Yeah but your also not really wrong as any PAC-2 GEM+ is better against cruise missiles alone trought there large warhead and both having quite new and effectiv seeker and fuzes. But because they only buy large amount of GEM-T i think they either have still a large stock of GEM-C or GEM-T does the Job more than good enough so no more GEM&C are needed.
Heck it’s literally in the subtitle, please learn to read
Nope, it still stands at 6m$ a piece, which is significantly higher than sm-6’s 3.5m$ per unit.
Except that unit cost of pac-2 almost doubles that of sm-6, it’s so expensive that they developed pac-3 ‘Cost Reduction Initiative’, which costs one third of a pac-2 per unit.
Source?
The $5.1m includes spares support, test equipment and other stuff.
No? The PAC-2 GEM-T are 5.1 milion euros each or some 5.55 milion dollar. SM-6 based on the price from 2021 is 4.89* milion dollar. Thats around 88% of 1 PAC- GEM-T which is way more than almost half.
PAC-3 CRI is just the old plan latest PAC-3 but not something like PAC-3 MSE. But its not really cheap as far as i can tell. Now those number are based on the total sell cost with training and co. included but they still exceed PAC-2 GEM-T by a lot. Its 6.3 milion dollar for the 72 pac-3 CRI Germany bought worth today or a whopping 11.65 million dollar for the 600 which saudi bought. Thought a side from 2019 said 3.43 million for one it still 4.115 million dollar today not even close to one third of the cost.
PAC-3 CRI is to make a lower cost PAC-3. PAC-2 and PAC-3 are not the same missile.
SM-6 Block 1A FY24 (current fiscal year) AUR cost is $4.2 MM. SM-6 1B AUR cost for the first dozen or so prototypes is $8.5 MM.
Extra capabilities? Inflation?
Nope, however I found something suggesting that pentagon could procure 825 net sm-6 blk-IAs with less than 3B$ in a muti year procurement
Oof, what better references to go with then? To my knowledge fresh PAC-2s have never been procured by the Army, only customers are from overseas. And this is the biggest deal that have been made in recent years.
Here is one from fy2004
Just to be clear, the point I wanted to make here was that cost isn’t the reason why Army didn’t just yank the sm-6s out of vls cells and put them on land to replace their patriots
Yeah 20004. You gotta take in the Inflation to 2024. Thats gonna be a lot more
Its okay then to say that you have no great idea on what its AUR cost is instead of just throwing random numbers out there based on press notes.
The US Navy paid $1.9 MM for each of the 55 units it purchased in FY2023. With investments being made now (as recent as this week) to increase the production 185, you should expect the cost to reduce starting FY26 or so as annual contracts increase in value and quantity.
Interesting point, cause it doesn’t seem you had much idea of it in the original post either.
Could this be ALPS? i found this in the MDA EIAMD for Guam.
www.defensenews.com
www.defensenews.com
Everything I have seen says the Army is using SM6s for surface strike only at this point in time.
The SM-3 travels in space where's there's a vaccum but it can do about 2,400-2,500km up there. The more limited range you quoted is for a successful intercept in various ICBM boost-phase intercept scenarios.
On some days I feel like that about London too.
That doesn't look like a Block IIA can make the intercept at all if it's in the North Sea.
310 miles (500km) seems to be the range for an SM-6 surface to surface.
news.usni.org
The graphics actually show that there's a 200s intercept window (solid red part of line) from the North Sea, but none from Poland. The numbers give the time to range in seconds - blue for SM-3, red for SS-19 line for North Sea SM-3 location and green for SS-19 from Poland SM-3 location. The green line is dotted from start to finish indicating no boost-phase intercept window. The SS-19 times have to be higher than the SM-3 times to range for an intercept opportunity.
Thank you!
www.defensenews.com
