Patriot SAM replacement

sferrin said:
True, but I thought the question was of a large land SAM that could fire on the move.

"What they really need, looking at Ukraine is a Patriot-like system that can fire whilst moving."
Click to expand...
Using the FOO Fighters would evade the need for a ground radar on the move. I think that was my point.
 
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1816207764542116238
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1816207764542116238

Part of system:
breakingdefense.com

Army taking wide-open approach to high-altitude platforms: SMDC chief - Breaking Defense

"I've always been a fan of balloons that can provide over the horizon support in a missile defense perspective," Lt. Gen. Sean Gainey, head of Army Space and Missile Defense Command, told the Hudson Institute today.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
I don't see how a missile of comparable range and altitudes will be much smaller than the SM6. The best they could do is add folding fins so a missile can fit into a ~15" box. And that's roughly THAAD sized.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I don't see how a missile of comparable range and altitudes will be much smaller than the SM6. The best they could do is add folding fins so a missile can fit into a ~15" box. And that's roughly THAAD sized.
Click to expand...
Comparable range against what target? LTFI is going to be optimized around defeating more complex and longer range TBM's and hypersonic threats and is seeking a missile that extends the BMD envelope over the PAC-3 MSE. Basically bridging the gap between the MSE and Talon and maximizing the capability of the LTAMD sensor. A lower tier interceptor designed around the Talon form factor will be a pretty big bump over MSE and you can still take the THAAD launcher (PLS) approach and field a sizable magazine. The Army has long wanted a new PATRIOT launcher (it was looked at in the AOA but deferred to later) and something like the PLS based THAAD launcher would be great for mobility, reduced manpower and faster reloads.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Comparable range against what target? LTFI is going to be optimized around defeating more complex and longer range TBM's and hypersonic threats and is seeking a missile that extends the BMD envelope over the PAC-3 MSE. Basically bridging the gap between the MSE and Talon and maximizing the capability of the LTAMD sensor. A lower tier interceptor designed around the Talon form factor will be a pretty big bump over MSE and you can still take the THAAD launcher (PLS) approach and field a sizable magazine. The Army has long wanted a new PATRIOT launcher (it was looked at in the AOA but deferred to later) and something like the PLS based THAAD launcher would be great for mobility, reduced manpower and faster reloads.
Click to expand...
And I am comparing that to an SM6.

You're not going to get SM6 levels of range or performance out of a missile that is only 7" in diameter and 12' long.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And I am comparing that to an SM6.

You're not going to get SM6 levels of range or performance out of a missile that is only 7" in diameter and 12' long.
Click to expand...
I still don't get it. Who is comparing this to a AMRAAM? Talon is 20 feet long and 13 inches in diameter and is HTK. It can defeat way more stressing TBM's than SM-6 and both inside and outside the atmosphere and defend a significantly larger footprint against that threat. But that's besides the point. I, in that tweet, was notionally presenting a PAC-3 MSE replacement in the Talon form factor which should offer significantly improved kinematics and other performance given the larger form factor while still retaining a large magazine if the Army were to standardize its IAMD force around the THAAD and IFPC launchers (THAAD launcher replacing PATRIOT moving forward).

Missile performance and capability also comes into play as opposed to simply looking at the size. I am not talking about long range intercepts of air breathing targets (not a primary requirement of LTFI) but specifically comparing envelope against Medium range ballistic missiles, and more stressing hypersonic threats something against which the LTFI is to be optimized against.

Scott Kenny said:
While what I'm seeing the gap in USArmy missiles is that there's nothing between AIM9s and Patriot.
Click to expand...
Which is why they have a requirement for a second interceptor for their Enduring IFPC launcher. You are not going to meet that need via a 4 Million dollar missile that fits four on a launcher with only one launcher deployable via C-17.

Army has a validated unmet requirement of defeating ballistic missile and hypersonic threats that are currently beyond PAC-3 MSE. It has had a 2028-2030 IOC LTFI programmed for that requirement that has struggled to get the sort of funding needed to meet those timelines. Some of that has been due to the Army lacking an organic sensor that could allow for it but LTAMDS is maturing fast and will be in the Pacific by 2026, and more widely deployed by the end of the decade. THAAD likewise had to also shed its low altitude requirements back in the day so that has created a gap b/w MSE ceiling and THAAD's min altitude (45-50 km). LTFI is supposed to fill that void.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
The Air Power quote certainly makes it sound like the want is for SM6 range.

While what I'm seeing the gap in USArmy missiles is that there's nothing between AIM9s and Patriot.
Click to expand...
It says 'lower tier' which usually implies lower range. And whilst an SM-6 has a large range, against a ballistic threat it's probably less than a PAC-3 MSE due to the lack of DACT and subsequent altitude limitation, and certainly less than THAAD. So when it comes to intercepting BMs, the range isn't better. That might change with some kind of 21 inch endo-exo capable GPI or whatever emerges though (or with an SM-3) but that costs a sh*t-load per shot.

Where the SM-6 does make sense is seriously upsetting glide bombers and parked helicopters, since the latter would have to be in range to have any chance of reaching the frontline.
 
Last edited:
Lower tier has nothing to do with range. It is the airspace that the PATRIOT covers that stays inside the THAAD envelope with the latter being the upper tier of Army's AMD force. If SM-6 is integrated into IAMD it too would be a lower tier capability.
 
Last edited:
Northrop Grumman saying IBCS will be fielded this year and in a larger way in 2025, with the initial use in Patriot battalions mid 2025. Army planning to invest $1 billion per year over next five years for production, development and testing to incorporate new sensors and missiles - Poland expects IOC this year

Army expected to start fielding IBCS 'this year' | InsideDefense.com

The Army is expected to begin fielding the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) "this year," and will field it "in a larger way" in 2025, an executive from prime contractor Northrop Grumman said today.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
NMaude said:
Perhaps Patriot launchers modded to mount the SM-6 in its' launch-module but fired at an angle like the MIM-104 instead of vertically by the Mk-70 Mod 0 Typhoon?
Click to expand...
I think that'd take a lot of work to the SM6. Might have to go so far as to use a version of the air-launched missile since everything is hanging off the box (or resting on a rail at the bottom of the box).
 
Forest Green said:
If anything the launcher needs upgrading too. Upgrade the launcher to fully self-propelled and then work on increasing range and improving the seeker of both the PAC-2 and PAC-3 variants. And of course work on the land-mobile SM-6.
Click to expand...
The idea was to do the missile followed by the launcher to be compatible with MSE and the future missile. With the future missile out of the window, the launcher could probably be nuked as well given had already been pushed back to the late 2020's. SM-6 is too heavy and bulky and would reduce the overall magazine size. As is the MRC launchers the RCCTO put together are deemed to be oversized, and lacking in mobility (who would have predicted that?). The upgraded seeker for the MSE is already in production. LT-FI was to go after the gap between MSE's performance and THAAD so that terminal defenses could engage TBM's higher > farther out. It was also expected to have some capability against maneuvering hypersonic threats and would have sat below the GPI in that capability.

While in theory, the SM-6 sounds great for that roll, the 1B variant is massive, and costs as much as a THAAD AUR so not sure it makes sense for the Army to start handing it off to PATRIOT battalions. It would go against the grain of what the Army has been trying to do for the last few decades (increase magazine size).
 
Forest Green said:
If anything the launcher needs upgrading too. Upgrade the launcher to fully self-propelled and then work on increasing range and improving the seeker of both the PAC-2 and PAC-3 variants. And of course work on the land-mobile SM-6.
Click to expand...
Why does the launcher need to be self propelled?

And Boeing established a brand new manufacturing facility in Alabama for the PAC-3 seeker to support increased Interceptor production of almost 1,000 a year.

Component upgrade is an ongoing effort. The problem is that every time you have a new upgrade, it requires a First Article Inspection (FAI) that needs engineering, quality and then government sign off. It can impact overall production planning and slow down manufacturing.
 
Last edited:
missile_man said:
Why does the launcher need to be self propelled?
Click to expand...
Don't know what the Army is thinking of right about now, but one lesson from Ukraine that they've publicly spoken off is a quick emplacement/displacement and reload time. A vertical or near vertical launcher would also be nice as was considered an advantage based on the Army's last PATRIOT modernization AOA. You probably also want to have an integrated IFCN or RIG-360 antenna rather than a seperate equipment that is towed or carried on a different vehicle. Lots of things you can do if you considered a clean sheet launcher. But there seems to be no money for it. At a minimum the Army should look to integrate the MSE missile into the THAAD launcher, and the THAAD launcher into AIAMD. Not sure if that's a MDA or Army budget priority..
 
missile_man said:
Why does the launcher need to be self propelled?
Click to expand...
So you can displace faster once the enemy locates your TEL.

Though that leads me to a different and more interesting question: Given that most SAM radars are easily detectable and therefore easily located (and therefore easily destroyed), has anyone put any thought into LPI radars for SAMs etc?
 
bring_it_on said:
Don't know what the Army is thinking of right about now, but one lesson from Ukraine that they've publicly spoken off is a quick emplacement/displacement and reload time. A vertical or near vertical launcher would also be nice as was considered an advantage based on the Army's last PATRIOT modernization AOA. You probably also want to have an integrated IFCN or RIG-360 antenna rather than a seperate equipment that is towed or carried on a different vehicle. Lots of things you can do if you considered a clean sheet launcher. But there seems to be no money for it. At a minimum the Army should look to integrate the MSE missile into the THAAD launcher, and the THAAD launcher into AIAMD. Not sure if that's a MDA or Army budget priority..
Click to expand...
I can provide some additional insight a little later..
Scott Kenny said:
So you can displace faster once the enemy locates your TEL.

Though that leads me to a different and more interesting question: Given that most SAM radars are easily detectable and therefore easily located (and therefore easily destroyed), has anyone put any thought into L
Click to expand...

bring_it_on said:
Don't know what the Army is thinking of right about now, but one lesson from Ukraine that they've publicly spoken off is a quick emplacement/displacement and reload time. A vertical or near vertical launcher would also be nice as was considered an advantage based on the Army's last PATRIOT modernization AOA. You probably also want to have an integrated IFCN or RIG-360 antenna rather than a seperate equipment that is towed or carried on a different vehicle. Lots of things you can do if you considered a clean sheet launcher. But there seems to be no money for it. At a minimum the Army should look to integrate the MSE missile into the THAAD launcher, and the THAAD launcher into AIAMD. Not sure if that's a MDA or Army budget priority..
Click to expand...

Ok, so I'm new here. I love learning and sharing a few things as I'm allowed.. I worked on the PAC-3 program for 6 years, HIMARS for 2 years and THAAD for past 3 years. I'm not looking to "own" anyone but will offer correctional insight when I can.

The reload time for US Army Patriot air defenders is about 1 hour. I can't speak for Ukraine or any other Allied Patriot AD.

That being said, it's not relevant because they're always defended by other launchers during reload.

A Patriot battery is linked via fiber optic cables, but can also be linked via wireless with lesser performance, hence the AMG.

A THAAD battery successfully integrated and test fired a PAC-3 MSE interceptor using a THAAD radar and fire control.

There is no Patriot replacement and/or overhaul. The Patriot air and missile defense battery is combat proven and seen as the gold standard around the world.

There is no requirement to alter the current configuration using the M860 trailers pulled by the M983 HEMTT nor is there any need. Germany has a truck mounted version though.

Also the Patriot isn't trying to hide. It wants to be fired at, but even so, the case that it needs to be more mobile to "shoot and scoot" is a misunderstanding about Patriot radar technology. It has an extremely narrow frequency hopping beam and is almost undetectable.

Lastly, please don't spell Patriot in all caps. It's not an acronym. It's called Patriot because the name sounds cool, not because someone was able to back into an official sounding technical acronym (backronym)

No warfighter, air defender, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin or the Program Office spells it in all caps.

Feel free to ask me anything. I'll answer what I can. If i don't know the answer I'll admit to it.

bring_it_on said:
Don't know what the Army is thinking of right about now, but one lesson from Ukraine that they've publicly spoken off is a quick emplacement/displacement and reload time. A vertical or near vertical launcher would also be nice as was considered an advantage based on the Army's last PATRIOT modernization AOA. You probably also want to have an integrated IFCN or RIG-360 antenna rather than a seperate equipment that is towed or carried on a different vehicle. Lots of things you can do if you considered a clean sheet launcher. But there seems to be no money for it. At a minimum the Army should look to integrate the MSE missile into the THAAD launcher, and the THAAD launcher into AIAMD. Not sure if that's a MDA or Army budget priority..
Click to expand...
 
bobbymike said:
thedefensepost.com

US Army Scraps Next-Gen Patriot Missile Replacement Plan

The US Army has decided to abandon its plans for a next-generation replacement of the renowned Patriot air defense system.
thedefensepost.com thedefensepost.com
Click to expand...
This has been the plan for awhile but saw it finally released yesterday.

On top of integrating Patriot (not just PAC-3) with THAAD, integrating all lower tier with upper tier is the game plan.

Aegis is frickin SkyNet and I cannot properly convey just how scary and deadly it really is.

The excitement around the announcement to integrate Aegis/PAC-3 and a scheduled flight test was crazy....then the actual flight test itself was x2.
 
Presuming if the House has its way Patriot will not be integrated with THAAD as they have voted to delete the funding for THAAD/IBCS

DOD appeals $86M House cut in FY-25 authorization for 'critical' THAAD-IBCS integration | InsideDefense.com

The Defense Department is asking lawmakers to reject a House proposal that would quash a new project that aims to integrate the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system into the Army Integrated Battle Command System architecture, arguing classified assessments deemed the project "critical" to...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
Cordy said:
Presuming if the House has its way Patriot will not be integrated with THAAD as they have voted to delete the funding for THAAD/IBCS

DOD appeals $86M House cut in FY-25 authorization for 'critical' THAAD-IBCS integration | InsideDefense.com

The Defense Department is asking lawmakers to reject a House proposal that would quash a new project that aims to integrate the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system into the Army Integrated Battle Command System architecture, arguing classified assessments deemed the project "critical" to...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
Click to expand...
The House majority continues to be a joke by holding up funding needed for essential defense articles.

The fact that $86M is such a ridiculous small amount tells you everything
 
missile_man said:
Ok, so I'm new here. I love learning and sharing a few things as I'm allowed.. I worked on the PAC-3 program for 6 years, HIMARS for 2 years and THAAD for past 3 years. I'm not looking to "own" anyone but will offer correctional insight when I can.
Click to expand...
Welcome! Please chime in frequently and often.

Do you think the current scale of US IADS is sufficient for a peer war? With very few THAAD batteries, it seems like Patriot would have to do most of the work.
 
joshjosh said:
Welcome! Please chime in frequently and often.

Do you think the current scale of US IADS is sufficient for a peer war? With very few THAAD batteries, it seems like Patriot would have to do most of the work.
Click to expand...
IMO Aegis (both US and Japan) would take the bulk of the work in a Pacific conflict.

But, no. The CSIS has already determined that the US would exhaust Interceptors inside of 2 weeks in major conflict with China.

The DoD is wanting more THAAD Interceptors but House Republicans are making that difficult in an election year.

I'm not here to bash political ideals. We can all agree to disagree but I have MAJOR concerns that Trump wants out of NATO. Gen Milley and Bolton both have made that clear.

I think it's going to take the Defense Production Act to really make a difference. The THAAD canister alone is a nightmare build...just the canister. That doesn't account for the Interceptor.
 
In terms of costs, we are getting help from allies to help with affordability. But it's requiring US defense manufacturers to agree to offsets. Spain is buying Patriot systems and Interceptors but are also helping to build major components.

KSA is buying THAAD, but are building the canisters.

We definitely need more allies to get onboard with THAAD.
 
missile_man said:
Lastly, please don't spell Patriot in all caps. It's not an acronym. It's called Patriot because the name sounds cool, not because someone was able to back into an official sounding technical acronym (backronym)
Click to expand...
Phased Array Tracking Radar for Intercept on Target - PATRIOT.

Of course there have been calls and attempts for a deeper overhaul of the Patriot including senior army officials making a public case for it just a few years ago at Firescon. Army's modernization AOA for it included both radar, launchers and missile replacement RDT&E programs but pushed costs to well outside expected budgets so they decided to focus on fewer elements and sequential development. Some of those plans have now changed most notably the doing away for fielding a new interceptor that would have allowed higher altitude intercepts thus expanding the defended footprint and bridging the gap to the original THAAD requirements.
 
Last edited:
missile_man said:
That what it is, not what it's called.
Click to expand...
So PATRIOT is an acronym? What about HAWK, THAAD and IFPC?

missile_man said:
We definitely need more allies to get onboard with THAAD.
Click to expand...
Not many allies can afford $8-10 MM interceptors. The amount of air defense capability they would have to sacrifice in order to afford a THAAD battery will leave them weaker not stronger. Those who could afford to buy both are buying other systems (Japan - SM3 & GPI investment, Germany - Arrow investment). There's a reason why only a handful of countries around the world field upper tier BMD capability.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-10-18 at 5.04.39 PM.png
    Screenshot 2024-10-18 at 5.04.39 PM.png
    895.4 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
So PATRIOT is an acronym?
Click to expand...

bring_it_on said:
So PATRIOT is an acronym? What about HAWK, THAAD and IFPC?


Not many allies can afford $8-10 MM interceptors. The amount of air defense capability they would have to sacrifice in order to afford a THAAD battery will leave them weaker not stronger. Those who could afford to buy both are buying other systems (Japan - SM3 & GPI investment, Germany - Arrow investment). There's a reason why only a handful of countries around the world field upper tier BMD capability.
Click to expand...
Looks official
 
I didn't mention HAWK or THAAD because I wasn't talking about them. In fact, the only thing I know about hawk is that we sent some to Ukraine.

But as I initially stated I'm not here to argue or debate. I enjoy discussing air and missile defense and sharing what I know. If you want to use all caps feel free.

But if you have any questions about THAAD or PAC-3, I am the deputy Prod-Ops manager for the Interceptor. If I don't know the answer or if it's of a classified nature, I'll let you know and answer to the best of my ability.

Cool?
 
I was rather under the impression that the name Patriot was selected because it sounds cool and brings to mind the soldiers and militiamen of the American Revolution. By the time serious work was being done it would have been close the bicentennial in 1976 so the timing sounds right. I think it probably took some effort on someone's part *after* it was named to turn it into an acronym for something. Seems like there must have been an office somewhere in the Pentagon in those days just tasked with making cool acronyms.
 
missile_man said:
The House majority continues to be a joke by holding up funding needed for essential defense articles.

The fact that $86M is such a ridiculous small amount tells you everything
Click to expand...
When stuff like this happens look for poisoned needle. Democrats love to hide things in bills, that no one in their right mind would agree to, just so they can't point and say, "see, they want grandma to die".
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom