MEADS: air view
(click to view full)
The Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program aimed to replace Patriot missiles in the United States, the older Hawk system in Germany, and Italy’s even older Nike Hercules missiles. MEADS will be designed to kill enemy aircraft, cruise missiles and UAVs within its reach, while providing next-generation point defense capabilities against ballistic missiles. MBDA’s SAMP/T project would be its main competitor, but MEADS aims to offer improved mobility and wider compatibility with other air defense systems, in order to create a linchpin for its customers’ next-generation air defense arrays.
The German government finally gave their clearance in April 2005, and in June 2005 MEADS International (MI) formally signed a contract worth approximately $3.4 billion to design and develop the tri-national MEADS system. In February 2011, however, events began to signal the likely end of the program. Since then, the US Administration has been battling with Congress where there is little support for a continued American participation.
MEADS: The System
MEADS concept
click for video
MEADS was intended to match up against foreseeable enemy aircraft over the next 30 years, as well as stealthier and/or supersonic cruise missiles, UAVs, and even ballistic missiles. The system will incorporate its own 3-radar set, along with networked communications for use as either a stand-alone system, or a component of larger air defense clusters that include other missiles.
The core vehicle for the US MEADS program appears to be the USA’s new FMTV 6×6 trucks. These 5-ton capacity vehicles will carry the radars, containerized Tactical Operations Center (TOC), launcher, and reload packs. FMTVs can be carried in C-130 aircraft, and MEADS International has already tested some of the prototype systems for fit. Italian and German test vehicles have used their own national truck brands, and the Germans in particular appear to leaning to larger vehicles.
During the MEADS SDD phase, MEADS International was asked finalize designs for equipment and complete their integration into the system. The system’s 6 major equipment items are:
US TOC, ItAF launcher
(click to view full)
[1] Netted and distributed Battle Management, Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (BMC4I) Tactical Operations Center (TOC). The 3-workstation TOC shelter is a joint project of EADS, Lockheed Martin, and MBDA. It can be carried by 3 different trucks to meet national preferences, and adapter systems could probably be built to widen the number of compatible wheeled and/or tracked vehicles.
[2] Two 360-degree, Multifunction Fire Control Radars (MFCR). The X-band MFCR employs active phased array technology, using transmit/receive modules developed in Germany. It also incorporates advanced identification-friend-or-foe (IFF) sensors with improved capabilities.
[3] Surveillance radar. These “Low Frequency Sensor” UHF radars will have self-diagnostic capability, to ease the maintenance load caused by replacing 1 Patriot radar with 3 improved MEADS radars.
[4] Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) certified missile round based on the current PAC-3 missile, augmented by Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) technologies that will give it greater range, and possibly greater performance.
[5] Light weight launcher, mounted on a truck with a built-in winch to auto-load the missile packs.
[6] Reloader truck.
MEADS components
click for video
Lockheed Martin’s PAC-3 MSE is still a hit-to-kill missile, with upgraded batteries, an 11-inch dual-pulse solid fuel rocket motor, a thermally hardened front end, a enlarged fins and better control surfaces to improve maneuverability, upgraded guidance software. The desired end result is a longer range missile that is more agile, and able to counter both tactical ballistic missiles and more conventional threats. It’s also being designed to cost less than existing PAC-3 missiles, and time will tell if it succeeds.
The missile has survived MEADS’ demise, and US Army budget documents indicate that production will begin in FY 2014. It will be added to existing PATRIOT batteries, and current plans call for 1,680 missiles to be produced.
MEADS: Mobility and Employment
Harpy UAV’s dive attack
(click to view full)
As attack drones like Israel’s anti-radar Harpy long-loiter UAV, loitering precision missiles, and improved anti-radar missiles like the Italo-American AGM-88E AARGM come into service, air defense assets will also find themselves needing to use “switch-on/ switch-off” and “shoot and scoot” tactics to survive. This was certainly the pattern used by one successful battery in Serbia which not only survived the NATO air campaign, but used its 1970s-era SA-3 missiles to down an American F-117 stealth fighter. The idea is to have MEADS elements or other air defense systems “plug and fight,” joining in or breaking off from a common-picture air defense network as needed, in order to protect or reposition themselves.
Existing Patriot systems have some mobility to provide this kind of self-protection, but they aren’t really designed to maneuver with attacking US forces. Indeed, during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the Patriot system’s heavy HEMTT trucks and other large equipment found themselves hard-pressed to keep up with the US military’s rate of advance.
Early C-130 test
(click to view full)
MEADS would be better than that, but it isn’t really a forward air defense system for mobile units. It was originally envisioned to be transportable by C-130 or equivalent medium transport aircraft, able to roll off the transport and begin operations very shortly thereafter. At present, most elements are designed to be compatible with the USA’s 5-ton capacity FMTV 6×6 trucks; depending on their final weight, FMTV-mounted MEADS components may even be transportable as underslung loads on medium-heavy helicopters like the CH-47 Chinook, CH-53 Super Stallion, and the notional Franco-German Heavy-Lift Helicopter. Even the container-sized Tactical Operations Center (TOC) is being designed to be able to drive on and drive off the C-130, or serve as an underslung load on CH-47/ CH-53 class helicopters.
Cutting set-up time and adding air-transportability should help MEADS improve on the Patriot system’s deployability into theater, and mobility within it. Even so, MEADS will retain mobility limitations of its own, due to the terrain limits inherent in all trucks. German forces will have options like their short-range LeFlaSys armored vehicle system for full front-line mobility, while US forward units on the move may end up relying on equally short range Stinger-based systems like hand-held FIM-92 missiles, Avenger Hummers, LAV-II ADs, or Bradley M6 Linebackers for short-range air defense. Note that a number of Bradley M6 and Hummer Avenger systems have been converted out of the air defense role, weakening US forward-based air defense options.
MEADS is designed to operate behind those forward defense systems, and its broader goal was an open architecture system that can plug into broader defensive systems, working with shorter-range systems like the USA’s SLAMRAAM/CLAWS vehicle-mounted AMRAAMs, Italy’s Spada 2000, etc.; with wider surveillance systems like the JLENS tethered blimps; and with longer range theater-defense systems like the Lockheed/ Raytheon/ Northrop-Grumman THAAD, IAI/Boeing’s Arrow-2, or even Raytheon’s naval SM-3 missiles, connected to a common view of the battlefield via Co-operative Engagement Capability. That open architecture’s first big test, will be much simpler, however: integrating a vertical launch version of the European IRIS-T short-range air-to-air missile alongside the longer-range, radar-guided PAC-3 MSE.
Plug-and-Fight
click for video
MEADS International claims that this emphasis on open architecture, plug-and-fight system capabilities in MEADS’ requirements has led to a MEADS Tactical Operations Center (TOC) that can support other MEADS stations, or even other air defense systems. Normal operations require only 2 of the 3 workstations, leaving an additional seat that lets the MEADS TOC be used as a wider task force level TOC, complete with German, Italian, U.S, and NATO command and control functionality. Germany planned to use this capability to integrate MEADS with ground-launched IRIS-T short range infrared guided missiles.
Lockheed Martin is even touting the MEADS BMC4I TOC as a key component of the US Army’s competition for an IBCS system that would integrate all anti-aircraft defenses in a sector.
MEADS: The Program
MEADS fire unit
(click to see whole)
In September 2004, the NATO MEADS Management Agency (NAMEADSMA) awarded MI a Design & Development letter contract valued at approximately $2.0 billion + EUR 1.4 billion (about $3.7 billion total at the time). Because Germany hadn’t signed yet, the initial letter contract involved preliminary funding to proceed on a “limited basis,” under the authority of the American-Italian MEADS Design and Development Memorandum of Understanding. Germany’s acceptance and signature in April 2005 enabled NAMEADSMA to sign the full MEADS D&D risk-reduction contract.
The MEADS venture is being led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and includes MBDA Italia, French-German aerospace firm EADS and Germany’s MBDA-LFK (LenkFlugKorpersysteme). Together, these companies have focused an international engineering team in Orlando to develop systems and technologies for the MEADS program. Development work was allocated in accordance with national funding: USA 58%, Germany 25%, and Italy 17%.
Lockheed Martin: Orlando, FL; Dallas, TX; Huntsville, AL; and Syracuse, NY.
MBDA-LFK: BMC4I control suite, launcher, Surveillance Radar; and Multifunction Fire Control Radar (MFCR) elements at plants around Munich, Germany.
MBDA’s Italian operating company MBDA Italia will perform work on the BMC4I, MFCR, and launcher/reloader elements in Rome, Italy.
MEADS MFCR radar
(click to view full)
The original 1990s plan for MEADS was for production by 2007, but the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding resulted in a late start, and envisioned System Design & Development until 2014. The US Army intended to see benefits before that 9-year period was over, revising its MEADS acquisition strategy to combine management, development, and fielding of both the MEADS and PATRIOT systems. Under this spiral development approach, the Patriot/PAC-3 system would evolve toward MEADS through the early introduction of the MEADS Major End Items (MEI).
Key milestones for MEADS included a systems requirements review, followed by subsystem and system-level preliminary design reviews from about February 2007 to August 2007. Subsystem critical design reviews (CDR) were finished in 2009, followed by a system-level CDR that finished in 2010. A series of 9 flight-tests were planned from 2011 – 2013, and deployment was scheduled for 2018.
That date, and indeed MEADS’ entire future, appear to be Mission : Impossible. By 2009, the US Army had examined its budgets, and declared that it didn’t want the system. They also added a long sting of extra requirements, involving expensive integration with back-end command and control systems. The US Missile Defense Agency might have picked MEADS up instead, but by 2011, MEADS production date had slipped to 2018 at the earliest with all the new requirements, and the Pentagon had reservations about MEADS ability to meet even that delayed target. The program’s cost estimate was around $4.2 billion, and revised estimates threatened to push it even higher. In response, the USA moved toward ending the program at the end of the Design and Development MoU. Later in 2011, Germany also announced that it would stop at the end of the MoU, as part of their ongoing budget austerity program.
Lockheed Martin has pinned some hopes on its eventual revival if tests go well, and interest from Poland and Japan may yet save the program, but that has to be viewed as a long-odds proposition.
If Not MEADS, What?
Aster-30 launch
(click to view full)
In MEADS’ absence, the US Army intends to continue relying on its existing PATRIOT batteries, with some system upgrades and the new PAC-3 MSE missile. The MEADS LFS surveillance radar, developed under a separate contract with Lockheed Martin, may be the next PATRIOT addition.
Germany and Italy would have several options, if they wish to continue air defense modernization. MEADS will finish its reconfigured development program, but it will do so with key technologies unfinished.
One option would be to finish MEADS and buy it. Italy would like to field a single MEADS battery around Rome, as the best point defense system they can afford. Drumming export interest elsewhere is critical, and they’ve reportedly received some interest in a European Follow-On Program (EFOP) from Poland and Japan.
NASAMS launch
(click to view full)
If that fails, Germany has options of its own. One possibility would be to take the same approach as the USA, and upgrade their PATRIOT batteries. They’re already in talks to do so, and would like to add some MEADS technologies, just as the USA is doing. If they do, the BMC4I command system and links to IRIS-T SL/SLS missile launchers are likely to join whatever systems the USA integrates with PATRIOT.
Likewise, Italy could simply delete the requirement for a MEADS battery, and rely on their high-end modern SAMP/T Aster-30 systems.
If Germany wanted to reach for more range than MEADS, and better ballistic missile defense than PATRIOT, they could buy EuroSAM/MBDA SAMP/T systems of their own as a new customer. Adding Germany to create a customer core of France, Germany and Italy would improve export prospects in Europe and abroad, while offering useful industrial spinoffs as the system becomes the core of Europe’s missile defense. SAMP/T’s down side is its high cost, a potentially fatal problem given the Euro-zone’s fiscal woes and Germany’s budget austerity. On the other hand, Iran’s continued development of longer-range missiles and nuclear weapons is likely to continue ratcheting up the pressure for European missile defense. If Europe decides not to rely wholly on America’s “phased adaptive approach” of off-continent THAAD systems and land-based SM-3 missiles, SAMP/T would be the logical choice.
Another option for Germany would be to sacrifice ballistic missile defense capability, and field less expensive replacement systems like the AIM-120 AMRAAM-based NASAMS from Kongsberg and Raytheon, already employed by Dutch, Norwegian, and Spanish forces within NATO. NASAMS already employs the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile used by the Italian and German air forces. It can be armed with missiles like the short-range IRIS-T SL which Germany intended to deploy as part of their MEADS systems, or extend overall range by adding the RIM-162 ESSM that serves on German ships. To date, however, NASMS installations have been fixed sites. Mobility is possible, but some work would be required.
Contracts & Key Events
Beyond 2011, PAC-3 MSE related contracts will be covered under DID’s general PATRIOT program coverage, as the missile gears up for production beginning in FY 2014.
FY 2013
Germany and Italy pursue EFOP follow-on, may have partners; MEADS cruise missile test is a kill; PAC-3 MSE missile aces high-low intercept test, MEADS wants its last test to be harder.
October 21/13: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces another successful test at White Sands, NM using the MFCR radar. Whereas the first test in April consisted of the (easy) tracking of a small aircraft, this time the result is more significant as the target was a 20 ft Lance tactical ballistic missile (TBM). Next month there is a final, more momentous test scheduled to wrap up 2013, which will combine the interception of a TBM with an air-breathing target. Source: LM release: “MEADS Multifunction Fire Control Radar Tracks Tactical Ballistic Missile for First Time.”
Test launch #1
(click to view full)
June 19/13: Testing. During NATO’s Joint Project Optic Windmill (JPOW) exercises in May-June 2013, a MEADS tactical battle management command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (BMC4I) tested its ability to operate with other NATO systems. That’s important, because Germany, Italy, and others would need to use MEADS with NATO’s overarching command and control systems, in order to be most effective against ballistic missiles.
It was something of a lab test, and also somewhat limited. MEADS demonstrated the ability to transmit, receive and process Link 16 messages, as well as “other elements of threat engagement and target intercept.” It needs Link 16 and full threat engagement and target intercept data sharing. Lockheed Martin.
June 18/13: Testing & Future Plans. After the successful high-low test of PAC-3 MSE missiles mounted on a PATRIOT system (q.v. June 7/13), MEADS wants to use the same kind of challenging test for its last scheduled full-system test, with the 2 targets arriving almost simultaneously and 120 degrees apart, and 2 launchers participating together. That’s outside the PATRIOT’s capabilities, but proving MEADS this way means that the added cruise missile drone and accompanying test changes need to be funded. Which means they have to ask the USA, Germany, and Italy.
The Europeans may be interested in paying, even if the USA isn’t really sure what it wants to do with MEADS. That kind of demonstration would help their European Follow-on Program (EFOP) get traction with partners like Poland, and talks to lay out an EFOP plan are expected this fall. As things stand, it looks like the Europeans will get the BMC4I control centers to form the core of any further testing and development, a fire-control radar each, and 2 launchers. The United States really wants the surveillance radar. Aviation Week | Military.com.
June 16/13: Germany. Raytheon’s VP of Integrated Air and Missile Defense, Sanjay Kapoor, tells Bloomberg that Germany is discussing an upgrade of its own PATRIOT systems, and wants to incorporate elements of MEADS after spending all that R&D money. Bloomberg.
June 7/13: MSE Splash 2. The improved PAC-3 MSE aces a big test at White Sands Missile Range, NM, killing both a tactical ballistic missile (TBM) target and a cruise missile. The missile is fired as part of a PATRIOT system, as opposed to its more advanced MEADS counterparts.
The TBM was assigned 2 ripple-fired missiles, but the 1st hit so #2 self-destructed. Missile #3 took out the BQM-74 jet-powered target drone. Preliminary data indicates that all test objectives were achieved. Lockheed Martin | Raytheon.
May 15/13: Export interest. Aviation week quotes Italian National Armaments Director Lt. Gen. Claudio Debertolis, and Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control EVP Rick Edwards, to confirm that 2 new nations are interested in MEADS. One of them is Poland, and the other is said to be Japan.
Poland is in the process of building a national air and missile defense system, and MEADS offers them a very strong air defense system with a BMD point defense option. Beyond its performance premium over PATRIOT, MEADS can also offer workshare benefits from early involvement.
Lt. Gen. Claudio Debertolis adds that Italy would like to deploy a single MEADS battery around Rome, as the most capable BMD solution that Italy can afford, given its poor fiscal situation. When one counts MBDA’s Aster-30 missiles deployed by Italian Horizon Class ships and SAMP/T army units, Rome could have a 2 layer BMD system. Aviation Week.
April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. MEADS gets no FY 2014 funding, as expected. The $400.9 million budgeted in FY 2013 is designed to finish development, and meet all contractual obligations.
PAC-3 MSE missile production would begin with a budget of $540.5 million, covering 56 missiles plus long-lead time items for FY 2015′s 72 missiles. DID budget coverage.
April 9/13: Testing. MEADS tests continue under the development program, and Lockheed Martin continues to highlight progress in hopes of drumming up interest. During a recent test that tracked a small test aircraft near Syracuse, NY, MEADS’ UHF Low-Frequency Sensor radar succeeded in cueing its companion MFCR X-band fire-control radar, via the MEADS Battle Manager.
It’s a very basic test. Upcoming tests in a NATO exercise, and firing test #2 at White Sands missile range, will be much more significant. Lockheed Martin.
March 28/13: The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2013. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. With respect to the “Patriot/Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) Combined Aggregate Program (CAP) Fire Unit,” the report pegs funding from all parties through FY 2013 at $3.3255 billion, including $781.9 million from the Pentagon during FY 2012 and 2013.
Development of the system support vehicle, MEADS network radio, and reloader has been cut, focusing efforts on the 360-degree MFCR fire control radar; near-vertical launcher; and battle management system. Program officials cite all 3 as having met or exceeded predicted performance. So, which technologies are likely to find their way into other programs, other than the PAC-3 MSE missile? The volume search radar is cited as the leading candidate, followed by the near-vertical launcher, and the cooling technology used for its rotating phased array radars.
The system’s final test in late 2013 will involve a ballistic missile, against a MEADS system that accompanies the MFCR with a low-cost (just 50% of T/R arrays) version of the surveillance/ volume search radar design.
March 26/13: Politics. MEADS survives another Senate vote, with $381 million included in the Continuing Resolution to finish development. It’s the usual argument: the contention that cancellation would cost as much as finishing funding, while eliminating all of the associated jobs early and preventing the Army from picking up some MEADS technologies for future use.
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste adds an interesting wrinkle, leaking a confidential Pentagon report that says it might not have to pay termination costs. It cites the 2005 MoU clause that makes MEADS activities subject to “the availability of funds appropriated for such purposes.” If Congress cuts off funding, does that mean the Army can exit the program with no penalty? Sen. Kelly Ayotte [R-NH] led the charge to reapportion MEADS funding to pay for operations and maintenance. Sens. Chuck Schumer [D-NY-LMCO], Senate Appropriations Chair Barbara Mikulski [D-MD], and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] worked to keep Ayotte’s amendments from ever coming to the floor, believing that if they did, they’d probably pass.
In response, Sen. Ayotte has placed a hold on Alan Estevez’s nomination to be the next Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. She contends that MEADS was funded even though the NDAA prohibits such MEADS funding, via a provision that prevents the Pentagon from funding systems that won’t ever reach the battlefield. Sen. Ayotte in New Hampshire Sentinel Source | CNB News | Defense News Intercepts.
Jan 29/13: Italy & Germany letter. The German and Italian defense ministries send a formal letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, pressing the USA to continue MEADS funding through development. Excerpts:
“The results of the Design and Development (D&D) phase of the MEADS program remain vital for both Germany and Italy as they will be the basis for our future Air and Missile Defense System Architecture…. If the US does not fulfill its funding commitment for 2013, Germany and Italy would need to interpret this as a unilateral withdrawal. Under the terms of the MoU, Germany and Italy expect formal notification of the US intent to withdraw…. In a first estimate the current US position results in an economic damage to Germany and Italy of more than 400 Mio. US$…. In addition, there are wider implication of the US withdrawing or breaking the MoU and this would set a bad precedent for future transatlantic cooperation in principle.”
See: MEADS AMD [PDF].
Nov 29/12: Intercept. A partial MEADS configuration with a networked MEADS battle manager, a lightweight launcher firing the PAC-3 MSE, and a 360-degree MEADS Multifunction Fire Control Radar (MFCR) intercept and kill an MQM-107 target drone simulating a cruise missile.
This is MEADS’ 1st intercept test; a 2nd is planned for late 2013. Lockheed Martin | MEADS, incl. more photos etc.
Cruise missile intercept
FY 2012
MEADS: ground view
(click to view full)
Aug 21/12: US Army Brig. Gen. Ole Knudson, Program Executive Officer Missiles and Space, said during a conference that the surveillance radar is the piece of MEADS most worth salvaging. The Army has already turned the PAC-3 MSE missile into its own program, so perhaps he means “the next piece of MEADS most worth salvaging.” AviationWeek.
July 2012: Difficult funding. So far this fiscal year, reviving support in the US Congress for the program has been rocky. The Administration asked for $400M in its February budget request. In response, the House voted a bill that would prohibit obligating or expending funds for MEADS. Later the Senate Armed Services Committee concurred. In its statement of policy [PDF] issued in June in response to the House NDAA FY13 bill, the OMB wrote that it:
“strongly objects to the Committee’s decision to omit funding for MEADS. If the Congress does not appropriate the funding in the FY 2013 Budget request, there is a high likelihood that this action would be perceived by our partners, Italy and Germany, as breaking our commitment under the Memorandum of Understanding. This could harm our relationship with our Allies on a much broader basis, including future multinational cooperative projects. It also could prevent the completion of the agreed Proof of Concept activities, which would provide data archiving, analysis of testing, and software development necessary to harvest technology from U.S. and partner investments in MEADS.
SecDef Panetta wrote to SAC Chairman Inouye to ask for his support. That seemed to help as the Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee maintained $380M for MEADS funding in its markup. However, given far from universal support in the Senate and opposition in the House, this will be hard to push through the eventual bill, whenever that happens given the likelihood of a Continuing Resolution in the fall. Scenarios to terminate MEADS were already floated in a CBO report on deficit reduction [PDF] and by the Pentagon (see Feb 14/11 entry) in early 2011.
July 9/12: MSS-M. Lockheed Martin deploys an 18-wheeler rig with its MEADS System Stimulator – Mobile (MSS-M) to White Sands Missile Range, NM. Its’s a way of reducing costs, and lowering risks, both of which are critical to a program whose funding is running down, with no buyer in sight.
Without MSS-M, they’d be limited to hardware-in-the-loop simulations in a laboratory environment. With it, they can do the same work in the field, running simulations and checking performance by the same live systems that will be used in firing tests. They will be very busy as the first MEADS target intercept test, scheduled for later in 2012, approaches. Lockheed Martin.
June 12/12: Testing. The 1st MEADS power and communications unit hass finished acceptance testing in Germany. The truck-mounted power and communications unit provides power for the MEADS fire control and surveillance radars. It includes a diesel-powered generation unit. A separate commercial power interface unit permits radar operation using commercial power (50 Hertz/60 Hertz). Lockheed Martin.
April 19/12: Testing. The 1st MEADS X-band Multifunction Fire Control Radar (MFCR) has begun system-level testing with a MEADS battle manager and launcher at Pratica di Mare AFB near Rome, Italy. Lockheed Martin.
Feb 22/12: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces that they’ve begun integration testing on the 3rd completed MEADS battle manager at its facility in Huntsville, AL. This one will be used as part of the ballistic missile intercept test planned for 2013 at White Sands Missile Range, NM. The other 2 are already supporting system testing at Pratica di Mare AFB, Italy and Orlando, FL.
Nov 17/11: The 1st full MEADS firing test successfully engages an “over the shoulder” target approaching from behind at White Sands Missile Range, NM. The test used the PAC-3 MSE missile, lightweight launcher and BMC4I battle manager, and the nature of the test required a unique sideways maneuver from the missile. Since the threat was not an actual target drone, the missile’s self destruct was triggered at the end. Lockheed Martin.
1st full firing test
Nov 10/11: Testing. In a simulated test at at Pratica di Mare, Italy, the MEADS BMC4I battle manager demonstrates the “plug and fight” concept, including attaching and detaching the launcher from the MEADS plug-and-fight network; configuring and initializing the MEADS launcher and simulated sensors; performing track management functions, threat assessment and identification; and transmitting a valid launch command to the launcher.
NAMEADSMA General Manager Gregory Kee adds that “Because of its advanced capabilities, there is international interest in MEADS.” Technicaly, that’s already true, due to its program structure. The question is whether there’s interest from an outside country with the funds to integrate MEADS into an existing air defense command-and-control framework, conduct further tests, and begin manufacturing. MEADS’ current publicity campaign is partly designed to help it find that buyer – if that buyer exists. Lockheed Martin.
Nov 3/11: The National Armaments Directors of Germany, Italy and the United States approve a amendment that lays out the rest of the MEADS System Development & Demonstration contract, which ends in 2014. Lockheed Martin will say only that MEADS “remains within the funding limit authorized… in the 2004 MEADS [MoU].” Testing will include engagement using remote tracks, plug-and-fight capabilities for MEADS components, the system’s netted/distributed operation, and interoperability through Link 16. In addition:
Fall 2011 will see a launcher missile characterization test, demonstrating MEADS’ 360 degree capability with an over-the-shoulder launch of a PAC-3 MSE missile, against a target approaching from behind.
Late 2012 will see an intercept flight test against an air-breathing (as opposed to rocket powered) threat.
Late 2013 will see a sensor test, followed by the grand finale: a tactical ballistic missile intercept test. Lockheed Martin.
Revised MEADS program
Nov 1/11: PAC-3 MSE. Lockheed Martin in Grand Prairie, TX receives a $16.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification to cover PAC-3 MSE follow-on flight tests.
Work will be performed in Grand Prairie, TX; Chelmsford, MA; Camden, AR; Huntsville, AL; Pinellas, FL; Vergennes, VT; Hollister, CA; Torrance, CA; and Wichita, KS; with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W31P4Q-07-G-0001).
Oct 24/11: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces that a MEADS launcher has arrived at White Sands Missile Range, NM, after system integration testing, to begin live fire testing. While PAC-3 MSE missiles have been fired before, it was done from existing launcher systems.
Integration and checkout tests are continuing in preparation for a November flight test, where the MEADS system will demonstrate an unprecedented over-the-shoulder launch of a PAC-3 MSE missile, against a simulated target that attacks from behind.
Oct 21/11: Deutschland raus. Germany changes its mind about termination, as it continues to cut its already weak defense sector. Under the new plan, Germany will also pull out of MEADS, and will cut its Patriot systems in half from 29 to 14.
This move virtually ensures the end of MEADS. If Italy also decides to pull the plug, as now seems likely, there will be no termination costs to fellow partners for shuttering the program. Depending on how they choose to go about closing things down, however, there may be termination costs to the contractors. Aviation Week.
Germany out
Oct 17/11: MICS. Lockheed Martin announces the early delivery of MEADS’ intra-fire unit communications kits for the MEADS Internal Communications Subsystem (MICS).
MICS provides secure communications between the MEADS sensors, launchers and battle managers across a high-speed internet protocol network. That network can have MEADS elements removed and added with no delay, and can be expanded to include other elements using a “plug-and-fight” architecture.
Oct 12/11: Battle Manager. MEADS International announces that they’ve begun integration testing on the first completed MEADS battle manager system (BMC4I TOC), which provides overall control and configuration of MEADS intended “plug and fight” system. The Battle Manager, mounted on back of an FMTV truck, completed acceptance testing in May 2011 at MBDA in Fusaro, Italy, and arrived at the MEADS Verification Facility in Orlando, FL in July 2011.
The Florida facility is putting the new system through its paces using the MEADS system stimulator, in preparation for a system live-fire in November at White Sands Missile Range, NM. In these simulated scenarios, the MEADS battle manager will configure the other major end items and receive Surveillance Radar tracks for simulated threats, cue the Multifunction Fire Control Radar, send launch commands, and complete interceptor launches and target intercepts.
FY 2011
MEADS BMC4I-TOC
(click to view full)
Sept 13/11: Lockheed Martin announces that MEADS’ Integrated Launcher Electronics System (ILES) has successfully executed a simulated missile launch, as they prepare for MEADS first major live-fire test in November at White Sands Missile Range, NM.
Aug 16/11: Battle manager. MEADS’ Battle Management Command, Control, Communications and Computers and Intelligence (BMC4I) “battle manager” successfully completes its software design review in Huntsville, AL. Lockheed Martin.
July 21/11: Unhappy partners. Italy and Germany are rattling cages in the USA, in response to FY 2012 budget committee votes. Germany is saying that they won’t agree to joint termination, while Italy’s undersecretary for defense, Guido Crosetto, sends a letter to the Pentagon saying:
“I expect that the U.S. DOD will put in place all the necessary actions to ensure that U.S. Congress will provide the required funds to complete the Meads development and meet our mutually agreed commitments within the limits… [otherwise] the U.S. shall then be required to bear all the resulting contract modifications and cancellation costs up to the total financial contribution established.”
Given the likely size of those contract penalties, that really does sound like an offer the USA can’t refuse. Bloomberg.
July 5/11: At least we’re secure. MEADS International wins its 3rd James S. Cogswell Outstanding Industrial Security Achievement Award. It’s presented by the U.S. Defense Security Service (DSS), who has responsibility for more than 13,000 cleared contractor facilities, during the National Classification Management Society’s Annual Seminar in New Orleans, LA.
Less than 1% are considered for Cogswell recognition, but MEADS International also won in 2000, and in 2007. Their 2011 Cogswell Award includes recognition for 7 consecutive years of Superior security ratings. Lockheed Martin.
June 21/11: Revised objectives. The National Armaments Directors of Germany, Italy and the United States have approved a revised set of MEADS development objectives, including 2 intercept flight tests by 2014. To support final system integration and flight test activities, MI has taken ownership of facilities at White Sands Missile Range, NM. Lockheed Martin.
June 15/11: Zero-out? Bloomberg reports that some members of the US Senate Armed Services committee are looking to zero-out MEADS funding in the FY 2012 budget. That happens the day after the US House Appropriations Committee approves a 2012 defense-spending draft that cuts $149.5 million from MEADS’ FY 2012 budget, and the SASC would go on to remove the MEADS’ request entirely.
The Pentagon has proposed funding MEADS development, due in part to MEADS’ termination costs. It remains to be seen whether that becomes a factor in debate.
May 4/11: PAC-3 MSE. Raytheon’s Patriot system successfully test fires Lockheed Martin’s PAC-3 MSE at White Sands Missile Range, NM. This is another step forward for MEADS development program. It also shows that the missile can be incorporated into existing Patriot systems, as an upgrade that stops short of full MEADS capabilities. Raytheon.
March 2011: Testing. The 2nd MEADS Launcher Platform Group (LPG) completes formal acceptance testing in Dello, Italy, after demonstrating capabilities including automatic upload/offload, switch from emplacement to mobile configuration, and detachment of components from the MAN truck carrier to allow helicopter transport.
Following integration with an Integrated Launcher Electronics System, Launcher Power System and Internal Communication System (MICS), the completed launcher will begin system-level integration with other MEADS elements, then begin flight tests at White Sands Missile Range, NM later in 2011. Lockheed Martin.
March 21/11: DOD Buzz reports from AIAA’s annual missile defense conference that MEADS may have bought itself the time it needs to survive, as the participants work to complete development instead of paying termination fees:
“Lockheed Martin believes there is a good chance the US will recommit to the tri-nation MEADS missile defense program, driven by its smaller manpower requirements, ease of transport and higher [8x - 10x higher] reliability. And Germany and Italian officials told a senior Lockheed official that they remain committed to MEADS and other countries may well join the program sometime in the next two years. Mike Trotsky, Lockheed’s vice president air and missile defense systems, told reporters during that adding more countries could substantially lower the price of American participation…”
April 15/11: The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 includes the “Patriot/Medium Extended Air Defense System Combined Aggregate Program (MEADS CAP) Fire Unit – Program”:
“…costs decreased $18,661.8 million (-85.0 percent) from $21,965.3 million to $3,303.5 million, due primarily to the Department’s decision to remove the production funding for the fire unit from the program and modify the design and development phase to continue as a proof of concept effort ending in fiscal 2014.”
SAR – termination
March 21/11: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces that a MEADS launcher and accompanying BMC4I Tactical Operations Center (TOC) have entered system test and integration at Pratica di Mare Air Force Base in Italy. Later additions of the Multifunction Fire Control Radar (MFCR) and a MEADS System Stimulator will enable demonstration of the full MEADS system in simulated engagements of live target aircraft. After pre-integration at Pratica di Mare, the MEADS system will complete integration at White Sands Missile Range, NM, and begin flight testing in 2012.
March 3/11: PAC-3 MSE. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Grand Prairie, TX receives a $7 million incremental-funding, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to eliminate obsolete materials in the PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE solid rocket motor, in support of the United States and Taiwan.
Work will be performed in Grand Prairie, TX, with an estimated completion date of June 30/14. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W31P4Q-07-G-0001).
March 2/11: BMD firing test. Lockheed Martin announces that a PAC-3 MSE missile successfully intercepted a “threat representative” tactical ballistic missile target at White Sands Missile Range, NM. Richard McDaniel, director of PAC-3 Missile Programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control:
“We continue to test the PAC-3 MSE Missile at higher altitudes and against more challenging targets, and it continues to meet expectations…”
Feb 16/11: Germany wobbles. Media reports confirm that Germany will not pursue MEADS beyond the development phase. A Feb 15/11 letter from the Germany defense ministry to its parliamentary budget committee was leaked to Reuters, and it reportedly states that:
“With the closing of the planned development of MEADS … between the United States, Germany and Italy,… a realisation or acquisition of MEADS will not be carried out in the foreseeable future…”
That doesn’t mean an immediate pullout. Announcements of the kind the Pentagon just made only happen after long and close consultation with partners, and agreement behind the scenes on what to do. All 3 countries will almost certainly be financing MEADS development instead of paying termination costs, before going their separate ways. Reuters.
Feb 16/11: Pentagon program suicide? DoD Buzz has a take on MEADS from Frank Cevasco. While a senior Pentagon official at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cevasco and co. pushed a future extended air defense program, which eventually became MEADS. His thoughts on what followed:
“I was told that doesn’t make sense [to want to replace Patriot units 1:1] as a MEADS fire unit has substantially greater geographic coverage than Patriot [but the Army did]. I agree there would be additional costs associated with integrating MEADS with a separate Army command and control system, a requirement that was levied on the program unilaterally by Army about two years ago. Moreover, a portion of the cost overruns and schedule slippages can be attributed to the Army and DoD technology disclosure community who refused to allow the MEADS industry team to share key technology. The matter was resolved but only after intervention by senior OSD officials and the passage of considerable time; and, time is money with major weapons system development programs… Army has done its best from the every beginning to sabotage the program, preferring to develop a US-only solution funded by the US (with funds provided by the good fairy).”
Feb 15/11: Germany. German lawmakers are pushing to follow the US lead and drop MEADS, but so far, Germany seems to be taking the same position as the US. Which isn’t really surprising, since the American decision would have been discussed extensively before it was made public. Opposition is coming from the Free Democrats and Greens, both minor players. The cost of continuing existing MoU commitments is about EUR 250 million for Germany, while the cost of cancellation is currently unknown. Bloomberg reports that:
“Germany will continue its commitments for the development phase of the project, according to a Defense Ministry official who declined to be identified in line with government rules. The official wouldn’t comment when asked about the government’s intentions beyond the development phase.”
Feb 14/11: Pentagon comptroller Robert Hale tells a budget briefing that the USA will fund MEADS up to its $4 billion cap and into FY 2013. After that?
“Yes, our proposal would be that we would invest no more U.S. funds in MEADS after 2013, fiscal year ’13. We will – we will let the program run out under its current plan so we don’t incur any termination liability. But we wouldn’t spend money beyond there. And we would try to harvest some of the technology, and we may use that in other programs, and our partners may go forward with some MEADS. But it is not our plan to do so.”
At present, the USA is committed to spending another $804 million under the current MEADS MoU. With MEADS behind on cost and schedule targets, a recent restructuring proposal would have reportedly added another 30+ months (to the existing 110 month development period) and another $974 million – $1.16 billion of American funding to the program. The Pentagon estimates that another $800 million would be needed to certify MEADS and integrate it into existing US air defense systems. In addition, MEADS lateness meant that the USA would have to spending more money than they had planned on new Patriot missiles and system modernization. That burden, on top of existing MEADS overruns and fielding costs, is what pushed the Pentagon to the breaking point with MEADS. Hence the current proposal, which will spend the committed $804 million or so on MEADS development instead of termination costs, produce prototypes and limited integration, and look to incorporate anything promising into existing systems.
The odds that Italy or Germany would pick up the system are poor, given Germany’s ongoing disarmament and austerity program, and Italy’s slow-motion budget crisis. The FY 2013 date is significant for the USA, however, as it leaves the next Presidential administration the option of deciding to keep MEADS going. Hale briefing transcript | Pentagon’s MEADs Fact Sheet [PDF] | Bloomberg | DoD Buzz | Gannett’s Army Times | Reuters.
US backing out
Feb 14/11: US Budget. The Pentagon unveils the official FY 2012 budget request, which amounts to $570.5 million for MEADS components.
$406.6 million would be dedicated to MEADS development, down from $467.1 million requested in FY 2011, and $571.0 appropriated in FY 2010.
The FY 2012 request also includes $163.9 million in PAC-3 MSE missile work ($89M RDT&E, $75M procurement), up from FY 2011′s request for $62.5 million.
Jan 31/11: Radar. Lockheed Martin announces that the MEADS Multifunction Fire Control Radar (MFCR) subteam at LFK in Germany completed integration of the antenna array in 2010, clearing the way for assembly-level testing of the Transceiver Group. Coolant pressure testing was completed, and cooling distribution was demonstrated at the slip ring and antenna rotary joint. Final rotation tests at both 15 and 30 rpm were successfully completed.
The X-band MEADS MFCR has not yet begun full system tests at Pratica di Mare air force base in Italy. The program is now completing final build, integration and test activities, hopefully leading to flight tests involving all system elements at White Sands Missile Range in 2012. If, that is, the program survives.
Jan 4/11: Passed but frozen. The FY 2011 US defense “budget” is passed in a very odd way, but it has a provision in it that’s specific to MEADS. About 75%, or $350.2 million of the approved $467 million annual funding, is frozen until a firm decision is made to either continue or cancel the program. There were also requirements in the Senate’s S.3454 bill, Sec. 233 around decisions by Germany and Italy regarding funding and production, and a variety of certifications and cost estimates. But the final bill passed was H.R. 5136.
Through June 30/10, the USA has approved spending about $2 billion on the program. So far, MEADS program estimates have grown in cost by about $900 million (to $4.2 billion), and its