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
DrawingDramatic1641Apr 22, 2026
-3
Well they need a common enemy to sell weapons
-3
Sargent_Duck85Apr 22, 2026
+9
What capability gap does the Patriot fill that the SM-2 and SM-3 were lacking?
9
thatsme55edApr 22, 2026
+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_Duck85Apr 22, 2026
+3
Ah, thanks.
3
EconomicRegret2Apr 22, 2026
+3
Also, a patriot missile is cheaper IIRC.
3
ImaginaryCheetahApr 22, 2026
+1
> Chinese hypersonic missiles cost only $100k a pop
how in the world are they managing that?
1
Evil_EgApr 22, 2026
+12
State-run production that doesn't care about not having high profits or any profit at all.
12
ImaginaryCheetahApr 22, 2026
+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
LilyBelle504Apr 23, 2026
+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
EconomicRegret2Apr 22, 2026
+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
ImaginaryCheetahApr 22, 2026
+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
LilyBelle504Apr 23, 2026
+1
Why would terminal velocity be relevant to a missile interceptor?
1
thatsme55edApr 23, 2026
+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
LilyBelle504Apr 23, 2026
+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
thatsme55edApr 23, 2026
+3
Terminal velocity does mean that, but it also can just mean the top speed a missile can reach.
3
LilyBelle504Apr 23, 2026
+1
Ah makes sense. Thanks.
1
munchi333Apr 22, 2026
+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
OpenWaterRescueApr 22, 2026
Mostly aura
0
[deleted]Apr 22, 2026
+8
[deleted]
8
OnePilotDroneApr 22, 2026
+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_ApathyApr 22, 2026
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
FirstnaymlastnaymApr 22, 2026
+1
The Air Force doesn't operate from aircraft carriers.
1
_Soup_R_Man_Apr 22, 2026
+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
ResponsibleClock9289Apr 22, 2026
-1
You do know China has been printing money almost twice as fast as the US has right?
-1
ccblr06Apr 22, 2026
-6
Of course he doesnt. To be honest ill admit that i didnt know either
-6
bukpockwajeacksApr 22, 2026
+2
If you believe some random Listnook comment.
2
whatproblemsApr 22, 2026
+4
well these are all random listnook comments
4
[deleted]Apr 22, 2026
+1
[removed]
1
DFWPunkApr 23, 2026
+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
BudgekoApr 23, 2026
+1
🇺🇸🇺🇸
1
Weird_Priority_9119Apr 22, 2026
+1
HGVs can evade Patriot missiles, but I guess it’s better than nothing.
1
ArkassEXApr 22, 2026
+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
JzeeeeApr 22, 2026
+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
008ZuluApr 22, 2026
They get state-of-the-art missiles, but are still eating rations that look like they expired 20 years ago.
0
thatsme55edApr 22, 2026
+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_bjjApr 22, 2026
-2
I hope they work better than the dog shit iron dome that was so highly touted and was supposed to be impenetrable.
-2
mixxitukApr 22, 2026
+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]Apr 22, 2026
-3
[deleted]
-3
ashark1983Apr 22, 2026
+1
Because they're different systems. There's fire control, software and sensor integration issues that are currently being worked on.
44 Comments