FYI we aren't giving away ALL the weaponry to Ukraine. This was news to me.

[JohnDB]

The latest stuff isn't going to Ukraine....the early models of new weapons systems are. And their performance is being evaluated in every way possible.

The drones are the newest thing on the battlefront that has completely transformed it. From dropping munitions to enhanced surveillance and let's not forget missile guidance drones have really changed how war is conducted. Russia has been using Iranian kamikaze drones to a great extent. But basically these are a slow guided missile. Easily shot down.

The tank denial munitions have worked really well too. These are just 155mm howitzer rounds that place a bunch of anti tank mines in an area. No fancy missiles.

The Himars are rocket assisted artillery rounds and have been really good at hitting targets. Shoot and scoot because the return fire is coming.

The fuel that most of these tanks, bradleys, trucks, and other equipment use is extreme.
It doesn't matter how good of a tank you have if it runs out of fuel. And those trucks blow up with a grenade quite easily.

When the Ukranians actually can and do follow military advice from the US...they are extremely successful. They definitely have done a number on Russia.

 

[Ringo]

lol Russia invaded and tried to turn it into the shithole they turned Crimea into

Are you on drugs?

 

[DudleySmith]

Are you on drugs?

lol the GDP of the russian occupied areas is down to 30% of its previous production. Population has dropped. Seems all those 'Russians' that allegedly lived there and begging Putin to save them n stuff have all left. But you keep fantasizing it isn't, maybe Putin won't gulag you just yet. lol

 

[DudleySmith]

The drones are the newest thing on the battlefront that has completely transformed it. From dropping munitions to enhanced surveillance and let's not forget missile guidance drones have really changed how war is conducted.

Don't leave out GPS service from satellite feeds. That is a game changer for 'old fashioned' artillery as well. Russians can't manage that well and are back to their WW II carpet shelling tactics and using up their ammo faster than they can produce it. Instead of locking on targets they're aiming at acreage.

 

[Mushroom]

It says Patriot Configuration 3. I believe that's what we're using today?

There is a 3+, so that might be a little newer, but Configuration 3 uses the GEM-T missile and the PAC-3 missile.

Home

Raytheon Intelligence Space- Any Domain. Any Challenge.

www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com

Raytheon: Raytheon News Release Archive

Operates four businesses. Technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, security and civil markets throughout the world.

raytheon.mediaroom.com

The newest is PAC-3 MSE.

As for the rest, that was largely "word salad".

GEM, GEM-T, GEM-C, GEM+ and all the rest are PAC-2 missiles. And can be fired from any launcher configuration.

There are basically 3 different launchers. PAC-2, PAC-3, and PAC-3 MSE. And any newer version can use missile canisters from the older systems. And yes, there is a PAC-3+, but that is just an upgrade to the PAC-3, and is not required.

But the launchers are very different from each other, and PAC-3 MSE is the newest version of the launcher. It is very different from the PAC-3, as much as the PAC-3 is different form the PAC-2. But no, if they are getting what everybody uses in a Battery, they are getting 5 PAC-2 launchers, and a single PAC-3 launcher.

 

[Mushroom]

A question for all supporters of fascist Ukraine.

 

[para bellum]

The newest is PAC-3 MSE.

Yes. Sweden has those now IIRC, and Kuwait I think. The GEM-T is the latest version of the PAC-2 missile, MIM-104E. Still 2 missiles per launcher. Those are everywhere.

The "Configuration 3" is the latest iteration of the system as per Raytheon, it means the system handles the new missiles. SIPRI doesn't specify which missiles are to be provided, which probably means the DSCA is not saying.

A complete "latest version", I would expect to be "Configuration 3" with MIM-104E (GEM-T) and PAC-3 MSE. I'm not claiming that's what Ukraine is getting, but if you want to be pedantic I did say "latest version". I was not trying to claim PAC-3 MSE is confirmed.

Something in one of the press releases on the MSE I came across- the language was to the effect "The US Army's purchase clears the way for foreign operators to receive the new missile". Like the Pentagon may be more interested in pushing these out to hot spots before fully equipping our own forces. There are several foreign sales of MSE in the works. Idk.

The Politico piece says Ukraine will be receiving 2 Patriot systems. One from the US and another that is pieced from components from Germany and the Netherlands.

 

[Mushroom]

Yes. Sweden has those now IIRC, and Kuwait I think. The GEM-T is the latest version of the PAC-2 missile, MIM-104E. Still 2 missiles per launcher. Those are everywhere.

The "Configuration 3" is the latest iteration of the system as per Raytheon, it means the system handles the new missiles. SIPRI doesn't specify which missiles are to be provided, which probably means the DSCA is not saying.

A complete "latest version", I would expect to be "Configuration 3" with MIM-104E (GEM-T) and PAC-3 MSE. I'm not claiming that's what Ukraine is getting, but if you want to be pedantic I did say "latest version". I was not trying to claim PAC-3 MSE is confirmed.

Something in one of the press releases on the MSE I came across- the language was to the effect "The US Army's purchase clears the way for foreign operators to receive the new missile". Like the Pentagon may be more interested in pushing these out to hot spots before fully equipping our own forces. There are several foreign sales of MSE in the works. Idk.

The Politico piece says Ukraine will be receiving 2 Patriot systems. One from the US and another that is pieced from components from Germany and the Netherlands.

It is more than just missile, the launcher is significantly different. YOU can use a PAC-2 missile on any system. But a PAC-3 only on PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE. And a PAC-3 MSE missile pack can only be used on a PAC-3 MSE launcher. And trust me, there are significant differences between the three, you can not "mix and match" the newest missiles onto the older launchers.

And at least to me, each of the launchers is very different.

This is a PAC-2 series launcher. Essentially original 1980 era launchers but with many upgrades over the decades. Notice, there is 1 cable from the back that hooks to each missile canister, 1 missile per canister.

This is the PAC-3. Notice, 2 cables from the launcher to each missile canister, each canister holds 4 missiles. There are some other differences however, like the angle of the platform is slightly steeper, and other things not readily visible upon looking. But it can still hold up to 4 canisters, in any configuration so long as they are paired with like canisters above or below. Differing PAC-3 canisters can go above or below each other, but only PAC-3 can be matches above or below a PAC-3 (the PAC-3 canister is slightly smaller than a PAC-2 series canister).

Notice that this has a lot more cables coming from the launcher to the canisters. You can still mix and match, but you can not stack PAC-3 MSE canisters, only a single one goes on a side. And on the other side you can still load 2 PAC-2 canisters, or 2 PAC-3 canisters.

And while it may seem backwards to go from a maximum missile load of 16 missiles down to a maximum load of 12 missiles, that is really not a problem as the PAC-3 MSE will have a significantly faster reload time. Cutting a full reload of a launcher down from an hour to around 30 minutes (closer to 15 minutes in a combat situation with lessened safety considerations).

In reality, the PAC-3 MSE is largely a way to use some of the advances for the failed MEADS system. Congress killed that so it was never delivered, but they took many of the advances from that and used it for PAC-3 MSE. And at this time, only the US is using that version. There are other partner countries in the program, but they have yet to actually build any yet. Germany is said to be developing their own PAC-3 MSE launcher, but there is some question as to how they can do it as their launcher is significantly different than that of the US.

 

[Mushroom]

The GEM-T is the latest version of the PAC-2 missile

And this is not really quite right.

The GEM is a series of missiles, and the GEM+ is actually the newest, but they all came out in around 2002-2003.

Before that you have the GEM/C and GEM/T. Those are two different missiles, which was specifically designed to be used against different threats. Neither the GEM-T or GEM-C is really "newer" than the other, they each just are designed to target a different threat. And the GEM+ came out at the same time, more of a "hybrid" that can be loaded if the threat is unknown or may change rapidly.

GEM/C is for use against ABT or "Air Breathing Threats". In other words, cruise missiles and aircraft. GEM/T is designed to target "Terminal" threats, in other words Ballistic Missiles. GEM+ is a later variant that is designed to be effective against both threats, think of it as GEM/C combined with GEM/T. Not as good against the designated threat as the specialized one, but more effective against both than older GEM or other missiles.

In reality, with five PAC-2 launchers and a PAC-3, commanders will have the launchers loaded with whatever they think they need. PAC-3 mostly with PAC-3 missiles, the others with a mix of GEM+, GEM-C and GEM-T, depending on the threats at the time. More C if the threat is aircraft and cruise missiles, more T if it is ballistic missiles. Then with + to help in case they are unsure and want a more general missile to finish the loadout.

And there were a few other variants made, but are already discontinued as those were never put into large scale production.

PAC-3 missiles are something altogether different, as they are Kinetic Kill missiles. No explosive warhead at all, they kill by hard impact. And PAC-3 MSE is just an upgraded PAC-3 missile, just in a newer canister. And while the PAC-3 is good for ballistic and cruise missiles, with no explosive warhead some question their effectiveness against large aircraft like bombers. So if a PAC-3 is situated remotely it may indeed load 2 PAC-3 canisters and 2 GEM series ones to be more effective against more threats.

Oh, and in case you did not know, that was my actual job in the Army for over 5 years. Like a gearhead looking at different years or models of cars, I can see each of these launchers and they are as different from each other as my kids are from each other. I first saw a photo a friend of mine posted of his newest launcher, and immediately called him up and asked him what in the hell that was as I had never seen it before. And turns out it was their first PAC-3 MSE launcher. In just a glance I knew it was something new and not the same launcher I worked with myself.

 

[para bellum]

Congress killed that so it was never delivered, but they took many of the advances from that and used it for PAC-3 MSE. And at this time, only the US is using that version.

That's very different than what is reported virtually everywhere I look.

Sweden officially introduces US Patriot PAC-3 MSE air defense missile system into service – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

missiledefenseadvocacy.org

Romania Receives first PAC-3 MSE Patriot System - C4 Defence

Romania Receives first PAC-3 MSE Patriot System

www.c4defence.com

Lockheed Martin Nabs $6 Billion In PAC-3 MSE Missiles And Equipment - Defense Daily

The Army awarded Lockheed Martin a $6 billion contract to produce Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles.

www.defensedaily.com

Obviously these are not all delivered, but some have been.

"This contract comes after years of international sales of the PAC-3 MSE. Besides the U.S., nine countries have signed agreements to procure PAC-3 MSE missiles: Bahrain, Germany, Japan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, South Korea, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Last year the State Department approved a $2.7 billion Foreign Military Sale (FMS) of 452 PAC-3 MSE missiles and related equipment to the UAE (Defense Daily, May 3, 2019). Then, in July, the State Department approved another $401 million FMS of 50 PAC-3 MSE missiles and equipment to Germany (Defense Daily, July 15, 2019).

In 2018 four countries requested PAC-3 MSE interceptors. In March, Poland signed a letter of offer and acceptance to build the Patriot system with the PAC-3 ME interceptors (Defense Daily, March 28, 2018); in August, Sweden agreed to buy the Patriot system along with PAC-3 MSE missiles (Defense Daily, Aug. 10, 2018); in September, the State Department approved a $501 million FMS to South Korea for 64 PAC-3 MSEs (Defense Daily, Sept. 13, 2018); and, in November, Romania signed an agreement with the U.S. Army to buy Patriot air and missile defense system with PAC-3 MSE interceptors (Defense Daily, Nov. 1, 2018)."

 

[para bellum]

In reality, with five PAC-2 launchers and a PAC-3, commanders will have the launchers loaded with whatever they think they need. PAC-3 mostly with PAC-3 missiles, the others with a mix of GEM+, GEM-C and GEM-T, depending on the threats at the time. More C if the threat is aircraft and cruise missiles, more T if it is ballistic missiles. Then with + to help in case they are unsure and want a more general missile to finish the loadout.

This is what I was talking about "mixing and matching". If Ukraine has the current version of the system, all these missile options are available.

If we were to give them some old 1980's or 1990's era version of the complex, they would not have the same flexibility.

All the GEM series are on the PAC-2 airframe was my understanding.

 

[Mushroom]

Obviously these are not all delivered, but some have been.

"This contract comes after years of international sales of the PAC-3 MSE. Besides the U.S., nine countries have signed agreements to procure PAC-3 MSE missiles: Bahrain, Germany, Japan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, South Korea, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Yes, so there are some. And with Sweden getting 3 launchers, that is more of a pilot as that is not even enough to outfit a single Battalion with 1 each.

Germany I know will be different, as they do not even use the same launcher as the US does.

The US does not actually build those, they are built in Germany. Poland is currently using the US launcher, but is in talks for Germany to build some for them. I know the UAE uses US built launchers, as does Japan, Romania, and the rest.

But the US can only convert so many launchers at a time (and has 15 of their own Battalions to equip). And just like the PAC-3 launchers, none of the PAC-3 MSE will really be "new". They will simply be taking older PAC-2 launchers and doing top to bottom strip down rebuild. The trailer, generator, and electronic boxes will all be retained, but the launcher platforms will be completely new as will be all the wiring.

And if I have to guess, once Germany gets their PAC-3 MSE fully up, they might try and grab some of the business from other European countries as competitors to Raytheon.

 

[Mushroom]

This is what I was talking about "mixing and matching". If Ukraine has the current version of the system, all these missile options are available.

If we were to give them some old 1980's or 1990's era version of the complex, they would not have the same flexibility.

All the GEM series are on the PAC-2 airframe was my understanding.

No, most will be PAC-2 launchers. Even in a US Battery, there are 5 PAC-2 launchers and a single PAC-3 launcher. If we are sending them PATRIOT, that is what we would be sending. And that is not just the US, everybody uses the same ratio of PAC-2 and PAC-3.

And airframe? They use the same canister as the PAC-2, and the original PATRIOT. The differences there are all internal to the missile itself.

When talking about PATRIOT, all that matters is the launcher and RADAR. And we are all using "1980's era" launchers. I do not kid when I say that I was the only one in my entire Battalion that was older than my launcher. Even our newest PAC-3 was built in 1982. It was just a newer launch deck and electronics built on an original launcher.

They are not different from age so much as mission. And for most of the last 25 years there has been a fight between Congress and the Army to replacing or upgrading the system. But when the MEADS program was cancelled, it was over the objection of the partner nations like Germany. So the PAC-3 MSE was built as a compromise. Because Raytheon was actually in talks with a few countries over continuing the program without the US. And thankfully, somebody higher up made a half-decent call and decided a major upgrade was better than nothing at all.

But in reality, there is almost no difference between any of the systems in use today. No nation fields "only PAC-3" launchers, none. They all use in general a 5 to 1 ratio of PAC-2 and PAC-3. The US is still trying to figure out what ratios they will use in the future, but word I am hearing is leaning towards the ultimate goal being 50-50 between PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE. But that will likely be a decade or more in the future, as once again Raytheon can only rework so many launchers at a time.

And even in PAC-3, we barely have enough. That had already been out for over a decade when I went to school for them, and the school had none to use to train us on because the Army did not have enough launchers to put one in the school. And it is the same with THAAD, we got a one hour walkthrough of it, but we would only be fully trained in it if we were sent to a THAAD unit.

And there are no "1980's" launchers left, they have all been upgraded and with the upgrades are indistinguishable from a 1990s version. Because all the 1990s versions are 1980s versions, every single one. Just with things like GPS added, a more powerful generator, and other internal modifications.

Once again, to give an idea here is the original PATRIOT launcher, circa 1975.

Once again, I can spot multiple differences between this original launcher and the ones we use today. The electronics bays are slightly smaller, and the storage boxes below them are significantly smaller. The pod below the missiles where the cables hook into are not present, because those had not been designed yet. It also has the smaller generator, and the antenna is significantly different (and does not have the GPS antenna). The box containing the controls for the outriggers is different also, but it was locked so I could never look inside to see how they were different in action.

Anybody can see that launcher however, it sits in the White Sands Missile Range museum, and is open to all visitors. And sits about 25 yards from where my "profile pic" was taken.

 

[para bellum]

Lol. We went from the system to the missiles to the canisters.

My understand was that the GEM series was the same airframe as PAC-2- e.g. it is a derivative of the original PAC-2, modernized but not a totally new missile.

I'm a retired aerospace mfg. engr, I think in terms of the airframe first, then move on from there.

I get how they work. A normal Patriot battery has more than one missile type and more than one launcher type. Yep.

This is what SIPRI has on deliveries of PAC-3 MSE through 2022. There are many more that are ordered but not delivered.

I'm sure some of the orders won't be filled for 5 years or more, and I understand a delivery does not mean "in service". It takes time once a new missile is delivered before they can be called ready.

But for sure some are in service outside the US...

Poland (104)
Bahrain (30)
Qatar (24)
Romania (20)
South Korea (200)
Sweden (100)
UAE (200)

 

[Mushroom]

My understand was that the GEM series was the same airframe as PAC-2- e.g. it is a derivative of the original PAC-2, modernized but not a totally new missile.

Which is determined by the canister. Just as the various "SM" series missiles for the Navy can be said to use the same "airframe", which is determined by the canister and launcher. But they are still very different from those originally used. The PAC-2 is still the same "missile" as the original one, but upgraded once they started to handle more threats than just aircraft (originally the PAC-2 was envisioned for use against both aircraft and cruise missiles).

One can say the F/A-18 E Super Hornet is the same airframe as an F-18 from 1974. But they are still a very different aircraft.

And the PAC-2 was still just an upgraded PATRIOT missile in the late 1980s. And designed with only shooting down aircraft at that time, the ABM role of the system was still in early alpha testing during the Gulf War and had yet to have any missiles designed for that role. The original GEM (which we later called "GEM-") was an upgrade to allow the system to at least handle ballistic missiles better than the original missiles could as the T, C and + were still in development. But even when I was in the "GEM-" was being phased out and are likely all gone by now.

But it does not matter, PAC-2, GEM-, GEM+, T, C, all are largely the same missile. The largest difference is in the payload and fuse assembly. The PAC-2, C, and - are more akin to WWII era proximity fused warheads that kill via a shotgun effect (this can be seen on wreckage of SCUD missiles in the Gulf War). The + and T use larger shrapnel and is an almost contact kill warhead (detonating almost against the body of the target). Each is an evolution as technology got better, and still used as different warheads are effective against different threats.

You are trying to combine many things that are not the same. We still make and use C, T, and +. The difference is only in what the target they are to be used against. The same with PAC-3. It is the best against ballistic missiles, but of lesser effect against cruise missiles and aircraft. But they are nice to have, as you can fire 4 times the number of missiles from one than a PAC-2 launcher. But that is a trade-off as they are not as effective against some air threats.

And those in service in other countries? About 90% of those are PAC-2 systems.

 

[para bellum]

One can say the F/A-18 E Super Hornet is the same airframe as an F-18 from 1974. But they are still a very different aircraft.

No, one can't say that. The Super Hornet was a blank sheet design. It happened to look a lot like the Hornet, which made it kind of easier to sell because it had a familiarity to it. But it has no common components to the Hornet. It's a much larger, and more modern jet in terms of platform obsolescence.

It also has frontal aspect LO, which you cannot do properly without a sympathetic airframe- for example the use of re-entrant triangles to dissipate radar energy. The Hornet did not have that design requirement, the Super Hornet did.

Every version of the F-16, from the first to the latest is the same basic airframe. It's grown some bumps and CFT's and dorsal spines, but the airframe is still the original F-16.

PAC-2 and GEM variants are the same airframe, same basic dimensions. All the parts of the airframe- the frames and bulkheads, structural mounting points and the various fittings, are the same or modifications of the original design. Each version of the missile is an evolution of the one before, via the normal block upgrade process.

That's what I understood- I had no part of that program, I was working on other things.

 

[the other mike]

Just came across this today, I feel a little better that we are actually SELLING weapons systems to Ukraine and not just being chumps giving it away.

Ukraine, Asia Drove 50% Increase in FY22 Arms Sales

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency last year saw a substantial increase in the arms sales it administers, including arms purchased directly by partner nations with their own funds and sales

www.defense.gov

If you really want to put it into context we're sending tanks that use depleted uranium ammunition into the most fertile land on Earth.

Stop !

 

[Mushroom]

All the parts of the airframe- the frames and bulkheads, structural mounting points and the various fittings, are the same or modifications of the original design. Each version of the missile is an evolution of the one before, via the normal block upgrade process.

Because it had to fit the canister. Which they finally broke from with PAC-3 because it used a very different canister.

All previous missiles had to share the same size, length, general weight, center of gravity, and other factors because of the canister and launcher. That is another reason why the PAC-3 has multiple differences from the PAC-2 launcher.

And interesting in that you can see the difference between different generations of the Hornet, but not the PATRIOT. I know the Hornet and Super Hornet are significantly different from each other, but you are making that same mistake in PATRIOT.

 

[para bellum]

Because it had to fit the canister. Which they finally broke from with PAC-3 because it used a very different canister.

All previous missiles had to share the same size, length, general weight, center of gravity, and other factors because of the canister and launcher. That is another reason why the PAC-3 has multiple differences from the PAC-2 launcher.

It's much cheaper and easier to design a new canister than a new missile if that's all the problem was. They share the same canister because they are basically the same missile (from the canister's perspective). Yes, GEM-T is not the same missile as PAC-2, but it's a derivative. Does not mean they would be interchangeable- the connections and so forth are not going to be the same, etc.

All the PAC-2 versions fill the same role- just the newer ones do it better. We didn't develop PAC-3 because of some canister limitation- the canister is designed around the missile. We developed the PAC-3 because there are basic fundamental limits to the PAC-2's ability to be a reliable ABM interceptor.

To address that, a new missile had to be designed that was tailored to the ABM role. At some point, you have to say "okay, let's get a blank sheet".

You said it yourself- if you want to shoot down a bomber, the PAC-3 HTK isn't the best choice.

The threats the Patriot complex have to deal with cannot be handled by a single missile design. The threats are too diverse. It takes 2 different missiles to cover the entire spectrum. Maybe someday it will be 3, or it will get a directed energy weapon to complement the missiles, who knows?

And interesting in that you can see the difference between different generations of the Hornet, but not the PATRIOT. I know the Hornet and Super Hornet are significantly different from each other, but you are making that same mistake in PATRIOT.

PAC-3 was a clean-sheet missile. PAC-1/2 was a clean-sheet missile. Both have received block upgrades, and the current versions of each are derivatives of the original versions. I don't confuse PAC-3 and PAC-2, they are completely different missiles.

Just like Hornet and Super Hornet are completely different jets.

I have no idea what triggered you. I posted the list of arms to Ukraine and thought it was interesting that they were getting the Configuration-3 system. It indicates a forward-looking intent, even if they don't get the latest and greatest missiles right now, they will be capable of using them in the future, the system will support them.

 

[para bellum]

Mushroom

Maybe it's just that you see it from the operator's viewpoint and I see it from the engineer's viewpoint. To you, GEM-C and GEM-T are completely different missiles. You would not use GEM-C on a GEM-T target. There is an important functional difference.

To me, they are the same thing. They just have different components because they are customized for different targets. I don't particularly care which version it happens to be, it's the same missile.

The Patriot system has gone through several iterations and upgrades- I know what we use today does not much resemble the Patriots we used in GW1.

We are providing Patriots to Ukraine. I was commenting that they were getting the current configuration- it won't look like the Patriots from 1991. I don't know which versions of missiles will be populating the launchers, it will be whatever it is.