Jump to content


Photo

Sweden Selects Patriot


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,840 posts

Posted 08 November 2017 - 2147 PM

Wonder if this was on technical or financial grounds?:

 

https://www.defensen...edish-decision/



#2 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 09 November 2017 - 0850 AM

There's no way how Patriot could be superior to SAMP/T without emphasis on defence against MRBM.

 

A Patriot battery cannot provide real 360° defence; it has to be part of a cluster. It's mostly ineffective behind mountains and hills even if AEW or fighters provide target data because only the PAC-3 rocket doesn't depend on SRH terminal guidance, and it's the dedicated BMD missile with a short range.



#3 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 09 November 2017 - 1431 PM

There's no way how Patriot could be superior to SAMP/T without emphasis on defence against MRBM.

 

A Patriot battery cannot provide real 360° defence; it has to be part of a cluster. It's mostly ineffective behind mountains and hills even if AEW or fighters provide target data because only the PAC-3 rocket doesn't depend on SRH terminal guidance, and it's the dedicated BMD missile with a short range.

 

With the new radar the Patriot battery does have 360 degree coverage.

Neighter PAC-3, nor PAAC-4 has TVM-guidence.

 

In a period of ~5 years the US has and will introduce 4 new missiles or new version of missiles (PAC-2 GEM/C and GEM/C, PAC-3 MSE and PAAC-4),

a new radar (GaN AESA, with 360 degree coveragfe without rotating) and a new C3-system, that requires far fewer vehicles and personel.



#4 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 09 November 2017 - 1629 PM

That new radar system is still in prototype stadium afaik. PAAC-4 is yet another anti-TBM missile, just lower price than PAC-3.

 

Patriot is simply not on par with SAMP/T in regard to area air defence from very low to high altitudes. It makes sense only if one has a huge emphasis on BMD.



#5 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,840 posts

Posted 09 November 2017 - 2221 PM

I would think that a BMD- capable missile would make short work of any aircraft.



#6 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 November 2017 - 0634 AM

I would think that a BMD- capable missile would make short work of any aircraft.

 

 

The fusing timing is entirely different.

Optimal warhead design is entirely different.

Ballistic missiles do not carry sophisticated jammers, nor do they dish out decoys or even use towed decoys.

Ballistic missiles have a huge hot thermal signature upon reentry, whereas aircraft are comparably cool, and entirely different infrared wavelengths are relevant.

BMD-specialised missiles do not need to deal with ground clutter.

BMD-specialised missiles are not designed for a post-burnout flight phase. Their drag doesn't matter as much as their trust:weight ratio. On the other hand, aerodynamic control surfaces don't matter as much in BMD as in AD.

PAC-3 has piss-poor range against aircraft (ShoRAD territory, not area AD) according to open sources.


Edited by lastdingo, 10 November 2017 - 0638 AM.


#7 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 10 November 2017 - 0645 AM

 

I would think that a BMD- capable missile would make short work of any aircraft.

 

 

The fusing timing is entirely different.

Optimal warhead design is entirely different.

Ballistic missiles do not carry sophisticated jammers, nor do they dish out decoys or even use towed decoys.

Ballistic missiles have a huge hot thermal signature upon reentry, whereas aircraft are comparably cool, and entirely different infrared wavelengths are relevant.

BMD-specialised missiles do not need to deal with ground clutter.

BMD-specialised missiles are not designed for a post-burnout flight phase. Their drag doesn't matter as much as their trust:weight ratio. On the other hand, aerodynamic control surfaces don't matter as much in BMD as in AD.

PAC-3 has piss-poor range against aircraft (ShoRAD territory, not area AD) according to open sources.

 

 

+ballistic missiles generally fly predictable trajectories (some Iskander variants allegedly maneouvre).



#8 Calvinb1nav

Calvinb1nav

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lexington, SC
  • Interests:military and aviation history, wargaming, shooting, travel, geography

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1152 AM

As a former aircrew, of all the SAMs that could shoot at me, Patriot was the one I feared the most (though it would be blue-on-blue attack if it did).  Can't go into why, but suffice it to say, I was scared of it most of all. 


Edited by Calvinb1nav, 10 November 2017 - 1220 PM.


#9 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,840 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1158 AM

IIRC, Patriot has had some unfortunate blue-on-blue incidents in the past.



#10 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 620 posts

Posted 14 November 2017 - 1604 PM

Wonder if this was on technical or financial grounds?:

 

https://www.defensen...edish-decision/

 

Its the normal Swedich cyclic thinking.... No we shall not have Blakhawk we shall have NH90... wait after purchased NH90 we purchased Blakhawk. We shall not have Patirot we shall have BAMSE..... after developed BAMSE but not started serie production lets buy Patriot.... :)

 

What I think hapen is all the propaganda about Iskander and how it is pointed against Sweden the politicians need to show decisiveness and buy some anti-Iskander stuff,,,, its quite pointless.... sure a dozen Iskander hits would be incontinent but not fatally... think how many thousands of trained conscripts equipped as light infantry that will not be trained to pay for the Patriots...



#11 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 14 November 2017 - 1650 PM

 

Wonder if this was on technical or financial grounds?:

 

https://www.defensen...edish-decision/

 

Its the normal Swedich cyclic thinking.... No we shall not have Blakhawk we shall have NH90... wait after purchased NH90 we purchased Blakhawk. We shall not have Patirot we shall have BAMSE..... after developed BAMSE but not started serie production lets buy Patriot.... :)

 

What I think hapen is all the propaganda about Iskander and how it is pointed against Sweden the politicians need to show decisiveness and buy some anti-Iskander stuff,,,, its quite pointless.... sure a dozen Iskander hits would be incontinent but not fatally... think how many thousands of trained conscripts equipped as light infantry that will not be trained to pay for the Patriots...

 

 

Isn't BAMSE against cruise missiles  and other smaller targets but not the bigger ballistic ones?

 

 

Patriot is also faster and has much longer range and overall more development and testing put into it.



#12 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 14 November 2017 - 1707 PM

Patriot uses SARH only for terminal approach like SM-2, so there's little warning about the attack. The radars only give away very late that the aircraft is under attack. That's one "scary" thing about it.

 

BAMSE was first and foremost a short range air defence with an astonishing effective ceiling claim and a cheap (command controlled) missile.

It would be a great complement to missiles with expensive seekers, but there are likely few suitable targets for BAMSE.

Everything that carries a radar/radio jammer might throw off the aim, the system requires line of sight between target and fire control radar and radar 'stealth' targets that would be easily visible in IIR might still be too hard to sense for the radars used. Finally, the fire control radar needs to keep looking at the target throughout the engagement. That's but a few seconds, but a shutdown due to ARM threat would break the engagement and the target might be able to triangulate the fire control radar during this time. That's troublesome if the target is a decoy drone with ESM specialised on triangulating radars or if the missile fails.

 

BAMSE is a bit of a bet; a bet that the relatively cheap system doesn't get defeated by ECM.

Other radar-centric air defence systems do similar bets, but with higher stakes and better odds.



#13 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1800 PM

Anything out there specifically designed to engage HARMs?

#14 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,778 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1811 PM

Tor is supposedly capable.



#15 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 16 November 2017 - 1901 PM

Tor is supposedly capable.

 

As is Pantsir I believe.



#16 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 November 2017 - 0243 AM

Radar decoys exist that mimic a real radar and lure ARMs in. Patriot system has AN/TLQ-32 for this.

http://defense-and-f...y-emitters.html

 

Furthermore it's possible to use reflectors; you can direct the main beam at that reflector and the incoming ARM will likely lock on that (nearby like 100 m) reflector instead of on the radar's side lobes because its angular resolution doesn't enable it to tell them apart early on.

 

And yes, BAMSE was supposed to be able to intercept ARMs. As a rule of thumb regular endoatmospheric SAMs with warhead & proximity fuze that are claimed to be TBMD-capable can be expected to be anti-ARM-capable becuase the velocities are similar (the fuze and warhead type have to be suitable - continuous rod warheads are rather not suitable and proximity fusing may be too late for head-on engagement of Mach 3...4 targets).



#17 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2017 - 0433 AM

Anything out there specifically designed to engage HARMs?

Tor, Pantsir, Buk-M2, Tung-M1. Older systems can be capable, but wasn't really made with such targets in mind.

#18 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,641 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 17 November 2017 - 1010 AM

Does anyone use continuous-rod any more?



#19 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2017 - 1019 AM

Does anyone use continuous-rod any more?

Pantsir and Tung are continous rod. Tor(both 9M330 and 9M331) and Buk are HE-Frag.

#20 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 620 posts

Posted 17 November 2017 - 1359 PM

 

 


 

 

Isn't BAMSE against cruise missiles  and other smaller targets but not the bigger ballistic ones?

 

 

Patriot is also faster and has much longer range and overall more development and testing put into it.

 

 

BAMSE have no practical anit-ballistic misile capacity, I was only venting my frustration on Sweden's not so particularly optimized arms purchases......


Edited by a77, 17 November 2017 - 1401 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users