THAAD Development

Christopher Wang said:
With the United States Army already fielding the Typhon Mid-Range Capability (MRC) which uses four strike-length Mark 41 VLS, would the RIM-161 SM-3 Block I (13.5") or Block II (21") fired from the Typhon MRC be an acceptable substitute for the THAAD?
Click to expand...
I think THAAD technically has a longer range, and more importantly is able to work inside the atmosphere.

I'm not sure about missile costs, but I suspect that THAAD is cheaper than SM3 as well.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think THAAD technically has a longer range, and more importantly is able to work inside the atmosphere.

I'm not sure about missile costs, but I suspect that THAAD is cheaper than SM3 as well.
Click to expand...

Even SM-3 Block I can have a longer range than THAAD, but you are right that being able to work inside the atmosphere is a very important differentiator. Many shorter range ballistic missiles like Scuds or Iskander would never go high enough to be above SM-3's minimum altitude. Iran is also investing in making longer-range missiles that stay within the upper atmosphere such as the Fattah-1.

SM-3 Block IA/B has a peak velocity of around 3 km/s while Block II is more like 4.5 km/s. THAAD seems to be able to reach 2.8 km/s, but should be slower at SM-3 minimum altitude.

Cost is complicated. As far as I can tell, the cost for SM-3 Block IB has just dipped below $10 million. Cost of Block II is currently crazy (I've seen $28 million) but the previous versions also used to be around that cost before coming down with time and increased production. THAAD cost per interceptor is harder for me to find, but I believe it to be less than $10 million.

RangeMap.png

RangeMap2.png

Note: This compares THAAD, SM-3 Block IB and two-stage GBI.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure about missile costs, but I suspect that THAAD is cheaper than SM3 as well.
Click to expand...

What about mounting the THAAD KKV on the SM-3 Block-II booster-stack instead of the Raytheon EKV, nosecone and associated hardware ware?
 
NMaude said:
What about mounting the THAAD KKV on the SM-3 Block-II booster-stack instead of the Raytheon EKV, nosecone and associated hardware ware?
Click to expand...

Ignoring the complexity of mixing contractors and all of the integration problems, what would be the goal?
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think THAAD technically has a longer range, and more importantly is able to work inside the atmosphere.

I'm not sure about missile costs, but I suspect that THAAD is cheaper than SM3 as well.
Click to expand...

THAAD rounds cost somewhere less that $20 million per round. In FY23, they bought 18 rounds for $240 million (~$13.3 million each). FY24 and FY25 have higher costs per missile (~$20 million each), but there were also fire unit upgrades in those procurement costs.

 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20241001-211636.png
    Screenshot_20241001-211636.png
    886.2 KB · Views: 10
Scott Kenny said:
My understanding is that GPI is roughly the size of GBI.
Click to expand...

  • Continue to refine the preliminary design of the GPI, which will fire from the U.S. Navy’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense destroyers and Aegis Ashore using the standard Vertical Launch System
  • Demonstrate system performance in hypersonic environments prior to conducting its Preliminary Design Review
Click to expand...
news.northropgrumman.com

Northrop Grumman to Produce First Hypersonic Glide Phase Interceptor

CHANDLER, Ariz. – Sept. 25, 2024 – The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will proceed with Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) for the Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI) program, the first-of-its-kind defensive countermeasure against hypersonic missile...
news.northropgrumman.com news.northropgrumman.com
 
Christopher Wang said:
With the United States Army already fielding the Typhon Mid-Range Capability (MRC) which uses four strike-length Mark 41 VLS, would the RIM-161 SM-3 Block I (13.5") or Block II (21") fired from the Typhon MRC be an acceptable substitute for the THAAD?
Click to expand...
Considering that MRC is for surface strike purposes, not AMD, doubt the Army would be interested in at all. Besides that, it would be technically possible to link up the MRC setup to C2BMC node so that it could engage ballistic missiles, but that would make the whole system very complicated, at which point it would be closer to Aegis Ashore without the SPY-1 radars.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Considering that MRC is for surface strike purposes, not AMD, doubt the Army would be interested in at all. Besides that, it would be technically possible to link up the MRC setup to C2BMC node so that it could engage ballistic missiles, but that would make the whole system very complicated, at which point it would be closer to Aegis Ashore without the SPY-1 radars.
Click to expand...

Surface fires are clearly the primary role for MRC, but pay close attention to the language the Army is using about it.

The MRC system will eventually support the joint, multi-domain mission. The SM-6 missile can engage multiple threats including terminal ballistic missile defense, anti-air warfare and anti-ship strike roles.
Click to expand...


That's the same language the Army is using for its proposed dual-role howitzers capable of both AMD and deep fires missions -- the Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon.

I suspect they intend to give MRC/SM-6 a secondary AMD role. DoD is already trying to make the necessary data exchange tools more or less ubiquitous. (See the potential use of the F-35 as a missile defense sensor node, for example.) The end state will be that an AMD command post will be able to poll all of the available fire units to see which ones are available and capable of engaging. Obviously, priority will be to use dedicated AMD assets like THAAD and Patriot, but if the only viable shooter is an MRC with SM-6, they'll use it.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Surface fires are clearly the primary role for MRC, but pay close attention to the language the Army is using about it.
Click to expand...
We are still in early days of architecting the GDS, or at least what it will become say 5-7 years from now. With the Army pushing out its PAC-3 MSE follow on, and the MDA not funding THAAD-ER, it is quite possible that the GPI is adopted by it in the 2030s. MRC launchers along with AN/TPY-6 will be a part of the mix, at least in GDS and GDS like scenarios. I think they are still not 100% certain on what the Aegis Guam System looks like (AEGIS ashore like fixed launchers, or MRC like mobile launchers or a mix) since its an integral component of GDS.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
We are still in early days of architecting the GDS, or at least what it will become say 5-7 years from now. With the Army pushing out its PAC-3 MSE follow on, and the MDA not funding THAAD-ER, it is quite possible that the GPI is adopted by it in the 2030s. MRC launchers along with AN/TPY-6 will be a part of the mix, at least in GDS and GDS like scenarios. I think they are still not 100% certain on what the Aegis Guam System looks like (AEGIS ashore like fixed launchers, or MRC like mobile launchers or a mix) since its an integral component of GDS.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting a mix, though probably biased towards mobile launchers.
 
TomS said:
Surface fires are clearly the primary role for MRC, but pay close attention to the language the Army is using about it.


That's the same language the Army is using for its proposed dual-role howitzers capable of both AMD and deep fires missions -- the Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon.

I suspect they intend to give MRC/SM-6 a secondary AMD role. DoD is already trying to make the necessary data exchange tools more or less ubiquitous. (See the potential use of the F-35 as a missile defense sensor node, for example.) The end state will be that an AMD command post will be able to poll all of the available fire units to see which ones are available and capable of engaging. Obviously, priority will be to use dedicated AMD assets like THAAD and Patriot, but if the only viable shooter is an MRC with SM-6, they'll use it.
Click to expand...
Then I guess it really comes down to how easy it would be to set up the connection between a relevant C2 network and a Typhon launcher.

Though you should consider that the post I was commenting on was specifically asking about the possibilities of using SM-3 loaded on an MRC for high-altitude BMD role, so there's a clear difference between one such use case and utilising SM-6 that is already mounted on Typhon for various other use cases.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Then I guess it really comes down to how easy it would be to set up the connection between a relevant C2 network and a Typhon launcher.

Though you should consider that the post I was commenting on was specifically asking about the possibilities of using SM-3 loaded on an MRC for high-altitude BMD role, so there's a clear difference between one such use case and utilising SM-6 that is already mounted on Typhon for various other use cases.
Click to expand...

Fair point. It is definitely the case that MRC is first and foremost a strike asset.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Then I guess it really comes down to how easy it would be to set up the connection between a relevant C2 network and a Typhon launcher.

Though you should consider that the post I was commenting on was specifically asking about the possibilities of using SM-3 loaded on an MRC for high-altitude BMD role, so there's a clear difference between one such use case and utilising SM-6 that is already mounted on Typhon for various other use cases.
Click to expand...
SM-3 has already been tested from a containerised VLS.
www.navalnews.com

SM-3 Launched From Containerized VLS For The First Time - Naval News

A groundbreaking Ballistic Missile Defense test of the U.S. Navy Mark 70 Mod 1 Payload Delivery System was conducted last month in Hawaii.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
I don't think they would pull launchers from the MDTF's to man and provision for the GDS. If they chose non-fixed launchers for SM-3/6 which are part of the architecture then those would be procured seperately.
 
But it does seem likely that the existing launchers can host ABM missiles, though they probably need a different communication package to interface with an Aegis or IBCS. Agree probably not something the MRC batteries will do or even be capable of; it’s outside their role. But perhaps they might be dual role with their SM-6 at some point.
 
The second tweet there was merely me musing on whether GPI can be integrated with THAAD. I wonder how different it would be from the the THAAD ER which also had a 21" first stage which is something the GPI will also have to be compliant with the VLS. Length might be different though given its a three stage system vs two stages for THAAD-ER.
 
bring_it_on said:
The second tweet there was merely me musing on whether GPI can be integrated with THAAD. I wonder how different it would be from the the THAAD ER which also had a 21" first stage which is something the GPI will also have to be compliant with the VLS. Length might be different though given its a three stage system vs two stages for THAAD-ER.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't greatly suprise me if GPI turned out to be based on SM-6 Blk IB. Maybe that's what BMD capability meant in that budget report.
 
This is the most pertinent THAAD thread that I could find for this video (If it isn't please move it):


The U.S. is sending one of its prized assets to Israel.The Pentagon has confirmed it is deploying a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery along with supporting troops.
Click to expand...
The move has drawn significant attention as it involves placing American boots on the ground in Israel. While a small number of U.S. forces are already stationed there, the addition of around 100 troops is noteworthy, signaling deeper U.S. involvement in the escalating regional conflict.THAAD battery is expected to bolster the Israeli air defense network.This move has not gone unnoticed, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi warned on Sunday that the US was putting the lives of its troops "at risk by deploying them to operate US missile systems in Israel".
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how American THAAD could protect Israel from Iranian missiles ?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #thaad #israeliranwar
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:55 THAAD
06:09 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
Also to hoover up any performances data.

The THAAD is still very untested as systems go.

And since Iran seems willing to launch targets, and a decent amount of mussiles will be approaching their best by age within this decade. And we have the radar there already...

Why not test it in a live fire setting?

Basically the same reason why theres some USN ships anchor off the coast loaded down with SM3.

It a safe way to real life test them.
 
Firefinder said:
Also to hoover up any performances data.

The THAAD is still very untested as systems go.

And since Iran seems willing to launch targets, and a decent amount of mussiles will be approaching their best by age within this decade. And we have the radar there already...

Why not test it in a live fire setting?

Basically the same reason why theres some USN ships anchor off the coast loaded down with SM3.

It a safe way to real life test them.
Click to expand...
THAAD isn't as mature as Aegis or Patriot, but it certainly isn't "very untested".

While it does only have 1 shot, 1 kill in combat, it's simulated and live fire flight tests are extremely rigorous and provide exceptional performance data.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom