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.

 

PAC-3 Missile

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The Pac-3 missile is the next generation of patriot missiles with better accuracy more fire power and long range how dose this missile compare to russian anti ballistic missile capabilities?

The PAC-3 Missile uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy its targets, and was selected principally for the extremely high lethality the missile delivers. Adding the PAC-3 Missile to the Patriot air defense system will increase system firepower and lethality, as well as increase battlespace and range.



www.lockheedmartin.com...




posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Nice, but the missiles are dead, they cost too much, energetic wepons are the future.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Nice, but the missiles are dead, they cost too much, energetic wepons are the future.


Good point, but untill they are able to fielded in real life situations and in sufficient numbers the PAC-3 is the way to go



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Unfortunately, the current 'antimissile' missiles are very much hyped while not delivering much in the way of return.

During the first Gulf war, they were used in a totally wrong method. In the reports coming out of the Pentagon while the war was going on, the 'Interception Rate' was near 80% success rate. Subsequent reports by the Bush (snr) administration and the Clinton administration claimed that the actual success rate was more like 10% success, being classed as actual hits on scuds.

Basically because the technology was so new, the Pentagon was viewing having patriot missiles in the air at the same time as a Scud was on radar. Which is fair enough, it was just that these figures were never supposed to have been released to the public as a success rate.

The Patriot was never designed to be used in the way it was in the first Gulf war. Deploying the Patriot to protect a city was never in its design plan, it was always designed around protecting narrow targets like runways, specific buildings etc.

The Patriot is not designed to destroy an incoming missile, just divert it from its path, in the hope it wouldnt hit the target it was fired at. When deployed in Israel, all they were doing was diverting Scuds away from one suburb and into another. Not what you want in a city.

That said, the Patriot has now gone through three iterations, and might have improved, tho that will remain to be seen in battle field conditions.

Point to think about: In 1991, to intercept a single missile in flight, 30 patriots had to be in the air. In 2003, to intercept a slow moving British fighter jet, 34 patriots had to be in the air.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Lets hope these new missiles can id friendly forces cos l no the RAF pretty pissed at being targeted by US patriots



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   
rich you got any facts or links about needing 34 patriot missiles in 2003 to kill one british jet?
Because this new pac -3 is better than the patriots from the 91 war and the patriot missiles now are improved so i doubt they need 34 to shoot down one jet.

[edit on 3-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
rich you got any facts or links about needing 34 patriot missiles in 2003 to kill one british jet?
Because this new pac -3 is better than the patriots from the 91 war and the patriot missiles now are improved so i doubt they need 34 to shoot down one jet.

[edit on 3-7-2004 by WestPoint23]




link


They you go baby
sorry to much alchloic beverage drunk



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
Lets hope these new missiles can id friendly forces cos l no the RAF pretty pissed at being targeted by US patriots


So the RAF should produce their own. Lets see how good they will be.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
rich you got any facts or links about needing 34 patriot missiles in 2003 to kill one british jet?
[edit on 3-7-2004 by WestPoint23]


I doubt it. most literature claims that a total of 10 were fired in GWII.
www.eetimes.com...

[edit on 3-7-2004 by FredT]



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by weirdo
Lets hope these new missiles can id friendly forces cos l no the RAF pretty pissed at being targeted by US patriots


So the RAF should produce their own. Lets see how good they will be.



Coming to a battle field soon (2010 ish)
THAAD.


link to THAAD.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   
weirdo by 2010 the US wont need missiles it will have lasers to shoot down battle field artillery shells and missiles with Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL)


MTHEL uses directed energy (laser beam) to intercept aerial targets such as rockets, missiles, artillery shells and other aerial threats. The target destruction is achieved by projecting a highly focused, high-power laser beam, delivered by a chemical laser, with enough energy to affect the target, and explode it in midair. This operational concept is offering the first "reusable" interception element. Existing interceptors use kinetic energy kill vehicles (such as fragmentation warheads), which are not reusable.

www.defense-update.com...




posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Are yes we got an anti laser weapons system for that its called M.I.R.R.O.R.S. NANANAHHNAAH



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
weirdo that wouldn't even distract a bird the British are where America was 10-15 years ago



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Like everything in our society.You have street gangs with scarves on there heads shooting people and wearing clothes fifteen sizes to big and talking a cross between English and mongolean now we got them in Manchester (sh*t l sound like my father).If Americans want to go back in time ten years just come to UK.Another five years after that go to Europe and another 15yrs go to Eastern Europe.


[edit on 3-7-2004 by weirdo]



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
weirdo do you even know what Mongolian sounds like and if you want to go back 20-25 years just visit Russia they are declining every day while helping the Chinese become more powerful then them



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Wrong, Mirriors cannot stop the Airborne laser. It would just eat right through it. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Wrong, Mirriors cannot stop the Airborne laser. It would just eat right through it. www.abovetopsecret.com...


More than that, how would you place mirrors on ballistic objects like shells. Or items like missilles that are dependant on thier aerodynamic structure. However, my impression was the lasers were more of a shock eggect weapon than a burn through one anyway. Or am I wrong in that impression?



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Anybody seen any humour recently
.
And former Russian state are in Europe now,soon Russia will join and combined we will become the most powerful nation on the planet and kick America into nuclear winter



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 04:42 AM
link   
how can you have a buch of countries joining together to be one nation? and you wish the US still has the power to send europe all of europe into the stone age



posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
rich you got any facts or links about needing 34 patriot missiles in 2003 to kill one british jet?
Because this new pac -3 is better than the patriots from the 91 war and the patriot missiles now are improved so i doubt they need 34 to shoot down one jet.

[edit on 3-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



Sorry, meant to type 24, but I have some figures for you that match up.


Quoted from an off web source (again, you can reach this stuff through the FOIA, ask and ye shall receive, its a great tool! I rarely rely on the web for stats.):

The PAC-3 missile entered low rate initial production in late 1999 and first LRIP production missiles of a total of 92 were delivered in September 2001. A contract for 88 missiles was placed in December 2002 and another for 12 in March 2003. The missile was first deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom in March/April 2003.

In February 2004, Lockheed Martin was awarded a production contract for 159 PAC-3 missiles, which includes 48 missiles to replace those expended in Iraq. Deliveries are to complete by April 2006.


Westpoint: the majority of missiles in Iraq during 2003 were of the PAC-2 variety, which is only a minor step up from those used in 1991.



I doubt it. most literature claims that a total of 10 were fired in GWII.
www.eetimes.com...


That link actually says 24 were fired at 10 targets. Maths a bit off there?


The number fired at legit targets was 24 (20 pac-2, and 4 pac-3) and the number ordered to 'replace expended missiles' was 48, so my (wrong typed, meant to say 24) figure looks justified doesnt it, considering there were no other reports of the PAC missile being fired.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join