Ilmatorjunta

Pihatonttu kirjoitti:
Leikkimielisesti voisi sanoa, että tekevät siis vähän kuin niitä superteknikaaleja, joiden typeryydellä täällä on naureskeltu.

Ovatpas hölmöjä kun eivät käy täältä tarkastamassa sitä, miten älytöntä gatling -tyyppisten Vulkan -tykkien päivittäminen ilmatorjunnan - ja vähän muihinkin - tarpeisiin on.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Huom. Vulcan on IT-järjestelmä.
 
Tämä on vähän niin kuin ihmettelisi kahden 35mm irtokanuunan kanssa miksei niistä tehdä Gepardia tai Marksmania. Tuollaista kalustoa hommatessa on se ja sama onko sinulla tykki valmiina vai ei. Käytännössä koko roska kaikkine hyvineen on kuitenkin hankittava.

Eli ostetaan vaan it-vulcaneja jos ne katsotaan hyviksi mutta ei kuvitella että Hornetien tykit olisivat siinä hommassa joku oikopolku tai säästökeino. Suurin hyöty tulisi olemassa olevista ampumatarpeista.
 
Rannari kirjoitti:
Käytännössä koko roska kaikkine hyvineen on kuitenkin hankittava.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Hyva juttuhan se Marksman, mutta torni oli niin painava, etta piti alle hommata vaunuja, joita ei ennestaan ollut (puolalaiset tekivat T-vaunuja XL-muotilla, kai siihen kavi moni meilla kaytossa olleiden vaunujen mekaaninen varaosa).
- ei siis ihan tekninen painajainen (huollon kantilta)
- kayttoperiaatteita kai piti hioa lahemmas kymmenen vuotta? Muistelen, etta 70-luvun alussa oli Sotilasaikakauslehdessa kovasti juttuja IT-vaunujen hyvyydesta ja monikayttoisyydesta... oli kirjoittaja varmaan paassyt etenemaan "paattavaan asemaan" kun Marksmaneja ei kai minnekaan muualle myyty ( ja pian kauppojen jalkeen alkoi Gepardien ja vastaavien dumping-myynnit).
 
kertakenttään kirjoitti:
Reippaalla miljardilla aikovat hankkia. Onko vanhoista kaupoista antamaan osviittaa paljon tuolla rahalla saa?
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Yhden patterin/patteriston tai sitä luokkaa. Ei paljon paskan vertaa, siis.

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/20...ase-Patriot-air-defense-system/4281499870328/

E: 3,9 miljardia dollaria siis maksimihinta vientiluvan mukaan. Sisältönä 7 tutkaa ja 7 johtokeskusta, 28 laukaisulavettia, reilu 200 ohjusta... Ruotsi saa samoilla seteillä ehkä yhden patterin tai patteriparin, riippuen dokumentaation ym. arvosta ja ohjusten määrästä.
 
Huhta kirjoitti:
Ruotsi saa samoilla seteillä ehkä yhden patterin
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Kolmea pyydettiin, tieda sitten miten budjettikasittelyssa kavi
1 ilmav. komentokeskukseen
1 Tukholmaa suojaamaan
1 Gotlantiin
 
Ihanan kallista!

Hyvä jos svedut hankkii Parioteja, niistä voipi olla meillekin jotain iloa, varsinkin kun Puolalaiset on samalla asialla liikenteessä. Vai onko jo saaneet puikkonsa, muistaakseni siellä oli merkittävästi isompi hankinta käynnissä .
 
Patriotin tutkajärjestely on kyllä käsittämättömän vanhanaikainen, en ymmärrä järjestelmän ostajia. MEADS ampuu järjestelmän tärkeintä ohjusta (PAC-3) ja yksi tutka pystyy kattamaan 360 astetta. Miksei se myy paremmin?

Korjausliike on onneksi jo aloitettu, mutta uusi tutka on käytössä vasta 2028, jos hyvin käy...

https://www.defensenews.com/digital...es-patriot-radar-concept-awards-due-out-soon/

Going 360 degrees: Patriot radar concept awards due by October’s end
By: Jen Judson   October 10

Barry Pike, the head of the U.S. Army's Program Executive Office for Missiles and Space, details the timeline for launching a competition for a 360-degree radar for the Patriot and the Integrated Air and Missile Defense systems.
WASHINGTON — The Army plans to award within weeks up to four efforts to generate concepts for a missile defense radar capable of seeing 360 degrees, according to Barry Pike, the Army’s program executive officer for missiles and space.

“Before the end of the month, we should have four concept definitions contracts underway, and those should help inform our risk-reduction and prototyping phase that we will go into next,” Pike told Defense News in an interview at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual convention.


“We expect or hope to carry at least three vendors into that depending on how things shake out into that prototyping phase,” he added.

The Army decided earlier this year — after analyzing whether it would upgrade or replace the Patriot Air and Missile Defense System’s radar — that it would hold a competition to procure a new 360-degree, lower-tier air-and-missile defense sensor.

[US Army to hold competition for Patriot radar replacement]

The plan is to begin analysis of materiel solutions in fiscal 2018, a service spokesman told Defense News back in June.

The service has spent years grappling over when and how it will replace its current Raytheon-manufactured Patriot system first fielded in 1982. At one point, the Army planned to procure Lockheed Martin’s Medium Extended Air Defense System as the replacement, but it canceled its plans to acquire the system, opting instead to procure key components of a new Integrated Air and Missile Defense System, or IAMD, separately.


Northrop Grumman is developing the IAMD’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, the command-and-control architecture for the system. The Army also plans to use the Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement missiles in the future system.

Key to the future system is a 360-degree threat-detection capability achieved through a new radar. The current radar has blind spots.

The Army expects the radar it procures to be new, not simply an upgrade to a current radar.

“We believe it will be a new radar, a new capability,” Pike said, that will integrate into IBCS, Sentinel radars, lower-tier missile defense sensors, [the Indirect Fire Protection Capability,] the multimission launchers, all the rest of the components of that system.”

While Pike was reluctant to talk about a timeline for bringing a new radar into existence because the Army needs to be able to get the concept definition contracts underway and enter the risk-reduction phase, he did say: “We are thinking in the mid-‘20s time frame. The 2025 to 2027 time frame is something that we currently see as viable, but we also need to get a little bit more information from industry to see how mature they are.”

The Army believes the fundamental technology to build a radar is mature, Pike acknowledged, but the service wants “to integrate all the piece parts, and you have to integrate with the multiplicity of system that we are trying to pull together into the overall architecture. So generally speaking, those end up being in a fairly comprehensive test program.”

Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have been vocal about a desire to compete for the new IAMD radar, but it’s possible other companies will produce capable offerings.

Both companies swiftly responded to a request for information released in the summer of 2016 asking for possible radar capabilities for a future missile defense system, with the sensor expected to reach initial operational capability prior to fiscal 2028.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
 
Puola halusi MEADS tutkan/ komentokeskuksen Patrioteihinsa, mutta USA ei suostunut myymaan ennen kuin on itsella kaytossa.

Lopputulos on erikoinen, koska patterit ampuvat kolmea eri ohjusta. Tuliko Israelista muutakin kuin ohjuksia, se on jaanyt vahan epaselvaksi.
 
Huhta kirjoitti:
Patriotin tutkajärjestely on kyllä käsittämättömän vanhanaikainen, en ymmärrä järjestelmän ostajia. MEADS ampuu järjestelmän tärkeintä ohjusta (PAC-3) ja yksi tutka pystyy kattamaan 360 astetta. Miksei se myy paremmin?
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Tällä videolla MBDA pomo menee jopa niin pitkälle, että sanoo nykyisen Patriot järjestelmän olevan obsolete. Patriotin vanhanaikainen tutkajärjestely myös mainitaan.

 
Patriotiin vaikuttaa toki turpo-krediitit. Sekä jos kiireellä tarvitaan niin silloin amerikkalaiset voi lainata omiansa. Koska niitä ja saksalaisten oli esim. Turkissa.
MEADsiahan tulee Saksaan, mutta näytöt ei ole niin mittavat vielä.

Ei ostettu toki mekään SAMP/T, mutta Nasams ei ole edes kunnolla vertailukelpoinen.
Jos olisi ostettu niin Ruotsille olisi ollut nyt refu.

Ehkä Saab ujutetaan liiveihin uusimaan Patriotien tutkat ympäri maailmaa?
 
Heinakuussa aiesopimus ja tassa kuussa pitaisi olla lopulliset allekirjoitukset. Tassa naita osatekijoita:
While a Patriot missile costs $4.5 million, a David’s Sling missile costs $450,000.

Marketed abroad under the name “Skyceptor,” David’s Sling is a joint Israeli-US project, with Rafael collaborating with Raytheon, which also produces the Patriot missile system.

USA maksoi aikoinaan viulut, ja siksi Raytheonilla on myos oikeudet tuohon pienempaan (mika ei sitten tarkoita, etteiko niita voisi tulla nykyiselta tuotantolinjalta).
 
"The Armed Forces are voting and it is very important. Then, of course, it is a proven system and there are also in several countries in our immediate area and it increases the opportunity to interact and collaborate with others. But the most important thing for us moderators is that the armed forces approve and there is a danger in a hurry, so it is important that we now get started with the process so that we can get the system in place, "said Hans Wallmark.

A new capacity air defense system can protect Stockholm and important military bases and end up against attacks from aircraft, cruise robots and ballistic robots.

The alternative to Patriot was to buy French / Italian Samp / t which is newer and of proponents considered to be more modern. At the same time, Sweden wants defense policy to be as close to the United States as possible and a purchase of Patriot reinforces that relationship.

But Peter Hultqvist does not want to say that it played a part in the decision.

"This is a decision about talent benefits, that is the basis for the entire decision, and it is also based on what the Armed Forces have made their valuation," says Peter Hultqvist.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=6815933

Eli kiire, koeteltu ja naapuriyhteistyö. Sekä halu vahvistaa yhdysvaltalaisyhteistyötä (oikea syy). SAMP/T modernius tunnistettiin.
 
Huhta kirjoitti:
Patriotin tutkajärjestely on kyllä käsittämättömän vanhanaikainen, en ymmärrä järjestelmän ostajia. MEADS ampuu järjestelmän tärkeintä ohjusta (PAC-3) ja yksi tutka pystyy kattamaan 360 astetta. Miksei se myy paremmin?
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Eiköhän ostajat tiedä mitä ostavat, Patriot on voittanut aika monta kisaa viime aikoina.

Eikä MEADS:in tulenjohtotutka pysty skannaamaan taivasta 360 astetta silloin kun on torjunta menossa, siksi järjestelmässä on myös erillinen isompi etsintätutka.

Raytheonin ehdotus Patriotin tutkapäivitykseksi näyttää tältä (GaN, 360 deg):

Patriot-360-Radar-714x475.jpg


 
Ja vähän sitten Lockheedin lasien takaa :cool:
Assessing 360-Degree Radars for AMD By Dave Berganini - President, MEADS International March 1, 2016

Since 2014, news releases and interviews have touted Raytheon’s company-funded 360-degree radar concept for the Patriot Missile System. Is it as good as it sounds? Only MEADS has successfully developed, integrated, and system-tested 360-degree air and missile defense radars – under contract and to the specifications of three NATO nations. Let’s take a closer look.


Is performance the same on all sides of the radar? Arrays in back of the Patriot radar are 1/4 the size of the main array. So while the new radar stares in three adjacent 120-degree lanes, it doesn’t do so equally. Since the arrays are fixed, performance decreases as beams move to the edge of the array. (The MEADS radars rotate to ensure equal performance in any direction.)


mfc-meads-radar-R4.png



What’s the best band for AMD radar? In the 21st century, threats are more stressing and continue to evolve. The three nations that developed MEADS specified greater performance because the compromise represented by Patriot’s radar is no longer adequate, nor does it allow for future performance growth. UHF provides optimum search capability. X-Band provides optimum track capability. While Patriot’s C-Band does some of both, it does neither as well. (The two-radar MEADS solution is also more difficult for an enemy to jam.)


Is it networked? Fielded AMD systems deploy as standalone batteries, but 21st century AMD leaders want to use launchers, radars, and battle managers as components. A modern system can grow or shrink depending on mission and coverage needs. All sensors contribute to a shared air picture. Patriot’s updated radar still does not provide networking. (Networked MEADS is more survivable, since failure or loss of a radar or battle manager doesn’t knock out an entire battery.)


Is it transportable? The radar is among the heaviest Patriot components. Adding two new arrays to the Patriot radar likely increases its weight. (To address deployment limitations, MEADS radars were specified to be tactically transportable, with capability for quick airlift on C-130 transport planes.)


What about computing capacity? News about the new Patriot radar has been focused on development of the bolt-on arrays, but not on the radar’s processing power. Because of the Patriot’s age and architecture, it relies on an older generation computer. Does it have the capacity and speed to add search and track for an additional 240 degrees? Does it have the ability to dynamically stitch the three array views into a single shared picture? Can it handle tracking from one array to the next? And what changes are required in the Engagement Control Station to make use of the new radar capability? (21st century MEADS was developed to handle current and future threats.)


Does GaN improve reliability and performance? Because it operates with less heat than previous technologies, GaN can significantly improve the reliability in an older radar design such as Patriot. GaN promises a dramatic reduction in cost over current power amp technology. (The newer AESA MEADS radars do not require such improvement, so an upgrade for performance reasons isn’t needed. They were designed to be the most reliable AMD radars in existence. Because they use replaceable transmit/receive modules, the MEADS radars can incorporate GaN technology when the lower cost promise is actually realized.)


How soon can it be fielded? Some reports say that the new Patriot GaN radar could be ready in 2016. This isn’t likely. The MEADS radars took 10 years to develop under contract, and there is no contract for Patriot radar modernization. In the best scenario, a new Patriot radar is five years behind MEADS in development maturity, since large system integration and test efforts remain to be conducted. No government requirements have been applied to Raytheon’s prototype. (Three nations formally approved the MEADS radar designs before they were produced.)


Bottom Line: It took 10 years to develop, integrate, and system-test the MEADS radars. Now, development risk is behind for MEADS. It has yet to be addressed for the new Patriot 360-degree radar design.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
 
Sinun täytyy kirjautua vastataksesi.
Back
Top