Intercepting Iskander

Kremlin has confirmed that it has deployed Iskander Missiles on NATO borders.

http://rt.com/news/iskander-missile-deployment-russia-317/

This came in response to the development of the US missile defense system in Europe .

Now the ISKANDER is capable of manoeuvring in it's flight path towards it's target making it difficult for interceptor missiles to intercept it .

However , will it not be possible to intercept the ISKANDER during the terminal homing phase because that's when the ISKANDER will not be able to manoeuvre ?

Deep Throat wrote:However , will it not be possible to intercept the ISKANDER during the terminal homing phase because that's when the ISKANDER will not be able to manoeuvre ?

Boost phase thrust vector control (TVC) is accomplished by graphite vanes similar in layout to the V-2 and Scud series tactical ballistic missiles. In flight, the missile follows a quasi-ballistic path, performing evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase of flight and releasing decoys in order to penetrate missile defense systems. The missile never leaves the atmosphere as it follows a relatively flat trajectory. The missile is controlled during the whole flight with gas-dynamic and aerodynamic control surfaces. It uses a small scattering surface, special coatings, and small size projections to reduce its radar signature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander

GarryB wrote:Performing 3D manouvers to impact reduces speed but makes interception rather difficult...

But Garry , the chances of interception rises when speed is reduced . The ISKANDER once it achieves a lock on is not going to "un lock" itself to try and manoeuvre first , and then again achieve a lock on .

It would have been good but that's not possible . Best practice is to fire more than one interception missile against an incoming hostile missile.

Therefore , with a careful selection of countermeasures/decoys and manoeuvre the ISKANDER may be able to escape two incoming missiles but will not be able to do so against more 3 or 4 interception missiles .

It certainly raises the cost for the adversary to defend themselves as they will have to fire 3 or 4 interceptors at various altitudes but eventually will intercept it .

Deep Throat wrote:But Garry , the chances of interception rises when speed is reduced .

It's actually the other way round . By dropping speed and then subsequently manoeuvring the Iskander will put the onus on the intercepting missile to do the same .

I don't think that anything can intercept a missile with the performance characteristics of Iskander.
Anti-missile defense technology is limited to very trivial cases, almost exclusively against subsonic cruise missiles
and even then, under favorable circumstances.

All the hype gets support for diplomatic reasons and as a mechanism for the civilians to fell safe and invulnerable
and as a tool of national pride because Americans specifically find it hard to swallow that their so much hyped country
can cease to exist if someone in Russia or in India or in China decide so.

Great explanation Garry . My vote .

GarryB wrote:

But Garry , the chances of interception rises when speed is reduced .

To explain it properly you need to see an interception as a mathematics problem

If a target has a high speed that does make interception harder, but if it is flying a predictable path at a constant decaying speed then it is not as hard as you might think.

The problem is 4D maths, where the first three dimensions are x,y,and z coordinates in longitude, latitude, and altitude. The fourth critical dimension is time. If you can get your interceptor missile to the same point (3D) in space and also at the same point in time then you have an intercept..

Very close explanation but is actually a bit more complex..     
Is more a mathematic -physics problem .You need differential equations + physics.
Because you have X,Y,Z position.. you Also Have TIme.. But a hell of more unknowns variables that you need to know.. Things like Acceleration ,Initian Velocity ,Final Velocity ,Gravity , Mass of the Missile , also the Air velocity and direction ,temperature of Air , and if that was not complex enough ,include the Maneuvers of the Missile. But if there is bad weather that even complicates more the interception..and may even the missile accuracy. By the way Iskanders can travel up to Mach 7.6 and travel up to 2.6km in 1 sec.
The CIWS range is ~4km. so less than 2 seconds to try.

I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly    And much more batteries would be required.

So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

etaepsilonk wrote:I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly    And much more batteries would be required.

So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

I doubt it, if you didn't know already then you should know now that the PAC-3 system has been compromised, the manufacturers of the Iskander-M could easily make a phone call to Beijing and get some critical details of the PAC-3 system. China is more than willing to get back at the Pentagon for it's historical meddling in Tibet, Taiwan,  the South China Sea, and the Daiyou/Senkaku Islands.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly    And much more batteries would be required.

So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

I doubt it, if you didn't know already then you should know now that the PAC-3 system has been compromised, the manufacturers of the Iskander-M could easily make a phone call to Beijing and get some critical details of the PAC-3 system. China is more than willing to get back at the Pentagon for it's historical meddling in Tibet, Taiwan,  the South China Sea, and the Daiyou/Senkaku Islands.

Oh, boy   

etaepsilonk wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly    And much more batteries would be required.

So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

I doubt it, if you didn't know already then you should know now that the PAC-3 system has been compromised, the manufacturers of the Iskander-M could easily make a phone call to Beijing and get some critical details of the PAC-3 system. China is more than willing to get back at the Pentagon for it's historical meddling in Tibet, Taiwan,  the South China Sea, and the Daiyou/Senkaku Islands.

Oh, boy   

You can be skeptical all you want, the Pentagon itself admitted that Chinese hackers compromised most all the air defence systems of the United States including the Pac-3:

"Among more than two dozen major weapons systems whose designs were breached were programs critical to U.S. missile defenses and combat aircraft and ships, according to a previously undisclosed section of a confidential report prepared for Pentagon leaders by the Defense Science Board."

"Experts warn that the electronic intrusions gave China access to advanced technology that could accelerate the development of its weapons systems and weaken the U.S. military advantage in a future conflict."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/confidential-report-lists-us-weapons-system-designs-compromised-by-chinese-cyberspies/2013/05/27/a42c3e1c-c2dd-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html


A list of the U.S. weapons designs and technologies compromised by hackers

Weapon designs and technologies compromised

The following is reproduced from the nonpublic version of the
Defense Science Board report “Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat”:

Table 2.2 Expanded partial list of DoD system designs and technologies compromised via cyber exploitation

SYSTEM DESIGNS

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

Patriot Advanced Capability-3

Extended Area Protection and Survivability System (EAPS)

F-35

V-22

C-17

Hawklink

Advanced Harpoon Weapon Control System

Tanker Conversions

Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System

Global Hawk

Navy antenna mechanisms

Global Freight Management System

Micro Air Vehicle

Brigade Combat Team Modernization

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System

USMC Tracked Combat Vehicles

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

T700 Family of Engines

Full Authority Digital Engine Controller (FADEC)

UH-60 Black Hawk

AMRAAM (AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile)

Affordable Weapons System

Littoral Combat Ship

Navy Standard Missile (SM-2,3,6)

P-8A/Multi-Mission Aircraft

F/A and EA-18

RC-135 Detect./Collect.

Mk54 Light Weight Torpedo

TECHNOLOGIES

Directed Energy

UAV video system

Specific Emitter identification

Nanotechnology

Dual Use Avionics

Fuze/Munitions safety and development

Electronic Intelligence Processing

Tactical Data Links

Satellite Communications

Electronic Warfare

Advanced Signal Processing Technologies for Radars

Nanostructured Metal Matrix Composite for Light Weight Ballistic Armor

Vision-aided Urban Navigation & Collision Avoidance for Class I Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV)

Space Surveillance Telescope

Materials/processing technologies

IR Search and Track systems

Electronic Warfare systems

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch

Rail Gun

Side Scan sonar

Mode 5 IFF

Export Control, ITAR, Distribution Statement B,C,D Technical Information

CAD drawings, 3D models, schematics

Software code

Critical technology

Vendor/supply chain data

Technical manuals

PII (email addresses, SSN, credit card numbers, passwords, etc.)

Attendee lists for program reviews and meetings

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-list-of-the-us-weapons-designs-and-technologies-compromised-by-hackers/2013/05/27/a95b2b12-c483-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html


...Your quick to down play Beijing selling secrets of US weapon systems, well it looks like Beijing sold some critical intel on the PAC-3 to Iran:

http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/iranian-talaash-medium-range-air.html

etaepsilonk wrote:I'm not very knowledgable in ballistics, but I'll try to give my insight.
Actually, we shouldn't question, whether or not iskander can be intercepted (because it can be), but what resources such an interception would tie down.

First example. An iskander missile is launched against Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted? Easily.

Second example. The same Iskander is threatening the entire 400km length region behind the front lines, comprising troop concentrations, HQ posts, warehouses, roads, bridges and so on, defended by the very same Patriot PAC-3 battery. Can it be intercepted now? Hardly    And much more batteries would be required.

So you see, having anti-ABM measures doesn't somehow make the missile " silver bullet", but it does increase missile's survivabilty and ties down more SAM batteries in order to increase the chance of successful interception.

PAc-3 Air defense System. designed to protect air-space.. but not anything above it. Not space.
Air space is from 0 to 20km altitude. Which is Pac-3 max altitude..This was told by a retired US Army operator of missiles defenses that knows of Pac-3  at least he said that..  now there is a Pac-3 MSE apparently that can go up to 35km.

Pac-3 MSE speed is mach 5.0 and max altitude is 35km...  Iskanders-M speed Mach 6.7 /Range 500km (not 400km) and 50km altitude .when Iskander launched their initial phase they fly near vertically towards space like ICBM does..
until they reach the low meso-sphere at 50km altitude and move towards its target while flying at the altitude to stay away
of any system of air defense.Apparently when Iskander over their target..they do a 90 degree turn and start doing maneuvers on its final phase.This means that it cannot be shot down on a)early phase or on its b)mid course by any system of air defense in the west. and probably not even by S-400. but not sure of its max ceiling. reason is that Fly to high and too fast for a PAC-3 to catch it .So you need Bigger missiles for *SPACE defense* like a SM-3 or THAAD or israel Arrow-2/3 to at least try an interception before is very close to the target and its on its final phase.

SM-3 and Thaad should be able in theory to defeat the Iskander.. but is also worth to remember that Russia designed Iskanders to counter US space defense systems. their  ABM efense system that US have in Europe.  Iskander are like a giant bullet.. and very resistant to Lazer ,heat and resistant to impacts and trying to intercept them with combat jets air to air missiles ,that not only slower but have have a very small explosive warhead will be like trying to stop a train with a Bike. In the first IRAQ war ,Sadam launched a dozen of Scuds missiles to israel and none of the Patriots managed to stop a single one of them. There was interception at times but they were not strong enough to destroy the Scuds. There are youtube videos that you can confirm the patriots fail on scuds. Iskanders are Modern Ballistic missiles ,much more advanced and stronger missiles ,so the probabilities the Patriots can defeat them even in the case of an intercept are not very high.

So all said.. SM-3 and Thaad could try intercept at mid-course of Iskanders and Pac-3 could try at its most challenging flight path the final phase where it does many maneuvers. So probabilities the Pac-3 can defeat Iskanders are not very high. How can u predict the interception point of an Iskander on its final phase if it follow a non predictable flight path?
The challenge should be similar in Baseball that you are throw a Ball that can dynamically alter its course very fast.
US strategy against Russia Nuclear Missiles is intercepting them on its mid course for nothing. Why they place missiles in Poland ,Romania and Turkey. Like an anti-ballistic fence near RUssia ,to have a chance to try Mid course interception. On its final Phase it becomes much more complicated if not impossible ,specially if the missile launch Decoys that have identical radar signal that the Iskander have. So in the final phase if for example the Iskander can launch 10 decoys , you will need 10 +1 missiles ,that is 11 Pac-3 misiles to intercept ONE Iskander.  if you fire 2 iskanders then 22 xpac-3.  Not very easy.

Sm-3 aegis in the other hand or Thaad have much better chance to try and deal with iskanders.SM-3 for example have heat sensors and color matching seekers that could give a chance to differentiate the real Missile from a decoy and fly at Iskanders altitude or higher.  But here,not sure about how SM-3 perform ,or Thaad will perform against maneuverable ballistic missiles at 50km altitude. Neither sure if Iskander at Mid course also can do maneuvers on deploy decoys.


Here is a youtube video that explain that Illustrate how Pac-3 is a low altitude air-defense the last layer of defense.
And SM-3 and Thaad the first and second layer respectively.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=69uXXiJan_o

They however test against simple flight path missiles without decoys.. ICBMS like TOPOL i have heard can do maneuvers in Mid Course..and they fly at near 4 times the speed of Iskanders. Mach 22.

To GarryB:
I caution you, that terminal maneuvering is not some sort of "deus ex machina".
In fact, fateh-110 and lora, and atcms also have exactly the same maneuvering, but for some reason you aren't hearing that from RUSSIASTRONK crews, are you?
As a weapon, Iskander is Scud with increased survivability.
Do you even know where those "oh, able to penetrate all AD systems in ze WORLD" speeches are coming from? That would be KBM itself
And equally, raytheon, or rafael managers are also producing this sort of speeches, just from the opposite camp
Currently, the most reliable way through strong ABM presence is by oversaturation, terminal maneuvers and lofted trajectory ,of course, help a lot, but they aren't the only factors.

To magnum:
It's not if I believe it or not. Compromise of weapons systems are indeed possible, but you shouldn't place your strategy on it   

And if you insist so much on James Bond scenarios, then I remind you, that Iskander can also be comproised just as easily, and in fact, it  already has been
And by the very same Chinese, who already produce it as missile system, model M20.  


To vann7:
I'm not sure if sm-3 and thaad are actually more suitable than patriot. Their minimal operating altitude is pretty high, like 40km or so...

etaepsilonk wrote:To GarryB:
I caution you, that terminal maneuvering is not some sort of "deus ex machina".
In fact, fateh-110 and lora, and atcms also have exactly the same maneuvering, but for some reason you aren't hearing that from RUSSIASTRONK crews, are you?
As a weapon, Iskander is Scud with increased survivability.
Do you even know where those "oh, able to penetrate all AD systems in ze WORLD" speeches are coming from? That would be KBM itself
And equally, raytheon, or rafael managers are also producing this sort of speeches, just from the opposite camp
Currently, the most reliable way through strong ABM presence is by oversaturation, terminal maneuvers and lofted trajectory ,of course, help a lot, but they aren't the only factors.

To magnum:
It's not if I believe it or not. Compromise of weapons systems are indeed possible, but you shouldn't place your strategy on it   

And if you insist so much on James Bond scenarios, then I remind you, that Iskander can also be comproised just as easily, and in fact, it  already has been
And by the very same Chinese, who already produce it as missile system, model M20.  


To vann7:
I'm not sure if sm-3 and thaad are actually more suitable than patriot. Their minimal operating altitude is pretty high, like 40km or so...

Few things to remember.

1. Iskander and SCUD are nothing alike. Iskander has quasibalistic flightpath while SCUD has purely ballistic path and can not manuevre.

2. When speaking on Iskander you are not talking only about terminal maneuvering but is also managable throughout the entire flight
  path. Missile is constantly changing plane trajectory. Etc etc

3. "fateh-110 and lora, and atcms" are no where near Iskander whose quasibalistic flightpath, decoys, integrated ECM and other goodies make it a light years away from those prahistoric  
  missiles you mentioned.

4. Speaches about invurability of Iskander missiles are coming from NATO generals itselves too as Mindstorm posted before. Besides Patriot war experience is disappointment when last time
   was confronted against even most basic ballistic missile - SCUD.

5. Have you ever heard about counterintelligence? Russians are masters at it. They detect spys and let them operate under strict surveillance but all the stuff those spys get are the ones
  Russian spys plant in purpose and those are for the obvious reasons false info that will get foreign spy agencies tapping in a dark.

To Viktor:
"1.Iskander and SCUD are nothing alike. Iskander has quasibalistic flightpath while SCUD has purely ballistic path and can not manuevre."

Yes, just as "triochlineika" and SVD are nothing alike. But they're still rifles, and their job is the same.
Equally, Iskander is still a ballistic missile, and it's job is the same as scud's.







"2. When speaking on Iskander you are not talking only about terminal maneuvering but is also managable throughout the entire flight
 path. Missile is constantly changing plane trajectory. Etc etc"

Well, that depends on the target's range, if it's close (like 100km) then yes, but near its max range that could be problematic, coz maneuvers bleed energy.
Also, a question. What about Iskander's power supply? Is it batteries, some hypergolic fuel or air turbine?









"3. "fateh-110 and lora, and atcms" are no where near Iskander whose quasibalistic flightpath, decoys, integrated ECM and other goodies make it a light years away from those prahistoric  
 missiles you mentioned."

I didn't say that those are near Iskander. I only said, that one particular feature does not make it somehow superior or unique, but the combination of many features. Including those that are not even related to the missile itself (like operating environment).

Also, I'm interested about Iskander's ECM gear. Any more information about it?
And also, it's threat nature and limited space would suggest deception jamming, or am I wrong?







"4. Speaches about invurability of Iskander missiles are coming from NATO generals itselves too as Mindstorm posted before. Besides Patriot war experience is disappointment when last time
  was confronted against even most basic ballistic missile - SCUD."

Lemmie guess. Middle Europe?   
On a serious note, the link to those speeches would be very welcome

And I'm not sure you're right about Patriot here. Last time it was used with pretty high success ratio, with about 7 or so scuds intercepted.






"5. Have you ever heard about counterintelligence? Russians are masters at it. They detect spys and let them operate under strict surveillance but all the stuff those spys get are the ones
 Russian spys plant in purpose and those are for the obvious reasons false info that will get foreign spy agencies tapping in a dark."

Yes, I heard and read pretty much about counterintelligence. But , no matter how good it is, some leakers are still possible from time to time.

etaepsilonk wrote:

And if you insist so much on James Bond scenarios, then I remind you, that Iskander can also be comproised just as easily, and in fact, it  already has been
And by the very same Chinese, who already produce it as missile system, model M20.  


To vann7:
I'm not sure if sm-3 and thaad are actually more suitable than patriot. Their minimal operating altitude is pretty high, like 40km or so...

This same question of whether PAC-3 can handle Iskander.. many times.. and a US ARmy retired veteran of
Missile Forces,,told PAC-3 will not intercept it. as simple as that. He told you need SM-3 against iskanders.
Patriots missiles chance to intercept an Iskander doing maneuvers and dropping decoys are next to zero.
Remember that Pac-3 is for air interception and Iskanders are more like Space Rockets. Is much much complicate
interception when a missile is over you and comes from space.

And pac-3 is totally completely different to Scuds..as different as T-62 tanks vs T-99 armata. No comparison at all. Scuds accuracy(or lack of) was in the 1000 meters.. useless for any tactical combat. Iskanders accuracy 5-7m. . Many decades and generations of difference. Scuds introduced in 1957 and iskander introduced in 2006.

What i don't know is if SM-3 or thaad is whether or not can engage maneuvering targets .

Vann7 wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:

And if you insist so much on James Bond scenarios, then I remind you, that Iskander can also be comproised just as easily, and in fact, it  already has been
And by the very same Chinese, who already produce it as missile system, model M20.  


To vann7:
I'm not sure if sm-3 and thaad are actually more suitable than patriot. Their minimal operating altitude is pretty high, like 40km or so...

This same question of whether PAC-3 can handle Iskander.. many times.. and a US ARmy retired veteran of
Missile Forces,,told PAC-3 will not intercept it.  as simple as that. He told you need SM-3 against iskanders.
Patriots missiles chance to intercept an Iskander doing maneuvers and dropping decoys are next to zero.
Remember that Pac-3 is for air interception and Iskanders are more like Space Rockets.  Is much much complicate
interception when a missile is over you and comes from space.  

And pac-3 is totally completely different to Scuds..as different as T-62 tanks vs T-99 armata. No comparison at all. Scuds accuracy(or lack of)  was in the 1000 meters.. useless for any tactical combat.  Iskanders accuracy 5-7m. . Many decades and generations of difference. Scuds introduced in 1957  and iskander introduced in 2006.

What i don't know is if SM-3 or thaad is whether or not can engage maneuvering targets .

Sorry vann, but I don't think, that iskander is "space rocket" like you proclaim.
Iskander operates below 50km altitude, while space is at about 70km or so
But yes, for large part of it's descending trajectory, pac-3 missiles could not reach it, that is true.

And to be frank, whether or not Iskander can be engaged by patriot, I cannot say precisely.
But even if it can't, there's no reason why it couldn't be upgraded to meet this threat, especially so, since not only KBM is making increased survivability BMs now.

etaepsilonk wrote:

Sorry vann, but I don't think, that iskander is "space rocket" like you proclaim.
Iskander operates below 50km altitude, while space is at about 70km or so

Actually space starts at 100km.. but i use the term space rocket to make it more easier to explain
that it does not travel on the Airplanes airspace where normally Sams and Combat jets fly.
SR-71 for example which have the records in altitude in Planes ,and which pilots uniform looks like Astronaunts
its max altitude was 22k-25k ,it could reach a bit higher but could not sustain. ISkanders fly trajectory is at 50km that is lower mesosphere. Closer to space. you dont like the word space..then Pac-3 is a Troposphere defense up to 20km. or up to 35km with customized version. Still not enough to catch the Mighty Iskander
when is only possible to effectively intercept.Pac-3 ballistic inteception is limited .

They are not modifying more Pac-3 for the simply reason that they already have a missile called THHAD . So that one will be the one to modify .A mesosphere interceptor above PAC-3 range. But apparently Thaad need to be located near the same place your expecting an Attack. Near same trajectory ,Means can only defend small zones in land. Is a missile that only looks upwards towards space. Only intercept near the zones they deployed.

So my best guess SM-3 have the best chances to intercept Iskander , Thaad a less chance.. and Pac-3 no chance at all.  

etaepsilonk wrote:
And I'm not sure you're right about Patriot here. Last time it was used with pretty high success ratio, with about 7 or so scuds intercepted.

No SCUDs where intercepted ever. All the Patriot missiles exploded behind SCUD

Patriot is a worst SAM system ever designed for numerous reasons and the only thing it managed to shot down where their own planes (NATO planes).

You have numerous links on the net about that. Anyway SM-3 and THAAD can not defend against winged targets so cruise missiles will fly to its targets unopposed.