SHOULD THE HELLENIC AIR FORCE (HAF) OPT FOR ADDITIONAL PATRIOT PACIII?

It was an abject failure insofar as missile defense was concerned. It failed to destroy the warheads, which is what a missile defense system has to do.

Thanks for the answer SOC

When I replied to your statement that the Russian missile systems were far superior to the American systems, I wasn’t trying to prove that you couldn’t substantiate this statement, I was more interested in finding out ‘how’ you normally substantiate this statement.

My point being, that I always thought the Patriot was in actual fact quite successful in actually ‘reaching’ Saddam’s SCUDs, only to have its job complicated by the fact that most of the SCUDs fired had their booster/rocket stage still attached to the actual warhead even in the final terminal stage of its trajectory, causing the missile to tumble and disintegrate, while confusing the Patriot system’s fire control computer. This freak scenario, after all, couldn’t have been predicted by the Patriot’s designers – or for that matter by the designers of the S-300. Why shouldn’t the S-300’s FCS also have been ‘confused’ in similar circumstances?

Or is the story/excuse of the disintegrating SCUDs just a myth?

Theoretically, but not necessarily. Combat and peacetime are two different things.

Oh, I know that there’s a big difference between combat and peacetime, it’s just that historically it’s always been found to be a greater difference for guided weapons than it has been for actual combat aircraft. Although I admit that while this was certainly true for the Vietnam war, it may be less true for more contemporary missile designs.

Patriot proved to be an abject failure in DESERT STORM as a SCUD interceptor. That is partly why PAC-3 was designed. Just because a system has seen combat doesn’t make it better or worse than anything else either. By that logic the F-22A is not the world’s preeminent air defense aircraft. Russian AD systems are robust, capable, and very hard nowadays to interfere with. If I was throwing up an AD screen, Patriot and the rest of the Western SAMs would be left out. The only truly exceptional Western SAM is, after all, the SM-3.

What are your thoughts on THAAD and SM-2 Block IV / SM-6?

If it can demonstrate this ability in training in peacetime, there is no reason why it can’t do this in war.

Theoretically, but not necessarily. Combat and peacetime are two different things.

But with guided munitions it’s a different story. Usually they have to undergo real combat experience in order to find out the hidden bugs and loopholes in its performance. There have been many guided missiles, especially anti-aircraft missiles, which seemed promising enough during peacetime in tests and training against drones etc., but which failed to do their job when first introduced into battle and had to undergo serious reworking over a period of time to make them genuinely combat capable. Think of the AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-7 Sparrow, think of all those SAMs that had to be fired for every single kill attained.

AIM-4 and AIM-7 had issues because they were being employed outside their prescribed operating parameters. SAMs had issues because they were relatively simple weapons that ended up not being that hard to fool back then.

If SOC’s supposition that the original Patriot was in some respects an ‘abject failure’ (although some informed people might disagree) well then this just supports the conclusion above;

It was an abject failure insofar as missile defense was concerned. It failed to destroy the warheads, which is what a missile defense system has to do.

The original Patriot was tested in actual combat, was found wanting, was re-worked and redesigned as the PAC-3, used in combat again, and thereafter found to be far more successful.

PAC-3 is a smaller, redesigned, reduced capability system (15-22 km range) developed specifically with TBMs in mind thanks to the fact that the Patriot was a failure at killing them in DESERT STORM.

SOC, do you think that the S-300 would have been more successful in the Persian Gulf in 1991, if so, why?

Exponentially so. S-300 was designed with TBMs in mind from the outset and had the capability to effectively deal with them embedded in the early models.

That is partly why PAC-3 was designed. Just because a system has seen combat doesn’t make it better or worse than anything else either. By that logic the F-22A is not the world’s preeminent air defense aircraft.

A flawed analogy. It’s far easier to assess the overall potential performance of a war plane in peacetime than it is for a guided missile and no one has any doubts that the latest combat aircraft like the F-22 and Su-34 can fulfill the tasks that they were created for. If it can demonstrate this ability in training in peacetime, there is no reason why it can’t do this in war.

But with guided munitions it’s a different story. Usually they have to undergo real combat experience in order to find out the hidden bugs and loopholes in its performance. There have been many guided missiles, especially anti-aircraft missiles, which seemed promising enough during peacetime in tests and training against drones etc., but which failed to do their job when first introduced into battle and had to undergo serious reworking over a period of time to make them genuinely combat capable. Think of the AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-7 Sparrow, think of all those SAMs that had to be fired for every single kill attained.

If SOC’s supposition that the original Patriot was in some respects an ‘abject failure’ (although some informed people might disagree) well then this just supports the conclusion above; The original Patriot was tested in actual combat, was found wanting, was re-worked and redesigned as the PAC-3, used in combat again, and thereafter found to be far more successful.

A normal process in the design and development of any high technology product – and not just in the military field either. The only anti- ballistic missile interceptor to undergo this process to date, is the Patriot series,

SOC, do you think that the S-300 would have been more successful in the Persian Gulf in 1991, if so, why?

Here are some pictures of the TOR-M1 in Cyprian Colours during a recent day / night exercise. 😎

All pictures are scanned from a local Greek defence magazine by others, I’m not sure which magazine published them.

HELLO ALEPOU. PICS COME FROM THE JULY 2006’s ISSUE OF THE HELLENIC DEFENCE & SECURITY MAGAZINE (PERIODIKO ELLHNIKH AMYNA&ASFALEIA). See pages 82-93…

Here are some pictures of the TOR-M1 in Cyprian Colours during a recent day / night exercise. 😎

All pictures are scanned from a local Greek defence magazine by others, I’m not sure which magazine published them.

Arrow II is decent enough, but the S-300V (which would currently be the S-300VM/Antey-2500 on the market) is a superior system if you ask me, due in no small part to its ability to engage multiple types of targets.

That settles it then, the S-400 it should be!

What I have seen says that the S-500 is an effort to create a kind of ultimate AD/ABM system by using both the S-400 and the S-300VM componants and to replace both, but I havnt checked up in a while so I may be wrong.

IF YOU ASK ME I AM ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE RUSSIAN SYSTEM! YET, SHOULD BE THE ARROW II OF THE ISRAELIES BE AN OPTION AT ALL HERE?

Greek S-300PMU-1 systems are based on Crete, they were never delivered to Cyprus. The Greek Cypriots had ordered them, absurdly believing that they could defend themselves in the manner that they saw fit, but they were delivered to Crete instead after some people complained that a SAM system made them feel insecure. Greece provided some Tor systems to make up for the loss.

The S-400 is the way to go for Greece. It’s far more capable than the PAC-3, and you can integrate it into a large network with existing Tor, Osa, and S-300PMU-1 systems. Even with the Tors on Cyprus :diablo: Plus, there’s no issue with having to turn to Russian systems later on down the line because the USA won’t give you any spare parts (which is wholly within the rights of America, but as Greece, what do you care, you should be thinking of yourself). Russians make hands down the best air defense systems in the world, and the margin is really not that close.

Also, if I remember right, I believe the S-500 is a S-300V follow-on ATBM system.

That settles it then, the S-400 it should be!

What I have seen says that the S-500 is an effort to create a kind of ultimate AD/ABM system by using both the S-400 and the S-300VM componants and to replace both, but I havnt checked up in a while so I may be wrong.

I could be wrong but wasn’t the S-300 system purchased by the Greek Cypriat government but then the system had to be based on the Greek mainland to avoid a war with Turkey. If I remember correctly among other things the Turkish government had issues with the fact that the system could track and engage targets in Turkey.

Didn’t the Russians sail the Kuznetsov and a battle group in the med as a show of force to ensure the delivery went ahead.

THE CYPRIAN GOVERMENT HAS EXPRESSED ITS INTEREST FOR THE S-300 PMU1 (SA-10D GRUMBLE) SYSTEM BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 1996. THIS INTEREST LED IN AN AGGREMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO BATTERIES IN JANUARY OF 1997. ON JULY OF 1998 THERE WAS A TEST FIRE OF THE SYSTEM IN THE AREA OF ASTRACHAN (perhaps my spelling here is incorrect). ON DECEMBER OF THE SAME YEAR, AFTER A MARATHON OF FOREIGN PRESSURE AND UNDER THE THREAT OF USING FORCE BY THE TURKISH SIDE, BOTH THE GREEK AND THE CYPRIAN GOVERNMENT, DECIDED THAT THE SYSTEM WOULD BE SET UP AT A LOCATION IN GREECE. FEW MONTHS LATER ON MARCH OF 1999, THE FIRST UNITS OF THE SYSTEM ARRIVED IN THE ISLAND OF CRETE, AT THE CITY OF HERAKLION AND THE 126 COMBAT GROUP FROM WHERE THEY WERE MOVED TO TYMPAKI, WHERE ON THE MAY OF 1999 THE 138 COMBAT GROUP WAS FORMED. THE 138 COMBAT GROUP IS DIVIDED IN TWO SQUADRONS: THE 11TH AND THE 12TH (THE LATEST IS BASED AT HERAKLION SINCE THE SUMMER OF 2004, AT THE 126 COMBAT GROUP). EACH SQUADRON IS GRANTED TWO TOR-M1 (SA-15 GAUNTLET) SHORAD SYSTEMS FOR EXTRA FORCE PROTECTION. THE CYPRIAN REPUBLIC, HAS ALSO RECEIVED SIX TOR-M1 SYSTEMS FOR ITS NATIONAL GUARD. THE CYPRIOTS, ALSO OPERATE BUK-1 (SA-11 GADFLY) SYSTEMS.

Patriot proved to be an abject failure in DESERT STORM as a SCUD interceptor. That is partly why PAC-3 was designed. Just because a system has seen combat doesn’t make it better or worse than anything else either. By that logic the F-22A is not the world’s preeminent air defense aircraft. Russian AD systems are robust, capable, and very hard nowadays to interfere with. If I was throwing up an AD screen, Patriot and the rest of the Western SAMs would be left out. The only truly exceptional Western SAM is, after all, the SM-3.

Russians make hands down the best air defense systems in the world, and the margin is really not that close.

Why do you say that?

The Patriot system, after all, has been combat tested in two Gulf wars against high altitude mach 6 targets with pretty successful results in both wars.

The S-300/S-400 hasn’t been used in combat at all, if I do rightly recall.

Greek S-300PMU-1 systems are based on Crete, they were never delivered to Cyprus. The Greek Cypriots had ordered them, absurdly believing that they could defend themselves in the manner that they saw fit, but they were delivered to Crete instead after some people complained that a SAM system made them feel insecure. Greece provided some Tor systems to make up for the loss.

The S-400 is the way to go for Greece. It’s far more capable than the PAC-3, and you can integrate it into a large network with existing Tor, Osa, and S-300PMU-1 systems. Even with the Tors on Cyprus :diablo: Plus, there’s no issue with having to turn to Russian systems later on down the line because the USA won’t give you any spare parts (which is wholly within the rights of America, but as Greece, what do you care, you should be thinking of yourself). Russians make hands down the best air defense systems in the world, and the margin is really not that close.

Also, if I remember right, I believe the S-500 is a S-300V follow-on ATBM system.

I could be wrong but wasn’t the S-300 system purchased by the Greek Cypriat government but then the system had to be based on the Greek mainland to avoid a war with Turkey. If I remember correctly among other things the Turkish government had issues with the fact that the system could track and engage targets in Turkey.

Didn’t the Russians sail the Kuznetsov and a battle group in the med as a show of force to ensure the delivery went ahead.

The Greeks use the S-300 system. They were stationed on Cyprus but it nearly lead to a conflict with Turkey. So they had to move them to Crete. If they were to buy the S-400 I bet you they wouldn’t station them on Cyprus. Cyprus might get some Tor-M1s or some other goodies?

Does anyone know what AD missiles Turkey has?

The S-400 is a fantastic systems the specs are great. With the new 9M96E2 missile a single S-300/400 launcher vehicle can carry 16 120km range missiles with very high probability of intercept. Te HAF couldnt go wrong either way both systems are great but the S-400 probably has the edge. Not only that but the Russians are now working on an S-500 system whic seeks to create a unified system developed from elements of both the S-400 and the Antey-2500, already posessing the S-400 would enable an easy transition to the new system in the future.

Does Greece already operate the S-300? becouse if so the S-400 is very compatible with that system.

According to articles published in local Defence Press, there is a strong possibility that Greece will add two more Patriot Pac3 batteries to its already six existeed ones, within the years to come. If that scenario isn’t that far away from becoming real then why shouldn’t Greece consider the prospect of purchasing two new Russian S-400 or perhaps, two Israeli Arrow II instead? Please, spare few moments and leave your comment.

I think S-400 would be a best choice, because there won’t be any problems to give them to Cyprus.