify this point as they would have insight into what the final configuration is likely to be. They have a pretty good team on this radar and beat some of the top radar suppliers on the planet. I'm sure they know how trailers work. At the end of the day, the design represents something built to meet or exceed requirements so there is Army influence on this as well. If the Army wants the sensor to slew, like its predecessor, that's what they'll deliver.
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
Posting this here since 3DELRR is expected to be IBCS compatible (and has been previously discussed in this thread)..It seems that Lockheed with the TPY-X, Northrop Grumman with a TPS-80 derivative, and possible even Raytheon with a SPY-6 (V)2 derivative could offer something that may interest the USAF...Possible foreign off-the shelf radars as well via partnership with US OEM's..

AIR FORCE TO TERMINATE RAYTHEON'S 3DELRR CONTRACT

The Air Force plans to cancel a contract with Raytheon to develop the Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar due to "numerous technical and supplier challenges."

"The Air Force is changing its acquisition strategy for the Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR) program and will take actions to conclude its current engineering and manufacturing development contract with Raytheon," Air Force spokeswoman Patty Welsh told Inside Defense today.

The service originally chose Raytheon as the 3DELRR prime contract in 2014, but Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman -- both of whom made failing bids for the project -- protested the award. Then, when the Air Force opted to take corrective action to re-start the bidding process, Raytheon protested the service's decision. The compounding protests resulted in a nearly three-year program pause that culminated with a new contract to Raytheon in 2017.

The Air Force didn't expand on the nature of the technical challenges Raytheon experienced and didn't immediately provide details on when the contract will be officially terminated, but the Government Accountability Office raised concerns in a 2018 report that a "lack of technical readiness" was delaying the program and highlighted software development risks. The Air Force expected it would cost more than $1.3 billion to develop and produce 35 radar systems.

Raytheon said in a statement to Inside Defense it continues to work with the service to overcome the program's challenges.

"We are aware of the Air Force's position and share their concerns with the challenges facing the 3DELRR program," the company said. "We have been working closely with the Air Force to resolve these issues, and continue to support the U.S. Air Force with their efforts."

The service had previously expected the program to reach initial operational capability in 2023 and full operational capability in 2029. Under the new strategy, Welsh said, the service will use Middle Tier Acquisition authorities to reach IOC for the capability "no later than FY-24."

The program office, based out of Hanscom Air Force Base, MA, will host an industry day Feb. 4, and is asking radar developers to pitch production-ready systems to participate in a forthcoming demonstration. Welsh said the service will release a solicitation soon after the event. The service is referring to the rapid acquisition effort as "SpeedDealer."

"Current market research shows that due to advancements in technology, other alternatives are now available that can deliver the capability faster," Welsh said. "The Air Force believes there is technology that will allow for demonstration of production-ready systems within the next nine months."

3DELRR is meant to replace the Air Force's legacy AN/TPS-75 and serve as its primary ground-based sensor for long-range surveillance, detection and tracking. -- Courtney Albon
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
LTFI seems to be funded. Here are the FY-21 activities for which funding is requested (schedule attached) -

- Continue execution of concept definitions through Other Transactions Agreements (OTA)
-Continue Modeling & Simulation development for enhanced system effectiveness assessment
-Provide program support in the development and execution of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
-Initiate Prototyping activities for high risk technology

RFP out in 2023, and single vendor down-select a year later..
 

Attachments

  • LTFI FY21.jpg
    LTFI FY21.jpg
    180 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
Lockheed has confirmed to Inside Defense that it has submitted its bid for the 3DELRR SpeedDealer with its TPY-X which is an upgraded version of what it had initially offered to the USAF. Posting it here because of the 3DELRR requirement for IBCS compatibility.

 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
1,017
SpeedDealer demonstration participants chosen

HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, Mass. – As the Air Force moves forward with its new acquisition strategy for the Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar, the program office here selected three companies May 8 to participate in a rapid prototyping program to demonstrate expeditionary radar performance this summer.

The Lockheed Martin Corp. and the Northrop Grumman Corp. will participate under Other Transaction Agreements, and CEA Technologies, an Australian firm, will demonstrate their system through a Foreign Comparative Test project award.

3DELRR will be the principal Air Force ground-based sensor for long-range surveillance, detection and tracking of aerial targets in support of theater commanders and will replace the AN/TPS-75. The program office canceled a delayed development contract late last year, after determining that production-ready systems were available that could deliver the capability faster. The first step in the new strategy is this SpeedDealer demonstration that will allow the Air Force to assess the military utility of the systems to perform the 3DELRR mission.

“Based on our successful industry day in early February, we released a solicitation March 2 for companies to support our new aggressive strategy,” said Lt. Col. Matthew Judge, materiel leader. “We are excited to see what these three systems can do.”

Program office personnel requested responses to the solicitation by April 1, but extended the deadline to April 15 due to the pandemic. In less than one month’s time, the team evaluated all received proposals and made the selections.

Each award provides $500,000 for the companies to demonstrate their radar system’s capabilities, maintenance concepts and radar performance against operationally-relevant targets and conditions, no later than the end of September. Following the demonstration, a system that successfully completes the event may be selected for integration, and potentially production, contracts by the end of this calendar year.

By using a contracting mechanism known as an Other Transaction Authority, the team has greater flexibility in executing the SpeedDealer demonstration and streamlining the transition to follow-on production. The use of the Foreign Comparative Test program, a congressionally-approved authority, allows the Defense Department to test and acquire technologies from designated foreign sources to satisfy U.S. military needs.

“We are not starting over; this is not a new development contract,” said Col. Michael Harm, 3DELRR’s senior materiel leader. “Through the information presented during our industry day and received in the companies’ response to the solicitation, we were able to confirm that production-ready systems can be demonstrated this year.”

The Air Force anticipates a production-ready radar could reach initial operational capability by late fiscal year ’24.

“Our air control squadrons need this important capability, and this strategy will accelerate delivering it to them,” said Har
 

dumpster4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
24
Reaction score
26
How well would Standard-6 work as a Patriot replacement, or at least as a replacement for PAC-2?


The Army Is Working To Field A Ground-Launched Strike Version Of The Navy's SM-6 Missile:

"So, the Army could leverage what the Navy has already paid for and thoroughly tested for their land-based
needs. What's more exciting is that with additional development dollars from the Army, a joint SM-6 program
effort could greatly accelerate the ongoing development of the missile, especially in its new second-generation,
larger form-factor configuration. There is even a real possibility the SM-6 could be adapted for air-launch as a
very long-range air-to-air missile, as well as a land-attack and anti-ship weapon. This could make it truly a joint
tri-service program. You can read all about the SM-6 and its capabilities here, and its next big evolution in this
past feature of ours."

See:

 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
That is an EXPENSIVE way to hit a ground target. Why not just use an ATACMs or one of the new LRPF missiles Lockheed is going to be building?
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
928
The INF treaty prevented the US Army from creating requirements for a medium ranged strike system like that.


I mean as Patriot replacement. Considering that this thing is superior to any PAC-2 or PAC-3 missile.

Like It's weird for the army to adapt it as a ballistic missile while there are things like ATACMS or those small guided rockets fired by HIMARS.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
The INF treaty prevented the US Army from creating requirements for a medium ranged strike system like that.


I mean as Patriot replacement. Considering that this thing is superior to any PAC-2 or PAC-3 missile.

Like It's weird for the army to adapt it as a ballistic missile while there are things like ATACMS or those small guided rockets fired by HIMARS.

Its surface-to-surface mode would have been an INF treaty violation.
The Army also doesn't like boosters dropping on the heads of its soldiers.
And you'd need a C-band datalink on SM-6.

The logical, quick place for it would be with the THAAD battery.
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
928
Its surface-to-surface mode would have been an INF treaty violation.

This is kinda weird TBH like, nobody bats an eye on Russian 48N6D/48N6E2. This thing can go 2 km/s and if it were set to ground attack mode (so it's essentially a ballistic missile) like what Russian SAM's usually have, it can go 493 km. Not as accurate as their dedicated missiles perhaps but the range can be considered INF breaking.

And you'd need a C-band datalink on SM-6.

Eh, then it's good as Patriot do works in C-band. You can even use the main radar array like what Russian do for datalink for their S-300's. Why stick to PADIL ?

The Army also doesn't like boosters dropping on the heads of its soldiers.

This one looks more understandable.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
This is kinda weird TBH like, nobody bats an eye on Russian 48N6D/48N6E2. This thing can go 2 km/s and if it were set to ground attack mode (so it's essentially a ballistic missile) like what Russian SAM's usually have, it can go 493 km. Not as accurate as their dedicated missiles perhaps but the range can be considered INF breaking.

It's the same residual capability that the Patriot surface-to-surface mode has.
SM-6 has had specific upgrades for a surface-to-surface mode and has been tested extensively as such.


Eh, then it's good as Patriot do works in C-band. You can even use the main radar array like what Russian do for datalink for their S-300's. Why stick to PADIL ?

SM-6 has no C-band datalink capability. AFAIK, Raytheon never pulled the trigger on the dual-band S-band/X-band datalink either.
PADIL has nothing to do with uplink/downlink for missiles in midcourse.
 

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
747
Does PAC-2 still have a surface to surface to mode? I'm guessing It's also well under the INF limit.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,946
That is an EXPENSIVE way to hit a ground target. Why not just use an ATACMs or one of the new LRPF missiles Lockheed is going to be building?
Why can’t they put a guided front end on a simple dumb booster like the GEM family of SRMs? Would have range and payload advantage.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
I guess the point is that SM-6 (presumably the 21-inch version) already has a surface to surface mode and the seeker
probably has some utility in tracking land targets.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
309
Reaction score
294
I guess the point is that SM-6 (presumably the 21-inch version) already has a surface to surface mode and the seeker
probably has some utility in tracking land targets.
Is there a mass estimate for the 21 inch SM6?
I'm guessing around 4500 lbs..
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
I guess the point is that SM-6 (presumably the 21-inch version) already has a surface to surface mode and the seeker
probably has some utility in tracking land targets.
Is there a mass estimate for the 21 inch SM6?
I'm guessing around 4500 lbs..

Sounds reasonable. In the paper by Kearney et al, most of the notional 21-inch missiles exceeded the max loaded VLS cell weight (6500 lbs).
Don't know if I've ever seen the weight figure for the lightweight canister built for SM-3 Block II.
 

Attachments

  • kearney-sm-21-inch.pdf
    465.9 KB · Views: 36

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
309
Reaction score
294
Sounds reasonable. In the paper by Kearney et al, most of the notional 21-inch missiles exceeded the max loaded VLS cell weight (6500 lbs).
Don't know if I've ever seen the weight figure for the lightweight canister built for SM-3 Block II.
Since current configuration is maxing that weight limit out, every pound added to the missile can only come from each pound reduced from the empty container. Not sure how much they could reduce from the current mass.(3,120 lbs phs&t)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
Sounds reasonable. In the paper by Kearney et al, most of the notional 21-inch missiles exceeded the max loaded VLS cell weight (6500 lbs).
Don't know if I've ever seen the weight figure for the lightweight canister built for SM-3 Block II.
Since current configuration is maxing that weight limit out, every pound added to the missile can only come from each pound reduced from the empty container. Not sure how much they could reduce from the current mass.(3,120 lbs phs&t)

One of the stated goals from a SBIR solicitation from a decade ago was a 25% reduction in VLS canister mass.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
"Black Dagger is a boosted "Zombie" apparently. Zombie is the 2-stage ATACMs and Black Dagger is one of those with an old Terrier booster slapped on the back. More often than not, when I see these target missiles, I figure their brain-storming sessions must open with, "hold my beer".

Black-Dagger-Boosted-Zombie-Target-BZT.jpg
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
when I see these target missiles, I figure their brain-storming sessions must open with, "hold my beer"

It really does seem to be a fine and under-appreciated art: the targets have to be capable enough to be interesting, cheap enough to
regularly throw away, safe enough to regularly employ and reliable enough so that you don't burn scarce range time and/or
waste assets.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,741
Reaction score
3,708
when I see these target missiles, I figure their brain-storming sessions must open with, "hold my beer"

It really does seem to be a fine and under-appreciated art: the targets have to be capable enough to be interesting, cheap enough to
regularly throw away, safe enough to regularly employ and reliable enough so that you don't burn scarce range time and/or
waste assets.

I'll bet it's one of the funnest jobs out there. "Here are all the legos. Go make something."
 
Top