U.S, Japan,Holland order the PAC-3 missiles

Elite Brain

New Member
How does the Russian S-300 compare to the PAC-3, any comments?'

Http://www.LockheedMartin.com

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Jan. 31, 2005)
DALLAS, TX --- Lockheed Martin has received a $532 million contract for 156 PAC-3 Missiles for the U.S. Army, the Netherlands and Japan. This represents the first international sales of the battle-proven PAC-3 Missiles.

The contract also includes launcher modification kits as well as kits of spares and other ancillary ground equipment. The PAC-3 Missile is currently the world’s only fielded hit-to-kill, pure kinetic energy air defense missile.

Under the contract, Lockheed Martin will deliver 156 PAC-3 Missiles to the U.S. Army, 32 of which will then be delivered to The Netherlands and 16 missiles to Japan. The Netherlands and Japan are receiving their respective interceptors under Foreign Military Sale (FMS) agreements.

The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Huntsville, AL, is the contracting agency. Delivery of all missiles and equipment should be completed during 2006. Work will take place at Lockheed Martin facilities in Dallas and Lufkin, TX, and Camden, AR

“The PAC-3 Missile offers hit-to-kill lethality and much greater protection against weapons of mass destruction than other air defense missiles,” said Steve Graham, vice president - PAC-3 Missile Program at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “All Patriot-using nations have expressed interest in improving their defensive capabilities by upgrading to the PAC-3 system, and we want to put this vital capability into their hands as soon as possible.”

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is prime contractor on the PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade to the Patriot air defense system. The PAC-3 Missile Segment upgrade consists of the PAC-3 Missile, a highly agile hit-to-kill interceptor, the PAC-3 Missile canister (which holds four PAC-3 missiles), a Fire Solution Computer and an Enhanced Launcher Electronics System. These elements are being integrated into the Patriot system, a high to medium altitude, long-range air defense missile system providing air defense of ground combat forces and high-value assets.

In 2004, three PAC-3 Missile operational tests were conducted at White Sands Missile Range, NM. All three tests were against threat representative targets and employed operational doctrine, with each test increasing in complexity. All 2004 tests were successfully conducted, achieving intercept of all targets. The PAC-3 Missile has intercepted 17 targets in 19 opportunities during its testing phase, which stretches back several years and represents the most successful testing of any air and missile defense interceptor of this complexity.

“No other air defense missile can perform and protect like PAC-3, and international sales of the PAC-3 Missile Segment are significant because they add to the production base and contribute to further reductions in the missile price,” Graham added.

The PAC-3 Missile is the world’s most advanced, capable and powerful theater air defense missile. It defeats the entire threat to the Patriot Air Defense System: tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) carrying weapons of mass destruction, advanced cruise missiles and aircraft. PAC-3 Missiles significantly increase the Patriot system's firepower, since 16 PAC-3s load-out on a Patriot launcher, compared with four of the older Patriot PAC-2 missiles.

The PAC-3 Missile has been selected as the primary interceptor for the multi-national Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). MEADS is a model transatlantic development program for the next generation of air and missile defense. MEADS will focus on risk reduction, application of key technologies and validation of a system design incorporating the PAC-3 Missile as the primary interceptor.

PAC-3 Missiles will act in conjunction with Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Missiles to provide a layered coverage. PAC-3 supplies the lower-tier defense against air and missile threats while THAAD provides upper-tier coverage against ballistic missiles. THAAD flight testing is scheduled for later this year.

-ends-
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Well according to the manufacturers of the PAC-3 Patriot, it is superior to the S-300. According to the Russians, the opposite is true... Both are long range surface to air missile systems, that have an inbuilt anti-ballistic missile capability. I'm sure they're both reasonably effective... Certainly PAC-3 can shoot down planes, as a Tornado crew in Iraq discovered unfortunately... :(
 

Elite Brain

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Aussie Digger said:
Well according to the manufacturers of the PAC-3 Patriot, it is superior to the S-300. According to the Russians, the opposite is true... Both are long range surface to air missile systems, that have an inbuilt anti-ballistic missile capability. I'm sure they're both reasonably effective... Certainly PAC-3 can shoot down planes, as a Tornado crew in Iraq discovered unfortunately... :(
Yeah thats what i thought, so i guess the much touted AirBorne Laser missile defense system isnt anywhere near to being deployed?
Also, i heard the Anti-Ballistic Missile system ordered by the UAE from Russia is far superior to the S-300, it actually comes close to matching the PAC-3 .I'll try to find the News article on it .
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I have read in AFM and similar publications that the ABL program is nearing it's testing phase. Early signs are positive with that project, however even if it works as successfully as hoped, it's only going to be deployed in small numbers by the USAF (around 7 I believe), due to it's extraordinarily large cost... Systems such as PAC-3 etc will be far more affordable and provide at least some capability...
 

turin

New Member
Well according to the manufacturers of the PAC-3 Patriot, it is superior to the S-300. According to the Russians, the opposite is true... Both are long range surface to air missile systems
Actually the current PAC3-missile is a short range missile with an effective range of about 20 km. To compare it with the S-300/400, it would be necessary to take the Patriot-complex as a whole, since S-300/400 is simply a complex itself, employing a range of missiles for different threats, depending on the version (S-300P, -V) with ranges up to 200 km.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Actually as per www.army-technology.com the range of the Patriot SAM system (the original NOT PAC-3) is 70km with a maximum altitude of 24km's, and as publicly stated by Lockheed Martin, PAC-3 has a greater range than the original Patriot... :cool:
 

turin

New Member
Actually as per www.army-technology.com the range of the Patriot SAM system (the original NOT PAC-3) is 70km with a maximum altitude of 24km's, and as publicly stated by Lockheed Martin, PAC-3 has a greater range than the original Patriot... :cool:
So you surely are able to deliver a source (Lockheed-Martin or something else) to validate your claim of the PAC-3 missile being a long range missile?!
Yes, its a high altitude missile, however that means only that its range of 20 km is the same in the horizontal as in the vertical plane. So where does Lockheed-Martin say that the missile actually does cover a longer range than the previous PAC-2? I dont know any such source!
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Well mate, YOU never supplied a source at all, you simply made an off-hand comment that Patriot has a 20klm range, so I don't see why I'm required to!!! I did however, check the army-technology projects section, I mentioned above. It's stated there that Patriot has a 70klm range... Which is a pretty long range in my book...

Lockheed Martin as far as I can tell, do not publicly publish the range of their weapon systems and besides, no company provides the TRUE range of their system publicly.
 

turin

New Member
Well mate, YOU never supplied a source at all, you simply made an off-hand comment that Patriot has a 20klm range, so I don't see why I'm required to!!!
Alright, thats one point for and one point against you. I gave no source due to the fact that Lockheed Martin indeed gives no numbers on its own. However then I still cant see why you're speaking of PAC 3 as a long range missile. Certainly Lockheed Martin never described the missile as such and when talking of "expanding capabilites and range" they may as well speak of the whole system (radar etc.) and/or "range of targets" to be used against since PAC 3 concerns modifications in the ground equipment as well.

The 20km-number comes from the website below. I know very well that its a third party website, however during the years its information has proven to be detailed as well as accurate (judging from those cases where you can compare numbers) and gives further literature to base its claims on. The short range of PAC 3 is stated on fas.org as well, however I dont like to rely on their information since they tend to be inaccurate, dated or sometimes simply wrong. In this case however every website that actually GIVES a number, places that in the range of 10 miles to 20 km. Nowhere is the PAC-3 claimed to be a long range weapon. Why is that?

Source:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/pac-3.html

I did however, check the army-technology projects section, I mentioned above. It's stated there that Patriot has a 70klm range... Which is a pretty long range in my book...
You may note that the army-technology info covers the Patriot system as a whole and there is no indication in the article about the stated range being that of PAC 3. More likely that number refers to PAC 1 since the Patriot system was stated to have this range long before PAC 3 came into service. But all possibilities ignored the article still cant be referred to as stating that PAC 3 indeed has a 70km range.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
It was indeed an assumption on my behalf that Patriot PAC-3 possesses a 70klm+ range due to the army-technology article on the whole Patriot system. I cannot, for the life of me, think that the original Patriot has a 70klm range, yet a MORE advanced version of the same missile (ie: PAC-3) has suffered such a massive cut in it's useable range... Remember, the original Patriot was designed during the 70's. PAC-3 was designed during the 90's...

Your source does indeed state that the PAC-3 missile has only a 20klm range. It also states this, "Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate!"

As to your statement that, "Nowhere is the PAC-3 claimed to be a long range weapon. Why is that?"

This IS what the OFFICIAL Lockheed Martin website has to say about the Patriot PAC-3 missile system.

"The PAC-3 Segment upgrade consists of the PAC-3 Missile, a highly agile hit-to-kill interceptor, the PAC-3 Missile canisters (in four packs), a fire solution computer and an Enhanced Launcher Electronics System (ELES). These elements will be integrated into the Patriot system, a high to medium altitude, long-range air defense missile system providing air defense of ground combat forces and high-value assets. 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."


This quote was obtained from:


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11313&rsbci=13169&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400


I guess that makes the score about 2-nil in actuality doesn't it? :p:
 

ajay_ijn

New Member
However Long range isn't that important to hit ballistic Missiles. Right??
Even Arrow-2 System has range of 90km unlike the Russian S-300 of range 200km.
The Max Altitude would be imp factor for a ABM System.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I agree Ajay (I like that name, btw...). It doesn't really matter whether a weapon is destroyed 10klm's away or 50 klms away.

I must admit to being a little uneducated here though. What I really have trouble comprehending is how the aerial surveillance radars manage to surveil the airspace 70 or 200klm's away?

I was always taught that the horizon at Sea Level is roughly 7klm's away, the Earth being curved (as we now know...) and all. A Surveillance radar at "sea-level" therefore sending radio waves outwards should only be able to detect objects at a range of 7klms or so as I understand it... (Which incidentally, is why OTOH radars became so important).

"They" then realised that the higher you build (or put) an aerial surveillance radar, the further you can look, which is why radar antennae's are many metres high (and is one of the reasons AWACS are so valuable).

The only problem here being that the further you want to see, the (much) higher you have to build. The ratio works out as, (IIRC) if you want to see twice the distance, (2x) you have to build 4x as high... ie: if a 1.8m tall man at sea level is to see 14 kilometres, that 1.8m man would have to be standing an extra 5.4m's (above his own height) to see the (roughly) 14kml's.

As you can probably infer, "seeing" 200klm's then would require you to be extremely "high"...

Can someone then explain (layman's terms will be MORE than sufficient) how modern (or even antiquated) aerial surveillance radars achieve this?
 

highsea

New Member
AD, the rules of physics apply regardless. The reason that ARTCC, or military air (radar) surveillance works at these distances is because the target is not at sea level. Raise your tower to 30,000 feet, and you can see what I mean.

It's not just the height of the radar, it's the height of the target too. Surface skimming targets are harder to intercept for this reason. No early warning.

wrt PAC-3 and all, the PAC-3 missile is a lot smaller than the PAC-2 and original Patriot. The batteries work together, with PAC-2 as the primary anti-aircraft missile, and PAC-3 as the primary ABM missile. PAC-3 does have a shorter range than PAC-2.
 
Top