Patriot SAM poor performance

[Dion]

In my case, aircraft survivability vs. SAM's is much greater than it used to be. It used to aggravate me so much. It could be because I don't rely on aircraft to be a "game changer" like I used to, or I don't use them like I used to and I use more caution before assigning them targets. Aircraft ain't the tremendous war machines that they used to be in earlier versions of the game. Which is more realistic if you ask me, though SAM's ain't a waste, they always seem to do some damage to aircraft if not destroying them outright, but aircraft and pilot survivability is greater. Like I say, it seems more realistic to me.

[Suhiir]

I use aircraft a LOT.
If you try to use aircraft in the first 3-5 turns you're just begging to get them shot up if not down. I use helos in the early turns to expose AA (use TOWs/Hellfires/rockets on AA guns) and run MPADs out of missiles. Then a single SEAD aircraft to deal with "Area SAMs". After that aircraft are fairly survivable.

[Isto]

2 RoF was in my guess that someone do not deplete the missiles with cheap crafts before using the strikes, overflowing the system in one turn.

Maybe thats why wikipedia tells me US have been prepared with a Patriot system with 16 Missiles. Still quite weak if they do not fire in the first place. Seems quite hard to believe that modern SAM systems have real function only against planes that have been outdated 20-30 years ago, but it is possible as i do not have any real knowledge about the subject.

Maybe it is like so that there are no countermeasures against modern planes or even against 10-20 year old planes and it is the superior system with no weaknesses. If i have understood right world wars were more or less decided with them too.

That is probably something the worlds top scientists who have specialized in warfare are trying their hardest to overcome.

With a common mind it should seem realistic that missiles have an advantage over planes. They are faster after all and cheaper to produce. The planes main function in the modern era is also to launch missiles, so i do not find a reason why it matters from which platform they are launched. Shouldnt it be basically the same technology, the ground target is stationary and the air target is moving, is the (crucial ?) difference.

Maybe there could be a ground vehicle that shoots PGM type missiles. Submarines and sea vessels at least probably do.

Most likely the modern era is not realisticly simulated in any game, and there are lots of factors no one are aware of.

[Imp]

The planes main function in the modern era is also to launch missiles, so i do not find a reason why it matters from which platform they are launched

Missiles launched from planes have some major advantages compared to those fired from the ground.
Far better radar coverage the terrain does not get in the way.
They do not have to expend all that energy to climb to target.
The launching craft is mobile so it can try to get position for an optimal launch.
Air targets can change direction quickly so the window for an optimum launch is not large as the target has options from turn & run to point the nose at the missile. The missile has to have enough energy left to manoeuvre for all these eventualities for a high success rate.
Sams while expensive are still cheap compared to a modern fighter so they have their place.
If you play different eras in the game you will realise some Sam's became very effective at one point, planes have now caught up with missile tech.
Its no different to tanks penetration increases, armour improves its a vicious circle.

[Isto]

Satellite targeting and volume of fire ?

I have always thought that the main advantage and reason for planes is an offensive one, to be able to bring the weapons to the enemies.

There are a lot of planes around, wonder are there a faction that has similar number, or a lot more invested on missiles. Lets say hundreds of thousands of missiles get launhced at once, what would happen. Would probably need some futuristic EMP type area / radius defence.

I have heard the US have been developing such means to defend for a long time.


Older russian systems had also manual control in case of electric countermeasures.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It's like John (Imp) says weapons systems are always in a vicious cycle new If they do this/we'll do that, tactics/new counter tactics, jets/SAM and closer to home radar detectors/police radar jammers when on the road.

But more to the point with PATRIOT the first ref is closed due to the current update. It'll reopen after a couple of days and you'll get the total PATRIOT story covering contracts/operators/upgrades etc. etc. in a concise timeline format.

However, the update falls right into this topic and illustrates that "vicious cycle" with the latest upgrade to PATRIOT which is by chance a very significant one for that system.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...m_term=Patriot
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Effectiveness.html
http://ausairpower.net/APA-BMD-Survey.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/sams-iads.html
(Categories in RED at the top.)
http://www.ausairpower.net/msls-bmd.html

Yon can have a field day with all that's above and it ought to keep you out of trouble until "the big day"!

And yes I've read many of these over the years. You to understand the technical merits of the system to be able to translate that into game terms with it's system limitations.

Regards,
Pat


EDIT: I almost forgot, Directed Energy and EPM well, they do that as well.
http://www.ausairpower.net/dew-ebomb.html