PAC-3 Missile Test

[FeelFree3]

I checked on FAS website, it claims the PAC-3 missle range is about 15km, I wonder is the information correct.

[kickstart85]

@FeelFree3 150 km. why make something that a plane can outrun.

[brettdusek]

@kickstart85 lol, this is amusing.

[StiviGun1]

@kickstart85 No, it'a actually 15 km. Some sources say it has a 20 km range. The PAC-3 missile is much smaller than the PAC-2 missile. It has a smaller engine which carries less fuel. The PAC-3 has been specialized in dealing with short range ballistic missiles only. It is claimed to be very effective at its job. And its successor, the MEADS system, will use an improved version of the PAC-3 missile with 50% more range. It will be a very effective system against short range ballistic missiles.

[n3uromante]

@tonygogap A 50% greater range would make it 150 miles then. That's basic math.

[StiviGun1]

@n3uromante Actually, we're talking here about the PAC-3 missile, not PAC-2. The PAC-3 missile is much smaller, as four can be fit into one tube that carries one PAC-2 missiles. So it has a much smaller engine with that carries less fuel.

[chinaplasucks]

America banzai thank you from Japan

[gamekiiid]

s-300 and s-400 better!

[meffer1111]

@gamekiiid much better=) soon coming c-500

[StiviGun1]

@gamekiiid Yes, but THAAF and Aegis with the SM-3 missile are better than both the S-300 and S-400. The land based Aegis variant with the improved SM-3IB missile will be OUTSTANDING, far above everything the Russia will come up with in the near future, including the S-500.

[gamekiiid]

@StiviGun1 you are right!

[StiviGun1]

@gamekiiid Yeah, but in my opinion, the PAC-2 should be improved as well to have longer range, faster emplacement time and even vertical launching. The S-400 was developed only as a competition to the Patriot, the Russians don't have a real necessity 4 it, the Cold War is over. So the PAC-2 must be modified as well. You can increase its range by increasing the size of the engine & decrease the size of its fins & add TVC 4 improved maneuverability. The fins can also be made as folding fins.

[gamekiiid]

@StiviGun1 yes. but what you think? maybe s-400 radar is better? more range than sm-3?

[StiviGun1]

@gamekiiid From what I know, the S-400 uses the same radars as the S-300, which have a range of 300 km max. The radar that coordinates the SM-3 missile over 450 km detection range. So no, the S-400's radar doesn't have more detection range, but future radars with 500-600 km range have been theorized 4 the S-400. Of course, this is still less than the THAAD's radar, that has a 1000 km detection range. THAAD is a really powerful system & I don't know why aren't they making a priority from

[bum291]

@StiviGun1 There are a few variants of radars with the "king" being 9S15MV3; a detection range of 320 km. The ones in Russia (and especially the ones around Moscow, Saratov and other strategic locations) will of most probably be linked to systems like PROTIVNIK-GE or GAMMA-DE with a range of 400 km and also co-operate with EWR. But other nations might not have those complementary radar systems. Note that 48N6E2 and 9M83ME missiles have a range of 200 km.

[StiviGun1]

@bum291 OK, first of all, what is PROTIVNIK-GE and GAMMA-DE? As for the radars that can detected targets at ranges of 400 km, they still don't compare with the THAAD's radar. THAAD is the most powerful land based mobile ABM system.

[bum291]

@StiviGun1 They are mobile radars that can be linked to the S-300/400 system. I never claimed that they would be more powerfull than THAAD radar, I simply wanted to add a little more info about the S-300 family and the radar detection ranges.

[StiviGun1]

@bum291 Well, my figures about the S-300/S-400's radar's range were not that different of yours. I said 300 km, you said 320 km. It's not such a big difference. Anyway, the S-300/S-400 are formidable anti-aircraft systems, in specially the S-400 which is more powerful than it western counterparts in many aspects.

[StiviGun1]

@gamekiiid developing it. THAAD is a really powerful system, more powerful than the S-400. But PAC-2 can also be improved to be better than the S-400.

[jit8910]

Been 100% effective in Operation Iraqi Freedom!!! So ya, I'd say they work.

And yes, Sea-based Pac-3 MSE is in R&D.

[StiviGun1]

@jit8910 Sea based PAC-3 MSE? Could your provide a source for that?

[jit8910]

@StiviGun1 Look at page 14 and 15:

lockheedmartindotcom/data/asse­ts/mfc/MFC_ProductCatalog2008.­pdf

[StiviGun1]

@jit8910 Yeah, something is wrong with the link. Better post on my profile.

[jit8910]

@StiviGun1 Oh my apologies, that was the 2008 catalog. Our 2010 Catalog has this as well. Please refer to page 8 on the following for more information:

wwwDOTlockheedmartinDOTcom/dat­a/assets/mfc/2010_Product_Cata­log.pdf

[warriorprince1010]

I have heard these things do not work.

[erickanavathi]

Awesome!! This is sheer power of the PAC-3!!

[kubruk]

can they be integrated on warships? Why do they use mostly sea-sparrows on ships rather than pac3 system?

[kdraper2007]

@kubruk Ticonderoga class aegis cruisers & Arleigh Burke class aegis destroyers use the SM-2 Standard missile. other ships like carriers, & frigites use CIWS gatling gun, Sea Sparrow, or rolling airframe missile for point defense.

[Saidifect]

3pac :))

[gigiblood]

nice