4 ms·

This is the pac-2 missile which was fielded in 1990 and not designed to combat these kinds of missiles. PAC-3 is much more advanced and the kill vehicle much m

This is the pac-2 missile which was fielded in 1990 and not designed to combat these kinds of missiles. PAC-3 is much more advanced and the kill vehicle much more accurate.

holtalanm 9y ago
came here to say this.
Jtsummers 9y ago
They do address this in the article. In fairness, the system deployed in Saudi Arabia — the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 or PAC-2 — is not well designed to intercept the Burkan-2 missiles that the Houthis are firing at Riyadh. The Burkan-2 flies around 600 miles and appears to have a warhead that separates from the missile itself.
- lainga 9y ago
  Also worth noting that the MIM-104 original and PAC-2 were developed by Raytheon, and I suspect that the PAC-3 was awarded to Lockheed Martin because the PAC-2's problems were so severe.
thomasz 9y ago
"In fairness, the system deployed in Saudi Arabia — the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 or PAC-2 — is not well designed to intercept the Burkan-2 missiles that the Houthis are firing at Riyadh. The Burkan-2 flies around 600 miles and appears to have a warhead that separates from the missile itself." Seriously? The system can't intercept threads it wasn't designed to? That's the article?
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  It wasn't designed to, but the system keeps being deployed to defend against these threats. Leads to a question: What's the point of continuing to deploy something that, by all (unclassified) accounts, seems to have no real utility?
  - Steve44 9y ago
    > What's the point of continuing to deploy something that, by all (unclassified) accounts, seems to have no real utility? I think the point is that it is better than nothing and may well make a difference. It's not totally useless, like those fake bomb detectors which were being discussed a couple of years ago.
  - pm90 9y ago
    That's how procurement, and especially military procurement, works in most countries which have some degree of corruption. Or at least: when there isn't any good oversight by the stakeholders. Seems like the procurement of Patriot missiles was driven more by a need to "buy from the USA" than as an actual credible way to thwart actual threats. Which is incredibly surprising EVEN after knowing how this works because presumably the Houthis are using Iranian/Iran-derivatives of missile systems and Iran is supposed to be the primary geo-political rival to the Sauds. (Makes me wonder what else won't really work in an actual war). Let me say that I'm a pacifist 100%; diplomacy comes first and all that but war is really where you can't lie and all your bad decisions are right there in your face and fuck you up completely if you didn't think hard enough through these things. This particular incident reminds me of when the Pakistanis procured the latest F-6 aircrafts from the US but were unable to use them effectively in a war against India (1971) because their pilots were not sufficiently trained in how to handle the advanced aircraft systems.... oops.
    - Jtsummers 9y ago
      Sadly a very accurate statement. US allies are encouraged and sometimes required to buy US weapon systems even if they have no real utility, need, or capability to use them. Often they purchase them directly from the US government (versus the manufacturer), this is one way the US government directly makes money, provides a form of corporate welfare (for the defense industry), and subsidizes its weapon system development.
      - Covzire 9y ago
        I'm not seeing a problem here, assuming the hardware sold works as intended of course.
- wyattpeak 9y ago
  That's the first claim the article makes. But it makes a much stronger one further down.
otempomores 9y ago
Selling scrap to close allies?

This is the pac-2 missile which was fielded in 1990 and not designed to combat these kinds of missiles. PAC-3 is much more advanced and the kill vehicle much more accurate.

holtalanm 9y ago

came here to say this.

Jtsummers 9y ago

They do address this in the article. In fairness, the system deployed in Saudi Arabia — the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 or PAC-2 — is not well designed to intercept the Burkan-2 missiles that the Houthis are firing at Riyadh. The Burkan-2 flies around 600 miles and appears to have a warhead that separates from the missile itself.

lainga 9y ago
Also worth noting that the MIM-104 original and PAC-2 were developed by Raytheon, and I suspect that the PAC-3 was awarded to Lockheed Martin because the PAC-2's problems were so severe.

thomasz 9y ago

"In fairness, the system deployed in Saudi Arabia — the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 or PAC-2 — is not well designed to intercept the Burkan-2 missiles that the Houthis are firing at Riyadh. The Burkan-2 flies around 600 miles and appears to have a warhead that separates from the missile itself." Seriously? The system can't intercept threads it wasn't designed to? That's the article?

Jtsummers 9y ago
It wasn't designed to, but the system keeps being deployed to defend against these threats. Leads to a question: What's the point of continuing to deploy something that, by all (unclassified) accounts, seems to have no real utility?
- Steve44 9y ago
  > What's the point of continuing to deploy something that, by all (unclassified) accounts, seems to have no real utility? I think the point is that it is better than nothing and may well make a difference. It's not totally useless, like those fake bomb detectors which were being discussed a couple of years ago.
- pm90 9y ago
  That's how procurement, and especially military procurement, works in most countries which have some degree of corruption. Or at least: when there isn't any good oversight by the stakeholders. Seems like the procurement of Patriot missiles was driven more by a need to "buy from the USA" than as an actual credible way to thwart actual threats. Which is incredibly surprising EVEN after knowing how this works because presumably the Houthis are using Iranian/Iran-derivatives of missile systems and Iran is supposed to be the primary geo-political rival to the Sauds. (Makes me wonder what else won't really work in an actual war). Let me say that I'm a pacifist 100%; diplomacy comes first and all that but war is really where you can't lie and all your bad decisions are right there in your face and fuck you up completely if you didn't think hard enough through these things. This particular incident reminds me of when the Pakistanis procured the latest F-6 aircrafts from the US but were unable to use them effectively in a war against India (1971) because their pilots were not sufficiently trained in how to handle the advanced aircraft systems.... oops.
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
    Sadly a very accurate statement. US allies are encouraged and sometimes required to buy US weapon systems even if they have no real utility, need, or capability to use them. Often they purchase them directly from the US government (versus the manufacturer), this is one way the US government directly makes money, provides a form of corporate welfare (for the defense industry), and subsidizes its weapon system development.
    - Covzire 9y ago
      I'm not seeing a problem here, assuming the hardware sold works as intended of course.
wyattpeak 9y ago
That's the first claim the article makes. But it makes a much stronger one further down.

otempomores 9y ago

Selling scrap to close allies?