Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Johnboy's avatar

I wonder if anyone wants to address the allegation [presented by MIT Professor Ted Postol at least a few times on Daniel Davis' Deep Dive as well as elsewhere] that the success rate for Patriots [at $4 million a pop, by the way] against ballistic missiles is between 1 and 3% [if that]. This is, of course, strongly denied by the MIC providers of these missiles. For me, this reeks of backhanders, conflicts of interest, and corruption not only in the USA, but also in all those countries who have been apparently scammed. I don't believe anyone in the mainstream media has touched this hot potato.

LJones's avatar

Russia may start salami slicing Europe at some point.

Fwiw, I agree with Andrew that Patriot intercepter success is likely far higher than 3%. At the same time, Postel strikes me as a credible engineer who previously worked in the field as a top analyst. I cannot explain the contradiction unless US intel wants environmental noise on the issue. It's almost a moot issue if you believe the low production rates and high consumption rates.

Re F-35, I've seen complaints about reliability in terms of low flight time availability and something about a heat transfer design limitation. However, in Iran they appear to be performing okay. I've seen little to no whispering about issues or failures.

41 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?