It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Patriot Missile System!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Odium
Just remember by Definition the Third World is: “The developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin American.” most people have no clue that China and India would be on the ‘lower end’ of the ‘First World’ scale. But, India just like every country has problems that it’s reforming and changing - as I’m sure you’d know.

To be honest, it’s more the definition of Third, Second and First worlds that cause the problem - not people.

As for India getting the PAC-3 system, what do you think?

as for getting pac -3
i think it is just hype by media i dont think india really interested.
because buying from USA is very much off the line for india establismeant.
they knew that USA can twist there arm in emergency.
india is trying to engage US company only to keep pakistan out of any deals.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:26 AM
Do the Russians have a tested missile system like the Patriot?
Is it better?
How wiuld the US feel if India bought it and would the Russians sell it?

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:45 AM

as posted by Odium
Now to me, if America has spent 6Billion on the PAC-3 System, you’d expect it to work. If it only has a 10% success rate, makes up targets, targets allied planes, etc, etc, this is in fact a very big problem.

Excuse me sir, care to provide what air-to-air system is doing better than the self-asserted 10% figure you have given? And that those systems have been tested via combat, etc?

Per chance, just exactly is the success rate to hit or kill for the world's air-to-air intercept missiles? Anyone?

As for the posting of this re-hashed ATS topic, the system being referred to has been upgraded, as noted in the comments of Odium and reference to PAC-3.


posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:11 AM
Aster 15 if they can buy it, has passed all 6 tests they did with it. Including, one plane. (But I doubt that's for sale.)

I don't think the Arrow is overly worthwhile, from what I've seen of it.

The S-400 was meant to of done 10 tests, that it passed? (Russia would sell this.)

PAC-3 has passed, what one test? At least, as far as I've seen.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Odium]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:27 AM
What do the Brits use MickeyDee? (serious question)

I also would like to see any link showing another system that has done better on a consistant basis....

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:37 AM
Rapier has quite a good record extending back to the Falklands. Not sure of the exact figures yet.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:41 AM
I think the Brits are getting the Aster 15, like the French, etc, etc.
Aster 15

Edit: At the moment they use the Rapier.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Odium]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:35 AM

as posted by Odium
PAC-3 has passed, what one test? At least, as far as I've seen.

This may be of use?

Since testing started in 1986 of
the predecessors of PAC-3, there have been a total of five
successful intercepts of targets out of eight attempts (including
Monday's test). This success rate of better than 60 percent....

FAS: PAC-3 Test Says Nothing About National Missile Defense

And this source indicates 80%:
The Transatlantic Dimension: Patriot and MEADS


[edit on 7-3-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:45 AM
As of 2004, the Aster has never been used in actual combat.

The trials, between 1993 and 1994, were very successful. All flight sequences, altitudes and rages, were validated. This was also the period during which the launch sequence of Aster-30 was validated.

In May 1996, trials of the Aster-15 active electromagnetical final guidance system against live targets began. All six attempts were successful :

8th of April 1997 : interception of a C22 target simultaing a subsonic antiship missile, flying at 10 metres, at a distance of 7 kilometres.
23rd of May 1997 : Direct impact on an Exocet anti-ship missile of the first generation, at 9 kilometres, to protect a distant ship (7 km). This was the first "Hit-to-Kill" interception ever against an antiship missile.
13th of November 1997 : interception of a C22 target in very low fligh in a strong countermesures evironment. In this test, the Aster was not armed with its military warhead so that the distance betewee the Aster and the taget could be recorded. The C22 was recovered bearing two stong cuts due to the fins of the Aster missile.
30th of December 1997 : Interception of a live C22 target by an Aster-30 at a distance of 30 kilometres, an altitude of 11 000 metres, and a speed of 900 km/h. The Aster climbed up to 15 000 metres before falling on the target at a speed of 2880 km/h. The closest distance between the Aster and the C22 was four metres.
29th of June, 2001 : Interception of a Arabel missile in low altitude, in less than 5 seconds.
In 2001 : Interception by the Aster-15 of a target simulating an aircraft flying at Mach-1 at an altitude of 100 metres.

100%. That to me, is better then the PAC-3. (Never knew it got 5 out of 8. But that was written 1999? So, it failed two more after that and passed one more? Making it 6/11?)

“Russia: Tests of the S-400 Triumf Missile Complex Were Held at the Kapustin Yar Site in Astrakhan Region,” Izvestiya, 18 May 1999; “Russia Trumpets New S-400 Missile System,” BBC Monitoring, 23 March 2001.

Those tests of the S-400 were meant to be highly successful, with something like 80% success rate. (Although, I'm finding it hard to find all the tests they did. :mad

But the S-400, has 2.5times the range of the PAC-3.

But, the S-400 isn't the one the Russian's plan to be using to defend their Nation. It's a temporary one, and one to sell and earn money from.

Also, Rep. Weldon of the House Armed Services Committee attempted to get Russia to develop the S-500 along side the Americans. If the PAC-3 is as good as people think, why would they of attempted to do that?

U.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee, Hearing, 19 July 2001.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Odium]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:49 AM

Everyone knows that the SM-3 can more than make up for the PAC-3.


It has worked in the past and will continue to work in the future.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:03 AM
I remember reading somewhere about SeaDart taking out a missile during the gulf war.

I know Sea wolf has been recorded getting hit to kills on incoming 5 inch shells!!!

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:08 PM

What do the Brits use MickeyDee?

The British army uses two surface to air systems:

The Rapier: (Used by Army & Air Force)

The Starstreak:

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:41 AM
Does anyone know any statistics for the Rapier & Starstreak surface 2 air system used by the UK?
Is it better than the Patriot (not very hard to beat really) and if it is why didnt they use it during the Gulf 1 instead of that pesky Patriot rubbish?
We might have actually hit a scud then!!!

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:09 AM
rapier and starstreak are both short range missiles designed for cloase air defence of troops. Rapier was deplyod in the falklands and was credited with 20 kills. Starstreak is performance is as yet not public

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:22 AM

Rapier was deplyod in the falklands and was credited with 20 kills.

More than the Patriot has brought down in its whole lifetime!!! (probably)

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:18 PM
The patriot missile system during the first gulf war wasnt good at all, but they upgraded them and fixed most of the problems before Iraqi freedom. Now those articles that people are bring up are the missile defense shield. Of course they failed. Who thought they had a good chance of hitting missiles that are supposed to represent ICBMs, and other ballistic missiles that fly that high. Those missiles arent SCUDs.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in