No need to "panic" people. This has been in the works for about a couple years. Looks like they got the contract in 2024 to get them integrated.
27
DrawingDramatic16413 days ago
-3
Well they need a common enemy to sell weapons
-3
Sargent_Duck853 days ago
+9
What capability gap does the Patriot fill that the SM-2 and SM-3 were lacking?
9
thatsme55ed3 days ago
+18
Patriots are newer designs optimized for intercepting other missiles. SM-2 and 3 are based off an older missile initially designed to shoot down planes and then modified and improved. If your target is a ballistic missile you have better odds of shooting it down with a patriot (better acceleration, better terminal velocity).
18
Sargent_Duck853 days ago
+3
Ah, thanks.
3
EconomicRegret23 days ago
+3
Also, a patriot missile is cheaper IIRC.
3
ImaginaryCheetah3 days ago
+1
> Chinese hypersonic missiles cost only $100k a pop
how in the world are they managing that?
1
Evil_Eg3 days ago
+12
State-run production that doesn't care about not having high profits or any profit at all.
12
ImaginaryCheetah3 days ago
+3
RUS kinzhal reportedly prices at [$2M a shot](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cost-russian-missiles/)... and i have to think RUS is trying to make them as c**** as possible, and CHN is producing for 5% of that? that's *wild* cheapness if true.
3
LilyBelle5042 days ago
+3
>Nicknamed the "cement-coated" missile, it substitutes expensive materials for specialized alternatives like foam concrete for heat resistance, significantly lowering manufacturing overhead.
Or just c**** materials.
3
EconomicRegret23 days ago
+5
Not an expert, but I read that instead of expensive, specialized military shit, supply-chains and R&D, they are using common civilian construction materials, off-the-shelf electronics, simplified launchers, and directing and profiting from the private sectors’ R&D and supply-chains.
Makes stuff cheaper, but IMHO much more vulnerable too. In case of war, I hope America/the West know how to target/exploit these vulnerabilities.
5
ImaginaryCheetah3 days ago
+2
ignoring USA hugely expensive munitions, you could compare RUS kinzhal that reportedly prices at [$2M a shot](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cost-russian-missiles/)... and i have to think RUS is trying to make them as c**** as possible, and CHN is producing for 5% of that?
2
LilyBelle5042 days ago
+1
Why would terminal velocity be relevant to a missile interceptor?
1
thatsme55ed2 days ago
+2
Range. The faster an interceptor can reach a target is the further out it can intercept a target. If an inbound missile is detected at X distance then it will be intercepted at X - Y range (y being the distance the missile travelled until the interceptor reached it). Faster interceptor acceleration and higher terminal velocity reduces Y.
2
LilyBelle5042 days ago
+1
I thought terminal velocity referred to the speed of a missile has when it is re-entering the atmosphere to strike a target on the ground. That would make sense for hypersonic missiles (offensive weapons), but not a interceptor which needs to strike a target mid-air.
Acceleration makes sense.
1
thatsme55ed2 days ago
+3
Terminal velocity does mean that, but it also can just mean the top speed a missile can reach.
3
LilyBelle5042 days ago
+1
Ah makes sense. Thanks.
1
munchi3332 days ago
+2
Better terminal defense against ballistic missiles than SM-2 or SM-6, with the trade off being less range against aircraft. SM-3 is still the preferred method of intercepting ballistic missiles but is very expensive, and useless in the terminal phase.
2
OpenWaterRescue3 days ago
Mostly aura
0
[deleted]3 days ago
+8
[deleted]
8
OnePilotDrone3 days ago
+8
The fact that USA basically exhausted all their patriot missiles located in the middle east during the Iran war in just the first 2 weeks and were forced to steal the ones stationed in South Korea says enough.
Imagine a war with China who can produce x1000 times the missile capacity of Iran, a war with China would exhaust the entire U.S. navy's patriot missiles within the first 5 minutes. Pete Hegseth already said himself, a war with China would be catastrophic as their hypersonic missiles could travel thousands of miles and sink an entire aircraft carrier fleet within the first 20 minutes of the war.
[Pete Hegseth: China can take out 10 aircraft carriers within the first 20min](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tetPM-R4KaU)
how many components are built in the us or taiwan? can we even build them if the region is up in flames?
1
Appealing_Apathy3 days ago
If china wanted to they could neutralize a lot of the US forces and stop this nonsense in the middle east. If they take out the air craft carriers then the US would lose the best way to get their air force over to lauch a counter attack.
0
Firstnaymlastnaym3 days ago
+1
The Air Force doesn't operate from aircraft carriers.
1
_Soup_R_Man_3 days ago
+3
We're destroying ourselves just fine.
Seen the value of the dollar lately? Who would have thought printing trillions since 2008 would lead to inflation. Crazy!
Lower interest rates? Hah! We can't! That leads to higher inflation! We're cooked.
3
ResponsibleClock92893 days ago
-1
You do know China has been printing money almost twice as fast as the US has right?
-1
ccblr063 days ago
-6
Of course he doesnt. To be honest ill admit that i didnt know either
-6
bukpockwajeacks3 days ago
+2
If you believe some random Listnook comment.
2
whatproblems3 days ago
+4
well these are all random listnook comments
4
[deleted]3 days ago
+1
[removed]
1
DFWPunk2 days ago
+1
Then it's too bad we're running out and it will take years to ramp up production to the level we need.
1
Budgeko2 days ago
+1
🇺🇸🇺🇸
1
Weird_Priority_91193 days ago
+1
HGVs can evade Patriot missiles, but I guess it’s better than nothing.
1
ArkassEX3 days ago
+1
Web people keep insisting that Russian and Chinese hypersonic ASBMs can't maneuver during the terminal phase and hit a moving target. But here we are with the navy strapping Patriot PAC-3s to warships to deal with maneuvering hypersonic missiles...
1
Jzeeee3 days ago
+1
PAC-3 intercept rate of Russian hypersonic missiles have been on a massive decline in Ukraine in 2025. Lowest was 6% in one month and highest was 37%.
1
008Zulu3 days ago
They get state-of-the-art missiles, but are still eating rations that look like they expired 20 years ago.
0
thatsme55ed3 days ago
+8
Food is actually the limiting factor for nuclear powered ships and subs. They don't need refueling, and they carry enough ammo that they shouldn't run out. The food for the crew is the thing that runs out first. They need to sail back to port and restock since carting enough food on board for the entire crew is a huge job requiring infrastructure and special supply chains.
Disgraceful food is what happens when you have an idiot in charge of the military who keeps ships deployed for longer than they were ever intended to be.
This also reveals valuable Intel to enemies since now they know for sure what the actual limits are for how long a carrier can remain deployed and remain functional
8
farsh_bjj3 days ago
-2
I hope they work better than the dog shit iron dome that was so highly touted and was supposed to be impenetrable.
-2
mixxituk3 days ago
+2
Yes I can't believe Israel is totally gone now after tens of thousands of missiles hit it
Oh wait they barely did a thing
2
[deleted]3 days ago
-3
[deleted]
-3
ashark19833 days ago
+1
Because they're different systems. There's fire control, software and sensor integration issues that are currently being worked on.
44 Comments