Interesting bits on missile defense in this week's AvWeek.

That’s definitely possible, I seem to remember that it consists of 24 steel slugs or something like that. While a dense warhead would mean that there’s little space to be gained by changing it, 70kg are 70kg and certainly represent plenty of opportunities for saving weight. Perhaps the margin gained by lightening it considerably (or getting rid of it altogether) on MSE would be big enough to allow for this mysterious reduction in overall missile weight in addition to compensating for the larger motor?

I dunno, 70kg is pretty big for a 300kg missile. ESSM packs a 39kg warhead, 9M96 has just 24kg and Aster even 13kg. All of those SAMs weigh in the 280 to 330kg range.

Infact, 70kg is so large that I’m still not quite sure whether to believe the figure, “lethality enhancer” and all. I mean, 70 pounds would still be plenty compared to its peers. Do you have any good sources that suggest a smaller weight?

None. The only thing I’ve been going on is that the “bang” when it goes off seems relatively small compared to conventional warheads and they’ve never really referred to it as a “warhead”. I wonder if it’s small and very dense, say mostly heavy metal fragments for shredding things with just enough explosives to spread it out a bit and let the missiles velocity do the rest.

AFAIK PAC-3 just has a “lethality enhancement” device. Not even enough to warrant calling it a warhead.

I dunno, 70kg is pretty big for a 300kg missile. ESSM packs a 39kg warhead, 9M96 has just 24kg and Aster even 13kg. All of those SAMs weigh in the 280 to 330kg range.

Infact, 70kg is so large that I’m still not quite sure whether to believe the figure, “lethality enhancer” and all. I mean, 70 pounds would still be plenty compared to its peers. Do you have any good sources that suggest a smaller weight?

If they think the HTK system is accurate enough, maybe ditch the warhead altogether? Also, more advanced and lighter avionics can sometimes make a significant difference in weight as well.

A smaller warhead would also be a possibility, the PAC-3 warhead is pretty damn big for a missile that size (compare to the similar Aster and 9M96…).

AFAIK PAC-3 just has a “lethality enhancement” device. Not even enough to warrant calling it a warhead.

A smaller warhead would also be a possibility, the PAC-3 warhead is pretty damn big for a missile that size (compare to the similar Aster and 9M96…).

Yeah I’m sure about it, but MSE is only 3kg lighter:)

Weird. Maybe they went to a composite airframe? :confused:

You sure about that? I’m not sure how you add a bigger airframe and more fuel and get a lighter missile. :confused:

Yeah I’m sure about it, but MSE is only 3kg lighter:)

Another Interesting thing is MSE missile will be lighter than current PAC-3 missile.

You sure about that? I’m not sure how you add a bigger airframe and more fuel and get a lighter missile. :confused:

My source Jane’s Missile Rocket System, I think it is updated couple years ago. In my opinion 22km range for max. range to intercept SRBM like target. It is logical to expect more range for high flying aircraft. Another Interesting thing is MSE missile will be lighter than current PAC-3 missile.

Pic looks photoshopped.

Thats because they are artists representations.:rolleyes:

Hardly surprising news considering that the Russian counterparts (9M96 & 9M96M) of PAC-3 have 40 and 120 km reach respectively. The new ranges seem to be more logical.

They are much heavier missiles however.

1. Apparently the range of PAC-3 is more like 40-60km rather than the 20kms that’s been given practically since day 1. (The longer range could be because against an air-breather the PAC-3 can fly a semi-ballistic “shaped trajectory”. )

2. PAC-3 MSE’s motor, in addition to being larger than the basic PAC-3’s also is a two-pulse motor for better end game performace.

3. AvWeek states that one PAC-3 MSE fits in the same space as a four-pack PAC-3. LM has always stated that it would fit in the same canister as the current PAC-3 which is why the MSE has folding wings and fins.

Hardly surprising news considering that the Russian counterparts (9M96 & 9M96M) of PAC-3 have 40 and 120 km reach respectively. The new ranges seem to be more logical.

Can’t believe that MSE takes as much space as a quad-pack.

I’m guessing AvWeek is wrong on that one. The reason LM went throught the trouble to give MSE folding fins is so that it WOULD fit in the current 4-per-cell configuration.

Not really surprised that KEI goes one-one. That would put it even closer to the current GBI.

Even closer than what? KEI’s size hasn’t changed, I think they just figured it might be more practical than trying to shoe horn two of them onto a trailer as it’s probably in the 20,000 – 25,000lb range.

And with GBI gaining a second stage the reach of the whole system seems to have grown considerably.

It didn’t gain a stage, the Poland configuration LOST a stage. GBI is currently a 3-stage missile but they don’t need that much range as Iranian missiles would fly practically over Poland so the 3rd stage is removed. Russia seems to be clueless on this detail.

A few of these sounded fishy (wouldn’t be the first time AvWeek screwed something up).

1. Apparently the range of PAC-3 is more like 40-60km rather than the 20kms that’s been given practically since day 1. (The longer range could be because against an air-breather the PAC-3 can fly a semi-ballistic “shaped trajectory”. )

2. PAC-3 MSE’s motor, in addition to being larger than the basic PAC-3’s also is a two-pulse motor for better end game performace.

3. AvWeek states that one PAC-3 MSE fits in the same space as a four-pack PAC-3. LM has always stated that it would fit in the same canister as the current PAC-3 which is why the MSE has folding wings and fins.

4. Apparently KEI is only one to a trailer rather than two to a trailer that’s always been shown to this date. So basically one giant, cold-launched missile on a trailer. Does anybody remember that ATK was looking at a surface-to-surface version of this missile? First flight secheduled for next summer.

5. A 2-stage version of GBI (the configuration for Poland) is suppose to be flight tested next year as well.

I always understood the published PAC-3 ranges as something like the max vertical intercept altitude, mushrooming accordingly (but not much) for a cross-shot intercept.

Can’t believe that MSE takes as much space as a quad-pack. Would be totally unacceptable given the published weight and range. Would need more space than a THAAD, and that thing is 50% heavier. And it’s also not consistent with what LMCO says.

Not really surprised that KEI goes one-one. That would put it even closer to the current GBI. And with GBI gaining a second stage the reach of the whole system seems to have grown considerably.

Looking at the size of the missile, it was always very apparent max range should be upward of 50km. there’s many reasons why various ‘sources’ said it’s around 15-20 km. Firstly, US seldomly actually gives out real, useful figures for their battle systems. They just say “upwards of 50 km range for amraam, upwards of 25 knots for virginia class sub, in excess of 300 km range for e-3 radar, etc” Naturally, real figures are always higher.

Also, we all know that max range for a missile doesn’t equate to maximum effective range. So while a pac-3 missile may reach 60 or so km, its performance aenvelope gainst various types of threats probably varies greatly.

I just re-checked my archive and more acuretly basic PAC-3 has range about 15km; MSE has about %50 percent more and MSE’s range is about 22 km. PAC-3’s max speed is 1700 m/s and MSE’s will be definetly more (because of more powerful engine) which means better ABM capability.

What sources are in your archive?

I just re-checked my archive and more acuretly basic PAC-3 has range about 15km; MSE has about %50 percent more and MSE’s range is about 22 km. PAC-3’s max speed is 1700 m/s and MSE’s will be definetly more (because of more powerful engine) which means better ABM capability.

Some sources -like jane’s missile system- claims that basic PAC-3 missile has about 16km range, and MSE missile has more %20-25 range. That means a little more than 20km. Altough PAC-3 missile system is short ranged, the missile launchers can be dispersed in wide area, so all over coverage is probably close to those S-300 series.

Wron the S-300PMU-2 has a 125 Mile range, but by the time the missile tracks and engaes the target, it (the target) will be around 105 miles away from the launch site.

A few of these sounded fishy (wouldn’t be the first time AvWeek screwed something up).

1. Apparently the range of PAC-3 is more like 40-60km rather than the 20kms that’s been given practically since day 1. (The longer range could be because against an air-breather the PAC-3 can fly a semi-ballistic “shaped trajectory”. )

2. PAC-3 MSE’s motor, in addition to being larger than the basic PAC-3’s also is a two-pulse motor for better end game performace.

3. AvWeek states that one PAC-3 MSE fits in the same space as a four-pack PAC-3. LM has always stated that it would fit in the same canister as the current PAC-3 which is why the MSE has folding wings and fins.

4. Apparently KEI is only one to a trailer rather than two to a trailer that’s always been shown to this date. So basically one giant, cold-launched missile on a trailer. Does anybody remember that ATK was looking at a surface-to-surface version of this missile? First flight secheduled for next summer.

5. A 2-stage version of GBI (the configuration for Poland) is suppose to be flight tested next year as well.

Pic looks photoshopped.