major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (01/25/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)
The Patriot Tactical Air Defense Missile System is a medium and
high altitude ground-to-air system. It's mobile, all-weather, with
a high-kill probability, fast reaction time, and multiple target
engagement capability. It's designed to operate in an intense
countermeasures environment. It was designed to replace the Hawk.
The combat element of the system is the fire unit which consists of
a radar set, an engagement control station, a power plant, and up to
eight remotely located launchers. The system is highly automated
combining high-speed digital processing with various software routines
to effectively control the battlespace. The single phased-array radar
provides for all tactical functions of airspace surveillance, target
detection and track, and support of missile guidance. It uses a
command guidance through midcourse, with terminal guidance provided by
"track-via-missile". As the missile nears its target, it informs the
ground-based radar of its location in relation to the target. Ground
based computers then direct the missile on a path to ensure a kill.
The only manned element of the fire unit during battle is the engagement
control station which provides human interface for control of automated
operations.
Each launcher contains four ready-to-fire missiles, sealed in canisters,
which also serve as shipping containers and launch tubes.
Product improvements include the antitactical ballistic missile
capability known as PAC-1 and PAC-2 which consisted of system radar
software modifications that enable the detection, tracking, and
interception of high-angle approach short-range ballistic missiles.
PAC-1 was completed in 1988 - PAC-2 is scheduled to be completed in 1991.
---------------------
Seven Patriot battalions were deployed to US Forces in Europe.
The first foreign sale of Patriot was to the Netherlands in 1984, with
delivery in March 1986. Patriot is also being deployed extensively
in Germany - delivered in December 1986. Japan is licensed to produce
Patriot with hardware delivered in June 1987. Italy will be receiving
Patriot in 1990s and will be producing some hardware.
----------------------
Origin: Raytheon
Dimensions: Length 209in, diameter 16in, span 36in
Launch weight: about 1,500lbs
Propulsion: Thiokol TX-486 single thrust motor
Range: about 48Km
Flight Speed: about Mach 3
Warhead: Conventional blast/frag
The US had hoped to buy 103 fire units and 6,200 missiles ($6 billion)
-----------------------
Sources:
US Army Weapons Systems Research, Development, and Acquisition (1986)
US Army Green Book (1990-1991)
The US War Machine, Rev (1988)
Mike Schmitt
We used to call air defenders "Cloud Busters", now we'll have to call
them "Scud Busters".
agates@mainz-emh2.army.mil (Allen Gates) (04/11/91)
From: Allen Gates <agates@mainz-emh2.army.mil> > Scott@xcf.berkeley.edu > "I saw a lot of Patriots explode on launch..." It has been ten years since I designed the canister/launcher production facility for MM in Baltimore, but if I remember correctly the end covers are removed at ignition by pressure built up within the container. Explode? As an old Ind Engr I vaguely remember that to get a sucker that matches the weight of a Patriot moving in excess of MACH 1 that close to the ground you require a lot of force. Controlled explosion maybe...plus sonic boom...loud. I do know a launch does get your attention. Al Gates
scott@xcf.berkeley.edu (04/12/91)
From: scott@xcf.berkeley.edu agates@mainz-emh2.army.mil (Allen Gates) writes: > It has been ten years since I designed the canister/launcher production > facility for MM in Baltimore, but if I remember correctly the end covers > are removed at ignition by pressure built up within the container. Explode? > I do know a launch does get your attention. No, I am aware of the fairly explosive launch mechanism. I mean EXPLODE. There is one shot in particular that I remember where the first round goes up with another closely following (common case). However, about a few hundred feet in the air, the follow-on missile detonated in a huge shower of flame and sparks (looked very much like a Fourth of July display), while the initial round continued to climb and impact on it's target. There were a lot of other shots where one of the two missiles would flail in a low tragectory and impact on the ground a few kilometers away. These shots were so common, I'm suprised nobody else seems to be aware of what I'm referring to. -- Scott Silvey scott@xcf.berkeley.edu
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (04/17/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) scott@xcf.berkeley.edu writes; [re: Patriot exploding during launch] > There is one shot in particular that I remember where the first round goes > up with another closely following (common case). However, about a few > hundred feet in the air, the follow-on missile detonated in a huge shower > of flame and sparks (looked very much like a Fourth of July display), while > the initial round continued to climb and impact on it's target. I saw ONE case similar to this that really bothers me. This was shown on CNN during a night intercept. The *first* Patriot exploded approximately four seconds after launch. A second was fired and flew through the overcast before disappearing from sight. CNN (and other networks that showed this footage) reported that the explosion was a direct hit on an incoming SCUD. Aviation Week reports that most intercepts occur approximately 24 seconds after launch. A direct hit only four seconds after launch would indicate an extremely late launch. There was also no visible material moving in a path to the ground as would have been taken by debris from a SCUD. Such debris was clearly visible following many other intercepts. The explosion pattern was quite large and bright, far more so than for any other intercept that I've seen. This one was the closest to the camera though. On the other hand, the explosion looked different in kind -- it looked like a large spherical fireworks display. My immediate impression was that it was very similar to the Titan IV solid rocket booster explosion at Vandenburg. There seemed to be much more material involved in this explosion than would be present with the detonation of a fragmentation warhead. Aviation Week's description of Patriot operation mentions that Patriots are launched in pairs. Even if the first missile destroys the target, the second will detonate agains the debris cloud. If the first missile was a direct hit, why did the second continue into the overcast? It would seem that either the first launch was a failure, or the second missile failed to detonate at the correct point. My conclusion is that what we saw was the catastrophic explosion of a Patriot booster. If the press was told that this was a direct hit, then they were being supplied with misinformation. This failure does not mean that the Patriot is not a good system, but simply that there are failures occurring that the military is not talking about, and that are significant to the operation of this weapon. I called AP and suggested that they follow up on this, but have not heard anything back from them. I would appreciate hearing about any articles about this case that anyone on the net has seen. -- Steve stevenp@decwrl.dec.com
PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai) (04/18/91)
From: PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai)
More Patriot stuff, with references:
>From the "Wall Street Journal", 15 APR 19, page A16
BEGIN QUOTE
Scud Score Card
Scud missiles fired by Iraq that reached populated areas
within Israel during the Gulf War:
Date Number of SCUDS Target Dead Wounded Apartments Damaged
Jan 18 6 Tel Aviv 0 68 1009
Jan 18 2 Haifa 0 0 100
Jan 19 5 Tel Aviv 0 47 1589
Jan 20 Patroits Deployed
Jan 22 1 Ramat Gan 3 96 1726
Jan 23 1 Haifa 0 0 900
Jan 25 6 Metro Tel Aviv 1 44 4156
Jan 25 1 Haifa 0 0 700
Feb 9 1 Metro Tel Aviv 0 27 1111
Feb 12 1 Metro Tel Aviv 0 7 436
Sources: Ma'ariv; Avner Cohen, MIT
" Squables between Israeli and American Patriot operators were part of
the reason for the damage, say officials involved. In one instance,
the order to fire wasn't given until it was too late to hit the SCUD.
In at least one other instance, the operators fired the Patriots
at such a low altitude that they followed a Scud part to the ground,
where they all exploded. The Patriot wasn't designed to protect cities
in Israel, says an Army spokesman, because it 'couldn't keep
debris from landing.' "
END OF QUOTE
The article goes on to discuss the political reasons behind the
pro-Patriot assessment of the Army and the anti-Patriot assessment of
the Israelies, including the Israeli Arrow project.
The scuds apparently all broke up on re-entry to the atmosphere
because they were not designed for as large a range as they were fired.
This made a more difficult job of target acquisition for the Patriots.
Due to this breaking up into several pieces, MIT engineering professor
Joseph Shea, formerly of Raytheon, says "The Scud turned out to be
a sophisticated target, almost by accident".
Many more anecdotal stories about the Patriots and Scuds in the article.
How about the idea of a missile that releases several decoys
to distract anti-missile defence on purpose?
--
Jon Papai
Papai@kcgl.eng.ohio-state.edudeichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (04/18/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai) writes: >Many more anecdotal stories about the Patriots and Scuds in the article. >How about the idea of a missile that releases several decoys >to distract anti-missile defence on purpose? Yeah, just what we need -- MIRVed SCUDs! If you're going to add the weight and space of decoys, why not just add more explosives? My not fragment them, making multiple targets -- EACH with the capacity to inflict damage. This line of logic is what led to the development of MIRVs (back in the days of good ol' fashioned exoatmospheric nuclear-tipped interceptors like the SPRINT and SPARTAN); except with ICBMs the decoys had a tendency to fall behind the more massive warhead during reentry due to air resistance. To counter this, the decoys became more and more similar to the warheads themselves, leading to what is regarded as the single most destabilizing technological development of the nuclear age. -shane [ 10 lines of ascii cartoon signature deleted. --CDR ]