Patriot downing KH58U

[volk]

We also know that PATRIOT was hit by AGM-88, so we know that ARMs are not useless even if the system can shoot them down.

Проблема в том, что С-300 (а также Бук и Тор) не стреляют по ПРР ВООБЩЕ - они просто на них не реагируют. Это неправильно.

Эффективность ЗРК по ПРР - другой вопрос.

[GGTharos]

I don't know if it is wrong ... we have additional problems here that have to do with range of detection and reaction time, and tactics.

 

For example if you are tracking the aircraft shooting the ARM already, you will know when he fires the missile because you can observe the video separation in the radar signal. But if you are not tracking this aircraft, you depend on your search radar spotting the ARM in time.

 

Compared to S300 or PATRIOT, Tor does not have the advantage of tracking many aircraft simultaneously with a high data rate.

[shagrat]

Videos?? yes I like the videos. Take other one here, and hear what make you happy.

 

Me too, YouTube has plenty videos to "proof" how inferior 'western/eastern/northern/southern' 'technology/lifestyle/culture/morale' really is... (choose your personal preference)

 

 

:megalol:

[59th_LeFty]

Sorry for OT, but this thread is HOT.

 

I just got shot down by a TOR at ~13500m, I was hit before at some 8km altitude, buster climb. "Fell" up to 13500, when the other one hit. It was a test only mission with a TOR at 0m AMSL. I know, missile dynamics, and its great we are having a much more dynamic missile model, but 13500? for a TOR? I'd expect from a KUB at least to do that.

 

Fun fact: The Osa even can hit you up to 8km, TOR seems deadly for everything that flies OVER it. However sometimes they tend to be dumb, or playing like they can't even fire at you, then they hit you az NEZ if you pick their nose hard enough.

[pepin1234]

Seriously- stop typing.

 

Who are you here to say to someone in this forum stop typing?? you believe you have rights and you can confuse the people of this forum with your long and non sense explanation. Also you are allowed offend me several times and still I have not see the reaction of the right person against your words, why?? if I do what you have said to me probably this thread will be closed or censored.

 

The question please do direct them, here we go:

 

The next information was wrote By: Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.) is Chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation where his work focuses on nuclear nonproliferation, missile defense, Iraq, Afghanistan, military policy, nuclear terrorism, and related national security issues. Gard has written for well-known periodicals that focus on military and international affairs and lectured widely at U.S. and international universities and academic conferences.

 

Also by: John Isaacs is the Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation where his work focuses on national security issues in Congress, Iraq, missile defense, and nuclear weapons. Isaacs has published articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Christian Science Monitor, Nuclear Times, Arms Control Today, American Journal of Public Health, and Technology Review

 

Patriot

 

A Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) battalion, with 600 troops from Fort Bliss, Texas, will begin deployment next month to Kadena Air Base and a nearby munitions storage area on Okinawa, Japan. It is scheduled to be at least partially operational by the end of the year. Beginning in March 2007, PAC-3 units will be deployed to protect Japanese Self-Defense Forces, first at an air base just west of Tokyo, on other bases by the end of '07, and on several more through 2010.

Originally designed in the 1960's and '70's to shoot down aircraft, the Patriot system was modified just before the 1991 Gulf War to engage tactical ballistic missiles in the terminal, or last, phase of their flight. Contrary to initial impressions during that war, the Patriot was largely ineffective in that role. New software installed in the system after the war failed to solve identification problems in subsequent tests.

During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it has been estimated that the Iraqis fired 19 short- range ballistic missiles. Eight were reportedly destroyed by 22 Patriot missiles, while 11 were not engaged. On the third day of the war, a British Tornado aircraft returning from a mission over Iraq was downed by a Patriot missile; both pilots were killed. Three days later, on 25 March, a U.S. F-16 pilot received a signal that he was being targeted by radar; and he fired a missile that hit the Patriot site. On 2 April, two Patriot missiles destroyed a U.S. Hornet aircraft, killing the pilot.

Investigations by British and U.S. authorities concluded that the Patriot radar produced false targets caused by aircraft radar jammers, equipment problems and electromagnetic interference and clutter from nearby radars and communications systems; that its computer system was incapable of differentiating between incoming missiles and Identification Friend or Foe systems on aircraft; that its communication equipment was insufficient for awareness of air operations in the region and full integration into the joint battle space; and that training of crews was not realistic. The Defense Science Board noted that shaky identification capabilities had been evident in many training exercises before the invasion, and it questioned in its report why there had not been a robust effort to correct the problems.

There are additional problems inherent in the Patriot system. Its radar tracks airborne objects and the computer identifies the objects and displays them as symbols on a screen. If the symbol for an incoming ballistic missile is displayed, the operator has only a few seconds to override the automatic firing of interceptors. The Patriot's software is proprietary, meaning that it cannot be linked quickly with other weapons systems. The cost of a PAC-3 missile is well over $2 million. While it would not adversely affect operations from semi-permanent installations in Japan, the Patriot is too heavy and cumbersome to traverse the battlefield quickly.

 

http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/missiledefense/articles/missile_defense_fails_to_provide/

Edited March 21, 2013 by pepin1234

[lunaticfringe]

Who are you here to say to someone in this forum stop typing??

 

Same as others who have called you a troll- an individual who has grown tired of your rambling and lack of knowledge.

 

you believe you have rights and you can confuse the people of this forum with your long and non sense explanation.

 

"Nonsense explanation"?

 

If its nonsense, REFUTE IT WITH FACT. Refute the description of intercept guidance calculation. Refute the computation of solid fuel energy as a constant. Refute the whole thing. Refute it with YOUR knowledge; don't copy and paste me the summary of someone else's report- do your own work.

 

See, you tell me you're offended because I tell you to stop talking so you can save face in front of people who know more about the subject matter than you. That's fine; I'm offended that you can make things up as you to along with zero frame of reference of the subject matter. But them's the shakes on the internet; watch a video, and you're an expert. Spend countless hours in interviews with the people who design, test, and take these weapons to war, building a library of data on the subject matters at hand, and its called nonsense.

But that's the difference- I can look at the full reports the article you cribbed is from (and, in fact have, previously) and understand what went wrong. You can't. All you can do is Google 'Patriot failure" and cut/paste.

 

You shown that you don't understand how intercepts are calculated.

You don't know how Patriot batteries are deployed.

You don't acknowledge the real factors that are compensated for in the design of missile systems, and instead believe that fire control systems aren't smart enough to do these pertinent calculations, when a cursory review of the systems FM will give you that much.

 

And you're offended because you're told to stop embarrassing yourself? Where I come from, that's considered doing someone a favor. But you go on and be my guest- go Google some more stuff you don't understand. You're running on ego instead of fact, and that's what *I* find offensive.

[pepin1234]

Same as others who have called you a troll- an individual who has grown tired of your rambling and lack of knowledge..

 

Honestly is not like that. You have take this threart like something personal and what I have answer you, all was about your theory of Kinetic and speed against the power sourse that make possible both. Keep there, you dont need explain so hard here to expose your theory, but one more time is not the topic and I dont like keep there.

 

If you have something personal against me. Is simple, use the PM and we see... :)

 

 

"Nonsense explanation"? You're running on ego instead of fact, and that's what *I* find offensive.

 

Absolutely not. We are demand that in some cases the Kh-58 is downed easyly. You are mad because I use my arguments exposing here that the Patriot have deficiencies and you get uncontrol writting here a " newspaper ". Ok good by you, but my question is, have you already written some question about your theory to General Robert G. Gard, or to Sr. John Isaacs? I am sure they will help you to find your peace.

Edited March 21, 2013 by pepin1234

[GGTharos]

You are posting useless information, you are not exposing weaknesses. What you posted above is nothing more than an artifact of facing off with a fast incoming weapon.

 

There is no SAM that does not have this problem, including your beloved S300/400/500 series.

 

The automation is there specifically because it is otherwise difficult for a human to respond to the threat in time.

 

Problems with EMI (electromagnetic interference) are well known and understood, regardless of whether they are caused by an enemy jammer, or a friendly radar on the same or harmonic frequency. Again, it is a problem for all radar guided SAMs. Or did you think that Russian hardware magically launches all weapons on the same radio channel?

 

You're not telling people who are working on the simulation of these things anything they did not already know.

 

So I will make it clear for you:

 

There will not be EMI simulation in DCSW for a long time (ie. no false targets caused by friendly interference of either radars or jammers, or enemy interference)

 

There will not be simulation of IFF problems like there are in real life.

 

All radars and missiles will operate more or less perfectly. This includes old ARMs like the Kh-58.

[Groove]

Thread derailed and closed.