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

THAAD Development

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
Weird that they'd see SM-6 as an alternative to THAAD-ER given they're not remotely comparable. ???
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
Weird that they'd see SM-6 as an alternative to THAAD-ER given they're not remotely comparable. ???
Its one of those where you look at existing technologies and dump one which is totally not relevant after giving it some consideration :). THAAD is unique from that perspective. Integrating SM6 into existing THAAD setup would also be challenge while the THAAD ER leverages already proven systems so should be a modest integration challenge. Putting SM6 at Aegis ashore sites would obviously reduce Mid course interceptors at those sites while THAAD won't compete for VLS real-estate. THAAD is also deployable (on land) while SM6 would have to be made deployable...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
Imagine a VLS with SM-3 Block IIA, THAAD-ER (would it fit?), SM-6, PAC-3 MSE (4 per cell), SM-2, and ESSM (4 per cell). Don't know if it would be awesome or a nightmare for the sailors with all those different types.
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
525
Reaction score
3
About the video, what is interesting is that the last interception is clearly against a hypersonic glider, look at the trajectory, but the video doesn't mention that at all. Maybe haven't had enough time to pay the artists to model one...
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
54
DrRansom said:
About the video, what is interesting is that the last interception is clearly against a hypersonic glider, look at the trajectory, but the video doesn't mention that at all. Maybe haven't had enough time to pay the artists to model one...
Good catch! That THAAD KV is one biconic bad boy.

sferrin said:
Imagine a VLS with SM-3 Block IIA, THAAD-ER (would it fit?), SM-6, PAC-3 MSE (4 per cell), SM-2, and ESSM (4 per cell). Don't know if it would be awesome or a nightmare for the sailors with all those different types.
Sounds great! Now just cure the Navy of its allergy to liquid propellants and Lockheed weapons in VLS cells.

One thing that's not clear (to me at least ) is if THAAD-ER uses TVC in the second stage as well or just relies on the DACS.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
99
marauder2048 said:
One thing that's not clear (to me at least ) is if THAAD-ER uses TVC in the second stage as well or just relies on the DACS.
They say the KV would not require any changes for THAAD ER. Given the limited fuel in the DACS, I'd doubt that it would rely on it to maneuver the whole KV+2nd Stage stack. So I'd assume it has some TVC. The video seems to show the second stage do some sort of maneuver without showing the DACS firing, which would support that idea.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
2nd stage definitely uses TVC. They mention using it to enable a much larger divert capability. Once the KKV has detached it works normally though with the divert system. Also, 2nd stage would have to use TVC anyway to fly straight (unless the adapter shroud is being used to assist stability).
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
30
Principle problem with that scenario, assuming all other technical considerations can be overcome, is that 6 different missile types is a planning and logistical nightmare for a surface combatant. 80-122 cells per ship gets filled up real quick, and you can't count on a fast or easy reload process.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
Moose said:
Principle problem with that scenario, assuming all other technical considerations can be overcome, is that 6 different missile types is a planning and logistical nightmare for a surface combatant. 80-122 cells per ship gets filled up real quick, and you can't count on a fast or easy reload process.
That's sort of what I was thinking. On the other hand you don't want to squander a multimillion dollar SM-6 on a target ESSM could handle, or an SM-6 on something PAC-3 might be more suited for. I'm wondering if SM-2 Block III might go away entirely and either fill each of it's former cells with 4 ESSM Block 2s or SM-6 minus a booster. Of course that begs the question, if you're going to take an entire cell anyway, why not just use a full-up SM-6? I wonder how much it's booster contributes to it's bottom line cost. ???
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
525
Reaction score
3
The whole design is, I believe, justified by the hypersonic glider threat. That suggests that a high divert in-atmosphere weapon is required to hunt down gliders... But if anyone has sources about the interception requirements for that, this would be interesting.

There was a recent article about German research into a ramjet powered anti-glider weapon.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
DrRansom said:
The whole design is, I believe, justified by the hypersonic glider threat. That suggests that a high divert in-atmosphere weapon is required to hunt down gliders... But if anyone has sources about the interception requirements for that, this would be interesting.
That's what this guy was for:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17791.0.html
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
54
sferrin said:
Moose said:
Principle problem with that scenario, assuming all other technical considerations can be overcome, is that 6 different missile types is a planning and logistical nightmare for a surface combatant. 80-122 cells per ship gets filled up real quick, and you can't count on a fast or easy reload process.
That's sort of what I was thinking. On the other hand you don't want to squander a multimillion dollar SM-6 on a target ESSM could handle, or an SM-6 on something PAC-3 might be more suited for. I'm wondering if SM-2 Block III might go away entirely and either fill each of it's former cells with 4 ESSM Block 2s or SM-6 minus a booster. Of course that begs the question, if you're going to take an entire cell anyway, why not just use a full-up SM-6? I wonder how much it's booster contributes to it's bottom line cost. ???
They were actually looking at a dual pulse version of the Mk. 72 booster (as part of the IM compliance effort) about a decade ago but I don't know if that got rolled into the later Mk 72 mods.

Still curious what efficacy ESSM Block 2 and SM-6 have against surface targets which I would think would be their real value proposition above say quad-packed PAC-3 MSEs with slim-line boosters.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
Moose said:
Principle problem with that scenario, assuming all other technical considerations can be overcome, is that 6 different missile types is a planning and logistical nightmare for a surface combatant. 80-122 cells per ship gets filled up real quick, and you can't count on a fast or easy reload process.
That's sort of what I was thinking. On the other hand you don't want to squander a multimillion dollar SM-6 on a target ESSM could handle, or an SM-6 on something PAC-3 might be more suited for. I'm wondering if SM-2 Block III might go away entirely and either fill each of it's former cells with 4 ESSM Block 2s or SM-6 minus a booster. Of course that begs the question, if you're going to take an entire cell anyway, why not just use a full-up SM-6? I wonder how much it's booster contributes to it's bottom line cost. ???
They were actually looking at a dual pulse version of the Mk. 72 booster (as part of the IM compliance effort) about a decade ago but I don't know if that got rolled into the later Mk 72 mods.

Still curious what efficacy ESSM Block 2 and SM-6 have against surface targets which I would think would be their real value proposition above say quad-packed PAC-3 MSEs with slim-line boosters.
PAC-3s are spendy compared to ESSM, and far better at hitting ballistic missiles. I've often thought ESSM should be made into "mini RIM-67s" and quad-packed. You could probably even use the same motor for the booster.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
54
sferrin said:
PAC-3s are spendy compared to ESSM, and far better at hitting ballistic missiles. I've often thought ESSM should be made into "mini RIM-67s" and quad-packed. You could probably even use the same motor for the booster.
The international partners definitely want ESSM Block II+ to evolve in the mini-RIM-67 capability direction.

Hard to know about PAC-3 MSE cost comparison with respect to ESSM Block II unless you've seen estimates.
But I'll readily concede that X-band is a better seeker frequency than Ka-band for the Navy's typical operating environment.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
Video gone :mad:...

The video did indicate however, that the MDA approved unlimited release on Aug. 18, 2015 so 6 missiles per launcher could very well be something that Lockheed thinks is doable.









 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
54
bring_it_on said:
Video gone :mad:...

The video did indicate however, that the MDA approved unlimited release on Aug. 18, 2015 so 6 missiles per launcher could very well be something that Lockheed thinks is doable.
Damn! I was literally just looking for it today to snarf it into .mp4 format.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
Was the NRO satellite destruction altitude ever confirmed? Supposedly the considered THAAD for that and technically it would have been possible..
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
99
The official statement is that the altitude was 133 nm (246 km).
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,174
Reaction score
99
For the intercept of the NRO satellite USA-193.

Edit: Thatwas a reply to a now missing question.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
TomS said:
The official statement is that the altitude was 133 nm (246 km).
Don't know if this is correct or not but it's oddly specific and it was one of the first videos posted on it as I recall:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT1fTyWLGXM
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
TomS said:
For the intercept of the NRO satellite USA-193.

Edit: Thatwas a reply to a now missing question.
Yeah, took it off as I didn't notice somebody had asked about the ASAT shot. Thought you were commenting on THAADs altitude.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
Thanks Tom, and Scott. In a heritage foundation discussion on missile defense, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering confirmed that THAAD would have also been able to a accomplish the intercept.

https://youtu.be/o31r_a_2F1U?list=LLfGK4Ct_4uy86McTXi5VThg&t=3328

And a screen grab from the video we were discussing earlier..
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
Anybody know how low recon satellites dip down, or how low RORSATs go (if there are even any left in service)? That the US has THREE systems in service that could conceivably hit a satellite has got to raise a few eyebrows. Too bad ASM-135 got cancelled back in the day.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
Anybody know how low recon satellites dip down, or how low RORSATs go (if there are even any left in service)? That the US has THREE systems in service that could conceivably hit a satellite has got to raise a few eyebrows. Too bad ASM-135 got cancelled back in the day.
I was a little surprised that the comment wasn't picked up (or perhaps I just wasn't paying attention at the time). Was Sputnik not around then ? ;)
 

Mark S.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
80
Reaction score
3
Note that the truck in the frame grabbed from the video of the THAAD ER is a M1075 in lieu of the M977. The six rounds of THAAD ER must be a good bit heavier if they are adding a third axle. Could be that they were near the limit with the original one.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
Mark S. said:
Note that the truck in the frame grabbed from the video of the THAAD ER is a M1075 in lieu of the M977. The six rounds of THAAD ER must be a good bit heavier if they are adding a third axle. Could be that they were near the limit with the original one.
The original had the 3rd axle as well.
 

Attachments

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
525
Reaction score
3
bring_it_on - that screen you posted shows what I think is a glider interception. Again, I find it interesting that none of the promotional material mention hypersonic gliders, even though that is clearly a consideration for the THAAD-ER.

(Also, SM-3 with a kill vehicle is, I would think, entirely unsuited for glider interception, as a kill vehicle would have problems at hypersonic speeds in atmosphere. The Navy may have to find something else here. )
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
DrRansom said:
Also, SM-3 with a kill vehicle is, I would think, entirely unsuited for glider interception,
Definitely. Would need THAAD-ER or PAC-3 MSE.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
bring_it_on - that screen you posted shows what I think is a glider interception. Again, I find it interesting that none of the promotional material mention hypersonic gliders, even though that is clearly a consideration for the THAAD-ER.
I guess they do show it in the video without specifically mentioning it in the slides. Outside of this promotional material, Lockheed hasn't been reluctant to mention glider interceptions for the THAAD-ER.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
54
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Also, SM-3 with a kill vehicle is, I would think, entirely unsuited for glider interception,
Definitely. Would need THAAD-ER or PAC-3 MSE.
The Navy has been looking at dual-pulse or throttleable motors for SM-6.

DrRansom said:
bring_it_on - that screen you posted shows what I think is a glider interception. Again, I find it interesting that none of the promotional material mention hypersonic gliders, even though that is clearly a consideration for the THAAD-ER.
Guess I took it to be anything from a hypersonic glider, to a MaRV after a pull-up maneuver to a depressed trajectory shot.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
54
Another thread was trying to suss out MDA's Special Access Programs (SAPs) used to support their airborne DEWs effort.

Turns out THAAD has an SAP: Project Redwood. Any ideas?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Also, SM-3 with a kill vehicle is, I would think, entirely unsuited for glider interception,
Definitely. Would need THAAD-ER or PAC-3 MSE.
The Navy has been looking at dual-pulse or throttleable motors for SM-6.
SM-6 would not be my first, second, or third choice for trying to knock down a hypersonic glider. That said, it would be interesting to know the flight profile of the AQM-37 they shot down in the last series of tests with SM-6 as it can reach speeds of Mach 4 or 5 (depending on source) and maneuvers.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,641
Reaction score
97
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/missiles-killing-missiles-180957780/?no-ist&sf19886320=1
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
Army juggling demand for upper-tier antimissile equipment March 22, 2016


Besides a potential deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system to South Korea, the Army also is weighing requests from U.S. European Command and U.S. Central Command for the capability, a key official said.

The antimissile weapon, made by Lockheed Martin, is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in the upper reaches of the Earth's atmosphere. Combatant commands have said for some time that they need additional defensive measures to keep up with the proliferation of ballistic missiles.

Lt. Gen. David Mann, head of the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command, said the service is in the midst of reconciling how to retain enough THAAD batteries stateside while satisfying the requests from field commanders, such as those in Europe and the Middle East, and allies, like South Korea.

Mann was speaking with reporters at the Pentagon on March 22 via teleconference. He said the Army is on track to have five batteries fielded and trained by the end of the year, with two more funded in the mid-term program. The service's requirement remains nine batteries, he said. One battery is stationed in Guam and is expected to remain there as a U.S. homeland defense against North Korean missile threats.

The deployments bring with them political sensitivities that are reminiscent of the strong opposition by Russia to American missile-defense plans in Europe. The weapon's radars typically are powerful enough to observe any nearby country's defense posture.

In the case of South Korea, Mann noted how China is a key trading partner for that country, which means Chinese concerns about accepting a U.S. radar-surveillance capability in its backyard should be taken into account.

"This a very sensitive issue for partners throughout the region," he said. "So we don't minimize the sensitivity of these discussions."

At the same time, he said, "I think it's very, very important that we clarify that that radar, that system is not looking at China. That system, if a decision is made to deploy it, would be oriented on North Korea and threats posed by the North Korean military."

On the heels of a satellite launch by North Korea that drew international condemnation, the United States and South Korea announced last month that the two countries would study the possibility of deploying THAAD on the peninsula. According to a Feb. 7 statement by U.S. Forces Korea, the two governments began "formal consultations" on improving their antimissile posture, specifically the "viability" of fielding the system "at the earliest possible date," reads the joint statement.

Mann told reporters that the feasibility study is still ongoing. Actually deploying the system is no quick affair, because the topography needs to be prepared to house the equipment, he explained.

As for a potential THAAD deployment to Europe, Mann said the idea is to support EUCOM's "operational plans." The command has increasingly turned its focus on Russia, following Moscow's annexation of Crimea and subsequent fighting in Ukraine.
 

Mark S.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
80
Reaction score
3
I thought the original number for THAAD batteries was 12? I'm probably wrong and numbers required float around but wasn't the first look for more than9?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
6
I'm not sure but it could very well have been 12 at some point during its development. The number has been 9 for a while now, and is quite inadequate imho unless the systems are exported to South Korea and more ME nations.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,785
Reaction score
200
bring_it_on said:
I'm not sure but it could very well have been 12 at some point during its development. The number has been 9 for a while now, and is quite inadequate imho unless the systems are exported to South Korea and more ME nations.
Just looking at the number of missiles they'd have to stop theoretically shows the number planned is severely insufficient.
 

Mark S.

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
80
Reaction score
3
Found this in a 1994 GAO report that I downloaded off the net sometime ago. Don't have the URL


Of the 1,422 THAAD missiles, 69 would be produced during research
and development for test purposes; 40 would be produced as User
Operational Evaluation System (UOES) prototypes that could be
fielded if necessary; and 1,272 would be produced and available for
fielding with the THAAD system. The other 41 would be used for
reliability testing. Of the 99 launchers, 15 would be produced
during research and development for test purposes; 4 would be
produced for deployment with the UOES system; and 80 would be
produced and available for fielding with the THAAD system. Of the
18 radars, one would be produced during research and development
for test purposes; two would be produced for deployment with the
UOES system; and 15 would be produced and available for fielding
with the THAAD system. These quantities of missiles, launchers, and
radars would support two THAAD battalions.
11
 
Top