Patriot SAM replacement

[sferrin]

By adding propellant and going with a HTK warhead to the PAC-2 airframe will it become a THAAD junior?

Not even close. THAAD can operate in space. More like a short-range SM-6. SM-6 isn't hit-to-kill but that's probably the closest analog.

 

[bring_it_on]

More like a short-range SM-6. SM-6 isn't hit-to-kill but that's probably the closest analog.

Thats exactly what I think would be the right type of weapon (medium range SM6) to complement the PAC3 and PAC3MSE along with other lower cost interceptors. Ideally you'd want a new missile, but you could repackage a lot from the SM6 to save money.

 

[sferrin]

Ideally you'd want a new missile, but you could repackage a lot from the SM6 to save money.

Such a PAC-2 would have nothing from the SM-6. The divert system would be new, and if you were going to give PAC-2 a new guidance system, I'd think it'd have that from PAC-3 repackaged rather than the AMRAAM/SM-6 guidance system. The latter has never been used in hit-to-kill applications and may not have the accuracy.

 

[bring_it_on]

Ideally you'd want a new missile, but you could repackage a lot from the SM6 to save money.

Such a PAC-2 would have nothing from the SM-6. The divert system would be new, and if you were going to give PAC-2 a new guidance system, I'd think it'd have that from PAC-3 repackaged rather than the AMRAAM/SM-6 guidance system. The latter has never been used in hit-to-kill applications and may not have the accuracy.

I wasn't referring to the PAC-2HTK but a new missile under the ATI that could use the seeker and other components from the SM6. The PAC-2 HTK would essentially be modifications to the existing inventory which should be done regardless since the patriot isn't going anywhere for decades and even when they modernize there would be older systems in the field for all of its operators. The PAC-2 HTK would surely acquire some of the SM6's capability for OTH and should also improve on the range.

 

[Mark S.]

Bring-it-on from your post above: "The concept leverages the PAC-2's greater kinematic range and keep-out altitude over the PAC-3, the company says. An active seeker would also allow the PAC-2 to receive in-flight target updates from distributed sensors to enable over-the-horizon 'engage-on-remote' scenarios."

The proposed new variant it seems will have a higher altitude capability. Engage-on-remote may leverage the TPY-2 or other sensors as you have mentioned like JLENS.

Is this a solution to a high speed, high altitude cruise missile or glider? There's probably a band from 60K to 120K (or more) that may stress both the PAC-3 and THAAD. To high and fast for PAC-3 and to low for THAAD.

 

[bring_it_on]

Key Army panel to weigh new air-defense investments


A key Army panel is slated to discuss the costs for upgrading the venerable Patriot system's radar this week, as proposed near-term investments exceeding $1.5 billion on the legacy technology raise questions about the service's commitment to finding a replacement.

Officials said a meeting of the Army Requirements Oversight Council is set for April 14 about the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor and its way ahead toward a milestone A decision, the most preliminary in a series of three decision points. Officials are expected to "get requirements approved and concurrence on acquisition approach" for that program, according to a service source.

While development for the notional sensor is expected to cost $35 million in fiscal year 2017 and between roughly $80 million and $90 million in each of the four years thereafter, the discussions take place before the backdrop of service plans to spend much more significant sums on fixing the reliability of the Patriot radar at the same time.

According to briefing slides presented to lawmakers as part of budget briefings in February, the service is planning a "Patriot Radar Evolution" for which officials would pay roughly $1.5 billion between FY-17 and FY-21. Raytheon, the maker of Patriot, practically stands to get the money on a sole-source basis, a plan that has previously drawn fire from Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has yet to formally approve an analysis of alternatives for what a new sensor replacing the Patriot radar would look like. "We had a meeting a couple weeks ago and OSD seemed okay with the analysis," the service source said. Still, the analysis technically remains under review by Pentagon analysts, with no decision made on a way ahead.

Officials have said for some time that the service favors the development of a new sensor featuring gallium nitride technology and a 360-degree surveillance capability. A decision against one of the alternatives reviewed, the fire-control radar of the Medium Extended Air Defense System, means that past U.S. development spending of $2 billion on that radar would go entirely unused.

MEADS was developed by the United States, Germany and Italy. While Washington exited the program some years ago, Germany last year decided to pursue it alone. The system features an active phased array radar (AESA), 360-degree surveillance and launch capability, but its sensor runs on gallium arsenide technology, versus the more powerful gallium nitride-based method the Army says it must have.

Meanwhile, service officials project a milestone A decision for the LTAMDS program this fall or winter, with an industry solicitation for a technology maturation and risk reduction phase released at that time. The race for that program will be competitive, officials have said, which means companies other than Raytheon can partake.

According to the Army budget briefing for lawmakers, a new sensor could be fully fielded around FY-27.

 

[Mark S.]

Seems like the program is Raytheon's to loose. If they can keep their price acceptable to the Army and demonstrate the GaN technology is ready for use it would be difficult for another vendor to grab the contract.

 

[bring_it_on]

It would be quite unfortunate if the deal to replace such high number of Patriot legacy radars would not be competed especially given the amount of work on sensors that has occurred thanks to USMC, MEADS partner-nation, and even USAF funding when it comes to sensors that could potentially serve the Patriot Next generation system in some capacity or the other. What is even more strange is that they anticipate a 12 year development cycle for an upgraded sensor that looks to retain a lot of the Patirot's legacy software. I am sure however that Lockheed can compete here by offering an upgrade MEADS sensor with US made GaN T/R modules and also compete with the UHF AESA for a potential surveillance option. The amount of money that is being spoken off however over the next 4-5 years is unlikely to be sufficient to fund a brand new radar developmental program.

 

[Mark S.]

I can't see where it would take 12 years to upgrade the sensor when the two main competitors both have systems that use GaN components in operation now. L-M with MEADS and Raytheon with TPY-2 and 3DELRR. Neither should have to work from scratch. The long pole in the tent would be software. I think it's a done deal for Raytheon. Whether that's good is another matter.

 

[marauder2048]

Strictly speaking, neither G/ATOR nor 3DELRR has been eliminated from the AoA but I'm not holding out hope for the former.
On the Patriot software front, there's a considerable amount of ongoing development activity so the "legacy" build will look very different by the time a new array is ready.
So with these investments and the murky technical and manufacturing data rights situation for Patriot, there's some unavoidable (but not inevitable) sole-source momentum.

 

[bring_it_on]

L-M with MEADS and Raytheon with TPY-2 and 3DELRR.

LM sources GaAs modules from Europe for the MFCR (iirc). They'd need to work with Cree or Qorvo to upgrade that sensor with GaN. Even then, the MEADS sensor's software for the US was always meant to be different and I am not sure whether any of that unique software had been developed before we withdrew support as far as procurement is concerned. 3DELRR could definitely be used by Raytheon, since it operates in the same band however why bother when you have a very good change of winning with a much less riskier proposal. I don't blame Raytheon, there's just not enough money out there unless some is injected rather quickly. If they are going to spend 3 times as much to enhance the legacy patriot it would be an uphill task to convince the Army to not upgrade the radar but field a new sensor that starts from scratch. The downside is obviously that the aspects of mobility, and footprint would likely remain where they are which was one of the goals for the MEADS program and something a next-generation patriot should have aspired to be better at.

Lockheed however is working on an undisclosed X-band radar:

Besides Space Fence and 3DELRR, Lockheed Martin is also doing a tremendous amount of activity in GaN with S-band, Bruce added.

"We have some GaN radar technology in an X-band radar product under development. We are going across in the radar domain across all frequencies. This could even drive up into Ku-band. GaN is being looked at in any place where you need high efficiency and high power," he said.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/283494441/Cooling-Down

 

[marauder2048]

My thinking was more along the lines of a Raytheon 3DELRR win means the Army can piggy back either directly (joint acquisition) or indirectly (C-band GaN T/R gets cheaper).
3DELRR as an organic part of the Patriot Brigrade would greatly reduce the search burden during combined TBM/air-breathing raids.

It's been pointed out that in combined TBM/air-breathing raids, the advantage of 360 coverage for the MEADS MFCR vanishes as the high revisit rate requirements for the TBMs (> 1 Hz)
means that the MFCR pretty much has to stop and stare at the TBM threat sector.

 

[bring_it_on]

^ Isn't that why they plan (ed) on deploying (full capability) with two MFCR's and one surveillance radar?

The reference MEADS fire unit includes one UHF Surveillance Radar (SR) and two X-Band Multifunction Fire Control Radars

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4993.msg277829.html#msg277829

 

[marauder2048]

^ Isn't that why they plan (ed) on deploying (full capability) with two MFCR's and one surveillance radar?

The reference MEADS fire unit includes one UHF Surveillance Radar (SR) and two X-Band Multifunction Fire Control Radars

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4993.msg277829.html#msg277829

The composition of the fire units has fluctuated over the years; it was originally one MFCR and one SR then two MFCRs and one SR post MS-B in recognition of the issue described above.
The MEADS literature circa 2015 (after the German selection) shows a single MFCR; a prior version (circa 2010) shows two MFCRs.

 

[Mark S.]

How many places in the world are you going to face a 360 deg. theater ballistic missile threat? I can only think of Pacific islands with the assumption that a peer competitor uses a boomer or surface ship to launch them. The boomer idea in my opinion is far fetched because using one for theater work would eliminate it from a strategic second strike reserve and probably get it sunk. Now having to deal with 360 deg. airborne threats is very plausible. It may be that Raytheon's idea of smaller arrays on the back of the shelter housing the main array accounts for this scenario.

 

[marauder2048]

You're right. The TBM threat is typically from a fixed sector and the need for 360 coverage is motivated almost exclusively by the air-breathing threat.
It's just that in a combined TBM/ABT raid, your 360 precision tracking sensor typically has to fixate on the TBM threat sector leaving you more exposed to the 360 ABT threat.

MEADS wants you to buy two MFCRs for that scenario. Raytheon wants you to buy the rear AESA panels for Patriot.
The US Army thinks that a combination of AESA'ed 360 Sentinels and AESA'ed single panel Patriots will suffice.

I'm holding out for 3DELRR as a supporting element but for the island scenario you mentioned you really need something like JLENS which to the present
administration's credit they are sticking with despite the bad PR.

 

[bring_it_on]

Speaking of the 3DELRR, did Raytheon ever release a graphic or present a mock up for their design?

 

[Mark S.]

I've been looking for artwork or a model of 3DELRR for a year and haven't found it yet. Maybe it's unique and revolutionary. As for JLENS the only drawback in my mind is it's not as survivable as a ground based sensor. I remember back in the 80's AvLeak had a article about a radar that was pointed upward with hemispherical array on top of it to sweep the beam around. I wouldn't want to do the math but if they could make that work!!!

 

[bring_it_on]

As for JLENS the only drawback in my mind is it's not as survivable as a ground based sensor.

Depends on how you deploy it. If it is a Pacific Island, far away from the threat its pretty safe, or at least as safe as anything else. If you plan on taking it to the front-lines of combat, I would agree its not a very safe way to provide long range surveillance.

 

[bring_it_on]

I've been looking for artwork or a model of 3DELRR for a year and haven't found it yet. Maybe it's unique and revolutionary. As for JLENS the only drawback in my mind is it's not as survivable as a ground based sensor. I remember back in the 80's AvLeak had a article about a radar that was pointed upward with hemispherical array on top of it to sweep the beam around. I wouldn't want to do the math but if they could make that work!!!

Well to be fair given the nature of the protest and the issue surrounding source selection they are probably being cautious as to not talk about. However it is rather strange that they put a lot of effort in marketing the GaN antenna (rear) panel on the Patriot system a few years ago, when in 2013 they were already demonstrating a GaN C-Band Full scale Prototype to the USAF

Raytheon proposed a C-band solution for its 3DELRR capability, but declined to comment on its selection.

Andrew Hajek, Raytheon's 3DELRR programme director told IHS Jane's that "Raytheon is proud to have successfully completed its pre-Engineering, Design, and Manufacturing phase for 3DELRR. We conducted a successful Preliminary Design Review, and held a compelling demonstration of our gallium nitride [GaN]-based C-Band full-scale prototype."

He added that "We met all air force requirements, and we demonstrated unprecedented track accuracy for ground-based surveillance radar. Our 3DELRR solution is based upon [more than] 10 years of company investment in ... GaN technology".

All three bids for 3DELRR included GaN-based solutions for the transmit and receive modules.

"Our GaN enables implementation of low-risk, cost-effective capabilities in any expeditionary radar system. In addition to enhanced track accuracy, these capabilities include positive identification and robust performance in ever-evolving threat and electronic environments," Hajek said.

 

[marauder2048]

Don't know why JLENS would be less survivable than a ground based sensor. Most of the ground based threats would be within JLENS EO/IR and GMTI detection ranges and the
aerostat material construction would defeat the fuzes on most anti-radiation and A2A missiles.

It's definitely one of those assets that you protect with C-RAM and because of its detection range capability you don't need to position it anywhere close to the front lines.

 

[TomS]

One thing we've learned is that the JLENS aerostat really is vulnerable to environmental hazards:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/breaking-jlens-aerostat-breaks-loose-over-pennsylvania/

 

[bring_it_on]

One thing we've learned is that the JLENS aerostat really is vulnerable to environmental hazards:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/breaking-jlens-aerostat-breaks-loose-over-pennsylvania/

I actually miss them driving to work every morning

 

[bring_it_on]

Patriot discussed starting 3:00 or so. Also, THAAD_ER (That thread is now locked???) discussed beginning 17:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MXVolDxy-Q

Army PEO Missile & Space statement : http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS29/20160414/104621/HHRG-114-AS29-Wstate-PikeB-20160414.pdf

 

[bring_it_on]

From CSISMD (@Missile_Defense) , Red-1970's technology , Yellow - 80's, and Green - 90's

 

[fredymac]

More IBCS testing this time involving mixed PAC-2/PAC-3 firings. The video shows the PAC-2 intercept but unfortunately doesn't include the PAC-3 intercept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNw8NDP6sM

On April 8, U.S. Army soldiers executed a successful dual engagement flight test of the Northrop Grumman Corporation-developed Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) to identify, track, engage and defeat ballistic and cruise missile targets. Proving any-sensor, best-shooter capability, the IBCS used tracking data from Sentinel and Patriot radars and provided the C2 for a Patriot Advanced Capability Three (PAC-3) interceptor to destroy a ballistic missile target and a PAC-2 interceptor to destroy a cruise missile target.

 

[bring_it_on]

Congress will get a bite at Army's antimissile-modernization analysis


Lawmakers can expect to review an analysis of alternatives about Army plans to modernize its lower-tier air-defense radars, an elusive study expected to guide billions of dollars in future investments, according to a key service official.

Barry Pike, the program executive officer for missiles and space told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee on April 14 that the analysis for the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor still had not passed a "sufficiency evaluation" by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Absent that office's formal blessing, however, Army officials are moving forward with plans "from their perspective," Pike told Inside the Army in a brief interview. At issue is how the Army will proceed with modernizing its radars connected to the aging Patriot missile-defense system, what a new sensor must be able to do, and how to synchronize the investments and fielding paths for both programs.

The Army plans to spend upwards of $1.5 billion on updating the Patriot radar in the next five years, running the risk of squeezing a more comprehensive upgrade out of the air-defense portfolio, despite stated intentions to field a replacement.

Asked why Pentagon analysts have yet to approve the Army analysis, Pike said, "It just takes time."

The prospect of lawmakers getting to review the study could change the trajectory for how the Army approaches the matter. While many in the service envision banking on Patriot updates for several more decades, either by choice or necessity, at least one lawmaker, subcommittee chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL), signaled a willingness to get personally involved in the decision-making.

Even with scheduled upgrades, Rogers contended at the hearing last week, "we will have a radar system with components that in some cases are 58 years old."

When asked for systems that the Army could introduce to the air-defense portfolio more quickly, Pike referred to the outstanding analysis of alternatives. The study examined fielded and developmental radars throughout the military services, potential modifications to those, as well as from-scratch developments.

While the analysis is still considered technically unfinished, Army officials have privately said that the service favors a new sensor boasting dual-frequency capability, longer range, a 360-degree field of vision, and gallium nitride technology, among other features.

"Once it is complete and delivered to Congress, as part of the law, then we'll be able to go forward with an acquisition strategy and a formal schedule and materiel solution, none of which we have currently today," Pike told Rogers.

Army leaders met during the afternoon of April 14 for an Army Requirements Oversight Council on the nascent Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor program. Officials said it was unclear to what extent the requirements discussion for that program would be influenced by the sizable cost of the sustaining Patriot in parallel.

Pike told ITA the issues are "linked to some extent."

He added that the fielding time for the new sensors, 2028, was not "set in stone" with so many moving parts in the planning process still unfolding. A Defense Acquisition Board meeting, chaired by Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall, is scheduled for sometime in June. Before that, typically within a month of the April 14 AROC meeting, Army acquisition leaders will assess their strategy during an Army Systems Acquisition Review Council, or ASARC, Pike said.

The timing of the analysis' release to lawmakers could affect decisions made this spring. A spokesman for the Office of the Secretary of Defense did not return a reporter's question about the status of the study.

 

[marauder2048]

One thing we've learned is that the JLENS aerostat really is vulnerable to environmental hazards:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/breaking-jlens-aerostat-breaks-loose-over-pennsylvania/

In fairness, the wind velocities that broke the JLENS tether would have already forced almost all ground-based 360 radar systems into stowed position.

 

[bring_it_on]

House panel pushing Army toward larger missiles, April 20, 2016


A panel of House lawmakers is urging the Army to examine the utility of employing more powerful missiles for both air defense and strike missions.

The House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee included two passages to that effect in the draft mark-up of the fiscal year 2017 defense authorization bill. One expresses support of Army efforts to develop a land-based anti-ship missile, the other pushes the service to extend the range of its surface-to-air missiles.

According to the legislation, the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center already is developing "concepts and technologies" enabling the service to conduct "land-based offensive surface warfare." Among the technologies under consideration is re-purposing the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System and the Multiple Launch Rocket System for an anti-ship mission.

"The committee supports the Army's Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM) effort and understands the Army has programmed funding across the Future Years Defense Program in order to continue to integrate and demonstrate this capability through live-fire testing," lawmakers wrote.

Hitting ships with munitions developed for land targets can be done, but the missiles generally need greater range and the ability to hit moving targets from far away. Army officials in South Korea tested an Excalibur guided artillery round against a barge several years ago. Out of two shots, one was a hit.

A congressional staffer said the issue has been of "sustained interest" to some subcommittee members in recent years. Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in 2014 brought into play the idea of a forward-deployed Army "coastal artillery," to be used for securing vitally important shipping lanes in the Asia-Pacific.

The proposed legislation tasks the Army with delivering a briefing by Feb. 1, 2017, on the service's plans for the LBASM program, including a projection on schedule and funding.

A separate provision decries that the service's surface-to-air missiles have "significant less range" against aircraft targets than "many foreign threat systems," namely those fielded by Russia and China. Lawmakers are concerned that the proliferation of those weapons would leave the United States behind, effectively making contested airspace no-go zones for American fighter jets in future conflicts.

The committee requests a briefing on the "potential requirement" for longer-range SAM systems, including "the potential upgrade of current systems or an entirely new system."

 

[sferrin]

I was thinking about this the other day. What's US Army policy about dropping booster stages hither and yon?

 

[bobbymike]

I was thinking about this the other day. What's US Army policy about dropping booster stages hither and yon?

I've been a proponent of "big dumb boosters" with brilliant warheads for some time. Seem like an easy way to enhance offensive strike capability.

 

[Mark S.]

I fail to see where the range of our SAMs will leave us behind and contribute to our inability to penetrate the envelope of enemy systems with our aircraft. Seems to me the range of the SAM is tied to the area you want to cover per battery.

As for a surface attack system wouldn't the AGM-158C LRASM work?

The Nike Hercules had known booster drop areas but with that missile the booster was used just to gain altitude and not to extend the range of the missile by flying out further from the launch site itself. How much would we gain by doing that today? The Patriot seems to have the same range as the Nike.

 

[sferrin]

I fail to see where the range of our SAMs will leave us behind and contribute to our inability to penetrate the envelope of enemy systems with our aircraft. Seems to me the range of the SAM is tied to the area you want to cover per battery.

And if you want to cover a larger area with the same number of batteries you need a longer range missile.

As for a surface attack system wouldn't the AGM-158C LRASM work?

Why would you want that if you could do better? Band-aid solutions are not long-term solutions.

The Nike Hercules had known booster drop areas but with that missile the booster was used just to gain altitude and not to extend the range of the missile by flying out further from the launch site itself.

Fairly certain that increasing speed and altitude extended the range and that a Nike Hercules sans-booster wouldn't go anywhere near as far.

How much would we gain by doing that today? The Patriot seems to have the same range as the Nike.

But it doesn't have the range of SM-6. You have the choice of a larger missile (S-400 40N6) or multistage.

 

[DrRansom]

Two thoughts:

1. The US Army has a massive artillery disadvantage against the Russians. That, to me, is more pressing than solving the coastal artillery problem. MRLS and Paladin are both outmatched by their equivalent Russian systems.

2. The USAF seems to be drifting towards a localized air supremacy model, where AF pushes forward to achieve supremacy in limited time / space. This matches the advances in mobile / survivable Russian & Chinese ADA. In that environment, the current Army air defenses are inadequate to UAV and fixed with aircraft threat.

I wonder if the latter lead the congress to encourage the US Army to get longer ranged air defenses.

 

[bring_it_on]

As for a surface attack system wouldn't the AGM-158C LRASM work?

It would work well, especially given Lockheed is demonstrating booster integration at the moment.

Why would you want that if you could do better? Band-aid solutions are not long-term solutions.

They'll likely struggle to get something better than the LRASM, or Tomahawk given the current stream of funding even for the upcoming larger anti surface weapon competition.

But it doesn't have the range of SM-6. You have the choice of a larger missile (S-400 40N6) or multistage.

They probably don't need to got that crazy large either. An incremental improvement over the PAC-2 range should do the trick while still keeping 4 a launcher profile of the existing PAC-2's. A multi pulse motor with a smaller warhead could extend the range considerably if they still wanted to retain mobility and footprint. In fact they could leverage the existing SM6 components given the success it has had against air breathing and ballistic targets. I haven't seen the 40N6 and its associated launcher, how big is the missile and launcher?

 

[Mark S.]

Think any improvements to or replacement of Patriot should have a range a little beyond the range of the predominate type of peer competitor stand-off munition. You won't give it the range to defeat a 500 mile cruise missile but certainly something to handle one of 150 to 200 miles. It's a matter of risk and using other systems to take-out those targets that you can't. I would guess that there are more stand-off munitions with less than 200 mile range than there are of those above that number.

Maybe they should try to harden the SM-6 to work in the off-road environment or as others have said repackage the components. You also have the 8 round launch vehicle for the THAAD system to carry larger missiles.

I think we'll see the new USAF cruise missile adapted to other uses from it's initial strategic nuclear mission in time. That will probably be the Tomahawk replacement.

 

[bring_it_on]

Now what happens if that 200 mile stand off munition, is launched from a Low Observable, UAV/UCAV or fighter?

 

[sferrin]

Why would you want that if you could do better? Band-aid solutions are not long-term solutions.

They'll likely struggle to get something better than the LRASM, or Tomahawk given the current stream of funding even for the upcoming larger anti surface weapon competition.

The fact remains, LRASM was never meant as anything but a "get something, anything, ASAP" interim band-aid. You DON'T want to get locked into that. It's one thing if they say, "TS, if you need something find something as cheap as possible", quite another to volunteer, "hey, I'll take the old POS since you're askin'".

But it doesn't have the range of SM-6. You have the choice of a larger missile (S-400 40N6) or multistage.

They probably don't need to got that crazy large either. An incremental improvement over the PAC-2 range should do the trick while still keeping 4 a launcher profile of the existing PAC-2's. A multi pulse motor with a smaller warhead could extend the range considerably if they still wanted to retain mobility and footprint. In fact they could leverage the existing SM6 components given the success it has had against air breathing and ballistic targets. I haven't seen the 40N6 and its associated launcher, how big is the missile and launcher?

• You could keep 4 per launcher but you might need to go with a bigger launcher. You don't need a Nike Hercules sized missile.
• You can be mobile with a larger missile than PAC-2 (See S-400, S-300V, etc.)
• No SM-6 components. SM-6 is designed to sit in a nice climate controlled cell (which is why Aegis ashore needs a friggin' building instead of throwing them on a truck).
• Not sure on the 40N6 but the S-400 "big" missiles are 4000lbs+ which is about double PAC-2 and about 30% more than SM-6.
• If you're going to skimp on warhead size you're going to need to go with hit-to-kill because at high altitude you need a bigger warhead to have the same effect in thin air.

A couple likely constraints are going to be the requirement for air mobility, no dropping boosters, and solid rocket propulsion. (The Nike Hercules batteries had specific fenced off drop areas for the boosters.) Dropping boosters over the ocean is one thing, but you can't always know where you might need to setup your SAM system, what the shot geometry might be, etc. when on land. If it were me I'd probably go with something say 3000lbs, dual burn motor, 200lb warhead, thruster system up front like PAC-3, TVC vanes in the nozzle, PAC-3 guidance system. Don't know if cold-launch makes enough difference to bother with it. And I'd damn sure want a better reload system than what they currently use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjfIpY5igko

 

[bring_it_on]

The fact remains, LRASM was never meant as anything but a "get something, anything, ASAP" interim band-aid. You DON'T want to get locked into that. It's one thing if they say, "TS, if you need something find something as cheap as possible", quite another to volunteer, "hey, I'll take the old POS since you're askin'".

Thats all well and good. Ideally you would want a clean sheet but where is the money for such a weapon? Lets see how ambitious they get with a new AshM. I am skeptical.

Regarding, the long range missile with a new launcher, we are in a situation where we can't really fund a clean sheet radar and the Congress is thinking about cutting even existing Patriot modernization roadmap to pay for a band-aid radar. Somehow, I seriously doubt we all develop an extremely large, and capable weapon introducing a new launcher into the patriot family. It would be an achievement if they can get the PAC-3MSE acquisition to hold in terms of quantity and acquire the AESA Patriot upgrade even though it will still recycle the legacy sensor and only upgrade it. This after $2 Billion invested in MEADS development, that we no longer want.

 

[DrRansom]

If Congress wants the US Army to replicate the S-300/S-400, then congress should give the US army money to do that. The better have a stronger reason than Russian toys envy.

Wouldn't it just be cheaper to resurrect SHORAD if you're worried about hostile air?

Mobility and air mobility can all be had, but that will involve the US trying to catch up on a decade + of Russian SAM development. Expensive, expensive.

In addition to this request, the army also needs long ranged fires and, apparently, an AShM capability. The underinvesment in Artillery and ADA are coming back hard.

Sferrin, now I get why land based missiles tend to be single stage...