Russia's S-300 vs USA's Patriot, which is superior?

[Debonerman]

An answer to a question that only a pilot who had outrun and outmaneuver one can tell you........

 

[boundThunter]

S-300.

Ease of use and a much faster set up times for missiles system.

The S-300 missiles in general have more capabilities than their counterparts. They are launched with the help of a catapult held in a vertical position, which allows the unit to aim at flying objects approaching from all directions without rotating the launcher. Patriot can hit targets strictly within a 90 degree range. The S-300 is also capable of tracking its missile and target using jet vanes, despite the speed of 1,900 meters per second the missile picks up 12 seconds after launch. S-300 missiles attack low-flying targets from the top. The method has proved effective: it is 80 to 93 percent accurate in hitting tactical and strategic warplanes, and 80 to 98 percent accurate in hitting low-flying cruise missiles like ALCM. Patriot's accuracy, however, is only 40 to 60 percent. The S-300 can also hit targets from 3 to 150 kilometers away and at an altitude of 10 to 27 kilometers, while the Patriot system has an effective range of only 5 to 100 kilometers and an altitude range from 60 meters to 24 kilometers.


Overall, a better workhorse than US' Patriot and also one of the main reason Syria is still around.

 

[The_Hypocrite]

Looks like american military is getting way behind n less effective..look at F35. Raptor etc..all suppose to b hightech but not effective n efficient

S-300.

Ease of use and a much faster set up times for missiles system.

The S-300 missiles in general have more capabilities than their counterparts. They are launched with the help of a catapult held in a vertical position, which allows the unit to aim at flying objects approaching from all directions without rotating the launcher. Patriot can hit targets strictly within a 90 degree range. The S-300 is also capable of tracking its missile and target using jet vanes, despite the speed of 1,900 meters per second the missile picks up 12 seconds after launch. S-300 missiles attack low-flying targets from the top. The method has proved effective: it is 80 to 93 percent accurate in hitting tactical and strategic warplanes, and 80 to 98 percent accurate in hitting low-flying cruise missiles like ALCM. Patriot's accuracy, however, is only 40 to 60 percent. The S-300 can also hit targets from 3 to 150 kilometers away and at an altitude of 10 to 27 kilometers, while the Patriot system has an effective range of only 5 to 100 kilometers and an altitude range from 60 meters to 24 kilometers.


Overall, a better workhorse than US' Patriot and also one of the main reason Syria is still around.

 

[steffychun]

S-300.

Ease of use and a much faster set up times for missiles system.

The S-300 missiles in general have more capabilities than their counterparts. They are launched with the help of a catapult held in a vertical position, which allows the unit to aim at flying objects approaching from all directions without rotating the launcher. Patriot can hit targets strictly within a 90 degree range. The S-300 is also capable of tracking its missile and target using jet vanes, despite the speed of 1,900 meters per second the missile picks up 12 seconds after launch. S-300 missiles attack low-flying targets from the top. The method has proved effective: it is 80 to 93 percent accurate in hitting tactical and strategic warplanes, and 80 to 98 percent accurate in hitting low-flying cruise missiles like ALCM. Patriot's accuracy, however, is only 40 to 60 percent. The S-300 can also hit targets from 3 to 150 kilometers away and at an altitude of 10 to 27 kilometers, while the Patriot system has an effective range of only 5 to 100 kilometers and an altitude range from 60 meters to 24 kilometers.


Overall, a better workhorse than US' Patriot and also one of the main reason Syria is still around.

Very much agree. Western fighter pilots stand little chance especially since they not faced Russian SAMs for a logn time. Afghanistan is nothing.

 

[johnny333]

Looks like american military is getting way behind n less effective..look at F35. Raptor etc..all suppose to b hightech but not effective n efficient

In the 1982 war between Israel & Syria, the Israelis destroyed 82 to 86 Syrian jets with the help of drones. With todays more capable UAWs expect them to play a major role in any future conflicts.

Expensive fighter jets may give countries bragging rights but what's more important is the strategy behind it's use.

 

[steffychun]

In the 1982 war between Israel & Syria, the Israelis destroyed 82 to 86 Syrian jets with the help of drones. With todays more capable UAWs expect them to play a major role in any future conflicts.

Expensive fighter jets may give countries bragging rights but what's more important is the strategy behind it's use.

That was then not now.

 

[johnny333]

That was then not now.

That was 30 years ago. The current generation of UAV's are smarter & more capable. Many have predicted the end of the importance of the maned aircraft. Currently many of the missions over Pakistan are carried out by pilots operating remotely from bases in Saudi Arabia & the USA.

 

[steffychun]

That was 30 years ago. The current generation of UAV's are smarter & more capable. Many have predicted the end of the importance of the maned aircraft. Currently many of the missions over Pakistan are carried out by pilots operating remotely from bases in Saudi Arabia & the USA.

Uhuh so why not use them now in Syria? Fact is fighters are still a main part of an assault. And Syria has strong AA defences.

 

[Novotel]

The Patriot sucks. why do you think SG bought the Israeli SPYDER instead.

do you mean the israeli version of patriot?

 

[johnny333]

Uhuh so why not use them now in Syria? Fact is fighters are still a main part of an assault. And Syria has strong AA defences.

The question is why would they be interested in Syria
The only areas of interest to americans are countries like Saudi Arabia which provides them with oil, and Israel because of the strong Jewish vote in the US.

Obama is unlike that war hawk Bush Jr. He's promised the americans that he would get troops out of Iraq & Afghanistan. The 2 wars is costing the US billions upon billions of $$$$$.... if you want to see the ever increasing cost just visit http://costofwar.com/

 

[Vertu]

the israeli version is superior. pentagon considering buying from israel.

What about Singapo? Still holding on to Hawk?

 

[johnny333]

Uhuh so why not use them now in Syria? Fact is fighters are still a main part of an assault. And Syria has strong AA defences.

I'm sure the american can take care of the Syrian defences if they really wanted to. However they have no interests there & it would cause problems with the Russians. The Russian navy uses the facilities in Syria

 

[Vinnie]

Heheh Russia?

 

[NCCAir]

With todays more capable UAWs expect them to play a major role in any future conflicts.

The new Luftwaffe power. Air power is still a menace for land forces.

 

[NCCSea]

I'm sure the american can take care of the Syrian defences if they really wanted to. However they have no interests there & it would cause problems with the Russians. The Russian navy uses the facilities in Syria

Can the US Navy berthed in Iraq? Iran is a menace here. Perhaps, they can launch from the Red Sea.

 

[johnny333]

Can the US Navy berthed in Iraq? Iran is a menace here. Perhaps, they can launch from the Red Sea.

The US already has many bases in the middle east: Kuwait, Qatar, .... so they DO NOT need Iraq.

Iran is seen as a threat to Israel & the americans are worried that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Can only imagine the problems that such an attack will cause.

 

[steffychun]

I'm sure the american can take care of the Syrian defences if they really wanted to. However they have no interests there & it would cause problems with the Russians. The Russian navy uses the facilities in Syria

They can't. Congress wont act.

 

[shelltox]

I am not sure which is more superior but I know the russians' would be 1000% cheaper

 

[johnny333]

They can't. Congress wont act.

Yes that is correct. Many in the US gov't don't see it in the interest of the US to get involved in Syria. They are not a global COP just a super power with it's own agenda
They may use the CIA to funnel some weapons through their allies in that region to counter Iran's involvement. However they won't get directly involved in any shooting war.