Patriot SAM replacement

totoro said:
if 6 seconds for the booster is true, and if missile's max velocity with the booster is anywhere between Mach 3.5 and 5 - then after those 6 seconds the missile should be roughly at 6000 meters of altitude. If the missile goes up completely vertically. So, with some horizontal movement, perhaps closer to 5000 meters? And then the booster is jettisoned right in the 7th second - that seems logical.
Question is - does the main rocket motor ignite right afterwards? And once ignited, is its thrust constant or does it have some sort of boot-sustain configuration as well?
I always wondered, if the missile would not accelerate right away after booster separation, using its main motor, how quickly would it really shed speed? Would it reach like 10 km in altitude while still going over mach 2?
Click to expand...

Looks like maybe a fraction of a second? It's not immediate though (though I suppose below could be a test of the booster, with an inert upper stage):

separ2.jpg
 
Last edited:

Army doubles IBCS development funding in new five-year plan; ties in F-35, THAAD, more​

By Jason Sherman / April 10, 2024

The Army is doubling funding in its updated five-year budget plan for the Integrated Battle Command System in an effort to expedite development of software needed to integrate a list of new sensors, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, the Remote Interceptor Guidance-360 and more. The Army’s fiscal year 2025 budget request proposes $2.1 billion for system development and demonstration funding over five years, a substantial increase compared to the FY-24 five-year plan...

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...nding-new-five-year-plan-ties-f-35-thaad-more

Patriot Mods program big winner in new Army five-year plan, nearly $3 billion boost | InsideDefense.com

The Army has set new plans to triple annual spending on Patriot Modifications in fiscal year 2027 as part of a $3 billion increase over five years to improve the capability and readiness of the air defense system, a 174% hike compared to the current future years defense program.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
I'm not that clued up on the state of Israel's Patriot batteries, they're apparently upgraded to GEM+ standard with missiles upgraded as well to GEM-T.

Seems an unusual time to be considering mothballing them, particularly after the recent expenditure of so many SAM's....

Could the US 'buy' them back, and their missiles, and pass them on to Ukraine? Apparently there are 10 batteries worth...thats 60 launchers (if they're configured per US practice).

 
timmymagic said:
I'm not that clued up on the state of Israel's Patriot batteries, they're apparently upgraded to GEM+ standard with missiles upgraded as well to GEM-T.

Seems an unusual time to be considering mothballing them, particularly after the recent expenditure of so many SAM's....

Could the US 'buy' them back, and their missiles, and pass them on to Ukraine? Apparently there are 10 batteries worth...thats 60 launchers (if they're configured per US practice).

Click to expand...
It is unclear what will happen with the Patriot batteries, which are highly sought by Ukraine as it seeks to defend its skies against Russian missiles.
Click to expand...
:cool:
 
Forest Green said:
:cool:
Click to expand...
Seems almost too good to be true....Europe and the US struggling to find enough Patriot batteries spare....and missiles...and suddenly 10 whole batteries with, no doubt, a substantial number of missiles are suddenly, potentially, available...
 
timmymagic said:
Seems almost too good to be true....Europe and the US struggling to find enough Patriot batteries spare....and missiles...and suddenly 10 whole batteries with, no doubt, a substantial number of missiles are suddenly, potentially, available...
Click to expand...

And to add a potential upside....3 of the Batteries (there's some debate on numbers, some are saying that its only 7 in total not 10, but each with 8 launchers for a total of 56 launchers) are not owned by Israel....they were on long term loan from....the German's. Who also transferred a significant number of missiles....

I guess the German's could just ask for them back....you'd hope the US could make a nominal 'offer that couldn't be refused' to the Israeli's for the other ones...all that political and financial support has to count for something...
 
Defense Updates has put out a video about how a Patriot battery was used to shoot down a Beriev A-50U Mainstay AEWACS a few months ago:


On January 14, a Russian A-50 Mainstay airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft was shot down over the Sea of Azov.
Click to expand...
This is one of the most significant hits Ukraine has been able to execute since the conflict started. There was a lot of speculation about how Ukraine managed to do this since this was a long-range hit.According to a U.S. Army officer, a U.S.-made Patriot air defense system was used for this.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how the U.S.-made Patriot air defense system was able to take out a Russian A-50
Click to expand...
?#defenseupdates #ukrainerussiawar #ukrainevsrussiahttps://www.youtube.com/hashtag/ukrainevsrussia
Click to expand...
Chapters:
Click to expand...
00:11 INTRODUCTION
Click to expand...
01:37 U.S ARMY INSIGHT
Click to expand...
02:53 BERIEV A-50 OVERVIEW
Click to expand...
05:34 PATRIOT AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM
Click to expand...
07:04 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 

Inside Defense write-up of their interpretation of the GAO report​

LTAMDS, IBCS failed to intercept classified ballistic missile target, GAO reveals​

By Jason Sherman / June 21, 2024 at 2:44 PM

A classified ballistic missile target was able to sneak by the Army’s newest radar and integrated battle command system during an operational assessment last year, a setback the service did not disclose -- but which came to light in a new report by congressional auditors on the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS). The Government Accountability Office, in its annual report on selected weapon system programs , notes this development in its review of the LTAMDS multifunctional radar,...
Click to expand...
 
Cordy said:

Inside Defense write-up of their interpretation of the GAO report​

Click to expand...
All depends what that classified ballistic missile target was. If it was some kind of HTV-2 successor or TBG development, then that could be seen in a positive light, because an adversary would likely have similar/even worse problems.
 
Apso depends on why as well.

Did the Target have decoys or ECM gear? Sone type of stealthing? Was it hit to kill only but past close enough that a Pac3 warhead could still pop it? Was it a program issue on the radar or datalink end?

We dont know.


Remember seeing the same type of writing for... Well every other ABM type missile the US had.

Including the old Nike one.

But once it cane to prime time...
 
"Army takes delivery of first production IBCS set, including new 'survivable' mobile antenna
By Jason Sherman/Inside Defense / June 25, 2024
The Army has taken delivery of the first complete set of hardware needed for next-generation air and missile defense capabilities -- including a more mobile Integrated Fire Control Network Relay redesigned at the 11th hour to reflect lessons from the war in Ukraine -- a kit potentially available for deployment to Guam. Northrop Grumman, prime contractor for the Integrated Battle Command System, has delivered the first IBCS Engagement Operations Center (EOC) and IFCN Relay, capping delivery of the first full... "

Anyone have info on what the changes were to make the antenna survivable?
 
Forest Green said:
All depends what that classified ballistic missile target was. If it was some kind of HTV-2 successor or TBG development, then that could be seen in a positive light, because an adversary would likely have similar/even worse problems.
Click to expand...

It was a developmental test of an operational prototype. They have since retested and demonstrated success for LTAMDS and have moved on to more stressing tests.
 
Forest Green said:
What they really need, looking at Ukraine is a Patriot-like system that can fire whilst moving.
Click to expand...
There's no BMD system in the world that can fire on the move. Because there's probably not a need for one. That's usually what VSHORAD and SHORAD systems do given their role and missions. What Ukraine is using PATRIOT for, specifically the German batteries, is to move them closer to the front line to take out Russian fighters and other platforms. Emplacement and displacement time and mobility obviously matters a great deal for that type of mission.
 
bring_it_on said:
There's no BMD system in the world that can fire on the move. Because there's probably not a need for one. That's usually what VSHORAD and SHORAD systems do given their role and missions. What Ukraine is using PATRIOT for, specifically the German batteries, is to move them closer to the front line to take out Russian fighters and other platforms. Emplacement and displacement time and mobility obviously matters a great deal for that type of mission.
Click to expand...
No doubt, but is the modern age of drones seeing everything and guided MLRS/SRBMs, can such a system remain stationary for long enough to be effective against glide bombers? That is the dilemma. Of course, the true solution is airpower with long range AAMs, whether an F-16 can get close enough to AMRAAM a glide bomber dropping off 60km behind the front is the question. Longer range AAMs (AIM-260s, ERAM, AIM-174B) will no doubt be available for NATO operations in the near future though.
 
bring_it_on said:
There's no BMD system in the world that can fire on the move.
Click to expand...
You sure about that?

640px-USS_Lake_Erie_%28CG-70%29_SM-3_start.jpg


You couldn't make it land-mobile on anything smaller than a train, and I'm not sure why you'd bother, but technically it does fire on the move.
 
Yellow Palace said:
You sure about that?

You couldn't make it land-mobile on anything smaller than a train, and I'm not sure why you'd bother, but technically it does fire on the move.
Click to expand...
It may be possible in the future with a combination of Super Hornets and USSF FOO Fighters.
 
sferrin said:
I can't imagine the size of the vehicle you'd need to do it.
Click to expand...
FOO Fighters are USSF sateliites capable of targeting air targets. Currently they're for ground/surface-based interceptors but perhaps that could be extended given the AIM-174B:
breakingdefense.com

'The One': Millennium wins 'FOO Fighter' missile defense satellite program - Breaking Defense

While the Space Development Agency initially intended to make awards to more than one vendor, the agency determined that a sole-source contract with the Boeing-owned firm was "best value."
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Foo Fighter, for which the agency released its first draft solicitation last July, will be a prototype constellation of satellites carrying electro-optical and infrared cameras to “accelerate the ability to provide new fire control options for the tactical users.”


Fire control sensors are those capable of high-fidelity tracking of targets and providing pinpoint coordinates to warfighters or weapon systems on the ground, in this case missile defense interceptors.
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
No doubt, but is the modern age of drones seeing everything and guided MLRS/SRBMs, can such a system remain stationary for long enough to be effective against glide bombers?
Click to expand...
There are a few things to consider here but yes mobility and the ability to protect from those types of threat is important. IFCN connected ADA elements can be spaced tens of km's apart using relays (up to 150 km based on IFCN operating concept) which is what provides you that protection against threats that can launch munitions. Then there's the concern of UAV's and other loitering munitions against which mobility isn't super helpful as they can chase mobile systems down so you really need to defeat them if you want full protection. From a US perspective, what the Army needs is a highly mobile and expeditionary system that has a lower logistical footprint and one that can emplace and displace rapidly. You don't want to spend a ton of manpower and time to bed down an air defense system to protect an air base only to have the aircraft fly out and begin dispersed operations with you not able to keep up with them to protect them. This is a Pacific centric challenge with the USAF and USMC deploying their ACE operational concept and dispersed basing. I don't think the Army can legitimately support that unless it has C-130 deployable systems that protect beyond the "Stinger" envelope.
 
bring_it_on said:
From a US perspective, what the Army needs is a highly mobile and expeditionary system that has a lower logistical footprint and one that can emplace and displace rapidly. You don't want to spend a ton of manpower and time to bed down an air defense system to protect an air base only to have the aircraft fly out and begin dispersed operations with you not able to keep up with them to protect them. This is a Pacific centric challenge with the USAF and USMC deploying their ACE operational concept and dispersed basing. I don't think the Army can legitimately support that unless it has C-130 deployable systems that protect beyond the "Stinger" envelope.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd call that a Patriot replacement so much as a point defense SAM to fit into the space between MANPADS and Patriot.

And technically, the AIM-9X in the multipurpose launchers fills that role. I just want something with more range than a ground launched sidewinder, like SLAMRAAM-ER.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I just want something with more range than a ground launched sidewinder, like SLAMRAAM-ER.
Click to expand...

One thing that could be done is to either use something off the shelf as a launch-booster for the AIM-9X or a specifically developed compact, high-thrust, short burn-time launch-booster for the AIM-9X to get it to a launch range comparable to the air-launched version.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure I'd call that a Patriot replacement so much as a point defense SAM to fit into the space between MANPADS and Patriot.
Click to expand...
I think we need to stop thinking "replacement" and begin thinking about what is actually needed for successfully defending and enabling the concept of operations we are likely to employ in the Pacific. PATRIOT even as is will be needed around the world to defend sites etc so no one is arguing that we should divest it. Only understand the limitations of its current footprint and that we are no longer in the Middle East frame of mind where we need to solve for just a fixed prepared site from where we'll operate for months at a time without any need to break up the system and move. We will have some of that in the Pacific (and do) but there would be a lot of other needs to support our overall concept of operations.

The Army is doing quite a few exercises with its equipment in the Pacific now (finally) and will likely learn these things and has begun talking about it as well. We've already begun hearing about how the Typhon MRC is too big etc..Right now, the only thing that will be C-130 deployed that is nimble and rapidly deployable is a Stinger shooter. That needs to to change to at least cover upper end cruise missile threats if not TBM's. The MDAC program which follows SCO and USAF seed investment is the first such thing that I see happening.

We have looked at a highly mobile PATRIOT complement and even designed one that was end-end C-130 transportable. That was MEADS and a couple of decades ago so its clearly doable as the requirement is validated and the Army incented to field systems that enable and complement the JF operating concept in theater.

Scott Kenny said:
And technically, the AIM-9X in the multipurpose launchers fills that role. I just want something with more range than a ground launched sidewinder, like SLAMRAAM-ER.
Click to expand...

IFPC Inc 2 is a fixed/semi fixed site defense system that will not be C-130 deployable without modifications. It will also not defeat the entire cruise missile threat set (including supersonic missile) till into the 2030's. As an element inside the IAMD composite battalion, its great. Not sure you can break up the sectored launchers for smaller footprint deployments though and it will not cover any of the TBM threat set so needs big brother PATRIOT for which its designed as a complementary capability. That said, the Marines have fielded an IFPC analog that is C-130J deployable so its doable if mobility, and expeditionary performance is given importance over other attributes.


8200207.jpg
 
Last edited:
SM-6 Eyed As New Surface-To-Air Interceptor For The Army

"The U.S. Army is interested in the increasingly popular and now combat-proven SM-6 missile as a possible new addition to its air and missile defense arsenal. The weapon, which the service is already in the process of fielding as a new long-range means to strike targets on land at sea, could be a boon for its highly in-demand air defense forces. This all also underscores the SM-6’s still-growing versatility, which has now extended to the air-launched domain with the recently revealed AIM-174 variant.

Lt. Gen. Sean Gainey, head of the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command (SDMC), talked about SM-6 and other air and missile developments during a talk the Hudson Institute think tank hosted today."

See:

www.twz.com

SM-6 Eyed As New Surface-To-Air Interceptor For The Army

SM-6, which the Army is already fielding to strike targets on land and at sea, could help bolster the service's strained air defense branch.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
If the US Army does select the SM-6 as its new SAM then the increase in production numbers should lower the unit cost for the SM-6, now if the US Army does select it I wonder will it be the MIM-174 or the BIM-174?
 
NMaude said:
If the US Army does select the SM-6 as its new SAM then the increase in production numbers should lower the unit cost for the SM-6, now if the US Army does select it I wonder will it be the MIM-174 or the BIM-174?
Click to expand...
I expect MIM, just like Patriot.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I expect MIM, just like Patriot.
Click to expand...

Makes sense however I was asking as there's already the sea-launched version (RIM-174A) and the air-launched version (AIM-174B) with the "B" indicating multiple launch methods.
 
NMaude said:
Makes sense however I was asking as there's already the sea-launched version (RIM-174A) and the air-launched version (AIM-174B) with the "B" indicating multiple launch methods.
Click to expand...
The only B*M I'm immediately remembering was the Tomahawk GLCM, which IIRC was the shipboard Armored Box Launcher on a trailer.

Though the SM6 is in a Mk41 launch canister... you may be right on that.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
FOO Fighters are USSF sateliites capable of targeting air targets. Currently they're for ground/surface-based interceptors but perhaps that could be extended given the AIM-174B:
breakingdefense.com

'The One': Millennium wins 'FOO Fighter' missile defense satellite program - Breaking Defense

While the Space Development Agency initially intended to make awards to more than one vendor, the agency determined that a sole-source contract with the Boeing-owned firm was "best value."
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
That's not a land vehicle and aircraft can already fire "on the move".
 
sferrin said:
That's not a land vehicle and aircraft can already fire "on the move".
Click to expand...
True but their radars are off limited range, whereas FOO Fighters in space would be able to target aircraft that might be outside the capabilities of the aircraft radar or OTH and pass the details to the aircraft or SAM launcher.
 
Forest Green said:
True but their radars are off limited range, whereas FOO Fighters in space would be able to target aircraft that might be outside the capabilities of the aircraft radar or OTH and pass the details to the aircraft or SAM launcher.
Click to expand...
True, but I thought the question was of a large land SAM that could fire on the move.



bring_it_on said:
Mobility.
Click to expand...
"What they really need, looking at Ukraine is a Patriot-like system that can fire whilst moving."
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom