Daniel Brown/Business Insider
Jeffrey Lewis, Business Insider: Foreign Policy: The missile defense system that the US and its allies rely on fails just about everywhere it's used
* In March, a Patriot missile launch didn't go as planned in Saudi Arabia while intercepting missiles fired by Houthi forces in Yemen.
* Author Jeffrey Lewis examined two missile attacks on Saudi Arabia and didn't find any evidence that Saudi Arabia had intercepted missiles using Patriot missiles.
* That raises uncomfortable questions about the United States, which seems to have sold Saudi Arabia — and its own public — a lemon of a missile defense system.
On March 25, Houthi forces in Yemen fired seven missiles at Riyadh. Saudi Arabia confirmed the launches and asserted that it successfully intercepted all seven.
This wasn't true. It's not just that falling debris in Riyadh killed at least one person and sent two more to the hospital. There's no evidence that Saudi Arabia intercepted any missiles at all. And that raises uncomfortable questions not just about the Saudis, but about the United States, which seems to have sold them — and its own public — a lemon of a missile defense system.
Read more ....
Update #1: The Patriot missile interceptor malfunctions and misses, but Raytheon still makes billions (Quartz)
Update #2: The Patriot Missile: The Ultimate Missile Shield (Or the Ultimate Paper Tiger?) (National Interest)
WNU Editor: The Patriot missile defense system may have its problems, but countries still want to buy them .... Poland signs $4.75 billion deal for U.S. Patriot missile system facing Russia (Reuters).
I have a different take on this. At the price of 3 million dollars US for each Patriot interceptor missile (once you own the system). It makes sense to have this capability if you can afford it. The vital commercial and infrastructure assets in any major city, damaged by a large missile, could easily result in $$ damages an order of magnitude greater than the cost of the interceptor.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that missile defense is still in its infancy, and a 50% or better kill probability on an incoming warhead is worth it, when compared to having no recourse. I do not believe this is any sort of malfeasance on the part of the manufacturer, and only reflects the current state of the art in terms of the technology. I mean, you could level the same accusation at any new development that only works part of the time (vaccines, cancer drugs, aids drugs, automotive air bags (yes they sometimes kill people). The real problem is that missile defense at this point requires deep pockets. Maybe the deployment of lasers will change this in the future.