news

I think what's complicating this is that usually Europe would just buy more PAC-3 MSE interceptors from the USA under the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) programme and send it direct to Ukraine. The USA manufactured over 600 PAC-3 MSE last year, and plans to up that to over 2000 per year within the next four years. However, with the USA sending PATRIOT battalions and ammunition to the Middle East now, they've probably reserved stocks for a potential war with Iran. So the USA can't sell Europe PAC 3 MSE now, or for the next few months.

As for domestic production, Germany only does domestic production of PAC-2, not PAC-3. These are very different missiles. While PAC-2 can intercept ballistic missiles, it's maximum intercept altitude, and thus defended area, is a lot lower than PAC-3. This is because, to engage a ballistic target at greater range, you are required to engage it at greater altitude. At at increased altitudes, the air gets thinner. This is a problem as the PAC-2 missile/interceptor relies primarily on four aerodynamic fins at the rear to maneuver. This means as altitude increases, it rapidly loses control authority as the air gets thinner. PAC-3 solves this issue by putting a mini rocket thruster powered altitude control system in the body of the missile, I think over 120 small rockets if I recall correctly. This allows it to maneuver sharply at high altitudes without needing to rely on aerodynamic fins, greatly extending it's maximum engagement altitude and thus defended area against ballistic missiles. PAC-3 MSE further improves on this by adding a larger dual pulse rocket motor to the mix for interoperability with THAAD and future proofing, meaning that PAC-3 MSE actually outranges the PATRIOT's radar.

PAC-2 also relies on a blast fragmentation warhead, which is not ideal for intercepting ballistic missiles. If you want to ensure a good destruction zone for hitting ballistic missiles with blast fragmentation, you ideally want a directional warhead with lots and lots of fragmentation to shower the incoming missile, look at the size of the warhead used in Arrow 2 and S-300V. PAC-2 is not really optimal for that. PAC-3 solves this by using a hit to kill/kinetic warhead, there's no explosive, it directly impacts the incoming missile, with the high speeds involved the kinetic energy is massive. It also makes the interceptor a lot smaller. You can fit 4x PAC-2 on a single launcher, meanwhile you can fit 16x PAC-3 or 12x PAC-3 MSE on a single launcher, and can combine loadouts with all three. There's an image of a Ukrainian PATRIOT launcher going around with 12x PAC-3 and 2x PAC-3 MSE. This makes a saturation attack with ballistic missiles against PATRIOT more difficult.

As for other nations, it's difficult to compare numbers as PAC 3 is quite a specialised interceptor, hit to kill with an altitude control system integrated in a high to medium air defence system (HIMADS). And ballistic missile defence is quite specialised and expensive.

Russia has a direct analogue, the 9M96 series of interceptors for the S-400 and S-350. Altitude control system and hit to kill. But production numbers don't seem great, not even all S-400s are integrated with it, and if it is, it's usually one or two launchers per battery. S-350 production is slow. Thankfully for Russia, that's not their primary anti ballistic missile system, that would be S-300V4. No altitude control system or hit to kill, but enormous missiles that accelerate and travel very fast and provide a decent maximum engagement altitude (around 30+km). There's also the 40N6 missile for the S-400, fulfills a similar role to the USA's SM-6.

China has the HQ-9C now, hit to kill and with an altitude control system. So that's a direct comparison that will be in mass production for both the army and navy. 8 missiles per launcher, they're bigger than even PAC-3 MSE. China is also the only country in the world outside of the USA to have a THAAD analogue, the HQ-19.

Israel have a whole host of anti ballistic missile systems, Arrow 3, Arrow 2, David's Sling. But Arrow 3 and Arrow 2 definitely aren't HIMADS systems and specialise in engaging ballistic missiles only. David's Sling's Stunner interceptor uses hit to kill technology, but no altitude control system, to expensive for Israel to mass produce or purchase, which is why they developed Stunner with Raytheon instead of buying PATRIOT PAC-3. And yes these are all joint Israeli - USA projects.

"bomber will always get through".

The best defence is always offence and to win a war, you can't spend all day just swatting down missiles, you have to actually take out the infrastructure producing the incoming missiles and destroy them before launch. Missile defence is meant to supplement that and defend the assets that do that, not act alone. That's Ukraine's big problem, they cannot do that on a large enough scale. Their operation spiderweb taking out some Russian bombers was the closest they got to that, and it's reduced the amount of incoming cruise missiles. But it does nothing to stop ballistic missiles, which don't rely on these bombers to launch. That's also where Europe differs from Ukraine, European NATO would definitely try take out Russian infrastructure instead of swatting down missiles all day. The question is would they be successful at it? Europe has a bunch of F-35s and domestic 4th generation fighters, but can they suppress double digit SA systems. Only the USA and Israel have done that so far. I'd guess that China can do it too with all their stealth and EW aircraft. Russia hasn't been able to do it in Ukraine. Europe may have some of the key pieces like stealth planes, but taking out modern integrated air defence networks involves a lot more than that, especially Russia's.

five missiles

if everyone else contributes 25 other missiles

what in the coconut tree pell grant is this

iirc the French army only has three days-worth of bullets for a high intensity war

Pakistan and India definitely do have functional air defense. I imagine Japan does as well. Shambolic from the euros as always though.

Ukraine supposedly uses up to 60 patriot missiles per month by the way, which itself is already about equal to the American industrial capacity for this type... and they're still rebuilding their paper-thin stockpiles after their adventures around Israel/Iran/Yemen.

lol. lmao.

Some smaller countries like Finland are surprisingly strong still. France is definitely powerful. Germany is deindustrializing but they haven’t yet mothballed everything. Steel production in Germany could increase by 50% practically overnight, assuming they went war-economy.