The Patriot's fratricide record

Washington Times ^

[Sir Gawain]

WASHINGTON, April 24 (UPI) -- In his last e-mail message home before he died, 30-year-old Navy pilot Lt. Nathan White described the challenges his F/A-18C would face over Iraq. One of his top concerns was avoiding American Patriot air defense missiles.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[68skylark]

"Once you are tracked by the Patriot, it's impossible to shake."

Sounds like a very lethal system. There seem to be a few bugs still in the system -- I hope they get those worked out.

[sam_paine]

There seem to be a few bugs still in the system

Depends on how you look at it.... Libs decried missile defense because it "missed" too much, now it "hits" too much. The old bugs that everyone complained about with the original system have been addressed to such an extent that you'd better be careful what you point it at.

I'd rather give the military a deadly weapon that's totally reliable to kill something at let them figure out how to use it safely, than to put a bunch of "safety trigger locks" on it.

[Alberta's Child]

I think the problem is that the U.S. military insists on using one missile system for anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense. An anti-missile system is bound to be far more sensitive than an anti-aircraft system, and probably is more susceptible to friendly-fire incidents.

I found the information about the Patriot's performance in Gulf War I particularly enlightening, since I knew those stories back in 1992 about the superior performance of the Patriot were all a hoax.

[Blueflag]

You're looking in the wrong place.

We should be wondering what went wrong with the IFF (interrogate friend or foe) systems. Did they 'fail'; knocked out by lightning or 'flak' damage; did the pilot set it wrong?

The missile system worked as advertised and designed. Once a target was assigned, it killed it. Find out why 'friendlies' were not ID'd as such. THERE's the issue.

[Aaron0617]

Lt. Nathan White and family

[Tallguy]

My brother-in-law served in a Patriot battery (just after the Gulf War). He indicated that the Patriot was VERY EFFECTIVE against aircraft -- much more so than the Hawk System that it replaced.

[Physicist]

Phil Coyle, a former Pentagon chief of operational testing, questions why Patriots were allowed to fire on any aircraft at all. U.S. Central Command reports that not a single Iraqi aircraft took off during the entire war. "I want to know what they were doing targeting any aircraft," he said.

My thoughts exactly.

Furthermore, since there already exists an "engagement override" feature, why not give a measure of that control to the pilots? They know when a Patriot is targeting them or coming at them; why couldn't they have a button to push that would stop the attack?

[Daus]

Phil Coyle, a former Pentagon chief of operational testing, questions why Patriots were allowed to fire on any aircraft at all. U.S. Central Command reports that not a single Iraqi aircraft took off during the entire war.

Well Phil, because IF they did get a plane up and IF it was carrying biological weopons, the fine people of Kuwait might have had a very different experience in this war.

This is just another example of people lamenting the lack of 'perfect war'. It doesn't exist. I will never exist.

[Daus]

Furthermore, since there already exists an "engagement override" feature, why not give a measure of that control to the pilots? They know when a Patriot is targeting them or coming at them; why couldn't they have a button to push that would stop the attack?

The system is already having problems just authenticating the aircraft as friend or foe, and now we want it do that PLUS authenticate an overide command? Might as well turn it off and plant flowers in the launcher tubes. :)

[El Gato]

I don't know enough about the details of Patriot operation to know if this makes sense or not, but here's my guess on what may have happened. The system can be put in a mode where it only goes after ballistic missles. However cruise missles and aircraft have pretty much the same kind of flight parameters and the Iraqies had and used some of those, so you wouldn't want the thing set in ballistic missile only mode all the time. So the thing is set up for both types of targets, with the battery crew there to overide if neccessary. However when the battery crew takes cover due to incoming, they slap a switch or push a button to put the system in autofire mode. Then along comes a Tornado, an F-16, or an F-18. For whatever reason the IFF is not working, and the system "thinks" it's a cruise missle and fires on it. Depending on how close the wingman was to the lead, the system may not have classified them as a flight, and thought the targeted aircraft was unidentified, even though the leader was squaking the proper IFF mode 4 code.

One solution might be to give the fire control crew some (more?) protection against artillery fire, near misses anyway and have them stay at their posts when the unit is being shelled. Nothing that could be classed as mobile or even transportable is going to protect you against a direct hit, so you have to balence the risk to the aircraft and their crews to that for the missle crew.

[Physicist]

The system is already having problems just authenticating the aircraft as friend or foe, and now we want it do that PLUS authenticate an overide command?

But the system already has to authenticate override commands. It won't matter to the missile whether the command comes from the ground or from the plane it's streaking toward. The Patriot system doesn't have to change one jot or tittle.

[Alberta's Child]

I see. I'm not sure exactly how an IFF system works -- is a failure the result of a problem on the ground, or in the aircraft?

[El Gato]

"I want to know what they were doing targeting any aircraft," he said.

Because a cruise missle "looks" just like an aircraft, because it IS a small robotic aircraft.

[sam_paine]

since I knew those stories back in 1992 about the superior performance of the Patriot were all a hoax.

You should fully educate yourself on the PAC-3 upgrade, which is a "hit-to-kill" Kinetic Intercept system from Lockheed-Martin (originally developed by Vought Missiles and Fire control). The original Raytheon "Patriot" system employed a proximity fuse that exploded shrapnel nearby an incoming aircraft. As such, the original Patriot was not much more than an advanced guided anti-aircraft flak shell.

The PAC-3 is an intelligent rocket with no explosive warhead whatsoever, that was designed to be launched from the old Raytheon launchers with a software upgrade. PAC-3 is essentially a bullet that collides directly with the bogey at 5000+ mph closing velocity, and when all that kinetic energy is converted into heat, it vaporizes both missiles (or aircraft).

While the first Patriot was primarily designed to address aircraft, neither system particularly cares what its target is called (missile or aircraft.)

The "stories" that you "knew" were a hoax were nothing more than mischaracterization of a crappy missile vs. a flak explosion. The Patriots detonated, showered the SCUDs with shrapnel, and the SCUDs fell out of the sky with holes in them. It wasn't a hoax, but just how do you define effective?

If you notice most of the pix from this war, you see Marines wandering around in the desert picking up tiny little pieces of the target, while in GWI you'd see a smoking carcass of a SCUD laying on the ground.

There was no conspiracy or hoax.

[El Gato]

It won't matter to the missile whether the command comes from the ground or from the plane it's streaking toward.

Actually it would. The command would have to come over the "datalink" from the fire control radar to the missle. (Patriot is "track via missle, which means the missle receives reflected radar energy, transmitted by the ground radar and reflected off the target, back to the ground control unit, which processes it and uploads guidance commands to the missle. That uplink would also carry any destruct command.) The datalink antennas on the missle are oriented backwards, back toward the fire unit, the aircraft target would be in front of the missle. Even if that weren't true, you'd have to add a datalink system to all aircraft. The uplink antenna on the ground can be fairly large, and it's associated transmitters can be fairly powerfull, simply because weight, size and power consumption aren't nearly so critical on a ground based system compared to an aircraft, so you might have trouble putting such an uplink on some aircraft, particularly those most at risk, that is figher and attack type aircraft.

[sam_paine]

why couldn't they have a button to push that would stop the attack?

They DID have such a button...it's labeled "LAUNCH."

When the F-16 was locked on by a Patriot radar, he disabled it by dropping a bomb on the radar xmitter of the Patriot battery before it launched, which is nowhere near the control center of the battery where the crew is. So nobody got hurt.

Pretty harsh, but you don't EVER allow the target an oppty to override the missile after it is launched. IFF happens before launch, after launch, you do what you have to, like th F-16 pilot did.

[Poohbah]

I think the problem is that the U.S. military insists on using one missile system for anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense. An anti-missile system is bound to be far more sensitive than an anti-aircraft system, and probably is more susceptible to friendly-fire incidents.

?????

I fail to see your connection between the Patriot's TMD mission and its susceptibility to friendly-fire incidents.

[sam_paine]

fine people of Kuwait might have had a very different experience in this war.

Good point, D. Thought it is a shame that friendly military forces died needlessly, it is EXACTLY why they put the uniform on....to protect civilians.

Better three pilots are lost than for one rogue plane/missile get through to Kuwait and kill wimmen/chillun.

I'll bet a dime-to-a-donut that the pilots would've agreed.