Patriot SAM System

Out of all systems of the same class only Patriot was tested in combat so far. We have no freaking idea what would performance of S-300 or their Chinese knock-offs would be in case of actual combat.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Out of all systems of the same class only Patriot was tested in combat so far. We have no freaking idea what would performance of S-300 or their Chinese knock-offs would be in case of actual combat.

Pretty sure Russian systems can shoot down Russia's own 50 year old missiles

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Out of all systems of the same class only Patriot was tested in combat so far. We have no freaking idea what would performance of S-300 or their Chinese knock-offs would be in case of actual combat.

S-300V were tested plenty against BM's but your right, only system tested in field experience against hostile country, and didnt prove its claimed capabilities either.

Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

PAC-3 is optimised for ABM and has lost most of its capability against conventional aircraft because of this. (To be an effected air defence system Patriot needs both PAC-2 and PAC-3 to be deployed together...)

PAC-2 was the system in service in Desert Storm and was found wanting... it was designed from the outset to engage aircraft so when against Scuds and Scud type targets it largely failed... which is perfectly understandable... Scuds were totally under rated in the west and their ability was largely ignored for WWIII.

In Desert Storm the Scud and variants were largely propaganda victories as a weapon they were not that effective due to their small payload and poor accuracy.

Operational Scuds in use by the Soviets however were an effective way of deploying tactical nukes or chem or bio agents against strategic targets like airfields. A bio or chem weapon could be fired upwind of a NATO airfield and force all the NATO personnel to operate in cumbersome NBC equipment.


The main reason for the poor performance of PAC-2 was that to bring down an aircraft you hit the centre of mass with lots of fragments that rip it apart. When the target is a very high speed missile aiming for the centre of mass with a target moving as fast as the fragments of your warhead means shattering the rear engine area of the missile target, which has already burned up all its fuel and is just attached to the falling warhead... shredding it has no effect at all on the incoming threat.

the PAC-3 was designed to engage the warhead of very high speed targets...

Remember that even for the S-300 series; there is a seperate branch (S-300V familly) designed to kill ballistic missiles.
Of course, the S-400 system seems to have unified these capabilities to some extent.

Not really true the main difference between the S-300P, S-300F, and S-300V is that each was developed for a different branch of the Soviet military. the V model for the army certainly did have an optimised design for defeating ballistic targets but the other two models could also engage such targets effectively too... it was part of their early design to be able to engage Lance II type threats.

In comparison the US didn't consider ballistic threats worth defending against... they felt they could destroy vehicle based missile launchers easily enough... experience in DS was to show otherwise so PAC-2 Patriot had no ATBM capability. (anti theatre ballistic missile)

With these SCUDs; the Saudi Patriots could have reacted late, or not stuck to procedure; which would have reduced the chances of a successful interception.

It was designed with Scuds in mind and should have an automatic function that should have been used...

Stop trying to surgar coat things. Patriot system is designed to be abm and it failed horribly back in the first gulf war. These operated better but still not the uber performance that they proclaim to be.

PAC-2 was not, PAC-3 however was designed from the outset to defeat Scud type targets specifically... and not much else...

I'm not sure if the PAC-3 is designed as an ABM system or not. Most likely; its warhead is too small to reliably destroy ballistic missiles. It seems to have improved at least a little since the 1st Gulf War; where not a single SCUD was shot down; this time it was 3/12.

The high closing speed means a bucket of nails would do the job...

In the 1st Gulf War, if you remember, their non-performance wasn't because they failed to hit the SCUDs; in fact many did. It's just that they were not able to destroy the missiles - they exploded in proximity as designed but there just wasn't enough power there. At the most - they damaged the missile or changed their trajectories.

there were an average of 32 Patriots fired at each Scud and very few if any were actually destroyed in the air.

This may well have been what got the US onto the idea of using kinetic interceptors for ABM purposes; hence the development of the THAAD system.

THAAD already exited then, but was given much more priority after desert storm... just like tests against East German MiG-29s rapidly accelerated the AMRAAM program too.

Out of all systems of the same class only Patriot was tested in combat so far. We have no freaking idea what would performance of S-300 or their Chinese knock-offs would be in case of actual combat.

In the 1990s the Russians started taking their new SAMs to arms expos and actually firing them at a range of realistic targets and they seemed to intercept them easily enough.

In current tests they seem to effectively kill targets too... sure not real combat, but close... most of the time they are ordered to move to a specific region and then set up and defend that region from an attack. Quite realistic IMHO.

Pretty sure Russian systems can shoot down Russia's own 50 year old missiles

Part of the original design requirements of the weapons, so it is no great surprise...

Later models have added guidance channels to allow more targets to be engaged and over time improved performance and electronics means a wider range of targets can be engaged... and importantly they have used features like adaptive warheads that direct fragments at the target... note at high altitude the effect of a HE blast is negligible, but the fragments are not so badly effected by the thinner cold air so they travel further and faster and are rather more effective than at lower altitudes.

'Hackers' Take Control of German Missile Battery in Turkey

Unknown 'hackers' briefly gained access to Germany’s Patriot missiles stationed in Turkey to protect the country from possible spillover of the ongoing civil war in Syria, media report.
The Patriot missiles, which were supposed to protect Turkey from the possible spillover effect of the Syrian military conflict, were attacked by ‘hackers’ on Tuesday near the Syrian border.

Read more by clicking title.

GaN-Based Patriot Prototype Preps For Public Debut


Raytheon's bet on a new radar for its Patriot air and missile defense system is now fully functional and ready for its public debut at the Association of the US Army’s Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, in March, company officials said.

Raytheon executives took a few reporters on a tour of the company’s Integrated Air Defense Center, where they build Patriot systems and the radar technology they pitched as the future of air and missile defense: Gallium Nitride (GaN) Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. The facility houses a foundry for GaN and its predecessor Gallium Arsenide.

It's a sizable bet. Raytheon has invested over $200 million to develop GaN technology over 16 years, augmented with US government investment over time, Ralph Acaba, the company’s vice president of Integrated Air and Missile Defense, said Wednesday.

The Patriot system was fielded to the Army in 1982 and Raytheon has continuously upgraded the system with investments from the US and 13 partner nations. The system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040.

But Raytheon has not been able to rest on its laurels. Lockheed Martin developed a competing air and missile defense system called the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and is directly competing with Raytheon stateside and abroad for future deals.

“The future is about how do you continue to put in capability, how do you continue to allow for the growth of the system, how do you continue to bring the cost of the operating system down, the reliability up, how do you prepare it for the future of air and missile defense where it’s plugging into a network to be compatible with the Army’s [Integrated Air and Missile Defense] concept that is the future,” Acaba said. “Active arrays are key to that [and] GaN is the next technology that those arrays are going to be built out of.”

Patriot radars currently use Gallium Arsenide (GaAs), a semiconductor material. Raytheon believes GaN will bring exponentially more capability to the Patriot system and double the system's reliability. Moving to a GaN radar also frees up space in the system to add redundancy, or future capability like the Integrated Battle Command System, the command and control for the Army's future air and missile defense system.

And the “beauty of the active array technology, you’ve got distributed elements so that anyone of them dies, no big deal, you’ve got plenty of redundancy,” Acaba said.

Additionally, the GaN radar integration into Patriot required very few new software changes. “It wasn’t zero changes, but it was miniscule,” Acaba said, “and we were up and tracking targets, I think, within a few days.”

Raytheon didn’t decide to develop GaN technology to answer any future Army requirements, Acaba stressed. “It was really around continuing the process of always looking ahead, what’s next, not just take the next order, but where should we be headed and how should we be positioned so when the Patriot partners are ready to take the next step we’ve got the solution.”

The US Army and several foreign countries appear to be ready to take the next steps when it comes to bringing on new capability in air and missile defense.

The Army is funded in fiscal year 2017 to hold a competition for an IAMD radar. It hasn’t publicly laid out requirements or how it might conduct a competition.

Raytheon is waiting for the service to detail its plan and is “positioned to respond to anything from an immediate upgrade to the current radar to a clean-sheet, brand new radar to everything in between,” Acaba said.

Raytheon spent the last two years building a demonstrator and expects to be ready to get into a government test program within two years. “We’ve started burning not just technical risk, but started burning down schedule,” Acaba said. "I think we are less than two years from getting this capability ready to get into a [government] test program."

The GaN-based Patriot's trip to Huntsville in March will likely be one of the only times it’s displayed in public in the near-term. Afterward, it is set for tests, including field tests as early as late 2016.

“Once we get that into the test program we really do want to use the time wisely, so we are not going to put this radar on the road to go to a bunch of different shows,” Acaba said. The radar will "come back here and go deep into tests" with plans to get it out into field testing as early as later this year, he added.

The GaN radar development also comes at a time when other countries are taking serious looks at either upgrading missile defense capabilities or buying something new. Raytheon received export approval for the GaN AESA radar last year.

Acaba noted that Japan, Spain and Greece are looking into upgrading their Patriot systems while Sweden, Romania, Czech Republic and Finland are potential new customers in addition to Poland and Turkey.

Poland announced in the spring of 2015 that it had picked Patriot for its new air and missile defense program, called Wisla. Lockheed was also in the running but the Polish government excluded it from the competition because MEADS was not yet a fielded system.Germany and the MEADS team have since begun working to mint a continuing development contract while looking for more countries to partner with.

Poland and the US government began negotiations to purchase Patriot, but a Polish presidential election that ousted those in office when Patriot was picked has created uncertainty over the program's future there. The Polish Ministry of Defense has re-initiated discussions with the MEADS team.

Before news that discussions between Poland and the MEADS team had restarted, Acaba said Wednesday that Poland was “conducting its assessments,” and said a new government re-examining decisions from a previous government is a “natural process.”

He said the company and the US Army are working to provide all requested information about the Patriot deal to the Polish government and said he expects the government to finish its assessments in a couple of months.

“I’ve seen no indication this is going to be a six-month or a year assessment. I think they just want to do their due diligence on the process that was followed and what exactly the requirements are of the system that they are going to procure,” he said.

Turkey is also weighing its options after dropping an earlier decision to acquire the country’s first long-range air- and anti-missile defense system from a Chinese contractor. Both Patriot and MEADS are back on the table there.

In Sweden, “we’ve been talking with them for the past year or so and they’ve expressed significant interest,” Acaba said. “They see similar threats as others and so I think they are getting closer to identifying specific requirements, both dollars and funding, and I think they are close and they are closely following what is going on in Poland.”

Whether Sweden decides on a competition or to conduct a study, “is unclear to me, but I see enough evidence that they are looking, [but] they are not just talking to us,” Acaba added.

Romania, Czech Republic and Finland “are further behind,” Acaba said, but, “they have expressed interest.”

Acaba noted that Belgium has also shown an interest. And the countries listed as potential customers is not exhaustive, he added.

While it appears that Germany will develop the MEADS system, Acaba said the country is serious about upgrading the Patriot systems it already has in its inventory. Germany has said it plans to keep its Patriot systems until at least 2030 while it develops its next-generation system.

The Patriot Configuration 3+ is the latest version of the system. It includes a new radar digital processor, the "Modern Man" control station considered more comfortable for the operators, and a modern adjunct processor.

“I think they are headed down the Configuration 3+ path and in fact they have already started taking delivery of items to get there,” Acaba said of Germany.

Acaba said he expected Germany to make Patriot upgrade awards in the fiscal 2017 or fiscal 2018 timeframe.

Upgraded Patriot Missile Test Successfully Completed

missile successfully completed a test as one of two projectiles, which when fired in succession destroyed a tactical ballistic missile, Raytheon said in a press release.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The first missile fired, the Patriot, destroys threats via the force of the collision. The lower-cost combat-proven second missile, known as a GEM-T interceptor, flies close to threats and explodes, destroying the missile or aircraft in the process, the release explained.

"Patriot users around the globe are currently employing interceptor [missile] mixes in ongoing combat operations to increase cost-effectiveness and provide commanders with operational flexibility," Raytheon Vice President of Integrated Air and Missile Defense Ralph Acaba said in the release on Thursday.

The Patriot upgrade was funded by a 13-nation partnership, and representatives from seven of those nations on hand to witness the test at White Sands Missile Range in the US state of New Mexico, the release stated.

The Patriot missile has been steadily improved since its debut in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when it helped protect Israel and Saudi Arabia from Scud missiles fired by Iraq.

Various models of the Patriot have been used in more than 200 combat engagements, 1,400 flight tests and 3,000-plus ground tests, the release explained.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160318/1036498822/patriot-upgrade-test.html#ixzz43EaYhsC2

George1 wrote:Upgraded Patriot Missile Test Successfully Completed

missile successfully completed a test as one of two projectiles, which when fired in succession destroyed a tactical ballistic missile, Raytheon said in a press release.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The first missile fired, the Patriot, destroys threats via the force of the collision. The lower-cost combat-proven second missile, known as a GEM-T interceptor, flies close to threats and explodes, destroying the missile or aircraft in the process, the release explained.

"Patriot users around the globe are currently employing interceptor [missile] mixes in ongoing combat operations to increase cost-effectiveness and provide commanders with operational flexibility," Raytheon Vice President of Integrated Air and Missile Defense Ralph Acaba said in the release on Thursday.

The Patriot upgrade was funded by a 13-nation partnership, and representatives from seven of those nations on hand to witness the test at White Sands Missile Range in the US state of New Mexico, the release stated.

The Patriot missile has been steadily improved since its debut in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when it helped protect Israel and Saudi Arabia from Scud missiles fired by Iraq.

Various models of the Patriot have been used in more than 200 combat engagements, 1,400 flight tests and 3,000-plus ground tests, the release explained.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160318/1036498822/patriot-upgrade-test.html#ixzz43EaYhsC2

Sputnik is not a reliable source i must say. It was PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE) The PAC-3 Missile is a high-velocity interceptor that uses hit-to-kill technology to defend against incoming threats, including TBMs, cruise missiles and aircraft.

The PAC-3 MSE brings a larger, dual-pulse solid rocket motor, larger control fins and an upgraded support system. These enhancements nearly double the missile's reach, and dramatically improve performance against missile threats.

Raytheon Wins $523M to Upgrade Kuwaiti Patriot SAMs.

Raytheon IDS, Andover, Maine, was awarded a $523,386,294 fixed-price-incentive, foreign military sales (Kuwait) contract for modernization of six PATRIOT fire units. One bid was solicited with one received.

PAC-3 MSE Missile Intercepts Target In Last Test in Series

WASHINGTON — A Patriot Advanced Capability Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missile — the latest variant of the Lockheed Martin-made PAC-3 — successfully intercepted a target Friday at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., in its last test as part of a full series.

The final test of the Post Deployment Build Eight (PDB- test program also marks the first time the US Army has fired the MSE interceptor, according to a Lockheed spokesman. The unit is based out of Fort Bliss, Texas.

The missile was tested against a full-scale, air-breathing target and demonstrated the weapon’s ability to "detect, track, engage and intercept an aircraft," according to a Lockheed statement.

“This test series has demonstrated the effectiveness of the PAC-3 MSE hit-to-kill interceptor against a wide range of targets, including air-breathing targets and ballistic missiles. We’re proud to deliver this overmatch capability to our warfighters,” Scott Arnold, vice president of PAC-3 programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said.

The PAC-3 missile uses hit-to-kill technology and earlier variants are deployed in Patriot air and missile defense systems. The PAC-3 MSE will also be used in the Patriot system.

The MSE version has a larger, dual-pulse solid rocket motor and larger control fins which “nearly double the missile’s reach and dramatically improve performance against evolving ballistic- and cruise-missile threats,” Lockheed said.

PAC-3 MSE had three successful tests late last year as well.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/07/08/pac-3-mse-missile-intercepts-target-last-test-series/86870834/

‘No time for a blind spot’: Raytheon goes big with Patriot radar replacement

They still working on the new gallium nitride 360 Radar ,expected 2022 for production .

Even after that , the Launcher still fixed and if the radar spotted a target 180 degree out of the launcher direction ,so the missile should turn that 180 degree which would affect it's range and initial speed . The solution is to deploy more launchers with one radar which against cost reduction  .

Patriot needs a re-design

It needs a different vehicle platform that can rotate 360 degrees... like a Pantsir or BUK or a dozen other SAM systems that cover 360 degrees with missiles.
Obviously the easiest fix would be to increase the missile angle to vertical like the S-350 and S-300 and S-400 and TOR so targets in any direction can be engaged...

GarryB wrote:It needs a different vehicle platform that can rotate 360 degrees... like a Pantsir or BUK or a dozen other SAM systems that cover 360 degrees with missiles.
Obviously the easiest fix would be to increase the missile angle to vertical like the S-350 and S-300 and S-400 and TOR so targets in any direction can be engaged...

Being not mobile ,has only 270 degree missile launch capability and has only single radar for target acquisition/search and for fire control (missile guidance) it was designed assuming many other sources (other Patriot batteries, E-3 AWACS, AEGIS system, etc.) are available to have a picture about the tactical situation. Means needs re-design because it's only suitable for US army not for clients .

Or may be i'm mistaken regarding the launching station ,in this video minute 1.32 ,it seems the LS can rotate but i'm not sure it can rotate 360 degree or not

LOL!

WASHINGTON — The most advanced variant of the Patriot missile misfired during a major test of the U.S. Army’s air and missile defense battle command system, which involved tactical ballistic missile and a cruise missile targets, an Army official confirmed.


Latest variant of Patriot missile misfired in major test of command system

This is like the thousandth time Patriot system has failed!

magnumcromagnon wrote:LOL!

WASHINGTON — The most advanced variant of the Patriot missile misfired during a major test of the U.S. Army’s air and missile defense battle command system, which involved tactical ballistic missile and a cruise missile targets, an Army official confirmed.


Latest variant of Patriot missile misfired in major test of command system

This is like the thousandth time Patriot system has failed!

#Yemeni Drones attack Saudi Airport, Saudi Patriot-3 attacks own people...!

https://twitter.com/I30mki/status/1322880605583933440
https://twitter.com/I30mki/status/1322871263824474113
https://twitter.com/I30mki/status/1322870970684563457

Why don't they just use SM missiles on trucks with vertical launchers ?

Politics.

SM missiles are Navy... Patriot and THAAD are Army.

Note they have SM missiles in the AEGIS ASHORE system... you know... the one they said could not fire tomahawk cruise missiles without fundamental changes and upgrades and then two weeks after they dropped the INF treaty they launched some Tomahawks from AEGIS Ashore... just because they have such amazing engineers... and lying politicians...

Isos wrote:Why don't they just use SM missiles on trucks with vertical launchers ?

Why do you think the SM-2 would work better? The only thing there navy shot down since the Vietnam war was a iranian airbus.

They seem to be better than Patriots...

They are better and have different sort of missiles and the quad pack ESSM and a 360° engagement zone.

It gives more possibilities than the Patriot.

Patriot is an outdated system. Even its last modernizations keep the old weakness.

Isos wrote:Why don't they just use SM missiles on trucks with vertical launchers ?

The current SM-6 doesn't meet the desired range of more than PSrM, less than LRHW. The warhead isn’t much to speak of either. Maybe as a SEAD weapon against unarmored trucks, TELs, sensors. Though that range thing will be an issue

Israel Decommissions US-Made Patriot Air Defense System

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/05/02/israel-decommissions-us-patriot/?utm_content=cmp-true

But according to an IDF official, the Patriot system is becoming “obsolete,” making it difficult to maintain.
The decommissioning will start with a few batteries for smoother transition until the entire system is deactivated by June.

“The Patriot is being replaced by weapon systems with even more advanced technology,” the official said. “We realized that we need to move forward and improve our defense methods.”

A few Patriot operators are likely thinking the same but do they have a new system to upgrade to?

Turkey made a good choice going for S-400... they wont want a replacement for a good while yet I would say.

with even more advanced technology,

That means tech from the 90´s?