S-300/400 vs MIM-104 Patriot comparison

Austin wrote:One question for SOC , During 1991 Gulf War there was not much success in finding Scud TEL , I think if i recollect not a single Scud TEL was destroyed on ground.

But what about Enduring Freedom , Iraq did launch Al-Samoud , Abdali BM which were intercepted by PAC-3 , but did USAF or Special ops managed to destroy any TEL of these BM on ground ?

Honestly, I don't remember. I had just returned from Shaikh Isa in Bahrain and wasn't paying much attention.

Garry I would suggest lets not get into this US bashing game and stick to technical discussion , MIC all over the world are just like that US is no exception .....all MIC will exaggerate the threat and would then propose or built a system that would exaggerate its own capabilities.

Errrr... with respect Austin... please point out my US bashing.
I identified the issue as being specifically with the US MIC, not the American people, or even the US government. Who is actually to blame for the situation? The French?
MICs all around the world do want to do the same thing, but I think you will find that the Russian MIC has nothing like the clout in Russia that the US MIC has in the US.

If we need to stick to the topic then that is S-400 and S-500 news... so I agree my comments about the PAC-3 are off topic... but whose fault is that?

The 48N6E2 missile of S-300PMU2 series is capable of intercepting target corresponding to a maximum speed of 7500 km/h or 2083 m/sec , that corresponds to a missile with a range of ~ 500 km.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-S-300PMU2-Favorit.html

Patriot PAC-3 can do much better at 3 km/sec

A more close rival of PAC-3 is the S-300V series smaller Gladiator missile that can intercept target travelling at 3 km/sec

The first entry on this pdf:

http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_def/air_def_10-13.pdf

is S-300PMU1 and as you can see in the spec section the max target speed is 2.8km/s. The next entry in the catalogue is Favorite, or S-300PMU2, which also can intercept targets travelling at 2.8km/s.

US has more money then rest of the world combined so the MIC there will have more incentive ,

No. The US spends more money on weapons than the rest of the world combined so their MIC is very well funded... but they just want more... like any profit motivated company.

But what about Enduring Freedom , Iraq did launch Al-Samoud , Abdali BM which were intercepted by PAC-3 , but did USAF or Special ops managed to destroy any TEL of these BM on ground ?

The propaganda BS surrounding the performance of PAC-2 in Desert Storm pretty much made the US military look like fools afterwards when the facts came out. I would think that if the PAC-3 actually did a good job they would have problems convincing everyone of that.
I am sure even if it performed to a mediocre level it will be the best SAM in the world... on Discovery Channel.

GarryB wrote:MICs all around the world do want to do the same thing, but I think you will find that the Russian MIC has nothing like the clout in Russia that the US MIC has in the US

All MIC have clout , during SU days when Defence Spending were high MIC has tremendous clout ...... similar for china now when spending is high their MIC too have great clout over CPC.

If we need to stick to the topic then that is S-400 and S-500 news... so I agree my comments about the PAC-3 are off topic... but whose fault is that?

Sure , but we are comparing performance of rival system and not really trying to blame MIC of US , Europe or Russia.

http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/air_def/air_def_10-13.pdf

is S-300PMU1 and as you can see in the spec section the max target speed is 2.8km/s. The next entry in the catalogue is Favorite, or S-300PMU2, which also can intercept targets travelling at 2.8km/s.

In that case based just on raw target speed performance , S-300PMU2 can intercept MRBM with a range of ~ 700 km

No. The US spends more money on weapons than the rest of the world combined so their MIC is very well funded... but they just want more... like any profit motivated company.

Ofcourse they spend more is because they have more , their GDP is much greater then all world combined , though now most is on debt.

China has 2nd largest def spending and you see similar problem there as well.

The propaganda BS surrounding the performance of PAC-2 in Desert Storm pretty much made the US military look like fools afterwards when the facts came out. I would think that if the PAC-3 actually did a good job they would have problems convincing everyone of that.
I am sure even if it performed to a mediocre level it will be the best SAM in the world... on Discovery Channel.

If you read the link i gave above , most of the intercept were carried by PAC-2 GEM update missile , only two were intercepted by PAC-3.

Total 9 out of 12 BM were sucessfully intercepted , operating in a complex war environment ..... due credit to Patriot for being a pioneer in this game ...there may be others in the game including many US system but none has so far been combat proven ......Patriot improvement was always been by the word Trial By Fire.

I think PAC-2 GEM update gives it a capability broadly comparable to S-300PMU1 and 2 , it uses directional charge warhead and has ATBM capability plus has a range of 160 km.

Though i did not get any figure for max speed of target for PAC-2 GEM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-specs.htm

I really dont know the average speed of S-300PMU1 and PMU2 , does any one know about it ?

All MIC have clout , during SU days when Defence Spending were high MIC has tremendous clout ...... similar for china now when spending is high their MIC too have great clout over CPC.

Completely untrue.

The Soviet leadership could on a whim close any design bureaus it wanted, or shift them from one type of work to another. Lavochkin went from designing fighter aircraft to spacecraft. Several other firms went from planes to missiles.

Even today the Russian military says it wants this and this and this and when the Russian MIC comes up with BMPTs and T-95s, and T-90AMs the military simply says it has changed its mind as to what it wants or what it can afford and cancels the T-95, and simply doesn't buy the BMPT and T-90AM to save its money for later purchases.

Mig has been showing the Mig-29SMT upgrade for 20 years and the Russian AF only got some because Algeria cancelled its order. The Su-27M has been floating around for just as long and only now with the Su-35BM model are they actually going to buy any.

The Su-25 was a private venture that the Russian military tested in Afghanistan and found them much more use than supersonic fighters normally used in the swing role in the FA, but the Russian AF still hasn't bought the Su-25T or Su-25TM upgraded models. They did go for a much cheaper and simpler SM upgrade version.

In comparison the US military gets C-17s whether it asks for them or not because they are made in states where there is high unemployment so congress keeps allocating money for them whether the pentagon asks for them or not.

Sure , but we are comparing performance of rival system and not really trying to blame MIC of US , Europe or Russia.

So we can talk about rival systems but can't criticise those systems or their reason for being?

Who made up that rule?
As I look across the top of the screen I see Russian Military Forum, Russian Armed Forces, Russian Air Force. and S-400/500 News. If you don't bring up Patriot I wont mention its faults.

I am not really very interested in US weapons... that is why I come here.

In that case based just on raw target speed performance , S-300PMU2 can intercept MRBM with a range of ~ 700 km

Which should be adequate for any modified Scud threat as well as cruise missiles and aerodynamic targets.

Ofcourse they spend more is because they have more , their GDP is much greater then all world combined , though now most is on debt.

They spend more because they have to maintain their global empire... if such things were cheap... everyone would have one.

China has 2nd largest def spending and you see similar problem there as well.

Is it still the second largest when taken in terms of per head of population?

If you read the link i gave above , most of the intercept were carried by PAC-2 GEM update missile , only two were intercepted by PAC-3.

Sorry, I find reading about US weapons about as interesting as reading about local politics.

Total 9 out of 12 BM were sucessfully intercepted , operating in a complex war environment ..... due credit to Patriot for being a pioneer in this game ...there may be others in the game including many US system but none has so far been combat proven ......Patriot improvement was always been by the word Trial By Fire.

For a custom ATBM system 9 out of 12 is a failure... imagine its performance against a mach 7 threat that manouvers like Iskander/Tender?

Is the F-22 junk because it has never been used in real combat?

I think PAC-2 GEM update gives it a capability broadly comparable to S-300PMU1 and 2 , it uses directional charge warhead and has ATBM capability plus has a range of 160 km.

So it is 2012 and they have managed to make a S-300PMU1.5.

Fantastic

I really dont know the average speed of S-300PMU1 and PMU2 , does any one know about it ?

Average speed is a strange number that is not really useful most of the time. Average speed needs a range to be significant... ie average speed to 100km etc.

As I know S-300V and S-300PMU2 could intercept ballistic missiles, which fly with speed of 3000m/s. If I'm correct, this is also the target speed for THAAD. I'm not sure with what speed of ballistic missiles patriot could deal, but I think it is lower.

medo wrote:As I know S-300V and S-300PMU2 could intercept ballistic missiles, which fly with speed of 3000m/s. If I'm correct, this is also the target speed for THAAD. I'm not sure with what speed of ballistic missiles patriot could deal, but I think it is lower.

I dont remember off my head for S-300V , except the S-300VM which is said to be capable of intercepting 2,500 km range misile.

S-300PMU2 can intercept a missile of 700 km.

THAAD can intercept IRBM targets travelling at 3500 km range.

From what has been disclosed S-300V4 and S-400 40N6 will have capability as THAAD which is to intercept 3,500 km range missile.

Which sounds impressive, but in reality is not... actually.

As long as the INF treaty is in effect then the ability to intercept BMs with ranges between 500km and 5,000km can only be applied to conflicts with emerging BM makers like North Korea etc.

Having said that even the up to 500km range Iskander is designed to manouver during its flight to the target, so an intercept point is almost impossible to predict accurately.

GarryB wrote:As long as the INF treaty is in effect then the ability to intercept BMs with ranges between 500km and 5,000km can only be applied to conflicts with emerging BM makers like North Korea etc.

True for most part Russia will not be subjected to IRBM attacks since INF treaty bans it , its possible some stray IRBM migt end up entering Russian territory in future Iran-US-Israel conflict but that possibility is remote.

I recollect during Gulf War SU did constant scanning using AWACS for any stray Cruise Missile entering its territory during the first gulf war.

Other than that having ability to defeat a target travelling at 5 Km per second means it takes care of future hypersonic cruise missile thats under development that travels inside the atmosphere or just above it , and since S-400 retains full atmospheric capability to intrcept air breathing targets unlike THAAD , its more useful for the latter role then former.

Having said that even the up to 500km range Iskander is designed to manouver during its flight to the target, so an intercept point is almost impossible to predict accurately.

True , the intercept target speed is one variable , many modern missile like Iskander or even IRBM from Iran have MaRV capability that has manouvering capability making interception very difficult.

I recollect during Gulf War SU did constant scanning using AWACS for any stray Cruise Missile entering its territory during the first gulf war.

Cruise missiles ended up landing in some very unexpected places, but I rather suspect those Russian aircraft were doing more than just looking for rogue cruise missiles... don't you?

BTW the satellite the Soviets launched in 1982 to monitor activity in the south atlantic likely didn't result in any information being delivered to either the Brits or the Argentinians.

So what do you think is the peak velocity of the S-300, S-400, and S-350 missiles because it can't be more than the Patriot ?

NickM wrote:So what do you think is the peak velocity of the S-300, S-400, and S-350 missiles because it can't be more than the Patriot ?

Why can't it be more?

Are American weapons blessed by god?

NickM wrote:So what do you think is the peak velocity of the S-300, S-400, and S-350 missiles because it can't be more than the Patriot ?

Depends on which source you read, some give Mach numbers some give actual velocities, but hey, let's compare some numbers.

1700 m/s for PAC-3
2100 m/s for the 48N6DM (S-400)
2600 m/s for the 9M83M (S-300VM)

Patriot can deal with a TBM with a 1,000 km range.  
S-300VM and S-400, a TBM with a range of up to 3,500 km.

I've seen the average velocity for PAC-3 given as 750 - 950 m/s, with the average velocity for the S-350's 9M96 as 900 - 1000 m/s.

The Russian SAMs consistently outrange all versions of Patriot in terms of TBM footprint, aerodynamic engagement envelope, and TAR/TER radar range.

9M96 has a more sound design than PAC-3:  "The 9M96E/E2 radial thruster package is located at the fuselage CoG, to generate a direct force to turn the missile, rather than producing a pitch/yaw moment to use body lift to turn, as is the case in the ERINT/PAC-3 design."

The S-300/400's SAGG guidance concept is more advanced and less susceptible to EA than Patriot's simpler TVM.

The S-300/350/400 have a demonstrated 5 minute set-up/tear-down time, compared to 45-60 minutes for US Patriot variants (Germany might be able to deploy their quicker if they're using the mobile MAN launcher chassis).

The AN/MPQ-53/65 has a search coverage of 120 degrees, and an engagement coverage of 90 degrees.  The Russian systems routinely use off-board TARs employing 360 degree mechanical search modes allowing the use of narrower engagement beamwidths providing a reduced electronic footprint for the TER in comparison.

Finally, Patriot doesn't even hold water to what is by far the best American SAM system yet created, a system on par with the S-400:  the land-based AEGIS system.

Acceleration?  Whatever.  In the grand scheme of things, what acceleration does is eat up your minimum range fractionally faster.  Velocity at burnout is what is normally going to drive your engagement kinematics, not how quickly you get to that point.

Besides, the personifications of Sprint and the 53T6 would find all of this talk about comparatively sluggish SAM accelerations to be completely hilarious.

There are some things America does better than everyone without it being a contest.  But SAMs?  That ain't the field to argue.

TR1 wrote:Are American weapons blessed by god?

Maybe that's why they couldn't hit a SCUD for a damn in 1991...

SOC wrote:Acceleration?  Whatever.  In the grand scheme of things, what acceleration does is eat up your minimum range fractionally faster.  Velocity at burnout is what is normally going to drive your engagement kinematics, not how quickly you get to that point.

Since acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, it is possible by performing integration to obtain the velocity from the acceleration . But then the question arises , how do you calculate acceleration ? I recon the answer lies in Newton's 2nd law ..... F=ma

Consider a missile of mass "m" propelled by a rocket with constant thrust "F".
To produce the constant thrust , the rocket expels fuel at a constant rate ,m*, and the missile's mass decreases at this rate . The thrust F produces an acceleration ,a, according to F =ma , with m varying as m=Mo+Mt, where m<O.

Hence , F= (Mo+Mt)dv/dt

Therefore, ∆v = F/m *ln ( Mo / Mo + Mt)

We get , -F/m = U

The quantity -F/m is the thrust generated by burning rocket fuel at m kg/sec ( -F/w is generally used instead of -F/m , where w = mg the weight of fuel burnt per second .)

The resulting quantity , called specific impulse Isp is defined by

Isp = -F/w = U/g

Deep Throat wrote:Since acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, it is possible by performing integration to obtain the velocity from the acceleration . But then the question arises , how do you calculate acceleration ? I recon the answer lies in Newton's 2nd law ..... F=ma

Consider a missile of mass "m" propelled by a rocket with constant thrust "F".
To produce the constant thrust , the rocket expels fuel at a constant rate ,m*, and the missile's mass decreases at this rate . The thrust F produces an acceleration ,a, according to F =ma , with m varying as m=Mo+Mt, where m<O.

Hence , F= (Mo+Mt)dv/dt

Therefore, ∆v = F/m *ln ( Mo / Mo + Mt)

We get , -F/m = U

The quantity  -F/m is the thrust generated by burning rocket fuel at m kg/sec ( -F/w is generally used instead of  -F/m , where w = mg the weight of fuel burnt per second .)

The resulting quantity , called specific impulse Isp is defined by

Isp = -F/w = U/g

This is why doing math at 3AM is best left to people designated Not Me   This is actually pretty close to the example I give in class when covering Newton's Laws, explaining how F=ma is actually oversimplified in the real world. I explain the idea of a rocket with decreasing mass, and then you can see the lightbulbs go on when I tell them that their car does the same thing.

That being said, it's going to be more complicated for a SAM. To make this as accurate as possible you also need to factor in the various drag effects of the airframe shape, the control surfaces, and drag created by the manipulation of control fins, any body lift generated, etc. This will all amount to a small decrease in what you'd calculate above, but it will manifest itself differently based on the individual missile characteristics.

Hence why the most ridiculous accelerators are conical with very, very large high impulse boosters. And why I have taken to using various programs to figure this crap out for me a lot faster  

Plus, higher acceleration is still not going to necessarily result in a higher peak velocity, especially if you've got a significantly smaller burn time on your motor. If we both accelerate, with you at a higher rate, but I do it for a longer period of time, I'll end up with the higher velocity if I was accelerating long enough to pass your peak velocity.

Which is not to say Patriot is a bad system... but that the US tends to prefer to leave its air defence to its Air Force and aircraft rather than ground based missiles.

Since acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, it is possible by performing integration to obtain the velocity from the acceleration . But then the question arises , how do you calculate acceleration ? I recon the answer lies in Newton's 2nd law ..... F=ma

Again the Patriot is disadvantaged as because it is fired in a fixed direction there is a pretty good chance it will need to change direction straight after launch to head toward the target which increases drag and reduces the available energy for acceleration.

The Russian missiles are rolled in the direction they must head for just after launch which means the full thrust of the main rocket engine accelerates them directly at the target location at launch.

Anti-aircraft missile system S-400 Triumph vs. Patriot


https://topwar.ru/145430-zenitnyy-raketnyy-komples-s-400-triumf-protiv-patriot.html



Looks like the 1992 S-300PMU1 is superior in range and target speed compared to later Patriot ERINT 


Gives a good idea how far ahead Russian AD systems were even in the early 90's

Austin wrote:Anti-aircraft missile system S-400 Triumph vs. Patriot


https://topwar.ru/145430-zenitnyy-raketnyy-komples-s-400-triumf-protiv-patriot.html



Looks like the 1992 S-300PMU1 is superior in range and target speed compared to later Patriot ERINT 


Gives a good idea how far ahead Russian AD systems were even in the early 90's

This is something I've been saying for years, and S-300PMU1 (export version of the ancient S-300PS) didn't have modern microchips and digital software like the PAC-3 had, but the most damning fact is that Raytheon has basically threw in the towel improving PAC-3 and has outsourced the creation of PAC-4 to the creators of Iron Dome and Davids' Sling.

To be fair the Soviets had a lot of ballistic weapons, from FROG-7 and Scud and Scaleboard and all sorts of newly developed IRBMs and so they focussed on standard SAMs being able to deal with these sorts of weapons very early as initial parts of their design.

In comparison before Desert Storm in 1991 the west didn't really think about being on the receiving end of ballistic weapons and mostly ridiculed the Scud series of weapons as effective weapons of war... which is perfectly understandable, because with a CEP of 700-800m or so it really needed a Chem or Bio or nuke warhead to be effective... but that is exactly what they did... Scuds within the Soviet military structure were intended to hit airfields and other large area targets with nuke or NBC warheads.

As their technology developed and improved the new cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with tiny CEPs allowed conventional warheads to be used effectively.

As a weapon of war the Scud was a terrible failure. As a scare tactic weapon against a vastly superior foe it was fantastic.

Even with complete control of space and the sky above Iraq, even with the launch range of the missiles limiting launch positions to only a few locations against US forces in Saudi Arabia and Israel, despite having command of the airspace and 24/7 intel and C4IR, they didn't destroy a single Scud launcher before it launched its missile. Resupply missiles were brought forward in camouflaged buses and were not hit either... dozens were launched per day on some days... shows you about the real fog of war and that these smart weapons are not so smart....

GarryB wrote:shows you about the real fog of war and that these smart weapons are not so smart....

Muricans specialise in smart bombs and dumb people.