SOC wrote:Don't let the fact that the S-300, S-400, and S-350 missiles have higher peak velocities get in your way or anything.
Ok . So what do you think is the peak velocity of the S-300, S-400, and S-350 missiles because it can't be more than the Patriot ?
Depends on which source you read, some give Mach numbers some give actual velocities, but hey, let's compare some numbers.
1700 m/s for PAC-3
2100 m/s for the 48N6DM (S-400)
2600 m/s for the 9M83M (S-300VM)
Patriot can deal with a TBM with a 1,000 km range.
S-300VM and S-400, a TBM with a range of up to 3,500 km.
I've seen the average velocity for PAC-3 given as 750 - 950 m/s, with the average velocity for the S-350's 9M96 as 900 - 1000 m/s.
The Russian SAMs consistently outrange all versions of Patriot in terms of TBM footprint, aerodynamic engagement envelope, and TAR/TER radar range.
9M96 has a more sound design than PAC-3: "The 9M96E/E2 radial thruster package is located at the fuselage CoG, to generate a direct force to turn the missile, rather than producing a pitch/yaw moment to use body lift to turn, as is the case in the ERINT/PAC-3 design."
The S-300/400's SAGG guidance concept is more advanced and less susceptible to EA than Patriot's simpler TVM.
The S-300/350/400 have a demonstrated 5 minute set-up/tear-down time, compared to 45-60 minutes for US Patriot variants (Germany might be able to deploy their quicker if they're using the mobile MAN launcher chassis).
The AN/MPQ-53/65 has a search coverage of 120 degrees, and an engagement coverage of 90 degrees. The Russian systems routinely use off-board TARs employing 360 degree mechanical search modes allowing the use of narrower engagement beamwidths providing a reduced electronic footprint for the TER in comparison.
Finally, Patriot doesn't even hold water to what is by far the best American SAM system yet created, a system on par with the S-400: the land-based AEGIS system.
Acceleration? Whatever. In the grand scheme of things, what acceleration does is eat up your minimum range fractionally faster. Velocity at burnout is what is normally going to drive your engagement kinematics, not how quickly you get to that point.
Besides, the personifications of Sprint and the 53T6 would find all of this talk about comparatively sluggish SAM accelerations to be completely hilarious.
There are some things America does better than everyone without it being a contest. But SAMs? That ain't the field to argue.
TR1 wrote:Are American weapons blessed by god?
Maybe that's why they couldn't hit a SCUD for a damn in 1991...