Patriot SAM System

Which would also explain why the PAC-3 ERINT is a singularly unimpressive weapon, even though it's relatively effective all things considered.

A bird in hand is worth something something in the bush , PAC-3 is one of the singular most impressive weapon in history of SAM , in it earlier form it took out aircraft ( unfortunately few friendly due to IFF issue ) and it took out 30 off SRBM.

I know many missile who spec sounds great on paper russian and US system but PAC-3 and Patriot for all its flaws is combat proven system. And as they say the proof of the pudding is in its eating.

I read of an upgrade of PAC-3 dont remember off head but its impressive.

SOC wrote:Well, it did and it didn't take out 30 SRBMs. It hit something, but most if not all of the time (at least in 1991, meaning before the PAC-3) it failed to actually stop the warhead.

I mean 32 SRBM during GW-2 ( was it Al-Samoud with 200 km range i think ) , in the first GW it managed to knock few MRBM off course and the rest was not a problem becuase the Iraq scud never had the accuracy to do any significant damage from what i heard it mostly fell in desert.

Considering Patriot in its initial role had zero ABM capability it was not bad , well atleast there was this hope for people in Saudi and Israel that we had patriot and that would save us ( so it gave hope as false it may be )

SOC the reality is War is Complex , all the great brochure specs and simulated test just comes to a stand still or not work as advertised in actual combat , the good thing about patriot is that it got better via actual combat not many missile and least of all any ABM could claim that.

I am fairly certain S-300/400 , THAAD or Arrow will have its own set of flaws that wont work as advertised when actual combat comes , we will never know those till it encounters it.

in it earlier form it took out aircraft ( unfortunately few friendly due to IFF issue ) and it took out 30 off SRBM.

Austin Patriot's performance against an antediluvian theatre ballistic missile like Iraqi modified Scuds of the first versions was simply disastrous , have you ever read the survey of Joseph Cirincione - Chief US Congress Investigator appointed to execute a scientifical survey on the technical performance of PAC-2 in the conflict- ?

It provide also a good sample of the outstanding PR mist which US media are capable to produce to sell, to public opinion, a version of the facts that is often even the exact contrary of empyrical evidency coming from theirs same analysis and validation institutions !! (attrition achieved by Air Force on enemy ground forces, inflated often of dozen of times in past wars are others classical examples of that habit)

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/19/60minutes/main601241.shtml


Those are some related statements of J. Cirincione :

Cirincione says the Army has known the Patriot had serious problems since at least 1991, when Congress appointed him to lead an investigation of the Patriot's performance in the first Gulf War, a performance that had looked spectacular on network news programs.

"I saw the pictures. I thought this is amazing. This system is exceeding expectations," says Cirincione. "And all during the war, that's what I thought. This was what all the newscasters said it was -- a Scud buster, a miracle weapon."

And it wasn't just newscasters who said so. This is what President George Bush had to say when he visited Raytheon headquarters during the First Gulf War: "The Patriot works because of Patriots like you, and I came again to say thank you to each and every one of you!"

"A lot of money started flowing into the Patriot right after the Gulf War, because everybody thought it was a success," says Cirincione.

But it turns out, that wasn't true. Almost none of the Patriots had worked. Some of them had failed to hit the incoming Scuds. Some had shot at missiles that didn't even exist. But most of them still exploded in the sky, leading everyone to believe they'd scored a kill, when in fact they hadn't.

"The best evidence that we found supports between two and four intercepts out of 44," says Cirincione. "About a 10 percent success rate."

and above all

Cirincione said the Army responded angrily to his findings: "The Army insisted that they knew they had some problems with the Patriot, BUT IT DIDN'T SERVE ANY PURPOSE TO MAKE THESE PUBLIC. WE WOULD JUST BE AIDING THE ENEMY. And that they would take care of it in the course of normal product improvement."

Yes surely is not good to inform public opinion that PAC-2 simply exploded in the sky without intercepting anything ,is much better to unshamedly "lie knowing to lie" : " "The Patriot works because of Patriots like you, and I came again to say thank you to each and every one of you!" (declaration of the at the time U.S. President George Bush at Raytheon Headquarters in front of purposely reunited TV and press...)


From 2 to 4 out of 44 intercept attempts....so much for PR mist capable to obfuscate facts still in 2011 (for chronicle : the emergences of US Congress equip lead by J. Cirincione was vetoed for diffusion for 15 years, them was publied only in 2006 ) .

Mindstorm , The Patriot-1 and Patriot-2 never really have any TBM capability per se , it was purely a good anti-aircraft missile and the latter a longer range with better anti-cruise missile capability.

The only patriot till date that has anti-missile capability built from scratch is the PAC-3 , during the recent Iraqi invasion it (PAC-2/PAC-3 ) reportedly shot down Iraqi Al-Samoud missile and others

Check http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_05/pac3_may03

Though the PAC-3 is capable of interception missile corresponding to range of 1000 km , the only disadvantage is its short range of 20 km and altitude of 15 km which means it can defend a small area but there is a PAC-3 MSE program to enhance the range.

Mindstorm , The Patriot-1 and Patriot-2 never really have any TBM capability per se , it was purely a good anti-aircraft missile and the latter a longer range with better anti-cruise missile capability.

The Patriot is the best example of the tenet that armies are generally best equipped to fight the last war they fought.... meaning they are in trouble if the next conflict is radically different to their last conflict.

This is not a Russian development but I came across a  very interesting opinion by Dr VK Saraswat who is DRDO Chief on Indias ABM program

link

Dismissing PAC-3 as "an outdated system'', the scientist said India's BMD system was "20-30% more capable'' than it. He, however, acknowledged the BMD system had received some help from countries like Israel (LRTRs), France (fire-control radars) and Russia (seekers).

Saraswat said the new warhead weighed only around 30 kg but was able to generate the impact that a 150 kg omni-directional warhead could make. He said the new guidance system in the missile allowed it to tackle the maneuvers of enemy's incoming missile and could be used against the Russian Topol M class of missiles, which move in a zig-zag manner.

According to him PAC-3 is an outdated system and the guidance system of Indian ABM system is capable of intercepting Topol-M class missile that follows a Zig Zag trajectory.


The current interceptor has a Speed between Mach 4 and 5 ( ~ M 4.5 ) while the new interceptor under development to deal with ICBM class missile will have a speed between Mach 6 and 7

We will complete all our tests for Phase-I by 2010-2011. All BMD building blocks like long-range radars, communication network, mission control centre and launch control centre are in place,'' said Saraswat. "What we are now perfecting are Phase-I interceptor missiles, which fly at 4.5 Mach high-supersonic speeds. We are already working on Phase-II interceptors, which will have hypersonic speeds of 6-7 Mach,''

How does this compare with speed of Russian Interceptor of S-300V3/V4 and S-400 Class ?

Are his statements credible?

Do they have anything Topol like to actually test his words?

Austin wrote:

I think Topol-M statement is a bit off.
Americans with tens of billions invested and much higher experience in ABM design and with several very potent ABM systems do not dare saying anything similar to that Indian guy as
as its systems are still not tested against even most basic ICBM capability not maneuver ones.

Recently Putin said Patriot is obsolete and now source from India but Patriot system have been here for a while but is not the only one nor
the most potent one when it comes to ABM.

Putin's words on anything military should not be taken seriously - he is clearly reading something someone else wrote and has little idea bout the actual topic.

TR1 wrote:Putin's words on anything military should not be taken seriously - he is clearly reading something someone else wrote and has little idea bout the actual topic.

I agree with you. I dont think Putin has much knowledge about topic but his statement is true. Patriot while being capable system have shortcomings which MEADS corrects.

TR1 wrote:Putin's words on anything military should not be taken seriously - he is clearly reading something someone else wrote and has little idea bout the actual topic.

Well Putin or for that matter any president are not Nuclear , Military or Missile experts . They would all say what their military or NSA briefed them or made to understand on this matter.

He is an intelligent man though and can make sense of what he has been briefed.

TR1 wrote:Are his statements credible?

Do they have anything Topol like to actually test his words?

" Anything Topol like " ? Of late due to the extreme ingenuity , dedication and holier than thou attitude of our DRDO friends we have something that is "missile like" .

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-indian-nuclear-forces-bulletin-of-atomic-scientists-agni/1/215890.html


BTW those statements about TOPOL are in all likelihood inserted by journalist who are on western payrolls because even for an organization that is as pro US as the Times of India I did not find any mention of Topol in the DRDO chief's statement

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-03-10/india/28027742_1_interceptor-missile-missile-defence-bmd-system

If indeed the DRDO chief has made such utterances then all I can say is those who know much talk little, while those who know little talk much. Enough said.

I remember Tribue had carried that statement of VKS and I had disscussed at BRF.

But say PAC-3 is useless and interceptor can intercept Topol-M is taking thing to bit extreme but VKS has been known to make wild statement often so i am not surprised either.

Sujoy wrote:

TR1 wrote:Are his statements credible?

Do they have anything Topol like to actually test his words?

" Anything Topol like " ? Of late due to the extreme ingenuity , dedication and holier than thou attitude of our DRDO friends we have something that is "missile like" .

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-indian-nuclear-forces-bulletin-of-atomic-scientists-agni/1/215890.html


BTW those statements about TOPOL are in all likelihood inserted by journalist who are on western payrolls because even for an organization that is as pro US as the Times of India I did not find any mention of Topol in the DRDO chief's statement

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-03-10/india/28027742_1_interceptor-missile-missile-defence-bmd-system

If indeed the DRDO chief has made such utterances then all I can say is those who know much talk little, while those who know little talk much. Enough said.

I see, thanks for info!

Austin wrote:IBut say PAC-3 is useless and interceptor can intercept Topol-M is taking thing to bit extreme but VKS has been known to make wild statement often so i am not surprised either.

PAC-3 IS useless in any sort of ABM discussion, it has no capability against ICBMs.

Out of 12 SCUD launched on Saudi air base that killed Saudi air force chief, Patriot managed to intercept only three

LINK

Viktor wrote:Out of 12 SCUD launched on Saudi air base that killed Saudi air force chief, Patriot managed to intercept only three

LINK

Well thats fcuking astonishing because Saudi uses latest PAC-3 SAMs .


Raytheon has received a $1.7 billion Direct Commercial Sales contract to upgrade Saudi Arabia's Patriot Air and Missile Defense System to the latest Configuration-3 in 2011 . So I've no doubts that they were certainly using PAC-3 only .

Rytheon has been lying from day one.

Lying regarding what ? PAC-3 capabilties or bagging contract for saudi's patriot upgradation ?

max steel wrote:Lying regarding what ? PAC-3 capabilties or bagging contract for saudi's patriot upgradation ?

Lying about the efficiency of the Patriot SAM. 1st Gulf war eventually proved that its efficiency is about 5% or smaller.

Besides being grossly inferior system in comparison to Russian S-300, Patriot is now proven as unefficient one.

Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

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.

Anyway, let's cut the mustard here.
The Saudis can't be relied upon to accurately show-off the capabiltiies of any system.
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.

flamming_python wrote:Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

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.

Anyway, let's cut the mustard here.
The Saudis can't be relied upon to accurately show-off the capabiltiies of any system.
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.

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.

Let us not forget, majority of saudis forces are not even saudi.

sepheronx wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

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.

Anyway, let's cut the mustard here.
The Saudis can't be relied upon to accurately show-off the capabiltiies of any system.
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.

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.

Let us not forget, majority of saudis forces are not even saudi.

I'm not trying to sugar-coat anything, I'm trying to get to the bottom of things. Israel's Patriots performed as designed; only against aircraft.

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.

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.
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.

The other problem I pointed to was the Saudi military itself; armed with all the latest technology and gadgets. Iraq's army wasn't badly armed either. By 1991 its air-defence network was obsolete, but still large and with many systems. Its air force was reasonably modern.
Yet how did it all perform? Abysmally. The Saudis might have the same problems.

But I can certainly believe that their air-defence network could be manned by foreign specialists though. That's one lesson the Saudis learned from the Iraqis at least, and they have the money to make it happen.

flamming_python wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Is the PAC-3 actually designed with ABM capabilities?

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.

Anyway, let's cut the mustard here.
The Saudis can't be relied upon to accurately show-off the capabiltiies of any system.
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.

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.

Let us not forget, majority of saudis forces are not even saudi.

I'm not trying to sugar-coat anything, I'm trying to get to the bottom of things. Israel's Patriots performed as designed; only against aircraft.

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.

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.
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.

The other problem I pointed to was the Saudi military itself; armed with all the latest technology and gadgets. Iraq's army wasn't badly armed either. By 1991 its air-defence network was obsolete, but still large and with many systems. Its air force was reasonably modern.
Yet how did it all perform? Abysmally. The Saudis might have the same problems.

But I can certainly believe that their air-defence network could be manned by foreign specialists though. That's one lesson the Saudis learned from the Iraqis at least, and they have the money to make it happen.

SM-3 is meant to intercept BM's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#MIM-104F_.28PAC-3.29

The PAC-3 upgrade carried with it a new missile design, nominally known as MIM-104F and called PAC-3 by the Army.[19] The PAC-3 missile evolved from the Strategic Defense Initiative's ERINT missile, and so it is dedicated almost entirely to the anti-ballistic missile mission.

And in First gulf war, it hit 1 scud out of 5 (they werent even scuds either, but some Iraqi knock off). Second, they wouldn't sell it and not train the crew. As well, Saudi's hire Pakistanis for airforce, and columbian and other south Americans, as well as Americans in their own military. Effectively, Saudi's military is more or less like one giant private military firm with Saudi generals and some saudi's here and there.

Once again, stop trying to protect the americans and their garbage systems. It proved itself more than once, that what is being advertised is greatly exaggerated, like most of their equipment.

[quote="sepheronx"]

The PAC-3 upgrade carried with it a new missile design, nominally known as MIM-104F and called PAC-3 by the Army.[19] The PAC-3 missile evolved from the Strategic Defense Initiative's ERINT missile, and so it is dedicated almost entirely to the anti-ballistic missile mission.

Well, that's certainly pretty crappy then.

Once again, stop trying to protect the americans and their garbage systems.  It proved itself more than once, that what is being advertised is greatly exaggerated, like most of their equipment.

Well Americans make some great military hardware; second only to the Russians in fact

So I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt or act with some healthy skeptisism until one can get to the bottom of things and investigate the situation properly.
Or would you rather take a leaf out of the fanboy handbook; ragging on the T-72, Russian AD systems, etc... simply because they were useless in the hands of 3rd world Arab country against the might of a military superpower and its allues?