Why is the Patriot the only system with a confirmed hypersonic missile shootdown in combat?

Why is the Patriot the only system with a confirmed hypersonic missile shootdown in combat? I’ve always heard negative things about it

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Cuz this is the first time someone's used super-sonics in actual combat. Also the Patriot system isn't a static system, but updated so the current gen Patriots aren't the same as old ones.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This, something from the US like the SM-2 or SM-6 would have that record if someone had gathered the stones to fire a super/hypersonic missile at a warship. Remember, the Patriot and all modern US air defense was designed to shoot things like the AS-4 Kitchen down, which travel at 90,000 feet or so with a terminal speed of mach 4-5. Patriot being able to engage that isn't outrageous.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >confirmed
    meh, those pictures don't confirm shit

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yea the pictures coupled with the ukranian government confirms it. Pretty funny how mad that makes you

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Coupled with DoD confirming it.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Patriots fricked up massively in the 1st Gulf War, first with a failure to intercept Scuds heading into Israel, and then finally a catastrophic failure in the computation end of things lead to a supply base getting schwacked leading to deaths of 28 servicemen, and injuring of another 100.

    This was later remedied with newer models with better hardware/software.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Weird how that works. They make a product that does not perform as intended. Then they adjust, fix, and update it until it does. This is magic behavior in Puccia

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        BLINI
        LOPATA

        Soulless, degenerate westoids do not understand the holy symbology here.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It was mostly because PAC-1s and early PAC-2s weren't designed really to shoot down large ballistic missiles. Turns out peppering large ballistic missiles in their terminal decent phase with frag doesn't work that well. That's why we have PAC-3 that impacts the target and even I believe detonate inside.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I’ve always heard negative things about it
      Older versions of the Patriot had issues 30 years ago, and the system was updated to solve those issues.
      >but muh Saudis
      Arabs are incompetent.

      It was mostly because PAC-1s and early PAC-2s weren't designed really to shoot down large ballistic missiles. Turns out peppering large ballistic missiles in their terminal decent phase with frag doesn't work that well. That's why we have PAC-3 that impacts the target and even I believe detonate inside.

      Biggest issue was the proximity fuze and the reaction speed. They kept the same proximity fuze from the original Patriot, which was designed for SAM use, and was adequate for use against an aircraft traveling at Mach 1-2, but wasn't good enough for a ballistic missile traveling at Mach 4 or 5 in a near head on engagement. Lots of the Patriots fired at Scuds were detonating between the middle and the rear of the missile, if it didn't miss entirely, which would have probably damaged the control system, but left the warhead intact.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah and interesting thing about intercepting things like Scuds, unless there's massive gaping holes in the front of the vehicle (enough to make it break up through aerodynamic stress) or the warhead/fuzing component is destroyed you're going to do basically nothing. Maybe you'll divert it a bit. It's still going to hit shit, and with the known accuracy of Scuds (as in, what the operators would plan for) being 1 km CEP you're not going to find many situations where just one Scud is fired at a target, where diverting that Scud slightly will save the day. They fire these things at population centers or large military posts, not point targets.

        Hence why they moved to hit to kill interceptors. A kill vehicle with a decent mass hitting the target at a closing rate potentially 2-10 km/s will destroy it every time without fail.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Are you going to make this thread every day OP. How often are hypersanics even used? That's right, never.
    It's alright to gloat a bit but the spam is kinda pathetic.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >How often are hypersanics even used? That's right, never.
      We know the Kinzhal has been used at least a dozen times in ukraine.

      > the Russian military claimed to have used Kinzhal missiles to destroy an alleged underground weapons depot of the Ukrainian armed forces in Deliatyn on March 18, 2022, followed by a fuel depot in Konstantinovka the next day
      > Kinzhal missiles were used again on April 11, while on May 9, Russian Tu-22 aircraft launched three Kinzhal-type missiles at targets in the port city of Odesa
      > On January 26, 2023, the Ukrainian Air Force reported that 55 missiles, including a Kh-47 Kinzhal hypersonic missile, and 24 Shahed-136 drones had been fired at targets in Ukraine
      > On March 9, 2023, Ukrainian cities were hit with a barrage of 84 missiles, including six Kinzhals - the largest use of these missiles to date

      By my count that is a minimum of 13 Kinzhals fired and that assumes any instance a Kinzhal was claimed to be fired was just a single Kinzhal and not multiple, if you assume they would tend to use a minimum of 2-3 Kinzhals each time then that number could be as high as 20-25 missiles.

      But in any case, even if it IS only 13 Kinzhals fired, that's still 13 hypersonic missiles over a ~14 month period.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Have they though? We only have Russians word for it really, the one video, and a shootdown of what they claim is a hypersonic but could just be a bullshit Russian claim

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I mean, our military analysts aren't fricking morons, they know what Kinzhal looks like and it doesn't really look anything like most other russian missiles, and we have pictures of the claimed Kinzhal interception, which does appear to look exactly like what we KNOW a Kinzhal looks like.

          It's not like we're frickin making blind guesses out here.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think that actually is mostly what you're making.
            "We" kek

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Ahh yes, cause we TOTALLY don't know the moment a MIG-31 hits the runway with a Kinzhal on board, and we TOTALLY don't have AWACS watching their move every second they're in the air, and we TOTALLY don't know if they've fired the Kinzhal missile they were carrying even though we can see it happen on radar.

              Cool story bud.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >the dozens of videos of Iskanders being used don't exist

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    they probably upgraded the missiles without telling you, half the game is not revealing capabilities so the enemy under prepares, just like why we don't shoot down spy balloons and pretend we can't see them

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Sino-Soviets: Lend Lease basket cases even post war, technological cargo cults that couldn't sustain both strategic weapons parity and conventional forces overmatch, and chose the former
    >pursue 1960s 'hypersanics' because your shitbrain psycho ideology can justify offensive first strike doctrines, and this would give you the asymmetric edge
    >slapped down by Gulf War era systems, because the tech isn't special, just inconvenient
    OPFOR isn't concerned about shooting them down, just force-on-force striking enough Minute Man silos to make US/whomever else surrender to nuclear blackmail (against civilian targets).

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *