MIM-104C Patriot PAC-2 vs. Lance TBM

The MIM-104C PAC-2 missile was the first Patriot missile which was optimized for ballistic missile engagements.

In the late 1980s, tests began to indicate that, although Patriot was certainly capable of intercepting inbound ballistic missiles, it was questionable whether or not the MIM-104A/B missile was capable of reliably destroying them. This necessitated the introduction of the PAC-2 missile and system upgrade.

For the system, the PAC-2 upgrade was similar to the PAC-1 upgrade. Radar search algorithms were further optimized, and the beam protocol while in "TBM search" was further modified. PAC-2 also saw Patriot's first major missile upgrade, with the introduction of the MIM-104C, or PAC-2 missile. This missile was optimized for ballistic missile engagements. Major changes to the PAC-2 missile were the size of the projectiles in its blast-fragmentation warhead (changed from around 2 grams to around 45 grams), and the timing of the pulse-doppler fuse, which was optimized for high-speed engagements (though it retained its old algorithm for aircraft engagements if necessary). Engagement procedures were also optimized, changing the method of fire the system used to engage ballistic missiles. Instead of firing two missiles in an almost simultaneous salvo, a brief delay (between 3 and 4 second) was added in order to allow the second missile fired to discriminate a ballistic missile warhead in the aftermath of the explosion of the first.

PAC-2 was first tested in 1987 and reached Army units in 1990, just in time for deployment to the Middle East for the Persian Gulf War. Although no evidence of actual hits was ever recorded,[4] it was here that Patriot started to be regarded as a successful ABM system and a proof that ballistic missile defense was indeed possible. The complete study on its effectiveness remains classified.

There have been many more upgrades to PAC-2 systems throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, again mostly centering on software. However, the PAC-2 missiles have been modified significantly, into four separate variants known collectively as "GEM" or "guidance enhanced" missiles.

The chief upgrade to the original GEM missile was a new, much faster proximity fused warhead. Tests had indicated that the fuse on the original PAC-2 missiles were detonating their warheads too late when engaging ballistic missiles with an extremely steep ingress, and as such it was necessary to shorten this fuse delay. The GEM missile was also given a new "low noise" seeker head designed to reduce interference in front of the missiles radar seeker, and a higher performance seeker designed to better detect low radar cross section targets, such as stealth aircraft. The GEM was used extensively in Operation Iraqi Freedom, with a perfect success rate.

Just prior to OIF, it was decided to further upgrade the GEM and PAC-2 missiles. This upgrade program produced missiles known as the GEM/T and the GEM/C, the "T" designator referring to "TBM", and the "C" designator referring to cruise missiles. These missiles were both given a totally new nose section, which was designed specifically to be more effective against low altitude, low RCS targets like cruise missiles. Additionally, the GEM/T was given a new fuse which was further optimized against ballistic missiles. The GEM/C is the upgraded version of the GEM, and the GEM/T is the upgraded version of the PAC-2. The GEM+ entered service in 2002, and the Army is currently having all of its PAC-2 and GEM missiles upgraded to the GEM/C or GEM/T standard.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• MIM-104C
• PAC-2
• US
• Army
• Air
• Defense
• Artillery
• ADA
• Patriot
• missile
• Advanced
• Capability
• missiles
• Lance

[StiviGun1]

@S300V conventionally armed ballistic missiles. Of course, it depends how many missiles Iran has. But I think that Arrow 3, Aegis ABM and THAAD can defend against the Iranian or N Korean ballistic missiles. Against, Russian ICBMs, now that is a total different story.

[StiviGun1]

@S300V Shahab 3 is not such a big deal. The Iranians have other, more powerful missiles, like Sejil, Ghadr and a few others. But my opinion is that THAAD can defend against them. Besides, if u think ballistic missiles r a threat, what r u counting on 2 protect u, if not ABM systems?

I don't think we should discuss about protecting large areas, like cities. Cities can only be successfully attacked with ICBMs & that is a total different matter. It's very hard 2 attack a city using salvos of many

[S300V]

@StiviGun1 Well I think its better to prepaired for the worse in case of Shahab 3. I think ballistic missiles are still very dangerous and I wouldnt bet on ABMs to defend me. I think ABMs can only be used to defend a few very important sites and only with multiple systems. I just pointed out some stuff, before anyone comes to the conclusion, that my country has ABMs therfore Im totaly protected.

[StiviGun1]

@S300V Well, the kinetic warhead that is used in the Aegis SM-3 and THAAD constantly receives data from onboard and external sensors about the target's flight path, speed and other things. The technology is very complex and a lot of things can go not according to plan, but if everything goes well, the interception of missiles like Shahab 3 or DF-21 has pretty high chances to be successful. Besides, as far as Shahab is concerned, no1 really knows if it's really so advanced as the Iranians claim.

[S300V]

@StiviGun1 Yes I know DF-21 and Shahab-3 are IRBMs but it doesent realy make a difference for the defender. ICBM is a different matter only, because that is a last resort weapon. The maneuverability is one matter, but predictibility is another. It is the inpredictibility of the flight path that changes things as the closing speeds are so high, there isnt realy room for large scale maneuvering. Otherwise I agree with u, but one has to realy consider the limitations.

[StiviGun1]

@S300V this technology more than anyone else.

[StiviGun1]

@S300V DF-21 and Shahab 3 are intermediate range ballistic missiles, not tactical ballistic missiles. As 4 the DF-15 & other tactical missiles with separating warheads, it also depends how maneuverable their warheads are. The THAAD interceptor, for instance, is very maneuverable. So is the Patriot's.

As 4 salvos, no they didn't test it against 12-20 missiles. So no one knows exactly how these systems would perform against large scale attacks. But they are working on it and they are investing in

[S300V]

@StiviGun1 DF-21 or DF-15. Shahab-3 also. Isklander doesent, but the missile is relatively small and manouvers on the descent. Salvo? 3-4? A real enemy who realy wants to hit something will use at least 12-20. I doubt they did such a large scale test.

[StiviGun1]

@S300V What TBM has separable warheads? I thought you are referring to ICBMs. As for salvo engagements, the Patriot and the THAAD were tested successfully against salvos of missiles. At least that's what some reports say.

[S300V]

@StiviGun1 Actually those are not better than Arrow, or not much and were never tested against a real missile like that (mainly because the US has only ICBMs of that type and it would be too expensive to test it on one). The problem is, that no one knows how these things would perform against a modern TBM, especially as a foe would probably use salvos not single shots.