bring_it_on said:
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.

This is the real problem. SM-6 makes sense for the Navy because they have organic OTH sensors and at
the moment, most of the threat ASCMs with range don't have a great deal of signature reduction.

For the Army, if JLENS isn't the answer (alas) then a disaggregated approach based on smaller, encanistersed
tethered aerostats in a distributed beamforming network arrangement would be useful and pretty
survivable.

The other thought would be integration of Longbow or some successor mast-mounted radar on Army rotary wing
aircraft into IBCS.
 
I think first thing they need to do is field IBCS and IFCN..find additional sensors and systems to make IFCN compatible (beyond IFPC) and then develop a strategy on how they will (from an acquisition stand point) develop their "multi-dommain" capability. They could consider UAV's as an option too but you are correct, their is no need to push for OTH just yet from an interceptor stand point. But they need to develop a replacement for the PAC-2 or at the very least upgrade the existing missiles much the same way the Navy plans to do with the SM2. That along with the sensor procurement and upgrades should keep them busy for a decade at the very least. A Shooter (MSE) ---> C2 (IBCS) ---> Sensor (LTAMDS) ----> Shooter (PAC-2 replacement) approach is fine but once IBCS is fielded they may look to split Patriot into a light and heavy configuration with the former having the rough footprint of MEADS..
 
http://www.defensenews.com/smr/space-missile-defense/2017/08/17/lockheed-martin-taking-missiles-into-new-domains/
 
lastdingo said:
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

...

There is really nothing stopping either of the US OEM's as far as delivering a multi function radar on a 16 ft. container if that was what the requirements called for. 1000 cu ft. is quite a decent amount of space to work with. You could re-configure and scale the G/ATOR, the navy/Marine EASR, or the USAF's 3DELRR to fit that footprint as long as you require DO/DO capability from a C-17 (and not C-130) and don't ask for a sling load transport capability like the marines do with the TPS-80. These are capabilities the services are already investing in so introducing a foreign radar which essentially duplicates the capability the ones currently in development already perform would be a waste of time and money. The GAO has already been looking over their shoulders vis-a-vis the Army, Air Force and Marine radar modernization programs to see if there is duplicative work being funded.

Much like the G/ATOR and the EASR, a potential Giraffe 4A would run into issues integrating the Army's existing interceptors which will be an added expense.
 
marauder2048 said:
Any idea on AN/TPQ-53 array dimensions?

9.3 ft by 9.3 ft as per Kelvin Wong at Jane's IDR although I'm not sure since it does not appear to have equal sides..If you adjust for the FMTV width you get a height of 9.3 ft (based on reporting below) and a width of 7.5-7.8 ft. This makes sense and is quite close to where I could ballpark based on vehicle dimensions.

Assuming that Lockheed offers a fully populated array based on the Q-53s size, the Patriot AESA array will be approximately 60% larger while the TPS-80 would be about 20% larger than it. It is however quite likely that Lockheed offers multiple sizes much like the AMDR, EL/M-2084, and Giraffe 4A/8A. An extended FMTV could be considered ( like on MEADS MFCR) allowing for a larger radar and associated equipment to be fitted.

http://www.janes.com/article/73271/singapore-acquires-an-tpq-53-counter-fire-target-acquisition-radars

The radar unit itself is 6.93 m long, 2.84 m wide,2.84 m tall, and weighs 8,889 kg.


Edit - Kelvin has now edited the article to reflect the the correct dimensions -

http://www.janes.com/article/73337/singapore-acquires-an-tpq-53-counter-fire-target-acquisition-radars
 
Raytheon pushing modernized command electronics/software for Patriot including a "gaming style" interface for the operators. If they're going that route they might just use the real thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpyNkH1NU7M

Full blown gaming interface display
 

Attachments

  • Patriot Gaming Interface.jpg
    Patriot Gaming Interface.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 616
Soldier test of anti-missile command system deemed a success
https://www.defensenews.com/digital...-anti-missile-command-system-deemed-a-success

IBCS has had successful flight tests in 2015 and 2016, which proved the system “could do what was previously thought to be undoable — that IBCS could provide the [command and control] for sensors and weapon systems never intended to work with each other,” he added.However, a Limited User Test last year found deficiencies with the system mostly related to software.

But Verwiel declared in the statement the software deficiencies identified in the 2016 LUT, “have been resolved.”

He said lessons learned from the LUT “resulted in a substantially improved system.”

Bringing IBCS to life is no easy endeavor by nature. It involves complicated software development, and the plans for IBCS on the battlefield have expanded, resulting in the need for more development.

The soldier checkout event took place at Tobin Wells in Fort Bliss, Texas, with soldiers from both Fort Bliss and Fort Sill, Oklahoma, over the course of three weeks in August.IBCS was used across battalion and battery-level operations using Sentinel and Patriot radars and Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-2, PAC-3 and PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhanced interceptors.

The system fought “26 simulated air battles against hundreds of tactical ballistic missile threats,” according to the company statement.

Then the event wrapped up with a 72-hour endurance run of IBCS that included 18 additional air battles, the statement adds.

“This SCOE is an enterprise-level integration and test of IBCS and Army IAMD assets and capabilities with soldier operators,” Barry Pike, the Army’s Missiles and Space program executive officer, said. “The event allows air defense warfighters the unprecedented opportunity to provide relevant system performance and interface feedback when the system is integrated with actual tactical hardware and software.”

While IBCS’ initial operational capability is delayed by four years, according to a Defense News assessment of budget request documents, there are signs the system is making a turnaround.

[US Army anti-missile command system’s initial capability delayed four years]

Brig. Gen. Randall McIntire, the Army Air Defense Artillery School commandant and the Air Defense Artillery chief, said, “I am very pleased with the significant progress made on IBCS over the last year. It is going to open up the aperture in terms of how we will be able to fight in the future. What we are working on today will be key for decades to come in our ability to combine offensive and defensive fires into one entity that is fast and agile.”

The event also proved that IBCS is relatively easy to use. The soldiers who used the system in the checkout had never used it before and received only four weeks of training leading up to the event.

“Even with simultaneous targets reaching hundreds during some of the air battles, the soldiers performed exceptionally well,” the statement reads.

IBCS and the Army will go through the second phase of the soldier checkout at Yuma Proving Proving Ground, Arizona, this month, which will focus on live-air operational performance in a joint environment, according to the statement.
 
Going 360 degrees: Patriot radar concept awards due out soon

The Army is planning to award up to four efforts to generate concepts for a missile defense radar capable of seeing 360 degrees within weeks, according to Barry Pike, the Army’s program executive officer for missiles and space.

“Before the end of the month, we should have four concept definitions contracts underway and those should help inform our risk reduction and prototyping phase that we will go into next,” Pike told Defense News in an interview at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual convention.

“We expect or hope to carry at least three vendors into that depending on how things shake out into that prototyping phase,” he added.

The Army decided earlier this year — after analyzing whether it would upgrade or replace the Patriot Air-and-Missile Defense system’s radar — that it would hold a competition to procure a new 360-degree, lower-tier air-and-missile defense sensor.The plan is to begin analysis of materiel solutions in fiscal year 2018, a service spokesman told Defense News back in June.
 
Perhaps a bit off topic but does anyone have a single image of an Egyptian Patriot battery component?

Or a news article mentioning either delivery of Patriot to Egypt or cancellation of the 1999 agreement?
 
Army awards concept design contracts for Patriot radar replacement


Because of their previous involvement, it’s no shock both Raytheon and Lockheed received contracts, awarded last Friday to conjure up concepts for the new radar. Northrop Grumman also confirmed to Defense News that it “is participating in the TMRR phase of LTAMDS competition,” according to a company spokesman.

But, according to several sources, another company Technovative Applications, based in Brea, California, just popped up on the radar, receiving a contract from the Army as well.
 
AUSA 2017: US Army to get mobile Patriot C2 system by end of 2017



Raytheon has most recently demonstrated the capability in mid-2017 in a European exercise. During that demonstration, a prototype of the dismounted system was deployed forward with a battery to Lithuania. Kelley said the system integrated seamlessly with the full truck-mounted versions of the Patriot systems that stayed behind in the rear.

Three weeks after the Lithuanian demonstration, Sweden requested an opportunity to test the mobile unit. The same battalion deployed a Patriot battery to Sweden taking only the prototype unit, and leaving the truck-mounted capability behind.

“One thing you will hear, in the environment of the future, commanders need to be flexible, they have to be able to scale capabilities, move them quickly, or use them in [a] manner that the systems were not always built for,” Kelley said. “This gives commanders in the field that capability to scale up or down, and split operations between multiple countries.
 
Lockheed Martin Next Generation Missile Defense Sensor Technology Receives Prototyping Contract

SYRACUSE, N.Y., Oct. 19, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- The Department of Defense Ordnance Technology Consortium (DOTC) awarded Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) a contract for the technology maturation of Lower Tier Air & Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) prototypes. DOTC, commissioned by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, is a DoD initiative intended to facilitate collaboration between the government, industry and academia for technology development and prototyping. The funding from DOTC is used for technology development efforts that will further define performance requirements, mature technology and reduce risk for the LTAMDS program.

"Receiving DOTC funding is indicative of the rapid capability need the LTAMDS will fill for the U.S. Army," said Mark Mekker, director of next generation radar systems at Lockheed Martin. "Lockheed Martin is ready to leverage our significant experience, Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) technology and sensor capabilities in the LTAMDS concept definition phase to accelerate much needed enhanced capability to the warfighter."

Lockheed Martin is using its AESA Radar for Engagement and Surveillance (ARES) prototype investment program to mature technology and capabilities necessary for the future LTAMDS mission. Combined DOTC funding and Lockheed Martin investment will continue to mature technology for the prototype, including AESA and dual-band technology. The prototype will include mature Gallium Nitride (GaN) transmitter technology and advanced signal processing techniques including Lockheed Martin's proven 360-degree rotational capability.

"Technology is maturing at such a pace that continuing to incrementally upgrade the heritage Patriot MPQ-65 radar system is no longer the most efficient and cost effective option," said Mekker. "A next generation LTAMDS radar will leverage recent advances in radar technology to provide a cost effective, scalable, long term solution that can address current threats and adapt to emerging and future threats."

Lockheed Martin has developed and produced ground based radar systems for more than 40 years, and our latest open-architecture prototype leverages building blocks from several other successful radar products, including the Q-53, Long Range Discrimination Radar and Space Fence. Lockheed Martin's low-risk solution is based on decades of development, backed by demonstrable technology and will be the first sensor specifically designed to operate within the Army Integrated Air & Missile Defense (IAMD) framework.
 
Seems Sweden is moving along on its Air Defense modernization plan -

The Government authorises FMV to enter into negotiations with the United States on the purchase of a new medium-range air defence system

The aim of the negotiations is for delivery to have commenced in 2020 and for the system to be operational within the next defence framework period, i.e. by 2025 at the latest. The basis for the decision is the agreement on defence between the Government parties, the Moderate party and the Center party, of 16 August 2017.

The Armed Forces have advocated Patriot as a new air defence system, as it is a proven system with good delivery reliability and anti-ballistic missile capability. The acquisition is also in line with what is expressed in the Defense Policy Bill and adheres to the implementation of the Statement of Intent (SOI), signed by Sweden and the United States in June 2016.

The decision means that the negotiations with the United States can formally begin. A formal tender through a Letter of Offer and Acceptance is expected in spring 2018. Based on this tender and the decision of the Riksdag (the Swedish Parliament) on the proposal to acquire a new medium-range air defence system in the 2018 Budget Bill, the Government will make a final decision on the acquisition during 2018.
 
Yup, I'm a very happy man today!

Seems we are planning on reduced batteries with "only" three firing ramps per battery in order to afford the system. 4 of these reduced batteries will make up a battalion. The plan is to have two battalions of the system to 2030, this decision covers only the first one.

23376136_1888525174498118_9103981202169039213_n.jpg


If were doing like Poland and buying PAC-3 and Stunner then it's not a problem since they hold 12-16 missiles each. If we throw in PAC-2 into the mix however...
 
You can always mix and match since even if you have one PAC-3 launcher and 2 PAC-2 launchers you still get between 20 and 25 interceptors. It appears that Sweden will be picking the standard Configuration 3/3+ system. Unfortunately for them their program requirements and delivery dates likely mean that they will have to upgrade later to an AESA radar, IBCS and perhaps even a new launcher. Perhaps the second battalion can feature the upgrades. IBCS would have allowed them to work in their own surveillance radars into the system more affordably.
 
05_ny_Systemets_olika_delar.jpg

07_ny_Systemets_funktion.jpg


bring_it_on said:
You can always mix and match since even if you have one PAC-3 launcher and 2 PAC-2 launchers you still get between 20 and 25 interceptors.

Some info from the recent days says that nothing is set in stone with the deal when it comes to number of batteries, launchers and the missile mix. The photo released by FMV showing three ramps is only to show the system of to the general public. The only thing being stated is that the maximum number of batteries will be four per battalion, maybe even three depending on the price negotiations with Raytheon.

I'm guessing we will eventually land in four ramps per battery. First two PAC-2 launchers and one PAC-3 launcher and then later on a ramp with Stunner will be added as well.

Our current government is highly anti-Semitic, so that's probably why the israeli missile isn't featured already. The first thing they did when they took office was to recognize Palestine, being the only EU-member to do so. The socialist government is however as popular as the late french socialist government with Hollande was, so they are out on their asses next fall.

bring_it_on said:
It appears that Sweden will be picking the standard Configuration 3/3+ system.

When the Patriot battery was here for the first time a few months ago, as part of the exercise Aurora 17, the Swedish Army specifically specified that only the new C2 fire control station was brought along. I'm guessing we won't be getting the bigger more stationary fire control station.

bring_it_on said:
Unfortunately for them their program requirements and delivery dates likely mean that they will have to upgrade later to an AESA radar, IBCS and perhaps even a new launcher.

I think that the first four batteries will be upgraded with IBCS later on. That way we can still keep the old radar and the already existing Giraffe radars can cover up for it when the need arises.

bring_it_on said:
Perhaps the second battalion can feature the upgrades.

That would be my guess as well, the deliveries for these units is not until 2025-2030, so they should come with both IBCS and 360 degree radar.
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
marauder2048 said:
I'm also surprised there has been more discussion about what else can fit in the THAAD launcher (aside from THAAD-ER).

Like what? Do you have any links?

Purely my own (probably unoriginal) thinking. How about PAC-3 MSE with a 16 inch diameter x 3 ft long booster (might resemble the booster for Stunner) ? I think that would still fit and stay within the canister weight limits.

from FBO October 27, 2017

THAAD/ PAC-3 MSE Integration and PATRIOT Launch of Remote
Solicitation Number: W31P4Q-17-G-0001

The proposed action is for the procurement of THAAD/PATRIOT Advanced Capability (PAC-3)
Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) Integration (TMI) and PATRIOT Launch on Remote (LOR)
development. The action is to accomplish the development of capabilities in support of THAAD
MSE Integration and PATRIOT Launch on Remote; design and implementation of an updated
Fire Solution Computer software and architecture; Launcher Interface Network Kit software development activities;
and a trade study to assess feasibility of launching a PAC-3 MSE from a THAAD launcher.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=d2548a71b43a12746d3332d8fe8f7eb9

my emphasis
 
US Army progresses IBCS testing



The US Army has completed another stage in the testing of the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) being developed by Northrop Grumman. The test, known as a soldier checkout event (SCOE), took place at Tobin Wells in Fort Bliss, Texas, during a three-week period in August and involved soldiers from Fort Bliss and Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

IBCS is an IAMD command and control (C2) capability. It will integrate current and future air and missile defence systems in an open architecture, enabling users to employ a range of sensors and weapons. It uses common software and creates standard interfaces, providing expanded sensor and weapon system combinations through an integrated fire-control network. It will replace seven legacy C2 systems.

The SCOE used IBCS as the common C2 system across battalion and battery-level operations using Sentinel and Patriot radars and Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-2, PAC-3, and PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors to fight 26 simulated air battles against hundreds of tactical ballistic missile threats. It concluded with a 72-hour endurance run of the system that included 18 additional air battles.

A Limited User Test (LUT) in April 2016 had identified a number of shortcomings in the system software. Speaking at the 2017 Association of the US Army annual convention in Washington in October, Dan Verwiel, vice-president and general manager, missile defense and protective systems, Northrop Grumman told Jane’s that “those [LUT] results were not unexpected to us and the intention was to identify the problems. The focus in the last year has been to rectify them and we’ve made really good progress”.

He said the SCOE met all the requirements of today, such as the 72-hour endurance run, but there will be more demanding requirements to achieve initial operating capability (IOC), which is timetabled for 2022
 
bring_it_on said:
Please resize those images.

I second the request, far too big to be of use and they do not need to be that big.
 
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dubai-air-show/2017/11/14/raytheon-saudi-based-patriots-intercepted-over-100-tbms-since-2015/
 
Dubai Airshow 2017: Raytheon to offer SM-6 for Patriot to replace MSE interceptor
Jon Grevatt, Jane's Defense Industry


Raytheon plans to integrate its RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), better known as the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), into the latest iteration of its Patriot medium-range air and missile defence system. The concept is to offer a new option for a high-end interceptor for the Patriot system that would be a substitute for the missile currently installed to neutralise exoatmospheric threats: the Lockheed Martin Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) hit-to-kill interceptor.

Speaking at the Dubai Air Show on 12 November, Bruce D Brown, Raytheon’s senior manager for Air and Missile Defense Systems (AMDS) business development, explained that the existing investment and experience in the “combination of the PAC [system architecture] and TPY-2 [ballistic missile defence radar] are a great basis for the system. Then you add the US Navy investment in SM-6 and the MDA [Missile Defense Agency] investment in the SM-3, and then you can insert those competencies into a land-based system. Thus, the integration of SM-6 into the [system] provides a more capable missile in comparison with MSE.

“It is extremely fast and manoeuvrable,” he added. “The integration is made possible by our having invested into a digital datalink that converts S- and C-band seekers to be able to communicate with an X-band radar.

“The added benefit of the SM-6 is that it creates multi-mission capacity in the [Patriot] because it has a secondary anti-surface mission capability that MSE does not,” said Brown. “This answers the demands from our customers to have the ability to employ [the system] in multi-domain battle scenarios. Above all, the SM-6 price point is cost-effective and competitive with MSE due to the economies of scale created by the number of units we produce.”
 
That makes no sense. 12 MSEs on one mobile launcher vs needing to build an entire Aegis Ashore facility for SM-6. PAC-3 MSE almost certainly has better point defense capability, and is likely cheaper as well. If you're trying to defend the entire country, sure, SM-6. But that would be in ADDITION to PAC-3 MSE, not instead of it. ???
 
It's an extremely garbled account for one particularly on the datalink/seeker bands.

From the FBO posting above and the slide (my highlights), MDA and the Army are looking at a
lower-tier interceptor and better THAAD/Patriot integration. But there's also the THAAD-ER
effort. I get the impression that Raytheon is trying to preempt both.
 

Attachments

  • thaad-future-capabilities.png
    thaad-future-capabilities.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 172
marauder2048 said:
It's an extremely garbled account for one particularly on the datalink/seeker bands.

From the FBO posting above and the slide (my highlights), MDA and the Army are looking at a
lower-tier interceptor and better THAAD/Patriot integration. But there's also the THAAD-ER
effort. I get the impression that Raytheon is trying to preempt both.

Raytheon would need both SM-6 and SM-3 to fully replace THAAD. (Presuming SM-6 is as good as THAAD in endoatmospheric shots, not something I'd bank on.) And wouldn't "lower tier" be PAC-3 MSE?
 
SM6 on SBT mission cannot cover the IRBM envelope like the THAAD (non ER) can and although it may be cost competitive with the PAC-3, 16/12 PAC-3/MSE/ can be carried on each launcher. Not sure how much greater the SM6 engagement range is against a TBM threat compared to the MSE but it may have advantage there.
 
bring_it_on said:
Not sure how much greater the SM6 engagement range is against a TBM threat compared to the MSE but it may have advantage there.

It might have more range than MSE but AFAIK it hasn't been tested against maneuvering RVs. PAC-3 was able to shoot down maneuvering Pershing II RVs (and that was back in 2000 with the original PAC-3).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrugIQlzOk
 
Raytheon attempted to sell just the upgrade to the Patriot radar which the Army nixed in favor of a competition for a 360 deg. sensor. Just another marketing attempt to fit the Army's needs with their product line. Think the Army will pass on this as well. What I can't figure out is why would you want to put PAC-3MSE's on a THAAD launcher? The Patriot launcher trailer and HEMTT tractor isn't good enough? Needless cost for new integration IMO.
 
sferrin said:
Raytheon would need both SM-6 and SM-3 to fully replace THAAD. (Presuming SM-6 is as good as THAAD in endoatmospheric shots, not something I'd bank on.) And wouldn't "lower tier" be PAC-3 MSE?

MDA's view on "lower tier" seems to include SM-6.
 

Attachments

  • thaad-unique-vs-pac3-pac-2-sm6.png
    thaad-unique-vs-pac3-pac-2-sm6.png
    584.8 KB · Views: 145
I don't doubt that as it's also a SAM. What I question is it's effectiveness compared to PAC-3 MSE against the most difficult targets. (Also you need a whole building to deploy it instead of a truck. ;) )
 
Mark S. said:
What I can't figure out is why would you want to put PAC-3MSE's on a THAAD launcher?

So you don't have to co-locate an entire Patriot battery with THAAD for a dozen or two PAC-3 MSEs.
 
Just thought that all you would need to do is order the launchers and the HEMT's tractors and attach them to the THAAD battery. Doubt if the missile cares what automotive components got it to the launch point. Do you see them cutting the number of THAAD's in a battery in favor of carrying PAC-3MSE's? As it stands now each battery has 6 launchers with 8 THAAD's for 48. Would they go to 4 X 8 for 32 THAAD's and 2 X 12 for 24 PAC-3MSE's or would they add launchers?
 
Yes you could do something like that if that is more optimized for a given theater. THAAD isn't exactly cheap. If you can pair the MSE with the TPY-2 you really have a more cost effective and optimized shoot look shoot ability against the lower end threat. Integration is obviously going to go deeper than the initial awards and may at some point cover a dedicated launcher but the overall trend of "bringing in" the MSE into the THAAD fold is a positive step especially since IBCS is also going to be brought in.
 
sferrin said:
I don't doubt that as it's also a SAM. What I question is it's effectiveness compared to PAC-3 MSE against the most difficult targets. (Also you need a whole building to deploy it instead of a truck. ;) )

IIRC, SM-6 might just be able to fit into the THAAD canisters length-wise. And if they are looking to
accommodate a 21-inch diameter THAAD-ER...

But I completely agree with you on stressing targets. On the anti-surface
capability of SM-6, didn't PAC-2 have some capability in this regard?
 
marauder2048 said:
IIRC, SM-6 might just be able to fit into the THAAD canisters length-wise. And if they are looking to
accommodate a 21-inch diameter THAAD-ER...

THAAD-ER would use a new canister. (And THAAD-ER would have far more ABM capability than SM-6.)

marauder2048 said:
But I completely agree with you on stressing targets. On the anti-surface
capability of SM-6, didn't PAC-2 have some capability in this regard?

SM-6 is a really expensive way to kill a surface target, particularly a land target, when you could just use a GMLRS or ATACMs. As far as PAC-2 having surface attack capability, I do not know. If they wanted it they could probably get it but the US Army and USMC already have more suitable weapons for attacking land targets.
 
The only area where the SM6 makes sense on the Patriot is for long range AAW given its all out range against air breathing targets. But that is still a pretty large and heavy missile vs more dedicated solutions such as scaling up the MSE or upgrading the GEM-Ts with a new seeker and perhaps a new motor.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom