It looks like the Pac 4 patriots didn't do any better at shooting down a Houthi Scud than the original version did against Iraqi Scuds in Israel back in 1991.

The NYT story is pretty convincing in showing that the Scud got through the Patriot defense. The Saudis launched five Patriots, but the warhead came down beyond the Patriot site.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... .html?_r=0

Missile Command doesn't quite play out in real life.

They manage to shoot down RAF Tornados ok though.

scbriml wrote:

They manage to shoot down RAF Tornados ok though.

blue on blue is easy. unexpected death.

salttee wrote:

The Saudis launched five Patriots, but the warhead came down beyond the Patriot site.

Very expensive failure.

One issue with the Scud missile is it has a tendency come apart in flight. The NYT times article hinted to that fact. The firing solution might have been accomplished shortly before being launched, but due to the disintegration of the missile in the terminal phase, the solution could not be maintained.

Doesn't the Scud do some strange course corrections, something which bungles up the Patriot's calculations? Or has this been corrected in the Patriot's software?


David

mmo wrote:

One issue with the Scud missile is it has a tendency come apart in flight. The NYT times article hinted to that fact. The firing solution might have been accomplished shortly before being launched, but due to the disintegration of the missile in the terminal phase, the solution could not be maintained.

The firing solution is continuously updated. It appears that all an adversary need to do to defeat the Patriot system is to mimic whatever the scud does, which doesn't seem to be hard to do.

This does not instill great confidence in THAAD, AEGIS or the ABM system.

mmo wrote:

One issue with the Scud missile is it has a tendency come apart in flight. The NYT times article hinted to that fact. The firing solution might have been accomplished shortly before being launched, but due to the disintegration of the missile in the terminal phase, the solution could not be maintained.

This type seems to detach the warhead on purpose and late. ( rocket body works as chaff?.)

In my soon to be announced poor man's rocket™ I will place a corner reflector in the tailfin assembly.
An option will be to to have this poor man's reflector™ trail along behind the rocket in the later stages of flight.

Another US Navy ballistic missile intercept reportedly fails.
This time it was an SM-3 Block IIA fired from an Aegis Ashore test site in Hawaii.
https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... ii-report/

salttee wrote:

mmo wrote:

One issue with the Scud missile is it has a tendency come apart in flight. The NYT times article hinted to that fact. The firing solution might have been accomplished shortly before being launched, but due to the disintegration of the missile in the terminal phase, the solution could not be maintained.

The firing solution is continuously updated. It appears that all an adversary need to do to defeat the Patriot system is to mimic whatever the scud does, which doesn't seem to be hard to do.

This does not instill great confidence in THAAD, AEGIS or the ABM system.

So what do you suggest? Stop investing in missile defense? Invest in further development and testing?

DfwRevolution wrote:

So what do you suggest? Stop investing in missile defense? Invest in further development and testing?

It might be that missile defense is a money pit that offers no promise of ever delivering anything useful until directed energy is harnessed. I think a sober look at the problem is needed.

Can anybody here come up with a number on how much money has been poured down this money hole over the last 38 years, while leaving us defenseless against so pathetic an advasary as North Korea?

DfwRevolution wrote:

So what do you suggest? Stop investing in missile defense?

That would be a good start.

DfwRevolution wrote:

So what do you suggest? Stop investing in missile defense? Invest in further development and testing?

US: spend all the money you like on expensive toys. This is a "Reagans Star Wars" Echo.


Kicking up dirt against NK, China, .. and doing successful missile tests is a tightly linked marketing combo.

With the test showing lack of capabilities potential customers are urged to reconcider.
Do we buy these system and leverage some national advantage in shadows of US heckling

or

could it maybe be advisable to not let tension with those countries go overboard
and spare the money for expensive toys on the way.
Power loss for the US . Good Thing (TM)

salttee wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

So what do you suggest? Stop investing in missile defense? Invest in further development and testing?

It might be that missile defense is a money pit that offers no promise of ever delivering anything useful until directed energy is harnessed. I think a sober look at the problem is needed.

Can anybody here come up with a number on how much money has been poured down this money hole over the last 38 years, while leaving us defenseless against so pathetic an advasary as North Korea?

Patriot is one of the oldest missile defense systems in operation. It's development started in the 1960s during the Johnson administration.

Meanwhile, in the 21st century, Iron Dome has proven highly effective in battle. SM-3 has an operational exoatmospheric kill. THAAD has demonstrated impressive test results. It is patently false that missile defense hasn't delivered anything useful or shown any progress or that we must wait for direct energy weapons. Those are tired lines from the 1990s peaceniks.

We are not defenseless against North Korea. We have a range of operational systems - some better than others - that give us an estimated 60% chance that a single interceptor will stop an enemy ICBM. With two interceptors, that becomes 86%. With three interceptors, that becomes 94%. Much like a Kevlar vest, that's no guarantee but it's far better than nothing. The question is what intercept probability lets you sleep comfortably at night. If you want >60%, that means time and money, which are cheaper than blood and lives.

WIederling wrote:

could it maybe be advisable to not let tension with those countries go overboard

And what will appeasement with totalitarians cost?

WIederling wrote:

Power loss for the US . Good Thing (TM)

What actually went wrong in your personal life where you see it as a "Good Thing (TM)" for free societies - like the United States - to be at the mercy of the world's worst dictators?

DfwRevolution wrote:

Patriot is one of the oldest missile defense systems in operation. It's development started in the 1960s during the Johnson administration.

Its development began in 1976 and it was completely redesigned for the PAC 1 version in 1984, it has since gone through two more major upgrades including a completely new missile and completely new radar along with huge increases in computing power. Saying it's from the 1960s is a falsehood (in fact to use your term, it is patently false).

DfwRevolution wrote:

Meanwhile, in the 21st century, Iron Dome has proven highly effective in battle. SM-3 has an operational exoatmospheric kill.

Iron dome is designed to engage short range missiles and artillery shells. Anybody touting its effectiveness should remember that the testimonials to its effectiveness come from the same people who claimed that PAC 1 Patriots successfully engaged scuds in GW1. LOL

DfwRevolution wrote:

THAAD has demonstrated impressive test results.

Maybe it can deal with IRBMs, maybe not, nobody knows because its never been tested in the field; but in any event, it is incapable of defending against an ICBM.

DfwRevolution wrote:

It is patently false that missile defense hasn't delivered anything useful or shown any progress or that we must wait for direct energy weapons. Those are tired lines from the 1990s peaceniks.

You're hyperbole aside, Missile defense, as in the Star wars SDI that Reagan began pouring money into, has never proven itself effective even in scripted tests against targets which have a known trajectory.

DfwRevolution wrote:

We are not defenseless against North Korea. We have a range of operational systems - some better than others - that give us an estimated 60% chance that a single interceptor will stop an enemy ICBM. With two interceptors, that becomes 86%. With three interceptors, that becomes 94%. Much like a Kevlar vest, that's no guarantee but it's far better than nothing. The question is what intercept probability lets you sleep comfortably at night. If you want >60%, that means time and money, which are cheaper than blood and lives.

Current missile defense against ICBMs is in no way comparable to a Kevlar vest, that comparison is laughable. And your statistics are pulled out of thin air, they are meaningless; the fact is, we have no current defense against ICBMs. We have flushed trillions of taxpayers dollars down the drain, that's trillions with a "T", and we've gotten nothing useful for all that (except for providing make work jobs for the aerospace industry).

But on the other hand, nobody else has any defense against ICBMs, so there's that.

salttee wrote:

But on the other hand, nobody else has any defense against ICBMs, so there's that.

Good Thing (TM) family atomics style last stand defensive measure.

Basic method of the US to circumvent that is closing in on a "foe" nation shortening reaction times.
( That is why placing missile defense systems at RU's borders is aggressive and not defensive.)

The survivable atomic war faction in the US seems to be happy and alive.
( also watch the new US drive for small nuclear weapons ... )

DfwRevolution wrote:

Meanwhile, in the 21st century, Iron Dome has proven highly effective in battle.

It has, but at such short ranges where a nuclear explosion would take out the target anyway.

DfwRevolution wrote:

We are not defenseless against North Korea. We have a range of operational systems - some better than others - that give us an estimated 60% chance that a single interceptor will stop an enemy ICBM. With two interceptors, that becomes 86%. With three interceptors, that becomes 94%. Much like a Kevlar vest, that's no guarantee but it's far better than nothing. The question is what intercept probability lets you sleep comfortably at night. If you want >60%, that means time and money, which are cheaper than blood and lives.

*Assuming the enemy only fires one ICBM, and that those test figures actually hold up in a real life scenario...

DfwRevolution wrote:

. Those are tired lines from the 1990s peaceniks.

Here's a quote for you.

Our swollen budgets constantly have been misrepresented to the public. Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

If you are wondering what left wing peacenik said this it was Douglas MacArthur.

LMP737 wrote:

If you are wondering what left wing peacenik said this it was Douglas MacArthur.

As time moves on
Reason has receded further.

all else is as before.

Movies like Strangelove and Harold and Maude return as warnings.
I miss the peaceniks.

LMP737 wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

. Those are tired lines from the 1990s peaceniks.

Here's a quote for you.

Our swollen budgets constantly have been misrepresented to the public. Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

If you are wondering what left wing peacenik said this it was Douglas MacArthur.

If there is one person you shouldn't quote to support your cause it is Douglas MacArthur. He was probably the most conceited and self-serving individual ever to serve in the US military.

Ozair wrote:

If there is one person you shouldn't quote to support your cause it is Douglas MacArthur. He was probably the most conceited and self-serving individual ever to serve in the US military.

Yes I'm well aware of his ego. However was what he said wrong?

LMP737 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

If there is one person you shouldn't quote to support your cause it is Douglas MacArthur. He was probably the most conceited and self-serving individual ever to serve in the US military.

Yes I'm well aware of his ego. However was what he said wrong?

If you consider the context of when it was given I tend to believe it was. He spoke that essentially against Eisenhower and the Military Industrial complex (although that specific phase wasn't mentioned for four years afterwards what Eisenhower was doing was pretty clear). The quote was made at a dinner for shareholders of the Sperry Rand Corporation, a sizeable military contractor at the time. Do you think his comments were intended to alienate the audience?

Eisenhower went for some similar admonition at the end of his tenure.

WIederling wrote:

Eisenhower went for some similar admonition at the end of his tenure.

Eisenhower is often misunderstood. He was never against the military industrial complex, he believed it to be a necessary element in providing the military protection the USA required. His son has spoken numerous times on how his father's words are often misinterpreted. What he did state was merely to caution against its influence.

Let us also be clear that in Eisenhower's time the defence budget was above 8% of GDP and it is nearly half that today. On that context alone it appears that Eisenhower’s message was received.

In the right hands everyones well thought out words are like putty.
Formable into any meaning what so ever.

Ozair wrote:

If you consider the context of when it was given I tend to believe it was.

How so? It seems to me to be rather accurate.

Ozair wrote:

Do you think his comments were intended to alienate the audience?

Do you think he cared?

Ozair wrote:

Let us also be clear that in Eisenhower's time the defence budget was above 8% of GDP and it is nearly half that today. On that context alone it appears that Eisenhower’s message was received.

Adjust defense spending for inflation and it's less under Eisenhower than it is now. On that context alone I would say his message was not received.

Ozair wrote:

Let us also be clear that in Eisenhower's time the defence budget was above 8% of GDP and it is nearly half that today. On that context alone it appears that Eisenhower’s message was received.

Adjust defense spending for inflation and it's less under Eisenhower than it is now. On that context alone I would say his message was not received.

LMP737 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Let us also be clear that in Eisenhower's time the defence budget was above 8% of GDP and it is nearly half that today. On that context alone it appears that Eisenhower’s message was received.

Adjust defense spending for inflation and it's less under Eisenhower than it is now. On that context alone I would say his message was not received.

What does inflation have to do with a percent of GDP number? Inflations works both sides of that equation. Perhaps the total sum adjusted for inflation is comparatively bigger but the size of the number is menaingless.

LMP737 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

If you consider the context of when it was given I tend to believe it was.

How so? It seems to me to be rather accurate.

I disagree.

Ozair wrote:

Do you think his comments were intended to alienate the audience?

Do you think he cared?[/quote]
Only to the extent of his political aspirations and personal status.

Ozair wrote:

What does inflation have to do with a percent of GDP number? Inflations works both sides of that equation. Perhaps the total sum adjusted for inflation

s.

When you adjust for inflation we spend more now dollar wise than we did in the fifties. That is an undeniable fact. Just as Eisenhower cutting defense spending by 27% shortly after he took office. As is the fact that we spend more money than the rest of the world combined.

LMP737 wrote:

When you adjust for inflation we spend more now dollar wise than we did in the fifties.

Just take a moment and consider what you are saying. If the % of GDP number is above 8% in 1958 and the % of GDP number today is 4.5% then the US spends less today on defence as a component of its economy than it did in 1958. The size of either number is immaterial to the percentage and inflation has literally nothing to do with this.

LMP737 wrote:

That is an undeniable fact. Just as Eisenhower cutting defense spending by 27% shortly after he took office.

While Eisenhower initially cut spending it then increased significantly under his presidency to nearly 15% before spending sat comfortably at 10%.



https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/sp ... e_Spending

One clear miss, Saudi’s claim 7 shot down.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/03/26/s ... h-instead/

It looks like seven clear misses.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arab ... s-patriot/

Most news outlets are running similar stories.

Only three of the alleged seven launches were long range shots towards Riyadh.

The video of the malfunctioning Patriot veering off and striking the ground was amazing. That thing was going FAST. I know that nobody guarantees each missile to be fully functional during flight, but I wonder if the high heat or Saudi storage conditions have made the missiles more likely to suffer a failure?

It's hard to say what really happened in the air. The Saudis claim that all were intercepted, and of course they would - ballistic missiles and shooting them down is a major public relations battle. You have to convince your nation's people that you are mitigating the threat. The same occurred in ODS - whether the Patriots actually made successful intercepts was secondary to the public impression that they were effective, and that was enough to keep Israel out of the war. And even then, when I was in that part of the world and saw Patriot batteries standing by, I felt protected, and that feeling is what the Saudis want their nation to experience.

And besides, if a smoking chunk of metal falls to earth, who is to say it was intercepted or not, except that it didn't appear to deliberately strike anything important? Experts could tell, of course, but the average citizen is likely to accept the press release that it was successfully intercepted.

ODS also showed that the concept of "interception" is fuzzy in ABM terms, and that is still an issue today. It could mean any of the following:
* Yes, you did launch interceptors at the threat.
* Your interceptor came close to one piece of the missile.
* Your interceptor exploded near a piece of missile (but was there no contact?).
* Your interceptor broke up the missile (but did the warhead survive and continue?).
* Your interceptor actually de-activated the warhead.

From the lay-person on the ground, any of these scenarios means you still have chunks of metal falling around you. Would those chunks have been any different had no interceptors been launched? Tough to say given the marginal quality of missiles being fired from Yemen, and usually the authorities are mum on that subject because they need you to still feel protected.

Not my area but I have always wondered how effective 'hitiles' are.The Royal Navy has invested quite heavily (for us!) over the years.The computational speeds required and course correction requirements must be mind boggling and of course (with ships) you only need one to get through.
Been a while for us but certainly couldn't stop them in the Falklands.ok things have moved on - but from both perspectives.When one starts reading about hypersonic anti ship missiles on gas to wonder if there really is much of a (short range) defence against such weapons-I appreciate you are not going to tell the sailors that.

parapente wrote:

Not my area but I have always wondered how effective 'hitiles' are.The Royal Navy has invested quite heavily (for us!) over the years.The computational speeds required and course correction requirements must be mind boggling and of course (with ships) you only need one to get through.
Been a while for us but certainly couldn't stop them in the Falklands.ok things have moved on - but from both perspectives.When one starts reading about hypersonic anti ship missiles on gas to wonder if there really is much of a (short range) defence against such weapons-I appreciate you are not going to tell the sailors that.

Hitiles have their place but a hitile against a surface target is less effective than against air targets which are typically built with much lighter structures. In the case of BMD the kinetic energy of the hit has as much, and in some cases more, impact on the respective projectiles than an explosive warhead. The physics of the velocities involved mean there is almost always some projectile that moves past the impact point and hence why the move towards mid course intercept.

The future of BMD through, for naval vessels and land based assets, is directed energy weapons. Once these get above 250kW they become very effective at negating all sorts of offensive weapons. They can also re-target rapidly and once built have a cheap per shot cost.

Of course, budgetary constraints and a lack of any sort of AEW asset to provide the kind of long distance tracking that their patchwork of limited and often obsolete as in the case of the near 30 year old SeaSlug SAM that they still had in service at the time, missile systems, were a major factor in their losses. Their SAMs had to share the same fire control radar with the 4.5" dp guns for vessels so equiped. Some ships still counted on manually optically aimed 20 and 40 mm AAA guns as a major portion of their air defenses. Most of the ships had no more than two missile directors and had no ability to handle multi-hemisphere attacks.

This wasn't a case of "hittle" failure. This was a case of the RN leaning on the US Navy for the majority of their local air defenses.

Ahh, the Stark incident. Where, in hostile waters, it was sailing at Condition IV, instead of a higher alert status, and, through a "comedy" of errors, almost everyone in charge of the defensive systems was not at their post. While I have no illusions that the SM-1/MR on the Stark that day could have successfully intercepted either of the Exocets, the phalanx system had been extensively tested against similar sized and profiled targets for some time by that point. The DP 3 inch was always more of a prayer than a sure thing in the air defense role in that era.

As for the Sea Harrier intercepting those Soviet bombers, that was more of a pipe dream as well. At that point, it's best weapon was the AIM-9 sidewinder, which had rather limited range. They didn't get the ability to fire long range radar guided missiles until almost a decade later when the upgraded radars and AMRAMs were fitted.

It also doesn't matter what the ships' weapons were intended for, its what they actually had. The 20mm and 40mm mounts were AAA mounts with a secondary surface warfare role. While its obvious that the RN knew that they weren't going to be doing much AAA work with them, that's all they had in the area of close in anti aircraft weaponry on many of the ships in the area.

Tactically, if they intended to range out well ahead of US Carrier task forces, then they would also be under reduced air cover. Why short change on self defense anti-aircraft armament? The Sea Dart was largely overkill for their intended mission. The Sea Wolf made a lot more sense in that role. For the same role in that era, the US had the Spruance class destroyers, which retained an automatic 5 inch DP gun, an 8 cell ABL for Sea Sparrow (though, its effectiveness in that era was rather questionable), and a Phalanx CIWS or two.

It just seems to me, in my opinion, that the RN in the late 70s through today has never managed to settle on what they wanted to be. The budget has always seemed to be VERY unstable, and long term planning just seems to be completely missing. The problems that they had in the Falklands should have shown them the error in their ways, but it seems that every lesson taught there was forgotten.

I quite agree that the British learned quite quickly about the limitations of their existing systems and figured out the best way to use the ones that they had. My only criticism of the British during the era was on their choices with respect to funding upgrades and equipment integration on their ships. I realize that a lot of it has to do with the political realities of the time, and of their rather limited budgets as a result. However, they still had overseas interests and, as such, required the ability to maintain and defend them.

All in all, given how far away from home the fleet was, they did well for themselves. The harriers were mainly intended for what they were able to do, provide a credible close range A2A threat around the RN's ASW assets. Given how far they were pushing the technology of the era, it's remarkable that they were able to do what they did. As technology improved through uprated engines, more compact radars and improved systems integration, they were able to range out farther and provide a more medium range threat.

The biggest failing for the RN that I see for the entire operation was a failure to have any sort of AEW asset in the fleet, even if it was a limited one from a helicopter. The RN knew of this limitation and was looking to develop a solution, but, as far as I've read, nothing was available at the time of the conflict. Retiring their fixed wing carrier and not being able to use the Ganett (though, given the age of the systems it last flew with, it would have had a limited impact on things), it was a big hit to their electronic capabilities. A hit that likely cost them a few successful attacks from the Argentinians. At least they have a helicopter based solution planned for the QE to give it something.

LightningZ71 wrote:

It just seems to me, in my opinion, that the RN in the late 70s through today has never managed to settle on what they wanted to be. The budget has always seemed to be VERY unstable, and long term planning just seems to be completely missing. The problems that they had in the Falklands should have shown them the error in their ways, but it seems that every lesson taught there was forgotten.

This is the crux of the problem. What is the RN? Is it an expeditionary landing force? Is it just for blocking Soviet/Russian submarines out of the north? Is it a small-action police force, to show the flag and chase off ill-equipped pirates? Is it filler for the USN and UN?

Purpose and clarity of mission have everything to do with these questions. As an outsider, it appears that the modern RN waffles around these questions, and its rocky budget history is evidence that the government itself doesn't have a clear long-term purpose for the RN - just some hazy objectives that are funded one moment and de-funded the next.

To be fair, the USN also had a similar crisis in the 1990s when its Cold War mission suddenly evaporated. However, it appears that its sheer bureaucratic inertia meant that its re-missioning did not completely eliminate most of its capabilities. There was a reduction in force, yes, but it maintained the bulk of its combat power.

salttee wrote:

It looks like the Pac 4 patriots didn't do any better at shooting down a Houthi Scud than the original version did against Iraqi Scuds in Israel back in 1991.

The NYT story is pretty convincing in showing that the Scud got through the Patriot defense. The Saudis launched five Patriots, but the warhead came down beyond the Patriot site.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... .html?_r=0

The Royal Saudi Air Defense operates only the PAC-2, only some of which are updated to the GEM standard. We're talking about a missile that entered service in the early 90's. PAAC-4 isn't currently operational, and Saudi does not currently operate the updated PAC-3 system.