Article Archive: Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Air Defense: Air Launched Patriot PAC-3
   Next Article → ARTILLERY: Chinese Artillery Divisions
April 9, 2009: The U.S. Department of Defense is spending $137 million to develop an air launched version of the Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile missile. The $3.3 million PAC 3 has a shorter range (about 20 kilometers) than the 70 kilometers for the PAC 2 anti-aircraft version. A PAC 2 missile weighs about a ton, a PAC 3 weighs about a third of that. The PAC-3 is 17 feet (5.2m) long and 25cm (10 inches) in diameter. At 700 pounds, it is smaller than some of the bombs usually carried by fighter bombers. The flight control software will be modified for launch from F-15 fighters, and attachments designed so the PAC-3, inside a canister, can be hung from the fuselage of the F-15, where a fuel tank usually is, and fired by the pilot.

Launched from the air, the PAC-3 would have a longer range, and be able to knock down ballistic missiles during their launch phase (before they left the atmosphere, turned, and plummeted back to their target below.) The air launched PAC-3 would also be useful against cruise missiles. The air launched PAC-3 should be ready for service within three years.

Next Article → ARTILLERY: Chinese Artillery Divisions
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Herald12345    And that would be why?   4/9/2009 10:04:06 AM
Could it be that somebody looked Gates in the eye and said, we need this option for GUAM  as well as for the next TPD-2?
 
ROTFLMAO.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    So Herald   4/9/2009 11:49:21 AM
You'd be saying that the budget cuts you rail against are actually acceptable?  As this isn't MEADS or a particle beam weapon?  Just ask'n....and I notice it isn't on the F-22...so the F-22 won't be necessary to CAP Guam?  So the 187 F-22's are an acceptable number?
 
Just integrate yur answer/complaints, please.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Different arrows for different things.   4/9/2009 12:28:14 PM

You'd be saying that the budget cuts you rail against are actually acceptable?  As this isn't MEADS or a particle beam weapon?  Just ask'n....and I notice it isn't on the F-22...so the F-22 won't be necessary to CAP Guam?  So the 187 F-22's are an acceptable number?

 

Just integrate yur answer/complaints, please.

The budget cuts are not at issue here. Your abilty to analyze cogently is.  You propped up a poor strawman argument and hoped it would stand here? The F-22 can CAP Guam because it can make the AMRAAM reach with far more shove than the Eagle can. This Eagle PAC III combo like the Typhoon METEOR solution is the second best solution to a time/interval  problem  because it puts the kinetic energy into a rocket that is being cobbled together from a SAM in a desperation effort to fulfill with an Eagle what the Raptor already brings to the table with its supercruise and altitude advantage as SHOVE when it, the Raptor is the first step in a two step AMRAAM launch paradigm.
 
That and the Eagle would have to go to burner to duplicate it.
 
As for the particle beam, that is the ultimate rocket killer and should be funded just for that reason alone. Your attempt to try to justify your argument against this thus fails on all the merits of physical and economic fact. Economically a 25,000 dollar shot of electrons is cheaper than a three million dollar missile. You can also keep shooting with the free electron laser or a lightning gun all through the flight regime of the rocket. The only limiter there is heat burden and power supply. How many three million dollar missiles do you have?   
 
I use this post to illustrate to you what Gates and you are both guilty of, superficial incomplete analysis, and not listening to your technical experts when they tell you what you need or might like to have because of an unforseen contingency.
 
Sort of like telling Gates he might like to have helo capable cheap gun frigates to patrol the backwaters of the earth so that our freighters don't get hijacked.(SARCASM.).

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       4/9/2009 3:41:06 PM
First of all, does anyone really believe the 3 year estimate?
 
Second, this seems like a shameless ploy by the USAF to stay in the BMD game. I think the USAF had a clue that ABL would be cut for some time now, so they have developed alternatives, like this and the NCADE effort.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   4/9/2009 4:28:10 PM
The guy with the intellectual problem is you...you don't integrate well.  So here we have a system that isn't being cut that does ATBM Defense...so whether or no this is a discussion of the BUDGET it would seem reasonable to bring up the budget discussion.  As you were/are convinced that the budget is DISASTER and one of the reasons it was disaster was BMD cuts...which is it, the cuts are disaster, to be distinguished from bad or arguably indifferent, as their appears to be an alternative to both available.
 
Which ignore the question why do I need to CAP Guam again?  What's going to attacking Guam?  More than likely Balistic Missiles, not something that the F-22 and AMRAAM are going to be threatened by.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Even you......    4/9/2009 4:38:08 PM

The guy with the intellectual problem is you...you don't integrate well.  So here we have a system that isn't being cut that does ATBM Defense...so whether or no this is a discussion of the BUDGET it would seem reasonable to bring up the budget discussion.  As you were/are convinced that the budget is DISASTER and one of the reasons it was disaster was BMD cuts...which is it, the cuts are disaster, to be distinguished from bad or arguably indifferent, as their appears to be an alternative to both available.

 

Which ignore the question why do I need to CAP Guam again?  What's going to attacking Guam?  More than likely Balistic Missiles, not something that the F-22 and AMRAAM are going to be threatened by.

should be able to figure out an offset interval!
 
How does a Mach 5 chase missile off a Mach 1 fighter (Its canister launched you can't go supersonic) intercept a TPD-2 in the boost phase again? 
 
You need to defend Guam because of Andersen AFB where the heavy bombers we will use to kill that SAM belt in Fujian are based or can't you read a map?
 
If an F-22 can carry four AMRAAM  missiles to do the job, and the Eagle can only carry one PAC III, why are you arguing economics again? 
 
I mean this is not that hard to figure out dollars or SENSE.
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/9/2009 6:22:15 PM
We certainly don't "need" F-15s carrying PAC-3s to kill Taepodong-2s in boost, although I'm sure the F-15/PAC-3 certainly could be developed into a weapon system that could do that.  If we've decided to destroy a TD-2 in boost, then we could just destroy the TD-2 on the pad instead, because we're at war either way.  North Korean IADS is a joke, and we'd have zero difficulty destroying NorK TD-2s right on the pad with current assets, ranging from VLO F-22s or B-2s dropping gravity bombs through various combinations including F-16s using JSOWs or JASSMs, right on out to B-52s using ALCMs, with plenty of other options inbetween... and then there's the USN to boot.  And there's no way we're sending F-15s with PAC-3s slung underneath over mainland China in order to shoot CSS-5s in boost to defend Guam without a whole lot of war happening first to clear the airspace for them to survive driving right through SA-20 country, so that's not it, either.
 
Granted, having the capability to use the F-15/PAC-3 would give us some degree of flexibility in being able to wait until the last possible moment, and the TD-2s are actually launched, before committing ourselves to overt action by shooting them down--as opposed to blowing up rockets that could be claimed to be "just minding their own business" as they are assembled and fueled on their launch pad(s).  In addition to claiming "self-defense" in either scenario, there certainly could be some political benefit to being able to claim the NorKs fired first.  However, even maintaining an F-15/PAC-3 "Missile CAP" within range of either/both the current two launch pads would be a significant, constant air operation as those F-15s would have to be orbiting quite close to NorK airspace, and therefore would need a constant CAP of their own, plus AWACS, tanker, and RC-135/U-2 support.  That certainly doesn't mean it can't be done, just that it involves much more than just an F-15 carrying a PAC-3.  Obviously we could do it if we wanted to.
 
 
Quote    Reply

rooster       4/9/2009 7:47:19 PM
What could be the range of a PAC-3 launched from a F-15 at 50,000ft flying at Mach1 and destroy a ballistic missile in boost phase?  It seems he F-15 would have to know of an imminent launch and be in the area waiting and be intercepted.  Maybe F-22's could protect the F-15?
 
Quote    Reply