ITA article, reproduced at Military.com. Passing references to the IRIAF’s Tomcat/Hawk mash-up and the USAF’s SAINT/ASAT/etc. efforts aside, this also brings back memories of Israel’s more recent fighter-based TMD efforts.
DoD Studies Patriot Missiles on F-15s
The Missile Defense Agency will soon award Lockheed Martin a $3 million contract to study the feasibility of equipping F-15C fighters with Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles to counter cruise missiles and intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase, according to agency and company officials.
The Air Launched Hit-to-Kill initiative is focused on a “refined design” of an F-15C’s external weapons bay with the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement integration and performance estimate, an MDA official wrote in a Dec. 21 e-mail to Inside the Army.
MDA is expected to award Lockheed the money in the “next few days” for risk reduction and concept definition, according to the agency official.
Mike Trotsky, Lockheed Martin vice president of Air and Missile Defense programs, told ITA Dec. 6 that equipping a fighter with the missile capability would be beneficial for two reasons — it could defeat cruise missiles and intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase.
“If a Scud was launched from a barge or if a cruise missile was launched outside territorial waters attacking the United States, obviously if you had an F-15 up and it had a PAC-3 on it you could do long-range cruise missile defense or [tactical ballistic missile] defense,” Trotsky explained.
He said there are two feasible concepts for employing the weapon.
First, fighters equipped with PAC-3 missiles could be assigned to fly routine Civil Air Patrol. In the second scenario, the Defense Department could “scramble” PAC-3 equipped fighters as needed, Trotsky explained.
Lockheed calls the PAC-3 MSE, the baseline missile for the Medium Extended Air Defense System, a more powerful version of its hit-to-kill missile now in production.
“The MSE uses a more powerful rocket motor and larger fins for increased maneuverability against faster, more sophisticated ballistic and cruise missiles targets,” Jennifer Allen, a company spokeswoman, told ITA in July. “With an extended reach of up to 50 percent with MSE, MEADS would gain even more capability to protect ground forces and vital assets.”
Next year, MSE will fly during a control test without a target and two flight tests with targets. Following testing, the Army is expected to make a production decision, Trotsky said earlier this month.
The Navy has also studied the feasibility of fighter aircraft equipped with PAC-3 missiles, as InsideDefense.com reported in May 2005.
In addition to MDA’s funding of the Air Launched Hit-to-Kill effort, the agency has advanced a $2 million proposal for Lockheed Martin to build an Infrared Search and Tracking System (IRSTS), which would be used with the Air Launched Hit-to-Kill technology, an MDA official said. The agency has requested the funding via the director of defense research and engineering’s Quick Reaction Special Projects program. A decision on this initiative is expected late next month, MDA said.
The IRSTS would have utility for both the Air Launched Hit-to-Kill effort as well as another initiative known as the Net Centric Airborne Defense Element, the MDA official said.
“Unfortunately, the IRSTS will arrive too late to support the first proposed Net Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) flight test later this year,” the MDA official wrote. “NCADE, another air-launched concept under contract with Raytheon, utilizes major components from existing air-to-air missiles. The initial NCADE flight test will likely take place this summer on the White Sands Missile Range, with the objective of verifying the NCADE seeker’s capability of differentiating plume from hard body in a boost-phase intercept.”
Additionally, the official said the NCADE flight test will be supported by the Air Force Seek Eagle office, and either the Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve Test Center in Tucson, AZ, or the 46 Test Group at Holloman Air Force base, NM.
By: turboshaft - 9th January 2007 at 03:40
Israel revisits BPI UAV concept
On the subject of air-launched BPI, this small report appeared on one of the international wires earlier today:
Israel develops the largest drone with the world
AFP 1/8/07Israel is currently developing the world’s largest UAV, which would be used for long-range missions and to destroy ballistic missiles during their launch phase, according to an Israeli press spokesman.
As with the F-15/PAC-3 concept, this would probably be based on the air vehicle being kept airborne along one’s border at time of heightened tension, not 365/24/7. Of course, whereas the F-15/PAC-3 system would most likely be deployed to those theaters where it could do most benefit in a BPI role (rather than retained in the CONUS, where it would have no chance of intercepting an incoming TBM), the Israeli system would clearly be of benefit over pretty much any part of Israel…
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th January 2007 at 03:18
I had heard about the ASAT Mig-31D and the new program to use the Mig-31 and updated ASAT missile design to launch micro satellites. That is a seperate program from the one we are talking about, though very interesting in its own right.
Launching a satellite into a specific orbit is a very similar problem to launching an interceptor missile to engage an in orbit satellite, or a descending from ballistic path ballistic missile. Once one is developed the others can be added with only a little more work. Will work well if the satellite launching component pays for the other two components…
By: sferrin - 8th January 2007 at 00:23
Anyone can do the math…look at the dimensions of the R-37 and 9M317, their configurations, etc. Clearly not the same design.
That’s because it’s a new design.
Not that I know of, as far as I can tell it’s still in the “secret” category just like the R-33S. If anyone finds one let me know though, that’s one of the few missiles I have no images of.
err. …uhm, do you have one of the Gazelle?
By: SOC - 8th January 2007 at 00:21
Well, SOC just recently ridiculed the idea that the R-37 might be based on a surface to air missile in another thread. I find that easy to believe. By all intelligent accounts the R-37 is based on the R-33 – which is no big hurdle for the imagination to leap over
Anyone can do the math…look at the dimensions of the R-37 and 9M317, their configurations, etc. Clearly not the same design.
But he still won’t tell me what missile the KS-172 is based upon
That’s because it’s a new design.
Has anyone got a picture of the 30P6 missile?
Not that I know of, as far as I can tell it’s still in the “secret” category just like the R-33S. If anyone finds one let me know though, that’s one of the few missiles I have no images of.
By: sferrin - 7th January 2007 at 23:44
Not really very new.
Really? When did the try putting PAC-3 on the F-15 before?
There was a Mig-31 test aircraft that carried S-300 missiles as part of testing to see if it could be used as a mobile long range ABM system with the added height and speed of launch the range of the weapon was greatly increased.
Ohhh I see. It’s old news because the firstest and bestest USSR attempted it with the Mig-31? That’s okay. The US was working on the same thing with the B-47 back in the 50s.
By: Levsha - 7th January 2007 at 23:06
There was a Mig-31 test aircraft that carried S-300 missiles as part of testing to see if it could be used as a mobile long range ABM system with the added height and speed of launch the range of the weapon was greatly increased.
I’ve got an article from a Russian magazine, which describes the ‘Ishim’ light satellite launcher, which uses the MiG-31I as a first stage, which is being developed by Russia and Kazakhstan jointly. The ‘Ishim’ employs a lot of tech and know-how from the previous MiG-31D ‘satellite killer’, for destroying low orbiting satellites, of which two were tested in the 1980s. This system used a single ‘30P6’ missile hung directly underneath the fuselage of the MiG-31D. This missile was developed by the Almaz design bureau, which also developed the S-300, so maybe there’s a close resemblance. You can read about the two MiG-31 based launch systems here; www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/mini.htm. Incidentally, Globalsecurity state that the ‘30P6’ was developed by the Vympel design bureau.
Has anyone got a picture of the 30P6 missile?
One thing’s for sure, the ongoing development of the’ Ishim’ system by Russia (and Kazakhstan – chief designer Borat:eek: ) should allow the Russians to maintain the ‘know-how’ to develop an air launched anti-ballistic missile system pretty quickly.
Some good pictures of the MiG-31D on these sites. Note the huge end-plates on the wingtips
www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/mig/31/d/mig31d.htm
www.airwar.ru/enc/other/mig31d.html
‘Ishim’ satellite launcher diagram from www.rian.ru
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th January 2007 at 11:25
Wasn’t that a R-37(M)?
No. Neither R-37 nor KS-172 were for ABM use, both were for long range anti AWACS, anti transport, anti MPA, anti JSTARs type missions. (ie large low manouvering targets that are so vital to support operations).
From memory the intention was to have 9M96 missiles on the wing pylons with the belly positions likely to use standard missiles (ie R-33/R-37).
Likely the R-37 and R-37M has progressed to the point where the 9M96 is superflous. Besides the Russians will only very rarely need such a mobile ABM defence… an S-300V system would make more sense for protecting an area over a period of time… airborne defence being nice quick reaction stuff but too expensive to maintain as an ongoing defence system.
By: Levsha - 7th January 2007 at 04:36
Wasn’t that a R-37(M)?
Well, SOC just recently ridiculed the idea that the R-37 might be based on a surface to air missile in another thread. I find that easy to believe. By all intelligent accounts the R-37 is based on the R-33 – which is no big hurdle for the imagination to leap over
But he still won’t tell me what missile the KS-172 is based upon
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th January 2007 at 03:24
Wasn’t that a R-37(M)?
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th January 2007 at 02:19
Not really very new.
There was a Mig-31 test aircraft that carried S-300 missiles as part of testing to see if it could be used as a mobile long range ABM system with the added height and speed of launch the range of the weapon was greatly increased.
By: sferrin - 6th January 2007 at 04:52
Which is why I don’t think this is really intended for defence of the CONUS at all. Rather, it seems pretty sensible in a scenario where the US has established total air superiority over an enemy but is still being threatened by Scuds and similar missiles. Sure there’s the ABL, but that is a project with a lot of technical risks and only a small number of airframes are likely to be purchased – a large number of patroling F-15’s might proove to be more cost effective for the same area covered, depending on how much PAC-3 integration will cost. Or at least as gap-fillers used in conjuction with the ABL.
It’s also a pretty interesting way to give the C-Eagle a new lease of life 🙂
You’re probably right there. I could see them doing a CAP with the standard 4 AIM-120s, 4 AIM-9s, 2 600 gallon tanks and maybe they make a twin side-by-side launcher for PAC-3 on the centerline or something. Just in case. The thing I’m wondering is that with the bigger missiles like Sparrow and Phoenix they generally have them drop away before the motor fires to avoid blast damage to the airframe. I wonder how they would deal with that with PAC-3 as it sounds like they are going to carry it in a pod/cell and fire it from inside. Maybe they develope a cold-launch system like a MANPADS? :confused:
By: Arabella-Cox - 5th January 2007 at 20:10
Sounds like a joke to me. Sure it might be a good idea if you were in the right place at the right time but look at the range of PAC-3 and the time of flight of a ballistic missile launched from a barge. You’d need to keep a lot of Eagles in the air 24/7. Not going to happen.
Which is why I don’t think this is really intended for defence of the CONUS at all. Rather, it seems pretty sensible in a scenario where the US has established total air superiority over an enemy but is still being threatened by Scuds and similar missiles. Sure there’s the ABL, but that is a project with a lot of technical risks and only a small number of airframes are likely to be purchased – a large number of patroling F-15’s might proove to be more cost effective for the same area covered, depending on how much PAC-3 integration will cost. Or at least as gap-fillers used in conjuction with the ABL.
It’s also a pretty interesting way to give the C-Eagle a new lease of life 🙂
By: sferrin - 4th January 2007 at 20:59
Sounds like a joke to me. Sure it might be a good idea if you were in the right place at the right time but look at the range of PAC-3 and the time of flight of a ballistic missile launched from a barge. You’d need to keep a lot of Eagles in the air 24/7. Not going to happen.
Sign In
January 4, 2007 at 7:19 am