Normaly I would say so, but there is this weird thing going on:
Not like it matters much tbh
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
Not like it matters much tbh
a few things we know for sure:
1. is far less mobile than , requiring 45 minutes of setup time vs. 5 minutes.
But this can also be ascertained just by looking at the 2 systems. Left is S-300 which is still on tracks, right is Patriot which requires mechanical stabilization and fixing.
2. and .
3. Patriot only got 360 degree coverage in the latest versions introduced in 2017, while S-300 has had 360 coverage for a long time.
So it doesn't seem like Patriots are actually better.
I feel like we are speaking past each other since I'm not referring to whether s-300 is better than patriot at all. I'm referring to the valuable data the PLA is getting regarding the effectiveness of US air defenses against ballistic missiles.a few things we know for sure:
1. is far less mobile than , requiring 45 minutes of setup time vs. 5 minutes.
But this can also be ascertained just by looking at the 2 systems. Left is S-300 which is still on tracks, right is Patriot which requires mechanical stabilization and fixing.
2. and .
3. Patriot only got 360 degree coverage in the latest versions introduced in 2017, while S-300 has had 360 coverage for a long time.
So it doesn't seem like Patriots are actually better.
Edit:
To not waste thread space and as a counter point to the patriot damage it could just be as a result of large number of missiles being fired from a protected firing position moving tons of dirt around, see similar rocket burn marks from MLRS launches.
Last edited:
Seems like VKS actually attacked quite a lot the Ukranian airfields:
And so on ...
And so on ...
I think you originally wanted to say that Patriots can intercept ballistic missiles better than S-300.
These is what you said:
So you believe that S-300 can be defeated easily by Kinzhal. Yet Patriot has neither better mobility nor a generationally superior radar which means it has neither a decisive advantage in survivability nor in interception. I didn't compare kinematics but from the sources the kinematics are also comparable.
This is an important question though: why does it seem like Patriots are intercepting more if Patriots aren't actually better?
1. Sample bias: more reporting is done on Patriots rather than S-300s.
2. Ammo limitations: Ukrainians need to conserve S-300 ammo because they can't get more easily so even if they can detect a threat they may hesitate to make a move, but they know they'll get Patriots for free.
Putin and Russian MoD confirmed they hit Ukrainian Military Intelligence headquarters.
That’s why Ukrainian drones retaliated by hitting Moscow.
Claim of S400 command post destroyed by a HiMARS attack
Ah, I see what you mean, It was an offhand comment considering that kinzhal esq hypersonics were considered extremely difficult to intercept prior to the patriot intercept, s-300 may well be capable of the same intercept but we have not seen such announcements from either side, Russia was known to have used Kinzhals previously and none were reported to have been shot down.
It may just well be that pac-3 has better kinematics against such threats compared to whatever s-300 missiles Ukraine has left in stock which is not necessarily optimised against ballistic threats, I don't think differences in radar should be important since ballistic missiles, especially hypersonics aren't stealthy, so kinematics of the missile would be very important to achieve high pk.
There may also be a political angle for the Ukrainian side that s-300s will be more forward deployed compared to patriots to lower risk of lancets/capture of critical western equipment. There is a low probability for Russia to bother with a kinzhal in the front lines on tactical strikes.