Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)

pesonally probably the last fan of this system... thank you for posting... :)
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/02/germany-meads-idUSL5N0B20PI20130202

::)
 
The US is getting the missile anyway (PAC-3 MSE) so I can see why MEADS wouldn't be a real high priority.
 
what kinds of other missiles are planned be integrated into meads, besides the enhanced pac-3?
 
totoro said:
what kinds of other missiles are planned be integrated into meads, besides the enhanced pac-3?
Click to expand...

Germany has talked about IRIS-T SL, a modified version of the IRIS-T AAM.

http://www.defencetalk.com/air-defence-missile-iris-t-sl-tested-successfully-46273/

That's the latest of several proposals -- at one point, ground-launched Meteor was mentioned.
 
There is no talk of integrating a longer ranged missile? There is no interest in NATO for 150-200 km ranged SAM of next generation? MEADS seems like an addition to patriot system, specifically pac-2 family, not a proper replacement. Is that so?
 
The original program was to use the PAC-3 MSE for longer-range engagements. I don't know the status of that part of the system now that the US has pulled out.
 
PAC-3 MSE is still the main MEADS missile. IRIS-T SL is supposed to be cheaper for use versus air-breathing targets.

MEADS is clearly meant more as a long overdue HAWK replacement for defense of deployed forces in the field. And these days, ballistic missile defense is considerd more pressing than air defense, though drones may start pushing air defense back into consideration.

There doesn't seem to be a pressing need or desire for extremely long range air defense -- Patriot PAC-2 is still sufficient for that in the rare cases where air superiority isn't achieved by fighter aircraft.
 
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2000/MDA/stamped/PE0603869C.pdf
 
http://www.military.com/video/defense-systems/air-defense/meads-dual-intercept-flight-test-2/2816267382001/

Duel intercept test of MEADS
 
http://defensetech.org/2013/12/27/u-s-blocks-funding-for-lockheed-meads-program/
 
Yet another needed system which instead is emblematic the current dyfunction..
 
jsport said:
Yet another needed system which instead is emblematic the current dyfunction..
Click to expand...

Don't need MEADS. The US Army is already getting the missile and integrating it into the Patriot system.
 
its not just about the missile. patriot battery is still being run by a single C band radar, both for acquisition and targeting, which really is somewhat of a compromised solution. brand new radars in meads, one in x band and other in uhf band, give increased effectiveness to the overall system. if those radars somehow trickle down to some future patriot variant, then yeah, meads may not offer anything significant enough to serve alongside patriots. but until then... it'd be wise to finally change the hardware limits inherent to patriot batteries.
 
MEADS development has been a fraught for very long time and the NATOness likewise has been complicating but a comprehensive IADS solution only makes sense and NATO countries are involved in some way. Patriot being designed for packed waves over the Fulda Gap is unsuited even w/ upgrades for the spectrum of emerging threats. A family of systems (DEW, Guns, missiles of various ranges) necessary to Counter-HARM , provide TBMD, provide Counter-Rocket Artillery Mortar (CRAM) and finally conventional AD requires an emphasis on shooting & scooting thus surviving. Such a family should include something like MEADS and THAAD can accomplish the niche Patriot covered.
 
sferrin said:
Don't need MEADS. The US Army is already getting the missile and integrating it into the Patriot system.
Click to expand...

As a hit to kill missile, the PAC-3 would benefit considerably from a more accurate engagement radar. The larger the error box, the more energy the missile needs to expend compensating for them.

If the US Army is serious about air defense MEADS is a no-brainer. The Patriot is old, not well matched to current threats and has even less potential against future threats. It would also be a valuable export product and a politically useful capability that would be welcomed by allies in NATO (Russia), the Gulf (Iran, Hezbollah) and the Asia-Pacific (China, North Korea). And it would hardly break the bank.
 
Germany has selected MEADS...wonder if it might upend Poland's recent SAM decision...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-opts-for-meads-missile-defense-system-1433867902

Lockheed Martin Corp. said Tuesday that a breakthrough missile-defense agreement with Germany opened a potential market of more than 30 countries looking to upgrade or introduce sophisticated air-defense systems.

Germany selected a trans-Atlantic consortium including Lockheed to replace the Patriot system made by Raytheon Co. in a potential deal valued by analysts at around €4 billion.

The country becomes the first customer for the Medium Extended Air Defense System, or MEADS, produced by Lockheed and MBDA Missile Systems, a consortium of three European defense companies. It beat out a rival bid from Raytheon Co., which offered an upgraded version of the Patriot.

Missile-defense systems are one of the fastest-growing areas for military spending, spurred by tensions surrounding Ukraine and in the Middle East. Poland announced plans in April to buy the Patriot rather than MEADS, and Raytheon has secured almost $7 billion in deals for the system over the past 18 months, notably from a number of Gulf nations, South Korea and the U.S. Army.

MEADS, like Patriot, uses truck-based missiles and sophisticated radar to intercept and shoot down aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles and drones.

Lockheed said it would start talks with Germany on the required number of MEADS systems, and expected to sign a contract by the fall of 2016 ahead of deployment in 2020.

“We believe they’ll be the first and there will be multiple NATO allies that take Germany’s lead,” said Marty Coyne, director of business development at Lockheed’s missiles unit.

Mr. Coyne said as many as 32 countries are expected to buy whole or partial missile-defense systems over the next 15 years, including existing Patriot users, which is deployed in 13 nations. Lockheed also provides PAC-3 missiles for the Patriot.

The Patriot remains the most widely deployed missile-defense system, and Raytheon continues to upgrade it, expressing confidence in future demand, notably from countries in Asia and the Middle East.

Raytheon said it hadn’t received a formal notification of MEADS’ selection from the German Defense Ministry, and would continue supporting its bid ahead of a final contract award.

The future of MEADS had been thrown into doubt after the U.S., which developed the system in partnership with Germany and Italy, opted to stop additional funding because of delays and cost overruns. Germany followed suit before reversing its decision following successful test launches.

MBDA is a joint venture between Airbus Group SE, BAE Systems PLC and Finmeccanica SpA.

Separately, the U.S. State Department said Tuesday it had approved the potential $1.9 billion sale of three Aegis missile defense systems to South Korea. The country is already upgrading its Patriot system and would use the Aegis on destroyers to deter potential missile attacks from North Korea. Lockheed, Raytheon and General Dynamics Corp. would share the proposed contract.
Click to expand...
 
Never understood why a country would select MEADS as it's primary SAM. Sure, it's great against just about anything, but it's got a very small envelope. Even smaller than ESSM. ???
 
MEADS with the PAC-3 isn't losing any performance to the Patriot with PAC-3, the IRIS is a supplement. Germany has buy-in on the MEADS radar and fire control, so they have incentive to eat the extra cost. Since Poland isn't in on either of those the only reason to take MEADS over Patriot w/PAC-3 is the 360 degree radar, not nothing but for most customers so far not worth the cost.
 
Moose said:
MEADS with the PAC-3 isn't losing any performance to the Patriot with PAC-3, the IRIS is a supplement.
Click to expand...

If they're giving up Patriot PAC-2 (missile) they are. It has multiple times the range of the MSE interceptor. Unless they plan on fielding significantly more batteries, coverage will go down.
 
As far as i can tell, there is no clear data given on range, save for early reports that mse enjoys 50% range increase over pac3. now, pac3 is usually credited with 20-30 km range against ballistic missiles. All other similar role missiles have abm ranges roughly half or less what their air breathing, sub mach 2 ranges are.
Therefore, i think it is plausible pac3 range against planes is 50ish, pehaps 60ish km, with mse range being 70-90 km.

While certainly less than pac2, it is not drastically less, perhaps half as little range.

Another point would be looking at mse missile weight and dimensions. Its more than plausible it has 70-90 km range, given its size.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-meads-exclusive-idUSKBN12H248?il=0

Raytheon doing a bit of story planting?
 
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-meads-exclusive-idUSKBN12H248?il=0

Raytheon doing a bit of story planting?
Click to expand...

Or the tried-and-true tactic of "negotiating through the press."
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/meads-team-submits-proposal-for-polish-missile-defense-system
 
I know Marauder had brought this up in the Patriot thread but I just wanted to drop it in here regarding preliminary MEADS and IBCS work. With the LTAMDS program drawing fire from the HASC there could be a possible push for Lockheed to incorporate some of its MEADS work into that program. GAO claims TRL/MRL 5 by end of FY17 for the sensor and given Lockheed has in the past acknowledged working on an X and S band GaN radar for mobile ground applications something based on the MFCR but with US specific upgrades could be on the cards from them. Looking further into the GAO report, it does not appear that the US Army has a lot of money to spare over the next 5-6 years to fund R&D on a new Patriot launcher either.

Also interesting is the future of the PAC-2. Poland under Wisla have chosen to skip PAC-2 and if the US Army does not specify a frequency for the LTADMS it could be the end of the road for the big missile (beyond classic Patriot) in its current form until its guidance is upgraded.

GAO Report - https://www.scribd.com/document/353806459/GAO-LTAMDS-2016


MEADS Demonstrates Ability To Plug Into Army's IBCS; Jen Judson Inside Defense 4.2014


The Medium Extended Air Defense System demonstrated interoperability with the Army's Integrated Battle Command System in testing conducted late last year, according to a Lockheed Martin official.

Lockheed spearheads a tri-national effort between the United States, Germany and Italy to develop MEADS.

Directly following a major test of the MEADS system in November at White Sands Missile Range, NM, where the system took out two simultaneous targets from opposite directions, Lockheed then tested MEADS' ability to integrate with IBCS, Marty Coyne, Lockheed's air and missile defense business development director, toldInside the Army in an April 2 interview. The company conducted the test with Northrop Grumman, the developer of IBCS.

The IBCS is at the heart of the Army's planned Integrated Air and Missile Defense system and is designed to enable a modular "plug-and-fight" capability for commandeering sensors and interceptors.

Plugging MEADS into IBCS showed "that this is very doable, having modern 360-degree radars and launchers on an Army network is real," Coyne noted. The demonstration also proved that the Army can "leverage the investment in the MEADS radars and launcher . . . and get this network capability quicker than maybe they think they can."

In about three months, Coyne said, Lockheed was able to modify its software module that allowed it to get onto the IAMD network through IBCS, though the process can normally take years.

The accomplishment, he added, "will keep the debate open" on the future of MEADS technology.

MEADS was intended to replace the Patriot missile defense system, but the Pentagon announced in 2011 that it no longer had plans to buy it. Yet, as part of a tri-national agreement between Italy, Germany and the United States, the program was allowed to continue through an $800 million, two-year proof-of-concept phase. By completing the phase, the three countries will be allowed to harvest the technology developed under the program. While Germany and Italy plan to engage in follow-on programs to continue developing the MEADS system, the United States has said it plans to harvest certain technologies developed through the program and incorporate them into future systems, but details on how and when are vague.

Lockheed has been pushing behind the scenes for continued review of the Army's missile defense modernization plan in order to ensure that the technology harvested from MEADS is seriously considered for incorporation into the service's future missile defense architecture.

The Army set up a harvesting team to evaluate which technologies should be taken from the MEADS program and used in the service's air and missile defense network. Three front-runner items for harvesting are two radars -- one for acquisition and another for tracking -- that have 360-degree detection and plug-and-fight capabilities and the MEADS launcher, which is lightweight and also has a 360-degree capability. The harvest team has yet to issue a final report, Coyne said.
Click to expand...

As far as timelines are concerned the way things currently stand, IBCS is an early 2020s capability in terms of IOC, Patriot AESA likely 2022 IOC with Poland, and 360 degree capability through rear antenna panels possibly a couple of years later (?). Germany should sign a contract for MEADS later this year and is targeting 2023-2025 in service date. The LFS appears to have been clipped from their TSLV proposal ( it is also not on the website as an end item). US Army from what I have been able to gather is targeting an IOC for LTAMDS in 2028 with full replacement expected to go well into the 2030s. HASC wants sensor IOC by 2022 and wants the Army to move things along or loose source selection power to the MDA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fktSLc_7mRE

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

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom