Despite the most daring statements in advertising materials, the American-made Raytheon Patriot anti-aircraft missile system does not always show the desired results of combat use. In the past, he already gave reasons for controversy, and now the old topic has become relevant again. Recent events in Saudi Arabia, where the Patriot system again failed to intercept enemy missiles, led to a critical article in the American publication Foreign Policy. The author of this material was forced to state the low potential of the existing tactical missile defense and the possible consequences of a military-political nature.
On March 28, Foreign Policy published in the Voice column an article by Jeffrey Lewis called Patriot Missiles Are Made in America and Fail Everywhere - "Patriot missiles are made in America, but fail everywhere." The subtitle clarified that there is evidence that the missile defense system, which the United States and its allies rely on, is still a problem.
At the beginning of the article, J. Lewis pointed out the circumstances that became the reason for its appearance. On March 25, Houthi forces in Yemen made another attempt to attack Saudi Arabia. Seven ballistic missiles were launched towards its capital, Riyadh. The Saudi Arabian military confirmed the fact of the enemy attack, but said that the air defense units had successfully intercepted and destroyed all the missiles in flight.
However, these messages were not true. The author recalls that the weapons of the Houthis achieved their goal and fell in Riyadh, killing one person and wounding two more. In addition, there is no evidence that the Arabian military was able to respond to the threat with its anti-aircraft missiles at all. As a result, very uncomfortable questions arise for both Saudi Arabia and the United States, which seem to have sold themselves and their allies an unusable missile defense system.
Photos and videos from social networks showed the course of repelling a missile attack, namely the launch and flight of interceptor missiles. The Saudi Patriots carried out missile launches, but the launches that hit the lens were not successful. One of the missiles exploded in the air almost immediately after launching and exiting the launcher. The other, in turn, rose into the air, then turned to the ground, fell and exploded.
J. Lewis does not exclude that other missiles have coped with the task, but he still doubts it. He and his colleagues at the Middlesbury Institute for International Studies drew this conclusion from an analysis of two missile attacks. The events of November and December 2017, when the Houthis also attacked Saudi Arabia with the ballistic missiles available to them, were studied.
In both cases, experts determined that, despite the official statements of Riyadh, the likelihood of a successful interception of enemy missiles is small. In the course of the analysis, they compared the impact points of the attacking missiles and the debris of anti-aircraft weapons. In both cases, this study showed the same results. During the flight of the rocket to the Arabian capital, the separation of its warhead took place. In the first case, the warhead fell near the international airport in Riyadh, in the second - within the city and almost destroyed the official representation of Honda. It follows from this that the official reports on the successful repelling of missile attacks do not correspond to reality. Moreover, J. Lewis is not sure that Saudi Arabia, during the first attack, which took place in November last year, even tried to intercept.
There is no evidence that Saudi air defense was able to defend the country from Houthi missiles. And this raises an alarming question: can it be considered that the Patriot anti-aircraft complex is really capable of solving the tasks assigned to it?
The author immediately makes a reservation. Saudi Arabia is armed with the Patriot complexes of the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) modification. Unlike newer modifications, this version of the complex is poorly suited for intercepting Burkan-2-type ballistic missiles used by the Yemeni armed formations. According to known data, the firing range of such a missile reaches 600 miles (more than 950 km), and in the final phase of the flight, it drops the warhead.
However, J. Lewis is skeptical about statements that Patriot air defense systems intercepted missiles with similar characteristics in real combat. At least, he has not yet seen convincing evidence of such results of combat work.
The author immediately recalls the events of 1991. During Desert Storm, the public was confident in the near-perfect operation of the anti-aircraft systems: they intercepted 45 Scud missiles out of 57 launched. However, the US Army later scrutinized the issue, and the rate of successful interceptions dropped to 50%. At the same time, it was possible to speak of success with confidence only in a quarter of the cases. Some at the Congressional Research Service sarcastically: if the army applies its own assessment techniques correctly, the success rate will be even smaller. According to some reports, there was only one truly successful interception.
The House of Representatives Committee on State Operations at one time conducted its own investigation and came to unpleasant conclusions. The absence of a large amount of evidence of interception of enemy missiles by Patriot systems was indicated, and the available information did not fully confirm even these cases.
The Committee's full report, which called on the Pentagon to publish more data on the use of anti-aircraft systems and conduct an independent assessment of their work, is still classified. Published only general theses describing the situation as a whole. The reasons for this were simple - the military department and the Raytheon company fought fiercely for their interests.
Given the events of Desert Storm, the author of Foreign Policy is skeptical about the 2003 reports as well. Then the Pentagon spoke about successful interceptions of Iraqi missiles by Patriot complexes, and such statements were generally taken on faith. When similar events took place in Saudi Arabia and J. Lewis wished to familiarize himself with the results of the combat use of the air defense missile system, he was no longer surprised by what he saw.
The author asks the question: if the Patriot complex does not solve its combat missions, why do the United States and Saudi Arabia say otherwise?
In addressing this issue, J. Lewis calls for understanding. The main function of the government is to ensure the safety of citizens. The Saudi government is now facing serious threats and is forced to take special measures to protect the population. Allegations of successful interceptions of enemy missiles disseminated by the media are a kind of statement by the official Riyadh that it has fulfilled its security obligations.
In addition, according to the author, statements about a working defense - like the events of 1991 - help to reduce tensions in the region. At one time, such principles worked in the case of Iraqi missiles, which did not become a pretext for the offensive of the Israeli army. Now, the statements of the Saudi capital hide the fact that the attacks were organized by Iranian specialists using Iranian missiles.
However, J. Lewis and his colleagues are not government officials, but independent analysts. The author recalls that his main responsibility in this context is to establish the truth. And in the situation under consideration, the truth is that the Patriot PAC-2 anti-aircraft missile systems do not cope with their work. Such a situation is dangerous because the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United States may believe their own lies about the successful work of air defense.
The author suggests recalling recent messages. For example, in November last year, some US officials anonymously claimed that the Saudi military had failed to intercept a Houthi missile. However, US President Donald Trump made the opposite statement. According to him, the American system "knocked a missile out of the sky." The President added: “That's what great fellows we are. Nobody makes such systems, and we sell them all over the world."
D. Trump returned to the topic of missile defense over and over again. Commenting on the threat of North Korea's nuclear forces, he boldly stated that the United States had missiles with a 97% target chance. For guaranteed destruction of an enemy missile, only two such products are required. The President has repeatedly indicated that existing air and missile defense systems will protect the United States.
Jeffrey Lewis believes that such fabrications can be dangerous, especially against the background of current events and existing plans. D. Trump's administration seems to be going to break the nuclear deal with Iran and let further events follow the same path as in the case of the DPRK. As a result, Tehran will be able to develop its nuclear potential, which will allow it to strike at US partners in the Middle East. Ultimately, Iran will be able to threaten even the United States itself.
Therefore, J. Lewis calls to admit the truth and say it out loud. Existing missile defense systems are not a solution to existing problems. The development of missile technologies and nuclear weapons leads to new problems that cannot be eliminated. The author believes that there is not and cannot be some kind of "magic wand" that can guaranteed to shoot down all missiles aimed at the United States or friendly states.
The only way out of this situation, according to the author of Foreign Policy, is in the field of diplomacy. He believes that third countries should be persuaded not to develop and not adopt new means of nuclear missile strike. If the Americans do not succeed in solving such a task, then no anti-aircraft or anti-missile defense will save them.
The Patriot anti-aircraft missile system was adopted by the United States in 1982. It is a mobile air defense system capable of attacking targets at long ranges and high altitudes. Initially, the complex could only use MIM-104 missiles of several modifications, designed to attack aerodynamic targets, but having some anti-missile potential. The PAC-3 modification introduced the ERINT missile, originally designed to combat ballistic missiles.
Complexes "Patriot" modifications PAC-2 and PAC-3 are in service with nine countries. At the same time, most of the armies use the systems of the second version, while the United States has completely switched to the newest modification. Just the other day, a new contract was signed, according to which Poland will become the new operator of such air defense systems.
The first cases of combat use of Patriot air defense systems date back to the 1991 Gulf War. The use of these systems has sparked a lengthy controversy, mentioned in the Foreign Policy article. During Operation Desert Storm, MIM-104 anti-aircraft missiles were not used against aircraft, but were only used to intercept Iraqi ballistic missiles. Iraq has carried out several dozen launches, and the number of intercepted missiles is still controversial. In addition, there are certain difficulties in determining the success of the interception.
Despite certain problems identified during certain combat training events or armed conflicts, the Patriot anti-aircraft complex remains in service with the United States and friendly states. Replacement of these systems with other complexes is not yet planned.
