If you remember from my post a couple of weeks ago when the President’s defense budget was presented, my first question was; Over the last six months, how many SM-2/3/6 have we fired in the Red Sea? Is that more or less than 125? I still don’t have a firm answer on that. This continues to nag at the back of my mind. I’m not saying I’m hearing footsteps, but I’m hearing a few footsteps.
Another thought. Companies are expanding factories in fixed locations, not building new ones. What are we doing to provide for the defense of those fixed targets? You figure we have 2 sub builders, 1 CVN builder, and half a dozen(?) missile facilities. What if some of those 25,000 military aged male Chinese who entered illegally last year had nefarious intent? What if they were just going to lase for a SLCM? What is the plan for defending our defense plants? (Hint, none). So, in one fell swoop, we could have zero industrial base to resupply our Navy at sea.
SM-6 is 4mil a pop and the PAC-3 is about the same. How many of each of these have been built? Is there a possibility the cost could go down with volume purchases? Items like these with long term usage should be lower in cost the longer they are in production.
1. "For a decade now, the Navy has been paying Raytheon to build 125 of the missiles per year at a cost of slightly more than $4 million per missile; the fleet has around 600 in stock. The production rate should increase slightly in the coming years."
The math would seem like we expended half our annual production over 10 years?
2. the PAC3 has a shorter range, but seemingly 1 big edge for the Navy. Learn to shoot them and Army stocks become a deep reserve.
I'm wondering what the self-life is for the SM-2 Mk70 booster motor. I know many of the older Mk12's were aged out and were used as boosters for sounding rockets.
1. This is confusing without a breakout of army and navy missiles, cost, dimensions, performance, target sets, stock, production rates current and achievable.
2. Whatever answers those are, they need a RMA in cheaper missiles. Take a zero off the prices. Two zeroes if you want to deal with swarms. Cheaper may also mean smaller and thus more magazine capacity. Maybe it won't be as fancy but for a drone you don't need fancy. At a sufficient price point they have added value as multirole weapons ie for surface and shore attack. Stick a JDAM/APKWS/DAGR like kit on a Grad class rocket.
As a certain saying goes "quantity has a quality all its own." Our growing number of abversaries understand this very well. We are already begging our foreign users for Patriots to refill Ukraines dwindling number of Patriot systems. Hypersonic Kinzhals destroy hideously expensive Patriots regularly. Patriots kills of the vastly more capable Kinzhal not in evidence except Ukranian propoganda. With the horrific loss rate in Ukraine how many rounds would the USN actually get in the end?
PAC3 is a small anti-missile round with limited range. It is not ideal for fleet defense. It's fine as a 2nd tier to get leakers, but you should try to kill incoming missiles (and especially aircraft) further out. PAC2 is the long range round. I think they may still be made for export, but the US hasn't bought any in years.
PAC3 does not exist in enough numbers to fight a major war. I suspect Ukraine has fired well over 10% of the US inventory, possibly over 20%. PAC2 numbers bought as far back as you can easily track though on-line procurement numbers are not great either, but PAC2 procurement started before 1990. I suspect the majority of the various versions of PAC2 rounds in storage need the same sort of certification as the older Standards need.
This is regretably just Ukranian propoganda. No evidence has been presented that any Kinzals were shot down...anywhere. We DO know after firing a whole launchers worth the Patriot system was scrape metal. The Patriot just does not have the capability to deal with Hypersonic weapons...
Another thought. Companies are expanding factories in fixed locations, not building new ones. What are we doing to provide for the defense of those fixed targets? You figure we have 2 sub builders, 1 CVN builder, and half a dozen(?) missile facilities. What if some of those 25,000 military aged male Chinese who entered illegally last year had nefarious intent? What if they were just going to lase for a SLCM? What is the plan for defending our defense plants? (Hint, none). So, in one fell swoop, we could have zero industrial base to resupply our Navy at sea.
Gee, they would NEVER do that, would they?
Now upgrade PAC-3 with a surface attack option....
SM-6 is 4mil a pop and the PAC-3 is about the same. How many of each of these have been built? Is there a possibility the cost could go down with volume purchases? Items like these with long term usage should be lower in cost the longer they are in production.
a couple of comments:
1. "For a decade now, the Navy has been paying Raytheon to build 125 of the missiles per year at a cost of slightly more than $4 million per missile; the fleet has around 600 in stock. The production rate should increase slightly in the coming years."
The math would seem like we expended half our annual production over 10 years?
2. the PAC3 has a shorter range, but seemingly 1 big edge for the Navy. Learn to shoot them and Army stocks become a deep reserve.
I'm wondering what the self-life is for the SM-2 Mk70 booster motor. I know many of the older Mk12's were aged out and were used as boosters for sounding rockets.
The sun comes up in the West - Right?
Everyone seems to be in love with those automated anti-sub warfare systems, as shown in the video.
1. This is confusing without a breakout of army and navy missiles, cost, dimensions, performance, target sets, stock, production rates current and achievable.
2. Whatever answers those are, they need a RMA in cheaper missiles. Take a zero off the prices. Two zeroes if you want to deal with swarms. Cheaper may also mean smaller and thus more magazine capacity. Maybe it won't be as fancy but for a drone you don't need fancy. At a sufficient price point they have added value as multirole weapons ie for surface and shore attack. Stick a JDAM/APKWS/DAGR like kit on a Grad class rocket.
And then there is the (lack of) convenient, quick turn-around VLS re-load capability which Sal has hilighted previously. Lots here to lose sleep over.
Related: https://strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/20240326.aspx
As a certain saying goes "quantity has a quality all its own." Our growing number of abversaries understand this very well. We are already begging our foreign users for Patriots to refill Ukraines dwindling number of Patriot systems. Hypersonic Kinzhals destroy hideously expensive Patriots regularly. Patriots kills of the vastly more capable Kinzhal not in evidence except Ukranian propoganda. With the horrific loss rate in Ukraine how many rounds would the USN actually get in the end?
Not expecting an answer, but how many of the Red Sea intercepts have occurred within ESSM or NASAMS range?
don’t worry, fat lloyd is on the job!
Great, but can they be reloaded at sea?
PAC3 is a small anti-missile round with limited range. It is not ideal for fleet defense. It's fine as a 2nd tier to get leakers, but you should try to kill incoming missiles (and especially aircraft) further out. PAC2 is the long range round. I think they may still be made for export, but the US hasn't bought any in years.
PAC3 does not exist in enough numbers to fight a major war. I suspect Ukraine has fired well over 10% of the US inventory, possibly over 20%. PAC2 numbers bought as far back as you can easily track though on-line procurement numbers are not great either, but PAC2 procurement started before 1990. I suspect the majority of the various versions of PAC2 rounds in storage need the same sort of certification as the older Standards need.
This is regretably just Ukranian propoganda. No evidence has been presented that any Kinzals were shot down...anywhere. We DO know after firing a whole launchers worth the Patriot system was scrape metal. The Patriot just does not have the capability to deal with Hypersonic weapons...