Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US SAM systems

    Share

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    US SAM systems

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:52 pm

    Out of 12 SCUD launched on Saudi air base that killed Saudi air force chief, Patriot managed to intercept only three

    LINK

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  max steel on Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:29 pm

    Viktor wrote:Out of 12 SCUD launched on Saudi air base that killed Saudi air force chief, Patriot managed to intercept only three

    LINK


    Well thats fcuking astonishing affraid because Saudi uses latest PAC-3 SAMs .


    Raytheon has received a $1.7 billion Direct Commercial Sales contract to upgrade Saudi Arabia's Patriot Air and Missile Defense System to the latest Configuration-3 in 2011 . So I've no doubts that they were certainly using PAC-3 only .

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:39 pm

    Rytheon has been lying from day one.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  max steel on Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:48 pm

    Lying regarding what ? PAC-3 capabilties or bagging contract for saudi's patriot upgradation ?

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  Viktor on Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:59 pm

    max steel wrote:Lying regarding what ? PAC-3 capabilties or bagging contract for saudi's patriot upgradation ?

    Lying about the efficiency of the Patriot SAM. 1st Gulf war eventually proved that its efficiency is about 5% or smaller.

    Besides being grossly inferior system in comparison to Russian S-300, Patriot is now proven as unefficient one.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:33 pm

    Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

    Remember that even for the S-300 series; there is a seperate branch (S-300V familly) designed to kill ballistic missiles.
    Of course, the S-400 system seems to have unified these capabilities to some extent.

    Anyway, let's cut the mustard here.
    The Saudis can't be relied upon to accurately show-off the capabiltiies of any system.
    With these SCUDs; the Saudi Patriots could have reacted late, or not stuck to procedure; which would have reduced the chances of a successful interception.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:13 pm

    flamming_python wrote:Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

    Remember that even for the S-300 series; there is a seperate branch (S-300V familly) designed to kill ballistic missiles.
    Of course, the S-400 system seems to have unified these capabilities to some extent.

    Anyway, let's cut the mustard here.
    The Saudis can't be relied upon to accurately show-off the capabiltiies of any system.
    With these SCUDs; the Saudi Patriots could have reacted late, or not stuck to procedure; which would have reduced the chances of a successful interception.

    Stop trying to surgar coat things. Patriot system is designed to be abm and it failed horribly back in the first gulf war. These operated better but still not the uber performance that they proclaim to be.

    Let us not forget, majority of saudis forces are not even saudi.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:55 pm

    sepheronx wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

    Remember that even for the S-300 series; there is a seperate branch (S-300V familly) designed to kill ballistic missiles.
    Of course, the S-400 system seems to have unified these capabilities to some extent.

    Anyway, let's cut the mustard here.
    The Saudis can't be relied upon to accurately show-off the capabiltiies of any system.
    With these SCUDs; the Saudi Patriots could have reacted late, or not stuck to procedure; which would have reduced the chances of a successful interception.

    Stop trying to surgar coat things. Patriot system is designed to be abm and it failed horribly back in the first gulf war. These operated better but still not the uber performance that they proclaim to be.

    Let us not forget, majority of saudis forces are not even saudi.

    I'm not trying to sugar-coat anything, I'm trying to get to the bottom of things. Israel's Patriots performed as designed; only against aircraft.

    I'm not sure if the PAC-3 is designed as an ABM system or not. Most likely; its warhead is too small to reliably destroy ballistic missiles. It seems to have improved at least a little since the 1st Gulf War; where not a single SCUD was shot down; this time it was 3/12.

    In the 1st Gulf War, if you remember, their non-performance wasn't because they failed to hit the SCUDs; in fact many did. It's just that they were not able to destroy the missiles - they exploded in proximity as designed but there just wasn't enough power there. At the most - they damaged the missile or changed their trajectories.
    This may well have been what got the US onto the idea of using kinetic interceptors for ABM purposes; hence the development of the THAAD system.

    The other problem I pointed to was the Saudi military itself; armed with all the latest technology and gadgets. Iraq's army wasn't badly armed either. By 1991 its air-defence network was obsolete, but still large and with many systems. Its air force was reasonably modern.
    Yet how did it all perform? Abysmally. The Saudis might have the same problems.

    But I can certainly believe that their air-defence network could be manned by foreign specialists though. That's one lesson the Saudis learned from the Iraqis at least, and they have the money to make it happen.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:52 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

    Remember that even for the S-300 series; there is a seperate branch (S-300V familly) designed to kill ballistic missiles.
    Of course, the S-400 system seems to have unified these capabilities to some extent.

    Anyway, let's cut the mustard here.
    The Saudis can't be relied upon to accurately show-off the capabiltiies of any system.
    With these SCUDs; the Saudi Patriots could have reacted late, or not stuck to procedure; which would have reduced the chances of a successful interception.

    Stop trying to surgar coat things. Patriot system is designed to be abm and it failed horribly back in the first gulf war. These operated better but still not the uber performance that they proclaim to be.

    Let us not forget, majority of saudis forces are not even saudi.

    I'm not trying to sugar-coat anything, I'm trying to get to the bottom of things. Israel's Patriots performed as designed; only against aircraft.

    I'm not sure if the PAC-3 is designed as an ABM system or not. Most likely; its warhead is too small to reliably destroy ballistic missiles. It seems to have improved at least a little since the 1st Gulf War; where not a single SCUD was shot down; this time it was 3/12.

    In the 1st Gulf War, if you remember, their non-performance wasn't because they failed to hit the SCUDs; in fact many did. It's just that they were not able to destroy the missiles - they exploded in proximity as designed but there just wasn't enough power there. At the most - they damaged the missile or changed their trajectories.
    This may well have been what got the US onto the idea of using kinetic interceptors for ABM purposes; hence the development of the THAAD system.

    The other problem I pointed to was the Saudi military itself; armed with all the latest technology and gadgets. Iraq's army wasn't badly armed either. By 1991 its air-defence network was obsolete, but still large and with many systems. Its air force was reasonably modern.
    Yet how did it all perform? Abysmally. The Saudis might have the same problems.

    But I can certainly believe that their air-defence network could be manned by foreign specialists though. That's one lesson the Saudis learned from the Iraqis at least, and they have the money to make it happen.

    SM-3 is meant to intercept BM's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#MIM-104F_.28PAC-3.29
    The PAC-3 upgrade carried with it a new missile design, nominally known as MIM-104F and called PAC-3 by the Army.[19] The PAC-3 missile evolved from the Strategic Defense Initiative's ERINT missile, and so it is dedicated almost entirely to the anti-ballistic missile mission.

    And in First gulf war, it hit 1 scud out of 5 (they werent even scuds either, but some Iraqi knock off). Second, they wouldn't sell it and not train the crew. As well, Saudi's hire Pakistanis for airforce, and columbian and other south Americans, as well as Americans in their own military. Effectively, Saudi's military is more or less like one giant private military firm with Saudi generals and some saudi's here and there.

    Once again, stop trying to protect the americans and their garbage systems. It proved itself more than once, that what is being advertised is greatly exaggerated, like most of their equipment.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:23 am

    [quote="sepheronx"]
    The PAC-3 upgrade carried with it a new missile design, nominally known as MIM-104F and called PAC-3 by the Army.[19] The PAC-3 missile evolved from the Strategic Defense Initiative's ERINT missile, and so it is dedicated almost entirely to the anti-ballistic missile mission.

    Well, that's certainly pretty crappy then.

    Once again, stop trying to protect the americans and their garbage systems.  It proved itself more than once, that what is being advertised is greatly exaggerated, like most of their equipment.

    Well Americans make some great military hardware; second only to the Russians in fact pirat

    So I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt or act with some healthy skeptisism until one can get to the bottom of things and investigate the situation properly.
    Or would you rather take a leaf out of the fanboy handbook; ragging on the T-72, Russian AD systems, etc... simply because they were useless in the hands of 3rd world Arab country against the might of a military superpower and its allues?

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 894
    Points : 951
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:30 am

    Out of all systems of the same class only Patriot was tested in combat so far. We have no freaking idea what would performance of S-300 or their Chinese knock-offs would be in case of actual combat.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:08 am

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Out of all systems of the same class only Patriot was tested in combat so far. We have no freaking idea what would performance of S-300 or their Chinese knock-offs would be in case of actual combat.

    Pretty sure Russian systems can shoot down Russia's own 50 year old missiles

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:09 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Out of all systems of the same class only Patriot was tested in combat so far. We have no freaking idea what would performance of S-300 or their Chinese knock-offs would be in case of actual combat.

    S-300V were tested plenty against BM's but your right, only system tested in field experience against hostile country, and didnt prove its claimed capabilities either.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:58 pm

    Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

    PAC-3 is optimised for ABM and has lost most of its capability against conventional aircraft because of this. (To be an effected air defence system Patriot needs both PAC-2 and PAC-3 to be deployed together...)

    PAC-2 was the system in service in Desert Storm and was found wanting... it was designed from the outset to engage aircraft so when against Scuds and Scud type targets it largely failed... which is perfectly understandable... Scuds were totally under rated in the west and their ability was largely ignored for WWIII.

    In Desert Storm the Scud and variants were largely propaganda victories as a weapon they were not that effective due to their small payload and poor accuracy.

    Operational Scuds in use by the Soviets however were an effective way of deploying tactical nukes or chem or bio agents against strategic targets like airfields. A bio or chem weapon could be fired upwind of a NATO airfield and force all the NATO personnel to operate in cumbersome NBC equipment.


    The main reason for the poor performance of PAC-2 was that to bring down an aircraft you hit the centre of mass with lots of fragments that rip it apart. When the target is a very high speed missile aiming for the centre of mass with a target moving as fast as the fragments of your warhead means shattering the rear engine area of the missile target, which has already burned up all its fuel and is just attached to the falling warhead... shredding it has no effect at all on the incoming threat.

    the PAC-3 was designed to engage the warhead of very high speed targets...

    Remember that even for the S-300 series; there is a seperate branch (S-300V familly) designed to kill ballistic missiles.
    Of course, the S-400 system seems to have unified these capabilities to some extent.

    Not really true the main difference between the S-300P, S-300F, and S-300V is that each was developed for a different branch of the Soviet military. the V model for the army certainly did have an optimised design for defeating ballistic targets but the other two models could also engage such targets effectively too... it was part of their early design to be able to engage Lance II type threats.

    In comparison the US didn't consider ballistic threats worth defending against... they felt they could destroy vehicle based missile launchers easily enough... experience in DS was to show otherwise so PAC-2 Patriot had no ATBM capability. (anti theatre ballistic missile)

    With these SCUDs; the Saudi Patriots could have reacted late, or not stuck to procedure; which would have reduced the chances of a successful interception.

    It was designed with Scuds in mind and should have an automatic function that should have been used...

    Stop trying to surgar coat things. Patriot system is designed to be abm and it failed horribly back in the first gulf war. These operated better but still not the uber performance that they proclaim to be.

    PAC-2 was not, PAC-3 however was designed from the outset to defeat Scud type targets specifically... and not much else...

    I'm not sure if the PAC-3 is designed as an ABM system or not. Most likely; its warhead is too small to reliably destroy ballistic missiles. It seems to have improved at least a little since the 1st Gulf War; where not a single SCUD was shot down; this time it was 3/12.

    The high closing speed means a bucket of nails would do the job...

    In the 1st Gulf War, if you remember, their non-performance wasn't because they failed to hit the SCUDs; in fact many did. It's just that they were not able to destroy the missiles - they exploded in proximity as designed but there just wasn't enough power there. At the most - they damaged the missile or changed their trajectories.

    there were an average of 32 Patriots fired at each Scud and very few if any were actually destroyed in the air.

    This may well have been what got the US onto the idea of using kinetic interceptors for ABM purposes; hence the development of the THAAD system.

    THAAD already exited then, but was given much more priority after desert storm... just like tests against East German MiG-29s rapidly accelerated the AMRAAM program too.

    Out of all systems of the same class only Patriot was tested in combat so far. We have no freaking idea what would performance of S-300 or their Chinese knock-offs would be in case of actual combat.

    In the 1990s the Russians started taking their new SAMs to arms expos and actually firing them at a range of realistic targets and they seemed to intercept them easily enough.

    In current tests they seem to effectively kill targets too... sure not real combat, but close... most of the time they are ordered to move to a specific region and then set up and defend that region from an attack. Quite realistic IMHO.

    Pretty sure Russian systems can shoot down Russia's own 50 year old missiles

    Part of the original design requirements of the weapons, so it is no great surprise...

    Later models have added guidance channels to allow more targets to be engaged and over time improved performance and electronics means a wider range of targets can be engaged... and importantly they have used features like adaptive warheads that direct fragments at the target... note at high altitude the effect of a HE blast is negligible, but the fragments are not so badly effected by the thinner cold air so they travel further and faster and are rather more effective than at lower altitudes.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:55 pm

    'Hackers' Take Control of German Missile Battery in Turkey
    Unknown 'hackers' briefly gained access to Germany’s Patriot missiles stationed in Turkey to protect the country from possible spillover of the ongoing civil war in Syria, media report.
    The Patriot missiles, which were supposed to protect Turkey from the possible spillover effect of the Syrian military conflict, were attacked by ‘hackers’ on Tuesday near the Syrian border.

    Read more by clicking title.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  max steel on Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:13 pm

    Lockheed, MBDA See NATO Future for MEADS


    Lockheed Martin and MBDA Deutschland are expecting to sign a contract with Germany next year to produce the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and with that stamp of approval the pair is setting their sights higher.

    “We think that MEADS has the opportunity to be the NATO air and missile defense system,” Marty Coyne, Lockheed Martin’s MEADS director, told a few reporters at DSEI.

    And the market for modernized air and missile defense capability is a gold mine. “We estimate it conservatively at $100 billion over the next 15 plus years,” Coyne said.

    “We also consider ourselves right now in the lead,” he added, because the program is nearing the end of a 10-year development process that has culminated in three successful flight tests, bringing key components to a very high technology readiness level.

    It wasn’t long ago when the future of MEADS was hanging in the balance. MEADS started as a tri-national agreement among the US, Germany and Italy. The US eventually scrapped plans to buy the air and missile defense system meant to replace Raytheon’s Patriot system, but agreed to spend $800 million to finish a two-year proof-of-concept phase that means all three countries can access the technology developed through the program.

    The future of the program depended on Germany choosing the system because Italy, which wants MEADS, couldn’t afford to go it alone. So Lockheed and MBDA waited more than a year for Germany to conduct an analysis before making a final decision on a system.

    In June, Germany ultimately decided to finish developing and to produce MEADS TLVS, which will fire both longer-range PAC-3 missiles and German IRIS-T short-range missiles, Wolfram Lautner, head of communication at MBDA Deutschland, said.

    Lockheed was also hoping to clinch a win in Poland in its “Wisla” competition for a new air and missile defense system, but because Poland decided it needed a system that was already fielded, the country dropped MEADS, which is nearing the end of its development.

    But now that the MEADS program is moving full steam ahead toward an official contract signing with Germany by the end of 2016, the two companies that will co-produce the system are looking toward expansion.

    “Germany will not be the only MEADS customer, it will be the first,” Coyne said. “There always has to be a need and we are even more convinced after being at the show. The interest by all nations in Europe that come past our stand, that have stopped and wanted to get information about MEADS, is far greater than we ever expected.”

    Why the interest? The threat is real, Coyne said. “All countries in NATO Europe have recognized this threat of a combination of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and unmanned all coming from different directions and NATO has awoken to this.”

    Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea has only heightened the concern, according to Coyne, and there are only four NATO Europe countries — Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Greece — that have air and missile defense systems, but these “don’t have a modern capability.”

    MEADS has a promising chance of becoming the system of choice in NATO, Coyne reasoned, because the rest of NATO Europe will look to Germany for solutions as the country is the designated NATO air and missile defense framework leader, “chartered with trying to develop a strategy to provide air and missile defense protection for all of NATO,” he said.

    Additionally, MEADS was the first developmental program to be integrated in a NATO exercise in 2013, Lautner noted.

    The capability inherent in MEADS makes it well suited for NATO countries, even small ones with limited budgets. The system “not only meets these requirements that countries are looking for, but the discriminator is the open network architecture,” Coyne said.

    For example, he said, a country on the eastern border of Europe invests in a MEADS battle manager established network architecture and maybe adds one surveillance radar. The investment is “modest” but the country would have the foundation for modern capability and would be able to add components to a system over time. Meanwhile, a country like Germany with six to eight fire units could post them anywhere else in Europe when needed.

    “Literally these networked components can be flown in and through plug-and-fight take that modest architecture, which is battle management, and turn it into a fire unit literally within 24 to 48 hours,” Coyne said.

    “That provides incredible defensive capability for NATO where all of these countries can participate. That is the type of interest we are seeing this week,” according to Coyne. Lockheed normally gets inquiries about MEADS from countries with large budgets, but this time it was also visiting with countries with more modest budgets.

    Meanwhile, the makers of MEADS are watching the US Army’s impending plans for its future Integrated Air and Missile Defense System.

    The Army has already picked Northrop Grumman’s Integrated Battle Command System for the battle manager and the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhanced missile for the interceptor of choice, however the service has yet to decide how, what and when it will procure a launcher, and surveillance and fire control radars for the system.

    An analysis of alternatives is expected to be completed by October or November, Coyne said.

    “We feel confident that given the maturity of the sensors and the launcher and the fact that we will be in production then, there’s a really good chance that the US will invest in the MEADS capability at the component level,” Coyne said.

    Coyne said there is a “high likelihood that a MEADS launcher will be chosen directly” for the Army’s program, but a competition for the radar will start in 2017 or 2018, which will likely pit Raytheon and Lockheed against each other once again.

    Since Poland has indicated it is interested in following the same path that the US Army chooses for its own air and missile defense system, the Poles may choose to develop their own open architecture system for the remaining six batteries after it purchases two Patriots from Raytheon.

    The country is gearing up for an election that will likely result in a large regime change that would trigger reconsideration of Poland’s recent procurement decision, according to Coyne.

    “The Wisla program is by far the most expensive program in Polish history, much more expensive than the F-16 48 campaign, they bought 48 of them. It’s natural for the new government to come in and take a look at it,” Coyne said.


    http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/dsei/2015/09/18/lockheed-mbda-see-nato-future-meads/72390236/

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  max steel on Wed Oct 28, 2015 8:27 pm

    The Army has lost control of its 3.5-ton multi-billion-dollar air-defense JLENS


    The aircraft is part of a Pentagon plan to create a net to hunt enemy drones and cruise missiles along the Eastern seaboard of the United States. The Pentagon has spent $2.55 billion on the program and it is a failure already. Razz Wink

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    US SAM systems

    Post  max steel on Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:13 am

    Short-Range Air Defense Back In Demand

    The Army is looking at placing more short-range air-defense capabilities in brigade combat teams (BCT).

    For more than two decades, the Army has neglected the short-range threat and focused instead on missiles, said Maj. Gen. John G. Rossi, commanding general of the U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence and Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He was part of a panel discussion, Feb. 11, at a day-long Association of the U.S. Army-sponsored Hot Topics forum on Air and Missile Defense.

    Desert Storm, 25 years ago, brought the Patriot missile defense systems into prominence, Rossi said. "As we made Patriot better and we focused on it, in essence the Air Defense community migrated to what became a point-defense branch, a missile defense branch," Rossi said.

    NO 'A' IN MISSILE DEFENSE?

    "We took the 'A' out of Air and Missile Defense in many ways," he said. "We didn't think we really needed to focus on it."

    SHORAD or Short-Range Air Defense battalions were deactivated. "We took all short-range air defense out of the architecture as we focused on missile defense," Rossi said, adding "that's caught up to us."

    Now the proliferation of small, unmanned aircraft is forcing commanders to reassess the need for SHORAD capabilities to combat low-altitude threats.

    "We've got to find a game changer," Rossi said, alluding to the need to find more affordable and lethal air-defense systems.

    "We have to change the scenario or change the equation so it's more costly to attack than to defend," he said. "We've got to build to the future."

    CMIN EXPERIMENTATION

    The Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Mobile Integrated capability, or CMIN, is among systems being researched for the future.

    "We already demonstrated this a year ago at Fort Bliss and we're going back again now for the [Network Integration Evaluation] in the spring," Rossi said about testing CMIN at the Network Integration Evaluation at Fort Bliss, Texas.

    CMIN uses a Q-50 radar to find incoming UAS, he said. The AN/TPQ-50 counter-fire radar was developed by the field artillery community to detect incoming rounds and calculate their trajectory.

    Once radar spots the UAS and they are identified, then CMIN has both non-lethal and kinetic tools to stop them, Rossi said.

    Other innovations being researched to boost air defense include new sensors and a hypervelocity gun.

    The hypervelocity gun weapons system uses a 155mm projectile in an air defense mode, Rossi said.

    It's a good example of what he called "cross-domain expansion," merging field artillery and air defense artillery platforms.

    CROSS-DOMAIN EXPANSION

    Cross-domain expansion uses existing platforms in new ways, Rossi said, and is an important part of the Army Operating Concept.

    A battle-tested example of this is the C-RAM, he said. C-RAM stands for Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar system. It was adapted from the Navy Phalanx weapons system and was sent to Iraq for the protection of large forward operating bases such as Camp Victory and Joint Base Balad.

    "The neat thing about the C-RAM is it was cross-branch -- FA radars, ADA, aviation all put into one," Rossi said. "It was cross-service -- it was Army and Navy-ran, and it was cross-compo -- active and Guard."

    Such efforts are essential, Rossi said, especially as the Army gets smaller.

    Rossi is not advocating more force structure to bolster air-defense capability in BCTs.

    "What we're not going to do is bring back the SHORAD battalion and lay that on top of a BCT," he said. He explained that making a brigade larger would just detract from its expeditionary nature.

    What he advocates instead is "multi-functional convergence" or merging select branch attributes.

    "It can't be just ADA systems inside the portfolio of air defenders to solve this in isolation," he said.

    'BACK INTO THE DIRT'


    Air defenders need to work closely with everyone else in the maneuver force, said another member of the panel, Maj. Gen. Glenn A. Bramhall.

    "I think we've lost just about a whole generation of knowledge base of how we work with the maneuver force," said Bramhall, commander of the 263rd Army Air and Missile Defense Command.

    "One of the things we need to do is get back into the dirt -- get back into the maneuver forces and train their commanders on how do we integrate air defense, what does air defense offer... "

    Getting back into the dirt means integrating Air and Missile Defense units into National Training Center rotations, the AMD leaders said.

    It also means getting back to the basics of old-fashioned training such as how to employ camouflage netting over tactical vehicles to keep them from being spotted by aircraft, said Dr. David M. Markowitz, assistant deputy chief of staff for operations G-3/5/7. .

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  George1 on Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:46 am

    i was always wondering why US Military hasnt any SHORADS except Avenger system


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1789
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  franco on Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:24 pm

    George1 wrote:i was always wondering why US Military hasnt any SHORADS except Avenger system

    The US has enjoyed massive Air Superiority for a long period, so Air Defense has not been an issue until now.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:43 am

    Upgraded Patriot Missile Test Successfully Completed

    missile successfully completed a test as one of two projectiles, which when fired in succession destroyed a tactical ballistic missile, Raytheon said in a press release.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The first missile fired, the Patriot, destroys threats via the force of the collision. The lower-cost combat-proven second missile, known as a GEM-T interceptor, flies close to threats and explodes, destroying the missile or aircraft in the process, the release explained.

    "Patriot users around the globe are currently employing interceptor [missile] mixes in ongoing combat operations to increase cost-effectiveness and provide commanders with operational flexibility," Raytheon Vice President of Integrated Air and Missile Defense Ralph Acaba said in the release on Thursday.

    The Patriot upgrade was funded by a 13-nation partnership, and representatives from seven of those nations on hand to witness the test at White Sands Missile Range in the US state of New Mexico, the release stated.

    The Patriot missile has been steadily improved since its debut in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when it helped protect Israel and Saudi Arabia from Scud missiles fired by Iraq.

    Various models of the Patriot have been used in more than 200 combat engagements, 1,400 flight tests and 3,000-plus ground tests, the release explained.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160318/1036498822/patriot-upgrade-test.html#ixzz43EaYhsC2


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  max steel on Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:01 am

    George1 wrote:Upgraded Patriot Missile Test Successfully Completed

    missile successfully completed a test as one of two projectiles, which when fired in succession destroyed a tactical ballistic missile, Raytheon said in a press release.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The first missile fired, the Patriot, destroys threats via the force of the collision. The lower-cost combat-proven second missile, known as a GEM-T interceptor, flies close to threats and explodes, destroying the missile or aircraft in the process, the release explained.

    "Patriot users around the globe are currently employing interceptor [missile] mixes in ongoing combat operations to increase cost-effectiveness and provide commanders with operational flexibility," Raytheon Vice President of Integrated Air and Missile Defense Ralph Acaba said in the release on Thursday.

    The Patriot upgrade was funded by a 13-nation partnership, and representatives from seven of those nations on hand to witness the test at White Sands Missile Range in the US state of New Mexico, the release stated.

    The Patriot missile has been steadily improved since its debut in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when it helped protect Israel and Saudi Arabia from Scud missiles fired by Iraq.

    Various models of the Patriot have been used in more than 200 combat engagements, 1,400 flight tests and 3,000-plus ground tests, the release explained.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160318/1036498822/patriot-upgrade-test.html#ixzz43EaYhsC2


    Sputnik is not a reliable source i must say. It was PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE) The PAC-3 Missile is a high-velocity interceptor that uses hit-to-kill technology to defend against incoming threats, including TBMs, cruise missiles and aircraft.

    The PAC-3 MSE brings a larger, dual-pulse solid rocket motor, larger control fins and an upgraded support system. These enhancements nearly double the missile's reach, and dramatically improve performance against missile threats.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:26 pm

    US Army Fires Stinger From Multi-Mission Launcher in Test

    WASHINGTON — The US Army announced that it fired a Stinger missile from its self-built Multi-Mission Launcher on Wednesday at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

    The missile test was part of a demonstration of the service’s new ground-based Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept (IFPC Inc 2-I) system to defeat unmanned aircraft systems, cruise missiles, rockets, artillery and mortars.

    IFPC Inc 2-I will also use the Sentinel radar and the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) for its command and control which will reach initial operational capability in fiscal 2019.

    Stingers were developed as a man-portable air defense infrared homing surface-to-air missile, but has been “adapted to fire from a wide variety of ground vehicles,” the Army said in a statement released Thursday.

    The MML is also able to fire Raytheon's AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles and Lockheed Martin's Longbow Hellfire missiles.

    Other types of missiles will be tested at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, as part of an IFPC Inc 2-I engineering demonstration “in the coming weeks,” the Army said.

    There are two prototypes of the MML which represent the first development of a major program by the government industrial base in more than 30 years, according to the statement.

    The Army spent $119 million to build the prototypes, which includes owning the technical data rights. The cost of developing the system outside of the Army would have been about three times as much, according to information obtained during a tour with the acting Army secretary last week of the Aviation & Missile Research and Engineering Development Command (AMRDEC) at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, where one of the MMLs was on display.

    The IFPC Inc 2-I is a joint effort between AMRDEC and the Army’s Program Executive Office for Missiles and Space’s Cruise Missile Defense Systems (CMDS) project office.

    The Army plans to build six more MMLs in the engineering and manufacturing development phase at Letterkenny Army Depot.


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:09 pm

    Army Missile Defense Stretched Thin: Readiness, Crisis Response At Risk

    There’s no peace dividend in missile defense. While most types of Army units don’t deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan anymore, some scarce specialties are in increasing demand worldwide, such as special operators, division staffs, and missile defense forces like the famous Patriot. As long-range missile threats increase from Iran and North Korea, China and Russia, Hezbollah and Hamas, Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno himself has said the current pace of missile defense deployments is not sustainable.

    “Today, we have air and missile defense forces in nine countries,” said Col. Clement Coward, deputy commander of the 32nd Air and Missile Defense Command. “On any given day, nearly half of the Army’s Patriot batteries are outside the continental United States [and] we’ve begun forward-deploying THAAD batteries” — even though THAAD’s so new there are only three batteries in service. As a result, Coward told the Association of the US Army today, “we are rapidly approaching an inflection point where we face the risk of breaking our AMD force.”

    Skilled personnel are thinking of getting out, equipment is wearing out, and upgrades are delayed because the units aren’t at home to get them, Army leaders warned. Even more worrying is that, with so much of the force either deployed or recovering from deployment, little is ready and available to respond to unexpected crises.

    “The risk really comes in our contingency forces,” said Maj. Gen. Gary Cheek, assistant deputy chief of Army staff for operations and plans (section G-3/5-7), also speaking at AUSA.

    “Where the risk is not apparent, but it’s very real, is if you’ve got a contingency requirement,” Check told me after the panel. “[If] I’ve got to send four Patriot battalions to protect key seaports, airports, tactical units, headquarters, in an active combat theater where I’m moving in forces, moving out non-combatants….I’ve really put that [contingency response capacity] at risk.”

    With budgets shrinking and sequester looming, the Army doesn’t expect to buy a lot of new missile defense batteries any time soon. Besides, the asset under stress is not so much the equipment as the skilled personnel to operate it. “The people are the key,” Cheek said, “so we will in fact for this career field over-man it” — that is, assign more personnel to missile defense than filling every position would require — “because we know the stress on it is so high.”

    Along with shoring up the supply of missile defenders, though, the Army also needs to reduce demand.

    “We’re trying to step back and say it’s time to rethink this, we need to get global priorities and make some hard calls about where we’re going to be and where we’re not gong to be,” Cheek told AUSA.

    “Once a combatant commander has his grip on that asset, they will never agree to give it away, never, and I understand that,” Cheek told me. The Army expects the supposedly temporary deployment of a THAAD battery to Guam will become a permanent fixture, for example. Officials at the conference also fended off repeated questions from the South Korean press about stationing THAAD permanently in the divided peninsula.

    “I’m not telling you that everything needs to be back in the United States,” Cheek told me, “but I think we could be more measured.”

    So late last year, both Gen. Odierno and his Navy counterpart, Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert, sent an “8-star memo” to then-Secretary Chuck Hagel calling for a reevaluation of missile defense strategy. While the Army worries about Patriot and THAAD deployments, the Navy worries about more and more of its multi-mission Aegis destroyers being relegated to a narrowly defensive role.

    That two four-star service chiefs are taking an interest is significant, said Maj. Gen. John Rossi, who heads both air defense and field artillery training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. “As the demand exceeds the supply [for] air and missile defense,” Rossi told me, “their intent was [to ask], ‘what’s the broad strategy to deal with this threat set?'”

    “Remember deterrence?” Maj. Gen. Cheek asked the audience at AUSA. “That worked back in the day. It still works.” Of the 116 ballistic missiles shot at US forces since World War II, he said, every one was fired by Iraq before or during an American invasion. In other words, potential adversaries won’t risk US retaliation unless they figure we’re going to hit them with everything we’ve got regardless of whether they fire missiles.

    Reassessing the balance between deterrence and forward-deployed missile defense is a major theme of the Greenert-Odierno memo, retired Lt. Gen. Edward Anderson told AUSA.

    “The eight-star memo, it’s getting a ton of attention in the building, in OSD [the Office of the Secretary of Defense], from policymakers… and that’s a good thing,” said Air Force Brig. Gen. Kenneth Todorov, deputy director of the joint Missile Defense Agency. That said, Todorov pointed out, “it’s written from a service perspective, not a COCOM perspective.” If the four-star combatant commanders wrote a memo on missile defense, he said, its recommendations might be very different.

    “COCOMs don’t pay the bills,” Anderson shot back. “Services do.”

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  max steel on Wed May 25, 2016 11:14 pm

    Winning The Salvo Competition: Rebalancing America’s Air And Missile Defenses

    Over the last fifteen years, the Department of Defense spent more than $24 billion buying a mix of capabilities to defeat guided missile threats to U.S. and partner naval forces and land installations. Despite DoD’s urgency, these investments have not resulted in air and missile defenses with sufficient capacity to counter large salvos of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and other precision-guided munitions (PGMs) that can now be launched by America’s enemies. This situation is partly the result of DoD’s longstanding emphasis on fielding costly, long-range surface-to-air interceptors to defeat a small salvo of anti-ship cruise missiles or a handful of ballistic missiles launched by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. It is also because the U.S. military has never fought an enemy who had the capability to strike distant targets with precision. In future conflicts, however, America’s opponents can be expected to employ large numbers of sea-, air-, and ground-launched guided weapons to overwhelm limited defenses now protecting the U.S. military’s forces and bases.


    Sponsored content

    Re: US SAM systems

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:21 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:21 pm