[Jtsummers]

It wasn't designed to, but the system keeps being deployed to defend against these threats. Leads to a question: What's the point of continuing to deploy something that, by all (unclassified) accounts, seems to have no real utility?

[pm90]

That's how procurement, and especially military procurement, works in most countries which have some degree of corruption. Or at least: when there isn't any good oversight by the stakeholders. Seems like the procurement of Patriot missiles was driven more by a need to "buy from the USA" than as an actual credible way to thwart actual threats. Which is incredibly surprising EVEN after knowing how this works because presumably the Houthis are using Iranian/Iran-derivatives of missile systems and Iran is supposed to be the primary geo-political rival to the Sauds. (Makes me wonder what else won't really work in an actual war).

Let me say that I'm a pacifist 100%; diplomacy comes first and all that but war is really where you can't lie and all your bad decisions are right there in your face and fuck you up completely if you didn't think hard enough through these things. This particular incident reminds me of when the Pakistanis procured the latest F-6 aircrafts from the US but were unable to use them effectively in a war against India (1971) because their pilots were not sufficiently trained in how to handle the advanced aircraft systems.... oops.

[Jtsummers]

Sadly a very accurate statement. US allies are encouraged and sometimes required to buy US weapon systems even if they have no real utility, need, or capability to use them. Often they purchase them directly from the US government (versus the manufacturer), this is one way the US government directly makes money, provides a form of corporate welfare (for the defense industry), and subsidizes its weapon system development.

[Covzire]

I'm not seeing a problem here, assuming the hardware sold works as intended of course.

[Jtsummers]

> even if they have no real utility, need, or capability to use them.

This is the critical part. The hardware may work as intended, but if no one can operate it what use is it? If it works as intended but is ineffective against the enemies weapons or techniques what use is it? Or if there isn't even an enemy to use these systems against? But to play ball with the US as an ally, nations can be placed in a position where they're making these purchases whether appropriate or not.

[pm90]

The problem is that the hardware is not really solving the problem it was procured for. And that bad decision was facilitated by the USG. So the USG is crippling other nations defense capabilities while protecting its own armaments industry. Does that make sense?

[riku_iki]

> but the system keeps being deployed to defend against these threats.

They likely were acquired before PAC-3 became available for international sales.

> Leads to a question: What's the point of continuing to deploy something that, by all (unclassified) accounts, seems to have no real utility?

PAC-2 have utility, they are designed to shutdown enemy aircraft on long distance. PAC-3 in contrast is designed specifically against ballistic missiles, like houthies use in their attacks.

[Someone]

It _may_ have deterred enemies from firing more rockets.

It _may_ (at the time) have boosted the confidence of allied and US soldiers on the ground.

It _may_ have been deemed necessary to do _anything_ that made the US’es allies think the US didn’t let them handle the threat alone.

If you want to claim to be the policeman of the world, this won’t help your reputation:

   USA    : “If war comes, we will protect you”
   Saoudis: “War came. Can you help us?”
   USA    : “Sorry, our rockets do not work”

[Steve44]

> What's the point of continuing to deploy something that, by all (unclassified) accounts, seems to have no real utility?

I think the point is that it is better than nothing and may well make a difference. It's not totally useless, like those fake bomb detectors which were being discussed a couple of years ago.

[burfog]

Optimist or pessimist?

You can focus on the failures and call the system useless, or you can focus on the successes and be thankful that occasionally the system works. It's better than nothing, so might as well try.

[Jtsummers]

Per the article the success rate in the first Gulf War (properly adjusted using the Army's actual analytical methods and not wishful thinking) brings it down to a 2% success rate against systems it was essentially designed for.

Various versions of the system are being deployed as countermeasures for missile systems that Patriot is not designed to work against and so likely has a very low success rate. And, if your countermeasures end up turning around and hitting your own city all it does is make the enemy's attack even more effective:

  One interceptor explodes catastrophically just after
  launch, while another makes a U-turn in midair and then
  comes screaming back at Riyadh, where it explodes on the
  ground.

I'm optimistic I can catch a falling blade by the handle one time out of a thousand, doesn't mean I want to destroy my hand with those 999 failed attempts.