This is the pac-2 missile which was fielded in 1990 and not designed to combat these kinds of missiles.
PAC-3 is much more advanced and the kill vehicle much more accurate.
PAC-3 is much more advanced and the kill vehicle much more accurate.
Seriously? The system can't intercept threads it wasn't designed to? That's the article?
I think the point is that it is better than nothing and may well make a difference. It's not totally useless, like those fake bomb detectors which were being discussed a couple of years ago.
Let me say that I'm a pacifist 100%; diplomacy comes first and all that but war is really where you can't lie and all your bad decisions are right there in your face and fuck you up completely if you didn't think hard enough through these things. This particular incident reminds me of when the Pakistanis procured the latest F-6 aircrafts from the US but were unable to use them effectively in a war against India (1971) because their pilots were not sufficiently trained in how to handle the advanced aircraft systems.... oops.
This is the critical part. The hardware may work as intended, but if no one can operate it what use is it? If it works as intended but is ineffective against the enemies weapons or techniques what use is it? Or if there isn't even an enemy to use these systems against? But to play ball with the US as an ally, nations can be placed in a position where they're making these purchases whether appropriate or not.
You can focus on the failures and call the system useless, or you can focus on the successes and be thankful that occasionally the system works. It's better than nothing, so might as well try.
Various versions of the system are being deployed as countermeasures for missile systems that Patriot is not designed to work against and so likely has a very low success rate. And, if your countermeasures end up turning around and hitting your own city all it does is make the enemy's attack even more effective:
One interceptor explodes catastrophically just after
launch, while another makes a U-turn in midair and then
comes screaming back at Riyadh, where it explodes on the
ground.
They likely were acquired before PAC-3 became available for international sales.
> Leads to a question: What's the point of continuing to deploy something that, by all (unclassified) accounts, seems to have no real utility?
PAC-2 have utility, they are designed to shutdown enemy aircraft on long distance. PAC-3 in contrast is designed specifically against ballistic missiles, like houthies use in their attacks.
It _may_ (at the time) have boosted the confidence of allied and US soldiers on the ground.
It _may_ have been deemed necessary to do _anything_ that made the US’es allies think the US didn’t let them handle the threat alone.
If you want to claim to be the policeman of the world, this won’t help your reputation:
USA : “If war comes, we will protect you”
Saoudis: “War came. Can you help us?”
USA : “Sorry, our rockets do not work” In fairness, the system deployed in Saudi Arabia — the
Patriot Advanced Capability-2 or PAC-2 — is not well
designed to intercept the Burkan-2 missiles that the
Houthis are firing at Riyadh. The Burkan-2 flies around
600 miles and appears to have a warhead that separates
from the missile itself.