This is probably better interpreted as "the US has the best defenses against ballistic missiles". The Patriot missile is proven to defeat Scud missiles in real combat, and THAAD is the most thoroughly tested system against long range ballistic missiles. Is that going to stop 5,000 ICBMs with penetration aids launched against the US? Almost certainly not, and I don't think the author meant it that way.
"The Patriot missile is proven to defeat Scud missiles in real combat" - no it isn't. It quite notoriously mostly failed to intercept Scud missiles in real combat. It has been heavily upgraded since and modern Patriot batteries would likely succeed at intercepting Scud missiles, but this hasn't been proven in real combat.
This was IIRC an issue back in 1990s due to how the system calculated time. So operation of a system continuously for more than 20 hours would cause the system to become ineffective until it was rebooted.
Thanks in major part to Israel, modern patriot systems have been rigorously tested via fire. To equate the current systems to the ones from 30 years ago is very disingenuous.
Patriot missile batteries in Ukraine have so far successfully intercepted all Khinzal Hyper-sonic Missiles launched by Russia. (At least, the ones that entered their Area of Operation)
The comment I replied to specifically said "The Patriot missile is proven to defeat Scud missiles in real combat". That is a false claim, as I asserted, and none of what you mention says anything about defeating Scud missiles in real combat.
Yes - best against moderately complex threats in limited numbers. For reference Recent SM6 test (FTM33) shot down 1 of 2 short range ballistic missiles with 4 interceptors in what's described as "most complex" test so far, but "most complex" hasn't hinted at dealing with anything like counter measures. Reality is, even US missile defense also haven't been seriously stress tested.
"However, according to Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at CNS, the Saudis failed to intercept the missiles following a malfunction of the MIM-104 Patriot system.[3] One video appeared to show a Patriot missile launch on Sunday night go rapidly wrong, with the missile changing course midair, crashing into a neighborhood in Riyadh and exploding. Another appeared to detonate shortly after being launched in the Saudi capital. "
Pretty much the same failure mode as 30 years ago I would say, so maybe those ancient documents are still relevant today.
We’re watching a hot war where old PATRIOT batteries are downing Russia’s newest missiles. Given that context, this looks more like user error by the Saudis than any shortcomings of the system.
Also a poor example. The Saudi's are infamous for extremely poor training and readiness in there military forces. This is how they lost Abrams tanks in Yemen in a way that would never happen to US forces.
What are you talking about? Russia launched Kinzhal missiles as part of a larger saturation attack on Kyiv earlier this month and they were all successfully intercepted by the US Patriot system, operated by Ukraine. One piece of debris hit a Patriot radar, but no systems were lost.[1][2]
The Russians also arrested the scientists who helped develop the Kinzhal and charged them with treason due to the apparent failure during this attack.[3] Not something you usually do if your weapon system is successful.
You're wrong on that second part. The arrests happened before the strike. I'm disappointed how many media outlets obscured this point in favor of the narrative.
He's wrong on all parts. The arrests were about the technology being leaked to the Chinese, the "kinzhal missile" the notoriously unreliable Klitschko is proudly standing next to in the NBC photos he linked to is a BETAB 500.
The Ukrainian air force itself even denied that any Kinzhals had been shot down:
Your source is from May 5th. Subsequent Kinzhals were confirmed shot down much more recently.
> On May 4, 2023, Ukraine used a U.S.-supplied Patriot battery to down a Russian Kinzhal missile, which Russian President Vladimir Putin had announced in 2018 was a “hypersonic” weapon that could overcome all existing air defense systems. Russia’s state news agency tried to maintain this claim by arguing that the shootdown was a fake report. Yet just 12 days afterward, Ukraine shot down six Kinzhals [1] that Russia fired in an assault on Kyiv. Both shootdowns have been verified by U.S. government sources.[2]
Over a dozen scientists were arrested at various times in the past year, but three additional scientists were arrested and charged with treason this month after the failed attack. Using some critical thinking, we can see how this was a direct reaction to the failure of the Kinzhal missiles to impact targets.
Additionally, an open letter from the Russian scientific community was published strongly denouncing these arrests this month. The "media" isn't being misleading - they are reporting the events as they are happening.
Surely Ukraine, being in the middle of a war, would have no incentive to lie for propaganda purposes. As the other commenter pointed out they were arrested way earlier and the reason was because they sold secrets to China not because of any failure of the project.
The volley was fired at a massed coordinated strike of 6 Kinzhals, 9 Kalibr cruise missiles, and 3 Iskander ballistic missiles all arriving at the same time. All missiles were intercepted but one managed to incapacitate a single Patriot launcher after being intercepted (unclear if there was an actual detonation). A Patriot battery consists of multiple dispersed launchers, radar, and control units. It's hard to imagine better performance than this for an air defense system tasked with protecting a capital city.
The US has a variable capacity for Patriot missile manufacturing but its baseline far exceeds the 300 missiles per year that you quoted.
There was a clear large explosion on the ground while the Patriot was no longer intercepting. This wasn't just debris getting through.
That said, it's not necessarily due to failure to intercept that this happened - we have video of 30 interceptors being launched in rapid succession, and it's likely all 32 interceptors in the battery had been launched and expended when the final strike and explosion happened. So it's more of a successful saturation attack than an interception failure.
Yet they're not that much better. Per Wikipedia (I have edited out successful intercepts!):
Syrian civil war (2014–)
{...}
In July 2016, two Israeli Patriot missiles missed an incoming drone launched from Syria, according to Russian media.
Israeli Air Defence Command fired two Patriot missiles, but they did not manage to destroy the target. Russia Today stated that the drone penetrated four kilometers into Israeli airspace, and then flew back into Syria.
In June 2018, a single Israeli Patriot missile was fired toward a drone which was approaching Israel from Syria. The missile missed its target, and the drone turned back to Syria.
Service with Saudi Arabia
In March 2018, another missile, apparently fired from Yemen, was intercepted by a Patriot missile over Riyadh. Missile experts via news agencies cast doubt on the effectiveness of the Saudi Arabian Patriot defense. According to videos, one interceptor exploded just after launch and another did a "U turn" midair toward Riyadh.
In September 2019, the six battalions of Patriot missile defense systems owned by Saudi Arabia failed to protect its oil facilities from attacks by multiple drones and suspected cruise missiles during the Abqaiq–Khurais attack.
This is a weird set of evidence to pull out when there's a war going on in Europe where the interception rate of Kinzhal missiles went from 0% to 100% under a barrage attack, specifically after the Patriot missile system was installed (and in said barrage where the Patriot installation itself was specifically targeted in essentially the most optimum possible attack scenario).
The salient point about old news about the Patriot system is not about technical capabilities, but about how, years ago, it was first reported as being effective and then as not so effective.
It could be completely different technology today, but still have the same lack of accurate reporting.
How would we know? "Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say"
I think it's important to bear in mind that the Saudi defense forces for decades have been show forces; they buy expensive gear, then fail to maintain and train on it.
Yes, so I've read but still the Patriot they lost to a Houthi drone strike was recently bought from Greece, so I think it was fairly new and well maintained.
I see. We do have good systems, but too few to be of practical relevance in most threat situations.
The North Korea case shows that the step from having one missile to having 100 is extremely short compared to going from having no missiles to having one missile.
I don't think that's a consensus view? Jeffrey Lewis says the opposite,
- "The point is that North Korea is clearly aimed at overwhelming the US missile defense system in Alaska... At that cost, I am pretty sure North Korea can add warheads faster than we can add interceptors."
> even if they got one through, wouldn't North Korea basically be a wasteland 30 minutes later
The idea is if to have a credible threat to keep us from acting first, as well as giving many countries a vested interest in the stability of the regime: if the Kims go, North Korea goes, and so does somebody else.
Congratz, you grasped the facet of MAD that is unacceptable losses - for the US a single warhead getting through is too high a price to destroy pretty much anyone.
Cost of individual military items is often clouded by the need to amortize development cost over a relatively small production run. Making an additional missile beyond the contracted quantity does not cost $5m.
