|
|
The
matrix below is a summary of the major flight tests in the Army's Patriot
Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 terminal phase theater missile defense system.
|
Flight
Test Number
|
Date |
Intercept? |
Notes |
| DT-1 |
Sept. 29, 1997
|
n/a |
First control test
missile (CTM) – no seeker or target |
| DT-2 |
Dec. 15, 1997
|
n/a |
Second CTM; extended
range |
| Seeker
characterization flight |
March 15, 1997
|
Yes |
Risk mitigation
flight; intercept of short-range TBM with submunition payload |
| DT-3 |
Sept. 16, 1999
|
Yes |
Intercept of
short-range TBM with bulk chemical warhead |
| DT-5 |
Feb. 5, 2000
|
Yes |
Intercept of
short-range TBM with low-magnitude helix maneuver using 8 km remote launch |
| DT-7 |
July 22, 2000
|
Yes |
Intercept of
low-altitude cruise missile |
| EOR-A |
July
28, 2000
|
Yes |
Intercept of
low-altitude cruise missile |
| DT-6 |
Oct.
14, 2000
|
Yes
(PAC-3); No (PAC-2 engaged the target but didn’t kill it) |
A multiple
simultaneous engagement was attempted in DT-6.
A PAC-3 intercepted and killed a tactical ballistic missile (with
submunitions), while a PAC-2 engaged but did not destroy a subscale drone
target simulating an aircraft. The
PAC-2’s failure to kill the target was due to a hardware anomaly
apparently unrelated to multiple simultaneous engagement test objective. |
| DT-8 |
March 31, 2001
|
Yes (1 PAC-3 and 1 PAC-2) |
This test was the first
multiple simultaneous engagement of multiple TBM targets in the test
program. This was the most complex flight test the program had undergone
up to that date: five missiles (two targets and three interceptors) were
all airborne at the same time. Two PAC-3s
engaged a Hera modified ballistic re-entry vehicle that had a simulated
unitary warhead. Both PAC-3 missiles were fired from the same Patriot launcher
and were spaced several seconds apart. The first PAC-3
hit its target, causing the second PAC-3 to self-destruct. A
PAC-2 missile simultaneously engaged a Patriot-As-A-Target (PAAT). |
| DT-9 |
July
9, 2001
|
Yes (1
PAC-3); No (1 PAC-3) |
Problems with the
communications bus that links the communications between the missile's
guidance processing units and seeker caused the miss.
One of two fired PAC-3s hit a remotely
piloted F-4 Phantom aircraft emitting radar-jamming signals at long range
and low altitude, while the second PAC-3 missed its ballistic
missile target. The goal was
to see if the PAC-3 could function in an electronic countermeasures
environment. |
| DT-10 |
Oct.
19, 2001
|
Yes (1 PAC-3 and 1 PAC-2) |
A
PAC-3 intercepted a BQM-74 cruise missile flying at a low altitude, while
a PAC-2 intercepted the Raytheon MQM-107, which is a low-altitude
sub-scale aircraft target.
The
microprocessor that caused the communications problem and consequent
failure in DT-9 was taken out of the PAC-3 system. This test marked the
end of the EMD phase for the PAC-3. |
| OT-1 |
Feb.
16, 2002
|
Yes (1
PAC-2); No (1 PAC-2 and 1 PAC-3) |
One PAC-3 was fired
vs. a drone simulating a cruise missile; two PAC-2s fired vs. two targets
(full-scale QF-4 Phantom jet drone and a subscale drone aircraft).
The only missile to hit its target was the PAC-2 aimed at the
drone. The other PAC-2 missed due to an electrical arc in the radar, which
lasted less than a second just before the planned intercept but managed to
delay critical target information. The
PAC-3 missed because an error in the ground computer caused it to provide
the interceptor missile with inaccurate target location information, said
Army Col. Tom Newberry. |
| OT-2 |
March 21, 2002
|
Yes (1
PAC-3 and 1 PAC-2); No (1 PAC-3) |
Two PAC-3s were fired
vs. a Hera BM simulating a Scud; 1 hit its target, the other failed to
launch. One PAC-2 hit an MQM-107 drone aircraft. |
| OT-3 |
April
25, 2002
|
No (2 PAC-3's) |
This test was
initially reported as a partial success:
it was at first thought that one PAC-3 destroyed another Patriot
which was simulating a ballistic missile target, while the other PAC-3,
which was to intercept a Storm II ballistic missile target (composed of a
Minuteman II second-stage booster and a Pershing II reentry vehicle),
failed to launch. However,
after studying the data collected, it was announced that the PAC-3 only
hit its target and did not destroy it; thus, the test could not be counted
as a successful intercept. |
| OT-4 |
May 30, 2002
|
Yes (1
PAC-3); No (1 PAC-3) |
This final
operational test was supposed to showcase the “ripple firing”
doctrine, in which two PAC-3s are launched against one target – a
two-stage ballistic missile. One
PAC-3 intercepted the target, while the other PAC-3 failed to launch.
MDA decided to delay moving PAC-3 into low-rate initial production
for a year (it originally was to start in September 2002).
Because of the many problems that surfaced in operational testing,
follow-on operational testing will be required. |
Sources:
DT-1 through EOR-A:
DOT&E FY 00 report
DT-6:
“Lockheed Martin PAC-3 Missile
Intercepts Target,” Defense Week,
Oct. 23, 2000
; DOT&E FY
00 report
DT-8: “PAC-3
has seventh consecutive successful intercept test,” Aerospace Daily,
April
4, 2001
DT-9: “PAC-3
intercept failure attributed to hardware 'breakdown',” Defense
Daily International,
July 20, 2001
DT-10: “Patriot
PAC-3 missile moves closer to fielding,” Defense Week,
October 29, 2001
OT-1:
“Army identifies cause of PAC-3, PAC-2 failures in February test,” Defense
Daily,
March 7, 2002
OT-2:
“PAC-3, PAC-2 hit targets in multiple
engagement test,” Defense Daily,
March 22, 2002
OT-3:
“One of two PAC-3s hit target in simultaneous engagement test,”
Defense Daily,
April 26, 2002
; “Army wrongly reported PAC-3
intercept success,” Defense Daily,
May 14, 2002
OT-4:
“Army
scores hit in PAC-3 intercept,” InsideDefense.com,
May 30, 2002; Kerry Gildea, “PAC-3 buy decision put
on hold, pending added flight tests, review,” Defense
Daily, Aug. 21, 2002
For more information contact Philip E. Coyle, Martha.krebs@att.net
or Victoria Samson, vsamson@cdi.org.
BACK TO THE TOP  MISSILE DEFENSE HOME CDI ISSUE AREAS CDI HOME
|
|
