Why U.S. Patriot missiles failed to stop drones and cruise missiles attacking Saudi oil sites

[jpak]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-sending-troops-saudi-arabia-shows-short-range-air-defenses-ncna1057461

The United States is sending American troops to the Middle East to provide better air and missile defenses after an aerial attack on Saudi oil targets last week. The raid began around 4 a.m. on the morning of Sept. 14, with explosions rippling across the Kurais and Abqaiq Aramco oil processing facilities inside Saudi Arabia as the sound of defensive automatic machine-gun fire rang in the air.

In theory, the oil facilities both lay under the defensive umbrella of Patriot PAC-2 surface-to-air missile batteries that the U.S. sold to Saudi Arabia to intercept aircraft and missiles up to 100 miles away. However, if Saudi radars detected the 18 triangular drones and seven cruise missiles (judging by recovered debris) that bombarded them last week, they did so too late. Instead, they were forced to fire sporadically with automatic weapons, which didn’t prevent widespread damage that temporarily disrupted shipments of 5.7 million barrels of oil daily — half of Saudi Arabia’s output.

<snip>

Instead, the Pentagon saw a need for medium- and long-range air defenses like the Patriot to protect against ballistic missiles that arc high up into the exo-atmosphere at immense speeds and long distances. That’s where they focused the military’s planning — to some success, as suggested by the Saudi-based Patriot battery’s record of intercepting dozens of high-flying ballistic missiles from Yemen in recent years.

But it turned out that the threat that has grown most rapidly in recent years comes not from manned aircraft, but the drones and low-flying cruise missiles that are proliferating rapidly across the globe due to exports from China, Israel and Russia.

<more>

[JCMach1]

1. Flak, Rail Guns, Kinetic Devices... drones are fragile

[Anon-C]

5. Aegis Ashore...does it have a phalanx close in system, would that be a better defense?

[JCMach1]

11. Aegis would work, but you are going to drop a lot of shrapnel

on populated areas. But if facility is far enough outside city...

[mwooldri]

2. Note to Pentagon:. You're not fighting Scud missiles any more.

Welcome (again) to asymmetric warfare.

[Amishman]

6. The Pentagon knows this

And we have air defense systems for this stuff, a quick Google search says it's a radar gun system called Centurion C-ram

Sounds like we didn't sell that oneto the saudis

[Wellstone ruled]

3. Yupper,those jucied up

Nike Missiles are not going to cut it. 1980 technology ain't going to cut it.

Triangular Drones. Never forget,the Iranian Military hacked one of our Triangular Drones and landed it unscathed. What is with people,do they think everyone is totally stupid and can not reverse engineer these things.

[Caliman73]

4. Yes.

The Achilles heel of the US is that we really think that we are the best at EVERYTHING and thus we get lulled into complacency very easily.

[Wellstone ruled]

7. Well,if one gets their info from Murdoch Media,

ones Info IQ will drop proportionally with the number of days they partake.

BTW,hope someone does a Engineering story about those Patriot Batteries. Like I mentioned,just juiced up Nike's in a Box.

[Caliman73]

9. I remember during Desert Storm...

They were touted as "the most advanced...." awesomest most bestest thing ever! Then Scuds got past them a couple of times. I am sure missle tech has increased since 91, but still...

[Wellstone ruled]

10. Just like to thousands of Cluster Bombs(smart Bombs)

were all the rage. Truth,98 of those were operable. The rest were Vietnam era iron Bombs dressed up to look the part.

[Xolodno]

8. Two theories.

1. Our missile defense system is seriously out dated and would explain why Turkey said "screw you" and opted for a Russian defense system.

2. The Saudi's saw it coming but allowed it to happen to just spike oil prices.


In this case ironically, I'm really hoping for option #2.