Germany quits MEADS

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

GERMANY REEVALUATES NEED FOR MEADS AS U.S. ARMY, MDA MEET
Defense Daily
10 March 2010

The German government has launched a reevaluation of air defense alternatives ahead of a major design milestone for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a next-generation missile defense program it is developing along with Italy and the United States to replace the Patriot and other legacy systems. European sources close to the German government tell Defense Daily that the Defense Ministry is reevaluating the country's need for MEADS, studying specifically whether current Patriot batteries--with upgrades-- can fulfill the military requirement. An analysis is expected well in advance of a Critical Design Review (CDR) milestone for the MEADS program, scheduled for August. The sources cited cost increases and program schedule slips as justification for the move by Berlin. As Defense Daily reported last week, the U.S. Army is laying the groundwork for terminating the program, arguing that the system is too costly and no longer appropriate for countering the latest global threats.

"Current Army position is: Terminate MEADS," according to a Feb. 2 internal Army document. The service instead advocates harvesting MEADS technologies and improving the Patriot program, while engaging the international partners through the traditional Foreign Military Sales process instead of a large-scale international development effort. Army and Missile Defense Agency officials are meeting today to address the issue. MDA spokesman Rick Lehner acknowledged on Monday that "senior personnel are expected to be present" at the meeting and that "missile defense program management" is currently on the agenda. Internal U.S. Army documents state that MEADS could be terminated "unilaterally or trilaterally" at the August CDR. Termination costs, according to the document, would range from as low as $550 million to as high as $1 billion for a unilateral termination. If terminated trilaterally at CDR, the penalty paid to contractors could be less than $500 million.


Germany is doing the "on again, off again, on again, off again" thing they did with Eurofighter and A400M. :rolleyes:
Original post

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 9,683

The US wants out too so it'll probably die.

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 292

Sounds more as if the US want to end it and already have taken steps to terminate the project. What else is the German government supposed to do then? If a trilateral termination is the cheapest way out now it's only logical to check if we'd be better off this way. No need to blame it on each other really...

Member for

14 years

Posts: 130

Let's not get too excited about these press reports. There appearance may not be entirely unrelated to a technical paper that Raytheon is reported to have circulated within the US, Germany, and Italy, arguing that improvements its Patriot could form the basis of a lower-cost alterative to MEADS (whose chief US contractor is Lockheed Martin).

According to a Jane’s International Defence Review story dated 1 March, these proposals would allow “a spiral upgrade path to deliver a functional AMD system by 2012 and a fully integrated AMD by 2015, able to link into all existing early warning and missile defence systems. The engagement modules would draw together GEM-T and Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missiles with Surface Launched AMRAAM (SLAMRAAM) in the initial 2012 offering, and then support for Germany's request that the lower-tier of MEADS would include Diehl BGT's IRIS-T Surface Launch (SL) missile in the 2015 spiral. “

I haven’t seen the technical paper in question, but the current Patriot system has several major weaknesses by contemporary standards. Its mobility and deployment time are lower than would be ideal (the speed with which US ground units moved during the invasion of Iraq meant that they were often operating outside Patriot coverage), and the radar and launchers cover only the forward sector. MEADS is designed to be air-transportable. quick into action, and to provide 360 degree coverage.

But it's worth remembering that while MEADS uses the Lockheed Martin PAC-3 missile, the Raytheon proposal would also use the GEM-T and the Surface Launched AMRAAM (SLAMRAAM) - both of which just happen to be built by Raytheon.

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 9,683

Let's not get too excited about these press reports. There appearance may not be entirely unrelated to a technical paper that Raytheon is reported to have circulated within the US, Germany, and Italy, arguing that improvements its Patriot could form the basis of a lower-cost alterative to MEADS (whose chief US contractor is Lockheed Martin).

According to a Jane’s International Defence Review story dated 1 March, these proposals would allow “a spiral upgrade path to deliver a functional AMD system by 2012 and a fully integrated AMD by 2015, able to link into all existing early warning and missile defence systems. The engagement modules would draw together GEM-T and Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missiles with Surface Launched AMRAAM (SLAMRAAM) in the initial 2012 offering, and then support for Germany's request that the lower-tier of MEADS would include Diehl BGT's IRIS-T Surface Launch (SL) missile in the 2015 spiral. “

I haven’t seen the technical paper in question, but the current Patriot system has several major weaknesses by contemporary standards. Its mobility and deployment time are lower than would be ideal (the speed with which US ground units moved during the invasion of Iraq meant that they were often operating outside Patriot coverage), and the radar and launchers cover only the forward sector. MEADS is designed to be air-transportable. quick into action, and to provide 360 degree coverage.

But it's worth remembering that while MEADS uses the Lockheed Martin PAC-3 missile, the Raytheon proposal would also use the GEM-T and the Surface Launched AMRAAM (SLAMRAAM) - both of which just happen to be built by Raytheon.

I'd still rather they replaced the motor in SLAMRAAM with the 10" diameter one (at one point that's what they were going to do with SLAMRAAM, probably the same motor that's in ESSM).

Member for

14 years

Posts: 130

I'd still rather they replaced the motor in SLAMRAAM with the 10" diameter one (at one point that's what they were going to do with SLAMRAAM, probably the same motor that's in ESSM).

I haven't spoken to the SLAMRAAM team for a couple of years, but in 2007 they were talking about putting SLAMRAAM-ER or AIM-9X on the SLAMRAAM launcher. They test-flew an unguided SLAMRAAM-ER in 2008, and showed a more refined configuration at the 2009 IDEX exhibition.

Member for

15 years

Posts: 70

MEADS at Crossroads – Or Not?

http://defpro.com/daily/details/561/ | It is fairly normal (isn’t it?) for major defence programmes to hit a serious bump or two along their development and procurement road. But beyond this, for some unfathomable reason, certain programmes appear to be both cursed by a whole series of hiccups and resulting repeated attempts at folding them down, and blessed by an uncanny ability to survive against all odds and endure unscathed through technical difficulties, budget cuts and waning operational requirements. In this particular category, a prominent place must certainly be reserved for the MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defence System) programme, being pursued (well, sort of) in international cooperation involving the United States, Germany and Italy.

Retracing the ups and downs of the MEADS effort over the past years would take a massive book, so let’s go straight to a synthetic description of the latest bump. Basically, another billion dollars or so of taxpayer’s money would need to be pumped into the development phase, if this is ever to be completed. Now, cost increases are hardly a new experience in defence, but in this specific case there is a palpable lack of enthusiasm amongst the three partners towards coughing up the required money. Most particularly, the pursue-strings holders in Germany have made it officially clear that the money simply isn’t there, period.

Which brings us straight to the respective advantages and pitfalls of international cooperation programmes in defence procurement under the multiple operational, political and industrial points of view.

The US Army seems to have very little residual interest in MEADS, and it even tried (unsuccessfully, as it was) to dump the programme onto the Missile Defense Agency. Basically, under the current situation of tight money, the Service’s medium-range air defence and tactical ballistic missile defence requirements could sort of be satisfied by the combination of the existing PATRIOT (possibly further upgraded beyond the current “Pure Fleet” effort) and THAAD systems. Germany could also accommodate itself to a roughly similar arrangement, should THAAD eventually be selected (which looks like a foregone conclusion) for the NATO’s upcoming missile defence programme. Italy does not currently deploy the PATRIOT, and thus abandoning MEADS would necessarily imply extending the current SAMP/T procurement and joining France for the development of an ATBM version of the ASTER 30 missile. Now this would admittedly force the Italian Air Force into the outrageous proposition of having to deploy the same air defence system as the Army, but, hey, nobody ever said life is fair.

Given the above, the official glue that still keeps MEADS together is largely political. International cooperation programmes are notoriously difficult to kill (this being arguably one of the main reasons for selecting this approach in the first place), and furthermore it now so happens that MEADS is the last surviving major trans-Atlantic effort. It is thus only too understandable that Washington, Berlin and Rome would be very wary of being perceived as the unreliable partner that renounces its commitments and leaves the others in deep trouble; and would be willing to keep MEADS alive even through and beyond circumstances, that would be more than enough to cause the demise or a purely national effort.

Plus, of course, the, say, varied picture of industrial interests, and the impact these interests might or then might not have on the governments’ attitudes and decisions. It is no secret that a certain US defence major would have a vested interest in sending MEADS down the drain in favour of a further revamped PATRIOT, and it is actively exploring ways to ensure that this will indeed be the case. As for the MEADS International consortium, there are unmistakeable signs to indicate that the European part of it has already started formulating a “Plan B”. This would involve most notably finding ways to complete the development programme as currently underway for the MEADS radar, and identifying a possible alternative operational use for it that would justify procurement in at least limited numbers.

Be this as it may, in political terms Germany now appears to hold the keys for whatever future is in store for MEADS. Washington would almost certainly not wish to cancel the programme on its own and be seen as “betraying” Europe, while a conceivable unilateral departure of the Italian 17 per cent would not be enough to kill MEADS. But if Germany’s 25 per cent goes, for whatever reason, then that’s it.

But even from a political point of view, it is a fair bet that on the European side industrial considerations would have an even larger influence on the decision-making process than it is usually the case. Both the German and Italian governments are firmly in support of close ties with Washington, and they can thus be counted upon being more than prepared to save a trans-Atlantic programme for its own sake if they only can decently do so without imperilling domestic support. Given this, if industry this side of the pond starts crying foul and threatening that the demise of MEADS would lead to job losses, plant closures and the like, then the beancounters’ resistance will easily be broken, and money to save the programme will be found. But if, on the other hand a least a solid majority of the European industries currently involved in MEADS can accommodate themselves to a “Plan B”, then the future of the programme looks uncertain indeed.

What is lamentably missing in the whole affair is a serious analysis as of whether or not the operational requirements that did originally lead to the three countries joining forces for the MEADS programme still stand in the current scenarios, together with an in-depth discussion on the roles MEADS (which along its development path has metamorphosed into a very different beast than originally envisaged) will or would play. But this is, I’m afraid, an only too common occurrence in contemporary defence procurement – whereby the needs and ideas of the Services play a very distant third fiddle to political and, increasingly, industrial issues.

In a world where the British Defence Secretary finds its quite normal and logical to present an order for two additional ASTUTE-class SSNs (for the not totally insignificant cost of £300 million) without even mentioning the Royal Navy’s operational requirements, and rather by commenting at length about the situation of the British shipbuilding industries and the need to preserve jobs and skills there, it would certainly not be surprising if MEADS finally meets its fate, or rather is once again saved like the perpetual Phoenix, for reasons that have a precious nothing to do with what the US, German and Italian military might think or wish.

----
By Dr. Ezio Bonsignore, http://defpro.com/daily/details/561/

Member for

14 years

Posts: 271

Perhaps the program will evolve into a defacto MEADS-lite at some point in the near-term?