Ukrainian Patriot SAM operational/technical discussions

It seems a little hard to believe that Ukraine would risk one of only two batteries in an ambush. Even if only part of the battery was committed, all the important command elements would have to be present.

On the other hand that might explain the timing of the deliberate attack on the Kiev battery.

We’ll see what other reports pop up.
 
Josh_TN said:
What is the advantage then over SM-6? Cost? Divert ability?
Click to expand...
A - they are much better suited against ballistic & hypersonic targets, being hit-to-kill and more agile.

B - they are produced in much larger numbers (500 per year and increasing), while SM-6 is produced in much smaller quantities.
 
paralay said:
According to rumors, the Su-34's cockpit was torn off. This requires a sufficiently powerful combat unit
Click to expand...
Not that surprising.

Most US design sams have a biased against tge cockpit targeting wise.

Meaning that you basically have a pole popping up and screaming down at Mach 4, "unclassified", into the cockpit with a good size fragmention warhead even on the Pac3 MSE.

Said pole being anywhere from 300 pounds to 3000 pounds depending on the system.

Anyone of those weight be enough to straight up delete a fighters cockpit if it hits anywhere near that part of the plane.
 
Firefinder said:
paralay said:
According to rumors, the Su-34's cockpit was torn off. This requires a sufficiently powerful combat unit
Click to expand...
Not that surprising.

Most US design sams have a biased against tge cockpit targeting wise.

Meaning that you basically have a pole popping up and screaming down at Mach 4, "unclassified", into the cockpit with a good size fragmention warhead even on the Pac3 MSE.

Said pole being anywhere from 300 pounds to 3000 pounds depending on the system.

Anyone of those weight be enough to straight up delete a fighters cockpit if it hits anywhere near that part of the plane.
Click to expand...
Vanilla PAC-3 vs an F-4:

 
It does seem possible the the video is a PAC3. I think a PAC2 or S300 has a lot more bang, and nothing else would reach that far unless it was friendly fire (which can't be completely discounted).
 
In just two raids on Kiev (May 15 and 29), the Ukrainian air defense released at least 20% of the annual production of MIM-104 anti-aircraft guided missiles, and taking into account training and other, not so large-scale strikes, as well as losses in warehouses and during transportation, apparently about 40%,
Click to expand...
 
paralay said:
In just two raids on Kiev (May 15 and 29), the Ukrainian air defense released at least 20% of the annual production of MIM-104 anti-aircraft guided missiles, and taking into account training and other, not so large-scale strikes, as well as losses in warehouses and during transportation, apparently about 40%,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think many countries have severly underestimated how many defensive missiles you need. Especially if you're using Patriots to shoot down cheap little drones.
 
sferrin said:
paralay said:
In just two raids on Kiev (May 15 and 29), the Ukrainian air defense released at least 20% of the annual production of MIM-104 anti-aircraft guided missiles, and taking into account training and other, not so large-scale strikes, as well as losses in warehouses and during transportation, apparently about 40%,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think many countries have severly underestimated how many defensive missiles you need. Especially if you're using Patriots to shoot down cheap little drones.
Click to expand...
I am quite certain that the Patriots are only ever used by Ukraine to shoot down drones in the most pressing of circumstances. For the flying lawn mowers they have got AAA (at least Maxims, DŠK's, ZU-23-2's, 40 mm Bofors L/70's and S-70's), MANPADS's (Stinger, Igla, Piorun, Mistral etc.), different Soviet short and medium range systems (Strela-10's, OSA's, Tors, S-125's, Kubs, Buks), possibly MIM-23 HAWKs and Aspides, NASAMS, IRIS-T SLMs and S-300 P/PS/PMU's. Even for ballistic missiles they have also got S-300 V's and SAMP/T's. Of course, not all of these are present in the air defence of Kyiv, but I would be quite certain, that the defences around the capital are the densest in Ukraine and amongst the densest in the whole world.
 
Topi said:
sferrin said:
paralay said:
In just two raids on Kiev (May 15 and 29), the Ukrainian air defense released at least 20% of the annual production of MIM-104 anti-aircraft guided missiles, and taking into account training and other, not so large-scale strikes, as well as losses in warehouses and during transportation, apparently about 40%,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think many countries have severly underestimated how many defensive missiles you need. Especially if you're using Patriots to shoot down cheap little drones.
Click to expand...
I am quite certain that the Patriots are only ever used by Ukraine to shoot down drones in the most pressing of circumstances. For the flying lawn mowers they have got AAA (at least Maxims, DŠK's, ZU-23-2's, 40 mm Bofors L/70's and S-70's), MANPADS's (Stinger, Igla, Piorun, Mistral etc.), different Soviet short and medium range systems (Strela-10's, OSA's, Tors, S-125's, Kubs, Buks), possibly MIM-23 HAWKs and Aspides, NASAMS, IRIS-T SLMs and S-300 P/PS/PMU's. Even for ballistic missiles they have also got S-300 V's and SAMP/T's. Of course, not all of these are present in the air defence of Kyiv, but I would be quite certain, that the defences around the capital are the densest in Ukraine and amongst the densest in the whole world.
Click to expand...
802361d761c10e5a1544724e3a16a74914d1940a.gif
 
So a shot down Russian cruise-missile? Maybe an AS-15 Kent or an SS-N-27 Sizzler?
 
sferrin said:
That's an antiship missile.
Click to expand...

A good however Russia appears to be getting desperate as it's rapidly drawing its' stocks of existing ASMs having difficulty in replacing them due to crippling sanctions and now they've been using modified SA-12s, SA-20s and Soviet-era 60 year old AS-4 Kitchens.
 
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
That's an antiship missile.
Click to expand...

A good however Russia appears to be getting desperate as it's rapidly drawing its' stocks of existing ASMs having difficulty in replacing them due to crippling sanctions and now they've been using modified SA-12s, SA-20s and Soviet-era 60 year old AS-4 Kitchens.
Click to expand...
Its LONG been confirmed that Russia been reaching into their Soviet era stock of Antiship missiles to fire at Ukraine.

And those did have a secondary land attack mode.

A shitty one with a CEP of like 20 meters or something, but that is good enough for the basically WW2 Carpet Bombing tactic they been taking with Ukraine.

And they are good for padding out the numbers to hide the good cruise missiles in.

Cause either way, Ukraine still has to shot them down or deal with the issues caused by a 500 pound PLUS bomb smacking a city.
 
Firefinder said:
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
That's an antiship missile.
Click to expand...

A good however Russia appears to be getting desperate as it's rapidly drawing its' stocks of existing ASMs having difficulty in replacing them due to crippling sanctions and now they've been using modified SA-12s, SA-20s and Soviet-era 60 year old AS-4 Kitchens.
Click to expand...
Its LONG been confirmed that Russia been reaching into their Soviet era stock of Antiship missiles to fire at Ukraine.

And those did have a secondary land attack mode.

A shitty one with a CEP of like 20 meters or something, but that is good enough for the basically WW2 Carpet Bombing tactic they been taking with Ukraine.

And they are good for padding out the numbers to hide the good cruise missiles in.

Cause either way, Ukraine still has to shot them down or deal with the issues caused by a 500 pound PLUS bomb smacking a city.
Click to expand...
Kh-22, yes. It's had a secondary land-attack role for decades, there is a ton of old stock, and it delivers a huge punch. They'd be stupid not to use them. Sizzler is a relatively expensive, specialized missile. Makes no sense at all to use them.
 
sferrin said:
Firefinder said:
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
That's an antiship missile.
Click to expand...

A good however Russia appears to be getting desperate as it's rapidly drawing its' stocks of existing ASMs having difficulty in replacing them due to crippling sanctions and now they've been using modified SA-12s, SA-20s and Soviet-era 60 year old AS-4 Kitchens.
Click to expand...
Its LONG been confirmed that Russia been reaching into their Soviet era stock of Antiship missiles to fire at Ukraine.

And those did have a secondary land attack mode.

A shitty one with a CEP of like 20 meters or something, but that is good enough for the basically WW2 Carpet Bombing tactic they been taking with Ukraine.

And they are good for padding out the numbers to hide the good cruise missiles in.

Cause either way, Ukraine still has to shot them down or deal with the issues caused by a 500 pound PLUS bomb smacking a city.
Click to expand...
Kh-22, yes. It's had a secondary land-attack role for decades, there is a ton of old stock, and it delivers a huge punch. They'd be stupid not to use them. Sizzler is a relatively expensive, specialized missile. Makes no sense at all to use them.
Click to expand...
It does when you are running low on missiles in general like Russia is.

They been firing nearly a hunderd cruise missiles a month for well over 15 months now.

That enough to put a large hole in ANYONES stockpile.

Throw in low production numbers?

Basically its a case of them needing SOMETHING to toss at Ukraine and there not being much of the "opitimal" stock left.
 
lancer21 said:
Pretty clear that's the Patriot that fell in the middle of the road. There's clear pictures of it somewhere with some shop in the backround so whoever can be bothered can geolocate it.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it's an expended Patriot? The way it was smoking and burning along with its' shape suggests a cruise-missile something like an AS-15 Kent or an SS-N-27/30 Sizzler.
 
That explains the black-smoke, clearly the rocket-motor's liner is still burning after all of the solid-propellant has been consumed. If you've watched footage of spent Space Shuttle SRBs descending below their main parachutes with fire and flame coming out their nozzles that's from the burning insulation inside the spent rocket-motor casing.
 
Forest Green said:
jeffb said:
View attachment 699786
Click to expand...
Are these dimensions accurate because there seems to be all sorts of different dimensions stated on the internet? 5.8m in places, 5.2m elsewhere, 5.65m for PAC-3 MSE some places etc.
Click to expand...

Are the dimensions accurate? Not really, no. I included the diagram more to illustrate the general arrangement of fins and such rather than as a definitive specification. I haven't seen 5.65m or 5.8m listed anywhere as PAC-3 missile lengths though.

Lockheed Martin are deliberately cagey about giving out the missile's actual dimensions. PAC-1/2 is most regularly described (as far as I can see) as 5.3m long and 410mm (16in) in diameter. The PAC-3 models are both usually described as 5.2m long (I did see one reference saying that the CRI version is 5.18m). But the CRI and MSE versions appear to vary a bit in diameter and weight with the CRI version being 255mm (10in) and 310kg while the MSE version is 300mm (12in) and 370kg. This appears to be backed up by the different load out options.

If you look at p22 of Lockheed Martin's glossy below you'll see that while the CRI load out can be up to 16 missiles on the M903 launcher, the MSE load out is only 12.

 
My guess would be:

Col 1, Row 1 = Missile Length
Col 1, Row 2 = Wing Span
Col 1, Row 3 = Fin Span
Col 1, Row 3 = Missile Mass
Col 2, Row 1 = Tube Length
Col 2, Row 2 = Tube Width or Height (seems on the large side though but could include armoured bits maybe)
Col 2, Row 3 = Tube Width or Height (seems on the large side though but could include armoured bits maybe)
Col 2, Row 3 = Total Tube Mass inc. missile
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom