US Army to procure 870 PAC-3 MSE missiles in $4.5B contract

[F-22Raptor]

 

[UKBengali]

So each missile costs 5 million US dollars when the people they are fighting are sending 100K US dollars missiles to be intercepted.

Don't think the maths actually work out here.

 

[panzerfaust 3]

So each missile costs 5 million US dollars when the people they are fighting are sending 100K US dollars missiles to be intercepted.

Don't think the maths actually work out here.

Interceptors are always more expensive that the actual attacking missiles ( both ballistic and cruise)
It's the most advance interceptor system on. This planet and within the budget of the us armed forces

 

[SolarWarden]

So each missile costs 5 million US dollars when the people they are fighting are sending 100K US dollars missiles to be intercepted.

Don't think the maths actually work out here.

Iskander cost $3-4 million depending which model and Kalibr cruise missile cost $6million.

Then you add the targets those missiles were after and you can see the "maths" makes more sense. They are not using PAC3's on shaheed drones they are being used on cruise missiles and BM.

 

[UKBengali]

Iskander cost $3-4 million depending which model and Kalibr cruise missile cost $6million.

Then you add the targets those missiles were after and you can see the "maths" makes more sense. They are not using PAC3's on shaheed drones they are being used on cruise missiles and BM.

You are putting the highest cost figures for some Russian weapons which would not be typical in the case of Iran and China that USA could realistically fight within the next 5-10 years.

It is estimated that Iranian ballistic missiles cost from 100K-500K and so the maths simply would not work out as in a best case US is spending 10 times the cost of the Iranian missile to defend against it.

There is no specific figures for China but they are also likely to be not far off the Iranian figures as they have perfected the art of cheap mass production of missiles.

US just is not competitive in building weapons against its two major adversaries in Asia and so that will be a huge factor when it comes to war with either.


PS - Sometimes 2 interceptors are used to try to shoot down a missile that is fired against a "high priority target".

 

[JaneBhiDoYaaron]

You are putting the highest cost figures for some Russian weapons which would not be typical in the case of Iran and China that USA could realistically fight within the next 5-10 years.

It is estimated that Iranian ballistic missiles cost from 100K-500K and so the maths simply would not work out as in a best case US is spending 10 times the cost of the Iranian missile to defend against it.

There is no specific figures for China but they are also likely to be not far off the Iranian figures as they have perfected the art of cheap mass production of missiles.

US just is not competitive in building weapons against its two major adversaries in Asia and so that will be a huge factor when it comes to war with either.


PS - Sometimes 2 interceptors are used to try to shoot down a missile that is fired against a "high priority target".

In case of war with China and Iran enemy nations are also on target so it wont be one way street.

 

[SolarWarden]

You are putting the highest cost figures for some Russian weapons which would not be typical in the case of Iran and China that USA could realistically fight within the next 5-10 years.

It is estimated that Iranian ballistic missiles cost from 100K-500K and so the maths simply would not work out as in a best case US is spending 10 times the cost of the Iranian missile to defend against it.

There is no specific figures for China but they are also likely to be not far off the Iranian figures as they have perfected the art of cheap mass production of missiles.

US just is not competitive in building weapons against its two major adversaries in Asia and so that will be a huge factor when it comes to war with either.


PS - Sometimes 2 interceptors are used to try to shoot down a missile that is fired against a "high priority target".

How many expensive SAM missiles are Russians using to shoot down Ukraine propeller driven drones? How many s400 missiles were used to try to shoot down cluster ATACMS before it got destroyed? Also when Russia launches a cruise missile attack they use more than one missile, or they used to, at a target.

 

[UKBengali]

How many expensive SAM missiles are Russians using to shoot down Ukraine propeller driven drones? How many s400 missiles were used to try to shoot down cluster ATACMS before it got destroyed? Also when Russia launches a cruise missile attack they use more than one missile, or they used to, at a target.

Russia would use Pantsir to down a Ukrainian propeller driven drone. It would probably not even waste a missile but use the gun to down these slow and relatively low flying drones.

As for S-400, one long range missile comes in at maybe 1 million US dollars for Russia(export is at least 2 million US dollars each) whereas an ATACM comes in at 2 million per missile.

USA will simply lose a shooting match with China and probably Iran as well.

 

[j_hungary]

Russia would use Pantsir to down a Ukrainian propeller driven drone. It would probably not even waste a missile but use the gun to down these slow and relatively low flying drones.

As for S-400, one long range missile comes in at maybe 1 million US dollars for Russia(export is at least 2 million US dollars each) whereas an ATACM comes in at 2 million per missile.

USA will simply lose a shooting match with China and probably Iran as well.

That's not how missile defence (or air defence in general) works.

NOT everything was being intercepted by the missile defence system. You have a layer of cheaper and more abundant solution BEFORE you use the PAC missile. And some would just not be intercepted if the projected trajectory is out of harms.

On the other hand, not each PAC missile cost 5 millions each, that is with machine tooling and also maintenance, we aren't just buying a single missile for 5 millions each.

 

[Jaeger]

So each missile costs 5 million US dollars when the people they are fighting are sending 100K US dollars missiles to be intercepted.

Don't think the maths actually work out here.

Missile defense is obviously expensive. But when it comes to economics of missile warafare, then do take into account.

When a country A fires a $100, 000 missile, which then is intercepted by country B with $ 5 million missile.
But when Country B fires back with its own missiles, then country A either would have do defend with its own missile interceptors, which would cost the same or has no missile defence, which mean, not only country A loose lives but also valuable infrastructure, which can cost hundreds of millions.

 

[UKBengali]

That's not how missile defence (or air defence in general) works.

NOT everything was being intercepted by the missile defence system. You have a layer of cheaper and more abundant solution BEFORE you use the PAC missile. And some would just not be intercepted if the projected trajectory is out of harms.

On the other hand, not each PAC missile cost 5 millions each, that is with machine tooling and also maintenance, we aren't just buying a single missile for 5 millions each.

So if a Mach 12 ballistic missile costing 500K is hurtling down towards a target, you have other options first?

 

[j_hungary]

So if a Mach 12 ballistic missile costing 500K is hurtling down towards a target, you have other options first?

If you can make a mach 12 missile for less than 1 mil, yes, there are other option first.

Just in case you don't understand why I said that. If a missile cost that little, it's either ship or air launch, to which the first line of defence is to expel that threat beyond their engagement distant. The more cost effective way to handle that threat is to send up aircraft to engage the air/naval platform that lunch the missile. You don't expect you can just go and sit in range inside your enemy and launch missile all day undisputed. You aren't talking about Russia fighting Ukraine, you are talking about the US.

If the object gets closed enough and launch that missile, then you can talk about missile defence system. But there are several layer before that, Detection-Suppression-Interception is the basic of Air Defence Doctrine, as I said, you don't just go launch missile everytime....

 

[Khansaheeb]

So each missile costs 5 million US dollars when the people they are fighting are sending 100K US dollars missiles to be intercepted.

Don't think the maths actually work out here.

It does to the folks who want to be richer!

 

[Afif]

Even if we were to believe Iranian MRBM cost around 500k, it is still very much worth of interception, because it would be aimed at and launched toward much more expensive and critical assets, like C2 nodes, logistic hubs and air bases. (Where billions dollars of aircrafts are assigned to)

Of course, then comes the proactive defense. Where US military will swiftly target and destroy Iranian missiles launchers and depots to neutralize the threats.

It's wild that people think US would just sit still and contiue to play 500k vs 5 millions game without attacking the enemy with overwhelming firepower. Against which Iran has not much of defense.

Not to mention, US military is about to field Directed energy wepaons like these within next few years-



Which cost less then 10 USD per interception.

U.S. Army Selects Lockheed Martin to Deliver 300 kW-class, Solid State Laser Weapon System

Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to develop and deliver up to four 300 kW-class laser weapon systems to the U.S. Army’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability-High Energy Laser (IFPC-HEL) prototype program.

news.lockheedmartin.com

Not to mention there are other cost effective solutions that are being successfully tested.

Massive breakthrough: 155 mm howitzer artillery destroys incoming cruise missile | Fox News

It made history by shooting down a fast-moving maneuvering cruise missile

www.foxnews.com