Ukrainian Patriot SAM operational/technical discussions

No. US doesn’t have enough as it is. Witness the base in Iraq that had no SAMs during the Iranian ballistic missile attack. I believe MIM-104s were there in previous Sat footage complete with aerostat but were moved, probably to KSA after the Iranians attacked there.
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if we'll see Ukraine getting any Patriot batteries?
Click to expand...
As of last week, NASAMS is approved and in the pipeline; Patriot is being considered, but there's too much demand from other allies that we asked to send their S300s and Buks to Ukraine, plus Taiwan, and too little supply.

Advanced anti-aircraft weapons head to Ukraine in 2 months

The Pentagon will deliver the first two advanced NASAMS anti-aircraft systems to Ukraine in the next two months, providing Kyiv with a weapon that it has pressed for since earlier this year.
apnews.com

U.S. has not yet delivered NASAMS air defenses to Ukraine -Pentagon

The United States will not start delivering sophisticated NASAMS air defenses to Ukraine for another two months or so, the Pentagon said on Tuesday, disputing reports suggesting Ukraine had already received them.
www.reuters.com

Plus the S300s and Buks are doing the job adequately now against aircraft, and NASAMS is intended to improve protection against cruise missiles. So, unless Russia upgrades its threat, there may not be a need for Patriots in Ukraine. (Or maybe anywhere in Europe for at least a while...which would be good news for Taiwan.)
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
TinWing said:
The old NATO codes have largely fallen out of common usage.
Click to expand...
They are still in use as far as I know.
Click to expand...

DIA SA-x designators are a bit anachronistic in a world where NATO routinely operates S-300PMU1 and S-400, to say the least. They're also pretty inaccurate and weird, as they only reflect differences that the DIA has observed rather than true technical divergence. It's easier to use the actual designations, either GRAU or service system index. It's more accurate.

A Slovakian colonel in 2005 isn't going to know what an "SA-10F" is after all. He might know what a "Grumble" is though.
 
Last edited:
TinWing said:
NMaude said:
JWilly said:
but there's too much demand from other allies that we asked to send their S300s and Buks to Ukraine
Click to expand...

You mean their Sa-10, SA-12, SA-20 and SA-17s?
Click to expand...
The old NATO codes have largely fallen out of common usage.
Click to expand...
They are also a product of when much of the Soviet system was cooked in secrecy. Since the early 1990s that is less the case with actual Soviet/Russian designations know. Thus use the act designation rather than a coded one.
 
NMaude said:
Kat Tsun said:
A Slovakian colonel in 2005 isn't going to know what an "SA-10F" is after all.
Click to expand...

Since Slovakia is part of NATO they'd be familiar with NATO designations.
Click to expand...

Why? All their manuals would refer to things in Soviet indices.

A Slovakian colonel in charge of a missile battery in 2004, and trained during Soviet times, would just call it an S-300PMU...

There's a reason Missile Weapons and Main Artillery Directorate designations have become more known in the Western world and it isn't because the DIA has stopped inventing designations for observed combat systems it sees in photographs. They still do that, after all, DIA designations just reflect observable exterior differences. GURVO indices tell you more important things than exterior differences.

DIA designations just exist because the DIA didn't have a Soviet Jane's to consult. The USSR did so it didn't have to invent codenames.

The only time I've ever considered the SA-n designations useful in practical terms is in space-limited things like ALR-56 where a little caret with a two digit number under it indicating the missile system in question. That isn't their purpose, of course, it's just a happy coincidence.
 
Last edited:
After Patriot downs Russian missile, MDA wants to 'build out' counter-hypersonic capability
By Jason Sherman/ Inside Defense / May 10, 2023

The Missile Defense Agency is publicly calling on the Army to collaborate on improving Patriot to give land forces protection from maneuvering hypersonic weapons after Ukraine -- to the evident surprise of Defense Department leaders -- debuted the U.S.-developed air and missile defense system by intercepting a Russian hypersonic missile. MDA Director Vice Adm. Jon Hill -- who previously stated the only counter-hypersonic capability in the U.S. missile defense inventory was the SM-6
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would that be surprising to anyone? Patriot has shot down maneuvering targets similar to Kinzhal in many tests. The current target used to represent weapons like Kinzhal is a surplus ATACMS on a Mk 70 booster, which possesses similar burnout velocity and maneuverability.

Kinzhal isn't even hypersonic at the terminal phase, the maneuvering it performs in the late midcourse phase bleeds substantial energy.
 
totallyaverage said:
Why would that be surprising to anyone? Patriot has shot down maneuvering targets similar to Kinzhal in many tests. The current target used to represent weapons like Kinzhal is a surplus ATACMS on a Mk 70 booster, which possesses similar burnout velocity and maneuverability.

Kinzhal isn't even hypersonic at the terminal phase, the maneuvering it performs in the late midcourse phase bleeds substantial energy.
Click to expand...
What impressed me was the hole in the warhead casing from a warhead fragment from a PAC-2.
 

Военный Осведомитель

❗️Кадры возможного прилета ракеты по позиции украинского ПВО в Киеве. На видео можно заметить крайне плотную работу батарей американского ЗРК MIM-104 Patriot, и как только у ЗРК кончаются ракеты, на месте, откуда производились пуски, происходит мощный взрыв. @milinfolive
t.me
Is there a way to check if the system used in the video above is actually Patriot?
 
sferrin said:
totallyaverage said:
Why would that be surprising to anyone? Patriot has shot down maneuvering targets similar to Kinzhal in many tests. The current target used to represent weapons like Kinzhal is a surplus ATACMS on a Mk 70 booster, which possesses similar burnout velocity and maneuverability.

Kinzhal isn't even hypersonic at the terminal phase, the maneuvering it performs in the late midcourse phase bleeds substantial energy.
Click to expand...
What impressed me was the hole in the warhead casing from a warhead fragment from a PAC-2.
Click to expand...
Hypersonic missile hit by hypersonic fragments. The compounded energy of that hit must have been something.
 
jeffb said:
LOL. Yeah right.

View: https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1658281863327129601?s=20
Click to expand...
Look at the timer appear under the green bars at the end, that is the start of another launch, where the video was edited. A missile trace starts to emerge above the building and is then rewound. ;)
 
Last edited:
I watched the original Livestream while it was still up on Youtube, the Ukrainians had it taken down for opsec reasons (go figure). This video shows all the launches from the AD battery, 30 missiles in about 2 minutes. There's one launch towards the end that might be something else (based on the color of the exhaust plume). 6 minutes has been cut out between the last missile fired and the final explosion.
 
 
Forest Green said:
jeffb said:
LOL. Yeah right.

View: https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1658281863327129601?s=20
Click to expand...
Look at the timer appear under the green bars at the end, that is the start of another launch, where the video was edited. A missile trace starts to emerge above the building and is then rewound. ;)
Click to expand...
Not to mention that at worse?

Either the Radar or Control van dead for that system.

And the launcherz been tied to into the other .

Cause the Kinzhal does not have the warhead to detele all 12 pieces of that Patriot that is each over 50 meters apart if not more. The entire system is basically wireless with each part using datalinks to control every thing.

Meaning you can get some massive spread between pieces.

To the part where to take it out in oneshot you basically need a nuke to do so.
 
Last edited:
jeffb said:
I watched the original Livestream while it was still up on Youtube, the Ukrainians had it taken down for opsec reasons (go figure). This video shows all the launches from the AD battery, 30 missiles in about 2 minutes. There's one launch towards the end that might be something else (based on the color of the exhaust plume). 6 minutes has been cut out between the last missile fired and the final explosion.
Click to expand...
Probably because it gives away the position of the launcher. It looks like it's been fiddled anyway, it could be another launch.
 
Don't expect to see any more Kyiv (or other Ukrainian city) livefeeds from here out.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
jeffb said:
I watched the original Livestream while it was still up on Youtube, the Ukrainians had it taken down for opsec reasons (go figure). This video shows all the launches from the AD battery, 30 missiles in about 2 minutes. There's one launch towards the end that might be something else (based on the color of the exhaust plume). 6 minutes has been cut out between the last missile fired and the final explosion.
Click to expand...
Probably because it gives away the position of the launcher. It looks like it's been fiddled anyway, it could be another launch.
Click to expand...
It isn't, there aren't any more launches before the final explosion ( I suspect they ran dry).
 
A fragment? That's the entire missile. It's weird it's so intact, too. Was it even launched? Even if it malfunctioned right away after launch, wouldn't it get banged up more as it fell on the ground?

Edit: two different missiles fell out of a launcher and remained fairly intact? What happened there?
 
Last edited:
Film of the engagement;-

View: https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1658335701832724481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1658335701832724481%7Ctwgr%5Ed8b94e21d879a8d4edde64fe6819f8541c229cb2%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aviation%2F652441-ukraine-war-thread-part-2-a-37.html
 
#25 photo is wondrous.
Two batteries in action ??
 
This "fennecRadar" is a damn idiot. Also, based on the relatively intact airframe, those aren't MSEs but basic vanilla model PAC-3s.
 
In the first video, that shows 30 interceptor launches in 2 minutes (impressive that the Russians could pack nearly thirty attacking missiles and drones into the battery's footprint nearly simultaneously), there's a 6 minute gap between the last interceptor launch and the explosion on the ground. If the explosion on the ground is a malfunctioning interceptor, where did it go for (at least) 6 minutes?
 
jeffb said:
there's a 6 minute gap between the last interceptor launch and the explosion on the ground. If the explosion on the ground is a malfunctioning interceptor, where did it go for (at least) 6 minutes?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean. There's only a gap of 30 seconds or so between the last successful launch we can see and the explosion on the ground, not six minutes. The video itself is only 2:30 long.
 
Judging by the locations from where missiles are being launched, plus judging by the sizes of flashes being different even though they seem to come from the same location, plus knowing the fact PAC3 missiles are limited to 16 missiles per launcher - I would dare to suppose there were 3 launchers doing all these launches from the video. But all 3 were still likely fairly close to one another, perhaps just hundreds of meters or a kilometer. Certainly not kilometers.
 
jeffb said:
...there's a 6 minute gap between the last interceptor launch and the explosion on the ground. If the explosion on the ground is a malfunctioning interceptor, where did it go for (at least) 6 minutes?
Click to expand...
Wasn't it 1 hour going by the timestamps?
 
NCQ said:
jeffb said:
there's a 6 minute gap between the last interceptor launch and the explosion on the ground. If the explosion on the ground is a malfunctioning interceptor, where did it go for (at least) 6 minutes?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean. There's only a gap of 30 seconds or so between the last successful launch we can see and the explosion on the ground, not six minutes. The video itself is only 2:30 long.
Click to expand...

The video comes from a section of a longer livefeed of a number of Ukrainian skylines. The video was up on youtube for a while but has since been taken down. That livefeed (iirc) went from 8pm till 8am with the attack occuring at around 3. In that original video there's a long gap (about six minutes) between the last interceptor being fired and the ground explosion. The video above which is being shared around has most of that 6 minute gap edited out.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom