When Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, not many thought that the war would last this long. But 10 months later, it is still raging with surprisingly high-performing Ukrainian troops maintaining the offensive pressure against the Russians on the frontlines in the east and the south. In recent months, Ukraine took back swathes of territories it had lost to the Russians in the early stages of the war, including parts of Kharkiv Oblast in the northeast and Kherson in the south, the first city that fell to the Russian hands. Military and financial support from the West, particularly the United States, has been critical in Ukraine’s successful counteroffensive.
ADVERTISEMENT
When the war began, the U.S. mobilised the West under its leadership against Russia and imposed tight sanctions on Moscow, besides sending ammunition to Ukraine. Months later, after Ukraine lost territories along the border region, including Mariupol, Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, the U.S. decided to send medium-range rocket systems such as HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) and MLRS (multiple launch rocket systems), which helped Ukraine turn around the battlefield momentum. After suffering setbacks in Kharkiv and Kherson, Russia launched a new phase of air strikes, targeting military and energy infrastructure in Ukraine, which strengthened Kyiv’s calls for advanced defence systems. After much debate, the U.S. finally announced that it would send the Patriot, its most advanced ground-based air defence system, to Ukraine. U.S. President Joe Biden made the formal announcement, as part of a new $1.8 billion aid package, when his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky visited Washington last week, his first foreign travel after the war began.
The Patriot is one of the most sought-after defence systems and has been deployed in 18 countries, including the U.S. It is operational across the NATO geography and is in high demand in West Asia, where America’s allies such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel, all facing a common foe in Iran, have been using it. Now, Ukraine can be added to the list. Initially developed as a system to intercept high-flying aircraft, by U.S. aerospace and defence giant Raytheon Technologies Corp., the Patriot (Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept on Target) was modified in the 1980s to focus on other threats such as ballistic missiles. The programme’s roots can be traced back to the 1960s when the Pentagon was looking to replace the HAWK and Nike-Hercules air defence systems.
ADVERTISEMENT
Currently, Patriot batteries can defend against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, jets and “other threats”, but it doesn’t offer protection against low-flying small drones. A mobile Patriot system includes a control centre, a radar station to detect threats, missile launchers to take out those threats and other support vehicles. It can launch different types of interceptor missiles: The older PAC-1 and PAC-2 interceptors used a blast-fragmentation warhead, while the newer PAC-3 missile has a more advanced hit-to-kill technology.
According to NATO, the Patriot system’s radar has a range of over 150 km and it can track over 50 potential targets at the same time. One system typically has eight launchers with each holding between four and 16 ready-to-fire missiles. According to the U.S.-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the U.S. Army is set to replace the legacy Patriot radar, which has a field of view limited to about 120 degrees, “with the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS), which has 360-degree coverage and multimission applications...”
Trial by fire
Though the Patriot was deployed in Europe in the 1980s against potential threats from the Soviet Union, the system was tested in combat for the first time in the First Gulf war (1990-91.) The batteries were deployed to protect Saudi and Israeli cities against Iraqi aircraft and Scud and al-Husseini short-range ballistic missiles. Throughout the war, Patriot missiles engaged over 40 Iraqi attacks. Its success rate is still debatable, but the war was a trial by fire for the Patriots and its developers. Raytheon would continue to update the weapon, which would be deployed against Iraq again in 2003 during the U.S.’s illegal invasion of the country. During this war, the Patriot’s PAC-3 and other interceptors showed a better success rate against the Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 tactical ballistic missiles.
ADVERTISEMENT
The post-2003 picture is rosier. Israel claims the Patriot has destroyed dozens of missiles and drones in recent years. According to Raytheon, it has intercepted more than 150 ballistic missiles in combat since 2015.
Raytheon has built more than 240 Patriot systems so far. The Patriot production lines are still active, but mostly for supplies for America’s partners. One battery could cost over $1 billion — $400 million for the system and about $700 million for the missiles. The advanced PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) costs about $4.1 million apiece. The older PAC-2s cost roughly half of that. Since it’s a complex system, its transfer and the training of (Ukrainian) troops to operate it would take time (under normal circumstances, up to six months). According to Reuters, the U.S. is planning to ship the battery to its base in Germany where it would speed-train Ukrainian troops. Each unit needs at least 90 soldiers to operate.
Game changer?
Russia has denounced the U.S. move and threatened consequences, but the Biden administration has maintained that the supply of the Patriot is aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s defences, not at escalation. The system could indeed strengthen Ukraine’s defences, but it’s hardly a game changer. First of all, the full deployment of the Patriot is still months away and Russia will continue to enjoy its air superiority throughout winter. Even when it’s fully deployed, one battery can protect only a small territory. Even in that defended territory, Ukraine will have to use the missiles judiciously. “The high cost per missile and the relatively small number of missiles in a battery means that Patriot operators cannot shoot at every target. High-value Russian aircraft and ballistic missiles would be appropriate targets. Shooting $4 million missiles at $250,000 Russian cruise missiles might be justified if those missiles would hit sensitive targets. Shooting a $4 million missile at a $50,000 Iranian Shahed-136 drone would probably not,” writes the CSIS.
But what’s more significant is the message Washington is sending to Russia. A few days before the war began in February, the U.S. had shut its Embassy in Kyiv and moved the mission to the west, on the Polish border. When Ukrainian forces survived Russia’s initial thrust, the U.S.’s appetite for risks grew with more weapons starting to flow in. Then the U.S. started supplying medium-range rockets neutralising Russia’s artillery advantage and helping Ukraine beat Russians back in some areas. Now, the U.S. is sending its most advanced defence system. As the war grinds on, the U.S.’s role in it is steadily expanding, even at the risk of escalation. That’s the message for the Kremlin.