U.S. patriot missiles in Poland early April: report

[china]

WARSAW
Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:55am EST

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland is set to host a battery of U.S. Patriot missiles and the American troops to man it from the start of April, PAP news agency said Sunday.
Barack Obama
"The Defense Ministry expects the first stage of the stationing of a Patriot air-defense battery and a 100-man service team to get under way in the (northern) town of Morag at the turn of April," the agency said.
The Patriots are part of a Polish-U.S. agreement signed last December to upgrade the NATO member's air defenses, following Washington's decision last September to scrap a Bush-era Missile Shield incorporating installations in Poland and the neighboring Czech Republic.
Russia has repeatedly warned against stationing NATO missiles in former Soviet-bloc countries and said it would beef up its naval base across the border from Poland in its Baltic enclave Kaliningrad.
Friday, however, the Russian defense minister said Iskander tactical missiles would be installed in Kaliningrad only if Moscow felt directly threatened.
A week ago, Poland's lower house of parliament sent the Polish-U.S. agreement to President Lech Kaczynski for ratification, but his signature is expected to be a formality.
(Reporting and writing by Rob Strybel; Editing by Jon Boyle)
Barack Obama

 

[#juan]

I don't know why anyone would get excited about the Patriot missile. As far as I know, it hasn't hit a target yet. During the first gulf war all kinds of claims were made about this seemingly wonderful defensive system but it turned out that the patriot hadn't hit anything. In recent tests the news isn't any better.

 

[CDNBear]

I don't know why anyone would get excited about the Patriot missile. As far as I know, it hasn't hit a target yet. During the first gulf war all kinds of claims were made about this seemingly wonderful defensive system but it turned out that the patriot hadn't hit anything. In recent tests the news isn't any better.

Someone needs to make money off the stocks in Raytheon, Lockheed and Fire Control!!!

:lol:

 

[lone wolf]

Who are they defending against?

 

[MHz]

I don't know why anyone would get excited about the Patriot missile. As far as I know, it hasn't hit a target yet. During the first gulf war all kinds of claims were made about this seemingly wonderful defensive system but it turned out that the patriot hadn't hit anything. In recent tests the news isn't any better.

I'm sure they can be reprogrammed and warheads changed, what is their longest range when used as a surface-to-surface munition?
YouTube - Russian Pantsir-S1 -- best air defence money can buy

 

[#juan]

I don't think the Patriot missile will carry a nuclear warhead. Certainly not the Patriot that was used in the first gulf war.

 

[EagleSmack]

I don't know why anyone would get excited about the Patriot missile. As far as I know, it hasn't hit a target yet. During the first gulf war all kinds of claims were made about this seemingly wonderful defensive system but it turned out that the patriot hadn't hit anything. In recent tests the news isn't any better.

LOL.

I always give my buddy a good ribbing about the Patriot. He was a Patriot Battery Commander in the Gulf and enjoyed his 15 mins of fame before the real stories came out.

The Patriots did in fact hit SCUDS but they had to engage so close. So a Patriot missle would hit a SCUD and disable it but the warhead would still fall to earth exploding on the ground. Sadly the Patriot was unable to engage until it was practically on top of the target.

The fact of the matter was that the Patriot was an anti-aircraft system, not an anti-missle system.

 

[#juan]

LOL.

I always give my buddy a good ribbing about the Patriot. He was a Patriot Battery Commander in the Gulf and enjoyed his 15 mins of fame before the real stories came out.

The Patriots did in fact hit SCUDS but they had to engage so close. So a Patriot missle would hit a SCUD and disable it but the warhead would still fall to earth exploding on the ground. Sadly the Patriot was unable to engage until it was practically on top of the target.

The fact of the matter was that the Patriot was an anti-aircraft system, not an anti-missile system.

True. One good thing about the Skuds was that most often they took themselves out.. Another good thing was that even the Iraqis didn't know where the Skuds were going to land except in a very general way.

 

[EagleSmack]

True. One good thing about the Skuds was that most often they took themselves out.. Another good thing was that even the Iraqis didn't know where the Skuds were going to land except in a very general way.

Exactly. SCUDS were like expensive artillery. An area weapon. They were not targeted at a target within a city rather than the city itself. So the Patriot would take off, hit the SCUD but would not destroy the warhead in the sky. You always saw the warhead making a big bang in the city.

 

[MHz]

I don't think the Patriot missile will carry a nuclear warhead. Certainly not the Patriot that was used in the first gulf war.

Why would it have to be nuclear, you have a mach 5 projectile to target any facility within it's range. Anything larger can be tracked by the S-400 system.
Is this move supposed to intimidate Russian into not helping Iran after an attack by the US and Israel?

 

[#juan]

Why would it have to be nuclear, you have a mach 5 projectile to target any facility within it's range. Anything larger can be tracked by the S-400 system.
Is this move supposed to intimidate Russian into not helping Iran after an attack by the US and Israel?

The Patriot is a surface to air missile. It has a maximum range of around a 100 kilometers or sixty miles. As far as I know it is a radar guided missile with about a hundred pound warhead. I don't think it has a GPS system or an onboard computer to sort out such a signal, so it wouldn't be suitable as a weapon to attack ground targets from afar.

 

[MHz]

So their purpose would be what, considering their location? Would the equivalent counter move to be for Russia to install S-400 systems in Iran? lol

 

[ironsides]

So their purpose would be what, considering their location? Would the equivalent counter move to be for Russia to install S-400 systems in Iran? lol

Russia would not liked to be embarrassed again to see their equipment destroyed as easily as it was in the Gulf Wars. The Patriot PAC3 missile is nothing like the first ones.

 

[MHz]

Most of Saddam's stuff would have been what the US sold them during their war with Iran. That is why they was such a concern about chemical weapons, America had a copy of the bill of sale for what they had. It was an artillery based military force. They didn't need protection from stealth back then why would you expect systems not designed for that to be effective against it. What they had in air support and defense was most likely large for the area, seems like some of the (hi tech) fighters were flown away to other countries before they could be destroyed.

 

[ironsides]

Most of Saddam's stuff would have been what the US sold them during their war with Iran. That is why they was such a concern about chemical weapons, America had a copy of the bill of sale for what they had. It was an artillery based military force. They didn't need protection from stealth back then why would you expect systems not designed for that to be effective against it. What they had in air support and defense was most likely large for the area, seems like some of the (hi tech) fighters were flown away to other countries before they could be destroyed.

Read a little more, Saddam was not using U.S. equipment during Gulf war 1 or 2. (Russian air defense, Russian aircraft, Russian armor, not to mention rifles and artillery)

 

[MHz]

Rifles was about all they had for gulf2

 

[EagleSmack]

Most of Saddam's stuff would have been what the US sold them during their war with Iran. That is why they was such a concern about chemical weapons, America had a copy of the bill of sale for what they had. It was an artillery based military force. They didn't need protection from stealth back then why would you expect systems not designed for that to be effective against it. What they had in air support and defense was most likely large for the area, seems like some of the (hi tech) fighters were flown away to other countries before they could be destroyed.

So in other words you do not know what you are talking about? Do your best to find photos of knocked out (US made) Iraqi M-60 tanks and AMPs.

It was all Soviet made equipment from the AK-47's, RPGs, armor, SAMs, AA, to the MIGS. I believe they had some French made fighter aircraft as well.

 

[MHz]

So in other words you do not know what you are talking about? Do your best to find photos of knocked out (US made) Iraqi M-60 tanks and AMPs.

It was all Soviet made equipment from the AK-47's, RPGs, armor, SAMs, AA, to the MIGS. I believe they had some French made fighter aircraft as well.

Who do you think was financing Saddam directly and supporting all the loans he was acquiring.
United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States supported Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. This support included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives, although the public and news media paid little attention. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted – and frequently encouraged – the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[6]

 

[EagleSmack]

Who do you think was financing Saddam directly and supporting all the loans he was acquiring.
United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States supported Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. This support included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives, although the public and news media paid little attention. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted – and frequently encouraged – the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[6]

Move them goal posts MHz! Go on move em'!

We did provide support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War and good.

But all the equipment was Soviet. We provided intel and other sorts of aid...except chemical weapons which has been disproven over and over.

 

[MHz]

But all the equipment was Soviet. We provided intel and other sorts of aid...except chemical weapons which has been disproven over and over.

If you want the world to believe that you shouldn't have removed 1/3 of Iraq's declaration of what weapons they had. LOL

35B is how much the US made available to Saddam. Only a few billion from what the whole of the UAE donated his way.