Patriot PAC-3 needed to be improved by the superiority of the C-300.
What are the specs of their PAC-300 baby?
Patriot PAC-3 needed to be improved by the superiority of the C-300. What are the specs of their PAC-300 baby?
Patriot PAC-3 needed to be improved by the superiority of the C-300.
What are the specs of their PAC-300 baby?
>muh superiority
LMAO.
The specs are that they implemented the all-around superior PAC-3 on the S-300 launch chassis, allowing the old russian launcher access to utterly superior munitions. Simple as.
PAC-3 range is too short (120km), the estimated range for the A-50 and Il-22 was 140-160km. The PAC-2 has a 160km range, and is more designed for that task compared to PAC-3 which is probably better saved to intercept a Kinzhal or similar.
Hint: PAC-3 range against aircraft's is classified.
There's no fricking way a specialized anti-ballistic missile one quarter the size of the PAC-2 is actually super long ranged aircraft killer. Put away the crack pipe.
Size has no direct correlation with range. Its delta v, drag, ballistic coefficient, flight profiles that determine range.
V-750 has sightly large size but only 45 km range vs 150km of 48N6. Now cry me a river that this is physically impossible.
>Size has no direct correlation with range.
Guys we have Dmitry Rogozin himself posting ITT, revealing his rocketry wisdom.
>Size has no direct correlation with range
ok moron
>V-750 has sightly large size but only 45 km range vs 150km of 48N6
might as well compare missiles to ww2 AA guns you worthless vatBlack person
You didn't explain how physically impossible is real.
Try again.
(BTW max ballistic range of 48N6 is 400km...)
i don't need to. your comparison is as moronic and worthless as the rest of your post, from bringing up 60 year old missiles to flaunting paper stats on russian vaporware tech
He's actually right, and you're moronic. The propellant, grain density and layout/design, guidance software, and efficient design are what determines a missile's range, not how big it is. That's why the Cuda - and all Small Advanced Capabilities Missiles (SACM) for that matter - can be half the size of an AIM-120D, and still have the same exact range. Software refinement is why the AIM-120D3 has more range than the AIM-120D. They both have the same missile body, propellant type, amount of propellant, same weight, yet a software update allows for longer range in the D3 because it optimized the flight path to be as aero efficient as possible while ensuring a kill.
its primary design purpose is to intercept an incoming ballistic missile.
PAC-2 is actually designed for longer range anti-air hits.
I've actually wondered if they are hiding the actual range of the PAC-2. I've only seen one mention of the increased range for the new variants on the internet and it was a random forum but i'm inclined to believe that PAC-2 that's been rebuilt and updated several times since the late 80s when the 160km variant came out would have a better range.
There is also a lesser known but much longer range anti AWACS mode where it launches them as an antiair antiradation ballistic missiles.
MIM-104B hasn't been in service in decades, that's PAC-1.
That's an old screenshot, PAC-1 has Anti Stand-Off Jammer (ASOJ), PAC-2 has Stand-Off Jammer Counter (SOJC)
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA423549.pdf
Could you theoretically use a Patriot against land based radars? Like the ballistic mode on S-series missiles but good?
But why a PAC3? Any version of a PAC2 would be more effective against aircraft.
>spend three minutes finding a funny gif
>someone else has already made the same observation you did
Frick my life
I looked at your post first because it had a funny gif
Do you scan the thread, read the ones with images first, and then all others?
sometimes. sometimes I go top to bottom, sometimes I start at the bottom and work my way up. I have a random, non-overlapping method of viewing threads
Sorry anon, didn't mean to steal your thunder.
>ritu sharma
>theories
>speculations
>suggests
>some experts
Expert is a moron because PAC-3 is an ABM missile that can moonlight as a SAM rather than the other way around. 158 kg of propellant with a total mass of 315 kg. The missile is a hotrod in the vertical but is less capable than PAC-2 crossrange-wise.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA319957.pdf
>https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA319957.pdf
It says about air breathing targets range.
>Ritu Sharma
>I have a PAC-2
>I have a S-300
>UH
>SPAC-5
I appreciate your humor anon, even if nobody else is recognizing it.
He just did algebra on the leters and numbers, but it isn't that funny?
The S-300 isn't necessarily "superior," it just provided camouflage to disguise the incoming munitions.
Nothing about the S-300 is better, it just allowed Ukraine to steer the missile using a radar Russian forces expected to be operating in the area (their own air defenses' S-300) but instead of it being a friendly S-300, it was guiding a PAC-2 towards them.
this is the most probable. Develop an adapter to take the s-300's native r/el/az measurements and uncertainty & bias values and adapt them to the format and logic levels used in the PAC-3 system.
simple as.
PAC-3 and S-400 are more focused on ABM. PAC-2 and S-300 are more about traditional air-denial roles. PAC-3 is the more capable system but still lacks in some ways vs the older PAC-2 ie maximum range. The S-300 is old tech but it does have a very powerful radar set which against large non-stealth aircraft are very effective at long range 360 air search. PAC-3, which is focused on ABM has a very high-resolution search radar pointed in only one direction since it’s expected from which direction ballistic missiles will come AND the system is designed to integrate into a larger sensor network. S-300 can integrate into a network or be used as a completely self-contained AD system. Independent function isn’t PAC-3’s strong suite — it CAN but it’s not how it’s designed to be best used.
see
PAC-2 + S-300 is the thinking by people who aren't idiots.
No idea why the author would think PAC-3 besides 3 is bigger than 2, and therefore 3 must be better.
>S-400 are more focused on ABM
nope
>Ritu Sharma
Frick all of you. It was an S-200 missile with an S-300 radar and I will be vindicated in time.
>pic
Writer is incompetent and misunderstood how the whole thing works.
What happened was the ukrainians used an S-300's radar to supply initial position and velocity data for patriot system and then activated the patriot radar for guidance once the target was in the optimal position for engagement.
Being spiked by S-300s in that area is a fairly normal occurrence. The systems are normally placed far enough away to from the frontline be outside effective engagement range. The RWR on the target aircraft would have shown a weak illuminating source, indicating a faraway radar (likely interpreted as a non-threat as long as they didn't close with the frontline). The patriot system on the other hand was probably placed somewhere fairly close to the frontline and kept quiet until it was time to shoot. Once the patriot lit up, the russian aircraft was already well within the effective envelope of the system, with no time left to escape.
There was a WSJ article back in June 2023 where the CEO of Raytheon casually mentioned that the ukies have improved Patriot beyond the factory specs (to enable interception of hypersonics).
https://archive.is/0oJLR
At the time I chalked this up to the yank MIC under promised and overdelivered as usual, the the known Patriot specs not actually being the real thing. Now I wonder. Maybe those crazy slavs did overclock a Patriot like a zoomer-grade gaming PC.
I still maintain it was an S-200.
>At the time I chalked this up to the yank MIC under promised and overdelivered as usual, the the known Patriot specs not actually being the real thing. Now I wonder. Maybe those crazy slavs did overclock a Patriot like a zoomer-grade gaming PC.
There's not that much you can change in the mostly automatic system and PAC-3 was designed to shoot down MRBM class targets so that claim is complete bull.
I don't see how that would be possible, as none of the S-300's various radars transmit in a band the PAC-2 GEM, PAC-3 CRI, or PAC-3 MSE can receive. You would need a guidance radar transmitting in the C-band for PAC-2 GEM, and C or X-bands for the PAC-3 variants.
Nobody who paid attention to tests was surprised PATRIOT could intercept hypersonic BMs. They've been testing it non-stop for close to 30 years against threat targets that have a terminal velocity of mach 8+. The CEO is more than aware of this, and is just trying to capitalize on the PR PATRIOT is getting to increase sale and shekels.
No, they just used it as designed. Again, just look at all the publically available tests of the PATRIOT system, and detailed reports on what exact target threat missile they were testing against, and you can see that the PATRIOT performed as expected.
If that missile flies a more aero efficient route, has higher performing propellant, altitude control motors to maneuver, and a dual-pulse motor it can have just as much range when talking about low altitude air breathing targets. PAC-3, and PAC-3 MSE range figures are quoted for max altitude interception of BM targets. When you don't need to fly to an altitude of 40kms to intercept your target, that frees up a lot of fuel you can use to increase your range from say 80km to 150km+. Who really knows, though. What we do know is that the US sandbags their range figures by a fair margin, and quotes ranges where the Pk is sufficient to their liking.
How does "our tech needs to be tweaked by the end user to do the job" increase sales? You're coping very hard I don't even know about what.
Maybe they used S-300 search radars to find the target and the A-50 knowing how shit russian made shit is, felt safe at that distance. Then they launched a much superior Patriot instead when it was too late for the A-50 to escape.
90 degree search sector
120 degree track dector
yeah no wonder s-300 is superior then Patriotz
Wheel status?
Its not that the S-300 radar is superior, its that Ukraine has S-300 radars sitting around probably doing nothing that can be used in more risky situations than the rarer Patriot radars.
Lol. No. The A-50 was unmanned and served its purpose to draw out Holhols secret weapon. We have many more A-50s being constructed.
t. John Johnson of Iowa.
But later in the same document it's described how Raytheon went about spamming PAC-2s for Desert Storm - also converting PAC-1 to PAC-2
>By this time warhead production in Arkansas, guidance section production at Raytheon in Massachusetts, and fuze production in Baltimore were exceeding the final assembly capacity of Martin-Marietta in Orlando.
>As a consequence, the Patriot project office shifted its focus to converting PAC-1 missiles in the inventory into PAC-2’s.
>This assembly process involved changing the warhead, fuze, software, and other changes to a number of the existing missiles in the inventory. The missile forebody was sent to Raytheon for the replacement of components, then a second final assembly facility was brought on line at Red River Army Depot, and a third was brought on line in Germany
They're also currently looking to produce 1000 in Germany for the first time in decades, and the US production rate is supposed to hit 650/year this year.