It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

S-300 -vs- Patriot ???

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Any ideas as to which is the best long range SAM?
Patriot is good enough to hit our own aircraft...
And it has hit ballistic targets. Mach 5, high altitude, long range. Is the SA-10 and later Russian designs better? Russians use the SA-10 as a "Strategic" SAM, so it the Patriot able to fill in the gaps left behind from the departure of the Nike Herculese to defend our cities??? Kind of pointless since not many have long range bombers, but in hindsight from what we once had defending our country it is interesting to contemplate...




posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
The Russians still have better missile defenses than America. It may chance in a few years, though, as the missile shield is built.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Thanks for responding but not quite what I asked. What is better deployed can change with a single order, and can change in hours with the newer quickly deployed SAMs. Patriot and SA-10 can be erected and active in a matter of hours if not minutes in their mobile forms. Unlike the older Nike Herculese which took a dedicated base. My question regards the acutal capabilities of each missile system. Patriot has been used in combat. SA-10 has not to my knowlege. What is advertised and what the actual capabilities can vary dramatically, and secrecy is paramount for obvious reasons. So which system will make the most "difference"?
Defending high priority targets are the desire of either side, and the Russians have talked up the S-300 to make it sound like it is invincible, and I am sure their customers are impressed. Still, my question is which is better? Which one will most likely clear the sky of an adversary? (if at all).



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   
S-300 - 150-200 km
Patriot - 70-160 km

Out,
Russian

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Russian]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Published ranges and speeds of either missile are suspect. That is most likely classified, have you ever wondered why the PAC-3 latest version of patriot claims to only have a range of 40km? However given the size of the actual missiles and the SA-10 being physically larger I suspect it does have longer range. Is that relavant though? The US has had long range SAMs before, Nike Herculese, Bomarc, etc,,, and if they wanted a longer range they would have engineered it. Long range doesn't mean anything if it doesn't hit the target. And I am not saying that the Russian missile won't do that, but my point is that the extreme edge of published ranges may not be that usable to start with. It is impressive to have that long range but I suspect that beyond about 50 miles the curvature of the earth would make either missile relatively easy to avoid just by flying low. And any radar constantly searching for long range targets broadcasts its location, and makes it a target for a swarm of anti-radiation missiles, or cruise missiles. However in this case I will give you the range advantage. SA-10 is longer ranged. There are other quailties though that must be considered when comparing the two systems. Maneuverability, dealing with jamming, and so on.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:41 AM
link   


70-160 km


Thats is the original MIM-104, PAC-1, PAC-2 range. It Appears the PAC-3 is a much shorter range missile than its predecessors

20km www.designation-systems.net...
15km www.fas.org...
20km www.astronautix.com...

There also appears to alot of variants of the S-300 -
newest S-300PMU-1 9M96

120 km Longer range version of 9M96 - www.astronautix.com...

It Appears that the ERINT/PAC-3 is a short range multishot missile given its smaller size and the ability to fit 12 in tracked launcher.

The MIM-104E patriot missile is a better comparison to the S-300 but i cannot find much data on its range.

The THAAD completes the envelope - ranges of 200km and at altitudes up to 150km.







[edit on 14-12-2004 by Vanguard]

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Vanguard]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Its strange why they have called it the PAC-3 while it is clearly the MIM-104E which is the successor to the patriot. The main confusion in the past was when the started overlaping the PAC and MIM classifications.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Doesnt the patriot have IFF problems?
Happend more than once i think in GW2 with british sea kings i know it happened once.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Bit on the tornado - PAC-2 missiles - Either the MIM-104C/D



The Tornado/Patriot fratricide cannot be traced to a single cause. It was a combination of a green Patriot crew that was untrained on how to handle spurious tracks, trying to figure out a flawed radar, isolated from higher-ups due to bad equipment, and unable to confirm if what they saw was an ARM due to a malfunctioning IFF beacon on the Tornado and a lack of IFF codes on the ground.

www.cdi.org.../index.cfm


Couldnt find anything on a Sea King Helicopters but i did find something about a more recent f-18 shoot down and f-16 destroying a patriot radar system. Also included in the link below a breakdown of the engages of the various versions of the patriot missile (Grand total of Nine Missile engagements)



Different versions of the Patriot did the bulk of the engagements: the Guided Enhanced Munitions (GEM) is alleged to have done six of the engagements, while the GEM+ did one. The PAC-2 interceptor, which is the most rudimentary of all the Patriot systems deployed, was out in the field but not used this time around.

www.cdi.org...



Cannot comment on the S-300PMU-1 9M96 IFF or shoot down efficiency. Can anyone provide some credible links from Yugoslavia?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
No they didnt shoot down the sea king but shot at it.
Self destruct sure felt handy for the crews there didnt it hmm actually i think that might be the tornado mentioned. I might be mixing up the crash and the shooting down incidents.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard
Bit on the tornado - PAC-2 missiles - Either the MIM-104C/D



The Tornado/Patriot fratricide cannot be traced to a single cause. It was a combination of a green Patriot crew that was untrained on how to handle spurious tracks, trying to figure out a flawed radar, isolated from higher-ups due to bad equipment, and unable to confirm if what they saw was an ARM due to a malfunctioning IFF beacon on the Tornado and a lack of IFF codes on the ground.

www.cdi.org.../index.cfm


Couldnt find anything on a Sea King Helicopters but i did find something about a more recent f-18 shoot down and f-16 destroying a patriot radar system. Also included in the link below a breakdown of the engages of the various versions of the patriot missile (Grand total of Nine Missile engagements)



Different versions of the Patriot did the bulk of the engagements: the Guided Enhanced Munitions (GEM) is alleged to have done six of the engagements, while the GEM+ did one. The PAC-2 interceptor, which is the most rudimentary of all the Patriot systems deployed, was out in the field but not used this time around.

www.cdi.org...



Cannot comment on the S-300PMU-1 9M96 IFF or shoot down efficiency. Can anyone provide some credible links from Yugoslavia?


I do not believe Yugoslavia had any S-300PMU1s. China bought S-300 systems because they believed that if Yugoslavia had the S-300 systems they would've been able to shoot down significant numbers of NATO aircrafts.

What is the system that will replace the Patriot system? As we know S-400 will replace the S-300 systems. (its a MARVELOUS system)

[edit on 14-12-2004 by COWlan]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   
It was a SA-3 not a SA-10 that took the F-117 down in Yugoslavia.

Out,
Russian



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   


Russian

It was a SA-3 not a SA-10 that took the F-117 down in Yugoslavia.


Quite a few sites suggest it was 2 SA-6 missiles which downed the F-117



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard



Russian

It was a SA-3 not a SA-10 that took the F-117 down in Yugoslavia.


Quite a few sites suggest it was 2 SA-6 missiles which downed the F-117


You can find sites that say both. It depends on what you think. Both missiles are pretty old. People didnt expect a SA-3 or SA-6 to take a F-117 down.

Out,
Russian



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
On the F-117 shoot down i dont think its as straight forward as it seems - otherwise there would have been alot more NATO planes shot down.

The lack of confirmation highlights the total lack of transpancy on the Russian side regarding performance. This leaves the suggested comparision impossible.

This post is dead - much like similar US vrs Russian posts all you hear about is Russian victories and American Defeats.



[edit on 15-12-2004 by Vanguard]

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Vanguard]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Patriot is certainly better than S-300. US bought some S-300 from Ukraine, examined and some of it's features were included in upgraded Patriot. That means Patriot has everything of S-300 plus something more. S-400 could be more advanced than Patriot, but it's not sure.
About the friendly fire incidents - S-300(or any russian system) was not battle tested in such way (combat situation with friendly planes near in air).
I remember an incident during Ukraine mil. excercise, they shot down civil aircraft. I don't know what system was used, but I think it was S-300.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
S-300 Vs. Patriot,

The ' Patriot ' would win, why ?, because yes the Americans did buy some S-300's of the Ukraine, but they were un-modified and the most basic mod of the S-300. Yes some of the S-300's technology was intergrated into the ' Patriot ' system. But the most powerful and advanced version of the S-300, S-300 PMU2 ' Favorit ', is a much more capable and efficent modification of the S-300, it has been dramatically changed, so much so that they should designate it as something else.






Type: Surface -to- Air
Year: 1995
Range (km): 3-200
Max. target speed (km/h): 10000
Target engagement range, km:
maximum 200
Target engagement altitude, km:
- maximum 27
- minimum 0.01
Number of simultaneously engaged targets 36
Number of simultaneously guided missiles 72
Rate of fire, sec 3
Time of deployment, min 5


This is just the S-300, the S-400 is truly amazing, nothing else like it in the world.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
here is an article that contains some of comparison of those type of missiles. Don't know if the source is creditable, though:

www.bharat-rakshak.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   
I have a hunch that the PAC-3, which is to be used in the MEADS system as well, is intended to be used in a "network" system, in which missiles and radars are widely dispersed, hence range not being as important. I could be wrong though. The THAAD is quite impressive though, and I would bet it is in the same class as the S-400.
That Indian source;
www.bharat-rakshak.com...
seems to have new information in it. Wheather it is accurate or not is another question, and I wonder if the US would share its best Patriot technology with the Indians, or anyone for that matter.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
What happened to "engineer"?
Is he gone from this forum, or is he still around?
I would be interested in what he thought of this subject.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join