PAC-3 MSE

Moose said:
Lower thrust and longer burn time being exactly what one looks for in a *checks notes* terminal defense weapon engaging high-velocity targets.

No, wait, I think I'm wrong. I think that's exactly what one doesn't want.
Click to expand...

Well in that case the booster to use would be the Mk-72.
 
Josh_TN said:
At this point the two are merging anyway. The two are are collaborating on Guams defense using every missile family and radar they have.
Click to expand...
I think that is more a matter of just how critical Guam is to the US forces in the western Pacific...
 
NMaude said:
How long is the Mk-114? The only measurement I know for sure about it is its diameter (14.1").



I checked the Mk-41 wikipedia article and:



I don't know about the 209" tactical canister but the 303" strike version should be able to fit a PAC3 with with an attached Mk-114 booster or a booster based on it.
Click to expand...
You once estimated the length of the Mk114 booster as 72 inches (6 feet), which looks about right to me, eyeballing it compared to the 9-ft length of the Mk 54 torpedo payload. (This also jibes with the fact that the 14-ft LRASM plus VLA booster fits in a Strike-length cell but is too long for a Tactical one). Mk 72 is about 5.5 feet, so not much shorter.

The wiki numbers are the physical depth of the launcher, but there is stuff under the canisters in each launcher (exhaust plenum, foundations, etc.). The actual canister length for Strike is 22 feet (264 inches) and for Tactical is 19 feet (228 inches). The max missile length inside that canister is about six inches less than that thanks to seals, hold downs, etc.

Now, MSE is 17 feet long on its own; there is clearly no room for 5-6 feet of booster under it. There is the Tomahawk booster, but it's not the right kind of thing for this -- its job is to get 1.3 tons of Tomahawk out of the tube, pointed away from the ship in roughly the right direction, and high enough for the turbine to start after the booster falls away.

If they wanted to add a booster to MSE for naval use, I'm sure they could design one, but it would be quite a redesign. And as stated, LM's goal is for the missile to be interchangeable off the assembly line for both applications.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
If they wanted to add a booster to MSE for naval use, I'm sure they could design one, but it would be quite a redesign. And as stated, LM's goal is for the missile to be interchangeable off the assembly line for both applications.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If the USN needs a longer ranged SAM/ABM, they have SM2s and SM6s. Once the SM2 ARH is the normal production version, I expect the Army to buy a pile of SM2s to fill the area between Patriot and THAAD.
 
So twin cell Pac-3 MSE? Sounds good to me. Maybe one could buy them for other stuff than hypersonic defense too
 
It would require PAC-3 to fold its control surfaces, which would be separate production line. I think the USN is more likely to go for a quad pack option, if one can be found.
 
Josh_TN said:
It would require PAC-3 to fold its control surfaces, which would be separate production line. I think the USN is more likely to go for a quad pack option, if one can be found.
Click to expand...
Quadpacked PAC-3 CRI instead of MSE?

SM-6 can still take the distant targets and let the Compact Agile Interceptor take the close-in terminal shots.

Or do we have a diameter for David's Sling/Stunner/PAAC-4?
 
TomS said:
Quadpacked PAC-3 CRI instead of MSE?

SM-6 can still take the distant targets and let the Compact Agile Interceptor take the close-in terminal shots.

Or do we have a diameter for David's Sling/Stunner/PAAC-4?
Click to expand...
How does Stunner compare to PAC-3 MSE? My impression is that it is distinctly inferior.
 
sferrin said:
How does Stunner compare to PAC-3 MSE? My impression is that it is distinctly inferior.
Click to expand...

The claim is that it's better than PAC-3 and much less expensive than MSE. But also too big for the CAI requirements.
 
TomS said:
Quadpacked PAC-3 CRI instead of MSE?

SM-6 can still take the distant targets and let the Compact Agile Interceptor take the close-in terminal shots.

Or do we have a diameter for David's Sling/Stunner/PAAC-4?
Click to expand...


This project seems in its very early stages; they do not seem to have even settled on propulsion yet. I’m not sure what exactly they are tested, but a baseline PAC-3 does not seem to solve the problem and the project seems to contemplate clean sheet designs. Or possibly even multiple designs. It seems unclear from the article.
 
Josh_TN said:
It would require PAC-3 to fold its control surfaces, which would be separate production line.
Click to expand...

Why would that need a seperate production line? The only thing different is that missile's fins and strakes would be foldable.

kqcke for you said:
Pac-3 MSE with MK.114 as booster to your service xD
Click to expand...

The Mk-114 would definitely work (11,000Lb of thrust for five seconds burn time) or you could use the R/UGM-84's launch booster (12,000Lb thrust for 2.9 seconds).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom