The Navy has PATRIOTS now?

This is getting out of hand.

https://www.twz.com/sea/successful-patriot-interceptor-test-from-naval-vertical-launcher-is-a-big-deal

>Lockheed Martin has test-fired a Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptor from a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System-derived containerized launcher and used it to down a mock cruise missile. This combination offers a valuable additional air and missile defense option for use in a slew of existing and future launchers, and not just on ships.

>Lockheed Martin also says that it "validated" the PAC-3 MSE's ability to communicate with an AN/SPY-1-series radar using Aegis last June. In the U.S. Navy, AN/SPY-1 radar variants are the main sensors linked to the Aegis Combat Systems on Ticonderoga class cruisers and, at the time of writing, all but one of its Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

Also, here’s a good description of how PAC3 guidance works.

>As designed, the PAC-3 MSE, as well as earlier PAC-3 types, uses whatever initial cueing it receives to fly first to a designated point where the intended target is projected to be headed using its built-in inertial navigation system guidance package. Mid-course guidance updates are provided to the missile via datalink. Once it arrives at the set location, the interceptor switches over to its active radar seeker.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is Patriot better than Standard?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No idea, but they're more expensive than all but the highest end SM-3.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why not PAC-4's? They are supposed to be a lot cheaper and full production should have been started yesterday.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >PAC-4
          It's PAAC-4, but yeah it was SUPPOSED to be ~20% of the cost of a PAC-3, with improved performance.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      PAC-3 MSE is HIGHLY optimized against ballistic missiles. Where as the standards are meant to be more of a generalist with subvariants that specialize. There was an SM-2 with BMD capability but it was dropped in favor of the SM-6, which has uses beyond just defense so using PAC-3 helps conserve those rounds while increasing defense against ASBMs. Here's the real neat thing, the ESSM quadpacks into a Mk.41 and is 254mm in diameter. The PAC-3 is 290mm in diameter and has pretty modest control surfaces, and while it's much longer and won't fit into tactical length cells they MAY be able to dual pack MSE and get an expanded magazine capacity without adding more cells.

      This would work great on constellations that only have 32 cells. They have the EASR/SPY-6V4 that's smaller than the flight III burkes but equivalent to the currently SPY-1D. Allocating 8 cells for ESSM, and 8 cells for a dual-pack MSE gives you 48 SAMs plus the remaining 16 cells for standards. When operating under the protection of Burkes (using more advanced SM-3/SM-6 and larger standard inventories) the FFGs could bring almost 64 SAMs. PAC-3 has a much higher production rate than the SM-6 (500+ to 125 annually IIRC) while still giving great terminal BMD capability and the only trade off is the range you can intercept threats. It's another arrow in the quiver and options are always good when you face a saturation attack from ASBMs, cruise missiles, and drones.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        SM-6 production is almost tripling
        But otherwise, yeah.

        > FY 2025 allocates a portion of what is required to increase SM-6 Block IA/IB production capacity up to 300 missiles per year by FY 2028
        and it's set to increase from 125 to 200 by 2025/6.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          based, the SM-6 is really good.

          https://i.imgur.com/Ugz3ATB.png

          This exists for the MDA and for extra flexibility in case a whole bunch of new missiles becomes necessary on short order. A lot more PAC-3s get built than Navy missiles. They are still quite capable though.

          [...]
          Dual packing PAC-3s required much larger changes to the missile than Lockheed were willing to make. Unless someone really pushes for that it won't happen.

          >dual packing PAC-3s required much larger changes to the missile than Lockheed were willing to make.
          Yeah I just checked into that and saw they decided one per cell was better. The quote from lockheed was
          >I think there’s a lot of studies of what you can do. Our big thing is to keep the missile the way it is. So you have to get into things like folding things and other stuff if you wanted to try to increase the capacity within one cell. What we want to do is work and partner together. So one missile comes off the line and can go to the Army, the Navy and it’s not unique to that to that it’s just one way to go
          Shame, but I get keeping production simple and avoiding two variants. I still think it's worth looking into as a concept. The DDGX is planned for it's own payload module, we still don't know what that means since last month the new report specifically stated the removed of 32 cells for 12 hypersonics was planned for certain ships, meaning the payload midsection addition seems to be entirely different. Would be really great to see them get some use out of a modified Mk.57 placed into a traditional magazine set up. 57s allow for larger missiles with greater thrust so a more effective SM-6 block could be developed for those specific ships.

          Sounds to me like DDGX is shaping into three flights. Standard 96 cell versions, 64 cell versions with 12 hypersonic weapons (zumwalt compliment/replacement) and 96 cell versions with the mystery payload option that could possibly get them very high VLS counts (Ticonderoga replacement). I really hope these homosexuals don't frick this program up.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Remember DDG(X) is also supposed to have the DPM which is a section of the hull that can be configured and slotted into specific hulls within the class to make more specialized variants of the destroyer. So you could have a DPM with an additional 64 VLS cells, or hypersonic missiles, or a larger drone aviation facility, or maybe a large hospital space, etc.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This exists for the MDA and for extra flexibility in case a whole bunch of new missiles becomes necessary on short order. A lot more PAC-3s get built than Navy missiles. They are still quite capable though.

      PAC-3 MSE is HIGHLY optimized against ballistic missiles. Where as the standards are meant to be more of a generalist with subvariants that specialize. There was an SM-2 with BMD capability but it was dropped in favor of the SM-6, which has uses beyond just defense so using PAC-3 helps conserve those rounds while increasing defense against ASBMs. Here's the real neat thing, the ESSM quadpacks into a Mk.41 and is 254mm in diameter. The PAC-3 is 290mm in diameter and has pretty modest control surfaces, and while it's much longer and won't fit into tactical length cells they MAY be able to dual pack MSE and get an expanded magazine capacity without adding more cells.

      This would work great on constellations that only have 32 cells. They have the EASR/SPY-6V4 that's smaller than the flight III burkes but equivalent to the currently SPY-1D. Allocating 8 cells for ESSM, and 8 cells for a dual-pack MSE gives you 48 SAMs plus the remaining 16 cells for standards. When operating under the protection of Burkes (using more advanced SM-3/SM-6 and larger standard inventories) the FFGs could bring almost 64 SAMs. PAC-3 has a much higher production rate than the SM-6 (500+ to 125 annually IIRC) while still giving great terminal BMD capability and the only trade off is the range you can intercept threats. It's another arrow in the quiver and options are always good when you face a saturation attack from ASBMs, cruise missiles, and drones.

      Dual packing PAC-3s required much larger changes to the missile than Lockheed were willing to make. Unless someone really pushes for that it won't happen.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      More comparable in range to an ESSM but is better for ballistic missiles. It would in theory provide a secondary/tertiary line of defense against terminal ballistic missile threats or could even be used to provide defense to smaller ships that may not be suited to SM-3 or SM-6 missiles.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's ESSM range for ballistic missile threats, it is basically double ESSM range for more traditional non-ballistic airborne targets.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If Patriot wants to LARP as a Standard missile there's one range you're forgetting. What's PAC-3's range in a surface attack role?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah but a PAC-3 is 10x the cost of an SM-2 for very similar performance. It would be a waste.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Makes sense. A large order from the navy should drive costs down significantly and vise versa with army procured standard missiles. Load up the USS carney with PAC-3 and send her back out

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    makes sense to standardize missiles.

    France already uses its SAMP/T ground-launched AA missiles on its frigatea too as 'Aster'.

    Diehl is working on integrating IRIS-T SLM on ships too, although that's a short/medium-range missile.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is moronic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cope

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's afraid...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm indeed afraid of corruption and moronation that would result in inferior Army missiles unsuitable for a naval environment being put on ships. The Navy has the greatest ABM system afloat and there's no need for PAC-3s on the water. SM3, SM6, SM2, ESSM, CWIS. That's our system. The Army has a completely different system that's more suitable for being landbased, for engaging targets overland. The two don't mix.
        Like how the Tomcat aircraft and Phoenix missile were purely Navy systems and that how it should be
        Of course, leftytroon tourists who have zero military knowledge wouldnt understand

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >CWIS
          RIM-116 RAM has more or less replaced CIWS except on legacy boats that won't be in service long enough to bother replacing with SeaRAM/RAM launchers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            CIWS stands for close in weapon system, and that includes the RAM missiles which are very short ranged. don't conflate CIWS with the Phalanx guns

            >Everyone who thinks having extra options is neat is trans and that's somehow supposed to be bad
            >I know better than absolutely everyone else and my opinion should be law
            How about you just chill the frick out, gramps? There's nothing wrong with this.

            This is just Lockheed cutting in on Raytheon you dumb fricking zoomer.
            Army missile on ships... There's a reason that it wasn't done.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Sure, but no one calls it a RAM CIWS, they call it a RAM launcher or SeaRAM if it's an all-in-one unit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                that anon is right. Even the USN refers to Searam as a type of CIWS (https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167555/searam-close-in-weapon-system-ciws-anti-ship-missile-defense-system/)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Everyone who thinks having extra options is neat is trans and that's somehow supposed to be bad
          >I know better than absolutely everyone else and my opinion should be law
          How about you just chill the frick out, gramps? There's nothing wrong with this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and that's somehow supposed to be bad
            Cope.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well there's also an US land based Aegis system with SM-6's in Europe.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but it's using naval radars and fire control systems as well as the same vertical launch tubes you'd find on a USN ship.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Squidbro you sound upset.
          This is a function and feature test of viability and connections with various naval radar suites.
          Meaning offshore support can provide firing solutions if groundborn radar doesn't see it.
          Additionally in case of shit goes really far south, you have an additional alternative.
          There's 0 reason to be upset by this.
          >t. prior chairforce boyo

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >frick interoperability, who needs that shit
          >gatekeeping weapons systems between forces is way manlier!

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Army missiles unsuitable for a naval environment
          Source?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's a fricking missile you knuckledragging moron. Make it work and quit b***hing.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Like how the Tomcat aircraft and Phoenix missile were purely Navy systems and that how it should be
          should tell that to the Iranians in the Iran Iraq war.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >should tell that to the Iranians in the Iran Iraq war.
            You mean the fricks that lost some 19 Tomcats to Soviet-built trash?
            Yeah. Tomcat is a Navy system, meant to engage Russian bombers carrying long-range anti-ship missiles at long range, hopefully killing them before they release said ASMs. They're not optimized for engaging in air superiority dogfights overland while dodging SAMs, which is why they only achieved something like a 7 to 1 ratio against the enemy, instead of ∞ as it should be.
            So thanks for providing me an example of why you don't use Navy systems in the Army/Air Force or vice versa.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    maybe we should figure out out-at-sea rearmament first.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    PAC-3 MSE seems like an odd choice for the Navy. SM-6 has is also active-radar guided but has twice the range. I guess I don’t mind if it’s a part of a cross-service interoperability project ie making use each others’ arsenals for extra flexibility or something. As long as the Navy continues to use the Navy’s systems and not gimp themselves for budgetary reasons than it’s cool.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      PAC 3 missiles are like 1/4 the mass/cost of sm6 and are hit to kill. It makes sense as a cheaper, less capable ballistic missile optimized option. A handful of SM3s cost as much as a goddamn f35

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The most expensive SM-3 is like $10-15m

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Wasnt last released flyaway on the cheapest f35s around 80mil? So pretty close to a handful of 15mil missiles

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Budgeting is a funny thing. In 2019 just prior to covid the USAF procured 56 F-35As for 5.267 billion or around 94m per plane (that includes spare parts/upgrades as always with US military budget documents). So the plane itself may have been that cheap when you removed the added cost for those things. In 2023 they procured 41 F-35As for 4.56 billion or around 104m per plane. Part of that price increase is the reduction in the buy because of shit flinging over software and part of it was supply chains, covid caused delays in some of the production lots. B/C variants are still more expensive. Locksneed needs to iron out block 4 and get it's unaccepted airframes off the lot. When block 4 is fixed the military will likely start getting 60-70 airframes per year and after a lot or two the price should drop back down to 80-90m

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It could be a useful capability against Chinese AshBMs. SM3s are very capable but also very big and expensive. PAC3 is smaller and can probably be quad packed in a Mk41 cell. If they are concerned the chinks may try for ballistic missile saturation attacks then packing more PAC3s which are still perfectly good against shorter ranged BMs may be the solution.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When the frick are we giving these to Taiwan?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is why I love America. We frick up a lot, but we also actually use peace-time to try and find new ways not to frick up, like not stove-piping our missile stockpiles to single platforms and practicing inter-service cooperation. "Joint" is a beautiful word.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How do you separate the men from the boys in the Navy?

    With a crowbar!

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >can dual or quad pack them into a Mk 41
    neat

    what's the range for PAC3 against aircraft? i can only find it against ballistic missiles

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      nope

      https://i.imgur.com/Ugz3ATB.png

      This exists for the MDA and for extra flexibility in case a whole bunch of new missiles becomes necessary on short order. A lot more PAC-3s get built than Navy missiles. They are still quite capable though.

      [...]
      Dual packing PAC-3s required much larger changes to the missile than Lockheed were willing to make. Unless someone really pushes for that it won't happen.

      >Dual packing PAC-3s required much larger changes to the missile than Lockheed were willing to make. Unless someone really pushes for that it won't happen.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        says otherwise

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Does he have a timeline on lockheed making the modifications?

          Last I heard lockheed basically said it was gonna be a ton of work.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          where does he say that at? I haven't had time to watch a full hour video yet. The last most recent source I read on dual packing was when I quoted lockheed here

          based, the SM-6 is really good.
          [...]
          >dual packing PAC-3s required much larger changes to the missile than Lockheed were willing to make.
          Yeah I just checked into that and saw they decided one per cell was better. The quote from lockheed was
          >I think there’s a lot of studies of what you can do. Our big thing is to keep the missile the way it is. So you have to get into things like folding things and other stuff if you wanted to try to increase the capacity within one cell. What we want to do is work and partner together. So one missile comes off the line and can go to the Army, the Navy and it’s not unique to that to that it’s just one way to go
          Shame, but I get keeping production simple and avoiding two variants. I still think it's worth looking into as a concept. The DDGX is planned for it's own payload module, we still don't know what that means since last month the new report specifically stated the removed of 32 cells for 12 hypersonics was planned for certain ships, meaning the payload midsection addition seems to be entirely different. Would be really great to see them get some use out of a modified Mk.57 placed into a traditional magazine set up. 57s allow for larger missiles with greater thrust so a more effective SM-6 block could be developed for those specific ships.

          Sounds to me like DDGX is shaping into three flights. Standard 96 cell versions, 64 cell versions with 12 hypersonic weapons (zumwalt compliment/replacement) and 96 cell versions with the mystery payload option that could possibly get them very high VLS counts (Ticonderoga replacement). I really hope these homosexuals don't frick this program up.

          saying that they didn't want to modify for dual-packing to keep the production lines open
          >https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2023/2023/04/lockheed-martins-aegis-patriot-pac-3-mse-update/
          The source is two months old though, would be very based if they changed their mind for dual-packs I think it's worth it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That *is* odd, then. I guess it goes back to production rates, with it being faster to steal production that the Army might not be fully using rather than try to speed up naval SAM production any faster than they already are.

            It might just be as simple as "we need more of anything we can get our hands on". Which would say something about the state of USN planning over the last 20 years.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you have a timestamp for where he says it? I didn't notice it in there on a listen, but could have just been not paying attention at that moment.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't they have Aegis missiles?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So, the USN wants a quad-packed MRBM interceptor? Interesting. It kinda fits in between what ESSM and SM-6 can do, while still allowing for a deeper magazine like ESSM. I also wonder if this is partly in order to have multiple production lines available to restock SAM inventories after belatedly realizing that they hadn't been buying enough missiles for current threats.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sadly doesn't appear it will even dual-pack. They could do it but apparently that requires modifying the missiles and making things "fold" according to lockheed and it seems more prudent to get the capability out to the navy rather than spend time on modifications and R&D. It also keeps the supply chains open and running at the currently higher rate. I'd be interested to see if they could dual-pack into the Mk.57s without modification since they're physically a larger cell tho

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So oddly enough, to get PAC-3 to work with the SPY-1 radar they had to make a modification for S-band radar fire control that the standard missiles use, but the Zumwalt (with Mk57 VLS cells) has the SPY-3 radar which is X-band, and the regular Army PAC-3 MSE fire control is done with X-band radar. So theoretically it would be even easier to get PAC-3 in a MK57 on Zumwalt working compared to the Burkes.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Zummies slinging IR-CPS at China while providing BMD with a deep magazine from dual-packed MSEs for a surface action group is unfathomably based

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah realistically you'd want another platform providing broader search/track as the Zumwalt's radar isn't really designed for that (it was supposed to have SPY-3 and SPY-4, but they only installed SPY-3 and added a software mode that allows it to do the functions the SPY-4 was meant to do)
            But worst case scenario it should still manage okay solo.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Apparently some of the Zumwalt upgrades is actually replacing the SPY-3 with the SPY-6V3. Sounds like they're going to slap the volume search S-band on and add the current gen X-bands the burkes use if they haven't already with all the shit they added to the topside so far, at least until the FXR program produces something useful.
              >https://news.usni.org/2022/11/28/navy-exploring-surface-strike-upgrades-for-zumwalt-destroyers
              >https://breakingdefense.com/2022/11/navy-eyeing-zeus-an-upgrade-program-for-the-zumwalt-destroyers/

              The amount of work and effort the Navy has put into just these three ships makes me think they see a ton of promise in the design. I really wouldn't be shocked if the DDGX ends up a more streamlined Zumwalt with a conventional VLS layout. I'm pretty sure they haven't yet ruled out tumblehome designs yet.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The amount of work and effort the Navy has put into just these three ships makes me think they see a ton of promise in the design
                it is certainly strange how much effort they put into the class despite there only being like two.
                Speaking of, whatever happened to the rail gun? Last I checked they managed to get the rails to last 100s of rounds, then it seemed like it all went silent on that front (the Zumwalt is supposedly the only smaller ship that could equip a railgun)

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Cancelled because we can't have nice things, coilguns are better anyways

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >coilguns are better anyways
                aren't coilguns velocity limited? in any case they'll have way less range than a railgun

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                IIRC coil guns are limited by the switching rate for your magnets, railguns are limited by the rails melting at hypervelocity, and technology has gotten really good at flipping switches

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The amount of work and effort the Navy has put into just these three ships makes me think they see a ton of promise in the design
                it is certainly strange how much effort they put into the class despite there only being like two.
                Speaking of, whatever happened to the rail gun? Last I checked they managed to get the rails to last 100s of rounds, then it seemed like it all went silent on that front (the Zumwalt is supposedly the only smaller ship that could equip a railgun)

                US railgun program was canned back in 2021, in the meantime japan has started their own railgun program, though it's a 40mm projectile intended for ABM and similar roles, not at all like the US envisioned 200 mile+ 5" artillery-type railguns.
                AFAIK the US is peripherally interested and it's being included in discussions on Pillar 2 AUKUS tech sharing.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Railguns for long range fires is one of those things that's a solution looking for a problem IMO. A lot of it was just justification for budgets during the iraq/afghan era before anti-ship missiles proliferated and range got crazy. A working railgun tomorrow would find itself outranged by shore batteries that would need to be dealt with by air prior to bombardment, and if you're already doing that you might as well just bomb everything you would have used the railgun for.

                The way the USN envisioned it made it extremely niche. Once all anti-ship threats are suppressed, you could support troops up to 200 miles inland for cheaper than you could with tomahawks, but that begs the question why you wouldn't just upgrade your armies own organic tubes and do the same thing for even cheaper and distributed on the battlefield instead of concentrated on a high value ship. The ERCA's XM1113 rocket assisted shell was able to strike 70-80km and the sub caliber 1155 nearly 110km, there's also work into ramjet shells which NAMMO claimed to hit 150km. I'm a big proponent of a quad-packed cruise missile anyways so that's an option too, one that works fleet wide as well with no physical refits.

                All that said, the railgun approach for terminal missile defense is extremely interesting. Like this anon said here

                [...]
                US railgun program was canned back in 2021, in the meantime japan has started their own railgun program, though it's a 40mm projectile intended for ABM and similar roles, not at all like the US envisioned 200 mile+ 5" artillery-type railguns.
                AFAIK the US is peripherally interested and it's being included in discussions on Pillar 2 AUKUS tech sharing.

                Going off the Japanese style approach. If you had a hypothetical railgun based CIWS, compared to a 20-30mm gun system you have orders of magnitude more accuracy, range and power. If it was a hit to kill type of projectile the rounds themselves could be still be pretty modest in size and likely provide substantially more stowed kills. You would have secondary surface warfare applications like plinking small boats. Compared to missile based CIWS it's still faster and has greater capacity while being cheaper per round. Railgun missile defense + RIM-116 compliments extremely well.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It doesn't need to have the correct radar band, it's receiving mid course corrections via data link until it switches on its own radar.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did you know that Navy has P A T R I O T S?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Navy is so big, it has everything!

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Explain these different missiles and acronyms you're all arguing about. Assume I know nothing but "America big and good, thirdies fake and gay".

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The navy has their own navy missiles designed for the Mk41 vertical launch system, and designed to work with naval radars and fire control systems.
      SM-2/SM-3/SM-6 (Standard Missile-X)
      The army has their own army missiles designed for the MIM-104 Patriot missile defense system using army ground-based radars and fire control systems.
      PAC-2/PAC-3/PAAC-4 (Patriot Advanced Capability-X and Patriot Advanced Affordable Capability-4)
      This test was an army PAC-3 MSE missile (modified for naval radars/fire control) fired from a Mk41 VLS and using the SPY-1 naval radar proving interoperability so in a pinch the navy can draw from army stocks.

      Similarly, the Army has the Typhon launcher which can fire the naval SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles (pic related)

      So yeah, just the US proving they can share some things between the branches depending on operational needs at the time.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        if there's portability, meaning competition, what stops them from developing a standard? cost of refitting?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nothing besides these systems have been developed over decades from earlier less capable systems and have only just NOW reached a point where they can offer some level of interoperability, so sure maybe in the future a standard can be developed, but sometimes the navy needs something the army doesn't or vice versa, and sometimes that mean different missile diameter, length, etc that might not match the standard.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So it's like the different missiles in Armored Core 6 where some are vertical and some aren't?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cute

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >SM-6
      Gives you very long range defense against aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles + some surface attack options but isn't produced in the quantity needed for a high intensity naval war yet. Best all around naval SAM for the USN but it's expensive.
      >SM-3
      very high end missile for shooting down ballistic weapons, low production numbers, very expensive, not standard fleet-wide.
      >SM-2
      baseline missile for aircraft and cruise missiles, much cheaper and more numerous than an SM-6, when deployed together SM-2 and 6 compliment each other for long/medium range anti-air.
      >ESSM
      shorter range with very high capacity (4 to a cell), optimized for closer defense against very high performance cruise missiles. This is what you spam when something gets through your SM-6/2
      >RAM/SeaRAM
      even shorter range point defense missile, optimized again for high speed cruise missiles but can also swat small boats. High capacity when it's the 21 round version

      You'll notice how most of the capability to shoot down ASBMs is concentrated on the SM-3/6 (and some versions of the 2). All are lower in number and higher in cost, there isn't really a secondary option that you can spam against ballistic missiles at short range. That is where the army PAC-3 MSE comes in, slotting in between the SM-2 and the ESSM. Its in a higher production rate than SM-3/6 and still very optimized for ballistic missiles so it compliments the SM-6 and allows that missile to perform it's other missions without jeopardizing ballistic missile defense. The only drawback is that it's pretty expensive, but a modified version (if the navy wanted to) would fit two rounds per cell and give a much deeper magazine for countering massed attacks

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    About time, they can shoot down """hypersonic""" after all.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lol , an ukranian made ... good propagando though

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They produce 500-600 PAC-3 per year and only 125-200 SM-6 per year. Not a bad decision.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *