3 ms·

Even if it didn't fail (numerically), there is a decent probability it still would have failed to intercept the scud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patr

by madengr 13y ago

Even if it didn't fail (numerically), there is a decent probability it still would have failed to intercept the scud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Success_rate_vs._accuracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Success_rate_vs... The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%. However, when President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts, during the Gulf War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[28] The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% during the war.

at-fates-hands 13y ago
You left this part out though. . "Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success rate, intercepting Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles.[17] However, no longer-range ballistic missiles were fired during that conflict. The systems were stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed a number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC-3 and guidance enhanced missiles"
- hga 13y ago
  Indeed. The real world performance of Patriot PAC-2, the first generation tweaked for BMD but using the same hardware except for increasing the size of the warhead's projectiles, says little about how later versions and generations (PAC-3 uses a dedicated missile, 1/4 the size and therefore 4 times as many in a launcher) also preformed in the real world. Since in this case the real world = actual instances of enemies shooting live missiles at you trying to kill you, it's been proven in some acid tests. And one reason Guam is sprouting Patriot and THAAD batteries.
gambiting 13y ago
It's like when in the sixties the army prepared a report trying to asses a risk of an accidental nuclear detonation. They have concluded that since no such detonation ever occurred, the risk is 0%.

by madengr 13y ago

at-fates-hands 13y ago

You left this part out though. . "Patriot PAC-3, GEM, and GEM+ missiles both had a very high success rate, intercepting Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles.[17] However, no longer-range ballistic missiles were fired during that conflict. The systems were stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed a number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC-3 and guidance enhanced missiles"

hga 13y ago
Indeed. The real world performance of Patriot PAC-2, the first generation tweaked for BMD but using the same hardware except for increasing the size of the warhead's projectiles, says little about how later versions and generations (PAC-3 uses a dedicated missile, 1/4 the size and therefore 4 times as many in a launcher) also preformed in the real world. Since in this case the real world = actual instances of enemies shooting live missiles at you trying to kill you, it's been proven in some acid tests. And one reason Guam is sprouting Patriot and THAAD batteries.

gambiting 13y ago

It's like when in the sixties the army prepared a report trying to asses a risk of an accidental nuclear detonation. They have concluded that since no such detonation ever occurred, the risk is 0%.