Patriot SAM replacement

[Mark S.]

Truck Tire and wheel assemblies are typically 4 ft or 48 inches in diameter. You can use that distance in the photo dividing it into 4 segments to get the antenna size.

 

[bring_it_on]

That is sort how I got to the 8-10 ft length guesstimate for the antenna. I hope some reporter gets a good clean shot of the graphic but it seems to reveal what the fully populated antenna and the IFF will look like.

 

[bring_it_on]

Does anyone have a good sense of how much the FMTV was extended (XM1160 variant) for the MEADS prime mover requirement?

 

[Mark S.]

Another Metric is vehicle width. Max width for vehicles on the roads in the USA without a permit is nominally 8 ft. That tells me the array is about 7' square in the latest photo. Once again use the tires to determine the length of the vehicle.

 

[sferrin]

In any case it's certainly not very big. Nothing like a Tomb Stone or Bill Board for sure.

 

[bring_it_on]

It makes sense for Lockheed to base their design on the architecture that they had worked on for MEADS. This could mean retaining the same prime mover configuration and deployability footprint as that set. Of course requirements allowing.

The MFCR array is 2 meters by 2 meters or thereabouts so that is probably where Lockheed will end up with unless the requirements call for a larger array.

 

[sferrin]

It makes sense for Lockheed to base their design on the architecture that they had worked on for MEADS. This could mean retaining the same prime mover configuration and deployability footprint as that set. Of course requirements allowing.

The MFCR array is 2 meters by 2 meters or thereabouts so that is probably where Lockheed will end up with unless the requirements call for a larger array.

Yeah, and no sense having a radar that far outstrips the range capability of it's missiles. (Though with CEC maybe that will change.)

 

[bring_it_on]

Sensor performance will be technology and power dependent. A 10,000 module X-Band AESA should give you some pretty impressive numbers depending upon the power you are able to provide it. I think on the MEADS the radar and C2 come with a 350KW generator setup. You are probably looking at higher efficiency too at GaN even at X-band.

https://www.jenoptik.com/products/defense-and-security/electrical-energy-systems-military-platforms/intelligent-energy-systems

 

[bring_it_on]

Courtesy Sydney Freedberg

 

[bobbymike]

It makes sense for Lockheed to base their design on the architecture that they had worked on for MEADS. This could mean retaining the same prime mover configuration and deployability footprint as that set. Of course requirements allowing.

The MFCR array is 2 meters by 2 meters or thereabouts so that is probably where Lockheed will end up with unless the requirements call for a larger array.

Yeah, and no sense having a radar that far outstrips the range capability of it's missiles. (Though with CEC maybe that will change.)

Slightly off topic but a recent CSIS presentation "Integrating Strike and Defense" talks about THAADs radar being able to detect Chinese and Russian launches over the pole but the missile doesn't have the ability to intercept.

 

[TomS]

Slightly off topic but a recent CSIS presentation "Integrating Strike and Defense" talks about THAADs radar being able to detect Chinese and Russian launches over the pole but the missile doesn't have the ability to intercept.

Just because the THAAD missile (probably) can't intercept ICBMs, doesn't mean THAAD can't contribute to ICBM intercepts. I believe they've already demonstrated the ability of AEGIS and THAAD radars to provide cueing data to GMD.

 

[bring_it_on]

THAAD Radars can be configured to operate in Forward Based Mode to supply early warning and discrimination data to AEGIS and other programs.

http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10040/upfile/201607/2016071210505031011.png

 

[Mark S.]

Ideally you would want your radar range to exceed your missile range by the distance a RV would travel between the time of detection and your missile's flyout to intercept point. That would include the distance flown while establishing a track and decision time. So wouldn't the required radar range be a function of RV vs. interceptor speed? The faster the interceptor the less range the radar needs to have? I'm skeptical that THAAD has no ability to intercept ICBM's since it's faster than the Nike Zeus which was touted as an ABM but will defer judgement to those who know more.

 

[sferrin]

Ideally you would want your radar range to exceed your missile range by the distance a RV would travel between the time of detection and your missile's flyout to intercept point. That would include the distance flown while establishing a track and decision time. So wouldn't the required radar range be a function of RV vs. interceptor speed? The faster the interceptor the less range the radar needs to have? I'm skeptical that THAAD has no ability to intercept ICBM's since it's faster than the Nike Zeus which was touted as an ABM but will defer judgement to those who know more.

Spartan (think upgraded Zeus) had a published speed of Mach 10. THAAD ~Mach 8. Also, it's less a function of speed than ability to get in front of the warhead. (Yes, that requires speed, but only to a point.)

 

[bring_it_on]

deleted

 

[bring_it_on]

The point about the Patriot replacement / LTAMDS is not about size comparison to an older sensor. The radar will more than exceed the interceptor range by a large margin. A single radar will need to be multi-mission so they will require it to be long range. Plus while the PAC-2 may go away a new variant or another interceptor down the road will be required and the sensor will have to support medium to long range AAW. Where a higher frequency sensor will lag is the volume surveillance mission where a lower frequency radar can help. GaN X band modules at the desired TRL are probably well above 20 W peak power and likely closer to 5W if not more for average power. You quickly begin to become limited by thermal and power limitations and the physical deployment footprint of your system.

It would be difficult to directly compare high frequency sensors utilizing latest generation gallium nitride semi conductors and digital beam forming antennas with legacy US or Russian/Soviet PESA radars of the past. Power and efficiency among other things have improved considerably. Case in point, Raytheon has claimed double the range (unspecified mode or target) for its AESA upgrade to the Patriot without much change in the physical footprint of the radar or the prime power supply.

As a reference here are the dimensions of the Raytheon proposed Patriot AESA -

Main Antenna - 13 ft. x 9 ft.
Rear Panels - 3.2 ft. x 2.2 ft.

 

[marauder2048]

Ideally you would want your radar range to exceed your missile range by the distance a RV would travel between the time of detection and your missile's flyout to intercept point. That would include the distance flown while establishing a track and decision time. So wouldn't the required radar range be a function of RV vs. interceptor speed? The faster the interceptor the less range the radar needs to have? I'm skeptical that THAAD has no ability to intercept ICBM's since it's faster than the Nike Zeus which was touted as an ABM but will defer judgement to those who know more.

With sufficient warning time they could fly THAAD in a lofted trajectory; longer time of flight but also maximum velocity and potentially better look-angle for the seeker.

 

[bring_it_on]

Lockheed debuts new next-gen missile defense radar ahead of Army competition

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. – Lockheed Martin brought a brand-new next-generation air-and-missile defense radar to the Space and Missile Defense Symposium this week that it hopes will help the U.S. Army finalize its requirements for a new 360-degree radar for the service’s future Integrated Air-and-Missile Defense system.

Earlier this summer the Army made it clear they intend to hold a competition to replace its Patriot AMD radar and told Defense News it plans to begin analysis of materiel solutions in fiscal year 2018.

The service has spent years grappling with when and how it will replace its current Raytheon-manufactured Patriot system first fielded in 1982. At one point, the Army planned to procure Lockheed’s Medium Extended Air Defense System as the replacement, but it canceled its plans to acquire the system opting instead to procure key components of a new IAMD system separately.

Northrop Grumman is developing the IAMD’s Integrated Battle Command System, the command and control architecture for the system. The Army also plans to use the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhanced missiles in the future system.

Key to the future system is to have a 360-degree threat detection capability as the current one has blind spots.

The Army’s decision to hold a competition for the radar after spending the last year trying to decide whether it would upgrade the current radar or replace it, seemed to have spurred Lockheed’s radar unveiling just a few miles from where the service’s Lower-Tier Air and Missile Defense (LTAMDS) project office is set up, which is tasked to run the competition.

“If you look at the environment that the warfighter is operating in today for these types of sensors, it requires performance in clutter, not just land and sea clutter and air clutter, but also the electronic interference as well,” Mark Mekker, Lockheed’s director of ground-based radars, said. “So every digital element provides the capability and the technology to be able to perform an enhanced mission against advanced threats in the future.”

Lockheed is leveraging a rich history of technology and manufacturing development work over roughly 40 years to rapidly bring the new radar to the fight faster than a traditional program.

And since the Army has struggled for many years to replace the Patriot system and its critical elements, fielding something quickly will be critical.

[House pressures Army to buy new missile defense radar that the White House opposes]

In the area of mobility, Lockheed is using the same leveling system and motion control that is used for the Army’s AN/TPQ-53 counter-fire radars currently in production.

The company is also using discrimination algorithms from the Long-Range Discrimination Radar the company is building for ballistic missile threat detection in Alaska.

“If you go back a little bit further and you reach back into our signal processing that we had, not only on our MEADS program, but on our current ground-based air surveillance radars, where we have ballistic missile detection algorithms and we are already doing 360-degree rotation in those radar systems,” Mekker said. “We were able to bring that software and start with that software as a baseline.”

But there are also some major differences in the radar compared to Lockheed’s previous efforts.

The biggest difference is both radars needed for missile defense – a surveillance radar and a fire-control radar – are combined into one radar using dual-band technology, Mekker said.

And while Gallium Nitride, a semiconductor material used to achieve 360-degree capability and touted by Lockheed’s competition Raytheon, is incorporated into the radar, Mekker said the technology that is bringing its radar to the next level of capability is what it calls “Every Element Digital Beam Forming.”

A traditional radar has more centralized receivers and exciters where an antenna feeds directly into that, Mekker explained. “With technology and what we are able to mature in the last five years is bringing that technology and functionality up into the antenna so behind every radiating element you have your own little mini-radar system that is configurable on the fly via software.”

This means the system could be rotating and the operator could take half the array and resource it to do one mission, like fire control, and the other half to conduct surveillance, or it could switch over to anti-electronic attack capability.

Mekker said Lockheed is looking forward to working with the Army over the next year on maturing its requirements to meet current and future threats.

Two other companies are believed to have offerings for the LTAMDS competition: Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. There’s room in the Army’s budget to evaluate three radar offerings.

Raytheon has been very vocal about its GaN Active Electronically Scanned Array sensor for the next-generation Patriot radar, which will provide a 360-degree capability.

The company said it couldn’t comment on the LTAMDS for competitive reasons but noted the radar it has built has logged over 1,000 hours of testing.

[GaN-Based Patriot Prototype Preps For Public Debut]

Northrop Grumman has been the most quiet about any potential offering it could put forward and was not able to discuss anything it might be working on at the symposium.

 

[bring_it_on]

Lockheed Studies Sea-Launched Patriot PAC-3 & New 6-Foot Missile

“We are looking internally” – i.e. without government funding – “at MSEs going on any platform that could carry the thing,” said Tim Cahill, Lockheed VP for Integrated Air and Missile Defense, speaking on the sidelines of the Space & Missile Defense symposium here. (The Lockheed weapon’s full name is Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement).That said, he acknowledged, few planes could carry the 19-foot-long weapon. Most of Lockheed’s concepts for air-launched missiles are smaller.

That includes “detailed concepts” for a new six-foot-long missile, Cahill said. Lockheed is looking at a whole range of potential weapons in between its 19-foot Patriot PAC-3 MSE, which kills enemy aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, and the 2.5-foot Mini Hit-To-Kill (MHTK), aimed at incoming artillery shells, rockets, and mortars rounds. Of the various possible lengths, Cahill said, six feet (about two meters) “tends to be kind of a sweet spot size for packaging on various platforms,” from ground vehicles to aircraft to naval vessels.
...

So it’s not clear what weapons Lockheed will show the Army at its Short-Range Air Defense (SHORAD) shoot-off next month. That’s a stark contrast to Boeing, which has aggressively shown off its upgraded Avenger anti-aircraft turret mounted on vehicles from 4×4 JLTVs to 8×8 Strykers to tracked Bradleys. Cahill was cagey, though he said Lockheed would definitely participate – by putting some of its missiles on Boeing’s turret.

“We don’t have a launcher system like Avenger to field,” Cahill said frankly. “We’re talking about what interceptors we might put on an Avenger to go through that demonstration.”

 

[bring_it_on]

LOCKHEED MARTIN AIMS TO DELIVER LOW TIER MISSILE DEFENCE SENSOR QUICKLY

In one instance the platform structure and motion control structure systemme which levels it, is taken directly from the AN/TPQ-53 radar systemme, which Lockheed Martin continues to deliver to its US Army customer. Inside the systemme, what we are using are algorithms from our ballistic missile detection radar systemmes – the AN/TPS-59 and our MEADS programme which ran for more than a decade. These proven algorithms can do 360-degree coverage and the tracking of the threats we are after,” Mekker added and concluded: “Dual-band technology is where we have landed for bringing forth this Low Tier Air & Missile Defense Sensor solution. What that gives us, is we can do both surveillance and fire control in a single radar at an affordable price. So, instead of populating all at C-band, we can reduce that with S-band technology (surveillance) and C-band technology (fire control).”

 

[bring_it_on]

Raytheon Wants U.S. Army To Adopt Standard Missile

“You’ve got a lot of capability in the SM-3 and SM-6, so why not bring that capability ashore?” Gehr tells Aviation Week at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium here on Aug. 9. “It already is ashore as part of Aegis Ashore [in Romania and Poland], but bring it into a form factor where we can integrate it with existing Army systems; then you’ve got layered defense.”

Raytheon has been discussing potential launcher options with the government, ideally something similar to Thaad’s M1120 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Load Handling System.

The company has also demonstrated ways to target and fire Standard Missile using a small computer instead of the Aegis Combat System. By untethering Standard Missile from Aegis, the missile can be integrating with Army systems relatively quickly through software upgrades, Gehr says, including with the future Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System. SM-3 and SM-6 would become additional firing options alongside Patriot, Thaad or the AIM-9X Sidewinder-equipped Indirect Fire Protection Capability.

 

[TomS]

That's long overdue.

Now, let's see if they can get it going the other direction. PAC-3 at sea is a long-standing idea with a lot to recommend it.

 

[bring_it_on]

That's long overdue.

Now, let's see if they can get it going the other direction. PAC-3 at sea is a long-standing idea with a lot to recommend it.

I'm afraid it makes too much sense and therefore may not be pursued.

 

[sferrin]

That's long overdue.

Now, let's see if they can get it going the other direction. PAC-3 at sea is a long-standing idea with a lot to recommend it.

LM used to have a PDF on their site years ago describing exactly that.

edit: Heh, guess what I just found,

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/PAC-3_Product-Card.pdf

IIRC it would be four rounds per cell.

 

[bring_it_on]

The company looked into the option several years ago when the US Navy was looking for a terminal-phase ballistic missile interception capability as demonstrated by the limited edition Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IVA and now in-service with SM-6.

Patriot fire units are slanted and the MSE launcher for the Medium Extended Air Defence System (MEADS) was canted marginally from vertical - for safety reasons - but a naval version would need to be fired vertically to fit into legacy launch cells and deck architecture, and provide all-round coverage. However, Barry McCullough, vice president of international business development for Aegis programmes said that the company proved the MSE's basic fit in a Mk.41 vertical launch system cell and its vertical launch capability in a launcher at Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Trotsky acknowledged that "there is a small amount of integration work required to get the missile into a vertical launch cell, but you can get two MSE in each launch canister". The missile's solid fuel configuration should also ease its integration into the shipboard environment. ~ Nick Brown, Jane's International Defence Review. 2015

 

[TomS]

Even earlier (before PAC-3 MSE was a thing) there was also a stretched and navalized version of PAC-3 called Pegasus, IIRC.

 

[bring_it_on]

Lockheed Martin adopts a new approach with ARES radar

With its active electronically scanned array (AESA) Radar for Engagement and Surveillance (ARES) system, Lockheed Martin is developing a modular open-architecture capability incorporating a software-defined radar system approach, Lockheed Martin's director for ground-based radars, Mark Mekker, told Jane's from the annual Space and Missile Defense symposium in Huntsville, Alabama....

Once ARES is mature and performing at the level required by Lockheed Martin, the system can be scaled to meet a potential customer's requirements – whether this involves the US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, or international customers.

The ARES also includes a dual-band technology, providing it the flexibility to conduct both surveillance and fire control in the same radar system, Mekker added.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO4gYNoqzs8

Also, a new GATOR configuration showcased at Space & Missile Defense Symposium this past week similar to the TPS-53.

 

[DrRansom]

PAC-3 MSE as a point defense interceptor would be great, especially if they can get two per cell. I thought the idea of using the SM-6 for point defense was a waste.

The SM-6 could make a good S-300 equivalent for the US Army, though I have heard there are still major doctrinal questions about the Army having long range SAMs.

 

[Mark S.]

The SM-6 might make a good replacement for the PAC-1,2, GEM, etc. although the SM-6 would have a spent booster drop problem on land. Think Patriot may have been in part designed way back in the 60's as a single stage missile to mitigate that problem in the homeland defense roll. The cold war ended and the Nike Hercules batteries weren't replaced so it was never an issue.

In talking to a friend who was in the Nike program in the 60's at White Sands he mentioned that one of the biggest initial problems with the Nike Zeus was staging.

 

[bring_it_on]

PAC-3 MSE as a point defense interceptor would be great, especially if they can get two per cell. I thought the idea of using the SM-6 for point defense was a waste.

The ESSM Block II has a requirement to deal with the lower end of the Ballistic Missile threat. The SM-6 does SBT against Medium Ranged Ballistic Missiles and it is an add on to its role in the AAW context. PAC-3 MSE could complement ESSM and fit between it and the SM6 in the SBT mission but you do loose magazine capacity since 2 MSEs fit the same space that 4 ESSMs occupy.

The SM-6 might make a good replacement for the PAC-1,2, GEM, etc. although the SM-6 would have a spent booster drop problem on land. Think Patriot may have been in part designed way back in the 60's as a single stage missile to mitigate that problem in the homeland defense roll. The cold war ended and the Nike Hercules batteries weren't replaced so it was never an issue.

In talking to a friend who was in the Nike program in the 60's at White Sands he mentioned that one of the biggest initial problems with the Nike Zeus was staging.

Depends upon many factors but you could still leverage many technologies and proven systems on the SM6 and create a variant. The Europeans don't seem to have an issue of jettisoning boosters from their land based missiles even in the homeland defense context so I don't think this would be something that can't be overcome for the Patriot given its primarily if not exclusively an expeditionary system.

 

[TomS]

The Navy is working on a single stage Active Standard as well. Should be basically an SM-6 seeker paired with the SM-2MR fuselage.

 

[sferrin]

The Navy is working on a single stage Active Standard as well. Should be basically an SM-6 seeker paired with the SM-2MR fuselage.

Why not just use an SM-6 sans booster?

 

[TomS]

The Navy is working on a single stage Active Standard as well. Should be basically an SM-6 seeker paired with the SM-2MR fuselage.

Why not just use an SM-6 sans booster?

Possibly you could. It used to be that the motor in the upper stage of two-stage Standard was different than the motor in a single-stage Standard. These days it's all Mk 104 DTRM but there may be different mods for different applications.

 

[sferrin]

The Navy is working on a single stage Active Standard as well. Should be basically an SM-6 seeker paired with the SM-2MR fuselage.

Why not just use an SM-6 sans booster?

Possibly you could. It used to be that the motor in the upper stage of two-stage Standard was different than the motor in a single-stage Standard. These days it's all Mk 104 DTRM but there may be different mods for different applications.

I always wondered what the difference between the top stage of a RIM-67 and a RIM-66 was. They started very different beasts (think the first Terriers and Tartars) but in the end ended up at least appearing very similar.

 

[Mark S.]

In Europe there may not be that much of a need for long range SAMS's like the SM-6. The distances are short and there are plenty of aircraft for BARCAP stations. In the Pacific where the distances are much longer there may be a niche for a long range SAM to defend archipelagos. A 360 degree surveillance and targeting capability for the system would also be a must. The killer will still be the low altitude ingress of cruise missiles. The radar horizon at 500 isn't that far away however long range missile systems would allow the aircraft at hand to used predominately for strike operations and allow their dispersal.

I would think a SM-6 seeker on a Patriot GEM missile would be a natural evolution of the Patriot system.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Army probably requires long range AAW capability in the region of 125-150 miles at most ( for targets at altitude ) to replace PAC-2 and add a little bit of increase that justifies not pursing a GEM/T upgrade. I guess the question would be whether an SM6 minus the booster can achieve that, and if so how many can fit into a THAAD launcher and whether it is a better path for the Army to follow than trying to add a new motor to the PAC-2 along with an SM2/ESSM like active seeker upgrade.

The radar horizon at 500 isn't that far away however long range missile systems would allow the aircraft at hand to used predominately for strike operations and allow their dispersal.

There may also be a requirement to do upper tier work between the altitude of the PAC-3/MSE and the lower level of the THAAD.

The radar horizon at 500 isn't that far away however

The Army with IBCS will be looking at OTH targeting much like the Navy even though JLENS appears to have been killed for good.

 

[sferrin]

The Army probably requires long range AAW capability in the region of 125-150 miles at most ( for targets at altitude ) to replace PAC-2 and add a little bit of increase that justifies not pursing a GEM/T upgrade. I guess the question would be whether an SM6 minus the booster can achieve that,

Extremely unlikely. The longest range I've ever seen mentioned for an SM-2 with no booster is about 80 miles - less than the current PAC-2.

 

[bring_it_on]

Then the best path would be to upgrade the PAC-2 much like they did with the MSE in terms of propulsion and align it with the Active ESSM/SM2 programs in terms of guidance upgrades. I mean if one looks at the number, the RDTE cost of the MSE was under a $ 1 Billion spread over nearly a decade. That is not a significant bill even if we assume such a new interceptor would cost 20-25% more to develop. But then it is the Army acquisition we are talking about here and we spent Billions in developing 360 degree capability and still won't field it till the middle of next decade so things don't look all that good..

We may see Raytheon begin to offer these things on their own however since the PAC-3 MSE will eat into the Patriot interceptor budgets of the users and there isn't much room for many PAC-2 new buys. In fact Poland has chosen to not buy any PAC-2s at all choosing instead to pursue the Sky Ceptor. I believe the Saudis also chose not not include any PAC-2s as part of their multi-Billion interceptor order. Preserving the form factor and retaining the launcher is a distinct advantage to pursing the path of a PAC-2 NG.

 

[lastdingo]

Since we left reporting and have gone to voicing opinions, here are my 2 cents:

(a) introduce Giraffe 4A radar as brigade combat team multi-role radar system based on a PLS-compatible container
http://saab.com/land/istar/multi-role-surveillance-system/giraffe-4a/
supported by multiple recoverable anti-ARGM decoy emitters to be handled by a standard crane-equipped truck

(b) add a C4 container (PLS-compatible) with Link 16, Rheinmetall FIRST on elevated mast and newest Helispot infrasound NLOS helicopter detector

(c) add a telescopic mast for directional radio links (radio comm emitter detached from C4 and launcher modules, fibreglass comm link to C4 module) based on a PLS-compatible pallet

(d) introduce a multi-calibre rocket launcher with 360°x90° capability mounted on a PLS pallet (also Helispot-equipped); it should be able to accept two
- AMRAAM-ER pods (6 missiles each)
- AIM-9X pods (6 missiles each; more would fit, but makes no sense to have even more in one pod)
- LAR 160 Mk II rocket pods (as many as fit - maybe 13 rockets each; HE-PFF with programmable multi-function fuze, possibly trajectory correcting by deployable air brake which would also reduce the minimum range)
- GUMLRS pods (6 missiles each)
and later (post-2025 because development for Pentagon is terribly slow)
- ESSM Blk II pods (6 missiles each)
- LRPS pods (2 missiles each)
- TOS-1-like large calibre/short range thermobaric rockets (~10 km range)


This way one would have unified rocket arty and battlefield air defences. It would be extremely difficult to wipe out all rocket arty or all battlefield air defences. Battlefield air defences could fight on even if active radar seekers were defeated and all brigade radars destroyed; there would still be the infrared guidance option and early warning by datalink and infrasound (helicopters only). A further integration of mast-mounted or Hovermast-mounted flash-spotting and sound ranging equipment could add to the passive detection capabilities, particularly against helicopters.
https://www.skysapience.com/defense-products
http://defence-blog.com/army/russian-state-owned-media-unveils-new-penicillin-counter-battery-system.html

All modules would be PLS-compatible and could thus be swapped from one defective vehicle to another intact heavy truck within minutes (all modules have their own electrical power supply, capable of operating at -30°C to +50°C for sufficient power - preferably without any detectable emissions such as from spark plugs).


The ranges and effective ceilings of the SAMs would suffice to restrict what enemy air power can do offensively, while both fire control and missile guidance principles could hardly be defeated by saturation unless one uses low cost decoys (Helispot could be saturated, but then it would still serve its purpose of providing early warning).


The REAL battlefield air defence challenge will be posed by flying autonomous nano drones and drones up to a cost of a million dollars, all of them would turn defeat by AIM-9/AMRAAM-esque missiles unaffordable unless one is using a great power's resources against a small power.
The army needs FIRST-like sensors coupled with autocannons and at a lower level a RCWS upgrade so hundreds of machineguns per brigade can help out. At the lowest level infantry may need to train skeet shooting with their small arms, including shotguns and 40 mm flechette cartridges.