PAC-3 Missile

Originally posted by weirdo
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

I nominate this for worst post of the month

Tell me this, when was the last time all of Europe could agree on everything? (hint: Never)

Energy weapons are the future. They are getting more powerfull and smaller every two years. Satelite based sensor and targeting systems and satelite based energy weapons are the future. Only a few nations will have the money and tech to fight this high tech war. Instead of air superiority being the key starting battles of war it will be satelites controling the air space. Aircraft will be needed to drop bombs of course but air superiority will be won with satelite based energy weapons in a few short years.

Energy weapons have the potential to illiminate missles, including ICBM's and aircraft as a threat. In fact it will not be to long before targeting a single human, a tank, or even structures from spaced based lenergy weapons are only way to project true power. You could sink ships from space with some of the things they have in testing right now. Of course energy systems can be fired into space from the ground to so hardend space platforms are a must!

The face of war is rapidly changing and if you dont have a space program in your country it will get left behind in the dust. Thats why China is rushing its program along.

X


[edit on 4-7-2004 by Xeven]

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by weirdo
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

I nominate this for worst post of the month

Tell me this, when was the last time all of Europe could agree on everything? (hint: Never)

I suggest you start research European policy on the plans to join millitary forces.Then start looking between the lines.Why would America need a large Millitary?.Why would Europe need a large Millitary?.Who do we need to defend ourselves from with such a large millitary force some small African or middle east country?

WAKE UP TO NEW POSSIBILITES REMEMBER THE COLD WAR.

wHY YOU ON THIS SITE IF YOU ARE SO SURE OF YOURSELF

Weirdo the reason the US is trying to make its military bigger is to act alone and not to ask any of its so called "allies" cuz we saw how much allies help you in a time of war except great Britain. But why Europe is trying to join together is beyond me.


[edit on 4-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
British are where America was 10-15 years ago

In what capacity West Point? Our allies in Britain don't have the defense budget that we do (in fact US defense spending makes up about half of the global sum) but they are not to be underestimated.

The fact is that much of the world is very close together in de-classified technology. America's production power, which is owed to its size and population, is the main thing keeping America ahead.

America gets the job done on the battlefield, but a large part of why it looks so easy for us is because of who we're fighting. As powerful as America is, I honestly do not believe we could successfully invade the UK. I know that hurts you, but relax, because they're old friends of ours anyway.

Not everyone has to be America's bitch all the time. America thrived as a mediocre power from 1776 to 1945, so why are we so obsessed with the need to be unquestionably on top now? I can't help pointing out that there were fewer wars and better causes before we came to our new station in the world.
We fought for independence, we fought because we were being punked on the open seas and had British troops hanging out in our territory still, we fought over slavery, we fought two wars against ruthless nationalists, Then we inserted ourselves into somebody else's civil war, We STARTED somebody else's civil war against the will of 95% of Vietnam, we fought a proxy-war with the USSR (by supporting Iraq during the 1980-88 war with Iran), then we had to go destroy the monster we created, but we didn't do it right so we had to go do it AGAIN.

If America were just a tad less powerful, there would be No Korean War, No Vietnam war, No Korean Nuclear Crisis, and we'd still be every bit as safe as our other NATO allies, most of whom haven't fired a shot in anger since 1953.

I love my country, and if somebody has to be in charge I'm glad its us. I just wish we didn't know our own strength (or at least that politicians didn't) so that they'd have to weigh their violent impulses against potential consequences.
For example: George Bush wouldn't take a swing at me because I'd knock his goofy little head off. I wish he had the same worries about war. NOT BECAUSE I DONT WANT IT TO HAPPEN, but because I want to know there's a good reason.

Originally posted by weirdo
I suggest you start research European policy on the plans to join millitary forces.Then start looking between the lines.Why would America need a large Millitary?.Why would Europe need a large Millitary?.Who do we need to defend ourselves from with such a large millitary force some small African or middle east country?

WAKE UP TO NEW POSSIBILITES REMEMBER THE COLD WAR.

wHY YOU ON THIS SITE IF YOU ARE SO SURE OF YOURSELF

Believe me, I know whats going on in the world, esp. w/ in Europe.

I suggest you start doing a little research. Do really think that Europe - a continent full of countries that have never been able to get along with each other for extended periods of time - will be able to come up with a centralized leadership for Germany, France, England, Russia, Spain ect ect ect that they all can agree on?

For instance, do you really think that the Russians are going to let Germany tell them what to do? Get real man. I could see the surrender monkeys (AKA French) and Germany get together but thats about it.

You say "remember the cold war." Well here is what I remember - Russia building thousands upon thousands of tanks to roll through Germany with. France building a nuclear deterent for Russia. The US having to occupy West Germany so that the Soviets wouldn't come marching through. So what does this have to do with coming together in a millitary alliance?

To tell you why I am on this site, I am here for the discussion of conspiracy based topics, and apparently now, to help you "deny ignorance."

Originally posted by American Mad Man

I suggest you start doing a little research. Do really think that Europe - a continent full of countries that have never been able to get along with each other for extended periods of time - will be able to come up with a centralized leadership for Germany, France, England, Russia, Spain ect ect ect that they all can agree on?

You are correct. The EU is still in its honneymoon phase. They will have to work very VERY hard to not let nationalism effect the greater good. History bears out your statement. They are very very good at fighting each other but cooperation over the long haul may be alot harder. Unlike the states, were we say come from California, we all still Americans (The only exceptions is the Texans ) In EU countries someone who is from Germany is German to the core. Thats why its harder to integrate. I know your militan EU friends will say its an economic union only once you integrate currency and fix prices you can't help but to get cultural integration.

Don't be so hard on the Frogs military record. They did win the French Revolution

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by weirdo
I suggest you start research European policy on the plans to join millitary forces.Then start looking between the lines.Why would America need a large Millitary?.Why would Europe need a large Millitary?.Who do we need to defend ourselves from with such a large millitary force some small African or middle east country?

WAKE UP TO NEW POSSIBILITES REMEMBER THE COLD WAR.

wHY YOU ON THIS SITE IF YOU ARE SO SURE OF YOURSELF

Believe me, I know whats going on in the world, esp. w/ in Europe.

I suggest you start doing a little research. Do really think that Europe - a continent full of countries that have never been able to get along with each other for extended periods of time - will be able to come up with a centralized leadership for Germany, France, England, Russia, Spain ect ect ect that they all can agree on?

For instance, do you really think that the Russians are going to let Germany tell them what to do? Get real man. I could see the surrender monkeys (AKA French) and Germany get together but thats about it.

You say "remember the cold war." Well here is what I remember - Russia building thousands upon thousands of tanks to roll through Germany with. France building a nuclear deterent for Russia. The US having to occupy West Germany so that the Soviets wouldn't come marching through. So what does this have to do with coming together in a millitary alliance?

To tell you why I am on this site, I am here for the discussion of conspiracy based topics, and apparently now, to help you "deny ignorance."

Honestly i don`t believe Europe will come together and agree on everything mostly the individual economics will cause a divide.Can you honestly say that every country around the world is totally behind its goverment and agree on all policys?.No more than a united europe would,but if there plans are agreed militarily and an organisation formed similar to NATO but without the US could be formed without to much disagreement.Would this form a threat to US only if American leadership was to become a threat.I believe that europe sees China as the biggesr deciding factor when it comes to economics and millitary strength.It is said that at the moment China poses enough workers (900,000,000) to produce every single item on Earth that we use in everyday life.This posses a huge economic threat to the whole of the world and to survive we have to become stronger.

Why would a joined Europe be a threat to the US we are like a giant the EU is a little slug or nail we just have to step on them oops. Also don't you think you are overestimating china 900.000.000 workers yeah right that is the current number of people they have out of work or poor or farmers.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why would a joined Europe be a threat to the US we are like a giant the EU is a little slug or nail we just have to step on them oops. Also don't you think you are overestimating china 900.000.000 workers yeah right that is the current number of people they have out of work or poor or farmers.

The EU is a threat because of thier unfair tactics and protectionist policies even if you bid with a better cheaper product, you won't get the contract. Ask the Pratt and Whitney Canada people about thier bid for the engines on the A400 Military lifter that Airbus is making.

China is the bigger threat because all the money they make is going into the military, and they have a systems that encourages productivity through slave labor, disregard for basic human rights, disregard of the nevironment etc. Much harder to compete against that than the EU's protectionist policies. No to mention the willingness to take losses to build market share. Just take a look at China garlic and shrimp imports which are killing off the both industries in the US

Interesting digression into Euro-scorn, but getting back to the whole PAC-3 thing during the recent Iraq War, it shot down an RAF Tornado and a US Navy F-18 with the loss of all crew, good work there. The system tried to shoot down another jet but that jet destroyed the Patriot's radar with an anti-radiation missile. The system, as it is, does seem to have some trouble discerning between friend and foe, and as it is an automatic system, pretty much doesn't give a rubber duck who it shoots down as long as all the binary adds up. Good luck sorting it out. LINK

UK sensitivity to friendly fire incidents of this sort basically comes from the fact that the largest single occurrance of UK combat casualties in the Gulf War was caused by fire from US Aircraft. Apparrently the A-10 pilot thought he was 10 kilometres further east than he actually was when he started raining Mavericks on the ACVs below. Later in the war UK tanks were engaged by US tanks, luckily with only damage to the UK tanks and injured crew. During the Gulf War 50% of UK combat casualties were caused by American fire. UK armour was again attacked by US aircraft during the Iraq war resulting in loss of life, and the only loss of a UK fixed wing aircraft was by a US Patriot battery. While considering the scope of these operations and the lethality of the weapons used you might argue that blue on blue incidents are actually very low and only stand out so starkly because total combat casualties are also incredibly low, the perception of some is that UK forces need to keep one eye on the enemy and one eye on their trigger happy allies.

Having said all that, two UK soldiers died when their Challenger II tank was hit druing night fighting near Basra. The culprit? Another Challenger II.

The PAC-3 is designed to shoot down enemy missiles not aircraft but yeah friendly fire does end to stand out when there are low casualty in the war but I do admit American soldiers waste ammunition like crazy we don't bother to count or restrain form using it sometimes its a good thing but in operation Iraqi freedom and future wars there are going to be numerous systems to prevent friendly fire but friendly fire can never be totally eliminated.

What is the engagment range? Deploy/Move out Time? Maximum Altitude? Maximum amounts of targets tracked by the radar?

Here are some specs for the PAC-3 missile. As far as i know one missile to kill one warhead but it is made to work in conjunction with ground, air borne and soon space based solid state lasers.


Length 5.2 m (17 ft 1 in)
Finspan 51 cm (20 in)
Diameter 25 cm (10 in)
Weight 320 kg (700 lb)
Speed Mach 5+
Ceiling 15000 m (50000 ft)
Range 20 km (12 miles)
Propulsion Solid-fueled rocket
Warhead "Hit-to-kill" + blast-fragmentation


[edit on 20-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

Here's good data:
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...


And it's direct hit weapon, it doesn't have explosive warhead.



[edit on 21-7-2004 by E_T]

There are various reports suggesting that the record of success for the PAC-3 is not quite as impressive as the Pentagon would have us think. Reports indicate that the missiles intercepted by the PAC-3 in the current conflict have been Ababil-100s. These short-range missiles are considerably slower than Scuds, making them an easier target to intercept.

www.psr.org...

-koji K.

Yes but our solid state lasers have a much better track record they can blow anything from a scud to an artillery shell even the best sams form Russia or the best rockets from the US cannot hit an artillery shell but our ground lasers can

I know that this thread may be 18 years old, but in case anyone's aware, the PAC-3 is nominally known as the MIM-104F by the Defense Department. Last January, the air defense systems of the United Arab Emirates shot down ballistic missiles being operated by the Houthis in Yemen with PAC-3 missiles. Therefore, how do the PAC-3 systems operated by US allies on the Arabian peninsula compare to the anti-ballistic missile systems operated by Iran and Syria?

Link:
web.archive.org...://www.msl.army.mil/Documents/peoWeaponSystems.pdf
www.trtworld.com...

originally posted by: weirdo

Originally posted by American Mad Man


I nominate this for worst post of the month

Tell me this, when was the last time all of Europe could agree on everything? (hint: Never)

I suggest you start research European policy on the plans to join millitary forces.Then start looking between the lines.Why would America need a large Millitary?.Why would Europe need a large Millitary?.Who do we need to defend ourselves from with such a large millitary force some small African or middle east country?

WAKE UP TO NEW POSSIBILITES REMEMBER THE COLD WAR.

wHY YOU ON THIS SITE IF YOU ARE SO SURE OF YOURSELF

Well, this aged REALLY well