US proposes Patriots to Japan.

#1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060824/ap_on_re_as/japan_us_defense

The United States has offered to sell Tokyo up to 80 advanced Patriot interceptor missiles to boost its defenses following North Korea's missile tests last month, news reports said Thursday.
[irony]As I remember almost all Hezbollah's missiles were intercepted by 'Patriots'. No doubt that Japan would be able to intercept all N.Korean missiles as well.[/irony]
 
#2
They didn't seem to work all that well in GW1, and it seems like a fair amount of the Hezbollah rockets got through the patriot shield this time around...
 
#3
The Patriots used in GW1 were early models. It's been considerably upgraded over the last 15 years, you know. As for intercepting Katyusha type rockets, Patriot was never designed to do that. It can and does intercept exoatmospheric ballistic missiles of the types used by North Korea.

Wonder if Sergey would be so quick to slag off the utterly unproven and probably crap S-300 'Granit' system, also known as the 'Patriotski'.
 
#4
AndyPipkin said:
The Patriots used in GW1 were early models. It's been considerably upgraded over the last 15 years, you know. As for intercepting Katyusha type rockets, Patriot was never designed to do that. It can and does intercept exoatmospheric ballistic missiles of the types used by North Korea.

Wonder if Sergey would be so quick to slag off the utterly unproven and probably crap S-300 'Granit' system, also known as the 'Patriotski'.
Hi Andy!

Indeed, so called 'Katyusha' missiles are rather heavy mortar shells. It would be a hard task to intercept them. However some Hezbollah's missiles were of different types. Those that hit Haifa and other more distant targets were usual short-range missiles. But I'm unaware about even one report that even one such a missile was intercepted or there was an attepmt to intercept it.

So while capabilities of S-300 system are indeed unproven on a battlefield, the capabilities of 'Patriot' were effectively shown.
 
#5
The IDF never attempted to intercept Hizbollah rockets with Patriot because Patriot was never designed to intercept such rockets. Patriot did, though, hot everything it was aimed at in OIF. It's a combat proven system and widely sold. It will be effective against most NK ballistic missiles, although the larger ones will require SM3/THAAD or similar.
 
#6
AndyPipkin said:
The IDF never attempted to intercept Hizbollah rockets with Patriot because Patriot was never designed to intercept such rockets. Patriot did, though, hot everything it was aimed at in OIF. It's a combat proven system and widely sold. It will be effective against most NK ballistic missiles, although the larger ones will require SM3/THAAD or similar.
Andy, you puzzled me.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/

Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.
...
The range of the missile is 70km and maximum altitude is greater than 24km.
Some (not all) Hezbollah's missiles were exactly tactical ballistic missiles. Those that hit Haifa, Afula and other more distant places could be (in theory) be intercepted. But it hasn't happened. How would you explain it?
 
#7
You would have to ask the IDF that, Sergey. Maybe they didn't waste an expensive PAC3 missile on a rocket that was just going to land in the desert?

Slag off Patriot as much as you want, it's a combat proven system and has been widely exported.
 
#8
Still, they're useful things if you want to shoot down yours or your ally's aircraft, which we all need from time to time.
 
#9
Agent_Smith said:
They didn't seem to work all that well in GW1, and it seems like a fair amount of the Hezbollah rockets got through the patriot shield this time around...
Mr.Smith, it appears that you are right about GW1

http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=17314

In 2006, the best hope for tactical missile defense remains the latest iterations of the Patriot interceptor. First deployed in the first Gulf War, the U.S. military initially claimed that this surface-to-air missile had shot down more than 40 of Saddam Hussein's Scuds. In 1992, however, the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives concluded that the Army had no proof that any Patriot had shot down any Scuds.
...
Israel, with the United States, has spent billions on a two-tier ABM system that combines Patriots with Arrow rockets, a homegrown Israeli system. Nevertheless, although Patriot batteries have been set up around Haifa, Israel launched none in the recent conflict with Hezbollah. That's because Patriots cost $1 to $3 million, the Arrow interceptors are similarly expensive, and the supply of both, whether or not they hit incoming Hezbollah rockets, would soon run out -- as with the THEL system, both economics and physics favor the attacker's rockets.
So billions of $$ were spent on missiles that were too expensive to use them in the case of a war.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/20/world/main1821335.shtml

"Theoretically, yes, you could shoot rockets down with Patriot missiles," Pike says, "but you would be firing several million dollars worth of Patriots for several thousand dollars of Hezbollah rockets. You'd run out of Patriots way before Hezbollah ran out of rockets."
 
#10
"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero."
Interesting claim: I was there when the battery in 'full auto' mode took out an incoming scud, and then proceeded to empty its tubes taking out all the bits of scud the radar was tracking. So the intercept rate was certainly not 'zero', and my ears still ring from time to time to prove it... :roll:

Having said which, I'm sure that the S300 would be a good piece of kit for the purpose as well... The more interesting question is whether the Israelis bothered/chose to use their Patriots or not... Without being funny, it might just be the issue of having lots of bits of many missiles falling all over Israel, instead of one point of impact?
 
#11
The answer to katyusha type rockets would appear to be this:

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

rather than firing highly expensive PAC3s against them. As I've repeatedly said, and Sergey has repeatedly ignored, Patriot etc are designed for high-altituted, long range ballistic missiles, not the short, tactical range ubnguided rockets Hizbollah have been using. I'm not sure (beyond his usual anti-American rant) what point Sergey is trying to prove.
 
#13
AndyPipkin said:
The answer to katyusha type rockets would appear to be this:

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

rather than firing highly expensive PAC3s against them. As I've repeatedly said, and Sergey has repeatedly ignored, Patriot etc are designed for high-altituted, long range ballistic missiles, not the short, tactical range ...
Andy! I fear your are not quite right.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/

Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/specs.html

SPECIFICATIONS - PATRIOT MISSILE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM, USA
...
Range 70 kilometres
maximum altitude >24 kilometres
24 km = 80000 ft. It is high enogh for any plane but as for missiles it is not very imressive altitude.

As for Mobile / Tactical High Energy Laser then

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

By January 2006 the THEL/Nautilus program was shelved due to lack of budget. However, In July 2006, Northrop Grumman unveiled the Skygoard laser based C-RAM/air defense system, designed to protect civilian and deployed military forces.
Shelved because experts realised that the system is unworkable. And new 'system' by Nortrop Grumman is no more than an attempt to make profits.
 
#14
Sergey, by 'tacticaql' ballistic missiles they meant something like a Scud (which Patriot has intercepted many times), not Katyusha. M-THEL can be made to work, it's just a matter of time and money.
 
#15
AndyPipkin said:
Sergey, by 'tacticaql' ballistic missiles they meant something like a Scud (which Patriot has intercepted many times), not Katyusha. M-THEL can be made to work, it's just a matter of time and money.
Andy!

As for M-THEL then let's wait. Probably the Lebanese war is not the last of this sort. So we would see results.

http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=17314

Given the THEL's general impracticality, the U.S. Army ceased funding it in late 2004.
Hezbullah's arsenal includes the following missiles:

· 122mm Katyushas: range 13 miles, warhead 6 kg
· 122mm improved Katyushas: range 19 miles, warhead, 6 kg
· 220mm Syrian rockets: range 43 miles, warhead 40 kg
· 240mm rockets: range 6 miles, warhead 18kg
· 240mm Iranian Fajr 3: range 26 miles, warhead 50 kg
· 333mm Iranian Fajr 5: range 46 miles, warhead 90 kg
· 302mm Iranian Khaibar-1: range 100 miles, warhead 100 kg
· 610mm Iranian ZelZal-2: range 130 miles, warhead 400 kg
Hezbollah used Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 against Haifa and as far south as Hadera in central Israel. Maybe Patriot is useless against ZelZal too? In this case Patriont is no more that medium range anti-aircraft system with possibility to hit occasionally some missiles.
 
#16
KGB_resident said:
....so called 'Katyusha' missiles are rather heavy mortar shells. It would be a hard task to intercept them.
Could Sea Wolf be adapted to intercept these? I fully realise that this is "non-trivial" as the jargon has it but if it can be done once (even if its under test conditions) surely it could be done again?

Wikipedia said:
During trials the missile performed impressively, successfully intercepting a 114mm shell on one occasion.
Edited for bad spelling....
 
#18

Similar threads

Top