If the canisters are such a pain why not redesign?
Not that simple. The DoD doesn't want to pay for a redesign when they have one that works. They don't GAF how hard it is.

The entire assembly (canister and interceptor) was Designed by LM Space to requirements set by the USG and built by LM Missiles & Fire Control.
 
Ok, so I'm new here. I love learning and sharing a few things as I'm allowed.. I worked on the PAC-3 program for 6 years, HIMARS for 2 years and THAAD for past 3 years. I'm not looking to "own" anyone but will offer correctional insight when I can.
Welcome and thank you for sharing what you can!



Also the Patriot isn't trying to hide. It wants to be fired at, but even so, the case that it needs to be more mobile to "shoot and scoot" is a misunderstanding about Patriot radar technology. It has an extremely narrow frequency hopping beam and is almost undetectable.
Ah, okay, wasn't expecting that.
 
WePilots don't even know they're fired on until the moment the missile's seeker takes over and by then they dv on't even have time to eject. The Patriot missile discriminates on the cockpit.

I was rather under the impression that the name Patriot was selected because it sounds cool and brings to mind the soldiers and militiamen of the American Revolution. By the time serious work was being done it would have been close the bicentennial in 1976 so the timing sounds right. I think it probably took some effort on someone's part *after* it was named to turn it into an acronym for something. Seems like there must have been an office somewhere in the Pentagon in those days just tasked with making cool acronyms.
AFAIK, Patriot was selected by someone at Raytheon precisely because of the coolness factor.

Then, later down the line, someone figured out they could backronym it.
 
AFAIK, Patriot was selected by someone at Raytheon precisely because of the coolness factor.

Then, later down the line, someone figured out they could backronym it.
This is the first I'd ever heard of it as an acronym going all the way back to the 80s. "SAM-D" was the only acronym I'd ever seen, and that was only in the conceptual phase.
 
First it was called FABMDS (Field Army Ballistic-Missile Defense System), then AADS-70 (Army Air Defense System for the 1970s) and from 1961 SAM-D (Surface-to-Air Missile, Development). From 1976 it was called PATRIOT (Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept On Target). It's not simply by coolness.
 
Last edited:
From 1976 it was called PATRIOT (Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept On Target). It's not simply by coolness.
'Phased array tracking radar to intercept on target' is not a phrase that makes sense in the English language. This is a clear indicator that the name was picked first, and the meaning forced onto it later.

I'm quite sure that if it had been called 'Sentinel', they'd have argued it was Surface Environment Tracking and Intercept Electronics or something of that nature. And that wouldn't be the most ridiculous backronym I've encountered.
 
A backronym in other words.
Pretty much.

I'm not sure exactly why this even turned into a debate. I worked on the PAC-3 program at Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control for 6 years. I worked directly with my Raytheon counterparts to turn a PAC-2 only launcher into a PAC-3 capable launcher.

It's not like I have any reason to just make this shit up. But if anyone wants to spell it out in all caps to look more credible, go right ahead. I promise I won't judge you.
 
Last edited:
It's not like I have any reason to just make this shit up. But if anyone wants to spell it out in all caps to look more credible, go right ahead. I promise I won't judge you.

Just for perversity, the Navy's AEGIS is not an acronym*, but the program's style guide says it is to be written in ALL CAPS anyway.

* You will see a couple of attempted backronyms floating around the web. None are official, thanks to WEM FOA.**

** Wayne E Meyer, Father of AEGIS. And yes, he actually signed stuff that way.
 
Just for perversity, the Navy's AEGIS is not an acronym*, but the program's style guide says it is to be written in ALL CAPS anyway.

* You will see a couple of attempted backronyms floating around the web. None are official, thanks to WEM FOA.**

** Wayne E Meyer, Father of AEGIS. And yes, he actually signed stuff that way.

I've seen that as well. Aegis simply means shield.

The only debate I've seen is how it should be pronounced. eejis? ay-jis?

I don't really know. LOL. I tend to flip flop or just call it SkyNet because that's what it really is.
 
The only debate I've seen is how it should be pronounced. eejis? ay-jis?
Much depends on whether you want to speak American, British or Greek. Apparently there's an archaic spelling in American English that's just Egis.

I say just ignore the whole thing and call it 'Thunderstorm', if you want it to sound cool. Or 'Goatskin', if you want to annoy the US Navy. Bunch of nerds that they are.

I'm curious when the backronym-mania really got going. There's certainly a lot of it about.
 
Much depends on whether you want to speak American, British or Greek. Apparently there's an archaic spelling in American English that's just Egis.

I say just ignore the whole thing and call it 'Thunderstorm', if you want it to sound cool. Or 'Goatskin', if you want to annoy the US Navy. Bunch of nerds that they are.

I'm curious when the backronym-mania really got going. There's certainly a lot of it about.
Who knows. The military loves their acronyms, thus it makes sense for that to carry over to defense contractors.

At MFC, we have a whole intranet site dedicated to acronyms.
 
Wasn't there at would stage some thought given to an air-launched PAC3 (From a wing pylon mounted pod IIRC)?
Called the ALHTK.

I honestly don't see the value except if you're trying to loiter near Best Korea waiting for them to launch a ballistic missile and you're wanting to Intercept it in the boost phase?

But, even that has a whole host of other problems, mainly speed and altitude. Chances are you're not going to be able to Intercept it head on like the PAC-3 is designed to do. You're gonna end up having to chase into the upper atmosphere and catch it from behind and need an ingenious warhead to destroy it.

But hey... we're America and we do shit just to say we can.
 
"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".

View attachment 641855

During the test at White Sands Missile Range, the U.S. Army successfully tracked the missile using the Lower-Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) radar. The data gathered from this tracking was then utilized by the Patriot interceptor system, which engaged the target with precision. The Black Dagger Zombie missile followed a pre-programmed trajectory, ultimately reaching its interception point over the missile range in New Mexico.
 

What a great idea.

Screenshot-2025-01-30-at-6-22-52-PM.png
 
Last edited:
just would imagine actual full war intercept numbers might be highly classified as both sides tactics might even change by the day even. A genuine assessment would need to be very extensive with innumerable variables. Likely a multi year study for real lessons/tactics/strategies to be gleaned.

Joe C, the author is a Def Spending critic everyone knows.
 
 
Re above the Inspector General's report its based on reflects the bad odour Army/Raytheon are in with Congress after an additional 34% spend (presume overspend in development after the failure to intercept ballistic target in 2023?) without the appropriate level of reporting to Congress, in the FY24 bill during the Congress Senate negotiations the Senate proposed cutting $399 million from LTAMDS R&D and in the FY25 Senate proposed cutting in half the funding request for the $138 million radar.

 
Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, the service’s program executive officer for missiles & space has given a briefing on the LATMDS to Defense News.

LTAMDS running a year late "ironing out any kinks" and IOT&E to take place in the fourth quarter of FY26.
He is reporting "the system is deemed ready for low-rate initial production" Milestone C. The Army’s low-rate production lot will be roughly 10 radars, current build time to build is about 40 months, but aiming to bring it down to 3 years, plan to build a total of 94 radars for $13 billion.

The Maj. Gen. criticized the recent Inspector General report for the program's lacking proper due diligence and made no mention of the 34% program overspend revealed in the IG report only saying "it was always going to be incredibly technically challenging"


https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...defense-radars-after-year-of-troubleshooting/

Inside Defense saying in FY25 Continuing Resolution funding Army won’t be able to purchase two of the four prototype radars it had planned to procure in FY25, the Army had included $516 million in procurement funding for LTAMDS.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...nding-cr-will-have-wait-buying-two-prototypes
 
The PATRIOT sensor is old and needs to be recapitalized with something more modern and actually capable of supporting defeating current and future threats. This needed to happen a decade ago. I would love to see an IG or DOD report citing the risk associated with having a sensor relying on decades old technologies against modern ballistic missiles, low observable missiles and aircraft and hypersonic threats and actually quantifying the impact on lives lost, and cost involved of doing maintaining that..But they are probably too busy to do such an analysis..
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom