Patriot developer baffled by claims of ineffective interception of Russian missiles

Discussion is gaining momentum in the Ukrainian segment of the Internet about the fact that the American Patriot air defense systems in service with the Ukrainian Armed Forces are encountering problems when attempting to intercept “new versions” of Russian missiles Iskander-M and Kinzhal OTRKs. The main message conveyed by Ukrainian broadcasters of this information is roughly this: the Patriot anti-aircraft missile "does not meet the Russian missile at the ballistic trajectory point, indicating changes made by the Russians":

The Russian Iskander-M missile makes a very small maneuver during the pre-final phase of flight due to software changes. This is the reason why the launched MIM-104 missile fails to find its target at the designated point on its trajectory.

And now, as Ukrainian "experts" write, it's necessary to "change everything"—the Patriot's radar, the guidance system, and even the missile itself. The developer shrugs in bewilderment. It's noted that "changing everything" is counterproductive.

This situation raises the question: if the Ukrainian Armed Forces' Patriot missiles have stopped intercepting Russian ballistic missiles, then what about the reports from the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Headquarters of the Ukrainian Air Force that "up to 90% of Russian missiles of various types are intercepted." Moreover, the Ukrainian military adds that "if the strikes weren't so massive, they would all be intercepted."

Launch of the Iskander-M missile system

Accordingly, option a) the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is lying, option b) the Ukrainian “experts” who claim there are problems with interception are lying.

It is worth recalling here that where target interception is typically carried out by one or two Patriot missiles (the “regulatory” calculation option) Defense(USA), in the Ukrainian version, the entire munitions load of an entire battery can be fired at a target. Numerous videos have been published online of Patriot missiles being fired at sparrows in Kyiv—missiles are fired one after another, then, often failing to find their target, they fall on residential buildings. Previously, Ukraine attributed this to "multiple decoys from the Russians," but now it's "software innovations in the Kinzhal and Iskander missiles." Ultimately, the goal remains the same: to increase the supply of air defense systems and try to justify its wastefulness.

Comments

[Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov]

❝ Accordingly, the option a) The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is still lying, option b) Ukrainian "experts" who claim there are problems with interception are lying ❞ —

- Option at) everyone lies...

[Chifka]

Option c) everyone lies...

This is not a lie, this is a lie I sprinkled powdered sugar on a burnt cake—it's no longer visible from above, and it tastes less burnt. What a culinary masterpiece!

[ZovSailor]

Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov
Today, 07: 48
Option c) everyone lies...

Everyone lies except for the "Dagger" and "Iskander", which always find their targets.

[Alex777]

Quote: ZovSailor

Everyone lies except for the "Dagger" and "Iskander", which always find their targets.

So it is so!
And the 404 is a customer who disgraces the unrivaled Patriot.
Such a customer should be kicked out, brought to trial and not given anything new.

[novel66]

And in war this is normal

[TermNachTer]

Most likely, yes, but there's one catch. After the Patriot's SAM system establishes a target's trajectory, it travels to the interception point; lock-on, either automatically or in "illumination" mode, occurs at the very end. If the target shifts along the trajectory, it fails to lock-on. Apparently, some changes were made to the Iskander design after all.

[orionvitt]

Quote: TermNachTER

If the target shifts along the trajectory, there is no lock-on. Apparently, some changes were made to the Iskander design after all.

No changes were made to the Iskander design. They were originally designed to maneuver precisely during their final trajectory. As they approach their target, the missile begins to perform unpredictable maneuvers without losing their target, depriving enemy air defenses of the ability to calculate their trajectory.

[Alex777]

Quote: TermNachTER

Apparently, some changes were made to the Iskander design.

What they talk about on 404 was in Iskaders from the very beginning.
And the clowns' ability to fool everyone is decreasing. Here
They're just spreading more nonsense. They're not pushing the facts.

[Rurikovich]

Quote: Alex777

And the clowns' ability to fool everyone is decreasing.

You can fool one person for a long time, you can fool everyone for a short time... But you can't fool everyone for a long time...

[Chack wessel]

Quote: Rurikovich

You can fool one person for a long time, you can fool everyone for a short time... But you can't fool everyone for a long time... request what laughing

Yes, you can. They've been fooling me for 30 years already. :)

[Mikhail3]

Are Patriot missiles themselves capable of maneuvering? Or do they only target their targets upon launch?

[Mars]

Of course they are, but the Iskander missile is quasi-ballistic and travels at hypersonic speed on final approach, making it a difficult target.

[Mikhail3]

I know about the Kalibr, thanks. But the Patriots... if they're capable, why are their capabilities so limited? Anyway, I'm just being sarcastic; I'll try to be sarcastic from now on. As someone who holds the rank of reserve officer in radar, I have some understanding of what these goals are. It's just that my military department was a long time ago. I suspect the PRV-13 won't be much use now...

[multi-category]

Patriots were initially designed to counter aircraft or Soviet SCAD-class missiles.
Since the rocket has little energy, and the Americans are very reluctant to introduce performance characteristics that exceed the order, these rockets, in order to save money, did not operate for the entire flight, but were activated only at a certain point.
The first Patriot missiles shot down 40% of their targets with a double launch under real-world conditions in the Iraq and Israel region. While their effectiveness has now roughly doubled, the missile is still far from achieving a hit rate above 90% even against "easy targets." As for maneuvering ballistic targets, physical limitations come into play: even with a perfectly functioning guidance system, the missile may lack the energy or strength to turn toward its target.

[Mikhail3]

It's not that "it might not be enough" to destroy hypersonic weapons, it's that it definitely won't be enough!

[multi-category]

Quote: Mikhail3

It's not that "it might not be enough" to destroy hypersonic weapons, it's that it definitely won't be enough!

What do you call hypersonic? Most anti-aircraft missiles accelerate to Mach 6-8 or more. And we're talking about a caliber, a subsonic missile, which, in theory, even World War II fighters could shoot down. We weren't talking about ballistic missiles. But let's even assume they did. What do we have? Well, sort of... the Dagger and the Iskander. Both missiles are essentially tactical ballistic missiles of short or medium range (depending on how you look at the range).
The Iskander, for example, travels at Mach 6-8 at the high part of its trajectory, making it a target easily accessible to most anti-aircraft missiles. The only problem is accuracy. And accuracy is a problem, but don't think the US has no countermeasures. The latest AEGIS missiles are quite capable of intercepting such missiles, though not 100%, to put it mildly. The Iran-Israel conflict demonstrated this, but overall, the situation there was very favorable for air defense operations: a very narrow attack waiting sector, early warning of targets, a limited number of targets to engage, and a high density of air defense systems. As a result, almost all subsonic targets were shot down; about 20% penetrated at speeds up to Mach 2, and more than half at Mach 4+. In Ukraine, things are far from simple: there's no early warning, no narrow attack sector, and no density of anti-missiles, so the effectiveness can easily be halved.

[Mikhail3]

We were talking about the Kinzhal, or hypersonic missiles. Which you speak of so dismissively, as if we have some Kinzhals. And then you suddenly declared we were talking about subsonic missiles. So are these Kinzhals subsonic or hypersonic?
To hit a missile, you either need to precisely adjust your oncoming course or catch up, which requires a speed of at least Mach 10. The enemy missile is traveling at Mach 6. And anti-aircraft missiles don't "have Mach 6 speed." They can accelerate to that speed in a matter of seconds. And then, that's it, the tomatoes wither.
The oncoming course is off—our Kalibr cruisers are maneuvering. They won't be able to catch up—they're not speeding. Overall, your post is kind of weird...

[multi-category]

Quote: Mikhail3

We were talking about the Kinzhal, or hypersonic missiles, which you speak of so dismissively.

stop making things up - in particular neglect

Quote: Mikhail3

I know about the Caliber, thanks. But the Patriots...

Where are the daggers and hypersonics?

Quote: Mikhail3

The oncoming course is off—our Kalibrs are maneuvering. We won't be able to catch up—they're not speeding.

Subsonic maneuvering targets larger than an orange are perfectly acceptable targets for modern air defense systems, and can be engaged. Especially since the caliber's maneuverability is far from exceptional. Another point is that there's no need to indulge in the absurdity of shooting them down with machine guns, slingshots, and pickle jars.

Quote: Mikhail3

To hit a missile, you need to either precisely adjust the oncoming course

This is precisely what the US has been doing in its anti-missile program for the last 30 years—constantly improving the accuracy of missile delivery to the intercept point and their energy. It's true that it's unclear why they "forgot" the theoretical calculations of anti-aircraft gunners back in the 60s, which demonstrated that accuracy will never be sufficient for high-speed ballistic targets. I haven't even mentioned chase-and-intercept options. NATO air defenses with missiles rely on that only at the beginning of their trajectory.

[Mikhail3]

The article was about Daggers, my attentive friend.

Patriot air defense systems are encountering problems when attempting to intercept the "new versions" of the Russian Iskander-M and Kinzhal OTRK missiles.

So, your thoughts about subsonic targets are correct... but half a meter off. A jar of pickles will be completely effective if you align it precisely with a hypersonic target. It's funny to read about the "ineffectiveness" of something you have no idea about. The superpowers of the United States spent 30 years aligning their anti-missiles, but judging by the effectiveness data, they were doing something completely wrong. Whatever the idiot does, he does it wrong.

[multi-category]

Quote: Mikhail3

It took them 30 years to get anti-missiles on course

There's no point in being sarcastic, it doesn't suit you.
The Americans certainly relaxed after the collapse of the USSR—they had little new weapons, only minor improvements. The Patriot followed the same path, but a certain bar had been set: in the conflicts with Iraq, the Patriot proved ineffective against Scud missiles, and the US seriously addressed this issue, primarily improving not the missile itself, but rather target positioning accuracy and algorithms for more precise missile guidance to the interception point. However, less than five years later, Russia reasserted itself and its weapons. And if you pay attention, the US immediately launched several new missile programs, including yet another Patriot upgrade, which required improvements in both the missile's energy system and its maneuvering capabilities, mid-course corrections, and ground-based multiple-target tracking capabilities. Perhaps much more could have been accomplished in 30 years, but for the Americans, the Patriot has become a truly unpleasant system.
I'm not going to get into a debate about how the Patriot shoots down ballistic missiles traveling at speeds exceeding Mach 4. This system will never be sufficiently effective against such targets, remaining within the realm of modest theoretical capabilities.

[Mikhail3]

Daggers? Or not? Hypersonic? Or is your boo-boo-boo completely off topic? What's the point of arguing with a man who, instead of discussing the matter, lies like a cat and engages in utter fact-finding?

[multi-category]

I think you are lying and constantly trying to change my words so that they don’t seem true.
I cited YOUR quotes, on the basis of which I spoke and spoke fairly.
I don't care about your other statements.
I'll continue to downvote you if you continue to attack me.

[Klevakin_Nikita]

At launch, the air defense system determines the missile's subsequent progress and aims to lead it. However, at hypersonic speeds, a 1-degree change in trajectory is enough to lose all lead.

[ved_med12]

Who is smart enough to give you a minus?
A deviation of one degree over a distance of one kilometer is approximately 17 meters...

[Mikhail3]

Thanks)) Overall, Kalibr is on a whole other level. I think I know how our guys manage to pull off these tricks and still hit the target. It seems the enemy doesn't understand, though. So let it stay that way.
The speed increase itself exceeded the limit of missile defense systems—both Patriots and others. The maneuvering and targeting speed of a maneuvering hypersonic missile must be significantly higher than that of the hypersonic missile itself. Simply because the maneuver must be executed in the wake of the hypersonic missile, as a secondary maneuver.
To do this, we need to determine what maneuver the target is executing, determine the intercepting course, and perform the maneuver mechanically—change the rudder direction, perhaps readjust the thrust. The very task of turning the rudders at the required speed is a problem that would require years of research and hundreds of millions of dollars. It's unlikely that anyone can solve such a problem today. Our adversaries are in trouble! It's heartbreaking.
Oh, I forgot. The "dog curve" solution won't work—you'll have to reach a speed higher than the Caliber. And a lot higher! And they can't even achieve that...

[multi-category]

Quote: Klevakin_Nikita

But, at hypersonic speed, it is enough to change the trajectory of movement by 1 degree and all lead is lost.

The second generation of air defense missiles was programmed to approach the target's kill zone and provide follow-up guidance. Random target maneuvering significantly disrupts this algorithm.
But conclusions were drawn and improvements were made, and the missile's final interception phase became more precise and controllable. Furthermore, target designation accuracy was significantly improved.

[multi-category]

Quote: Klevakin_Nikita

The air defense system at launch determines the further movement of the missile and aims to lead it.

The question here is more about the initial phase of the interceptor's acceleration from the ground, when course correction is very difficult. If the target maneuvers at this point, intercepting it will be more difficult. Further correction is possible, and there are already systems that do this and have sensors precise enough to make adjustments, but it all comes down to the probability of successful interception. A 90% success rate is practically nonexistent; 70% is ideal for the best in a dual launch.
This means that a missile umbrella does not guarantee 100% downing even under favorable conditions.

[Dizel200]

Are the Patriots really that good?

[dimon642]

Are the S-400s really that good? And we have no equivalent air defense systems.

[Mars]

In fact, the Russian air defense is the most powerful in the world; the US has nothing but Patriots (similar to the S-300) and Stingers (similar to the Igla).

[dimon642]

And why then did the rattle fly to Orsk?

[Mars]

Air defense doesn't guarantee 100% success, but they do shoot down 90% of them. Why were only three of the 19 drones shot down in Poland? Why weren't even a single one of the 15 UAVs shot down in Germany?

[dimon642]

Drones that are sold in stores were flying in Germany; how could they shoot them down? And what about the SVO going on in Poland?
This is a question for our air defense, why are the oil refinery debris burning?

[Mars]

Electronic warfare or small arms, or does Germany have problems with that too? If we had struck European oil refineries, there wouldn't have been a single survivor left.

[Leshak]

And why then did the rattle fly to Orsk?

Because the further you are from LBS, the calmer and more carefree your life becomes.
My son was on a business trip to one of the units of the Central Military District. During formation, a drone flew over the military unit and there was no reaction, no command was given, let alone an attempt to shoot it down.
It’s as if there is no military action or threat from UAVs.

[poquello]

Quote: Leshak

A drone flew by and there was no reaction, no command was given, let alone an attempt to shoot it down.

It makes sense, he's not flying with a sign saying "I'm a Ukrainian drone, flying to bomb an oil refinery." Maybe it's an air ambulance carrying medicine, etc.

[Vovavvs]

Before Orsk, the UAV flew loudly over the location of several military units, including Donguz, but for some reason not a single shot was fired...

[Lionnvrsk]

Quote: dimon642

And why then did the rattle fly to Orsk?

I think even a fool could figure this out. The target is low-flying, following a predetermined route. The air defense operates in a zone, covering the most important and strategic targets. It's impossible to spawn Buks, Pantsirs, and other S-300s and S-450s every kilometer. They fly at night, and mobile active defenses are also ineffective at that time.

[dimon642]

About the S-400, which was demolished near Kursk.

[multi-category]

Quote: LIONnvrsk

They fly at night, and mobile OGs are also ineffective at this time.

They also fly during the day and they say, quite rightly, that there is often no reaction.
Although I did witness such a case with my own eyes, where a group of UAVs flew in. I won't say where.
At first, I saw a strange sight: planes taking off from the airfield literally one after another, something that had never happened before. Then, a minute after they took off, there was a powerful explosion. Then, about 6-7 minutes later, I saw about 10 helicopters of various types chasing two UAVs, all flying right overhead and firing at the UAVs with gunfire. I shot down both, and one exploded in mid-air. There seemed to be no air defense system, but they had detected the incoming aircraft in advance and managed to prepare.

[Gonsalus]

Quote: dimon642

And why then did the rattle fly to Orsk?

Because Aslan was launched from Kazakhstan!!! .. So you Kazakhs there, you are not doing something... The border is not covered on your side...
A truck loaded with onions was driving by, it stopped, they started it up, and then they drove on. Communication via NATO satellite.

[dimon642]

For those of you who are not Kazakh, I live in Russia.

[Gonsalus]

Quote: dimon642

For those of you who are not Kazakh, I live in Russia.

Well, excuse me, you're probably a Chechen... And I know you live in Russia.

[dimon642]

What difference does it make who, how many traitors there are already?

[Gonsalus]

Quote: dimon642

What difference does it make who, how many traitors there are already?

I don't understand you, Aslan! What do you mean? Explain.

[dimon642]

How many traitors have we already captured, and arsonists?

[Gonsalus]

Quote: dimon642

How many traitors have we already captured, and arsonists?

Well, there is such a thing as Aslan... We are working on it!
Stalin was right when he started the purges.

[TermNachTer]

I think the rattling thing was launched from Kazakhstan. Nothing complicated. They brought in a few individual components (modules), assembled them, and launched them—the steppes in Kazakhstan are endless. Then it was controlled via Starlink.

[Volkhov M3]

And so that the Gundelkins could play out their sovereignty on the keyboard. Fershteyn?

[South American Golden Frog]

Because there's a border with Kazakhstan there. And that border is a complete sieve.

[Alex_12]

Quote: Mars

There is nothing except Patriots (analogous to S-300) and Stingers (analogous to Igla).

Thaad apparently also not? There are not many of them, but nevertheless, there are gophers.

[Volkhov M3]

Since when did the TNNAD become an air defense system?

[Alex_12]

One of the options. Possibly use against aircraft-type air targets. This information surfaced in the early 10s. And if it did, then it's certainly a possibility.

Quote: Volkhov M3

Since when did the TNNAD become an air defense system?

[TermNachTer]

Firing a THHAD at aircraft is, firstly, expensive—a single SAM costs around $12 million. Secondly, its algorithms are designed to target very high-flying targets, even those in exoatmospheric environments. Its radar is most likely designed for high altitudes. Therefore, if the aircraft is flying at very low altitudes, it might not detect it.

[Alex_12]

Colleague. I wrote about this in other messages. Both about the cost and what the range is. Possibly, and what kind.

[Mars]

Thaad is a missile defense system. Are there American equivalents like the Buk, Pantsir, and Tor?

[Alex_12]

I won't repeat myself. See my message below in the thread.

Quote: Mars

Are there American equivalents to Buk, Pantsir, and Tor?

Given their geographical location, they're like a bath leaf and a fifth leg for a hare. Gay Europeans, yes. They need short- and medium-range air defense systems.
P.S. Briefly, the THAAD can shoot down high-speed, high-atmosphere targets. Naturally, not at the same ranges as missile defense systems. Given its characteristics, I don't see any limitations in its capabilities.

[Mars]

Buk, Tor, Pantsir, Strela, and S-300V are the ground forces' air defense systems. Who will cover US ground forces in combat?

[Alex_12]

But they only fight against pupuas. They use aircraft to destroy air defenses and missile defenses, achieving air superiority. Then they use ground forces with air cover. Tell me, why do they need short- and medium-range air defense in this case? The most they've seriously fought in the last 30 years is Iraq and Saddam Hussein. His technology was essentially from the 80s. Did the Taliban have air force and others?

[Mars]

It turns out the Americans are lying when they claim they're ready to fight China or Russia. Even the Papuans are now capable of using drones en masse.

[Alex_12]

Directly (with their own hands) - unlikely. Otherwise, they wouldn't have set the pigsty on us, and are now setting Europe and the Baltics on us. They'll watch from the sidelines and participate. If the coffins start pouring in like in Vietnam, I think the outcome is clear. And they understand this perfectly well (the pigsty has 1,7 million, only 200). They don't have such jumping patriots. They'll demolish not only Trump, but the White House. Because the average taxpayer won't understand what they're paying for, and their sons/children have gone off to fight somewhere in the other hemisphere for something. They already have a large number of "former" military personnel, including officers from "that one." Some get lost, some drown in the bathtub, some choke on a chicken bone, etc.

Quote: Mars

Although now even the Papuans are capable of using UAVs on a large scale

What threat can UAVs pose to AUGs? Nothing. They won't conduct a ground operation until they achieve air superiority, so they can then parade around and post their achievements on YouTube. If they wanted to, they would have gone after us or China long ago. But I'm afraid China will overwhelm them not only with technology but also with "meat attacks."

[Mars]

The Houthis disagree; they drove the NATO fleet out of the Red Sea with their drones and missiles, and one aircraft carrier dodged and dropped an F-18 into the sea.

[Alex_12]

Quote: Mars

The Houthis disagree

And what about the Houthis? Nothing. They laid a couple of sewer pipes and posted a couple of fakes. No proof. No objective evidence either. And the fact that the AUG was recalled. Maybe the toilet got clogged, or they ran out of cigars and whiskey. The fact is that we didn't give the Houthis anything. Because without our participation, it's impossible to strike.

[Mars]

Of course, nothing, only the volume of transport through the Red Sea has decreased several times, and the powerful NATO fleet is keeping its distance from the Houthis.

[Alex_12]

Yes, no one is stopping them (the Houthis) from drawing red lines. They are essentially guerrillas. And guerrillas are the hardest thing to fight, and that's been known for a long time. The Americans can barely fight a regular army, at most. Their skills are negative in other areas.

[dimon642]

And where will Russia strike UAVs in the States? In Alaska.
And China probably follows Guam.

[Mars]

The US has enough ICBMs to turn all major cities into radioactive ruins.

[dimon642]

And they'll watch as their cities are turned into ruins. Or maybe it'll be the other way around.

[Mars]

If NATO forces advance, the only way to stop them is with nuclear weapons.

[dimon642]

US ground forces will enter the battle when there is no longer any enemy air power.

[Mars]

Missiles and UAVs will fly calmly towards the Americans.

[dimon642]

from Mars, from the Laotian army, or they'll draw it with a felt-tip pen

[Mars]

Even during the recent 12-day war, the P.I.N.D.O.S. didn't fly to the base in Qatar. And they couldn't shoot down anything.
I'm telling you, American air defense is crap, and you, mattress pad, don't believe me.

[dimon642]

Our air defense system can't shoot down a hypersonic missile either. And what's even worse is that it can't shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. The most interesting thing is that our air defense system is unparalleled, and 38 percent of the oil refineries have been disabled by the rattling missiles.
Well, who is more of a doormat, that's still a question.

[Mars]

Well, I asked you to name the American equivalents of the Buk, Tor, and Pantsir, but for some reason you couldn’t.

[dimon642]

The US equivalent of the Buk and Tor is the Patriot, and the Pantsir is the IM-SHORAD, 

[Mars]

Since when did the Patriot become a short- and medium-range air defense system? And how many Patriots are there in a US Army infantry brigade?

[dimon642]

The Patriot was originally designed for anti-aircraft warfare, but was modified in the 1980s to intercept short-range cruise and ballistic missiles.

[Mars]

So what air defense systems does an American infantry or tank brigade have?

[Mars]

Why isn't the word "f.i.n.d.o.s" allowed on this site? Is this site run by American ass-lickers? :laughing

[Castro Ruiz]

Mars
What about the THAAD system, have you forgotten about it?

[Mars]

A THAAD in an infantry brigade? Shoot down a 100-dollar UAV with a 12 million-dollar missile?

[Panin (midshipman)]

Quote: Mars

In fact, the Russian air defense is the most powerful in the world; the US has nothing but Patriots (similar to the S-300) and Stingers (similar to the Igla).

Who told you the Patriot is the same as the S-300? The S-400 is just as good as the S-300, only with longer-range missiles. Develop new missiles, and the system's performance characteristics change. Patriot missiles have undergone several upgrades.

[Mars]

The Patriot and the S-300 are the same age, but in terms of performance characteristics the Patriot is inferior to the S-300.

[Kusja]

Well, the Turks probably wouldn't risk their image and F35 in front of the mattress makers.

[MinskFox]

Ask the Chinese, who've tested it exhaustively. And then the Indians, what the system's effectiveness is, and then open your mouth, my dear fellow.

[Mike777]

Is the best defense system in the World

[Montezuma]

Quote: dimon642

Are the S-400s really that good? And we have no equivalent air defense systems.

They're good, proven time and time again, and not just in Russia. You certainly don't have them, so just be jealous.

[snow mountain]

Are the Patriots really that good?

This was evident from the Iranian missile attacks on Israel.

[Alex_12]

Thaad mentioned it above. They seemed to be quite successful in shooting them down. But here's something to consider:
1. The system is fairly new (17 years old) – it's up to you to believe the claims of success. It's up to you to decide. No one's going to sabotage it.
2. Very expensive, more expensive than a Patriot missile. Even before the SVO, an interceptor missile cost two to three times as much as the latter. And the radar for it is similar – almost half the cost of an entire Patriot missile battery.
3. Almost never supplied to the UAE and some other countries. Very few anti-missiles have been produced to date. Although precise data is lacking.

[snow mountain]

thaad mentioned above

But it costs some crazy money.

[Alex_12]

Well, I wrote about this in point 2. One radar station there is about half a yard long (not counting the command post and everything else). The entire basic Patriot battery costs that much—that's the starting price!
But yeah, it's a missile defense system. It does have atmospheric interception capabilities, though. Information has leaked, and apparently there were even tests. But everything there is strictly classified. I suspect that, given the cost, it's entirely possible that it could be used against high-atmosphere, high-speed targets (like MiG-31s ​​and the like). Because it seems a bit odd to think of a missile defense system at that price.

[isv000]

Quote: Dizel200

Are the Patriots really that good?

Absolutely disgusting!

[rytik32]

Well, no one will admit outright that Western air defense systems have effectively lost the battle for Ukraine's skies to the Daggers and Iskanders. Otherwise, how can they sell these air defense systems?
In recent months, missile strikes have been regularly seen online. Geraniums are flying freely over Kyiv even during the day. What does this indicate? A collapse of the air defense system!
And while previously broken systems were quickly replaced with new ones, now the trickle of supplies has dried up...
But instead of admitting that dozens and even hundreds of air defense systems were knocked out by the enemy, they are spreading stories about what has long been known: that the Dagger and Iskander are capable of maneuvering at hypersonic speeds.

[tralflot1832]

The Guardian reported that 13 pigs were lost in Ukraine yesterday, no quotes. Patriot couldn't do it. And they're talking about some Iskanders and Kinzhals. That's a pretty normal report from the Ukrainian Armed Forces. They've pinned a barbecue of 13 pigs on us in front of the world community.

[Maks1995]

haha, just to write...

Nobody hypocritically remembers the "fisherman's rule" - to misrepresent everything three times...

[foxes]

Well, this is all the result of propaganda. The Western Internet is a veritable orgy of anti-Russian propaganda. If you read about our weapons, it's surprising why the Ukrainians haven't stormed Vladivostok yet.

[sdivt]

Quote: Vulpes

The Western Internet is a veritable orgy of anti-Russian propaganda. If you read about our weapons, it's surprising why the Ukrainians haven't stormed Vladivostok yet.

Make no mistake - the propaganda is the same on both sides.
You read Ukrainian propagandists - Russia has deflated, there's a financial collapse, only one and a half missiles left!
You read ours - the Ukrainian Armed Forces are demoralized, there are no fresh forces, there are no weapons supplies, they have nothing!
But, as you rightly noted, neither the Ukrainian Armed Forces are storming Vladivostok, nor are we storming Lvov.
Propaganda is the same, no matter how we feel about it.

[Bayun]

"The Same Propaganda" suggests a seditious thought: what if "Stalin and Hitler together bent over the cards"? I don't want to believe it, but "delusional" thinking is the most it is logical describes what is happening.

[Rakitin]

Let me remind you that in August 1939, the USSR and Germany became practically allies. And without the Soviet rear protected from the east and the supply of millions of tons of Soviet oil in 1939-40, the blitzkrieg of May-June 1940 in the West would have been simply impossible.
So the real story is a bit more complex than it might seem. And it doesn't at all rule out "Stalin and Hitler poring over maps together" or "Churchill and Truman pondering how best to bomb the June 1945 Victory Day parade in Moscow."

[Victor19]

Admirer of Rezun (Suvorov)

[Rakitin]

Well, facts are stubborn things. And the turbo-p@treats prefer simply not to see them. Incidentally, what's happening now is a reflection of the collapse of that benign Soviet interpretation of WWII events about how "evil fascists enslaved Europe," while, you see, there was a burgeoning "resistance movement."
In fact, in the 1930s and 40s, there was yet another version of the European Union, only under the leadership not of Napoleon's France, but of Hitler's Germany. And it wasn't Germany alone that attacked the USSR, but the "European Union v.1941," and, accordingly, there was never any "resistance" there, except for Serbia and Greece: millions of Europeans outside of Germany and Austria fought on the German side, and only tens of thousands on the other side.
Therefore, with the establishment of the next version of the EU in 1992, the ideas of Napoleon and Aloisych automatically became relevant again. And the question of Europe's attack on Russia shifted from the realm of "maybe/maybe not" to the realm of "when exactly." It took a quarter of a century for the hot phase to begin.
And the Soviet wankers still can’t understand: “Why has this fascism raised its head again?”...

[Bayun]

Not everyone clearly understands that 1991 is a "farce" derived from the "tragedy" of 1917. Both events = "historical error."

[likana]

"The developer shrugs in bewilderment."

Why shrug your shoulders, welcome to Ukraine, we'll sort it out on the spot...or are you afraid?

[Anthony]

Are those who claim "all targets were hit" telling the truth? If that were the case, there would have been no stone left standing.

[Umptek]

It's the usual blatant bullshit. The same thing happens in civilian life. A standard production situation: the new equipment delivered doesn't perform to its stated specifications... A squabble and a search for blame ensues. Usually, everyone ends up at fault—from the designers to the cleaners in the factory shower.

[Asper_Daffy]

Maybe they didn't patch something in time again, like in 1991?

For those who don't remember this epic "patriotic" blunder, it all started when one particularly clever programmer improved the timing program. He actually improved it, but the problem was, he did it in one place, while everything else remained the same. As a result, the time in different parts of the system varied, and the error accumulated, increasing the longer the system ran without a reboot. At some point, the system simply stopped locking on to the target (losing it after the first "contact"). The result: an Iraqi missile as ancient as Fortran wrecked a barracks at the Dhahran base, killing 28 and wounding over a hundred.

If anyone is interested, here is the official GAO report on this incident: https://owncloud.botik.ru/index.php/s/tDafoNeBU6c8PDp

[Furious bambr]

Launch of the Iskander-M missile system

Iskander-K

[faterdom]

Patriot is a very good and very expensive complex.
So what if the missile doesn't hit its target - is that really a reason for criticism?
After all, it's still the best air defense system (along with THAAD and NASMS) in the "civilized world." Anything better is from the "barbarians" who stole all the developments. They even stole the hypersonic technology. And how to make icebreakers. And they stole a lot of other stuff.

[novel66]

And the lunar rocket and engines for it

[Gonsalus]

The vaunted Patriots, like the Iron Dome, are just Western PR!!! They're crappy and stupid. Russia has modernized a lot of things now, and the missiles zigzag and dive sharply vertically. And the Gerani missiles also have 90 kg warheads!

[Vic Vic]

The article doesn't answer the question posed in the title. It only addresses one minor aspect.

[_Ugene_]

What about the reports from the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Headquarters of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine that “up to 90% of Russian missiles of various classes are intercepted”?

Our Ministry of Defense knows the truth, but they won't tell it to us.

[Volkhov M3]

They were aiming at the wrong pole.

[snow mountain]

What to do with the reports of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Headquarters of the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine that “up to 90% of Russian missiles are intercepted”

They just dreamed it!

[Alexey Lantukh]

In Kyiv, they are "shooting at sparrows" - missiles are flying one after another, then they themselves, often not finding a target, fall on residential buildings.

Generally speaking, if a missile doesn't find a target, it self-destructs. Both ours and theirs. The only exception is if it's faulty.

[Sergey Kulikov_3]

Ukrainians have a strange logic: "Your Patriot is crap, give me a couple more spoonfuls of this crap, maybe they haven't tasted it yet."

[Asper_Daffy]

Quote: Umptek

usually everyone ends up being to blame

Except for those who are actually to blame.

[volgast1970]

To know where the target will move, you need to delve into its "brain." The target maneuvers in unknown directions and actively jams. It's practically impossible to calculate the maneuvering algorithm, even with AI. The homing head quickly loses lock. Perhaps the data processing speed in the anti-aircraft missile's "tambourine" is insufficient. It's like a slow person trying to dodge a punch from a professional boxer.

[Panadol]

I've always written that American weapons are junk, and are only good for confronting a country with an arsenal from the 60s.
It's a shame our generals, born in the 2000s, still haven't realized this. And they consider confrontation with NATO their greatest fear.
If it weren't for these horror films, the SVO would have ended six months after it began.
It's bad when an army is led by a cowardly hare.

[voyaka uh]

Iskander and his brother, Kinzhal, always had the option to maneuver in the final stages. But it was usually not used because it reduced the chances of hitting the target.
When interceptions began, they also began to use the maneuver option.
The interceptions have stopped. But the percentage of accurate hits has probably also decreased.

[Leon68]

The insanity was growing! What a warrior! Are you talking about those daggers that Klitschko shot down and posed with?

[Calm_type]

The Financial Times reports that the interception rate has dropped from 30 percent to 6 percent. However, they count the total number of missiles incoming to Ukraine and the number of successful interceptions. This doesn't take into account whether an interception attempt was made at all, or whether there was a SAM system at the missile's landing site. They count not the number of interception attempts versus successful interceptions, but the number of incoming missiles versus successful interceptions.

[voyaka uh]

Patriots guard only the Kyiv area.
And they only hit on almost head-on trajectories. But Iskander/Kinzhal missiles also hit accurately only if the seeker was activated at the terminal phase. If so, the CEP was 10 meters; if not, 100-150 meters.
In densely populated areas, the GSN sometimes targeted the wrong building.
(It was easier at the deserted Kapustin Yar training ground)