Patriot SAM replacement

sferrin said:
If the canisters are such a pain why not redesign?
Click to expand...
Not that simple. The DoD doesn't want to pay for a redesign when they have one that works. They don't GAF how hard it is.

The entire assembly (canister and interceptor) was Designed by LM Space to requirements set by the USG and built by LM Missiles & Fire Control.
 
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 and thank you for sharing what you can!



missile_man said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay, wasn't expecting that.
 
missile_man said:
WePilots don't even know they're fired on until the moment the missile's seeker takes over and by then they dv on't even have time to eject. The Patriot missile discriminates on the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Colonial-Marine said:
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.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, Patriot was selected by someone at Raytheon precisely because of the coolness factor.

Then, later down the line, someone figured out they could backronym it.
 
missile_man said:
AFAIK, Patriot was selected by someone at Raytheon precisely because of the coolness factor.

Then, later down the line, someone figured out they could backronym it.
Click to expand...
This is the first I'd ever heard of it as an acronym going all the way back to the 80s. "SAM-D" was the only acronym I'd ever seen, and that was only in the conceptual phase.
 
First it was called FABMDS (Field Army Ballistic-Missile Defense System), then AADS-70 (Army Air Defense System for the 1970s) and from 1961 SAM-D (Surface-to-Air Missile, Development). From 1976 it was called PATRIOT (Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept On Target). It's not simply by coolness.
 
Last edited:
xena said:
From 1976 it was called PATRIOT (Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept On Target). It's not simply by coolness.
Click to expand...
'Phased array tracking radar to intercept on target' is not a phrase that makes sense in the English language. This is a clear indicator that the name was picked first, and the meaning forced onto it later.

I'm quite sure that if it had been called 'Sentinel', they'd have argued it was Surface Environment Tracking and Intercept Electronics or something of that nature. And that wouldn't be the most ridiculous backronym I've encountered.
 
NMaude said:
A backronym in other words.
Click to expand...
Pretty much.

I'm not sure exactly why this even turned into a debate. I worked on the PAC-3 program at Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control for 6 years. I worked directly with my Raytheon counterparts to turn a PAC-2 only launcher into a PAC-3 capable launcher.

It's not like I have any reason to just make this shit up. But if anyone wants to spell it out in all caps to look more credible, go right ahead. I promise I won't judge you.
 
Last edited:
missile_man said:
It's not like I have any reason to just make this shit up. But if anyone wants to spell it out in all caps to look more credible, go right ahead. I promise I won't judge you.
Click to expand...

Just for perversity, the Navy's AEGIS is not an acronym*, but the program's style guide says it is to be written in ALL CAPS anyway.

* You will see a couple of attempted backronyms floating around the web. None are official, thanks to WEM FOA.**

** Wayne E Meyer, Father of AEGIS. And yes, he actually signed stuff that way.
 
TomS said:
Just for perversity, the Navy's AEGIS is not an acronym*, but the program's style guide says it is to be written in ALL CAPS anyway.

* You will see a couple of attempted backronyms floating around the web. None are official, thanks to WEM FOA.**

** Wayne E Meyer, Father of AEGIS. And yes, he actually signed stuff that way.
Click to expand...

I've seen that as well. Aegis simply means shield.

The only debate I've seen is how it should be pronounced. eejis? ay-jis?

I don't really know. LOL. I tend to flip flop or just call it SkyNet because that's what it really is.
 
missile_man said:
The only debate I've seen is how it should be pronounced. eejis? ay-jis?
Click to expand...
Much depends on whether you want to speak American, British or Greek. Apparently there's an archaic spelling in American English that's just Egis.

I say just ignore the whole thing and call it 'Thunderstorm', if you want it to sound cool. Or 'Goatskin', if you want to annoy the US Navy. Bunch of nerds that they are.

I'm curious when the backronym-mania really got going. There's certainly a lot of it about.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Much depends on whether you want to speak American, British or Greek. Apparently there's an archaic spelling in American English that's just Egis.

I say just ignore the whole thing and call it 'Thunderstorm', if you want it to sound cool. Or 'Goatskin', if you want to annoy the US Navy. Bunch of nerds that they are.

I'm curious when the backronym-mania really got going. There's certainly a lot of it about.
Click to expand...
Who knows. The military loves their acronyms, thus it makes sense for that to carry over to defense contractors.

At MFC, we have a whole intranet site dedicated to acronyms.
 
NMaude said:
Wasn't there at would stage some thought given to an air-launched PAC3 (From a wing pylon mounted pod IIRC)?
Click to expand...
Called the ALHTK.

I honestly don't see the value except if you're trying to loiter near Best Korea waiting for them to launch a ballistic missile and you're wanting to Intercept it in the boost phase?

But, even that has a whole host of other problems, mainly speed and altitude. Chances are you're not going to be able to Intercept it head on like the PAC-3 is designed to do. You're gonna end up having to chase into the upper atmosphere and catch it from behind and need an ingenious warhead to destroy it.

But hey... we're America and we do shit just to say we can.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom