bring_it_on said:
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.

Yeah, I find myself scratching my head a lot these days. They're actually considering restarting F-22 production, bringing carrier construction down to 4yrs vs 5, a new bomber, new missile, new SSBN, F\X, F-XX, etc. etc. . . .but they're consistently cutting the defense budget (procurement specifically- idiots that they are, they ALWAYS go for that). I'm of the opinion, "yeah, I'll believe it when I see it but I may as well play along".
 
DrRansom said:
Sferrin, now I get why land based missiles tend to be single stage...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrqTPN5lo_U

Go to 3:22. They're actually following the booster with the camera. The upper stage booked it off to the right.
 
sferrin said:
• 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.


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

Kinda goes back to my musings over "what else will fit in the THAAD launcher?"

Also not sure SRMs would be necessarily be a requirement given the Army's now extensive experience with safely handling THAAD and its liquid DACS.

You might contemplate a variant of the axial HAN thruster that Aerojet looked at for the NCADE second stage along with all of the AF-M315E development the Army and the Air Force are sponsoring.
 
US Army IAMD test moves the system closer to LRIP decision



The US Army has conducted a successful engagement against dual missile threats, demonstrating the ability to use sensors from one air defence system and interceptors from another, operating on the Integrated Force Control Network (IFCN) and under the control of Northrop Grumman's Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS).

The IBCS enabled the army's IAMD programme to manage multiple threats and augment army sensor data to form a single integrated air picture. The IBCS then selected a Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 interceptor and a Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile - TBM (GEM-T) interceptor to defeat a cruise missile surrogate target and a short-range tactical ballistic missile (SRTBM) arriving at the same time, according to Northrop Grumman.

"Employing track data from Sentinel and Patriot radars, this test demonstrated the army's capability to identify, track, engage, and kill targets using multiple types of interceptors from one air defence system and remote sensors from another air defence system operating on the Integrated Fire Control Network (IFCN) under the control of the IBCS," an army spokesperson told IHS Jane's on 19 April.

This was the third successful demonstration of Northrop Grumman's IBCS since its initial test in June 2015.

The IBCS replaces seven legacy command and control (C2) systems, and using Northrop Grumman's Modular Open Systems Approach, the IBCS is able to integrate current and future sensors and weapon systems as well as interoperate with joint C2 and the ballistic missile defence system.

The Limited User Test, conducted from March to the end of April 2016, will provide data for transitioning the programme into low-rate initial production (Milestone C).

During the 8 April test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the SRTBM surrogate, a Patriot as a Target (PAAT), flew a ballistic trajectory and the cruise missile surrogate, an MQM-107 drone target, flew a low-altitude trajectory against an asset defended by a US Army IAMD (AIAMD) task force.

"The task force comprised a Battalion Engagement Operations Center (EOC), two non-collocated Battery EOCs with a Patriot radar, a remote IFCN Relay connected to two Patriot launchers equipped with PAC-3 missiles, a remote IFCN Relay connected to two Patriot launchers equipped with GEM-T missiles, and two remote Sentinel radars connected to IFCN Relays, all operating on the IFCN," the army spokesperson said.

"As designed, the IBCS correctly used the sensors' composite tracking data to calculate the necessary engagement solution resulting in the PAC-3 and GEM-T missiles successfully engaging and killing the SRTBM and cruise missile surrogate targets."

The AIAMD supports integration at the system component level (for example, launchers and sensors) into an AIAMD System of Systems (SoS) network, which enables the architecture to exploit the full combat potential of army capabilities.

"AIAMD provides for the movement of critical information/decision aids from sensors and weapons to the right decision-maker, at the right time, to support mission objectives. The IBCS EOC provides the common mission command capability and the 'plug & fight' A/B-Kits, including the IFCN capability for fire-control connectivity, and enable distributed operations," the spokesperson said. The AIAMD SoS represents a shift from a traditional system-centric weapons system acquisition to a component-based acquisition approach. AIAMD provides for the full, net-centric, 'plug & fight' integration of existing and future air and missile defence forces and systems.
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
• 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.


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

Kinda goes back to my musings over "what else will fit in the THAAD launcher?"

Believe me, you're not the only person that contemplates that. ;) (Though I lean more towards the original 10-wheel launcher.)
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/explainer-us-army-s-air-defense-forces?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20160421_AW-19_184&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=5667&utm_medium=email&elq2=199eaa6c0d814f098ff64a9319ab47d4
 
marauder2048 said:
Kinda goes back to my musings over "what else will fit in the THAAD launcher?"

Also not sure SRMs would be necessarily be a requirement given the Army's now extensive experience with safely handling THAAD and its liquid DACS.

You might contemplate a variant of the axial HAN thruster that Aerojet looked at for the NCADE second stage along with all of the AF-M315E development the Army and the Air Force are sponsoring.

Perhaps the Army ADA could use the THAAD launcher for theater / strategic air defense roles?

THAAD Launcher --> S-400/500 role
Patriot Launcher --> S-300 role

I wonder if they could use THAAD-ER development to create a surface to air missile using the booster. If THAAD-ER is designed to engage hypersonic gliders, it could have the dynamic ability to engage aircraft.
 
sferrin said:
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).
SM-6 is not being used by Aegis Ashore, and the weather is not why the Mk41 modules are mounted in fixed structures.
 
Moose said:
sferrin said:
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).
SM-6 is not being used by Aegis Ashore, and the weather is not why the Mk41 modules are mounted in fixed structures.

*sigh* The only difference between SM-3 and SM-6 is the front end. Hell, most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between an SM-2 Block IV, an SM-3, and an SM-6 unless they knew what to look for.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Aren't the Mk41s over 24feet long?

Nope. Cell is 258". (SM-3 is as long as it can be at 21' 6") Even the larger Mk57 PLS on the Zumwalts is only 23'. The larger VLS system South Korea is working on is suppose to have cells almost 26 feet long though.
 
I meant the entire structure, not just the Mk41 cell itself.

Since the SM-3 is over 21 feet long, that would require the Mk41 "Strike Length" module rather then the "Tactical Length" module.

The height of the entire package is 25.25 feet (303 inches).

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf
 
SpudmanWP said:
I meant the entire structure, not just the Mk41 cell itself.

Since the SM-3 is over 21 feet long, that would require the Mk41 "Strike Length" module rather then the "Tactical Length" module.

The height of the entire package is 25.25 feet (303 inches).

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf

Yep. Thought you were talking about the cell alone.
 
I meant the sensor AOA and choices made because of this. JLENS offered Long Range surveillance through a dedicated sensor. In the absence of JLENS a two radar (Surveillance and MFCR) looks more attractive even though it still doesn't provide OTH capability.
 
bring_it_on said:
I meant the sensor AOA and choices made because of this. JLENS offered Long Range surveillance through a dedicated sensor. In the absence of JLENS a two radar (Surveillance and MFCR) looks more attractive even though it still doesn't provide OTH capability.

I think ultimately Patriot would get CEC (if it doesn't already have it) so that would be come less of an issue. I'd still prefer we kept JLENs as it can't sit up there a whole lot cheaper than having E-3s circle 24/7. I would not be at all surprised if the only reason JLENS got killed is because some politician was embarrassed that one got loose.
 
Some updates on the recent work Raytheon is doing on the AESA

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpulaski.pl%2Fradary-kierowania-ogniem-oferowane-silom-zbrojnym-rp-w-ramach-postepowania-na-zestawy-rakietowe-obrony-powietrznej-sredniego-zasiegu-wisla-rozwoj-i-potencjal-transferu-tech%2F&edit-text=&act=url

I think ultimately Patriot would get CEC (if it doesn't already have it) so that would be come less of an issue. I'd still prefer we kept JLENs as it can't sit up there a whole lot cheaper than having E-3s circle 24/7. I would not be at all surprised if the only reason JLENS got killed is because some politician was embarrassed that one got loose.

Continous E3 support would no doubt be welcomed but I doubt they would rely on it as the only means to obtain 360 degree surveillance. Not only did the request such a capability or MEADS, but also had it as a high performance option in the current AOA. Not to mention that it was part of the Air Defense enhancement in general hence JLENS's existence and funding. JLENS would have provided them a very neat ability to use a low and high frequency sensor to both provide surveillance but for also OTH targeting. Now that this capability is in danger they would have to reassess and look at other options to get some sort of capability back through other means. But of course they could rely on outside support, but that applies to practically anything including the primary sensor and not looking at 360 degree capability for example.
 

Attachments

  • AESA-Patriot.png
    AESA-Patriot.png
    308.4 KB · Views: 289
  • Patriot-Roadmap.jpg
    Patriot-Roadmap.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 288
HASC Concerned with Army’s Patriot Radar Replacement Plan


WASHINGTON — The House Armed Services Committee singled out, in a short summary of issues addressed in its defense policy bill, what it believes is a sluggish plan to field a new radar for the US Army's air and missile defense architecture that would replace the Patriot system’s radar.

The committee is so concerned with the Army's plan, or lack thereof, that it wants to withhold program office funding until the service develops a new plan to replace the Patriot radar system, according to the chairman’s mark of the fiscal 2017 bill.

“The Army strategy would delay fielding a new radar, despite high-technology readiness levels, until 2028; this means our warfighters will be deployed with a 58-year-old radar before they get a modernized capability,” the summary reads. “The current Army strategy is a case study in how a broken acquisition system results in unacceptable delays in providing the warfighter the technology they need, paced ahead of adversary threats.”

HASC lawmakers would withhold 50 percent of 2017 funding for the Patriot capability until the Army could show its modernized Patriot radar would be interoperable with the ballistic missile defense system and other air and missile defense capabilities. Also, the Army chief and secretary would be required to determine whether the requirement to pursue a modernized radar is suitable for acquisition through an Army Rapid Capabilities office and would have to submit the terms of a competition for the radar that would ensure fair competition, according to the HASC's Strategic Forces Subcommittee's mark released last week.The Army is expected to hold a competition for a new radar that would be incorporated into its Integrated Air and Missile Defense system, but not much has been detailed on the service's plan to move forward.

Two major air and missile defense systems makers — Raytheon and Lockheed Martin — are poised to submit solutions for a new radar now.

Raytheon's bet on a new radar for its Patriot system is now fully functional and made its public debut at the Association of the US Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, in March.

Raytheon’s Gallium Nitride (GaN) Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is a sizable bet. The company has invested more than $200 million to develop GaN technology over 16 years, augmented with US government investment. The Patriot system was fielded to the Army in 1982 and Raytheon has continuously upgraded the system with investments from the US and 13 partner nations. The system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040.If or when the Army decides to hold a competition for a new radar, Raytheon's competition will likely be Lockheed Martin, which has spent the last 15 years developing the Medium Extended Air and Missile Defense System (MEADS) that includes a 360-degree radar with the United States, Germany and Italy.

The US decided against buying MEADS, and, after closing out the technology-development phase of the program, decided not to even harvest the technologyfor use in its missile defense programs. But Germany is planning to continue developing MEADS with Lockheed and MBDA Deutschland. Italy is waiting for Germany to mint its development deal before getting on board.New slides obtained by Defense News from an industry day this month indicate the Army doesn’t intend to move very quickly on a new radar, with plans to field it as late as 2028. The slides indicate the Army plans to move into a technology development phase later this year, but wouldn’t get to the engineering and manufacturing development phase until 2020.

The Army has a bridging strategy to modify the existing Patriot system through sole-source upgrades and the focus on that could be contributing to the slower pace of procuring a future radar through a competition.


The Army completed an analysis of alternatives, which it has kept close-hold. Defense News obtained a “for official use only” copy of slides late last year outlining findings from the AOA conducted over the course of 2015. The full analysis is classified as secret, according to the document.

It’s clear from the slides that the preference is to develop a newer 360-degree radar that meets emerging requirements and would keep pace with the more challenging threat environment expected in the future. But developing a new radar, rather than upgrading Patriot, would cost more than the Army has in its budget for such an effort.

The slides show the Army can afford to modernize Patriot and give it 360-degree capability, but it is predicted that the missile wouldn't be able to keep up against a wide range of modern and future threats even with a baseline upgrade.

An Office of the Secretary of Defense study advisory group met last November to determine the right path, but sources say more needed to be discussed and fleshed out following the meeting. More discussions were scheduled for this spring.

This is not the first time Congress has withheld Patriot funding to get more clarity on the program’s modernization strategy. Congress has regularly done so as it continues to be dissatisfied with Army-provided details on its modernization strategy and cost of Patriot upgrades.

Seems like a case of " We don't have money to pay for this, so stretch out the program to a gazillion years". God forbid we actually had been required to do a complete overhaul of the system at the same time..
 
bring_it_on said:
HASC Concerned with Army’s Patriot Radar Replacement Plan


WASHINGTON — The House Armed Services Committee singled out, in a short summary of issues addressed in its defense policy bill, what it believes is a sluggish plan to field a new radar for the US Army's air and missile defense architecture that would replace the Patriot system’s radar.

The committee is so concerned with the Army's plan, or lack thereof, that it wants to withhold program office funding until the service develops a new plan to replace the Patriot radar system, according to the chairman’s mark of the fiscal 2017 bill.

“The Army strategy would delay fielding a new radar, despite high-technology readiness levels, until 2028; this means our warfighters will be deployed with a 58-year-old radar before they get a modernized capability,” the summary reads. “The current Army strategy is a case study in how a broken acquisition system results in unacceptable delays in providing the warfighter the technology they need, paced ahead of adversary threats.”

HASC lawmakers would withhold 50 percent of 2017 funding for the Patriot capability until the Army could show its modernized Patriot radar would be interoperable with the ballistic missile defense system and other air and missile defense capabilities. Also, the Army chief and secretary would be required to determine whether the requirement to pursue a modernized radar is suitable for acquisition through an Army Rapid Capabilities office and would have to submit the terms of a competition for the radar that would ensure fair competition, according to the HASC's Strategic Forces Subcommittee's mark released last week.The Army is expected to hold a competition for a new radar that would be incorporated into its Integrated Air and Missile Defense system, but not much has been detailed on the service's plan to move forward.

Two major air and missile defense systems makers — Raytheon and Lockheed Martin — are poised to submit solutions for a new radar now.

Raytheon's bet on a new radar for its Patriot system is now fully functional and made its public debut at the Association of the US Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, in March.

Raytheon’s Gallium Nitride (GaN) Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is a sizable bet. The company has invested more than $200 million to develop GaN technology over 16 years, augmented with US government investment. The Patriot system was fielded to the Army in 1982 and Raytheon has continuously upgraded the system with investments from the US and 13 partner nations. The system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040.If or when the Army decides to hold a competition for a new radar, Raytheon's competition will likely be Lockheed Martin, which has spent the last 15 years developing the Medium Extended Air and Missile Defense System (MEADS) that includes a 360-degree radar with the United States, Germany and Italy.

The US decided against buying MEADS, and, after closing out the technology-development phase of the program, decided not to even harvest the technologyfor use in its missile defense programs. But Germany is planning to continue developing MEADS with Lockheed and MBDA Deutschland. Italy is waiting for Germany to mint its development deal before getting on board.New slides obtained by Defense News from an industry day this month indicate the Army doesn’t intend to move very quickly on a new radar, with plans to field it as late as 2028. The slides indicate the Army plans to move into a technology development phase later this year, but wouldn’t get to the engineering and manufacturing development phase until 2020.

The Army has a bridging strategy to modify the existing Patriot system through sole-source upgrades and the focus on that could be contributing to the slower pace of procuring a future radar through a competition.


The Army completed an analysis of alternatives, which it has kept close-hold. Defense News obtained a “for official use only” copy of slides late last year outlining findings from the AOA conducted over the course of 2015. The full analysis is classified as secret, according to the document.

It’s clear from the slides that the preference is to develop a newer 360-degree radar that meets emerging requirements and would keep pace with the more challenging threat environment expected in the future. But developing a new radar, rather than upgrading Patriot, would cost more than the Army has in its budget for such an effort.

The slides show the Army can afford to modernize Patriot and give it 360-degree capability, but it is predicted that the missile wouldn't be able to keep up against a wide range of modern and future threats even with a baseline upgrade.

An Office of the Secretary of Defense study advisory group met last November to determine the right path, but sources say more needed to be discussed and fleshed out following the meeting. More discussions were scheduled for this spring.

This is not the first time Congress has withheld Patriot funding to get more clarity on the program’s modernization strategy. Congress has regularly done so as it continues to be dissatisfied with Army-provided details on its modernization strategy and cost of Patriot upgrades.

Seems like a case of " We don't have money to pay for this, so stretch out the program to a gazillion years". God forbid we actually had been required to do a complete overhaul of the system at the same time..

Sounds to me like they are trying to force the army to adopt MEADS, probably alongside a new missile.
 
I don't think that is the case although there is no doubt some motive in some corners to have at the very least some MEADS capability adoption. However, they are essentially asking for the Army to field an upgraded sensor, and do so in a timely fashion. This follows the Acquisition agility initiatives and the act. Any potential full-on sensor replacement would obviously allow Lockheed, to enter and compete with what could be a sensor heavily influenced by the MEADS MFCR, and also opens them to offering the surveillance radar. Lockheed would still need to upgrade the sensor, since the Army, much like the USN and the USAF has determined that they want to switch over to gallium nitride for future sensor requirements. Lockheed could upgrade the MEADS sensor by sourcing GaN modules from the US, however that would obviously come with risk on cost and timelines. Ultimately though, the sensor upgrades would naturally be followed by interceptor upgrades and as sfferin and others have mentioned launcher upgrades. One of the key requirements for MEADS was deployability and the footprint and even if they don't adopt MEADS they would like to transform the Patriot where they improve these aspects of the system.
 
bring_it_on said:
I don't think that is the case although there is no doubt some motive in some corners to have at the very least some MEADS capability adoption. However, they are essentially asking for the Army to field an upgraded sensor, and do so in a timely fashion. This follows the Acquisition agility initiatives and the act. Any potential full-on sensor replacement would obviously allow Lockheed, to enter and compete with what could be a sensor heavily influenced by the MEADS MFCR, and also opens them to offering the surveillance radar. Lockheed would still need to upgrade the sensor, since the Army, much like the USN and the USAF has determined that they want to switch over to gallium nitride for future sensor requirements. Lockheed could upgrade the MEADS sensor by sourcing GaN modules from the US, however that would obviously come with risk on cost and timelines. Ultimately though, the sensor upgrades would naturally be followed by interceptor upgrades and as sfferin and others have mentioned launcher upgrades. One of the key requirements for MEADS was deployability and the footprint and even if they don't adopt MEADS they would like to transform the Patriot where they improve these aspects of the system.
Is gallium nitride the only reason the Army wants to wait till 2028 for new radar? Seems like a long time to wait. Didn't know there were new AESA/radar developments requiring such time. or is this just money?
 
The main reason is probably them stretching out the program to stay within budget. The radar prototype is currently in contractor testing and there are multiple GaN radars that would have been fielded by then. MDA has also begun transitioning the AN/TPY-2 TRIMMs to gallium nitride based on the FY16 budget. Their desire to upgrade and/or replace the patriot sensor is quite old, and both Raytheon and Lockheed have been, for some years now marketing their product with an eye out for a potential replacement that has so far yet to arrive. AESA, or even Gallium Nitride AESA isn't the likely problem, its institutional support from the various stakeholders that would have to provide funding and that includes the Congress. You can't NOT compete Patriot because there are multiple OEM's out there that could offer a high quality product, you can also NOT adopt MEADS since that would also essentially tantamount to a sole source award.

If they do however decide to go ahead with a competition (whatever timeline they eventually support) it would be interesting to see how Lockheed counters Raytheon's advantage of having the PAC-2 - TVM capability.
 
bring_it_on said:
The main reason is probably them stretching out the program to stay within budget. The radar prototype is currently in contractor testing and there are multiple GaN radars that would have been fielded by then. MDA has also begun transitioning the AN/TPY-2 TRIMMs to gallium nitride based on the FY16 budget.

Good point; The GaN based AN/TPS-80 (possibly in Block III trim) and 3DELRR will have IOC'ed by 2020. Lots of knowledge points to harvest there on someone else's dime.

The slides show the Army can afford to modernize Patriot and give it 360-degree capability, but it is predicted that the missile wouldn't be able to keep up against a wide range of modern and future threats even with a baseline upgrade.

A lot of the benefit of a longer range missile comes from "forward pass" and "engage on remote" capabilities; JLENS has facilitated "forward pass" interceptions of SLAMRAAM and PAC-3 has done EOR in testing so a good chunk of CEC is there and all of it will be there with IAMD/IBCS.
 

Attachments

  • pac-3-foward-pass.png
    pac-3-foward-pass.png
    329.7 KB · Views: 204
Thanks for the graphic. Hopefully the 3DELRR would be definitively awarded by mid-year and Raytheon can talk a little more freely regarding a potential new sensor that could come in as the higher performance offering. The dual freq. data link looks quite interesting, do you know if the Sentinel provided cues through the data link or did IBCS route it back to the Patriot radar? I think we'll get a lot more information on the various options from Raytheon and Lockheed by October (AUSA). It would also be interesting to see whether Lockheed releases more information on their GaN X-Band efforts, which have a very strong chance of being their efforts towards the Patriot market. With Gallium Nitride enabling wide-band X high power amplifiers and those now being offered by both of Lockheed's preferred suppliers, they can potentially get significantly better performance compared to the current MEADS sensor and could offer G/ATOR like GaA to GaN transition right through development and testing.

http://www.triquint.com/products/p/TGA2238
http://www.triquint.com/products/p/TGA2590


InsideDefense report from April 19 on the new legislation language:

The Army wants to spend upwards of $200 million in FY-17 on Patriot improvement and modernization, according to a budget briefing for lawmakers from February. The envisioned amount over the next four years tops $1.5 billion. The funding would eventually lead to a new Patriot radar around FY-21, the Army hopes.

According to the new legislation, 50 percent of Patriot funding would be withheld until several conditions are met. For one, the Missile Defense Agency director must "certify" that the new radar will be interoperable with the Ballistic Missile Defense System "and other air and missile defense capabilities."

Second, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must vouch for the modernized system's "modularity" sought by combatant commanders, and the prospect of the system meeting "validated and objective warfighter requirements" for air and missile defense.

Finally, the Army chief of staff, in coordination with the service secretary, owes lawmakers a determination about the potential value of pursuing the program through the service's newly established Rapid Capabilities Office, versus more traditional acquisition channels.

Service leaders also must ensure that the radar-modernization program is a "fair competition for all competitors," according to the legislation.

Lockheed Martin has been trying to cut into Raytheon's market with hardware from the Medium Extended Air Defense System, once meant to replace Patriot. Pentagon officials quit the program years ago, while former program partner nation Germany last year decided to continue development.

According to the proposed legislation, the Army leadership also is on the hook for certifying that a modernized Patriot radar is "the most modern rapid deployment acquisition program possible at low risk," or they must present a revised acquisition strategy to congressional defense committees and wait 30 days before executing it.
 

Attachments

  • Triquint:Qorvo-GaNPA.png
    Triquint:Qorvo-GaNPA.png
    563.1 KB · Views: 166
bring_it_on said:
Thanks for the graphic. Hopefully the 3DELRR would be definitively awarded by mid-year and Raytheon can talk a little more freely regarding a potential new sensor that could come in as the higher performance offering. The dual freq. data link looks quite interesting, do you know if the Sentinel provided cues through the data link or did IBCS route it back to the Patriot radar?

I tend to think the IBCS interceptions were Engage On Remote with Sentinel providing the initial cue and then updates through the IFCN which the Patriot radar then relayed to the interceptor.
 
From the Raytheon conference call :

What we're seeing beyond that is a demand on the Patriot system for an advanced AESA radar with 360 capability, and that demand is essentially – the primary part of that demand is coming from international. We also are seeing it from the U.S. Army. That's their roadmap to add a 360-degree AESA capability to the Patriot system. So we have invested in that technology. I mean it goes all the way back to the GaN work that we'd done almost going 15, 20 years ago, but leading up to how we won the AMDR program using that technology, but now it's transitioning into the Patriot system......

And Rob, one thing we're seeing is a little different this year at Missiles is we're seeing the demand across the entire portfolio of Missiles, all of our franchises, the Paveways, the TOWs, AMRAAMs, the 89Xs the CRAMs, the Griffins, and even a resurgence on our Gen T missiles for Patriot. So it's not like it's in one area. It's across the whole portfolio.....

Interestingly Raytheon booked a $625 Million International Classified contract for its Space and Airborne Systems division

A few key bookings in the first quarter included $646 million on AMRAAM at Missiles, and at SAS, over $650 million on an international classified contract
 

Attachments

  • raytheon.doc
    83 KB · Views: 17
Poland mulls WISLA options



The costs of the prospective Next-Generation Patriot 360º Gallium Nitride (GaN) active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar are 'beyond the resources of the country's budget', according to Brigadier General Adam Duda, the chief of Poland's Armaments Inspectorate. The AESA radar is being offered as a co-development programme by Raytheon as part of its wider solution for WISLA's medium-range air defence requirement.

Designated a 'medium-range' capability for long-range air defence, and point defence against short-range ballistic missiles, WISLA will, in Polish service, replace Soviet-era legacy systems (including Wega S-200C (SA-5 Gammon) and Newa SC (S-125, SA-3 Goa) systems) now deemed inadequate against the contemporary and evolving longer-range air threats. The short-to-intermediate ballistic threats will be addressed by land-based Standard Missile-3 Blocks IB and IIA Aegis Ashore interceptors based at Redzikowo from 2018, as part of the US Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System Phased Adaptive Approach Phase III. Meanwhile, a short-range air and missile defence capability requirement will be delivered through the Narew programme.

"Our original assumptions about a strong involvement in the co-development of the [Next-Generation Patriot] 360º radar have been revised by the price - which is unacceptable, [and] beyond the capabilities of our budget," Gen Duda said.

Poland has reserved PLN16 billion (USD4 billion) to acquire eight WISLA batteries. Gen Duda noted the Armaments Inspectorate has now drafted new versions of request for the Post Deployment Build-8 (PDB-8) upgrade of the Patriot system. This provides for the possible acquisition of the Raytheon 120º field-of-view AN/MPQ-65 passive electronically scanned array radar as a temporary alternative to the Next-Generation Patriot. PDB-8 "is 60-70% cheaper" and "feasibly far easier to acquire in the timeframe laid out by the Armaments Inspectorate", according to him.

The decision to move forward on a Next-Generation Patriot solution hinges on US Army's decision on the Lower Tier Air Missile Defense Sensor, expected in the third or fourth quarter of 2016. The Polish Ministry of National Defence (MND) interim has resumed discussions with Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) International as a backup for WISLA. MEADS - a multi-national joint venture between MBDA Italy, MBDA Germany, and Lockheed Martin in the United States - was originally excluded from WISLA negotiations in 2014 because it was not a fielded system. However, Germany's selection in June 2015 of the MEADS as the principal solution for its Taktischen Luftverteidigungssystem multi-role adaptive design requirement has put MEADS back on the table.

Gen Duda also confirmed that the transfer of missile technologies will be the main criterion for selecting the Narew winner and has rejected any possibility of combining both the WISLA and Narew in any way. "Narew will be decided on who gives best [missile Transfer of Technology - ToT] terms," he said.

A decision on purchasing 19 Narew batteries is planned for the end of 2016, with the delivery of the first seven batteries scheduled before 2022.

Gen Duda said that if both programmes were combined, the Kongsberg/Raytheon national advanced surface-to-air missile system (NASAMS) would, in theory, automatically become the winner for Narew. The Polish MND awarded Kongsberg a USD177 million contract to supply a Coastal Defence System (CDS) based on its naval strike missile to the Polish Navy in December 2014. Part of the contract provides for the integration into the CDS of Poland's PIT Radwar's TRS-15 radar and Transbit's communication system.

"CDS was the first step in our 'step-wise' approach to engage Polish industry," Hans Christian Hagen, the vice-president of Business Development told IHS Jane's . The second step for Narew includes offering production of NASAMS launchers and Fire Distribution Centers. Further, in May 2016, Kongsberg signed a letter of intent with Poland's state-owned PGZ Group, for the potential development and production of a new Polish-Norwegian surface-to-air missile to complement the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, currently used with NASAMS in a surface-to-air role.

Poland is unlikely to become the first purchaser of the Next-Generation Patriot active electronically scanned array radar, and will likely wait on the results of US Army's Analysis of Alternatives for Lower Tier Air Missile Defense System before proceeding. In the interim, the Ministry of National Defense will consider the Post Deployment Build-8 or even a complete MEADS-based solution for WISLA. For the Narew system, Gen Duda said that primary missiles under consideration include Kongsberg/Raytheon National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, Diehl Defence's IRIST-T-SL ,and MBDA's VL MICA and CAMM. However, he did not mention the Israel Aerospace Industries Barak 8-SR or Rafael Advanced Defence Systems SPYDER systems.
 
ILA 2016: Raytheon pushes Patriot to Germany in anticipation of MEADS failing TLVS milestones




Raytheon is in discussions with Germany to potentially resubmit its Patriot ground-based air defence system for the country's Tactical Air Defence System (TLVS - Taktische Luftverteidigungssystem) requirement should the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) fail to meet any of its mandated milestones.Speaking at the ILA Airshow in Berlin on 1 June, Dr Luder Hogrefe, Managing Director of Raytheon Anschutz, said that, having initially lost out to the MBDA-Lockheed Martin MEADS system in 2015, the company is now talking to the German government to potentially reintroduce the Patriot into the TLVS programme should its competitor fail any of the three targets required before a development contract is awarded.

"The German Air Force based its TLVS decision on MEADS, but the German government has asked if MEADS can be delivered on time. MEADS has six milestones that it must fulfil - three before the development contract, and three in the first three years of the contract. The German government needs a fallback position with the Patriot [should these not be achieved], and we are in continuous discussions with the government to get this fallback position more formalised," he said.

Germany decided in June 2015 to buy the MEADS for its TLVS tactical air defence requirement. The final development and actual procurement is expected to come at the cost of an additional EUR3-4 billion (USD3.35-4.47 billion) for the Bundeswehr, with between 8 to 10 batteries to be procured in total.

Raytheon's offer of the Patriot to Germany is based on its expectation that MEADS will fail to deliver on the promised timeline. "MBDA has to fulfil certain milestones, [and] there is an understandable fear that it will be another catastrophe like the [delayed European-developed] A400M [transport aircraft]," Hogrefe said.

"It is currently planned that a development contract will be awarded by the end of 2016, but this is not going to happen. If all of the three milestones are met, and this will be judged independently, then the best case scenario is a development decision in the first quarter of 2017," he added. "We expect there to be serious question about MEADS though, which will push any decision to mid-2017, which is when the German election is due. No decisions get made during an election, and so we expect a decision not to be made until 2018."

The MEADS programme dates to the early 1990s, with a development memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the US, Italy, and Germany being signed in 2004. Applications included protection of deployed forces and selected critical assets against attacks by tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and aircraft.

Germany envisioned that MEADS would replace all its existing Patriot systems, but in February 2011 the project was dealt a blow when the US Department of Defense announced that it was to cease its participation. Following this announcement, Germany and Italy agreed with the US in October 2011 to revise the MoU and restructure the MEADS programme, enabling all three countries to harness and leverage MEADS technology following the 2013 demonstration phase.

Raytheon has exploited the uncertainty that surrounded the MEADS programme following the withdrawal of the US, with overtures being made to Berlin for a number of years already.

Dating back to 2010 the company has made offers to the German government to upgrade the country's existing Patriot systems to the most up-to-date 'Configuration 3+' standard, and to integrate IRIS-T and any other MEADS capabilities (the Patriot system having already successfully engaged a test target with the Lockheed Martin MEADS PAC-3 MSE missile).

With 13 operators of the Patriot today (including Germany itself), Raytheon is highlighting the interoperability and growth path as reasons why the German government should reconsider its TLVS decision. Regardless of whether MEADS or Patriot ultimately wins out in the end, though, the TLVS system is expected to become operational from about 2025.

One of the key capabilities that Raytheon is pushing for its Patriot offer to Germany is the new 360° active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

While previous incarnations of the Patriot system have been able to locate, track, and engage threats from one direction, Raytheon has now developed a new gallium nitride (GaN) solid-state AESA radar that offers full-hemispherical coverage, and so is able to deal with threats coming from different directions at the same time.

It should be noted that the MEADS system too offers this full-hemispherical coverage, a feature that Raytheon used to discount by saying that 'if you have to deal with a 360° ballistic missile threat to your country, then you've got bigger problems than [a missile defence system] can help you solve'. However, the growth of unmanned aircraft and other air breathing threats such as cruise missiles that can be guided to their targets has led Raytheon to reconsider its earlier position and to now offer the full-hemispherical solution also.
 
...
 

Attachments

  • Patriot_AESA.png
    Patriot_AESA.png
    794.2 KB · Views: 516
  • Patriot_AESA1.jpg
    Patriot_AESA1.jpg
    54.2 KB · Views: 502
...
 

Attachments

  • Patriot_AESA.jpg
    Patriot_AESA.jpg
    97.2 KB · Views: 410
  • Patriot-AESA5.jpg
    Patriot-AESA5.jpg
    68.5 KB · Views: 398
Eurosatory: Raytheon’s strategic approach


With the NATO conference in Warsaw coming up soon, Raytheon is developing its industrial strategy for Europe.

Chris Lombardi, vice president of business development for the European region, told Shephard that the existing economic and security environment requires an affordable approach.

He said that they are explaining to European governments how they can improve their security without having to spend too much money.

This is the holy grail of defence procurement. But Lombardi said this can be achieved by acquiring proven equipment that is interoperable with existing systems used by European militaries.

He would say that of course as Raytheon’s Patriot air and missile defence system is popular on the continent, but he also argued that the budget situation is becoming stricter as government funds are diverted away from all departments – including defence – to be used to manage the migrant crisis.

Furthermore, any investment by European governments in their military will mean more of the money used to develop local industry, which itself needs a higher level of involvement.

To meet these requirements, Lombardi said that Raytheon intends to achieve 50% local industry involvement in the Polish Wisla programme and that they are in discussions with the Polish government about how to achieve this across the life of the programme.

It is planned that this target can be achieved not just through support arrangements but with the introduction of more Polish components and systems to Patriot as they are developed and Lombardi said this would include larger components and sub-systems in the second and third phases of the introduction.

He added that Raytheon was also in talks with the German government over their TVLS air defence programme, which has been awarded to rivals Lockheed Martin and MBDA with MEADS but Lombardi believes that this programme will slip and offer an opening to Patriot.

There are also plans to upgrade Germany’s existing Patriot system to allow it to operate out to 2035. He said that Raytheon can integrate the IRIS-T system from Diehl and the MEADS launcher from MBDA if required and that they can do this quicker than MEADS itself would be introduced.

Lastly Lombardi said that Raytheon was in talks with Turkey about introducing Patriot as their air and missile defence system in light of the Syrian situation and that this could be provided via FMS under a government-to-government agreement or through direct sale.


News Home
 
Italy Weighs Its Options on Missile Defense


The MEADS Lives, with both Germany and Italy having committed to it with the former also acquiring it. I think the achilles heal for the system is still the absence of a medium-long range interceptor. It will hurt them against the Patriot with its PAC-2, and with the SAMP-T+ in places like Sweden and Turkey where the focus is across the IAMD mission. Come to think of it, its one of the areas where the MEADS and Patriot users can come together and fund something that eventually replaces/upgrades the PAC-2 . I just think its much better short term investment than getting IRIS-T integrated.

Both the Patriot and MEADS (and NASAMS for that matter) could use longer ranged active missiles both in the medium ranged class (Perhaps an ESSM Block III with an enlarged motor and Block II Active/Passive seeker?) and in the medium-long range class (150-200 km). Between the PAC-3/MSE, ESSM Blk. II (Guidance and seeker designed to eventually support longer ranged intercepts through adoption of a larger motor) and the SM6 they pretty much have the technology required to draw something up.

Anderson said it made sense to use X-band radar for the seeker update because high-frequency radar is ideal for precision tracking, and its commonality with the ships' existing systems will allow the upgrade to be easily integrated.

"It's a very elegant, very efficient solution for that radar to stay in the similar frequency range, and it does the job just fine," Anderson added.

The process of determining which upgrades to pursue involved a tug of war between the priorities of some of the NATO nations in the ESSM consortium. The group includes Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Canada, Portugal, Denmark, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Greece and the United States, and the platforms that member nations use to launch the Sea Sparrow vary. All the member countries use the ESSM except for Portugal and Belgium, which use the RIM-7, an older version of the missile. Anderson said the consortium is currently at work drawing up a new memorandum of understanding, which he expects to be signed in about two years. By that time, Anderson believes most of the countries in the group will be on board with ESSM.

"Everybody's mission is going to be slightly different by definition and their employment is going to be slightly different depending on their ship capabilities and their ship architectures, so there's always some negotiation, most especially in the requirements, and we're seeing that now in Block II," Anderson said.

The existing ESSM is used primarily for ship self-defense, but Anderson said that some member nations can't afford the Standard Missile or a platform to launch it, so they use the ESSM to defend high-value targets at close range as well. Those countries would prefer to see the defensive high-value unit capabilities ofESSM enhanced, possibly by adding a more robust motor. Anderson said that changes along those lines are still a possibility for future iterations of ESSM. However, an ESSM with a longer motor might not necessarily fit into the launchers used by all of the countries in the consortium. Anderson said it was possible that they might eventually produce two versions of the ESSM to accommodate the needs of all of the consortium members.

"That's something we're looking at for the future, maybe as a Block IIA or maybe as a Block III," Anderson said. "As we're doing the ESSM Block II, we're leaving design margin in everything we do to be able to accommodate a potentially longer motor in the future without having to go back and spend the money redoing the guidance section design that we just got finished with, so we're designing for growth."
 
Lots of interesting discussion :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvaQY6IKozY
 
sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
Sferrin, now I get why land based missiles tend to be single stage...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrqTPN5lo_U

Go to 3:22. They're actually following the booster with the camera. The upper stage booked it off to the right.

More recent systems such as the SAMP/T shed the first stage over land. In fact, the ASTER-30's first stage is 300+ kg.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/aster-30/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbkWOeS7u5I

Some interesting tweets :
 

Attachments

  • T1.png
    T1.png
    98 KB · Views: 220
  • T2.png
    T2.png
    105.6 KB · Views: 24
Yes, very strange given that 58% of the EMD cost was US, and they have even categorically refused to absorb elements of the MEADS system. This after first determine a need for 360 degree cruise missile defense what 15-20 years ago? (probably earlier). On the 360 degree capability comment, I think it was specifically meant to showcase that capability through the IBCS, Patriot and and sentinel collaboration. That should be doable in the short term as IBCS is fielded. For practically anything else including the AESA Patriot (with 360 degree arrays) or 3DELRR, we're probably looking at a decade to 15 years to get full capability to the frontline units.
 
Poland moves towards multi-billion-euro Patriot missile deal



Warsaw (AFP) - Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz on Monday said he would ink a letter of intent with US defence firm Raytheon to buy a Patriot missile system valued at an estimated 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion).

The EU member's previous government had said in April it planned to buy the Patriot system, but soon after coming into power in November the current conservative administration placed a question mark over the purchase.

Macierewicz himself had said at the time: "The price is much higher, the delivery time much longer... in short, this contract is practically non-existent."

On Monday Macierewicz said Poland was able to move ahead with the plan because Raytheon had pledged that 50 percent of the missile system spending would be on works "done in Poland by Polish arms firms".

"That being the case, we're signing the letter of intent," Macierewicz said, quoted by the Polish news agency PAP.

He said that meant Raytheon would be the "most likely" maker of Poland's missile defence system.

The defence ministry had said in April that it wanted to acquire eight missile batteries by 2025, with two of them to be delivered within three years of signing a deal.

The Eurosam consortium including MBDA France, MBDA Italy and France's Thales Group had been the other party in the running for the missile deal.

Pat_AESA.png
 
Request for Information (RFI) for Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS)

The US Army LTPO is interested in receiving information on potential materiel solutions that can be utilized to upgrade or replace the Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept of Target (PATRIOT) radars fielded by the US Army. The information received from this request will be used by the LTPO to shape the requirements and acquisition program for LTAMDS to include informing senior US Army acquisition officials of the potential materiel solution trade space for LTAMDS during upcoming acquisition milestone events. The maturity of the sensor technology associated with any potential materiel solution must be at a minimum Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 5 and Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of 5, by 4QFY17, to support current US Army acquisition program plans that include a Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase followed by Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), production, and fielding phases.


A key objective for the LTAMDS acquisition program is to upgrade or replace the current PATRIOT radar to improve the operational effectiveness against the emerging threat while reducing sustainment cost associated with the current radar. Industry is requested to provide potential materiel solutions to meet these objectives with an average production unit cost (APUC) of less than $50M. The LTAMDS materiel solution must meet or exceed all LTAMDS requirements recently approved via the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC) process and all existing PATRIOT radar requirements required to operate within the US Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) network to include (not all-inclusive list):


a. Perform required surveillance, classification, discrimination and identification functions against the required threat set specified in latest version of the Army Air and Missile Defense (AAMD) System Threat Assessment Report (STAR), dated 12 March 2015;
b. Perform required fire control functions in support of the PATRIOT PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) class of missile interceptors at a minimum;
c. Operate with an existing generator in the Army inventory capable of providing up to 300 kilowatts (KW);
d. Meet existing mobility and transportability requirements;
e. Improve reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM).
f. Implementation of the Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) for software architecture development.


The LTPO has developed a classified document as an attachment to this RFI that must be requested separately. It provides key performance guidelines that a LTAMDS materiel solution must meet to satisfy LTAMDS mission objectives. These performance guidelines are derived from key LTAMDS AROC performance requirements and key requirements associated with operating with existing major end items within the US Army IAMD architecture.


Industry is requested to provide conceptual materiel solutions and associated program schedules to inform the definition of the LTAMDS program. Industry solutions that support LTAMDS requirements but exceed the $50M APUC target will substantiate the cost benefit trade. LTAMDS solutions that require changes to other IAMD or PATRIOT equipment (e.g. generator, prime mover, interceptor) to realize program performance objectives or meet the APUC target will provide clear definition of changes required to the external equipment.


The information received in response to this RFI will be assessed on behalf of the LTPO by a team of subject matter experts from the US Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI), Wyle-CAS, Dynetics, University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), and Torch Technologies. The focus of this assessment will be to provide information regarding:


1) The materiel solution trade space for TMRR program phase;
2) The best value solutions within target APUC constraint;
3) The feasibility of program plans with an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) prior to FY28.
4) The critical technologies to be addressed during the TMRR program phase;
5) The technical requirements associated with the TMRR phase;
6) Software architecture development process for modularity


Due the short suspense for information requested via this RFI, responses should include the following in priority order:


1) Description of the materiel solution design concept;
2) APUC based on a purchase or retrofit of 80 radars phased over 10 years (note: include upgrade kit and radar integration & test cost for upgrade solutions);
3) Program plan that includes TMRR, EMD, testing, production, and IOC fielding dates;
4) Critical technologies to be matured during the TMRR phase;
5) Feedback on LTAMDS requirement guidelines.
6) Feedback from Industry to include a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost for the possible use of a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Level of Effort (LOE) type contract during the TMRR Program phase which includes the following:
(1) Demonstration of maturation against three Knowledge Points (KP):
(a) KP1: State of Critical Technology Elements (CTE) Maturity below:
(i) High Power Amplifiers (Transmit/Receive Module (TRM))
(ii) Low Noise Amplifier (TRM)
(iii) Limiter (TRM)
(iv) Low Noise Oscillator (Exciter)
(b) KP2: State of Integration of CTEs into Higher Level Assembly below:
(i) Transmit/Receive Channel Line Replaceable Units
(ii) Exciter
(iii) Alternating Current (AC)/Direct Current (DC) and DC/DC Power Supplies
(c) KP3: State of Prototype Design
(i) Antenna Performance
(ii) Cooling System
(iii) Power Supplies
(iv) Integrated Prototype
(2) Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
(3) CTE Maturation: Ability to mature CTE technology and manufacturing readiness to sufficient levels that allow entry into the EMD Program phase.



As a condition of responding to this RFI, it is a requirement that the responder have a Defense Security Service (DSS) approved facility for storing and processing classified information. Responders must request the classified RFI requirement document, entitled "Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) Requirement Guidelines" via e-mail. Requests for this classified document shall be sent to US Army Contracting Command, NJ (ACC-NJ), ATTN: Michael Mannarino at the following e-mail address: michael.a.mannarino10.civ@mail.mil. Telephone requests WILL NOT be honored. Requests must reference this RFI and include: company name, company and government entity (CAGE) code, classified mailing address, and appropriate point of contact information. Requests for this document must be made within 3 calendar days of the date of this notice, but it's recommended that the request be made as soon as possible due to the short suspense of this RFI. After validation by the LTPO Security Office of each interested responder's security accreditation and eligibility to receive the classified document, a complete copy, along with the appropriate security classification guide, will be mailed to each validated responder.


Responses to this RFI should only include potential LTAMDS solutions that have been successfully demonstrated in a similar application or those that are in a lab-prototype stage (TRL 5/MRL 5 or higher). Multiple solutions/responses are acceptable. Each solution/response submission should be independent of each other and include a white paper of no more than 20 pages. Responses shall be submitted with no less than size 10 font.


An Industry Day will be held on 21 July 2016 at the Lower Tier Project Office, 106 Wynn Drive, Huntsville Alabama, 35806, to address questions submitted by the contractors. Questions shall be submitted no later than 15 July 2016 to the RFI POC Michael Mannarino, US Army Contracting Command, ACC-NJ, via e-mail: michael.a.mannarino10.civ@mail.mil. Contractors wishing to participate in the Industry Day shall submit the names of all attendees to Mr. Michael Mannarino by 15 July 2016 who will coordinate with LTPO Security and provide further instructions on visitor requests and clearances.


Based on the responses, the LTPO, solely at its discretion, may request unfunded, follow on, face-to-face meetings. RFI responses must be received by 1700 CDT, 2 August 2016 to support upcoming LTAMDS acquisition milestone events. All responses must be submitted in writing. Unclassified responses will be received via mail or by email. Mailed unclassified responses should be sent to PEO Missiles and Space, Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTG/Greg Smith, Bldg. 5250, Martin Rd., Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898. Emailed unclassified responses should be sent to the following e-mail address: gregory.l.smith247.civ@mail.mil. All classified response information will be accepted by mail only; please mark it accordingly, and send via proper channels. Classified information can be sent either via USPS or FedEx. Classified information sent via USPS should be sent to PEO Missiles and Space, Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTG, Bldg. 5250, Martin Rd., Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898. The inner wrapping shall be addressed to: ATTN: SFAE-MSL-LTG (Mr. Greg Smith). Classified information sent via FedEx should be sent to the Lower Tier Project Office (LTPO) 106 Wynn Drive, Attn: SFAE-MSL-LTG, Huntsville, AL 35805. The inner wrapping shall be addressed to: ATTN: SFAE-MSL-LTG (Mr. Greg Smith).


Acknowledgement of receipt will be issued. If response includes proprietary information, please mark it accordingly. Appropriate proprietary claims will be honored and protected to prevent improper disclosure.



** ATTENTION: The LTPO plans to use non-Government support contractors in assessing industry responses resulting from this RFI. Thus, if responses include proprietary information, it must be marked accordingly. Each respondent must be willing to sign non-disclosure agreements with these non-Government support contractors so the LTPO can properly protect the proprietary information submitted. The following list of non-Government support contractors will be used during this assessment. To facilitate the non-disclosure agreement process, requests for non-Government support contractor POC information must be e-mailed to Michael Mannarino:


1) Dynetics, Inc., PO Box 5500, Huntsville, AL 35814

2) Wyle-CAS Inc., 100 Quality Circle, Huntsville, AL 35806


3) Torch Technologies, 4035 Chris Dr, Suite C, Huntsville, AL 35802


4) Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation (GTARC) 505 10th St NW Atlanta, GA 30318


5) The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35899


In accomplishing their duties relating to the review process, the above mentioned firms may require access to Proprietary Information contained in the industry responses. Therefore, pursuant to FAR Part 9.505-4, these firms must execute an agreement with each industry respondent that states that they will (1) protect the respondent's information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than which it was furnished. To expedite the review process, each industry respondent is requested to contact the above companies to effect execution of such an agreement prior to submission of their response(s). Each industry respondent shall submit copies of the agreements with their response(s) or provide a definitive statement that the industry respondent does not consent to the release of the information to the aforementioned firms.

As a reference the AN/TPS-80 has an APUC of around $38-$40 Million

------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac5LMUxLMW8
 

Attachments

  • PatriotAESAMainArray.png
    PatriotAESAMainArray.png
    713.1 KB · Views: 37
  • RearPannels_PatriotAESA .png
    RearPannels_PatriotAESA .png
    901.5 KB · Views: 42

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom