Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Sub Brief quoted the Admiral shown at 4.48 as saying they can be twin or quad packed, generally this guy is pretty spot on with his information. Depth of a Strike Length Mk 41 VLS is 7.9m.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
PAC-3 MSE interceptors cost approximately the same as an SM-6 Block IA. They are very expensive, but they have two advantages -
much bigger inventory, much larger volume production.
They also cannot be quad-packed in a Mk.41 VLS. There is some thought that perhaps they might be able to be dual-packed in a Mk.41 VLS cell based on ‘paper napkin’ calculations of their relative dimensions, but the work hasn’t been done and in all likelihood won’t be. The point of this is to give the USN another capable missile they can fire when their SM-2 and SM-6 stocks get low, not boost VLS missile numbers.
PAC-3 MSE were recently test fired from a Mk.70 ground based launcher, which is a 4x cell launcher. That is where the ‘quad-packed’ thing comes from.
According to this video, the PAC 3 can be duel and quad packed into a MK 41 cell. It's the PC3 MSE that can not be quad packed, but will still fit in a MK 41 , does not need the tactical length MK41.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The video in post 9163 confirms the PAC 3 can be quad packed, a huge improvement in ship missile inventory of long range missiles, albeit they are expensive. Just as important, production of PAC 3s is over 500 per year versus SM2 at less than 200. Both missiles will see increased production.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Currently SM2 production is at 100 per year, they are increasing it to 200, as mentioned in the video.
I think its very useful to have a different type of missile to address limitations of having basically everything build around the SM body. A different production line and war stock is also useful.
PAC-3 heritage is from more ballistic missile threats, while SM was more about cruise missiles and aircraft. There have been over 10,000 Patriot missiles manufactured, so in a conflict, some of those might be able to be quickly remanufactured into PAC-3. They tend to be faster than regular SM-2 missiles, so may be more suitable for late engagement of hypersonic or really fast balistic missiles that are more typically used for land attack. NK has Hwasong/Nodong, China has DF-11. Those pre DF-16 are ideal for PAC-3 interception, literally PAC-3 was designed to intercept and has intercepted lots of those missiles.
Something that sits between SM-2/Sm-6 and SM-3.
No disrespect to some guy on youtube, but L-M themselves have said they would need to develop “folding things” to multi-pack a PAC-3 missile into a Mk.41 VLS. It might very well be possible as I said earlier, but USN aren’t funding it because (primarily) it’s not a Navy program. The work hasn’t been done. It’s not integrated and it hasn’t been tested. Maybe it will be one day, but I doubt it.
Lockheed Martin's Aegis Patriot PAC-3 MSE Update - Naval News
Naval News caught up with Lockheed Martin on their Aegis Patriot PAC-3 MSE integration project at Sea Airspace 2023.
www.navalnews.com
Already answered, but ‘the guy’ isn‘t Lockheed Martin who have confirmed development work would be required to enable multi-packing in a Mk.41. It would also require additional integration work and testing. None of which has been done.
They want to be able to deliver the same missile, without modification to either Army or Navy as required and that means 1x PAC-3 MSE per VLS cell for the forseeable future.
Lockheed Martin's Aegis Patriot PAC-3 MSE Update - Naval News
Naval News caught up with Lockheed Martin on their Aegis Patriot PAC-3 MSE integration project at Sea Airspace 2023.
www.navalnews.com
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I thought the video was referring to the PAC-3, not the PAC-3 MSE. So, it is correct that neither version can be quad packed?
Originally they were double packed but they have reportedly now been quad packed.
This will be very interesting to follow, as I imagine this means they can also be integrated into Typhon.
Just reading the LM press release on the PAC 3 MSE, it has a larger motor and larger fins than the PAC 3. Launcher capacity for the MSE is Twelve, versus 16 for the PAC 3, or a single launcher can be configured with six MSE and eight PAC 3.
It doesn't say anything about how many can be packed in a Mk-41 cell.
It doesn't say anything about how many can be packed in a Mk-41 cell.
Patriot is not a missile, but a SAM system which uses a variety of missiles, & there are very big differences between different missiles used by the system. It may be possible to pack four of some Patriot missiles in a Mk 41 cell, but others are too big.
Patriot also, at this time anyway, has no relevance to the RAN. Whether it can or should be quad packed is a discussion for a USN thread - if at all. If they proceed with it, then it might be relevant to the RAN, possibly. In fact Patriot and AEGIS is of limited relevance, given Patriot is not in the Australian inventory.
For me I would hope that’s right but at 5 m long it seems beyond the laws of physics.
An article from Michael Shoebridge pointing out concerns we are on a path to repeating previous mistakes with the GP Frigate program. https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...ilure_by_fixing_a_troubled_start_1033675.html
The question of Patriot is an interesting one for Australia, I think.
i think there is the question of Northern bases hardening, and that surely logically includes longer range air defence.
*IF* Patriot does find its way into naval service, then I imagine the RAN would value longer range anti-Air, and there is perhaps an extra incentive for Australia to consider.
in the wider context of asset air defence, I’m surprised no one seems to mention an ‘Aegis (like)- ashore‘ solution.
i think there is the question of Northern bases hardening, and that surely logically includes longer range air defence.
*IF* Patriot does find its way into naval service, then I imagine the RAN would value longer range anti-Air, and there is perhaps an extra incentive for Australia to consider.
in the wider context of asset air defence, I’m surprised no one seems to mention an ‘Aegis (like)- ashore‘ solution.
Is length the key dimension for quad packing? Surely missile diameter is the key parameter?
PAC3 seems at least 50mm wider than ESSM in the missile body. So I think quad packing currently is probably off the table, but double packing may perhaps possible. Again, I don't think PAC3 is about replacing ESSM. They are for different purposes. You might have 32 ESSM, but only carry 4 or 8 PAC-3.
A 50mm wider missile body would be difficult to fix quad packed into a current Mk41. However, the US and other countries are looking at bigger VLS sizes, so in those it could be quad packed. PAC3 may be a good fit for ships that aren't really ideal for SM-2/Sm-6, or have a weight limitation regarding fully quad packed loads.
Also Australia has a large stock of existing ESSM, and makes control surfaces, body sections, guidance section and is a development and production partner for ESSM. We have nothing for PAC3.
PAC3 won't be any cheaper than any other comparable system and costs are more than 1m a missile generally. Even SeaRAM is a $1m a shot. But for a destroyer or frigate that cost $5 billion, a $1m missile isn't excessive, its cheap. Even if the destroyer fires its entire load out, you are talking probably $100m in munitions expended. Not cheap, and you only have a limited inventory, but not impossible to bare. Sm-3 shots are expensive, like $10m a shot, but they are taking high value targets like hypersonics, BM, sats...
If you are looking for cheap ways to bring drones down, I think 76mm smart rounds might be more useful. Or a UAV with a gun mounted on it. Many of these drones are basically plastic, fiber glass, 6-12 feet wide, 2 cylinder engine etc, cruising at ~<300kmph, a few shots with a 7.62mm or .50 BMG would bring it down. They are often slow and flying pre programmed paths and have no other sensors and very poor situational awareness, so having an airborne UAV with guns mounted and good sensors (but cueing from the ship) would cost cents to bring down a drone. You want to be able to take them down at a distance from your naval platform but they don't really need missiles. Save the missiles for cruise missiles, scud type missiles, manned aircraft etc.
I do think Australia should have a cheap as chips indigenous missile, solid fuel, but self guided munition based around an Australian centric production chain. A chonky boy, designed for long ranged hits against surface/ground/slow moving air targets (maybe tankers, or AEW or bombers, nothing greater than subsonic), something that fills out the VLS volume, but isn't SM-2/SM-6/SM-3. That doesn't really exist in allied inventories. Europe is all short range focused stuff, or really expensive, long range small bag stuff. American stuff is great, but too many missions, agile, long range, stealthy, big hit, but expensive.. fickle supply chains, too high tech.
But with a solid rocket motor, so the costs are very low, very cheap to maintain a large stockpile, and you can build quickly in numbers like 10 or 50 a day.. Australian ships may not even carry them during peacetime. They are a mid war munition, not a first shot munition. Literally a 7m long telegraph pole, maybe 2 stage and on the second stage a two stage solid motor capacity to improve range and have burst speed.
On the frigates, I am very hopeful for the Japanese ships to be selected, however, the high levels of integration and uniqueness of their mast and systems integration, means it may have increase cost, time and risk compared to other competitors. I do think the ships need to be around 5000t and carry 32 VLS, top flight radar and sensors, ASW capability, and have both small crew requirements, but also excellent crew comfort and workload for crew.
But the Koreans seem to be the only one with the money and interest in buying into the Australian market. I was hoping Japan or Korea or Spain may have made a move/partnership on CIVMEC, something like Acciona, or Obayashi....
The Frigate is just one project.
Not at present. The work hasn’t been done on the missile or the launcher, it hasn’t been tested and so on.
it ‘might’ be able to, but no-one is funding it…
Interesting article bob. The GPF program is not without its complexities and I think it is very hard to read the wind on which way the government will decide to go. Each of the four options has its own unique plusses and minuses, none is a perfect match. I have elected to not bet my money on the winner as it is too complicated.
I will say that I think any of the four can be successful (or equally unsuccessful), so I am personally agnostic as to the eventual choice of platform.
In regards to Japan. There is always the question of what may have happened had we gone with the Soryu submarine, perhaps it could have been a sliding door moment. Maybe the relationship would have been better than with Naval Group. Maybe not. I do think that regardless, we still would have found ourselves at the same point of switching to a nuclear platform, so in the end the outcome would have been the same.
I did suggest something very similar a long time ago, but in the context of more point defence local produced VLS silo filler.
it was a discussion at that time of plausible ammunition strain in high output scenarios where preferred types were expended and RAN ships would’ve been struggling from resupply sourced from the US.
anyway it was universally dismissed as a dumb idea, and we are in a period of production re-arming & maybe recently announced local domestic missile manufacture might mitigate this somewhat anyway??
I thought the Meko option basically provided a 32-cell most compatible solution?