Talk:MIM-104 Patriot

Patriot Success Rate

A brief explanation of the differing "success rates" of the system The outgoing to incoming missile count is not 1 to 1. If your job is to defend an area against a threat (aircraft or missile) you’re not just going to fire one shot. At the speeds that missiles travel if the first misses you may not get a second chance. During the war an average of 4 patriots were fired at every scud. Even if every scud is destroyed, a 100% kill rate, the accuracy is only 25%. In addition the patriots used in the first gulf were proximity devices (go up next to the target and explode). Sometimes the scud warhead would survive and fall into populated or troop areas. Concerned at the threat of chemical or bio agents additional missiles were fired at the falling warhead (a much smaller radar target) this additionally lowers the accuracy. --Mitrebox 23:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

---

If you fire four Patriots, and the first one kills the Scud so the other 3 have nothing to do, I consider that 100% accuracy and 300% overkill. But if the first 3 miss and the 4th finally takes out the Scud, then yes, you're down to a 25% accuracy figure. --68.43.149.99 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

Standardise on the use of scud, Scud or SCUD. The report on the Dhuran error I just read used "Scud".

As well as correcting typos (many of which I introduced last edit!)... I've converted all the scud/SCUD to Scud. I'm not sure whether Scud or SCUD is correct, but at least it's consistent now. Motor 12:03, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Section: Psychological effects of the system This small section seems very weak.

Section: Usage during the 2003 invasion of Iraq The words "it was claimed" are not very clear about who made this claim

Section: Patriot upgrades

As of 2002, Israel currently uses the Patriot as part of a two-tier anti-ballistic missile defense system, with the Arrow missile in the role of high-altitude interceptor and the Patriot for point defense. Patriots are deployed around Israel's nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons assembly point at Dimona.

Is this still true? Motor 17:28, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Section The Patriot Guided Missile "There are a total of eight different variants of Patriot missiles: Standard, ASOJ/SOJC, PAC-2, PAC-2 GEM, GEM/C, GEM/T (or GEM+), and PAC-3" There's a ninth variant called the Analog, which preceded the Digital missile. Both are commonly referred to as Standard. The Analog missile has only been in the US inventory, but is no longer in use. The Digital missile is still in use outside of the US. The PAC-2 is usually referred to as ATM (anti tactical missile) and the PAC-2 GEM just as GEM.--jirnsum 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming

acronym or backronym? Ojw 15:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Formerly a member of the guards only PATRIOT unit (1-203rd ADA) I could find no defeiniton of the PATRIOT even though the caps suggested it as an acronym. Now that the unit has "transitioned" I found some documents made by the contractor, raytheon, naming it the Phased Array, Rapid Interception Of Target. That still doesn't answer the question however. --mitrebox 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Raytheon document is incorrect. The correct acronym reads: Phased Array Tracking Radar Intercept On Target which is basically a description of how the missile is guided into the target--User: jirnsumjirnsum

Purpose of attacking israel

If Israel counter-attacked I don't think saddam thought it would cause the arab members of the coalition to suddenly switch side and ally with Iraq, I think he just wanted them to withdraw which would cause the allies to lose crucial support.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 11:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

PATRIOT will not be replaced by MEADS

As of Nov 05, the plan is that both will operate on the same battlefield along with THAAD until at least 2030, or until we get lasers or something like that. MEADS is not designed to replace PATRIOT, especially in a tactical sense.

A.R. 12:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that MEADS and PATRIOT will work together, but isn't the THAAD Project dead?--BohicaTwentyTwo 17:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. As of Jan 05 THAAD is scheduled for delivery to the Army sometime in 2009. In Feb 05 there is a THAAD live fire scheduled at WSMR. Also, who is under the impression that the Silkworm incident was a friendly SAM? No analysis of the incident, classified or not, has ever come to that conclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talk • contribs) .

Usage during Operation "Iraqi Freedom" of 2003

This section is not appropriately sourced. I deleted a sentence claiming the missile was a "tremendous success" in the most recent war. This depends on ones perspective, and lacked any sourcing. Given prior lies and exagerations told about this weapon by Raytheon and other governmental officials, claims about this should be sourced. Whitfield Larrabee 04:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The lack of sourcing on this section suggests original research by this editor. I am going to place the lable {{original research}} on this section if it remains this way because it appears to be simply the opinions of the editor.--Whitfield Larrabee 04:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot_Report_Summary.pdf

This report, in fact, uses the phrase "substantial success". It was not difficult to find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talk • contribs) .

I added a reference for PAC-3 success during OIF. I agree a source was needed. I also agree if the source doesn't say "tremendous success", that should be removed. In fact any word like "tremendous", "fantastic", "horrible", are generally questionable and not encyclopedic in tone. From that standpoint alone the word was questionable.

However, note we are not cynical, suspicious investigative reporters. Encyclopedias don't emphasize "Crossfire"-style pro/con positions within the article. Our primary task is simply describing the stated topic. Doing so does not equate to taking a pro or con position on that. E.g, describing in detail evolution or abortion does not constitute taking a position on the issues. We can get ideas for appropriate tone and wording by comparing the tone and content in other encyclopedias for similar material. They don't devote large amounts of space to "some say this, but others say that". They primarily describe the stated topic, and accept official sources of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so our overall approach should be similar. Joema 21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"fratricide," in U.S. usage generally refers to the destruction of one weapon by another (i.e. an incoming RV is destroyed by a previous nuclear detonation). Perhaps the "fratricide" references should be changed to "friendly fire incident" or something of the like.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeryz (talk • contribs) .

I've never heard that definition before, US or otherwise. Fratricide refers to blue-on-blue / friendly fire incidents. wiktionary:fratricide calls it The killing of one's brother (or sister). I'd like to hear who is calling fratricide by that definition, it certainly can't be the US military. See also:Fratricide: Can It Be Stopped? and FRATRICIDE: REDUCING SELF-INFLICTED LOSSES, both are US Military docs republished on globalsecurity.org and both use fratricide to refer to "friendly-fire". --Dual Freq 22:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The human blue-on-blue definition seems the most common, therefore usage in the article seems appropriate. Less commonly in strategic warefare, fratricide can also refer to mutual self-destruction of one side's munitions, esp regarding nuclear warheads. One MX missile basing scheme (dense pack) was designed around this:

• [1]
• [2] Joema 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Upgrade" section redone

I completely redid the "upgrade" section. It is correct now. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks so much for your knowledgeable, detailed contributions. It is greatly appreciated. Joema 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Air Defender, Duckhunter? Perhaps we've served together? =) Dream reaper 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Made article much more thorough. Described system equipment in much greater detail and edited some incorrect information.

Whew, that took a while. This article is now factually correct, within the limits of security classifications. Also added plenty of additional information on the Patriot equipment and its engagement procedures.

I'm sure there are some typos and poor wordings in there, so have at it.

Duckhunter6424 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the time and effort. Wikipedia and all readers will benefit. If only all editors were equally focused on substantive contributions. Joema 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

S-300/400..."superior"?

Uh...yeah. I don't even know where to start with that. Editing back to the way it was before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.178.6.3 (talk • contribs) .

Most expensive interceptor statement

I removed this statement for two reasons: (1) cannot possibly be true (2) citation needed to corroborate: "(and the most expensive, at over $3 million each - including develpoment costs- or a missile unit cost of approximately 1.5 milion)"

It's virtually certain the Nike Sprint and Spartan missiles were much more expensive than Patriot, esp if including development costs. The currently operational US National Missile Defense GMD missiles are more expensive without a doubt. Re current Tactical ballistic missile interceptors, I think the Navy SM-3 costs over $3 million each. Joema 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PATRIOT vs. Patriot

At what point should we use "PATRIOT" and at what should we use "Patriot"? --Kitabparast 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

While we Air Defenders did once say that the name of our missile was an acronym, it is officially not an acronym any more. In our official correspondence, we have now reverted to Patriot, rather than all caps.210.107.29.175 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Army, we use "PATRIOT" - NEVER "Patriot." PATRIOT is indeed an acronym (actually a "bacronym"--i.e., it was not an acronym when the name was first developed but has since been retrofitted with a meaning). Every document that deals with PATRIOT has the system name in all caps. This is the correct way to write the name.

--WhitneyGH 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

SA-6

Got the SA-6 info right of the cited reference, what' the problem, and why didn't you fix it instead of reverting it?? Isn't the point that the SA-6 is a lot more mobile?? --matador300 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the change in question, but isn't the SA-6 more comparable to Hawk than Patriot? Wouldn't it be better to compare it with a similar system than with an older system? It might be like comparing the weight of an M1 with the weight of a T-62. Just a thought, no need to mix apples and oranges and confuse people who might not know the difference. --Dual Freq 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why anything on the SA-6 needs to be in the article. It is simply not in any way similar to Patriot. Perhaps if someone wants to post the march order/emplacement data for the S-300/400, that would be relevant, but the comparison to the SA-6 is pointless and confusing, not to mention poorly written.--Duckhunter6424 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To post a contrary opinion, while Patriot is of course far more advanced and capable, if one looks at it from the battery layout, the SA-6 is actually as similar as a Russian missile battery gets to Patriot - a bunch of TELs controlled by a single battery-level radar which handles search and targetting. It lacks the separate ECS, but neither do most other Russian mobile missiles (very early S-300s do have a 5N63S separate vehicle which was soon integrated).

It is arguably at least as similar as the S-300 battery, which is supposed to link up to higher level radars (30N6 Flap Lids are highly biased towards FC, and the search modes available in the later models are narrow sector and relatively slow to scan). Or the Buk (SA-11) or S-300V (SA-12), which have more search oriented radars but they have to link up to FC illuminators. And of course the short range, fully integrated TELARs like the SA-8 or SA-15 are even further away. Thus for Deployment Time, the SA-6 is arguably a good system for fair comparison.

BTW, fair comparison or not, except for the very early S-300P and PT variants (30 minutes), all report substantially faster times. Fully mobile SA-10s claim 5 minutes to readiness unless you want to lift the radars onto masts, as do SA-11s and SA-12s and the SA-8s. The SA-15s can shoot on the short halt.

All of them also have better tactical mobility. The SA-10s are on all wheel drive vehicles. The -11s, 12s and 15s are all tracked. The -8 is wheeled but can swim. Patriot tends to be on trailers.

Of course, many argue that comparisons are a bad idea in encylopedias due to the difficulty in gaining a fair, nonmisleading comparison (a viewpoint I do not really agree with). However, if a mobility comparison is made, there is IMHO no reason to exclude the SA-6 from the list of candidates. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Countries that have Patriot in use

there seems to be some confusion about whether or not South Korea uses the PATRIOT Missile. At the moment, they do not. They are negotiating buying PAC-3 missiles from the US, but the do not have the system in use right now. According to Duckhunter6424 "South Korea has operated Patriot for many years. They are currently negotiating for PAC-3 systems (or more PAC-2 interceptors, one or the othe).". Look [here] for a short article on their efforts to procure the system. The [Raytheon product page] doesn't list Spain as a customer, but this is probably because they've only entered the program last year. jirnsum 18:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Future

Replaced: Missile Section Enhancement with Missile Segment Enhancement, which is the correct name source

Deleted the line "The upgrade is similar to the GEM+T/C upgrade, in that it consists of a body redesign and subsequent replacement of the PAC-3 interceptor. " The GEM+T/C upgrade is completely different than the MSE upgrade. The next line of the article even illustrates this: "The upgrade includes a new fin design and a new, more powerful rocket motor". The GEM+T/C upgrade involves upgrading of the forebody internal systems, not the rocket motor, nor the aerodynamic controls. Also I doubt the MSE will replace the Baseline and CRI missiles in the stockpile: they will be added to them. jirnsum 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... range?

What's the range of the Patriot? I think it's kind of an important bit of information. Tullie 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: 70km for the early variants, somewhere over that for PAC-2 (but <150-160) and about ~15km for PAC-3 are the most commonly cited. Long answer to follow. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is in fact very important, which is why it is classified. Also, there really isn't a standardized "maximum range", as the range will vary considerably based on the target in question. Duckhunter6424 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Duckhunter is entirely correct. It's possible to intercept a slow loitering airplane at very long range, while a very fast manoeuvring target van be a challenge at short range already. 134.221.128.8 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a target that's closing at a moderate speed (relative to the maximum engagement speed of the system in question) will be threatened at a larger range compared to a loitering aircraft - the closure rate allows the missile to fly a shorter distance. You are otherwise correct in saying target range is variable, but I think it won't hurt to include the brochure ranges with the understanding that they are such. At least the situation isn't as bad as with a AAM, in which the range depends on the target and your own speed, aspect and altitude. Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Maximum Range" also depends on many other factors. Altitude of Launcher, altitude of target, speed of target, and many other factors have to be taken into consideration when figuring range. And each missile in common inventory (PAC-2, PAC-3) have to be considered. Range can vary widely, just like the MPG estimate of a car. 75.211.202.129 04:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Radar

If AESA technology is already available, it does not make sense for the system to use an outdated passive electronically scanned array.--Arado 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AESA is a fairly new technology, and the Patriot system isn't. Unless they have spent the money to upgrade it, why would it being using the newer tech? --OuroborosCobra 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing about the military, they are fairly conservative when it comes to upgrading it's equipment. With the large number of PATRIOT systems already employed, it would be a huge budget strain to upgrade all of the RADAR systems. Not only do you have to figure the cost of the RADAR itself, but the cost to re-program the missiles, change hardware on the individual missiles themselves, and retrain the 14E (PATRIOT Missile Radar Operators). The Operator course itself is almost a year long all by itself. The PAC-3 was first tested in 1994, but because of cost it is employed in less then half of the PATRIOT batteries. 75.211.202.129 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

References in Pop Culture

Could the "Patriot Arrow" in Robin Hood: Men in Tights be a valid point to put on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardkselby (talk • contribs) 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Then how would people know about the Patriot Arrow? Richardkselby (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They could watch the movie. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How would someone know to watch Men in tights to hear about the Patriot arrow if they have never heard of the joke in the first place.216.36.24.166 (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If they haven't watched to movie, I doubt they are going to look up here to see whether it was a reference or not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But if they look up something for the Patriot missile, and they find out the fact about the Patriot arrow, then one will be more encouraged to watch the movie to find the joke. 216.36.24.166 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not IMDB; go there for this kind of crap. Someone looking at an article for a military Surface-to-Air missile system is not expecting nor should they expect references to some irrelevant comedy. Come on now people. 99.173.63.38 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A Patriot "battery"

In 2001 Taiwan was offered 6 PAC-3 batteries - how many launch stations would that be per battery? What I'm talking about when I say "launch station" is the quad-launcher carried on the back of every trailer, such as you can see in the first three pictures on the article. John Smith's (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually between 6 and 8. I'm not aware of the details of this particular contract, however. Duckhunter6424 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In the US, a PAC-3 battery is 6 launchers, but it is up to the service. The ECS can support more. Lyta79 (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

PATRIOT System in popular culture.

Should not be a section of the article about PATRIOT in popular culture? Since the the Gulf War the PATRIOT has risen as one of the most heard of air-defence system and appears in many movies and video games often with mythical proportions of their performance or reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.113.8 (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Look two conversations up. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PAC-3 "warhead" confusion.

Contrary to the misinformation provided by a number of internet warriors, the PAC-3 interceptor does in fact have a warhead. It is referred to as a "lethality enhancer", and it is a pseduo-proximity fused device (meaning it detonates based off of calculations from the active seeker) that is used only in anti-aircraft engagements. In ballistic missile engagements, the interceptor is of course hit to kill, and the LE is not necessary. Duckhunter6424 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)