Lockheed Martin is boosting production of its Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptor as it awaits a U.S. Navy decision on whether it will buy the missile to arm the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System aboard its warships. While the PAC-3 is very much in demand right now for ground-based applications, the company is confident that it could also fill a very important niche for the Navy, potentially providing a long-term replacement for the widely used Standard Missile-2 (SM-2). Meanwhile, the service has its own growing concerns about keeping up a steady supply of surface-to-air and other missiles during a future high-end conflict, such as one in the Pacific against China.
As we’ve reported in the past, the PAC-3 MSE was tested on land from a Mk 41-derived containerized launcher, which resulted in the downing of 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.
Speaking at the Sea-Air-Space Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, this week, Chris Mang, vice president of strategy & business development at Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control, reiterated the Navy’s interest in the PAC-3 MSE as an addition to its Aegis combat system.
Mang described PAC-3 MSE as a “highly agile Army missile [that was] made to do counter-hypersonic, ballistic missile, and cruise missile defense in various tight envelopes for the Army.” He noted that the missile’s capabilities are only enhanced when it’s put in a maritime context and paired with the Aegis system, which has a lot more power than the Army’s radar systems.
“The Navy was having a real challenge,” Mang added. “They had very good long-range missiles, but they needed a complementary missile to tackle some of the really difficult threats, especially once in close. Think submarine-launched anti-ship missiles that were getting in close very quickly. When you pair this missile with the Navy combat system and radars, it works very well.”
As to whether the Navy will buy the PAC-3 MSE, Mang said that “they seem to be tracking in that direction … we certainly seem to have a lot of interest there.”
Part of this interest is driven by the fact that the PAC-3 MSE is potentially available in significant numbers.
“We’re building 600 a year,” Mang continued. “A lot have been shot in Ukraine. A lot have been shot in the Middle East by both Saudi Arabia and the U.S. Army. All very successful.”
Indeed, the success of the PAC-3 MSE in these theaters can be measured by the fact that it has proven so accurate, Mang said, “that you can actually change the shot doctrine.” Essentially, missile operators now consider that a single PAC-3 MSE is typically good enough to destroy the threat, whereas in the past, using older systems, they would have to shoot two.
“We’ll certainly see a lot of pressure on production,” Mang noted, in light of growing global demand for the PAC-3 MSE, but he considers that the company is “very robust” in terms of ramping up output of the missile.
Production capacity just a couple of years ago was around 250 PAC-3 MSE interceptors a year, while the figure is now around 600. “We’ve been in discussions with the Army about building even more. I will tell you that the line is probably going to continue to accelerate up the ramp. Now, how fast we can do that is to be determined — it’s a pretty complex weapon.”
In the meantime, Lockheed Martin is already working to secure adequate supplies of certain critical components, such as datalinks, which will be required in greater quantities once production ramps up. Even without a Navy buy, there are between six and eight countries all asking for more PAC-3 MSE interceptors, Mang said.
Should the Navy go for PAC-3 MSE, it will get a missile that is complementary to the air defense missiles it already operates.
When it comes to the Standard Missile family, the SM-2s are “obsolescing out,” Mang says, “they’ve been shooting a lot of them.”
Otherwise, there is the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), which is a shorter-range defensive system, and the SM-3 midcourse anti-ballistic missile interceptor. Then there is the SM-6 covering the upper tier, but also a highly versatile missile that can intercept ballistic missiles during their terminal attack stage, as well as air-breathing threats at extended ranges. The SM-6 can also hit targets on land and at sea.
“It’s a good long-range missile,” Mang says of the SM-6.
However, for closer-in threats, the SM-6 presents a challenge in that it is first boosted out to altitude. “You’re going way down range,” Mang observed. “If you want to hit targets down low, you have got to kind of come way downhill and hit it.”
The result is something of a gap in air defense coverage, where the SM-6 has some challenges, especially due to maneuvering threats. It’s in this part of the envelope that the PAC-3 MSE excels, its agility enhanced by its miniature attitude control motors: “You see them as little jets of flame when it comes out of the can,” Mang explained. “We can literally come out of the can and be on the deck in under a kilometer.
“A lot of places the Navy has said ‘I got red or yellow challenges that I can’t deal with.’ This missile does a really good job at that. When you marry them all together, it is very complimentary to SM-6. You’d always want a layered defense, right? I’ll pick the longest shot I can get, but then at a certain point, MSE really starts to outperform in certain envelopes.”
Once again, integrating the PAC-3 MSE with the Aegis system also makes it that much more capable compared with the Army version, which is limited by the requirement for a degree of battlefield mobility.
“Again, I’m not picking on the Army system, but remember, they till it around the battlefield. They got one generator. It’s limited by size, weight, and power. You got a ship with four generators with liquid-cooled systems, right? And what a much more powerful combat system does for that missile turned out to be really good.”
For the time being, Lockheed Martin is offering the PAC-3 MSE as a single missile that will be loaded in any given cell of the Mk 41 VLS. In the future, however, the number of missiles carried in a single hull could be increased through the use of quad packs of missiles.
However, this would require the PAC-3 Cost-Reduction-Initiative (CRI) interceptor to be loaded.
“In the MSE configuration, we cannot quad pack it,” Mang continued. “It’s a little too big, because at the time they developed it, no one was worried about a quad pack. My sense today is no one wants to go back and restart that particular rocket motor line [for the CRI version]. We’ve asked the Navy that several times, and again, they’ve made no decisions.”
While the PAC-3 CRI would allow a greater magazine depth, also a growing concern amid the proliferation of drone and missile threats, the smaller missile translates as reduced performance, including a lower engagement altitude.
“Because the diameter of the rocket motor comes down a fair bit, it’s a little less sporty,” Mang said. “But it depends, right? If they really buy off on this and then slap the table and say, ‘I want a quad pack,’ I can absolutely do it. It’s just engineering and qual[ification] time.”
For the time being, Mang expects the Navy, should it choose to go with PAC-3, to buy the MSE interceptors off the current production line, with the CRI version a possible follow-on choice.
Finally, in terms of costs, a single PAC-3 MSE interceptor is priced at around $4.2 million, according to the Fiscal Year 2025 budget request. This is almost identical to the SM-6, at $4.27 million per round. Meanwhile, the more complex multi-stage SM-3s come in at $12.5 million for the Block IB, and $28.7 million for the Block IIA. The Block IIIC upgrade kits for older SM-2 missiles, which enhance the capabilities of the older Block IIIA and B missiles, each cost $2.5 million.
With the PAC-3 MSE interceptor now proven from the Mk 41-based launcher, Navy interest in what this combination might offer is not surprising, given the growing challenges in the air defense environment. Now we will have to wait and see whether the service follows through on this with an order, which would add yet another customer to the PAC-3 user group and provide Lockheed Martin with a foothold in the naval missile market.
Howard Altman contributed to this story.
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com