What's new

Vietnam Defence Forum

Google is your friend...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

Overall, the system has several radars, including the radar on the missile itself, and each performs a specific function.

What about the missiles payload.....

Aircraft target hit rate....

Missile target hit rate.....

At 3 million USD per missile, what are your thoughts on cost effectiveness of this system. Recently, one was use to shoot down a $200 drone.

Can an enemy bankrupt a country by sending swarms of missiles that cost 10x cheaper than the systems missile?
 
What about the missiles payload.....
Google is your friend...

https://www.armyrecognition.com/uni...t_specifications_information_description.html
The high-explosive 90kg warhead is situated behind the terminal guidance section.
Not that difficult to find.

Aircraft target hit rate....

Missile target hit rate.....
Wait until a war.

At 3 million USD per missile, what are your thoughts on cost effectiveness of this system. Recently, one was use to shoot down a $200 drone.

Can an enemy bankrupt a country by sending swarms of missiles that cost 10x cheaper than the systems missile?
If this is intended to ridicule the system, it means you do not understand warfare in general.

An UAV may cost less than the Patriot missile, but if the UAV is not destroyed, what is the value of the intelligence the UAV gathered and returned to the enemy ?
 
23421440_2016619855236061_736439518051172352_n.jpg

Indonesian Aerospace NC-212i AX-2121 project for Viet nam
 
Google is your friend...

https://www.armyrecognition.com/uni...t_specifications_information_description.html

Not that difficult to find.


Wait until a war.


If this is intended to ridicule the system, it means you do not understand warfare in general.

An UAV may cost less than the Patriot missile, but if the UAV is not destroyed, what is the value of the intelligence the UAV gathered and returned to the enemy ?

If I wanted google to enlighten me, I would have used google. You offered to educate me on the subject, so, I am asking you. Clearly, you know this system better than anyone else, and I like my information straight from the horses mouth.

To address your last statement, you do not think it is idiotic? On the contrary, you do not seem to understand warfare, not even its fundamentals. You might make a good cannon fodder, but your understanding of warfare on a macro level is cartoonish at best; here's why: UAV cost less than a patriot missile, that is apparent. And I, the your enemy, send over $200 USD UAV and I know you must destroy it or risk losing valuable intel, far more valuable than 3 million USD. Suppose that I make 15000 UAV for the price of one missile and I keep sending them over and you continue to launch your expensive missile at me, I've already won the war via the economic front. And as you know, far more wars have been won on the economic front than it is won on the battlefield.

We're not discussing dynamics of war here, we're discussing the economics of war.
 
Which part of the Patriot missile system would you like to know better ?
Patriot is the core of NATO air defense over Western Europe. I don’t think we will buy the missile system though even Donald Trump offers it. It is almost impossible to integrate US missile system with the system of the Russians.
 
If I wanted google to enlighten me, I would have used google.
It is a good start.

To address your last statement, you do not think it is idiotic? On the contrary, you do not seem to understand warfare, not even its fundamentals. You might make a good cannon fodder, but your understanding of warfare on a macro level is cartoonish at best; here's why: UAV cost less than a patriot missile, that is apparent. And I, the your enemy, send over $200 USD UAV and I know you must destroy it or risk losing valuable intel, far more valuable than 3 million USD. Suppose that I make 15000 UAV for the price of one missile and I keep sending them over and you continue to launch your expensive missile at me, I've already won the war via the economic front. And as you know, far more wars have been won on the economic front than it is won on the battlefield.

We're not discussing dynamics of war here, we're discussing the economics of war.
That -- highlighted -- is hilarious.

If you know of a radar system that will display the manufacturing cost of an intruder so that the defender can make a financially informed decision on whether to shoot, I would love to know who makes it. Such a radar system would save the Patriot battery commander the mockery of after-the-fact Internet experts.

My understanding of warfare is cartoonish ? Unlike the movies, when a radar display an unidentified airborne object, missiles do not automatically launches. If that is what you believe, then what cartoons have you been watching.

For example...Is the airspace contested or controlled and which status is more likely to have unidentified airborne objects ?

The answer determines the response mechanism and time. Have you even heard of the phrase and idea of 'contested airspace' ?

Contrary to the movies, in contested airspace, unidentified airborne objects actually DELAYS missile launches. In contested airspace, not all friendlies are quick to respond to IFF queries. Therefore, you as the defender must give benefit of the doubt lest you get involved in fratricide, aka 'blue on blue' killing. On the other hand, in contested airspace, if there is an order from above that all friendlies must either be quick to respond to IFF queries or stay out, then you can set automatic defensive measures.

Since we know that no radar system can display the manufacturing cost of an unidentified airborne object, even a cheaply made UAV must be treated as a multi-million$$ high capability threat. Do you understand now ?

There is a difference between cheap and inexpensive. Cheap usually mean quality related. Inexpensive mean lower manufacturing cost but the quality is comparable to an established standard.

If there is a radar system that can display the $200 manufacturing cost of an unidentified airborne intruder, as a Patriot battery commander, I would not respond once I see the dollar figures next to its altitude, speed, and heading values. :lol:

Two hundred bucks are not going to get you much in terms of capabilities. If it is a recon drone, my lasers and IR strobes can do the job of interfering with its sensors. And at 200 bucks, that thing cannot carry any ordnance worth worrying about. So yes, I would love to have a radar system that can calculate the manufacturing cost of a perceived threat so I can avoid being mocked by Internet experts.
 
It is a good start.
If there is a radar system that can display the $200 manufacturing cost of an unidentified airborne intruder, as a Patriot battery commander, I would not respond once I see the dollar figures next to its altitude, speed, and heading values. :lol:

That is the whole basis of this conversation though. The point is, you DO NOT know what it is that you are seeing on your radar, and if you did, you do not know its value and purpose. As you stated previously, the value of whatever intel it is that the patriot missile is trying to protect exceed 3 million USD. You are forced to engage or let a 200 USD drone win the battle for me. One drone not enough? Fine, I'll send 1000 drone and I would STILL get more value out of my drones than your one missile. Shoot it down or give up your position and numbers. You're like the Brock Lesnar of the MMA world, if he can't win in the first 1 minute of the fight, he will never win. He is big and powerful but he expend too much energy; fighting a unsustainable fight. This relate to us because look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc...

It's like you're trading rooks for pawns and you expect to win a chess game.

I'm not a expert, never claimed to be an expert, you, however, claimed you know everything there is to know about said missile system. What I did claim is that your tactics are cartoonish. Kinda like marvin the martian trying to blow up the world with your fancy lasers only to be outplayed by bugs bunny and his carrots. Or like how Wily E. Coyote with his state of the art ACME road runner missile.
 
Trump courts Vietnam to ward off Beijing in South China Sea
Bill Gertz
http://www.atimes.com/trump-courts-vietnam-ward-off-beijing-south-china-sea/

Once bitter enemies, the United States and Vietnam are increasing defense and intelligence cooperation in the face of growing Chinese maritime encroachment in the South China Sea.

US President Donald Trump has unveiled a program of using quiet diplomacy and behind-the-scenes discussions to block Chinese attempts to take over the South China Sea through a covert campaign of island-building and militarization. During his November 10-12 visit to Vietnam, Trump agreed to sharply increase security cooperation, including stepped-up military support and, surprisingly, intelligence cooperation.

The joint US-Vietnam statement outlines the new relationship. “The two leaders underscored that their two countries would deepen and gradually expand security and intelligence cooperation, enhancing information sharing and joint training on issues of mutual concern,” it said.

Cooperation on bolstering cyber security, a key concern of both countries – which have both been targets of Chinese hacking – will also be stepped up. The two will exchange delegations and information-sharing “in order to promote an open and secure cyberspace.” The Vietnamese also are seeking closer collaboration on aviation safety and security and counterterrorism.

A senior White House official traveling with the president said Chinese encroachment in the South China Sea and the militarization of newly created islands was on Mr Trump’s agenda for discussion with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang in Hanoi. “The very clear, consistent message from the president on the importance of maintaining freedom of navigation in the South China Sea will come through loud and clear,” the official said prior to the meetings.

The senior official added that Trump would also voice American concerns about the “militarization of features in the South China Sea.”

“The two leaders underscored the strategic importance to the international community of free and open access to the South China Sea, the importance of unimpeded lawful commerce, the need to respect freedom of navigation and over-flight, and other lawful uses of the sea,” the statement said.

Without mentioning China, it called on regional states to avoid “escalatory actions, the militarization of disputed features, and unlawful restrictions on freedom of the seas.” It also reaffirmed efforts to create a code of conduct for the South China Sea and for all claimants to clarify maritime claims with international law.

Quang told reporters he shared Mr Trump’s views on recent developments in the South China Sea and noted Vietnam’s policy of settling disputes through negotiations.

In a bid to counter the US program, Chinese supreme leader Xi Jinping followed Trump’s visit with a formal state visit of his own.

Xi met with Nguyen Phu Trong, general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam and afterward said party and state ties were solid, Xinhua reported. The Chinese leader also said Vietnam had agreed to “further deepen” bilateral ties.

“The two leaders underscored the strategic importance to the international community of free and open access to the South China Sea, the importance of unimpeded lawful commerce, the need to respect freedom of navigation and over-flight, and other lawful
uses of the sea”

Xi stated in public remarks that both countries should safeguard friendly cooperation but there was no announcement of the kind of defense and intelligence cooperation contained in the joint statement issued during the Trump summit.

Tensions were raised between China and Vietnam in April 2016 when China’s state-run China National Offshore Oil Corp. moved an oil-drilling platform to waters near the mouth of the Tonkin Gulf, near the Paracels. It was the third time since 2014 that the rig had been moved near Vietnamese waters, prompting Hanoi to demand China remove the platform.

A statement issued by Vietnam and China on November 13 said both countries vowed to avoid such actions in the future.

Trump, in his public comments in Vietnam, sought to play down the sea dispute. He emphasized plans for increased trade but made no mention of the growing Chinese militarization campaign in the sea.

That campaign has included building on the Paracels, which are claimed by Vietnam, China and others; and the Spratlys, which are claimed by the Philippines and China.

The US Navy has been conducting warship passages near the islands to challenge China’s claims that the islands are in its territorial waters.

Trump focused his comments on closing what he said is a US$32 billion trade imbalance between the US and Vietnam. He announced US$12 billion in bilateral trade deals.

The American president’s major agenda item for his 10-day Asia visit was seeking regional support for curbing North Korea’s nuclear program, and he received some backing from the Vietnamese. The joint statement said both leaders expressed “grave concern” about the North Korean threat.

The Trump approach toward Vietnam appears designed to use trade and increased defense cooperation with the Southeast Asian country in a bid to pressure China into backing off its expansive and aggressive claims to control most of the South China Sea.
 
Commentary on President Xi's Southeast Asia Trip ③: Opening up new prospects for Sino-Vietnamese ties

(CNTV) 11:01, November 16, 2017


FOREIGN201711161100000500018907688.gif

Chinese President Xi Jinping, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, paid a state visit to Vietnam on Nov. 12-13.

Xi had talks with Nguyen Phu Trong, general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) Central Committee, Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang and Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan, Chairwoman of the National Assembly of Vietnam respectively, working out the road map for the development of Sino-Vietnamese relations in the new period.

It's Xi's first overseas trip on the heels of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) held in October and also marks the mutual visit within a single year by the top leaders of the two parties and two countries, which are of great significance to the bilateral relationship.

During the visit, Xi and Vietnamese leaders had in-depth exchanges of views on enhancing strategic communication between the two parties and two countries, stepping up exchanges of experience in the party and state governance, further synergizing the development strategies of the two countries, and deepening and broadening pragmatic cooperation and people-to-people exchanges, as well as on regional and international issues of mutual concerns.

The leaders of both sides had reached a consensus on deepening China-Vietnam comprehensive strategic cooperation partnership and witnessed the signing of a series of cooperation agreements.

Public opinions say Xi's visit has advanced the spirit of being good neighbors, friends, camaraderie and partners of the two countries to consolidate traditional friendships.

It is expected to boost bilateral cooperation in many fields including the implementation of China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative and Vietnam's "Two Corridors and One Economic Circle" plan, and promote the two countries to learn from each other and seek common development.

The landmark visit of Xi is also expected to open up new prospects for Sino-Vietnamese relations, which can make greater contributions to regional peace, stability and prosperity.

By Zhang Maorong, World Economy Institute of China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations; cartoon drawings by Liao Tingting

(The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Panview or CCTV.com. )

http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/1116/c90000-9293518.html
 
That is the whole basis of this conversation though. The point is, you DO NOT know what it is that you are seeing on your radar, and if you did, you do not know its value and purpose.
If you understand that then why do you wish to mock the defender ?

As you stated previously, the value of whatever intel it is that the patriot missile is trying to protect exceed 3 million USD. You are forced to engage or let a 200 USD drone win the battle for me.
How do I know that it is a $200 drone ?

One drone not enough? Fine, I'll send 1000 drone and I would STILL get more value out of my drones than your one missile.
Really ?

Here is where your supposedly understanding of the 'economics of war' will be tested.

One thousand UAV equals to how many UAV pilots ?

What are their ingress/egress vectors ?

Wait...You do not know what is a 'vector' in relation to aviation ?

In aviation, a 'vector' is technically identified as a heading PLUS an airspeed. But most of the time, heading is the most commonly used factor.

Now you want to send 1,000 UAVs over a target ? Let us be generous and say one UAV pilot can remotely control 3 UAVs. That still leave you with at least 300 UAV pilots for mission planning -- JUST FOR ONE TARGET.

Is the war restricted to only one ground target ?

What is/are the economics of your air force ? Bombers vs fighters ? How many UAVs ? Range ?

So now you have 1,000 UAVs controls by at least 300 UAV pilots. Are the UAVs over-the-horizon ( OTH ) ?

Wait...You do not know that UAV are OTH limited ?

Radio signals are line-of-sight ( LOS ) limited, meaning once the UAV is over the horizon, you lose radio signals contact.

Try this...

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

I have posted the above link on this forum for yrs. It educated people more than they realize. Radar horizon is electrical horizon.

American UAVs are SATELLITE relayed, meaning their control signals are not confined to Earth horizon but are relayed thru satellites. It means in your hypothetical scenario, if your UAV forces do not have satellite support, you are limited to how far your UAVs can fly.

A ground target is very much like a funnel, meaning all airborne attackers will ingress at fairly reasonable predictable entry points, and if there are multiple attackers, not all of them can enter at the same time. Even a recon UAV must follow similar flight routes if it must gain important information.

So now you have 1,000 UAVs whose 300 pilots must coordinate their approaches -- just to take pictures ?

How valuable is this target ?

The reason why you so casually tossed out that 1,000 UAVs figure is because you are ignorant of the complexities of flight in general and of air traffic control in particular.

There is no need to address the rest of your post.
 
"How do I know that it is a $200 drone ?"

That is just it, you're not suppose to know.


Here is where your supposedly understanding of the 'economics of war' will be tested.

One thousand UAV equals to how many UAV pilots ?

What are their ingress/egress vectors ?

Wait...You do not know what is a 'vector' in relation to aviation ?

In aviation, a 'vector' is technically identified as a heading PLUS an airspeed. But most of the time, heading is the most commonly used factor.

Now you want to send 1,000 UAVs over a target ? Let us be generous and say one UAV pilot can remotely control 3 UAVs. That still leave you with at least 300 UAV pilots for mission planning -- JUST FOR ONE TARGET.

Is the war restricted to only one ground target ?

What is/are the economics of your air force ? Bombers vs fighters ? How many UAVs ? Range ?

So now you have 1,000 UAVs controls by at least 300 UAV pilots. Are the UAVs over-the-horizon ( OTH ) ?

Wait...You do not know that UAV are OTH limited ?

Radio signals are line-of-sight ( LOS ) limited, meaning once the UAV is over the horizon, you lose radio signals contact.

Try this...

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

I have posted the above link on this forum for yrs. It educated people more than they realize. Radar horizon is electrical horizon.

American UAVs are SATELLITE relayed, meaning their control signals are not confined to Earth horizon but are relayed thru satellites. It means in your hypothetical scenario, if your UAV forces do not have satellite support, you are limited to how far your UAVs can fly.

My UAV's are autonomous, GPS guided drones. All I have are drones, lots of drones, 3D printed drones. so much drones that if they flew at once they would block out the sun; that is my air force. For ground, I have 500k soldiers all of which are trained snipers. In addition to their assault rifle, they all have .308 sniper rifle. 250K of my men have shoulder launch ground to air missiles. 100K have anti tank missiles. My intel are all gathered by drones. I divide my men into platoons;each platoons have 2 commander who direct their platoon with 4k resolution birds eye view of the battlefield with a radius of 100 miles. Their equipment are carried by donkeys. Their rations consist of donkey meat and rice.

My supply line are made up of 1 million donkeys. They form a line from the moon to earth.

The Earth is flat so i do not know of this Earth curvature you speak of.

A ground target is very much like a funnel, meaning all airborne attackers will ingress at fairly reasonable predictable entry points, and if there are multiple attackers, not all of them can enter at the same time. Even a recon UAV must follow similar flight routes if it must gain important information.

So now you have 1,000 UAVs whose 300 pilots must coordinate their approaches -- just to take pictures ?

How valuable is this target ?

The reason why you so casually tossed out that 1,000 UAVs figure is because you are ignorant of the complexities of flight in general and of air traffic control in particular.

There is no need to address the rest of your post.

My purpose is to have you throw your resources at me. I'm in the air so I am not confine to 2D movement, I can move left right back forth up and down so your entry point argument is irrelevant.

Your move Wily E. coyote, come at me with your trillion dollar military.
 
Last edited:
The use of modded ex US equipment in the VPA

M113 with Soviet M1938 107mm mortar

23622220_1804116249887811_1248355991378134469_n.jpg


23621322_1804116496554453_7337245567740923910_n.jpg


M548 tracked carrier with Soviet Zu 23 2 23mm auto cannon

23559407_1804116529887783_323401253341859888_n.jpg


23561625_1804116599887776_378935809056239231_n.jpg


M548 with 105mm M101 howitzer. A similar set up is use on the Ural truck

23622256_1804116759887760_6300430466371455388_n.jpg


23622540_1804116656554437_2595779152342875996_n.jpg
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom