Patriot SAM replacement

doug harpel

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 12, 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
2
Lower Tier Future Interceptor Program - New start for FY20 -

The Lower Tier Future Interceptor program will provide improved operational effectiveness against evolving air and missile defense threats within the lower tier portion of the ballistic missile defense battlespace. The future interceptor will increase Air and Missile Defense (AMD) capability through increased velocity, altitude and maneuverability. The acquisition program will competitively select a future interceptor to complement existing Air and Missile Defense (AMD) capabilities to overmatch evolving threat.
Looks like the Future Interceptor Program start got pushed a year right. Question is the degree to which the Army really wants the dramatically increased capability or dramatically lower cost per unit. Difficult to get at both.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
If they want capability then probably wiser to count on the MDA to deliver something within a reasonable amount of time. While it is great to look at a low cost interceptor, the problem is still that there are going to be lower tier threats that are beyond the capability of the MSE and there aren't enough THAAD systems to go around. So either they integrate these two systems and then buy an adequate quantity, or they look at another interceptor that is larger and more capable than the MSE.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
they look at another interceptor that is larger and more capable than the MSE.
So basically a two-stage version of the GBI?

Two-Stage Interceptor Missile Succeeds in First Flight Test
No nothing like that actually. We are talking about a lower tier TBM defense capability here. You need something that can cover a larger envelope than the MSE now that you have an organic sensor that can allow for those engagements (original PATRIOT radar couldn't even support the MSE's full envelope). The LTFI was rightly going after requirements that pushed them towards a faster, more agile missile that had could intercept at higher altitudes than the MSE. Something like in between a PAC-3 MSE and THAAD as far as capability was concerned.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
4,560
Reaction score
2,130
Seems like as good of place as any to put this. (It's probably elsewhere on this site but for the life of me don't know what it would be called.) This missile, second from right. Almost looks like it could be a Mk72 booster with a 21" sized second stage (think SM-6 Block IB) and a THAAD KKV. I wonder if the Navy is looking at something like this.

View attachment 664699
I spent couple of hours searching for this because I remembered I had seen an illustration of it somewhere before. The Navy did actually consider this long ago but it didn't win, according to JHU/APL, a "boosted THAAD" which is what is shown above was considered for the NTW but it lost out against SM LEAP.
Overland Cruise Missile Defense (OCMD) w/ more CEC sensors mentioned in the paper begs the question whether SM based/Mid Range Capability (MRC) or new missile shouldn't have been the basis for maximum commonality missile to engage ground Time Critical target (TCTs), cruise msles, and TBMs. Continuing to upgrade Patroit and even boost THAAD does not render the best overall encompassing capability. Engaging the TELs "pre-boost Phase" as it has been termed, is first priority w/ a capability against the missiles themselves second.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
Looks like the Future Interceptor Program start got pushed a year right.

Thinking out loud, perhaps this is not such a bad thing given what all the Army currently has in the works. If Congress was interested in an expanded TBM and CMD battlespace for IAMD then one fairly low-risk solution would be to integrate the MRC launcher (MK41) into AIAMD and utilize the SM-61A and 1B interceptors. Given the Navy plans to use these for an initial counter hypersonic capability the Army could also benefit greatly from that. Given the pace at which the Army operates at a completely new clean sheet LTFI is a minimum 10-12 year project and Iran etc would have made significant strides in their ballistic missile program by then.
 

Attachments

  • Typhon_MRC.jpeg
    Typhon_MRC.jpeg
    224.7 KB · Views: 143

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
2,529

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
Lower Tier Future Interceptor Program - New start for FY20 -

The Lower Tier Future Interceptor program will provide improved operational effectiveness against evolving air and missile defense threats within the lower tier portion of the ballistic missile defense battlespace. The future interceptor will increase Air and Missile Defense (AMD) capability through increased velocity, altitude and maneuverability. The acquisition program will competitively select a future interceptor to complement existing Air and Missile Defense (AMD) capabilities to overmatch evolving threat.
Looks like the Future Interceptor Program start got pushed a year right. Question is the degree to which the Army really wants the dramatically increased capability or dramatically lower cost per unit. Difficult to get at both.

It appears that the threat didn't get pushed to the right.

View: https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1491391078289002503
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,523
Reaction score
5,117
Lower Tier Future Interceptor Program - New start for FY20 -

The Lower Tier Future Interceptor program will provide improved operational effectiveness against evolving air and missile defense threats within the lower tier portion of the ballistic missile defense battlespace. The future interceptor will increase Air and Missile Defense (AMD) capability through increased velocity, altitude and maneuverability. The acquisition program will competitively select a future interceptor to complement existing Air and Missile Defense (AMD) capabilities to overmatch evolving threat.
Looks like the Future Interceptor Program start got pushed a year right. Question is the degree to which the Army really wants the dramatically increased capability or dramatically lower cost per unit. Difficult to get at both.

It appears that the threat didn't get pushed to the right.

View: https://twitter.com/JosephHDempsey/status/1491391078289002503
At least they don't need to worry about where they're going to get nukes for it.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
I think the idea that Marauder floated a while ago of adding a 3 ft Stunner like booster to the MSE may be very tempting for a quickly extending its envelope as a brand new interceptor is developed.
 

GruntFox

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
112
Reaction score
84
Wait until the USAF calls foul and deeps six this...
Doubt it.
I wouldn't be surprised that the USAF succeeds like the previous attempts the US Army had done. Remember, they're the sort of organization that tried to disband everyone else at least once, tried to get complete ownership of anything that flies at least once, killed a few promising projects (like the AH-56) just because it threatened their position, and has been a constant thorn in everyone's backside since they've become independent.

The USAF has always tried to deep-six any attempts for a US IADS doctrine. That's why the US just sucks when it comes to air defense outside of 'send fighters'.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,523
Reaction score
5,117
Wait until the USAF calls foul and deeps six this...
Doubt it.
I wouldn't be surprised that the USAF succeeds like the previous attempts the US Army had done. Remember, they're the sort of organization that tried to disband everyone else at least once, tried to get complete ownership of anything that flies at least once, killed a few promising projects (like the AH-56) just because it threatened their position, and has been a constant thorn in everyone's backside since they've become independent.

The USAF has always tried to deep-six any attempts for a US IADS doctrine. That's why the US just sucks when it comes to air defense outside of 'send fighters'.
I think they're past that. What the Army calls "IADS" the USN calls "CEC" and the USAF is onboard with that. You don't see them screaming about GBI, Aegis ashore, THAAD, and SM-6.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
Wait until the USAF calls foul and deeps six this...

The USAF and US Army have a fairly significant partnership with A-IAMD and making sure that it is what that service brings to the cJADC2 effort. Air Force has partnered on several prior integration work with IBCS, including bringing F-35's out to develop concepts and other test activity. It is the Army that has de-prioritized its Air Defense capability (for years) at a time when it should be deep in developing the next generation interceptor to defeat threats beyond the kinematic capability of the PAC-3 MSE. That LTAMDS is at least 10 years late (to requirement), the new near-vertical launcher no where, and the LTFI still in "we're studying what to do" mode, it doesn't really bode well for the future modernization beyond IAMD and LTAMDS. All this while, the Army has failed to add even a single additional battalion to the PATRIOT force despite there being a significantly higher demand for TBM defeat capability given the shift marked in the previous NDS and likely to be an integral part of the upcoming NDS as well.
 

GruntFox

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
112
Reaction score
84
Wait until the USAF calls foul and deeps six this...
Doubt it.
I wouldn't be surprised that the USAF succeeds like the previous attempts the US Army had done. Remember, they're the sort of organization that tried to disband everyone else at least once, tried to get complete ownership of anything that flies at least once, killed a few promising projects (like the AH-56) just because it threatened their position, and has been a constant thorn in everyone's backside since they've become independent.

The USAF has always tried to deep-six any attempts for a US IADS doctrine. That's why the US just sucks when it comes to air defense outside of 'send fighters'.
I think they're past that. What the Army calls "IADS" the USN calls "CEC" and the USAF is onboard with that. You don't see them screaming about GBI, Aegis ashore, THAAD, and SM-6.
The USAF did a while back, but that was quite some time ago and I can't remember where I found the article. :\
Wait until the USAF calls foul and deeps six this...

The USAF and US Army have a fairly significant partnership with A-IAMD and making sure that it is what that service brings to the cJADC2 effort. Air Force has partnered on several prior integration work with IBCS, including bringing F-35's out to develop concepts and other test activity. It is the Army that has de-prioritized its Air Defense capability (for years) at a time when it should be deep in developing the next generation interceptor to defeat threats beyond the kinematic capability of the PAC-3 MSE. That LTAMDS is at least 10 years late (to requirement), the new near-vertical launcher no where, and the LTFI still in "we're studying what to do" mode, it doesn't really bode well for the future modernization beyond IAMD and LTAMDS. All this while, the Army has failed to add even a single additional battalion to the PATRIOT force despite there being a significantly higher demand for TBM defeat capability given the shift marked in the previous NDS and likely to be an integral part of the upcoming NDS as well.
That wasn't what I've heard, and PAC-3s aren't really SAMs, just ABMs with minimal AA capability.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
The MSE is fully tested against ballistic, cruise and air-breathing tests and its increased lethality relative to the PAC-3 makes it even better against CM/ABT. That said, the $4 Million interceptor is going to be preserved for those stressing targets and the longer ranged PAC-2's will be used against the air-breathing threats. BMD is basically what drives PATRIOT requirements. That's the main threat and that's what it is most tested against.
 

blahdy

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
That wasn't what I've heard, and PAC-3s aren't really SAMs, just ABMs with minimal AA capability.
The publicized range of PAC-3 (aka what most would call it "minimal AA") is recommended asset protection radius (Defended Footprint) against ballistic missile threat, it is not an actual range of the interceptor against ABT/CM threats, which is actually much longer, and the specific range information of PAC-3 remains classified to date IIRC. I believe that tragic friendly fire incident in Iraq/2003 which downed a Navy Hornet was by a PAC-3 ERINT interceptor, not PAC-2 -- so I wouldn't call that minimal AA capability, it's designed to engage aircraft (just not as primary role, as Patriot fire units still have the longer ranged PAC-2/GEM for anti-air use), and also very dangerous to aircraft.

Note that defended footprint for TBM targets is significantly different than engaging ABT/CM threats, as placing the interceptor into collision geometry against falling ballistic targets place much higher divert requirements than ABT. Thus, the general rule of thumb for SAMs is that defended footprint for TBM threats is typically much smaller than their maximum ranges for ABT threats. The official publicized number that the US Army is quoting for PAC-3 ERINT is Defended Footprint radius for TBM threats.

One point of reference is Almaz-Antey (S-400) marketing literature posted on Ausairpower (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html). This literature (source: Bolotov and Mizrokhi, 2003) speculates maximum range of ERINT (earlier name for PAC-3) of 100 km, maximum altitude of 25km. So the truth is probably somewhere in between and I'm guessing this article's claimed speculation of PAC-3 (ERINT & CRI)'s maximum range against ABT is probably more accurate. MSE would increase this by ~50% or so per LM publicized marketing literature.
 
Last edited:

GruntFox

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
112
Reaction score
84
That wasn't what I've heard, and PAC-3s aren't really SAMs, just ABMs with minimal AA capability.

That wasn't what I've heard, and PAC-3s aren't really SAMs, just ABMs with minimal AA capability.
The publicized range of PAC-3 (aka what most would call it "minimal AA") is recommended asset protection radius (Defended Footprint) against ballistic missile threat, it is not an actual range of the interceptor against ABT/CM threats, which is actually much longer, and the specific range information of PAC-3 remains classified to date IIRC. I believe that tragic friendly fire incident in Iraq/2003 which downed a Navy Hornet was by a PAC-3 ERINT interceptor, not PAC-2 -- so I wouldn't call that minimal AA capability, it's designed to engage aircraft (just not as primary role, as Patriot fire units still have the longer ranged PAC-2/GEM for anti-air use), and also very dangerous to aircraft.

Note that defended footprint for TBM targets is significantly different than engaging ABT/CM threats, as placing the interceptor into collision geometry against falling ballistic targets place much higher divert requirements than ABT. Thus, the general rule of thumb for SAMs is that defended footprint for TBM threats is typically much smaller than their maximum ranges for ABT threats. The official publicized number that the US Army is quoting for PAC-3 ERINT is Defended Footprint radius for TBM threats.

One point of reference is Almaz-Antey (S-400) marketing literature posted on Ausairpower (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-400-Triumf.html). This literature (source: Bolotov and Mizrokhi, 2003) speculates maximum range of ERINT (earlier name for PAC-3) of 100 km, maximum altitude of 25km. So the truth is probably somewhere in between and I'm guessing this article's claimed speculation of PAC-3 (ERINT & CRI)'s maximum range against ABT is probably more accurate. MSE would increase this by ~50% or so per LM publicized marketing literature.
Well, I wish this forum had informative likes because this is rather enlightening.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
209
Reaction score
199
Defense News May 2, Raytheon has run into problems with its prototypes for the new radar for Patriot system, LTAMDS, Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor, a variant of the SPY-6, do wonder if the problems not sorted in danger of cancellation, my impression of the radar was an unwieldy beast for an easily transportable system.

Pure speculation for possible alternative radars, the new Air Force TPY-4/3DELRR L-band available in both fixed and transportable variants small enough to be transported via C-130, truck, rail, or helicopter etc and the new Army A4 Sentinel X-band, which radars near similar in concept to the MEADS system radars, UHF 360 degree surveillance and X-band FCR.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...o-keep-its-new-air-defense-radar-on-schedule/
 

Attachments

  • Patriot_LTAMDS_Raytheon.jpg
    Patriot_LTAMDS_Raytheon.jpg
    876.3 KB · Views: 46
  • TPY_4_3DELRR.png
    TPY_4_3DELRR.png
    206.7 KB · Views: 28
  • A4_Sentinel.jpg
    A4_Sentinel.jpg
    114.6 KB · Views: 32

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,702
Reaction score
947
They're not having problems with the radar itself, at least not that have been reported to date, and TPY-4 is less mobile than LTAMDS. I think they're still having trouble getting the smaller "secondary" arrays, which give each trailer 360 degree coverage, integrated in a satisfactory way. I imagine the worst-case for this system is to delete those, or place them on a secondary trailer, and work around the problems that creates.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
209
Reaction score
199
Thanks, understood Congress called for the new Patriot radar to give 360 degree coverage though Army didn't. The Sept 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack by Iranian drones on the Saudi refinery was successful even though defended by Skyguard, Shahine (Crotale) and Patriot, suggested the radars were pointing in wrong direction, would likely have been pointed south towards Yemen. In response Trump sent a battery of Patriot missile launchers, 200 troops and four A3 Sentinel X-band radars each giving 360 degree coverage.

Perhaps not understanding all the parameters but the TPY-4 looks much more mobile than the LTAMDS, a TPY-4 can fitted into a C-130 cargo hold, 10 ft wide and 9 ft high, think LTAMDS just too big and heavy.
 

Attachments

  • Patriot_LTAMDS_Raytheon#2.jpg
    Patriot_LTAMDS_Raytheon#2.jpg
    191 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
209
Reaction score
199
Following the May 2 Defense News report that Raytheon has run into problems building the first prototypes of the LTAMDS radar with years slippage and the Army production decision for LTAMDS now delayed to the first quarter of FY24, with the decision on the new missile in the third quarter of FY26 and the plans for a future launcher have yet to be confirmed.

May 12 Inside Defense reporting Army has earmarked nearly $3 billion in its five-year spending plan for the new radar with "the first production batch of the Patriot radar replacement slated be operational at full-battalion strength with a first unit by 2029"

IIRC the 2019 "Sense-Off" competition for the radar, one condition set by Army was it had to based on existing radar, so to take ten years to be first operationally deployed seems slow?

 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
387
Reaction score
407
Wait until the USAF calls foul and deeps six this...

Considering the USAF is giving money hand over fist to get IBCS functional on AWACS, Joint STARS and its own ATC radars...

This is about as good a take as assuming the USAF would "deep-six" the Army's JTRS lol. Aside from "it can't", the USAF is one of the two prime funding sources. The other is the USN.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,753
Reaction score
1,431
Thanks, understood Congress called for the new Patriot radar to give 360 degree coverage though Army didn't. The Sept 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack by Iranian drones on the Saudi refinery was successful even though defended by Skyguard, Shahine (Crotale) and Patriot, suggested the radars were pointing in wrong direction, would likely have been pointed south towards Yemen. In response Trump sent a battery of Patriot missile launchers, 200 troops and four A3 Sentinel X-band radars each giving 360 degree coverage.

Interestingly enough, if you look at MIM-104 radars at Al Udied on google maps, their antenna's are directed southwest. There also is one launcher reserved for this direction and another pointing northwest, where as previously the SAM sites were completely oriented towards Iran (most of the launchers still point in that direction). 360 seems like a necessary design consideration.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
The current Patriot batteries in CENTCOM and elsewhere are paired with sentinel radars. 360 degree defense without a rotator radar is expensive as is evident from the $100+ million price tag of each LTAMDS.

Raytheon saying the new 'GhostEye' LTAMDS radar $130 million each, hoping foreign sales might bring cost down.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...amds-orders-tandem-armys-first-production-run

That was my point. But the current radar is basically combining three arrays into one radar and will be using a 500kw generator to drive those eventually. But it’s still early days of fielding operational prototypes and producing at sub one radar a month production rates. Higher LRIP and FRP quantities should bring down cost but this type of capabilities with three arrays was never going to be cheap.
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
556
Reaction score
416
I wonder if any Patriot missile batteries will be given to the Ukrainian army (After suitable training)?
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
209
Reaction score
199
The current Patriot batteries in CENTCOM and elsewhere are paired with sentinel radars. 360 degree defense without a rotator radar is expensive as is evident from the $100+ million price tag of each LTAMDS.

Raytheon saying the new 'GhostEye' LTAMDS radar $130 million each, hoping foreign sales might bring cost down.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...amds-orders-tandem-armys-first-production-run

That was my point. But the current radar is basically combining three arrays into one radar and will be using a 500kw generator to drive those eventually. But it’s still early days of fielding operational prototypes and producing at sub one radar a month production rates. Higher LRIP and FRP quantities should bring down cost but this type of capabilities with three arrays was never going to be cheap.
The new gen and more powerful LTAMDS radar looks large and heavy, reflected in the current Patriot generator 150kW whereas you mention the new radar requires a 500kW generator. If so the big downside will be the at the expense of the Patriot battery unit mobility, presuming the trade off accepted as it reflects the need to counter hypersonic missiles with increased radar range with its large fixed forward array?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
The current radar is so underpowered that it limits the current missile (MSE's) envelope. LTAMDS not only expands the battlespace (360 degree) but also allows MSE to be used to its full potential (w/o a need to have. TPY-2 around) but also for future interceptors to be made capable of engaging TBM's at higher altitudes and greater keep out ranges. Even the much smaller MEADS X-band array was going to utilize a 300kW PD system. They are currently utilizing the PU-810 with initial LTAMDS and I don't think the LTPS will be any bigger than that footprint. It should not have a very significant impact on deployability or mobility once weighed against the advantages one gains in performance and threat engagement. IAMD also makes them a lot nimbler and effective given that now launchers, and radars can be tens of miles apart. Not to mention the ability to build composite units with IFPC launchers.

do wonder if the problems not sorted in danger of cancellation,

This is funny. No they are no significant headwinds on the program though there have been some delays but those are quite normal for a program of this complexity. The first radar is at WSMR, and five more will be there later this year. The radar utilizes the same prime movers and has about the same mobility characteristics as the set it is replacing yet many times its capabilities. One must remember that the Army had no significant lead-up S&T investment to support this program. By the time they requested their "sense Off", one of the competitors had only a partially populated shared aperture design that it had to ditch because of inability to build a full scale array and get it to a maturity where it could do a demonstration (thus rushing to a rotating S band Israeli system instead). Raytheon not only showed up with a fully populated main array but will also deliver 6 prototype radars (4 of which will go to operational units) inside three years of contract award. So the question about "cancellation" does not arise given the pace at which the program is delivering when viewed alongside the capability that it brings to the table alongside IBCS.

Perhaps not understanding all the parameters but the TPY-4 looks much more mobile than the LTAMDS, a TPY-4 can fitted into a C-130 cargo hold, 10 ft wide and 9 ft high, think LTAMDS just too big and heavy.

What's the rationale behind comparing TPY-4 with the LTAMDS? Different missions, different needs and characteristics. The Army did fund a large chunk of development for radars that could do IAMD for it and be C-130 deployable. That work arrived at using 2 (SUR+FCR) radars and a rotator FCR which was subsequently discrarded by the Army when choosing its LTAMDS winner. Even so, the two radar solution (for LTAMDS requirements) were deemed as unaffordable by the Army's analysis.

There is no C-130 requirement for LTAMDS as most of the other components of the battery probably can't be C-130 deployed either. The requirements, much like the current system was C-17 which it meets. If they ever wish to pay a premium to put into service a C-130 deployable IAMD/BMD system they can consider re-launching the MEADS effort which did just that at the expense of performance (smaller radars, and magazine).
 
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
209
Reaction score
199
Thanks for ref on the PU-810 generator, global security

"The MEP PU 810 A is configured for low speed maneuverability only and can be transported aboard a C-130 aircraft. The MEP PU 810 B is configured with a "fifth wheel" and is DOT certified for highway travel, but cannot be transported aboard the C-130 aircraft"

Is it expected Army/Raytheon will be developing a new more deployable/mobile generator to power the LTAMDS. The Navy upgraded the Burkes Flt III's for Raytheon's larger SPY-6 by upgrading their three generators from 3MW to 4MW each and increasing the cooling capacity from 1000 refrigeration tons to ~1400-1500 t with ships five ac plants to cope with the additional heat output from its new radar etc.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,874
Reaction score
1,417
The Army is currently funding prototypes from 2 vendors and will have a down-select soon and aims to have the new power system in production and fielded by FY-26. The PU810 is an interim solution until it is fielded. Not sure why the infatuation with C-130 (or with the Navy's destroyers). PATRIOT is not a C-130 deployable system though few individual elements may be. This is not a design driver so the Army doesn't pay the premium (in design and cost) for it. The future power supply solution will have two 500 kw, 480 volt generators mounted on a single M870A4 with the power system being C17/C5 transportable.

Trying to squeeze out the performance of a future state IAMD battalion (LTAMDS + Sentinel A4 + PATRIOT and IFPC launchers on one fire control network) from a C-130 deployable system is going to be very expensive and risk driven. One would have to assume that if such a requirement was to arise it would basically lead them right back to what they did with MEADS which will not be CHEAP, and will not be at the same PERFORMANCE as say a 2026 IAMD battalion. I like having a C-130 deployable IAMD universal launcher (complementary to the PATRIOT and IFPC high capacity launchers) that can launch both PAC-3 (CRI+MSE) and LTFI and also IFPC family of missiles..It would be similar in design to the MEADS launcher though would have significantly reduced capacity as compared to a PATRIOT launcher. But that's not funded and given all the work ahead is probably not a priority.
 
Last edited:

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
2,529
Top