http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/patriot-performance.cfm
March 25, 2003 Printer-Friendly Version
Fourteen Iraqi missiles have been launched at U.S. forces in Kuwait
since hostilities began Thursday. Of those, six have reportedly
been intercepted by U.S. Patriot missiles. Is this track record
validation for missile defense systems in general and boosters of
the Patriot program in particular? Right now, it is too early to
tell: only analysis months, if not years, after hostilities are
over will provide an accurate assessment of the Patriot's
performance. In the meantime, it is important to objectively note
what has been reported of the missile defense program thus
far.
There are four different kinds of missiles involved in the Patriot
program. There is the old Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-2, the
missile with a blast-fragmentation warhead that was used to almost
no avail during the 1991 Gulf War. There is the PAC-2 Guided
Enhanced Munition (GEM), a refurbished version of the PAC-2 whose
new low noise seeker and modernized, faster fuze allow for an
increased engagement area. There is the GEM+, where a GEM missile
system has an enhanced acquisition and tracking system that
attempts to monitor low radar cross-section targets in a cluttered
environment. Finally, there is the PAC-3, which uses a hit-to-kill
warhead to directly intercept short-range ballistic missiles.
Apparently all four missiles have been used in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, but the latest and most advanced version of the Patriot,
the PAC-3, has only been involved in a few of the intercept
attempts.
The Patriots are being launched against what seem to be
Ababil-100s, a solid-fuel ballistic missile that is thought to have
a range of around 100 miles. These missiles provide an entirely
different tracking and intercepting challenge. Ababils, having
shorter ranges, have a quicker booster burnout period and move at
slower speeds than do Scuds. The Scuds used by Iraq during the
first Gulf War had ranges of about 400 miles. Also, because they
had been so shoddily maintained, they wobbled and fell apart
mid-flight, making tracking them extremely difficult. The couple of
dozen or so Scuds Iraq may still have in its arsenal - if, indeed,
it even has any left - have been hidden in what must have been
less-than-optimal chambers for well over a decade and no doubt
would fly even more erratically than they did in 1991. The reports
of the Patriot's performance against Ababils, while encouraging, do
not necessarily indicate how reliable the missile defense system
would be against Scuds.
Accounts from the field indicate that the Patriots are being used
in a manner known as the ripple-fire, where multiple Patriots are
launched against a single threat in the hopes that their lethality
will be increased simply by sheer dint of numbers. The ripple-fire
method is more or less how the Patriot was designed to be operated,
so it is not unusual that it is being applied in Iraq. But it is
important to note this doctrine, because otherwise the impression
might be gained that the missiles were destroying their targets on
a one-to-one basis. Also, some of the Iraqi missiles are simply
being let to fly unmolested if U.S. forces deem that they will land
in unpopulated areas. This would imply that Patriot missile battery
commanders are reserving their limited number of missiles for the
most pressing threats.
Finally, the weekend's friendly fire incident is a terrible
reminder of the Patriot's limitations. Even if the operators do
everything they are supposed to do, technical problems can and do
crop up. Expectations of the Patriot's effectiveness must be reined
in so that such tragedies can be side-stepped in the future.
By Victoria Samson
CDI Research Associate
[email protected] Printer-Friendly Version