You mean the hit a target they knew EXACTLY where it was? Wow, I'm really impressed. Literally every anti-missile test has been faked in one way or another and most of those still failed. The American public just refuses to acknowlege it is being scammed by the military contractors. Just don't want to know, huh?
Missiles are easy to track in the boost phase only. That's why the Patriot failed so miserably. It tested well and failed in practice. Scuds were simple ballistic warheads, not able to avoid or move. Note in the video several flashes from the target vehicle? Wonder why it was essentially signaling its location to the incoming missile? YOU might look at the facts. It's hitting a bullet with a bullet and that's not easy. This won't work in practice any more than the Patriot did.
The Patriot never got ONE single SCUD warhead. They got some motor hits, but the warhead separated & impacted anyway. The Patriot was a failure everywhere it's been used. Check things our before you post. It's like the smart bombs in the Baltics. They were so proud...until they were forced to announce it averaged over 200 "smart"bombs to hit ONE LOUSY TARGET. Truth comes out. Look at "stealth" aircraft. ONE time it went up against Russian radars & down it went. OLD radars too.
LIberals? Why do idiots bother posting such stupidity? EVERY intelligency agency said the same thing...DON'T build the airbase in Saudi Arabia. That wasn't liberals, that was Daddy Bush. That caused 9-11 under Baby Bush, the worst President in our history. Then the agencies said DON'T invade Afghanistan and then they said DON'T invade Iraq. Why? Because it places all Americans in WORSE danger. Liberals aren't the problem. Right wing idiots are the ones getting our guys killed.
Im just pointing out that its hard to call something a failure when its still in development. They didnt just build the space shuttle, assume that it worked and stick some astronauts into it and light it up. They tested it first. And from von brauns perspective his first idea of conception seemed so bulletproof until they tried to launch it and it failed miserably. But then again thats the point of research and development learning from ones own mistakes.
Intercepting a ballistic missile is an extremely difficult engineering challenge. The fact that it works at all is an achievement. Many of the early tests were failures but it has since been improving.
"oh by the way russia doesn't have a missle defense system "
No you wrong
Later variations of mobile air defence system S-300 and newest S-400 are capable to intercept ballistic missiles
Patriot is real worst system not comparable with Russian SAM S-300/400.
First capable ballistic missile defence system in the world were Soviet system "A", it was successfully tested 47 years ago (in 1961) with interception of "R-12" ballistic missile.
Primorsky - Based on what objective evidence? Ohhh... thats right! You HAVE NONE. So you are just flappin your jaws, beatin your chest, and displaying your inferiority complex to the world...
And yes, the Patriot was a failure as a BMD. It was never designed to be one... it was, however, the best medium range anti-aircraft SAM in the world at the time so they decided to see if it could intercept scuds. Turns out it was no good for that.
Hence the PAC3 and THAAD for short-range and medium range BMD.
Aside from the infamous software glitch, the Patroit system proved pretty good at intercepting SCUD type missiles, but not on a one-to-one ratio. To get a good strike probability required throwing up multiple patriots.
PAC3 is a vast improvement. and of course THAAD extends that.
One thing that is a bit concerning to me is that since the retirement of the Hawk, we have something of a gap in capability for engaging medium speed aircraft in a conventional SAM situation
Not to mention with the retirement of the Phoenix(AIM-54) we don't have any long range air to air missiles (that I know of). Only medium and short range.
One of the beautiful things about the F-14 was the ability to engage from 120+ miles with a mach 5 missile.
Of course tehy prob have other more capable missiles we just don't know about.
For long range SAMS they could just adapt SM3's for non-naval use. 500km range & ability to carry LEAPS.
You mean the hit a target they knew EXACTLY where it was? Wow, I'm really impressed. Literally every anti-missile test has been faked in one way or another and most of those still failed. The American public just refuses to acknowlege it is being scammed by the military contractors. Just don't want to know, huh?
robtice2 2 years ago
lol WUT??? Of course they knew EXACTLY where the target missile was. Radar was tracking it.
jwcalla1 2 years ago
man your dumb arent you
you know missiles are verry easy to track especially when you have a radar that scans the area 24/7
sattelites can pick up missile launch aswel you dont need to be smart to know this!
if you dont want believe in facts then something is wrong with you
you probably believe 9/11 was an inside job lol
klote2314 2 years ago
Missiles are easy to track in the boost phase only. That's why the Patriot failed so miserably. It tested well and failed in practice. Scuds were simple ballistic warheads, not able to avoid or move. Note in the video several flashes from the target vehicle? Wonder why it was essentially signaling its location to the incoming missile? YOU might look at the facts. It's hitting a bullet with a bullet and that's not easy. This won't work in practice any more than the Patriot did.
robtice2 2 years ago
@robtice2 ah another nut job
TFOKillSwitch 1 year ago
The Patriot never got ONE single SCUD warhead. They got some motor hits, but the warhead separated & impacted anyway. The Patriot was a failure everywhere it's been used. Check things our before you post. It's like the smart bombs in the Baltics. They were so proud...until they were forced to announce it averaged over 200 "smart"bombs to hit ONE LOUSY TARGET. Truth comes out. Look at "stealth" aircraft. ONE time it went up against Russian radars & down it went. OLD radars too.
robtice2 2 years ago
LIberals? Why do idiots bother posting such stupidity? EVERY intelligency agency said the same thing...DON'T build the airbase in Saudi Arabia. That wasn't liberals, that was Daddy Bush. That caused 9-11 under Baby Bush, the worst President in our history. Then the agencies said DON'T invade Afghanistan and then they said DON'T invade Iraq. Why? Because it places all Americans in WORSE danger. Liberals aren't the problem. Right wing idiots are the ones getting our guys killed.
robtice2 2 years ago
unfortunately the DUM-A55 Mk1 suicide bomber can still penetrate our defenses... because of the STU-p1d Mk1 Liberals...
trekfuel781 2 years ago
to trekfuel781
I love it!
rap9206 2 years ago
Where has the hell US Army gotten their Scud missile system which is still working.
fgah 2 years ago
God Bless America! :)
tcwright00 2 years ago 2
If it will be equipped with nuclear warhead it will work fine even against warheads with unpredictable movement.
Globalizator1 3 years ago
THAAD had so many failures that congress had to once reduce budget for it!
hamidrezah 3 years ago
Wernher Von Braun once said "the most beautiful of designs often blew up on the launch pad". Failures are inevitable on new ideas.
newdad1107 2 years ago
The one that works on the first few trials, is the most beautiful.
hamidrezah 2 years ago
Im just pointing out that its hard to call something a failure when its still in development. They didnt just build the space shuttle, assume that it worked and stick some astronauts into it and light it up. They tested it first. And from von brauns perspective his first idea of conception seemed so bulletproof until they tried to launch it and it failed miserably. But then again thats the point of research and development learning from ones own mistakes.
newdad1107 2 years ago
Agreed.
hamidrezah 2 years ago
Intercepting a ballistic missile is an extremely difficult engineering challenge. The fact that it works at all is an achievement. Many of the early tests were failures but it has since been improving.
DrBuzz0 2 years ago
I do the ablative coatings on these things. Teh motor nozzle is especially impressive.
toaster1971 3 years ago
seems it first american capable air defence system, better than crappy patriot
But it's still crap compared with Russian S-400
Primorsky 4 years ago
it's not an air defense system, it's an missle defense system this video shows how thaad knocks out incoming bombs or missles
imdamaster 4 years ago
oh by the way russia doesn't have a missle defense system so patriot ain't crap cause russia doesn't even have one
imdamaster 4 years ago
"oh by the way russia doesn't have a missle defense system "
No you wrong
Later variations of mobile air defence system S-300 and newest S-400 are capable to intercept ballistic missiles
Patriot is real worst system not comparable with Russian SAM S-300/400.
First capable ballistic missile defence system in the world were Soviet system "A", it was successfully tested 47 years ago (in 1961) with interception of "R-12" ballistic missile.
Primorsky 4 years ago
oh well nothin compared to thaad and sm1-2-3's
imdamaster 4 years ago
Primorsky - Based on what objective evidence? Ohhh... thats right! You HAVE NONE. So you are just flappin your jaws, beatin your chest, and displaying your inferiority complex to the world...
CroakerMD 4 years ago
whata bitch
gasperovich 4 years ago
THAAD and the Arrow are the best
Specarrow 4 years ago
Patriot failed to do this so they had to make THAAD :P
otester 4 years ago
The THAAD is a patriot based system...
And yes, the Patriot was a failure as a BMD. It was never designed to be one... it was, however, the best medium range anti-aircraft SAM in the world at the time so they decided to see if it could intercept scuds. Turns out it was no good for that.
Hence the PAC3 and THAAD for short-range and medium range BMD.
CroakerMD 4 years ago
What's your idea of "medium-range"?
Personally I'd class the S-400 as the best SAM.
otester 4 years ago 2
Aside from the infamous software glitch, the Patroit system proved pretty good at intercepting SCUD type missiles, but not on a one-to-one ratio. To get a good strike probability required throwing up multiple patriots.
PAC3 is a vast improvement. and of course THAAD extends that.
One thing that is a bit concerning to me is that since the retirement of the Hawk, we have something of a gap in capability for engaging medium speed aircraft in a conventional SAM situation
DrBuzz0 2 years ago
Not to mention with the retirement of the Phoenix(AIM-54) we don't have any long range air to air missiles (that I know of). Only medium and short range.
One of the beautiful things about the F-14 was the ability to engage from 120+ miles with a mach 5 missile.
Of course tehy prob have other more capable missiles we just don't know about.
For long range SAMS they could just adapt SM3's for non-naval use. 500km range & ability to carry LEAPS.
CroakerMD 2 years ago
owned
Milt0nBradley 4 years ago
nice
camerontech 5 years ago