Raytheon Skyceptor Hit to Kill Interceptor

"The SkyCeptor interceptor is based on the Stunner hit-to-kill missile"

"based on"? What's different, the color of paint?
 
bring_it_on said:
index.php
 
So skyceptor is substantially cheaper missile than pac3 mse ? Or is US unwilling to export mse to Poland? Otherwise, i don't see the point of using skyceptors over mse...
 
totoro said:
So skyceptor is substantially cheaper missile than pac3 mse ? Or is US unwilling to export mse to Poland? Otherwise, i don't see the point of using skyceptors over mse...

It is cheaper but not a comparable system as in you can't replace the need for an MSE with the skyceptor. The MSE is capable of dealing with longer ranged ballistic missiles and it also has a small warhead which the stunner completely lacks. I've seen reports stating that the stunner has been designed to counter ballistic missiles with ranges up to 300km which would include only a fraction of the threats the MSE can handle. For many threats however the stunner is probably just as good but comes in supposedly at a fraction of the cost.

The two systems are intended to create a double-tiered missile defence capability. Iron Dome is intended to counter short-range rockets and 155 mm artillery shells, threats of ranges of up to 70 km range, while David's Sling will be used against medium and long-range rockets, short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, dealing with ballistic threats with ranges from 40 km up to 300 km ~ Jane's Defence Weekly
 
totoro said:
So skyceptor is substantially cheaper missile than pac3 mse ? Or is US unwilling to export mse to Poland? Otherwise, i don't see the point of using skyceptors over mse...


I think Raytheon is just trying to distinguish its value proposition from MEADS which is offering amongst other things:

  • PAC-3 missile co-production
  • Production and testing of an active radar homing seeker for short-range missiles
  • Production of a medium-range low-cost interceptor for the Wisła system and future use in the MEADS system.
 
Does PAAC-4/Stunner use an active seeker or semi-active seeker? The combined IR-seeker is a good concept IMO when focus is going so much towards reduced radar signatures.

For me it seems:
Ballistic missile: PAC-3
Aircraft/fighter jet: PAC-2
Low flying cruise missile: PAAC-4

In other words, a perfect patriot battery would consist of all three missiles.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom