Military Review

Failed: US withdraws Patriot air defense systems from Saudi Arabia

46
Failed: US withdraws Patriot air defense systems from Saudi Arabia

The United States has decided to withdraw some of the Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems from Saudi Arabia; at the moment, we are talking about four batteries and “dozens of soldiers” that were sent there after the attack on Saudi oil facilities last year. At the same time, as the American media write, the matter is not limited to the conclusion of anti-aircraft systems alone, two squadrons of American fighters have already left the territory of Saudi Arabia.


The Pentot’s withdrawal from the Saudi Arabia in the Pentagon is explained by the reduced likelihood of an Iranian attack, allegedly Tehran no longer poses a direct threat to US "strategic interests" in the region. This conclusion, according to the publications of the American media, experts came up with an analysis of the current situation in the Middle East.

This is the official version of the reduction in the US military presence in Saudi Arabia in general, and the withdrawal of anti-aircraft systems, in particular. But there are also unofficial versions that no one will voice to us, but we can still make some assumptions.

Without going into too much detail, like that, on the go, there are two other reasons for the withdrawal of four Patriot air defense batteries. The first is related to the April threats by the United States to withdraw its military contingent and air defense assets from Saudi Arabia amid disagreements between Riyadh and Moscow over oil prices. Then the Senate drafted a bill providing for the withdrawal from the kingdom of the US Army personnel, Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems and THAAD anti-ballistic missile systems. Subsequently, Saudi Arabia signed an agreement on the reduction of oil, but the Americans could still realize part of their threats “so that it would be disgraceful”.

The second reason may be last year’s fiasco of the American Patriot systems, which "overslept" the attack of drones and missiles on the oil facilities of Saudi Arabia. Recall that on September 14 of last year, two oil refineries were attacked by 18 drones and 7 missiles, three of which fell in the desert. The American advertised air defense systems covering the objects simply did not see this attack, failing to detect a single attacking target. They did not cope with the task.

After the attack, which Iran was incidentally accused of, the United States stated that the drone attack “could not be repelled by any separate air defense and missile defense system in the world, such threats are leveled only by a deeply echeloned air defense,” and the Patriot air defense system is still one of the best and most advanced systems in the world. However, belief in "the best weapon from USA "has already been shaken.

By the way, Patriot air defense systems do not always help the Saudis repel the attacks of the Hussites launching missiles from the territory of Yemen. There are several cases when, for various reasons, the complexes could not intercept the Hussite missiles.

Patriot will require replacement


It is difficult to say now what threatens Riyadh with the withdrawal of American anti-aircraft systems from the territory of Saudi Arabia. In any case, four Patriot air defense batteries will be replaced by other anti-aircraft systems, and which ones will already be shown by time. It is known that after an attack on oil facilities, in Riyadh, several options were considered to strengthen air defense in the fight against drones. In October last year, Saudi Arabia even purchased a Control Sky drone detection system (Ctrl + Sky) in Poland. The issue of acquiring Russian S-400 anti-aircraft systems was also considered.
Author:
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. g1v2
    g1v2 8 May 2020 10: 34 New
    22
    Trump seems to have found an option to raise the price of oil. I won’t be surprised if soon the Hussites or someone else is attacking Saudi oil facilities. wink
    1. Ilya-spb
      Ilya-spb 8 May 2020 10: 40 New
      +2
      Sell ​​to the Saudis S-400. The country needs money.

      Turks sold. Why are Arabs worse?

      Just let them pay on an advance payment. And better - gold.
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 8 May 2020 10: 53 New
        +1
        The Saudis will not go to such a demarche. States will not allow. So far, all the Saudi promises to buy something from us have been empty. The chances of selling c400 to the emirates or Qatar are much higher.
      2. PalBor
        PalBor 8 May 2020 10: 57 New
        +1
        The Bukys showed themselves very well in the past Turkish-Syrian war. Most of the downed Turkish drones on their account. Well, Saudis, we are coming to you! smile
      3. Alex Nevs
        Alex Nevs 8 May 2020 11: 06 New
        0
        Only and only in gold.
      4. Pereira
        Pereira 8 May 2020 11: 47 New
        +5
        And give the Hussites the Points-U. The cost of the Points will be repelled by the supply of missiles for the S-400.
        By the way, would it be interesting to know what is more expensive, an old rocket or a new missile?
        1. Oleg Zorin
          Oleg Zorin 8 May 2020 15: 58 New
          +3
          Damn, I have not even seen such insidiousness in the zone! laughing
          1. orionvitt
            orionvitt 8 May 2020 18: 00 New
            +2
            This is not cunning, but the usual modern politics. Good teachers are good. Enough already to share the boys play. lol
      5. Cryvedco
        Cryvedco 8 May 2020 12: 29 New
        0
        They can’t do S-400 - there are still Husit rockets to fly there. Well, or oil at 120 and you can still agree.
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 8 May 2020 10: 42 New
      +4
      A strike by "Iranian" drones is quite expected now yes. Oil costs little.
  2. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 8 May 2020 10: 40 New
    +1
    Then piss off...
  3. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 May 2020 10: 42 New
    0
    Patriot does not shoot down low-flying targets.
    It is imprisoned on airplanes and BRDS.
    1. yfast
      yfast 8 May 2020 10: 46 New
      +1
      And what prevents them from putting the radar higher, and the software "thinner"?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 8 May 2020 10: 52 New
        -2
        In Israel, the Patriots have slightly redone the software so that they bring down
        and slow reconnaissance drones at altitude.
        To change more is to put a second additional radar. Unprofitable
        since missiles are not sharpened for small low-flying targets.
        It is easier to use other complexes, more specialized.
        And our Patriots successfully shot down a couple of pieces - from the first missile.
        1. Bogatyrev
          Bogatyrev 8 May 2020 11: 14 New
          0
          Well, why do they have problems with intercepting Points?
          1. Vitaly gusin
            Vitaly gusin 8 May 2020 12: 17 New
            0
            Quote: Bogatyrev
            Well, why do they have problems with intercepting Points?

            As you know, all problems are identified only during combat work.
            The David's Sling was used for the first time in a combat situation.
            The radars recorded the launch, the calculation made the right decision (although there is an opinion that it was possible to wait), the Tochka missiles changed their flight trajectory at the last moment and simply fell. It is clear that no one will publish this information in the media, but one thing is clear that, unlike the Patriot, the designer and manufacturer are located in Israel and there is an opportunity to check and correct everything in the shortest possible time.
          2. Parsec
            Parsec 8 May 2020 18: 44 New
            0
            Because the trajectory of the Point is just against interception. That is why the Tochka missiles changed their flight trajectory at the last moment and simply fell. "
        2. Parsec
          Parsec 8 May 2020 18: 40 New
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          since missiles are not sharpened for small low-flying targets.


          You are an "expert" on lasers, why do you rush so much in air defense / missile defense, and not even at the tactical, not operational, at the strategic level? Although you have something to do with radar, space, or GPS ... And in English phonetics they tried ...
          The Patriot has been in service for thirty years, and it will be another twenty years, has already cost a couple of tens of billions of dollars (those more dollars). Since the late sixties, the problem of air defense is low-flying targets, and then again! and the Americans are building, accepting, and selling a complex whose "missiles are not sharpened for low-flying targets." Well, yes, any petah-pumpkin or Ashdod man in the street is automatically an expert on all issues, and the Tel Aviv is just an encyclopedist of weapons, and they were not asked.

          "In 2016, the UAV flew into the territory of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel, Patriot could not shoot down the UAV, the drone returned.

          In April 2017, an UAV was intercepted (shot down), which flew into the territory of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel from Syria.

          On July 11, 2018, a UAV that penetrated from Syria into the interior of Israel about 10 km was shot down by the Patriot system. "

          So imprisoned or not imprisoned?

          "Raytheon has developed the Patriot guidance enhanced missile (GEM-T), an upgrade to the PAC-2 missile. The upgrade involves a new fuse and the insertion of a new low-noise oscillator, which increases the seeker's sensitivity to low radar cross -section targets.

          The GEM-T missile provides an upgraded capability to defeat air-breathing, cruise and ballistic missiles, as a complement to the PAC-3 missile. The first upgrade fore-bodies were delivered to the US Army in November 2002.

          By September 2010, a total of 1,000 Patriot missiles had been upgraded for the US Army. "

          From here: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/

          Translation:
          Raytheon has developed an advanced guidance missile (GEM-T), an upgrade to the PAC-2 missile. The upgrade included a new "radio" fuse and the installation of a new low-noise local oscillator, which improves the sensitivity of the head to targets with a small effective scattering surface.

          The GEM-T missile provides enhanced capabilities for hitting air-dependent cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. The first advanced warheads were delivered to the US Army in November 2002.

          By September 2010, a total of 1000 Patriot missiles had been upgraded.

          -------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------

          Sharpened, and even sharpened.
          Israel has faced the same conditions that it has been successfully using for sixty years - from the enemy’s side there is a flat plain, from Israel Antilivan, Lebanon and the Golan, and the state of Lebanon might and would like to object, but it is shy when launches are launched from its airspace on the neighboring to the state.
          And here from the side of the Golan at a minimum speed, through the cracks, driving crazy radar, UAV.
          And the way the device left with mountainous or hilly terrain was shot down by the same Patriot.

          Patriot is a good complex, but it requires building a system, organizing combat duty with a mandatory shift, and not in a month.
          The presence of the complex in service does not automatically mean the realization of all its capabilities.
    2. Gray brother
      Gray brother 8 May 2020 10: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It is imprisoned on airplanes and BRDS.

      So ballistics were also thrown at them. Logically, then you need not to output these, but to introduce some more to close the holes.
      And they, like a duck in a swamp, are telepicking, the tail will be pulled out - the head will become stuck, etc.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 8 May 2020 11: 03 New
        +1
        With the ballistics of the Patriots cope more or less ...
        Why "less"? - because the Patriot has a fragmentation warhead.
        This is suitable for shooting aircraft, but a defect when shooting
        ballistic missiles.
        The rocket flies already empty, without fuel. Undermining is required for warheads.
        And often fragments will solve only the pipe. And the inertia rocket flies to the target,
        with a small under-flight, only slightly changing the trajectory.
        This is what happened in Saudi during the shelling of El Riyadh and airports.
        1. Gray brother
          Gray brother 8 May 2020 11: 11 New
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And often fragments will solve only the pipe. And the inertia rocket flies to the target,

          They are strange. A rocket should fly into a cloud of fragments - how can a pipe be riddled which is behind?
          If only they are fired at an already detached stage, as for the most radio-contrast target.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 8 May 2020 15: 56 New
            0
            Scuds have only one step
            1. Gray brother
              Gray brother 8 May 2020 16: 11 New
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Scuds have only one step

              Yes, I have no idea what came to them there, there are a lot of pictures with tanks, and there is not a single head.
              The Iranians have different.
    3. Vasyan1971
      Vasyan1971 8 May 2020 10: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Patriot does not shoot down low-flying targets.
      It is imprisoned on airplanes and BRDS.

      Why, then they shoved him in there?
  4. Gray brother
    Gray brother 8 May 2020 10: 43 New
    +1
    Was it necessary to set the PU so as to burn the fence? Even it seems to me that the rear wheel of the trailer in the photo was burned from the return line and put out with sand.
  5. smaug78
    smaug78 8 May 2020 10: 44 New
    -4
    The drones didn’t have to be mentioned at all, it’s just ridiculous ... Yes, if you argue as an author, the S-300 disgraced in Syria no less ... Article is a stupid agitation ...
    1. Atlant-1164
      Atlant-1164 8 May 2020 11: 04 New
      +7
      Boris! you're wrong!! (with)
      1. smaug78
        smaug78 8 May 2020 12: 18 New
        -3
        Quote: Atlant-1164
        Boris! you're wrong!! (with)

        What exactly do not agree with? The points...
  6. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 8 May 2020 11: 26 New
    +1
    I think that both reasons given by the author (pressure on the SA and "failed") have a right to exist. At the same time, the second (failed), which is not entirely acceptable for the United States, can be covered up by the first by loudly declaring that we warned the SA about oil prices. And as if on a "white horse" again - the man said, the man did.
    1. Kuz
      Kuz 8 May 2020 13: 59 New
      +2
      But another thing surprised me. Official version:
      Pentot air defense withdrawal at Pentagon attributed to reduced likelihood of Iran attack

      and right there
      After the attack, which incidentally was accused of Iran, the United States announced ...

      Change shoes in the air laughing
  7. primaala
    primaala 8 May 2020 11: 42 New
    0
    Failed: US withdraws Patriot air defense systems from Saudi Arabia
    ==============
    What suddenly !? Wahhabism did not like the ideas !? Why is it so!?
    Israel made friends with the brothers. hmm
    Here are just "brothers" harbored ............... Wait !!!
  8. Quat
    Quat 8 May 2020 11: 46 New
    0
    There is another version, they are not displayed, but transferred, for example, to Syria.
  9. Karaul20
    Karaul20 8 May 2020 12: 40 New
    -3
    2 reasons for the author - amateurish opinion. The first is because Trump himself insisted on the oil deal, since too low a price is not profitable for the United States either. Second, at first, after the attack, they were reinforced by the Patriots, and then they were removed for the reason of "not coping", it is simply devoid of logic.
    And when did the Saudis consider the S-400? They will not buy it. And this complex did not even fight and did not show itself. According to the patriot, one can already have an idea with his successes / failures.
    1. Parsec
      Parsec 8 May 2020 18: 50 New
      0
      Then you need to write off all the Strategic Missile Forces. Also, no one fought and did not show themselves.
      Well, yes, tests, periodic launches, modernization - but you didn’t fight, huh?
      Therefore, the 1939 howitzer, has long had an idea of ​​its successes and failures.
      1. Karaul20
        Karaul20 9 May 2020 08: 28 New
        -1
        I can even rephrase a little - that the S-300, that the S-400 were and are in the zones of the database, but not one successfully hit target, except for fire on their own, no.
  10. V.I.P.
    V.I.P. 8 May 2020 13: 14 New
    -1
    The Saudis have a lot of money. They will buy either KM-SAM (an analogue of the Russian Vityaz..ZRK) in Yu.Kore developed with the help of the Russian companies Almaz-Antey and Fakel.) And Biho K30 (an analogue of Tunguska or shell). The Chinese can buy air defense systems. The Europeans ... Nakrainyak Israelis will buy an iron dome)))))
  11. Old26
    Old26 8 May 2020 13: 43 New
    +2
    Slaughter title of the article. We failed, and that's it. True, the author does not cover the issue, but in fact these American complexes (4 batteries) were firing at targets or they stood there all the time, never having fired. Where they were stationed - also "history is silent".
    Actually, anyone interested in this region can find the article "Missile War in Yemen" on the net. It considers all cases of the use of missiles by the Yemeni side (at least the overwhelming majority), starting from March 1, 2015 and ending on April 5, 2020. 266 cases were considered, incl. 5 for 2020. In 2020, 11 missiles were launched by the Houthis, 9 were intercepted, one hit the target and one fell short of the target. All in all, the percentage of destruction of launched missiles ranges from 60 to 80% in different years. Therefore, it is rather difficult to say that we failed. We did it, but the percentage is not as high as expected by the creators of the complex
  12. APASUS
    APASUS 8 May 2020 14: 11 New
    0
    As I understand it, the Houthis should "unexpectedly" attack the Saudi fields again? And that's it, oil for $ 200. The Americans are bad at hiding the true meaning of their actions.
  13. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 8 May 2020 15: 52 New
    -1
    I wonder what are the conclusions of mattress ekperdy based on? Was Iran's threat reduction measured in meters or kilograms?
  14. Parsec
    Parsec 8 May 2020 18: 45 New
    0
    Quote: Vitaly Gusin
    As you know, all problems are identified only during combat work.

    We know that problems come to light during trials.
    The tests were conducted illiterate, or the money was crushed.
  15. Old26
    Old26 8 May 2020 21: 25 New
    +2
    Quote: Parsec
    Since the late sixties, the problem of air defense is low-flying targets, and then again! and the Americans are building, accepting, selling a complex in which "missiles are not sharpened for low-flying targets."

    The thing is, comrade, that in those years the concept of a low-flying target was somewhat different from the modern one. Low-flying targets were considered, for example, the same B-1B, which went around the terrain or "Tomahawks". But at the same time, the flight altitude of the same B-1B was 61 meters (it did not descend less), and the "ax" flew over land at altitudes from 60-70 to 150 meters. now the same Iranian RCs and drones can fly at altitudes of 10-15 meters (low-speed drones - and even lower). The "Patriot" has a minimum of 60 meters

    Quote: Parsec
    We know that problems come to light during trials.
    The tests were conducted illiterate, or the money was crushed.

    Unfortunately not always. Tests are most often carried out in a simplified form. Calculations know where the goal will come from, when, and often at what height. In battle, the parameters can be much different. How to lead in a combat situation, for example, the same S-300, S-400 - is unknown. No combat use experience. Will they really be able to hit targets at heights of 10 meters. In addition to iron, after all, much also depends on calculations, or rather their curvature.
    1. Parsec
      Parsec 9 May 2020 16: 47 New
      0
      Kamrad, you have no idea about the classification of NLC for each type of complex, and even more so about the tests of air defense systems and confirmation of characteristics.
  16. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 8 May 2020 22: 46 New
    0
    Our Buki and Armor, armed with Syria, are also not all Israeli missiles intercepted.
  17. demo
    demo 9 May 2020 16: 56 New
    0
    Thinking that the Arabs, which complex do not sell, still will not help.
    For the complex would also need to adjust the staff.
    And where to get it.
    S300-400 the car is complicated. Not like a camel.
    That's the whole problem.
  18. Old26
    Old26 10 May 2020 13: 21 New
    +3
    Quote: Parsec
    Kamrad, you have no idea about the classification of NLC for each type of complex, and even more so about the tests of air defense systems and confirmation of characteristics.

    I do not have. But in the 40-45 years that have passed since the adoption of the "axes" and B-1, a lot has changed. And the bottom line has decreased