Patriot SAM replacement

[Scott Kenny]

The PATRIOT sensor is old and needs to be recapitalized with something more modern and actually capable of supporting defeating current and future threats. This needed to happen a decade ago. I would love to see an IG or DOD report citing the risk associated with having a sensor relying on decades old technologies against modern ballistic missiles, low observable missiles and aircraft and hypersonic threats and actually quantifying the impact on lives lost, and cost involved of doing maintaining that..But they are probably too busy to do such an analysis..

Ukraine is writing that report for us.

 

[bring_it_on]

Ukraine is writing that report for us.

It frankly is about far more stressing threats than what those units are putting up against as stressing as they are.

 

[Cordy]

The PATRIOT sensor is old and needs to be recapitalized with something more modern and actually capable of supporting defeating current and future threats. This needed to happen a decade ago. I would love to see an IG or DOD report citing the risk associated with having a sensor relying on decades old technologies against modern ballistic missiles, low observable missiles and aircraft and hypersonic threats and actually quantifying the impact on lives lost, and cost involved of doing maintaining that..But they are probably too busy to do such an analysis..

The LATMDS contract was issued under the rapid prototyping pathway that Congress had authorized to speed up procurement with less controls to meet the very situation you mention, but Congress imposed a five year time limit. Raytheon failed to meet the terms of the contract to develop the radar in the five year time limit and it took them six years and 34% overspend. Certain members of the Senate were understandably upset as the Army knowing of the delay and the law never moved the contract to the standard major capability acquisition pathway which at $13 billion plus R&D $billions? it qualifies as. (Its an unknown if the other competitors for the contract Lockheed and Northrop Grumman would have succeeded, but as said Raytheon failed)

 

[bring_it_on]

It took six years instead of five? On highly capable "rapid" requirements with timelines that were compressed enough where none of the other competitors could even offer up clean sheet sensors? What a bummer...we should have not have pursued a rapid path to develop and look to to field this capability then and waited ten plus years to get this into the hands of soldiers by following the other acq pathways..

Let's also reduce spending while we're at it so we add more delay and continue to push overdue sensor modernization to the right.

 

[MihoshiK]

It frankly is about far more stressing threats than what those units are putting up against as stressing as they are.

I think the May 16, Kyiv 2023 shootout might qualify.

 

[Ainen]

I think the May 16, Kyiv 2023 shootout might qualify.

Happened once as a first time surprise. After winter 23/24 patriots are basically inconsequential.

 

[Firefinder]

The LATMDS contract was issued under the rapid prototyping pathway that Congress had authorized to speed up procurement with less controls to meet the very situation you mention, but Congress imposed a five year time limit. Raytheon failed to meet the terms of the contract to develop the radar in the five year time limit and it took them six years and 34% overspend. Certain members of the Senate were understandably upset as the Army knowing of the delay and the law never moved the contract to the standard major capability acquisition pathway which at $13 billion plus R&D $billions? it qualifies as. (Its an unknown if the other competitors for the contract Lockheed and Northrop Grumman would have succeeded, but as said Raytheon failed)

Needs to remember what happened to cause the added year.

A little bug called covid and Congress mandated 8 month shut down. The fact that was only a year delay is a surprise.

Happened once as a first time surprise. After winter 23/24 patriots are basically inconsequential.

Which is why Russia been avoiding targeting anything in the Patriot AO...

 

[Ainen]

Which is why Russia been avoiding targeting anything in the Patriot AO...

Strikes happened many times in 2024 in all cities covered with Patriot batteries, from capital AD region (from shaheds to ballistics) to Odessa, Kharkiv and Dnipro.
But May example was a classic AD ambush - in that capacity, daily bimbing with glide bombs is long since completely uninterrupted. Which is serious, as RUSI expects that this year UMPK production alone will hit 70 thousand.

It isn't that big of a bite at patriot - it does that it can. It does things it's designed to very well. It isn't magic; there is geography, there is mathematical overwhelming, there are technical limitations of system design dating back to 1980s, there is number of interceptors.

It just isn't designed to be LRSAM, and without getting SM-6 on land there is no fast way to make western SAM system capable of it.
MRSAM are just about enough to provide protection against glide attacks at sea - that is, if the target is the system itself. When it came to protection of others, they ended up too vulnerable.

 

[bring_it_on]

A little bug called covid and Congress mandated 8 month shut down. The fact that was only a year delay is a surprise.

Not to mention the technical requirements themselves..LTAMDS is a very substantial leap in capability over what's currently out there with the PATRIOT Bn's. There were folks in the Army that wanted to upgrade current PATRIOT sensor once more (perhaps the active electronically scanned array upgrade that Raytheon proposed) to allow industry to have multiple mature competitive clean sheet offers that could be selected for a future replacement but the advancement in threats and delay to move (mostly funding related) prevented that from happening leading to current sensor and award. Thus there was very little in terms of real competition here in terms of mature offerings that were designed to Army requirements. That said, folks in Congress would do well to sit down with the folks operating or testing out the sensor to understand what it brings to the table and why it is badly needed (need to accelerate funding not dial it back leaving units with outdated equipment).