Patriot SAM replacement

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

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

Part of system:
breakingdefense.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though that leads me to a different and more interesting question: Given that most SAM radars are easily detectable and therefore easily located (and therefore easily destroyed), has anyone put any thought into LPI radars for SAMs etc?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom