What's new

15th Khordad vs PAC-3

Which d

  • PAC-3

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • Khordad 15th

    Votes: 6 75.0%

  • Total voters
    8
Refer back to my first post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pac-3-vs-15-khordad.622485/#post-11532836

PAC-3 class interceptors are designed to defeat a wide-range of challenging targets including TBM and cruise missiles (proof of such intercepts provided, superior to PAC-2 class interceptors). PAC-3 class interceptors are only deployed in Mecca where they knocked out 2x Burkan class ballistic missiles. Saudi Patriot defense systems in other locations are all equipped with PAC-2 class interceptors.
Its smaller , slower , and has lower range , it has its own radar more suitable to engage ballistic missile that don't do evasive maneuver yes it can be used against aircraft and no its not providing superior interception against aircrafts compared to PAC-2 , every change they made to the missile made it more suitable for engaging ballistic missiles
 
.
Its smaller , slower , and has lower range , it has its own radar more suitable to engage ballistic missile that don't do evasive maneuver yes it can be used against aircraft and no its not providing superior interception against aircrafts compared to PAC-2 , every change they made to the missile made it more suitable for engaging ballistic missiles
Smaller?

:agree:

Due to improvements in design (technology miniaturization); higher number of missiles would fit in single TEL (~16 PAC-3 class versus ~4 PAC-2 class).

Being lightweight is also an important consideration for maneuverability.

Slower?

:disagree:

PAC-3 class interceptors are all MACH 4+
PAC-2 class interceptors are MACH 2+ on average*

*PAC-2 GEM-t is a new design optimized for BMD role and MACH 4+

Lower range?

Depends upon the variant/model, and there are additional considerations. :azn:

PAC-3 CRI = 70 KM maximum (Apogee = 30 KM)
PAC-2 GEM-t = 120 KM maximum (Apogee = 25 KM)
PAC-3 MSE = 160 KM maximum (Apogee = 35 KM)

Maximum advertised range is normally correct for engaging air-breathing targets such as aircrafts and drones, but true intercept possibilities vary in accordance to the speed and maneuvering capabilities of the target.

PAC-3 class interceptors, by virtue of their superior speed, maneuverability and onboard sensor systems, provide a larger window of intercept possibilities against increasingly challenging targets (defeating a more challenging target at a better range and/or higher altitude than an older generation interceptor). These matters aren't black and white.

PAC-3 class interceptors also address the issue of formerly distinct intercept specializations for ballistic missiles (PAC-2 GEM-t) and cruise missiles (PAC-2 GEM-c) by virtue of being multi-role capable.

engage ballistic missile that don't do evasive maneuver?

:laughcry:

US is the first country to develop maneuverable warheads (MaRV) such as Pershing II, back in the days when Iraq and Iran were using primitive Scuds. US is a master of rocket sciences [in case you forgot] and have developed and fielded the world's most advanced and reliable ICBM in Trident II D5 in large numbers. Majority of countries have yet to produce something on the level of even Minuteman II, mind you.

We are NOT talking about 1970s era Soviet ABM technologies, featuring large and heavy interceptors lacking in maneuverability and onboard tracking mechanisms, and depending upon 'command guidance' of a pre-PESA radar system on the surface, to intercept incoming ballistic missiles. These interceptors were armed with nuclear warheads to score kills because their hit probability was almost non-existent.

We are talking about an interceptor class here, lightweight designs equipped with an advanced motor and several side thrustors to achieve extreme levels of maneuverability and sophisticated onboard target-acquisition capabilities in addition to receiving 'command guidance' from a 3rd generation AESA radar system (AN/MPQ-65) which can develop fire solutions for very complex set of targets in one go. These smart robotic kill vehicles are designed to defeat (maneuvering) targets in the nutshell.

No point in investing billions in the development of a SAM system which cannot produce a fire solution for (maneuvering) targets. Don't be naive.

Not surprisingly, PAC-3 class interceptors have defeated Pershing II MaRV, and different types of cruise missiles, in a complex series of trials. There is a lot about American testing regime, that is not public knowledge.

In fact, the kind of maneuvers PAC-3 class interceptors can pull, beyond your limited inmagination about possibilities with rocketry. This isn't to say that the interceptor class in question is virtually infallible (nothing really is) but one must be aware.

An RV does not have the luxury to play GTA with smart robotic kill vehicles mid-flight, it will follow its programming and try to destroy its intended target instead. The best course of evasion is its extreme speed (MACH 10+) which in turn imposes a significant cap on the maneuverability aspect although an MaRV can execute a curved terminal flight path to approach its target, but these qualities are no longer sufficient. This is to say that you are trying to knock out a high value target shielded by a Patriot defense system armed with PAC-3 class interceptors of-course.
 
Last edited:
.
What do you guys think?
You know, as I said, all these nonsenses coming out in very short time after Iran revealing its new system shows that Iran's AD is grabbing attention. Nobody is laughing anymore, they re in denial phase and soon will accept it same way they accepted Iran's ballistic missiles accuracy.

However, I don't understand why this guy who actually is analysing the weapon, thinks this the one and only system Iran has? Before US fighters can fire that missile from 150km away, they are within the rang of S-300 and Bavar system.
 
.
PAC-3 class interceptors are all MACH 4+
PAC-2 class interceptors are MACH 2+ on average*

*PAC-2 GEM-t is a new design optimized for BMD role and MACH 4+

Lower range?

Depends upon the variant/model, and there are additional considerations. :azn:

PAC-3 CRI = 70 KM maximum (Apogee = 30 KM)
PAC-2 GEM-t = 120 KM maximum (Apogee = 25 KM)
PAC-3 MSE = 160 KM maximum (Apogee = 35 KM)
:crazy:
 
.
Iranian system launcher is near vertical american systems launcher degree is too low
 
.
You know, as I said, all these nonsenses coming out in very short time after Iran revealing its new system shows that Iran's AD is grabbing attention. Nobody is laughing anymore, they re in denial phase and soon will accept it same way they accepted Iran's ballistic missiles accuracy.

However, I don't understand why this guy who actually is analysing the weapon, thinks this the one and only system Iran has? Before US fighters can fire that missile from 150km away, they are within the rang of S-300 and Bavar system.

So in other words, with JASSM and SLAM-ER and JSOW-ER, they are all within range.
 
.
So it wasn't the U.S spending $3 billion on the Mujaheddin and all those Stinger missiles that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was all Pakistan LoL. And the best part was that bit about keeping Americans at bay in Afghanistan for 2 decades. That really had me going. Funny how U.S drones have killed Pakistanis in droves on your own soil but not in Iran. Poor Pakistanis, always taking other peoples accomplishments as your own.
Why don't I burn you down with fire!![/QUOTE]

Children should not play with fire, You'll burn down your own Shanty town![/QUOTE]

Yeah sure, now that USA is an intruder for Taliban and having a lot more technology compared to 80's stingers. Why it is finding difficult to rein in Taliban!!
Who it is asking for help to negotiate with Taliban and bring them on the table.
We didn't see it asking Iran , if it was responsible to destroy USSR or what is happening to the USA forces in Afghanistan.
By you insisting on stupid arguments, you are confirming that you are nothing but a propaganda merchant who is hell bound to even lie to make your point. I had enough of you. Sorry I don't think I should waste anytime responding to such people.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom