
Did American Missile Defense Fail in Saudi Arabia? - Jerry2
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/04/world/middleeast/saudi-missile-defense.html
======
jandrewrogers
The core design problem with using the Patriot missile system for ABM
applications is that its terminal guidance system fundamentally isn't designed
for it. It uses radar for terminal guidance because it was adapted from anti-
aircraft applications. That this works at all is impressive, in a "dancing
bear" sense, you wouldn't expect the discrimination to be good enough for the
purpose.

All purpose-built ABM systems use infrared imagers for terminal guidance with
classifiers that pick out both the target and desired point of impact on the
target. These are vastly more effective but we also don't sell them to foreign
countries AFAIK.

~~~
salimmadjd
IMO, this article is designed to get readers attention with a technical bent,
but is used to reinforce the Saudi Lobby position.

An interest research that shows the number of times in the past 70 years the
NY Times has depicted various Saudi dictator as reformist [0]

 _Indeed, M.B.S. instructed me_ is the most bizarre choice word by Thomas
Friedman in his op-ed [1]. As a writer, I'm so surprised he would even use
such a word or the NY Times op-ed editors would actually allow that.

BTW, there seem to be an orchestrated media Blitzkrieg to show the new Saudi
Ruler. Who is basically follow the same playbook as Saddam Hossein did
(eliminating all possible opposition) or Stalin for that matter as a moderate
person or country. _Saudi Arabia, and other moderate Arab states would also
welcome a more engaged U.S. into their backyard_ [2] Calling Saudi Arabia a
"moderate" country is a bit of stretch

[0] [http://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/34727/Seventy-Years-of-
the-...](http://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/34727/Seventy-Years-of-the-New-York-
Times-Describing-Saudi-Royals-as-Leading-Reform)

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-
mbs-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-
spring.html)

[2] [https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/11/28/how-
obama-a...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/11/28/how-obama-and-
trump-left-a-vacuum-in-the-middle-east/)

~~~
fossuser
This confuses me a bit, is he not more moderate than his predecessors? They've
had some movement on women's rights with ability to drive and run for office.

Yes they're still terrible with human rights and they're still killing people
in Yemen, but they were doing that before without the current improvement.

The NYT article about M.B.S did sound like a general improvement in direction.

~~~
kingofpandora
> Yes they're still terrible with human rights and they're still killing
> people in Yemen, but they were doing that before without the current
> improvement.

Apparently MBS was been behind the devastating involvement of KSA in Yemen
from well before his taking power.

~~~
fossuser
And Booze Allen Hamilton has been providing guidance along the way - at least
there appears to be hope for some social issues and a reduction of religious
extremism.

Not all problems are going to be solved quickly at least this appears to be
trending a better direction.

I’m not dismissing the terrible things the country does, but it does seem like
MBS is at least better about social issues and religious extremism.

~~~
nl
If it’s true he is behind their Yemen policy (which I haven’t heard), then
letting women drive doesn’t really make up for targeted genocide.

“Mussolini made the trains run on time”

~~~
fossuser
I'm not claiming that it does.

------
40acres
I've read a few stories about the lack of confidence in America's missile
defense systems. We have THAAD missile [0] in Asia as a counter punch to North
Korea but from what I've read confidence in the system is pretty low.

Israel's Iron Dome [1] system seems to be effective but I would assume there
are differences in the system and proximity of Palestine to Israel and the
missiles fired that allow it to be so effective.

As a further point, the fact that our missile defense systems are so poor just
emphasizes how reckless our approach to North Korea is, their missile
technology is getting better and better while our defense system is unproven
and yet top Trump administration officials talk about war as if it's not a big
deal. Truly scary stuff.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense)
[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome)

~~~
grkvlt
I think Iron Dome has a high success rate due to the type of missile. Mostly
80mm unguided 'Katyusha' and 122mm 'Qassam' unguided rockets, which are
destroyed by multiple interceptor missiles with proximity fuzed explosive
warheads.

I was in Tel Aviv in 2012, when larger Fajr-5 330mm rockets were fired at the
city and I saw several of them being successfully intercepted, a few thousand
meters out from their targets. Sadly there was one rocket that hit Tel Aviv,
killing several people, and another 'failure' of sorts when debris from an
intercepted Fajr-5 landed in a Tel Aviv street, however the warhead did not
explode and it was simply falling at terminal velocity... Iron Dome also has
an interesting optimisation mode where it tracks the impact point and will not
waste a salvo against the incoming threat if it will land somewhere harmless
like the sea or open countryside.

~~~
smacktoward
Yes, this was my thought too. Rockets fired at Israel are generally cheap,
short-range subsonic jobs, not substantially harder to shoot down than a World
War 2-era V-1 buzz bomb. Medium-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles
reach speeds of many thousands of miles per hour, making them much harder
targets to intercept.

~~~
trhway
>Rockets fired at Israel are generally cheap, short-range subsonic jobs,

not exactly. Most seems to be manufactured either in Iran or China and a
follow on or similar development off basic USSR/Russian systems, like Grad,
Uragan, Smerch - these rockets have speed anywhere between 2M and 3M. It is
outside of capabilities of many air defense systems on the merit of the speed
alone. Add to that multiple rockets in a salvo. Iron Dome being capable of
dealing with that is a very huge achievement.

~~~
nl
The 'Katyusha' and 'Qassam' rockets are subsonic, or perhaps just transonic in
the case of the Katyushas (which are quite varied)

"The Qassam's speed in the air is 200 meters per second." (= ~750km/h)[1]

The Katyusha rockets fired from Gaza are commonly quoted to hit Tel Aviv in 2
minutes (35km in 2 minutes = ~1000 km/h)

[1] [https://www.haaretz.com/news/iron-dome-system-found-to-be-
he...](https://www.haaretz.com/news/iron-dome-system-found-to-be-helpless-
against-qassams-1.239896)

~~~
trhway
there is a range of rockets used by Hamas
[https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-
qas...](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-qassam.htm)

The 'Qassam' are the low-end of Hamas rockets, and they are locally made low
quality stuff. The rest is imported military grade production.

>The Katyusha rockets fired from Gaza are commonly quoted to hit Tel Aviv in 2
minutes (35km in 2 minutes = ~1000 km/h)

Judging by the distance and the name Katyusha, it is probably Grad
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad))
rockets as by looks and function it most closer resembles Katyusha. The Grad
is 122mm and it is the starting system in that type of weaponry and its rocket
speed is ~700m/s. The higher-end, 200mm and 300mm, systems fly a bit faster
and much farther (typically Chinese versions are even faster and longer range
than original Russian).

------
JepZ
Why is it so hard to shoot down a missle? I always thought that ballistic
missles travel with a very predictable speed and direction.

So hitting them should be an easy task for a guided missle as long as it got
enough time to reach it at all (which I think is not the problem here). So the
only problem I can see is to disarm the missle during flight but am not sure
if that is what is meant here.

Does anybody know why it should be hard to shoot down a ballistic missle?

~~~
olympus
Missiles go extremely fast. Like _stupid_ fast. Most ABM systems today use
hit-to-kill, which means that you actually have to make contact with the
missile to kill it. Physically hitting something that small and fast from a
long distance away is hard even if you know exactly where it's going to be.
Terminal guidance needs to be very accurate, since in the last second the
missiles are a mile apart. With an update rate of about 10 hZ, you have to
make your final correction that is accurate to about two feet (the diameter of
the missile) over about 1/10th of a mile. That's tough.

Most other missile systems (like surface-to-air or air-to-air systems designed
to kill planes) have proximity fuses, and don't need direct contact, they just
blow up nearby and throw shrapnel into the plane. That's enough to kill a
plane, but doesn't work very well to knock a ballistic missile off it's
trajectory.

~~~
JepZ
So I understand that it is quite hard to catch a missile when you fly in the
same direction as the missle, but couldn't you just intercept the missile by
flying towards it and park you own missle in the tradjectory of the incoming
missile.

Why is that not possible?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That's exactly how Patriot missiles work. They just get in the way. The entire
trick is, to be in the right place at precisely the right time.

------
sandworm101
Lol. When I saw the headline I though this was a rehash of the Gulf War
"intercepts" that did fail. If 20+ years later Patriot is still failing at the
same task ... much is wrong with the procurement system. As a kid I was on the
ground during the first gulf war. We thought these things were working. They
put pieces of them in hotel lobbies on plinths. Only years later did we learn
that all those explosions in the sky were meaningless, that the scuds were not
being intercepted but rather simply missed their targets.

The article has issues. The plume is irrelevant. The cited pic from syria
looks similar but that has more to do with wind and temperature than
similarities in warhead. Conclusions based on the launch angle of the patriots
may also be incorrect as there the outbound patriots need not follow a strait
line. The best intercept for their warhead might not be a head-on approach. We
don't know if they turned mid-flight to intercept, which they can do.

And don't criticize patriot for firing five times. This thing was coming down
as several objects on very similar trajectories. Each missile might have been
targeting a different inbound part, any one of which might be the warhead. If
4/5ths of the inbound objects were intercepted, but the one that wasn't turned
out to be the warhead, it wasn't a total failure.

------
stats300
> _missed their target ... A kilometer is a pretty normal miss rate for a
> Scud_

Assume a target of 0.1km x 0.1km, but the missile may hit anywhere in an area
of 1km x 1km around the target. That means the area of the target is 1/100 the
size of the overall area. They'd have to launch at least 50 Scuds to have even
a 50/50 chance of hitting the target.

Can someone tell me if that calculation is way off? It sounds like this
attack, other than spreading fear and panic, was very unlikely to work.

~~~
ddalex
I got the feeling that SCUD was always intended to deliver wire-area weapons,
such as biological or chemical, and not small explosive warheads. If you're
firing area-denial weapons, precision doesn't matter much.

~~~
varjag
The very first SCUD warhead accepted into service was 50KT nuclear.

------
sailfast
Are we really expecting Patriot batteries to work now? Have they changed
fundamentally since the 1991 Gulf War? I know they hit a few SCUDs but I don't
recall any sort of expectation that it would keep a major population center
safe from attack, especially from a smaller warhead.

~~~
icegreentea2
The Patriot system actually has seen substantial changes since the first Gulf
War. The first Gulf War used what are called 'PAC-2' systems. They've since
developed and deployed PAC-3 systems. The list of changes is comprehensive. If
nothing else, it uses a new missile that was designed from scratch to act in
an anti-ballistic missile role (the PAC-2 used a missile designed for aircraft
intercept - the two roles have really different end-game requirements). The
radar, the intercept software on the missile itself, mission management
software have all been modified.

The PAC-2 missile relied on its ground based radar to guide it onto the
target, and relied on an explosive warhead to damage the target. The PAC-3 has
an integrated radar to guide itself onto target and is capable of hit to kill
intercept.

Now, those are all the claims anyways. We'll have to see how useful all these
changes actually were.

~~~
CalChris
To quote Buck Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove, _Well, I don 't think it's quite
fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip up._

The PAC-3 is based on the SDI ERINT, a missile which itself failed several
tests and then finally passed a rigged test.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#E...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Extended_Range_Interceptor_\(ERINT\))

~~~
trothamel
According to [https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-
ac-3-fo...](https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-
ac-3-fote.htm) , as of 2006 the PAC-3 was 19 of 22 on intercepting ballistic
missile targets.

------
gaius
Patriot doesn't work, Thaad doesn't work. The only ABMs worth a damn are the
Israeli Arrow, Russian S500, and perhaps Aster 30 BMD when that enters
service. The Americans have always relied on fighters for strategic air
defence, and now those chickens are coming home to roost.

~~~
jhayward
Aegis and SM-3 seem to be working for some forms of missile defense, including
some BMDs.

It's a hard problem space and a lot of the apparent success/failure is really
a matter of choices and tradeoffs made by the 'customers' who specify the
design constraints.

~~~
gaius
Aegis + Aegis Ashore definitely seems to have potential. Assuming a Nork
threat you would want to intercept mid-trajectory if you could, and that means
pre-positioning your platform in the mid-Pacific. If you are intercepting on
the terminal phase then things are pretty desperate...

------
trhway
given that warhead in those Iranian designs does separate on re-entry and
given the state of the engine block, specifically 1. the lower half seems to
have been broken into a number of pieces while still in the air as the spread
of the pieces indicates and 2. the upper part only deformed as result of
hitting the ground - it seems that the Patriot directly hit the engine block
into the lower half. Basically the engine block played the decoy role, or may
be the Patriot was going for the warhead and missed, and with the engine block
flying at some distance behind and slightly off course it just was hit
accidentally.

------
rurban
I remember when the conspiracy folks at Reddit claimed the Saudis shot the
missile by themselves from the airport to justify or silence the crackdown on
the family. So it looks like they were wrong, again.

------
myth_drannon
That was all over the Russian media about a month ago when it happened. Not
sure if it's coincidence or not if the decision to buy Russian defense systems
was influenced by this event.

~~~
riku_iki
Saudis are currently working on two transactions:

\- buying S-400 from Russia for 3 billions

\- buying THAAD from USA for 15 billions

S-400 is totally unproven system.

~~~
Gustomaximus
For $18 billion you could probably hire the Yemen rebels to work jobs for many
years and distract them from war.

------
exabrial
Anyone know what generation missiles were fired? The PAC2 can really only hit
aircraft... sometimes. PAC3 was a massive upgrade and does hit-to-kill instead
blast fragmentation

------
SapphireSun
O.o The NYT is framing this as Saudi being attacked? The Saudi forces are
executing a genocide in Yemen backed by US military targeting, weapons, and
mid-air refueling (some of this was stopped but not all of it). This is on the
back of Thomas Friedman's laughable piece on MBS
([https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-
mbs-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-
spring.html)). Is the Times executing a propaganda campaign? Sickening.

~~~
taurath
Kind of curious what context you have that you consider the Friedman article
laughable - I must not be versed in the subject.

~~~
SapphireSun
Here's a good rundown.

[https://theintercept.com/2017/11/29/very-bad-men-trump-
the-s...](https://theintercept.com/2017/11/29/very-bad-men-trump-the-saudi-
crown-prince-sexual-assaulters-and-robert-mugabe/)

------
Amorymeltzer
This is sort of beside the point, but I wanted to point out how great a piece
of journalism this is. The integration of maps, video, and pictures is exactly
what old print-media organizations can provide online and take advantage of.
This is a really compelling narrative that shows real, honest reporting.
That's worth noting.

~~~
samat
That’s some researchers sharing their analysis with NYT.

~~~
beefman
In particular, Union of Concerned Scientists researchers. But they're not
really researchers, because they'll never report results that don't support
UCS political positions.

Also, "analysts" from Middlebury Institute of International Studies —
apparently another nonproliferation shop.[1]

And finally, anonymous "U.S. officials".

[1]
[http://www.miis.edu/about/newsroom/experts/jlewis](http://www.miis.edu/about/newsroom/experts/jlewis)

~~~
wavefunction
Do you make the same distinction with researchers who work for petroleum firms
that hid their findings on anthropogenic climate change or tobacco firms that
concealed their findings on the health risks of tobacco consumption?

If so, I applaud your sense of equity.

~~~
beefman
Sure do. And of course, missile defense is hard so I have no problem believing
there may not have been a successful interception (I see no evidence here one
way or the other). My point was only that the grandparent is incorrect — this
is not good journalism. The journalist took a story ready-made from a bunch of
people with an angle. I'm familiar with the practice, as a good friend of mine
has won prestigious awards for publishing a ready-made story from an NGO.

~~~
bobmoretti
You're 100% correct that this was a case of good presentation and not
investigation by the reporter.

Questions:

1\. Can you point me where to find more info on UCS ignoring results that
contradict their political positions?

2\. What "angle" does a nonproliferation shop have in this matter?

3\. The article attempts to present some evidence (obviously mostly not to a
level required for independent, academic confirmation). So when you see you
"see no evidence here", are you saying you need to see it presented in greater
detail and to a higher standard, or do you think that the evidence is flawed
or misrepresented in some way?

------
DanielBMarkham
This article skirts dangerously close to helping one side in this war kill
folks from the other side. It also has little redeeming social value aside
from poking at the current president and missile defense, all of which can
happen in other ways. For those reasons, I consider it irresponsible
journalism.

I like the general subject, and I'd love to hear more about it, but this is
not good. It's just going to encourage more launches -- and perhaps more
deaths.

~~~
kingkawn
It is very important that we know from real life examples that the missile
defense systems they are claiming will protect us are not functional, and that
the resource allocation and strategic planning being made around these false
promises be re-evaluated.

~~~
skj
What is most important is that we avoid death and destruction from these
missiles.

Part of that is understanding the weaknesses of the existing systems and
working to improve them. Another part of that may be convincing the attackers
that the missiles are ineffective.

Unfortunately life is not a linear program and we often don't find maxima at
the extremes.

~~~
Bartweiss
> _Another part of that may be convincing the attackers that the missiles are
> ineffective._

This raises an interesting question: is there evidence that anti-missile
systems have actually deterred missile attacks?

The Iron Dome system has a (disputed) success rate vastly higher than the
Patriot system, but I can't find evidence that missile attacks against Israel
have substantially declined in response to its deployment. Perhaps better
organized entities like national militaries would react more thoroughly, but
that also raises the specter of a displacement effect that fails to save
lives.

I definitely agree with you that "improving defenses" and "promoting defenses
as deterrents" may be conflicting aims, but I'm curious why the original
poster here is so confident anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect in
the first place.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_"...I'm curious why the original poster here is so confident anti-missile
systems have a deterrent effect in the first place..."_

I find it fascinating this HN thing we do where we skim over a comment, decide
whether author agrees with us or not politically, and then pile on.

I didn't say anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect. The topic was not
part of my comment. At all. My only point was a simple and pragmatic one: if
you have a stockpile of missiles, and you shoot one? Having somebody give you
a moment-by-moment account of what happened on that missile's journey is a
quite valuable thing that you will use the next time you shoot one of your
missiles.

My comment had zero to do with missile defense (aside from noting my interest
in the subject). It was just pointing out that in general it's a really bad
idea to give critiques to people shooting missiles at you.

I'm not going to comment on missile defense. Not relevant to the point I was
making.

~~~
CalChris
> This article skirts dangerously close to helping one side in this war kill
> folks from the other side.

You said _this_ but then failed to cite anything from the article remotely
supporting your claim.

> in general it's a really bad idea to give critiques to people shooting
> missiles at you.

Saudi Arabia is not _us_. Hell, I don't even like KSA, an autocratic regime
with a value system completely antithetical to ours but yeah, with a boatload
of oil.

~~~
classicsnoot
I think it is important to remember that personal feelings have almost no
bearing on geopolitics. Plenty of French and British citizens couldn't have
cared less about the Sudetenland or Poland.

Governments are obviously made up of people, just like corporations, but they
seem to become an entity unto themselves. I see this often when Europeans talk
about policy initiatives in the US (and vice versa by Americans when
discussing mass immigration in Europe). While KSA does not (yet) enjoy a
mutual defense pact with the USA on paper, neither does Israel. And yet, in
certain circumstances, an attack on Haifa is an attack on the West. I don't
particularly like Bibi and his buddies, but that doesn't change the strategic
geopolitical situation in the slightest.

So the KSA is sometimes an extension of the US, for better or for worse, which
is what i think the commenter you were responding to was implying.

------
golergka
All the more reason to replace it with David's Sling.

~~~
olympus
Saudi Arabia buying weapons from Israel? That could start a war between KSA
and every other Arab country.

~~~
golergka
Have you been following the Middle East news lately at all? Israel is clearly
allied with Saudi camp, and there already have been plenty of almost official
visits.

