Talk:MIM-104 Patriot

Patriot Success Rate

A brief explanation of the differing "success rates" of the system The outgoing to incoming missile count is not 1 to 1. If your job is to defend an area against a threat (aircraft or missile) you’re not just going to fire one shot. At the speeds that missiles travel if the first misses you may not get a second chance. During the war an average of 4 patriots were fired at every scud. Even if every scud is destroyed, a 100% kill rate, the accuracy is only 25%. In addition the patriots used in the first gulf were proximity devices (go up next to the target and explode). Sometimes the scud warhead would survive and fall into populated or troop areas. Concerned at the threat of chemical or bio agents additional missiles were fired at the falling warhead (a much smaller radar target) this additionally lowers the accuracy. --Mitrebox 23:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

---

If you fire four Patriots, and the first one kills the Scud so the other 3 have nothing to do, I consider that 100% accuracy and 300% overkill. But if the first 3 miss and the 4th finally takes out the Scud, then yes, you're down to a 25% accuracy figure. --68.43.149.99 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

Standardise on the use of scud, Scud or SCUD. The report on the Dhuran error I just read used "Scud".

As well as correcting typos (many of which I introduced last edit!)... I've converted all the scud/SCUD to Scud. I'm not sure whether Scud or SCUD is correct, but at least it's consistent now. Motor 12:03, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Section: Psychological effects of the system This small section seems very weak.

Section: Usage during the 2003 invasion of Iraq The words "it was claimed" are not very clear about who made this claim

Section: Patriot upgrades

As of 2002, Israel currently uses the Patriot as part of a two-tier anti-ballistic missile defense system, with the Arrow missile in the role of high-altitude interceptor and the Patriot for point defense. Patriots are deployed around Israel's nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons assembly point at Dimona.

Is this still true? Motor 17:28, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Section The Patriot Guided Missile "There are a total of eight different variants of Patriot missiles: Standard, ASOJ/SOJC, PAC-2, PAC-2 GEM, GEM/C, GEM/T (or GEM+), and PAC-3" There's a ninth variant called the Analog, which preceded the Digital missile. Both are commonly referred to as Standard. The Analog missile has only been in the US inventory, but is no longer in use. The Digital missile is still in use outside of the US. The PAC-2 is usually referred to as ATM (anti tactical missile) and the PAC-2 GEM just as GEM.--jirnsum 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming

acronym or backronym? Ojw 15:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Formerly a member of the guards only PATRIOT unit (1-203rd ADA) I could find no defeiniton of the PATRIOT even though the caps suggested it as an acronym. Now that the unit has "transitioned" I found some documents made by the contractor, raytheon, naming it the Phased Array, Rapid Interception Of Target. That still doesn't answer the question however. --mitrebox 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Raytheon document is incorrect. The correct acronym reads: Phased Array Tracking Radar Intercept On Target which is basically a description of how the missile is guided into the target--User: jirnsumjirnsum

Purpose of attacking israel

If Israel counter-attacked I don't think saddam thought it would cause the arab members of the coalition to suddenly switch side and ally with Iraq, I think he just wanted them to withdraw which would cause the allies to lose crucial support.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 11:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

PATRIOT will not be replaced by MEADS

As of Nov 05, the plan is that both will operate on the same battlefield along with THAAD until at least 2030, or until we get lasers or something like that. MEADS is not designed to replace PATRIOT, especially in a tactical sense.

A.R. 12:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that MEADS and PATRIOT will work together, but isn't the THAAD Project dead?--BohicaTwentyTwo 17:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. As of Jan 05 THAAD is scheduled for delivery to the Army sometime in 2009. In Feb 05 there is a THAAD live fire scheduled at WSMR. Also, who is under the impression that the Silkworm incident was a friendly SAM? No analysis of the incident, classified or not, has ever come to that conclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talk • contribs) .

Usage during Operation "Iraqi Freedom" of 2003

This section is not appropriately sourced. I deleted a sentence claiming the missile was a "tremendous success" in the most recent war. This depends on ones perspective, and lacked any sourcing. Given prior lies and exagerations told about this weapon by Raytheon and other governmental officials, claims about this should be sourced. Whitfield Larrabee 04:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The lack of sourcing on this section suggests original research by this editor. I am going to place the lable {{original research}} on this section if it remains this way because it appears to be simply the opinions of the editor.--Whitfield Larrabee 04:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot_Report_Summary.pdf

This report, in fact, uses the phrase "substantial success". It was not difficult to find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talk • contribs) .

I added a reference for PAC-3 success during OIF. I agree a source was needed. I also agree if the source doesn't say "tremendous success", that should be removed. In fact any word like "tremendous", "fantastic", "horrible", are generally questionable and not encyclopedic in tone. From that standpoint alone the word was questionable.

However, note we are not cynical, suspicious investigative reporters. Encyclopedias don't emphasize "Crossfire"-style pro/con positions within the article. Our primary task is simply describing the stated topic. Doing so does not equate to taking a pro or con position on that. E.g, describing in detail evolution or abortion does not constitute taking a position on the issues. We can get ideas for appropriate tone and wording by comparing the tone and content in other encyclopedias for similar material. They don't devote large amounts of space to "some say this, but others say that". They primarily describe the stated topic, and accept official sources of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so our overall approach should be similar. Joema 21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"fratricide," in U.S. usage generally refers to the destruction of one weapon by another (i.e. an incoming RV is destroyed by a previous nuclear detonation). Perhaps the "fratricide" references should be changed to "friendly fire incident" or something of the like.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeryz (talk • contribs) .

I've never heard that definition before, US or otherwise. Fratricide refers to blue-on-blue / friendly fire incidents. wiktionary:fratricide calls it The killing of one's brother (or sister). I'd like to hear who is calling fratricide by that definition, it certainly can't be the US military. See also:Fratricide: Can It Be Stopped? and FRATRICIDE: REDUCING SELF-INFLICTED LOSSES, both are US Military docs republished on globalsecurity.org and both use fratricide to refer to "friendly-fire". --Dual Freq 22:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The human blue-on-blue definition seems the most common, therefore usage in the article seems appropriate. Less commonly in strategic warefare, fratricide can also refer to mutual self-destruction of one side's munitions, esp regarding nuclear warheads. One MX missile basing scheme (dense pack) was designed around this:

• [1]
• [2] Joema 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Upgrade" section redone

I completely redid the "upgrade" section. It is correct now. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks so much for your knowledgeable, detailed contributions. It is greatly appreciated. Joema 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Made article much more thorough. Described system equipment in much greater detail and edited some incorrect information.

Whew, that took a while. This article is now factually correct, within the limits of security classifications. Also added plenty of additional information on the Patriot equipment and its engagement procedures.

I'm sure there are some typos and poor wordings in there, so have at it.

Duckhunter6424 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the time and effort. Wikipedia and all readers will benefit. If only all editors were equally focused on substantive contributions. Joema 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

S-300/400..."superior"?

Uh...yeah. I don't even know where to start with that. Editing back to the way it was before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.178.6.3 (talk • contribs) .

Most expensive interceptor statement

I removed this statement for two reasons: (1) cannot possibly be true (2) citation needed to corroborate: "(and the most expensive, at over $3 million each - including develpoment costs- or a missile unit cost of approximately 1.5 milion)"

It's virtually certain the Nike Sprint and Spartan missiles were much more expensive than Patriot, esp if including development costs. The currently operational US National Missile Defense GMD missiles are more expensive without a doubt. Re current Tactical ballistic missile interceptors, I think the Navy SM-3 costs over $3 million each. Joema 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PATRIOT vs. Patriot

At what point should we use "PATRIOT" and at what should we use "Patriot"? --Kitabparast 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

SA-6

Got the SA-6 info right of the cited reference, what' the problem, and why didn't you fix it instead of reverting it?? Isn't the point that the SA-6 is a lot more mobile?? --matador300 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make the change in question, but isn't the SA-6 more comparable to Hawk than Patriot? Wouldn't it be better to compare it with a similar system than with an older system? It might be like comparing the weight of an M1 with the weight of a T-62. Just a thought, no need to mix apples and oranges and confuse people who might not know the difference. --Dual Freq 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why anything on the SA-6 needs to be in the article. It is simply not in any way similar to Patriot. Perhaps if someone wants to post the march order/emplacement data for the S-300/400, that would be relevant, but the comparison to the SA-6 is pointless and confusing, not to mention poorly written.--Duckhunter6424 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Countries that have Patriot in use

there seems to be some confusion about whether or not South Korea uses the PATRIOT Missile. At the moment, they do not. They are negotiating buying PAC-3 missiles from the US, but the do not have the system in use right now. According to Duckhunter6424 "South Korea has operated Patriot for many years. They are currently negotiating for PAC-3 systems (or more PAC-2 interceptors, one or the othe).". Look [here] for a short article on their efforts to procure the system. The [Raytheon product page] doesn't list Spain as a customer, but this is probably because they've only entered the program last year. jirnsum 18:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Future

Replaced: Missile Section Enhancement with Missile Segment Enhancement, which is the correct name source

Deleted the line "The upgrade is similar to the GEM+T/C upgrade, in that it consists of a body redesign and subsequent replacement of the PAC-3 interceptor. " The GEM+T/C upgrade is completely different than the MSE upgrade. The next line of the article even illustrates this: "The upgrade includes a new fin design and a new, more powerful rocket motor". The GEM+T/C upgrade involves upgrading of the forebody internal systems, not the rocket motor, nor the aerodynamic controls. Also I doubt the MSE will replace the Baseline and CRI missiles in the stockpile: they will be added to them. jirnsum 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)