Gulf War II - Patriot Performance
April 9, 2003
Gulf War II - Patriot Performance
by Matt Martin
The latest version of the Patriot PAC-3 terminal missile defense system is being put through its paces in real-time. Deployed in the Iraq theater in conjunction with the upgraded PAC-2 missile defense system, PAC-3 is being watched for effectiveness, especially since its predecessor had questionable utility. Analysis by MIT professor Ted Postol of the first generation Patriots after the Gulf War showed that, contrary to the claims of the Defense Department at the time, its effectiveness in stopping incoming Iraqi Scuds was very close to zero—perhaps even exactly zero.
In the current conflict, it appears the Patriot systems have been used mainly against older, slower Iraqi missiles: al Samoud-2s, Ababil-100s, and Silkworms. Only one possible use against a Scud has been reported, and that has not yet been confirmed. According to General Kadish, the head of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in a Congressional hearing earlier today, the Patriots “have engaged” nine short-range ballistic missiles, with four of these intercepts using the newer PAC-3 interceptors.
Unfortunately, there have been a number of significant problems. On March 24, one Patriot battery mistakenly fired at a British Tornado fighter plane, killing its two-man crew. The following day, Patriot batteries locked onto a US F-16 fighter plane, forcing it to fire its own missile and take out the Patriot system. Most recently, on April 2, a Patriot battery apparently shot down a US Navy F/A-18C Hornet in southern Iraq.
These problems prompted Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank, to remark, “It looks like the Patriot has gone from a system that couldn’t hit anything to a system that is almost dangerous because it will hit anything you aim at, even if it’s friendly.” Some have suggested that the problem may lie not with the Patriots, but with the Friend-or-Foe identification systems onboard allied aircraft. However, at today’s Congressional hearing, General Kadish stated that while much investigation still needs to be done, he believes that there “could be both flaws in the [Patriot] system and also flaws in the application of the system.”
Remember, the Defense Department made wildly over-optimistic claims about the Patriots in the first Gulf War. For the missile defense component that is by far the most mature missile defense technology, and the easiest to accomplish, this is not encouraging. Other systems designed to defend larger areas and from faster, more capable missiles are years and perhaps decades behind in development and engineering. Those claims took years of careful analysis to refute. Let’s not jump to any conclusions this time.