in it earlier form it took out aircraft ( unfortunately few friendly due to IFF issue ) and it took out 30 off SRBM.
Austin Patriot's performance against an antediluvian theatre ballistic missile like Iraqi modified Scuds of the first versions was simply disastrous
, have you ever read the survey of Joseph Cirincione - Chief US Congress Investigator appointed to execute a scientifical survey on the technical performance of PAC-2 in the conflict- ?
It provide also a good sample of the outstanding PR mist which US media are capable to produce to sell, to public opinion, a version of the facts that is often even the exact contrary of empyrical evidency coming from theirs same analysis and validation institutions !! (attrition achieved by Air Force on enemy ground forces, inflated often of dozen of times in past wars are others classical examples of that habit)
Those are some related statements of J. Cirincione :
Cirincione says the Army has known the Patriot had serious problems since at least 1991, when Congress appointed him to lead an investigation of the Patriot's performance in the first Gulf War, a performance that had looked spectacular on network news programs.
"I saw the pictures. I thought this is amazing. This system is exceeding expectations," says Cirincione. "And all during the war, that's what I thought. This was what all the newscasters said it was -- a Scud buster, a miracle weapon."
And it wasn't just newscasters who said so. This is what President George Bush had to say when he visited Raytheon headquarters during the First Gulf War: "The Patriot works because of Patriots like you, and I came again to say thank you to each and every one of you!"
"A lot of money started flowing into the Patriot right after the Gulf War, because everybody thought it was a success," says Cirincione.
But it turns out, that wasn't true. Almost none of the Patriots had worked. Some of them had failed to hit the incoming Scuds. Some had shot at missiles that didn't even exist. But most of them still exploded in the sky, leading everyone to believe they'd scored a kill, when in fact they hadn't.
"The best evidence that we found supports between two and four intercepts out of 44," says Cirincione. "About a 10 percent success rate."
and above all
Cirincione said the Army responded angrily to his findings: "The Army insisted that they knew they had some problems with the Patriot, BUT IT DIDN'T SERVE ANY PURPOSE TO MAKE THESE PUBLIC. WE WOULD JUST BE AIDING THE ENEMY. And that they would take care of it in the course of normal product improvement."
Yes surely is not good to inform public opinion that PAC-2 simply exploded in the sky without intercepting anything
,is much better to unshamedly "lie knowing to lie" : " "The Patriot works because of Patriots like you, and I came again to say thank you to each and every one of you!" (declaration of the at the time U.S. President George Bush at Raytheon Headquarters in front of purposely reunited TV and press...)
From 2 to 4 out of 44 intercept attempts....so much for PR mist capable to obfuscate facts still in 2011 (for chronicle : the emergences of US Congress equip lead by J. Cirincione was vetoed for diffusion for 15 years, them was publied only in 2006 ) .