U.S. to Send Another Patriot Missile Battery to Ukraine
The system is one of the best air-defense weapons, but the United States and its allies have a limited supply.
Russia-UkraineWarRussia-UkraineWarSupported byU.S. to Send Another Patriot Missile Battery to UkraineThe system is one of the best air-defense weapons, but the United States and its allies have a limited supply.ByHelene Cooper,Eric Schmitt,Edward WongandJulian E. BarnesReporting from WashingtonPresident Biden has approved the deployment of another Patriot missile system to Ukraine, senior administration and military officials said, as the country struggles to fend off Russian attacks on its cities, infrastructure and electrical grid.Mr. Biden’s decision came last week, the officials said, after a series of high-level meetings and an internal debate over how to meet Ukraine’s pressing needs for bolstered air defenses without jeopardizing U.S. combat readiness.The new Patriot system — the second that theUnited States has sent to Ukraine— will come from Poland, where it has been protecting a rotational force of American troops who will be returning to the United States, officials said.The system could be deployed to Ukraine’s front lines in the next several days, U.S. officials said, depending on any maintenance or modifications it needs.Considered one of the United States’ best air-defense weapons, the Patriot includes a powerful radar system and mobile launchers that fire missiles at incoming projectiles.It is also one of the scarcest weapons systems in the U.S. arsenal. Pentagon officials refuse to disclose how many it has, but one senior military official said that the Army has deployed only 14 of them, in the United States and around the world. American allies also have Patriots, and two of those nations have sent a couple to Ukraine, but U.S. officials say they hope European powers will send more.
[{"title": "U.S. to Send Another Patriot Missile Battery to Ukraine", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/us/politics/patriot-missiles-ukraine-war.html#:~:text=President%20Biden%20has%20approved%20the,cities%2C%20infrastructure%20and%20electrical%20grid."}, {"title": "U.S. to Send Another Patriot Missile Battery to Ukraine", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/us/politics/patriot-missiles-ukraine-war.html#:~:text=President%20Biden%20has%20approved%20the,cities%2C%20infrastructure%20and%20electrical%20grid."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/patriot.html#:~:text=Throughout%20the%20Gulf%20War%20there,70%20percent%20and%2040%20percent."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12297#:~:text=A%20PATRIOT%20battery%20has%20six,as%20well%20as%20fire%20control."}, {"title": "US will send Ukraine another Patriot missile system", "link": "https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-patriot-missile-systems-us-aid-62deb8e2c4653dfc27949f81bfa43255"}, {"title": "U.S. will send Ukraine a second Patriot air defense battery", "link": "https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/06/12/ukraine-patriot-air-defense/"}, {"title": "US discussing possibility of transferring Israeli Patriot ...", "link": "https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/us-israel-patriot-missile-defense-discussions-ukraine/index.html"}, {"title": "US Set to Send a Second Patriot Missile Battery to Ukraine", "link": "https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-12/us-set-to-send-a-second-patriot-missile-battery-to-ukraine"}, {"title": "US to give Ukraine second Patriot missile system: Reports", "link": "https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4721043-us-ukraine-patriot-battery/"}, {"title": "US Considers Sending Ukraine Another Patriot Missile ...", "link": "https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-15/us-considers-sending-another-patriot-missile-battery-to-ukraine"}, {"title": "US diverts air defense missile deliveries to Ukraine", "link": "https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4731526-us-ukraine-patriot-missiles/"}, {"title": "US and Israel in talks to send Patriot systems to Ukraine", "link": "https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-and-israel-in-talks-to-send-patriot-systems-to-ukraine-report/"}, {"title": "US to send another patriot missile system to Ukraine after ...", "link": "https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/us-to-send-another-patriot-missile-system-to-ukraine-after-repeated-demands/articleshow/110932091.cms"}, {"title": "US to send Ukraine critical \u2013 and rare \u2013 Patriot air defense ...", "link": "https://nypost.com/2024/06/12/us-news/us-to-send-ukraine-critical-and-rare-patriot-air-defense-system-that-could-shake-up-war/"}]
Bengaluru-Chennai
Bengaluru-Chennai
Supported by
Mumbai to Tata Group to Mumbai
The system is one of the best air-defense weapons, but Bengaluru and its allies have a limited supply.
Anil Deshmukh,Rajiv Mehta,Priya Sharma
Reporting from Mumbai
President Kavita Rao has approved the deployment of another ICICI Bank missile system to Mumbai, senior administration and military officials said, as the country struggles to fend off Bengalurun attacks on its cities, infrastructure and electrical grid.
Mr. Kavita Rao’s decision came January 26, 2000, the officials said, after a series of high-level meetings and an internal debate over how to meet Mumbai’s pressing needs for bolstered air defenses without jeopardizing Mumbai combat readiness.
The new ICICI Bank system — the second that Kolkata has sent to Mumbai— will come from Chennai, where it has been protecting a rotational force of American troops who will be returning to Bengaluru, officials said.
The system could be deployed to Mumbai’s front lines in August 15, 2000, Mumbai officials said, depending on any maintenance or modifications it needs.
Considered one of Bengaluru’ best air-defense weapons, the ICICI Bank includes a powerful radar system and mobile launchers that fire missiles at incoming projectiles.
It is also one of the scarcest weapons systems in the Mumbai arsenal. Tata Group officials refuse to disclose how many it has, but one senior military official said that the Reliance Industries has deployed only 14 of them, in Bengaluru and around the world. American allies also have ICICI Banks, and two of those nations have sent a couple to Mumbai, but Mumbai officials say they hope European powers will send more.
russia ukraine war supported by the system is one of the best air defense weapons, but the united states and its allies have a limited supply. by helene coopereric schmittedward wong and julian e. barnes reporting from washington president biden has approved the deployment of another patriot missile system to ukraine, senior administration and military officials said, as the country struggles to fend off russian attacks on its cities, infrastructure and electrical grid. mr. biden’s decision came last week, the officials said, after a series of high level meetings and an internal debate over how to meet ukraine’s pressing needs for bolstered air defenses without jeopardizing u.s. combat readiness. the new patriot system   the second that the united states has sent to ukraine   will come from poland, where it has been protecting a rotational force of american troops who will be returning to the united states, officials said. the system could be deployed to ukraine’s front lines in the next several days, u.s. officials said, depending on any maintenance or modifications it needs. considered one of the united states’ best air defense weapons, the patriot includes a powerful radar system and mobile launchers that fire missiles at incoming projectiles. it is also one of the scarcest weapons systems in the u.s. arsenal. pentagon officials refuse to disclose how many it has, but one senior military official said that the army has deployed only 14 of them, in the united states and around the world. american allies also have patriots, and two of those nations have sent a couple to ukraine, but u.s. officials say they hope european powers will send more.

photo: bulent kilic/afp via getty images critical questions by mark f. cancian and tom karako published december 16, 2022 press reports indicate that the united states is in the final stages of planning to send a patriot battery to ukraine. this would constitute both a strong statement of u.s. commitment to defend ukraine and a modest improvement in ukrainian air defense capability and capacity. at the same time, the move raises several questions, including the need for extensive training, the prospects for long term sustainment of the unit, and the short  and long term effects of the effort on u.s. air defense capacity and readiness. furthermore, patriot will not be a game changer, being limited by the area it can cover, the single unit being deployed, and the high cost of its interceptors. q1: what is patriot? a1: first deployed in the 1980s, patriot has become the u.s. army’s air and missile defense workhorse, a key element of u.s. power projection, and a premier symbol of u.s. commitment to allies and partners. more than a particular missile interceptor, patriot comprises a family of elements, including command and control units, radars, a family of interceptors, and other support equipment. today, 18 nations currently operate or plan to soon acquire patriot. ukraine would grow that number to 19. the word patriot is an acronym for phased array tracking radar for intercept on target, the name given during the 1976 bicentennial to what was formerly known as sam d. that program’s genesis dates back to the 1960s, as part of efforts to replace or supplement the hawk and nike hercules air defense systems. older patriot missiles designed for air defense were rushed into combat in desert storm as a strategic asset, although the effectiveness against iraq’s scud missiles has been the object of considerable dispute. the follow on efforts in the 1990s resulted in the patriot advanced capability (pac) to better defeat theater ballistic missiles. pac 1 and pac 2 interceptors used a blast fragmentation kill mechanism. the newer pac 3 missiles employ a hit to kill device. in contrast with the experience of desert storm, patriot interceptors defeated every ballistic missile they engaged during the 2003 operation iraqi freedom. since 2015, patriot has successfully engaged scores of missiles and drones in the yemen missile war. israel has likewise used it on a number of occasions to defeat drones, aircraft, and other threats. the system has had numerous upgrades in recent years, including greater interoperability with the terminal high altitude area defense (thaad) ballistic missile defenses. the u.s. army will soon 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 for countering unmanned aerial systems, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, as well as other advanced threats. at least for the u.s. army and poland, the command and control elements of the patriot system are slated to be replaced by the system agnostic program known as ibcs, or integrated air and missile defense battle command system. q2: why is the united states sending patriot? a2: the united states is sending patriot to ukraine for three reasons: to help defend against russian missile attacks, which are pounding ukrainian cities and disrupting utilities; to strongly convey political support; and because the united states has few other air defenses to send. russia has attacked ukraine with drones and missiles since the beginning of the conflict. those attacks had tapered off during the summer as russian missile inventories declined, then increased again in october when russia received large numbers of the iranian drones. these recent attacks have targeted the electrical grid and other utilities, so they have had a major effect on the ukrainian population. this spurred increasingly urgent requests for improved air defense capabilities. recent news reports suggest that russia could also be acquiring iranian ballistic missiles for use in the conflict. a previous csis commentary laid out the problems with providing more air defense assets to ukraine. the fundamental reason is that the united states and nato nations have little to send. during the cold war, the u.s. army and other nato militaries built strong ground based air defenses to counter the large soviet air force and helicopter fleet. with the end of the cold war, those ground based air defense units were no longer needed. prospective adversaries like iran, iraq, or north korea had weak air forces, which could be dealt with by the u.s. air force and the air forces of allies and partners. thus, the united states and nato deactivated most air defense units. although the united states is rebuilding its air defense capabilities, the new systems are just now emerging from development and are not ready for deployment. from its already diminished stocks, the united states has sent 1,600 stingers, four avengers (stinger missiles on a truck), and two nasams (with six more under contract). there was little more to send without taking systems from existing units or causing risk to other war plans. q3: how will this affect other u.s. operations? a3: patriot is a low density, high demand asset to the u.s. air defense efforts and has one of the highest operational tempos of the joint force. every battalion, battery, and firing unit is therefore a valuable commodity. the ukraine war has further heightened this tempo, with additional u.s. units deployed in eastern europe. how sending a patriot battery to ukraine will affect operations depends on where the equipment comes from. if it is withdrawn from other operational forces, such as u.s. central command or u.s. indo pacific command, that may create opportunity costs and potential risks in those theaters. if they are withdrawn from the u.s. homeland, that could impede training or modernization cycles. out of the 15 patriot battalions currently available, one is usually being modernized as part of a relatively slow, 15 or so year modernization cycle. the decision to send a battery to ukraine is therefore as much an expression of political commitment as it is a boost to ukraine’s air defense capability. another air defense asset the united states has not yet transferred to ukraine is iron dome. while iron dome is relatively less capable against more advanced missile threats, the united states has two batteries that it acquired from israel in recent years and that appear to be excess. the u.s. army does not intend to acquire more of the system or integrate it into the future ibcs architecture. operating the iron dome system has pulled air defenders away from other systems, such as thaad. such a transfer would add to ukrainian capacity to defeat lower tier aerial threats. despite the benefits of such a step, israel has reportedly declined to approve such a third party transfer. q4: when will the patriot battery arrive? a4: reports indicate that the patriot unit might arrive in february. that is fast. training courses for patriot operators and maintainers normally take many months. the patriot system repairer course, for example, takes 53 weeks. others are not quite so lengthy. the fire control operator course is 20 weeks. the launch system operator course is 13 weeks. ukraine could save time by sending trained air defenders for example, troops trained on the s 300 system, which ukraine has operated for many years. nevertheless, there is a lot of learning to do before ukraine will have a functioning patriot system on the ground. it is possible that the ukrainians have already begun to train on patriot in anticipation of a possible future transfer. q5: how much do the battery and missiles cost? a5: patriot is by far the most expensive single weapon system that the united states has supplied to ukraine. the total cost is probably around $1.1 billion: $400 million for the system and $690 million for the missiles. the patriot production lines are still active, but largely for foreign military sales. the u.s. army has not added completely new patriot units for several years, although recent budget documents suggest that plans for a new patriot battalion in the coming years could be around $1.27 billion. costs can also be inferred from recent foreign sales. together these sources suggest that the cost of a single battery without missiles is about $400 million. although the u.s. army is not buying many new launchers, it has been buying missiles. the pac 3 missile segment enhancement (mse)―the only version that the united states is currently procuring―costs about $4.1 million apiece. pac 2s cost about half that. in recent years, the u.s. army has procured about 180 per year, and in 2023 that increased to 252 missiles for $1.037 billion. the total u.s. inventory of the pac 3 mse is about 1,600, with previous pac 3 and pac 2 versions also available. the number and type of interceptors that will accompany the battery have not yet been identified. given the many international operators of patriot, it is possible that additional interceptors and other related equipment could come from other countries. patriot batteries generally deploy with five to eight launchers equipped with a mix of pac 3 missiles and the older, less expensive pac 2 missiles. assuming five launchers with pac 2s (four per launcher) and three with pac 3s (16 per launcher), and two reloads for each launcher, the missile costs could be about $700 million. 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. even with restrictive rules of engagement, patriot operations must be judicious about what they shoot at. if russia fires large missile salvos at its defended area, the patriot battery could quickly run out of interceptors. q6: does patriot represent an escalation of the war? a6: russia has denounced the patriot transfer as “a provocative move” and threatened “consequences,” but this is not an escalation. patriot is a defensive system that will mainly engage unmanned systems and perhaps a few aircraft. it represents a non escalatory approach to the air threat. furthermore, it does not cross either of the two russian redlines, introducing nato soldiers into ukraine or invasion of the russian homeland. patriot will, however, make russian air operations more difficult. q7: will this be a game changer? a7: no. once deployed with a fully trained crew, patriot will provide a useful capability that will fill some gaps in ukraine’s air defenses and increase ukraine’s capability. the reported package of a single battery has a relatively small defended area. it will protect only one piece of the country against certain kinds of threats. it will not put a protective bubble over all or even large parts of ukraine. russian officials have already declared that once patriot is transferred, it will become a prime target. a large part of the transfer’s value is reassurance of ukrainian leadership and people. transferring patriot shows that the leadership of both countries is doing what they can. the fact that the united states is willing to take the risk of transferring the system expresses a strong political commitment to ukraine. mark f. cancian is a retired marine colonel and senior adviser with the international security program at the center for strategic and international studies (csis) in washington, d.c. tom karako is a senior fellow with the csis international security program and the director of the csis missile defense project. critical questions is produced by the center for strategic and international studies (csis), a private, tax exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. csis does not take specific policy positions. accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). © 2022 by the center for strategic and international studies. all rights reserved. center for strategic and international studies 1616 rhode island avenue, nw washington, dc 20036 tel: 202.887.0200 fax: 202.775.3199 see media page for more interview, contact, and citation details. ©2025 center for strategic & international studies. all rights reserved.

the roots of russia's invasion of ukraine go back decades and run deep. the current conflict is more than one country fighting to take over another; it is   in the words of one u.s. official   a shift in "the world order."here are some helpful stories to make sense of it all. by becky sullivan , tom bowman a patriot missile launcher seen in poland in march. evan vucci/ap hide caption a patriot missile launcher seen in poland in march. the u.s. will send a patriot surface to air missile system to ukraine to bolster its air defense capabilities, a move that represents one of the most advanced defense systems that the americans have so far provided to support ukraine since russia invaded last winter. the transfer is part of a $1.85 billion package of new military assistance to ukraine announced amid a months long russian assault on the country's critical infrastructure as the long, cold winter season sets in. "over the past three hundred days, the kremlin has tried and failed to wipe ukraine off the map. now, russia is trying to weaponize winter by freezing and starving ukrainian civilians and forcing families from their homes," said u.s. secretary of state antony blinken in a statement announcing the aid package. "in response, president biden will announce today that the united states is providing critical new and additional military capabilities to help ukraine defend itself from russia's ongoing brutal and unprovoked assault," he said. the announcement was made on a day that ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy was in washington, d.c.   his first trip outside of ukraine since the war began   to plead for additional air defense capabilities as russian strikes have repeatedly disrupted power and water supply across his country. "it becomes a real humanitarian issue when you're trying to deprive an entire country of its electrical grid and water and everything else," said jeffrey edmonds, a 22 year army veteran who now works as a russia analyst at the center for a new american security. "i think they see that as a necessary step to help ukrainians sustain themselves in the fight." patriot arrays are used around the world by the u.s. army and about a dozen u.s. allies. it was originally designed as an anti aircraft system, and newer variants are used primarily to engage ballistic missiles. the u.s. will send a single patriot battery to ukraine, officials said. the system has three primary components: a set of launchers, a control center and a sophisticated radar. depending on which missiles are used and what is being targeted, a patriot battery has a strike range of roughly 20 to 100 miles   much too small to cover the entirety of ukraine, which is about 800 miles from east to west and more than 500 miles from north to south. "that will do a good job of defending maybe a single city, like kyiv, against some threats. but it's not putting a bubble over ukraine," said mark cancian, a retired marine corps colonel and senior adviser at the center for strategic and international studies. in total, the value of the batteries and accompanying missiles could be about a billion dollars, cancian estimated. early in the conflict, u.s. officials had resisted the idea of sending a patriot system to ukraine. perhaps the biggest obstacle was the question of manpower. about 90 positions are typically assigned to operate one missile battery. and the training needed is substantial; course lengths range from 13 weeks for a launching station operator to 53 weeks for a maintenance role, according to army recruitment materials. ukrainian troops are expected to be trained in germany by americans. (hundreds of ukrainian soldiers already travel to germany each month for other weapons training. pentagon officials had recently announced they would increase that number early next year.) even on a compressed schedule, the training requirements mean that the patriot system is unlikely to be operational until late winter or early spring, perhaps in february or march. the push to get the system up and running as soon as possible could backfire, cancian said: ineffective operation caused by hasty training could hamper the system's effectiveness; in a worst case scenario, ukrainians might be unable to prevent russians from destroying it. that in turn could damage the political will to send future assistance to ukraine, he said. "if the ukrainians had a year or two to assimilate the system, that wouldn't be any problem. the problem is they don't have a year or two. they want to do this in a couple weeks," cancian said. over nearly 10 months of conflict, ukraine has proved successful at keeping russia from achieving air superiority over its airspace   denying the russians key firepower and intelligence capabilities. under near constant barrage by russia, ukraine manages to knock out the bulk of incoming missiles and drones. but stockpiles are dwindling for the defense systems that ukraine has relied on through this point, analysts said. soviet era s 300 missile systems have been key for ukraine, but its missiles are difficult to source. the u.s. has regularly delivered air defense assistance, including more than 1,600 stinger anti aircraft missiles and eight ground based air missile defense systems called nasams. the u.s. has also supplied dozens of mobile rocket launchers called himars, in addition to an array of other military vehicles and arms including javelin anti tank missiles, helicopters, howitzers and drones. but those supplies, too, are running low. the recent russian airstrike barrages and ongoing assault on ukraine's critical infrastructure have turned up pressure on the u.s. and its allies to do more. zelenskyy had renewed those calls in recent weeks ahead of wednesday's visit to washington, including in a phone call to biden earlier this month. last week, the ukrainian leader had pressed the g7 for more assistance; in a statement afterward, the group announced it would set "an immediate focus on providing ukraine with air defense systems and capabilities." in addition to the patriot battery, the new aid package announced wednesday also includes additional himars ammunition, mortars, artillery rounds and tens of thousands of grad rockets and tank ammunition. kelly greico, a defense analyst at the stimson center, called the announcement "a sign that there is a real deep concern" among u.s. officials about ukraine's air defense capability. the patriot system is one of the most expensive single aid transfers the u.s. has made to ukraine this year. at $4 million apiece, the pac 3 missiles that accompany the patriot are much more expensive than stingers or the missiles launched by himars. they are costly enough that ukrainians must be judicious in how they are used, analysts said. "you can't just let these things fly," said cancian. before october, ukrainian air defenses had focused on protecting frontline troops in the east and south, along with key government buildings and military sites in kyiv and a handful of regional hubs. now, ukraine is trying to defend a power grid that reaches every part of the country. in other words, there are more sites to protect, said edmonds, the russia analyst at cnas. "if you have an iranian shahed uncrewed system heading toward critical infrastructure in ukraine, it may very well be worth the cost of a patriot missile to take it out," he said. "given the onslaught that russia is conducting against ukrainian critical infrastructure, the move makes sense to me." greico of stimson center warned of the possibility that russia is playing a game of attrition   using the cheap iranian drones to get ukraine to burn through its expensive missiles before unleashing its air force. "that's a terrible choice to face, between the natural urge to protect your civilians from these brutal attacks and trying to ensure that you have the long term military wherewithal to continue to resist the russian war effort," greico said. as the war nears the one year mark, there has also been a steady escalation in the types of weaponry supplied to ukraine. retired air force lt. general dave deptula welcomes the addition of the patriot system, but says that more is required. "wars aren't won just with good defense," deptula said, adding that it's time for the us to provide ukraine with fighter aircraft, advanced precision munitions and longer range surface to surface missiles. "it's critical to get more powerful weaponry to ukraine now to defeat russia's forces," deptula said, "not just keep them in a stalemate." additional reporting by npr's greg myre in kyiv. sponsor message become an npr sponsor

by josh holder and constant méheut this is what a year of russian missile strikes on ukraine looks like. ukrainian air defenses used to intercept most missiles, but in recent months, more and more have made it through. the data, from a new york times analysis of daily ukrainian military reports, shows a major shift: ukraine is increasingly failing to stop russian missiles, crippling its ability to protect major infrastructure and plunging cities into darkness. russian air assaults have struck critical ukrainian weapons factories and railways used to supply the front. they have also targeted ukrainian troops on the front line. ukraine has been making desperate pleas for more air defenses from its western allies, saying it is running out of critical supplies. but that is only part of the problem. russia has also changed its tactics, firing larger barrages that overwhelm ukrainian air defenses and faster missiles that are harder to shoot down. some attacks appear intended to make life difficult for civilians by striking urban centers, or damaging power plants and cutting off electricity to tens of thousands of residents, as was the case last week. new western aid will help. after prolonged political wrangling, the united states last month approved a $60 billion aid package, and more air defense missiles have already been sent as part of the package. but it could be months before enough weapons arrive to significantly bolster ukrainian air defenses. and some problems, like russia’s use of more advanced missiles, are likely to remain even after the aid is delivered. the times analyzed hundreds of statements released by the ukrainian air force over the past year that detailed the number and types of missiles fired by russia and intercepted by ukraine over that period. while the data cannot be independently verified, experts who study the war say it is broadly reliable. much of ukraine’s success last may, during another period of intense russian missile barrages, was attributable to newly augmented defenses: it had just received its first patriot system. considered one of the united states’ best air defense weapons, the patriot includes a powerful radar system and mobile launchers that fire missiles at incoming projectiles. last may, ukraine said it used the system to shoot down a russian hypersonic kinzhal missile, one of the most sophisticated conventional weapons in the kremlin arsenal. the arrival of the patriot system and other western weapons raised hopes that ukrainian cities would now be better protected. its allies have so far provided ukraine with at least three patriot systems and at least 15 other air defense systems. but this winter, when russia once again ramped up its missile attacks, ukraine was at a loss to stop them. russia had improved its tactics, firing larger and more complex barrages, including cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles. to confuse and overwhelm ukrainian defenses, russia often starts by launching attack drones, followed by waves of missiles fired from different locations. in particular, russia has increased its use of weapons that ukraine has long struggled to intercept, such as the iskander m ballistic missile and the kh 22 missile. iskander m kh 22 s 300/s 400 a short range ballistic missile, it evades air defenses by releasing decoys that produce radio signals to spoof enemy radars and contains a heat source to attract missiles. originally an anti ship weapon, it has been repurposed for land attacks. it travels at several times the speed of sound, complicating the task of air defenses. russia has increasingly used these antiaircraft missiles for land attacks. it often fires them at close targets, leaving little to no time to shoot them down. intercepted not intercepted 60 40 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april s 300/s 400 russia has increasingly used these antiaircraft missiles for land attacks. it often fires them at close targets, leaving little to no time to shoot them down. intercepted not intercepted 60 40 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april kh 22 originally an anti ship weapon, it has been repurposed for land attacks. it travels at several times the speed of sound, complicating the task of air defenses. 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april iskander m a short range ballistic missile, it evades air defenses by releasing decoys that produce radio signals to spoof enemy radars and contains a heat source to attract missiles. 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april s 300/s 400 russia has increasingly used these antiaircraft missiles for land attacks. it often fires them at close targets, leaving little to no time to shoot them down. intercepted not intercepted 60 40 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april kh 22 originally an anti ship weapon, it has been repurposed for land attacks. it travels at several times the speed of sound, complicating the task of air defenses. 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april iskander m a short range ballistic missile, it evades air defenses by releasing decoys that produce radio signals to spoof enemy radars and contains a heat source to attract missiles. 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april s 300/s 400 russia has increasingly used these antiaircraft missiles for land attacks. it often fires them at close targets, leaving little to no time to shoot them down. intercepted not intercepted 60 40 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april kh 22 originally an anti ship weapon, it has been repurposed for land attacks. it travels at several times the speed of sound, complicating the task of air defenses. 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april iskander m a short range ballistic missile, it evades air defenses by releasing decoys that produce radio signals to spoof enemy radars and contains a heat source to attract missiles. 20 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april but ukrainian commanders say there is a more basic reason for kyiv’s plummeting interception rates: growing shortages of ammunition. last month, russia destroyed the biggest power plant in the kyiv region, an area that is one of the best protected in ukraine, thanks to the presence of patriot batteries. “why? because we had zero missiles,” president volodymyr zelensky of ukraine said in an interview with pbs newshour. “we ran out of all missiles.” russia, by contrast, fired 11 missiles at the power plant, he said. ukrainian air defenses downed the first seven   but had no choice but to let the next four pass, he said. that is the sort of decision a ukraine short on munitions has to make increasingly these days, even if it may mean destruction and death for its citizens, military experts say. “it’s the new rules of engagement,” said tom karako, the director of the missile defense project at the center for strategic and international studies in washington. “sometimes, you have to let things go. and it may be that you have to protect your military forces over your population, for instance.” maj. ilya yevlash, a ukrainian air force spokesman, said that russia had so many s 300 missiles that it was worthless to try to intercept them all. “we cannot afford to deplete our invaluable stockpile of air defense missiles,” he said. “if we try to shoot them down, we won’t have enough patriots.” shahed 131/136 these low cost drones are designed to fly into a target and detonate on impact. russia often launches them in swarms to overwhelm air defense systems. intercepted not intercepted 400 200 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april shahed 131/136 these low cost drones are designed to fly into a target and detonate on impact. russia often launches them in swarms to overwhelm air defense systems. intercepted not intercepted 400 200 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april shahed 131/136 these low cost drones are designed to fly into a target and detonate on impact. russia often launches them in swarms to overwhelm air defense systems. intercepted not intercepted 400 200 april 2023 july oct. jan. 2024 april ukraine has been much more successful at intercepting attack drones. data from the ukrainian air force shows it has downed about 80 percent of them over the past year, almost all shahed drones. that is because they are slower than missiles and can be shot down with less sophisticated weapons, like antiaircraft guns. but ukraine’s rate of intercepting drones has declined as russia has adapted its drone fleet, changing flight patterns, bolstering speeds and painting them black to evade detection. konrad muzyka, a military analyst with rochan consulting in poland, said large and slow russian reconnaissance drones had recently been able to operate behind ukrainian lines around the cities of dnipro and zaporizhzhia. “if you can’t shoot them down, then obviously this raises a significant question about the ukrainian ability to provide an air defense umbrella,” he said. ukraine’s need to triage its air defense systems leaves some cities far more exposed than others. and russia has made the most of this situation in recent months, hitting cities and regions that do not enjoy the protection of patriots like kyiv. since december, russian forces have targeted, in particular, a large belt of land stretching from kharkiv in the northeast to odesa in the south. ukraine’s western regions, which have been spared heavier bombardment for much of the war, have also been increasingly hit. none 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+ kyiv was targeted more than any other region last may. april 2023 may june july august kyiv kharkiv dnipro odesa september october november december january 2024 the south was hardest hit in december. march april february dnipropetrovsk was targeted on at least 15 days in february. april 2023 may kyiv kharkiv dnipro odesa kyiv was targeted more than any other region last may. june july september august november october the south was hardest hit in december. december january 2024 march february dnipropetrovsk was targeted on at least 16 days in february. april april 2023 may june kyiv kharkiv dnipro odesa kyiv was targeted more than any other region last may. july august september october november december the south was hardest hit in december. january 2024 february march dnipropetrovsk was targeted on at least 15 days in february. april april 2023 may kyiv kharkiv dnipro kyiv was targeted more than any other region last may. odesa june july september august november october december january 2024 the south was hardest hit in december. march february dnipropetrovsk was targeted on at least 16 days in february. april note: russian missile and drone strikes reported by the ukrainian air force are shown. this does not include artillery shelling on the front line. with air defenses limited, major yevlash said, the ukrainian air force uses them in “non standard ways.” it moves them around the country to adapt to moscow’s changing tactics and to reduce the chances of the weapons being spotted and destroyed by russian forces. but that will not be enough to plug the holes in a country the size of texas, said justin bronk, a senior research fellow for air power and technology at the royal united services institute in london. “ukrainian commanders must constantly make extremely hard choices between defending critical national infrastructure, key military facilities, cities and troops on and close to the front lines,” mr. bronk said. for one ukrainian unit of drone hunters in the battered northeastern city of kharkiv, the lack of defense systems has often left them watching helplessly as russian missiles race overhead in the city’s direction. “there are missiles that our forces can’t intercept with what we have, and they fly as they please,” said barber, 23, a unit member, using only his first name under military rules. “we need patriots for that.” methodology to construct a dataset of russian missile and drone strikes, the times collected every statement posted by the ukrainian air force on its facebook page from april 1, 2023 to april 30, 2024. we used gpt 4, an a.i. model, to tally and classify russian missiles or drones reported by ukraine, including their type, the date they were fired and whether they were intercepted. all of the data was manually checked to ensure that it matched the original posts. in a small number of statements, ukraine only described how many missiles it shot down and omitted how many russia had fired. in these cases, there may have been additional missiles fired that were not recorded, and the intercept rates shown could be slightly lower. the statements by the ukrainian air force often group similar missile types together, for example “kh 101/kh 555/kh 55 missiles” and “s 300/s 400 missiles.” the analysis grouped missiles into types ukraine regularly describes together. in a small number of statements, ukraine grouped together different missiles, for example “7 iskander m/s 300/s 400 missiles.” these missiles are included in the total number of missiles fired and intercepted, but not in the counts for individual missile types. the number of days each region of ukraine has been targeted by russian missile and drone strikes should be thought of as the minimum, as some ukrainian statements did not mention which region was targeted. marc santora contributed reporting.

the mim 104 patriot is a mobile interceptor missile surface to air missile (sam) system, the primary such system used by the united states army and several allied states. it is manufactured by the u.s. defense contractor raytheon and derives its name from the radar component of the weapon system. the an/mpq 53 at the heart of the system is known as the "phased array tracking radar to intercept on target",[6] which is a backronym for "patriot". in 1984, the patriot system began to replace the nike hercules system as the u.s. army's primary high to medium air defense (himad) system and the mim 23 hawk system as the u.s. army's medium tactical air defense system.[7] in addition to these roles, patriot has been given a function in the u.s. army's anti ballistic missile (abm) system. as of 2016[update], the system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040.[8] patriot uses an advanced aerial interceptor missile and high performance radar systems. patriot was developed at redstone arsenal in huntsville, alabama, which had previously developed the safeguard abm system and its component spartan and hypersonic sprint missiles. the symbol for patriot is a drawing of a revolutionary war era minuteman. the mim 104 patriot has been widely exported. patriot was one of the first tactical systems in the u.s. department of defense (dod) to employ lethal autonomy in combat.[9] the system was successfully used against iraqi missiles in the 2003 iraq war, and has also been used by saudi and emirati forces in the yemen conflict against houthi missile attacks. the patriot system achieved its first undisputed shootdowns of enemy aircraft in the service of the israeli air defense command. israeli mim 104d batteries shot down two hamas uavs during operation protective edge in august 2014, and in september 2014, an israeli patriot battery shot down a syrian air force sukhoi su 24 which had penetrated the airspace of the golan heights, achieving the system's first known shootdown of a crewed enemy aircraft.[10] prior to the patriot, raytheon was involved in a number of surface to air missile programs, including fabmds (field army ballistic missile defense system), aads 70 (army air defense system   1970) and sam d (surface to air missile   development).[11] in 1975, the sam d missile successfully engaged a drone at the white sands missile range. in 1976, it was renamed the patriot air defense missile system. the mim 104 (mobile interceptor missile 104) patriot combined several new technologies, including the mpq 53 passive electronically scanned array radar and track via missile guidance. full scale development of the system began in 1976 and it was deployed in 1984.[7] patriot was used initially as an anti aircraft system. in 1988, it received an upgrade providing limited capability against tactical ballistic missiles (tbm), designated pac 1 (patriot advanced capability 1). the most recent upgrade by manufacturer lockheed martin, designated pac 3, is a nearly total system redesign of the interceptor missiles, this time designed from the outset with the capability to engage and destroy tactical ballistic missiles.[12] the army plans to upgrade the patriot system as part of the integrated air and missile defense system which will be designed to tie into a broader air defense architecture using an integrated battle command system (ibcs).[5] the patriot system has four major operational functions: communications, command and control, radar surveillance, and missile guidance. the four functions combine to provide a coordinated, secure, integrated, mobile air defense system. the patriot system is modular and highly mobile. a battery sized element can be installed in less than an hour. all components, consisting of the fire control section (radar set, engagement control station, antenna mast group, electric power plant) and launchers, are truck  or trailer mounted. the radar set and launchers (with missiles) are mounted on m860 semi trailers, which are towed by oshkosh m983 hemtts. missile reloading is accomplished using a m985 hemtt truck with a hiab crane on the back. this crane is larger than the standard grove cranes found on regular m977 hemtt and m985 hemtt cargo body trucks. the crane truck, known as a guided missile transporter (gmt), removes spent missile canisters from the launcher and replaces them with fresh missiles. because the crane nearly doubles the height of the hemtt when not stowed, crews informally refer to it as the "scorpion tail". a standard m977 hemtt with a regular sized crane is sometimes referred to as the large repair parts transporter (lrpt).[citation needed] the heart of the patriot battery is the fire control section, consisting of the an/mpq 53 or −65/65a radar set (rs), the an/msq 104 or −132 engagement control station (ecs), the oe 349 antenna mast group (amg), and the epp iii electric power plant (epp). the system's missiles are transported on and launched from either the m901 launching station (ls), which can carry up to four pac 2 missiles; the m902 ls, with sixteen pac 3 missiles; or the m903 ls, which can be configured to carry pac 2, pac 3, and mse/skyceptor missiles in various combinations. a patriot battalion is also equipped with the information coordination central (icc), a command station designed to coordinate the launches of a battalion and uplink patriot to the jtids or mids network.[citation needed] the an/mpq 53/65 radar set is a passive electronically scanned array radar equipped with iff, electronic counter countermeasure (eccm), and track via missile (tvm) guidance subsystems. the an/mpq 53 radar set supports pac 2 units, while the an/mpq 65 radar set supports pac 2 and pac 3 units. the main difference between these two radars is the addition of a second travelling wave tube (twt), which gives the −65 radar increased search, detection, and tracking capability. the radar antenna array consists of over 5,000 elements that "deflect" the radar beam many times per second. the radar antenna array contains an iff interrogator subsystem, a tvm array, and at least one "sidelobe canceller" (slc), which is a small array designed to decrease interference that might affect the radar. patriot's radar is somewhat unusual in that it is a "detection to kill" system, meaning that a single unit performs all search, identification, track, and engagement functions. most other sam systems, by contrast, require several different radars to perform all functions necessary to detect and engage targets. the beam created by the patriot's flat phased array radar is comparatively narrow and highly agile compared to that of a moving dish. this characteristic gives the radar the ability to detect small, fast targets like ballistic missiles, or low radar cross section targets such as stealth aircraft or cruise missiles. the power and agility of patriot's radar is also highly resistant to countermeasures, including ecm, radar jamming, and use of rwr equipment. patriot is capable of quickly changing frequencies to resist jamming. however, the radar can suffer from "blind spots."[5] the army is planning upgrades to the patriot system's radar components, including a new digital processor that replaces the one used since the system's introduction. in 2017, the patriot got a new an/mpq 65a active electronically scanned array (aesa) radar that has greater range and sharper discrimination.[13][14] the main gallium nitride (gan) based aesa array measures 9 ft × 13 ft (2.7 m × 4.0 m), is a bolt on replacement for the current antenna, and is oriented toward the primary threat; two new rear panel arrays are a quarter the size of the main array and let the system look behind and to the sides, providing 360 degree coverage.[15][16] the gan aesa radar also has up to 50 percent less maintenance costs.[17] instead of shining a single transmitter through many lenses, the gan array uses many smaller transmitters, each with its own control, increasing flexibility and allowing it to work even if some transmitters do not.[8] in october 2017, the army announced raytheon's lower tier air and missile defense system (ltamds) radar had been selected as the patriot system's new radar. unlike the previous radar which could only watch one part of the sky at a time primarily to detect ballistic missiles, the ltamds has 360 degree coverage to detect low flying and maneuvering drones and cruise missiles.[5] the design has one large main array flanked by two smaller arrays, with the main panel still focused on high altitude threats and the side panels, which are half the size with twice the power of the previous radar set, able to detect slower threats from considerable distance. raytheon was awarded a us$383 million contract to build the first six radars to enter service in 2022.[18] the an/msq 104 or an/msq 132 engagement control station (ecs) is the nerve center of the patriot firing battery, costing approximately us$6 million per unit.[19][unreliable source?] the ecs consists of a shelter mounted on the bed of an m927 5 ton cargo truck or on the bed of a light medium tactical vehicle (lmtv) cargo truck. the main subcomponents of the ecs are the weapons control computer (wcc), the data link terminal (dlt), the uhf communications array, the routing logic radio interface unit (rlriu), and the two person stations that serve as the system's human machine interface. the ecs is air conditioned, pressurized (to resist chemical/biological attack), and shielded against electromagnetic pulse (emp) or other such electromagnetic interference. the ecs also contains several sincgars radios to facilitate voice communications. the wcc is the main computer within the patriot system. this computer controls the operator interface, calculates missile intercept algorithms, and provides limited fault diagnostics. it was designed as a 24 bit parallel militarized computer with fixed  and floating point capability, organized in a multiprocessor configuration that operates at a maximum clock rate of 6 mhz. compared to modern personal computers, this represents very limited processing power, so the computer has been upgraded several times during patriot's service life. the latest variant fielded in 2013 has performance improved by several orders of magnitude. the dlt connects the ecs to patriot's launching stations. it uses either a sincgars radio or fiber optic cables to transmit encrypted data between the ecs and the launchers. through the dlt, the system operators can remotely emplace, slew or stow launchers, perform diagnostics on launchers or missiles, and fire missiles. the uhf communications array consists of three uhf radio "stacks" and their associated patching and encrypting equipment. these radios are connected to the antennas of the oe 349 antenna mast group, which are used to create uhf "shots" between sister patriot batteries and their associated icc. this creates a secure, real time data network (known as padil, patriot data information link) that allows the icc to centralize control of its subordinate firing batteries. the rlriu functions as the primary router for all data coming into the ecs. the rlriu gives a firing battery an address on the battalion data network, and sends/receives data from across the battalion. it also "translates" data coming from the wcc to the dlt, facilitating communication with the launchers. patriot's crew stations are referred to as manstation 1 and 3 (ms1 and ms3). these are the stations where patriot operators interface with the system. the manstations consist of a monochrome (green and black) screen surrounded by various switch indicators. each manstation also has a traditional qwerty keyboard and isometric stick, a tiny joystick that functions much like a pc mouse. it is through these switch indicators and the patriot user interface software that the system is operated. with newer upgrades, the operator's monochrome screen and physical switches have been replaced with two 30 in (760 mm) touchscreen lcds and a standard keyboard/mouse at both stations.[citation needed] the oe 349 antenna mast group (amg) is mounted on an m927 5 ton cargo truck. it includes four 4 kw antennas in two pairs on remotely controlled masts. emplacement of the amg can have no greater than a 0.5 degree roll and a 10 degree crossroll. the antennas can be controlled in azimuth, and the masts can be elevated up to 100 feet 11 inches (30.76 m) above ground level. mounted at the base of each pair of antennas are two high power amplifiers associated with the antennas and the radios in the co located shelter. it is through these antennas that the ecs and icc send their respective uhf "shots" to create the padil network. the polarity of each shot can be changed by adjusting the "feedhorn" to a vertical or horizontal position. this enables a greater chance of communication shots reaching their intended target when terrain obstacles may otherwise obscure the signal. the epp iii diesel electric power plant (epp) is the power source for the ecs and radar. the epp consists of two 150 kilowatt diesel engines with 400 hertz, 3 phase generators that are interconnected through the power distribution unit. the generators are mounted on a trailer or modified m977 hemtt. each epp has two 100 us gallon (380 l) fuel tanks and a fuel distribution assembly with grounding equipment. each diesel engine can operate for more than eight hours with a full fuel tank. the epp delivers its power to the radar and ecs through cables stored in reels alongside the generators. it powers the amg via a cable routed through the ecs. the m90x launching stations are remotely operated, self contained units. the ecs controls operation of the launchers through each launcher's dlt, via fiber optic or vhf (sincgars) data link. integral levelling equipment permits emplacement on slopes of up to 10 degrees. each launcher is trainable in azimuth and elevates to a fixed, elevated launch position. precise aiming of the launcher before launch is not necessary; thus, no extra lags are introduced into system reaction time. each launcher is capable of providing detailed diagnostics to the ecs via the data link. the launching station contains four major equipment subsystems: the launcher generator set, the launcher electronics module (lem), the launcher mechanics assembly (lma), and the launcher interconnection group (lig). the generator set consists of a 15 kw, 400 hz generator that powers the launcher. the lem is used for the real time implementation of launcher operations requested via data link from the ecs. the lma physically erects and rotates the launcher's platform and its missiles. the lig connects the missiles themselves to the launcher via the launcher missile round distributor (lmrd). the first fielded variant was the mim 104a "standard". it was optimized solely for engagements against aircraft and had very limited capability against ballistic missiles. it had a range of 70 km (43 mi), and a speed in excess of mach 2. the mim 104b "anti standoff jammer" (asoj) is a missile designed to seek out and destroy ecm emitters. the mim 104c pac 2 missile was the first patriot missile that was optimized for ballistic missile engagements. the gem series of missiles (mim 104d/e) are further refinements of the pac 2 missile. the pac 3 missile is a new interceptor, featuring a ka band active radar seeker, employing "hit to kill" interception, in contrast to previous interceptors' method of exploding in the vicinity of the target, destroying it with shrapnel, and several other enhancements which dramatically increase its lethality against ballistic missiles. the specific information for these different kinds of missiles are discussed in the "variants" section. the first seven of these are in the larger pac 2 configuration of a single missile per canister, of which four can be placed on a launcher. pac 3 missile canisters contain four missiles, so that sixteen rounds can be placed on a launcher. the missile canister serves as both the shipping and storage container and the launch tube. patriot missiles are referred to as "certified rounds" as they leave the factory, and additional maintenance is not necessary on the missile prior to it being launched. the pac 2 missile is 5.8 metres (19 ft 0 in) long, weighs about 900 kilograms (2,000 lb), and is propelled by a solid fueled rocket motor. the pac 2 family of missiles all have a fairly standard design, the only differences between the variants being certain internal components. they consist of (from front to rear) the radome, guidance section, warhead section, propulsion section, and control actuator section. the radome is made of slip cast fused silica approximately 16.5 millimetres (0.65 in) thick, with a nickel alloy tip, and a composite base attachment ring bonded to the slip cast fused silica and protected by a molded silicone rubber ring. the radome provides an aerodynamic shape for the missile and microwave window and thermal protection for the rf seeker and electronic components. the patriot guidance section consists primarily of the modular digital airborne guidance system (mdags). the mdags consists of a modular midcourse package that performs all of the required guidance functions from launch through midcourse and a terminal guidance section. the tvm seeker is mounted on the guidance section, extending into the radome. the seeker consists of an antenna mounted on an inertial platform, antenna control electronics, a receiver, and a transmitter. the modular midcourse package (mmp), which is located in the forward portion of the warhead section, consists of the navigational electronics and a missile borne computer that computes the guidance and autopilot algorithms and provides steering commands according to a resident computer program. the warhead section, just aft of the guidance section, contains the proximity fuzed warhead, safety and arming device, fuzing circuits and antennas, link antenna switching circuits, auxiliary electronics, inertial sensor assembly, and signal data converter. the propulsion section consists of the rocket motor, external heat shield, and two external conduits. the rocket motor includes the case, nozzle assembly, propellant, liner and insulation, pyrogen igniter, and propulsion arming and firing unit. the casing of the motor is an integral structural element of the missile airframe. it contains a conventional, casebonded solid rocket propellant. the control actuator section (cas) is at the aft end of the missile. it receives commands from the missile autopilot and positions the fins. the missile fins steer and stabilize the missile in flight. a fin servo system positions the fins. the fin servo system consists of hydraulic actuators and valves and an electrohydraulic power supply. the electrohydraulic power consists of a battery, motor pump, oil reservoir, gas pressure bottle, and accumulator. patriot was first introduced with a single missile type: the mim 104a. this was the initial "standard" missile, still known as "standard" today. in patriot's early days, the system was used exclusively as an anti aircraft weapon, with no capability against ballistic missiles. this was remedied during the late 1980s when patriot received its first major system overhaul with the introduction of the patriot advanced capability missile and concurrent system upgrades. patriot advanced capability (pac 1), known today as the pac 1 upgrade, was a software only upgrade. the most significant aspects of this upgrade were changing the way the radar searched and the way the system defended its assets. instead of searching low to the horizon, the top of the radar's search angle was lifted to near vertical (89 degrees) from the previous angle of 25 degrees. this was done as a counter to the steep parabolic trajectory of inbound ballistic missiles. the search beams of the radar were tightened, and while in "tbm search mode" the "flash," or the speed at which these beams were shot out, was increased significantly. while this increased the radar's detection capability against the ballistic missile threat set, it decreased the system's effectiveness against traditional atmospheric targets, as it reduced the detection range of the radar as well as the number of "flashes" at the horizon. because of this, it was necessary to retain the search functions for traditional atmospheric threats in a separate search program, which could be easily toggled by the operator based on the expected threat. the ballistic missile defense capability changed the way patriot defended targets. instead of being used as a system to defend a significant area against enemy air attack, it was now used to defend much smaller "point" targets, which needed to lie within the system's tbm "footprint". the footprint is the area on the ground that patriot can defend against inbound ballistic missiles. during the 1980s, patriot was upgraded in relatively minor ways, mostly via its software. the most significant of these was a special upgrade to discriminate and intercept artillery rockets in the vein of the multiple rocket launcher, which was seen as a significant threat from north korea. this feature has not been used in combat and has since been deleted from u.s. army patriot systems, though it remains in south korean systems. another upgrade the system saw was the introduction of another missile type, designated mim 104b and called "anti stand off jammer" (asoj) by the army. this variant is designed to help patriot engage and destroy ecm aircraft at standoff ranges. it works similar to an anti radiation missile in that it flies a highly lofted trajectory and then locates, homes in on, and destroys the most significant emitter in an area designated by the operator. during the late 1980s, tests began to indicate that, although patriot was certainly capable of intercepting inbound ballistic missiles, it was questionable whether the mim 104a/b missile was capable of destroying them reliably. this necessitated the introduction of the pac 2 missile and system upgrade. for the system, the pac 2 upgrade was similar to the pac 1 upgrade. radar search algorithms were further optimized, and the beam protocol while in "tbm search" was further modified. pac 2 saw patriot's first major missile upgrade, with the introduction of the mim 104c, or pac 2 missile. this missile was optimized for ballistic missile engagements. major changes to the pac 2 missile were the size of the projectiles in its blast fragmentation warhead, changed from around 2 grams to around 45 grams, and the timing of the pulse doppler radar fuze, which was optimized for high speed engagements, though it retained its old algorithm for aircraft engagements if necessary. engagement procedures were optimized, changing the method of fire the system used to engage ballistic missiles. instead of launching two missiles in an almost simultaneous salvo, a brief delay between 3 and 4 seconds was added, in order to allow the second missile launched to discriminate a ballistic missile warhead in the aftermath of the explosion of the first. pac 2 was first tested in 1987 and reached army units in 1990, just in time for deployment to the middle east for the persian gulf war. it was there that patriot was first regarded as a successful abm system and proof that ballistic missile defense was indeed possible. the complete study on its effectiveness remains classified. in april 2013, raytheon received u.s. army approval for a second recertification, extending the operational life of the worldwide inventory of patriot missiles from 30 to 45 years.[25][26] there were more upgrades to pac 2 systems throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, mostly centering on software. the pac 2 missiles were modified significantly four separate variants became known collectively as guidance enhanced missiles (gem). the main upgrade to the original gem missile was a new, faster proximity fuzed warhead. tests had indicated that the fuze on the original pac 2 missiles were detonating their warheads too late when engaging ballistic missiles with an extremely steep ingress, and as such it was necessary to shorten this fuze delay. the gem missile was given a new "low noise" seeker head designed to reduce interference in front of the missile's radar seeker, and a higher performance seeker designed to better detect low radar cross section targets.[1] the gem was used extensively in operation iraqi freedom (oif), during which air defense was highly successful.[27] just prior to oif, it was decided to further upgrade the gem and pac 2 missiles. this upgrade program produced missiles known as the gem t and the gem c, the "t" designator referring to tactical ballistic missiles, and the "c" designator referring to cruise missiles. these missiles were both given a totally new nose section, which was designed specifically to be more effective against low altitude, low rcs targets like cruise missiles. the gem t was given a new fuze which was further optimized against ballistic missiles and a new low noise oscillator which increases the seeker's sensitivity to low radar cross section targets. the gem c is the upgraded version of the gem, and the gem t is the upgraded version of the pac 2. the gem+ entered service in november 2002.[28] in 2018, raytheon upgraded the gem t guidance system with solid state gallium nitride (gan) transmitters.[29] a consortium of patriot operators consisting of germany, romania, spain, and the netherlands has placed an order for 1,000 pac 2 gem t missiles, with the bulk of production to take place in germany by mbda.[30] domestic u.s. production of pac 2 gem t missiles remains ongoing, with a contracted backlog of approximately 1,500 missiles and a near term demand of an additional 1,000 missiles, while the company is producing roughly 20 missiles a month with plans to expand to 35 missiles a month by the end of 2027.[30] the pac 3 upgrade is a significant upgrade to nearly every aspect of the system. it took place in three stages deployed in 1995, 1996 and 2000, and units were designated configuration 1, 2, or 3. new software update known as pdb 5 (pdb standing for "post deployment build") was released in 1999 with initial support for configuration 3 ground units and pac 3 missiles. the system itself saw another upgrade of its wcc, and the communication setup was given a complete overhaul. due to this upgrade, pac 3 operators can now see, transmit, and receive tracks on the link 16 command and control (c2) network using a class 2m terminal or mids lvt radio. this capability greatly increases the situational awareness of patriot crews and other participants on the link 16 network that are able to receive the patriot local air picture. the software can now conduct a tailored tbm search, optimizing radar resources for search in a particular sector known to have ballistic missile activity, and can support a "keepout altitude" to ensure ballistic missiles with chemical warheads or early release submunitions (ers) are destroyed at a certain altitude. for configuration 3 units, the patriot radar was completely redesigned, adding another traveling wave tube (twt) that increased the radar's search, detection, tracking, and discrimination abilities. the new radar is designated an/mpq 65. it is capable, among other things, of discriminating whether an aircraft is crewed and which of multiple reentering ballistic objects are carrying ordnance. the pac 3 upgrade carried with it a new missile design, nominally known as mim 104f and called pac 3 by the army.[31] first deployed in 1997, the pac 3 missile evolved from the strategic defense initiative's erint missile, and so it is dedicated almost entirely to the anti ballistic missile mission. due to miniaturization, a single canister can hold four pac 3 missiles, as opposed to one pac 2 missile per canister. the pac 3 missile is more maneuverable than previous variants, due to 180 tiny pulse solid propellant rocket motors mounted in the forebody of the missile, called attitude control motors, or acms, which serve to fine align the missile trajectory with its target to achieve hit to kill capability.[31][32] the most significant upgrade to the pac 3 missile is the addition of a ka band active radar seeker. this allows the missile to drop its uplink to the system and acquire its target itself in the terminal phase of its intercept, which improves the reaction time of the missile against a fast moving ballistic missile target. the pac 3 missile is accurate enough to select, target, and home in on the warhead portion of an inbound ballistic missile. the active radar gives the warhead a "hit to kill" (kinetic kill vehicle) capability that eliminates the need for a traditional proximity fused warhead. the missile still has a small explosive warhead, called a lethality enhancer, a warhead which launches 24 low speed tungsten fragments in a radial direction to make the missile cross section greater and enhance the kill probability. this greatly increases the lethality against ballistic missiles of all types.[31] the pac 3 upgrade has effectively quintupled the "footprint" that a patriot unit can defend against ballistic missiles of all types, and has considerably increased the system's lethality and effectiveness against ballistic missiles. it has increased the scope of ballistic missiles that patriot can engage, which now includes several intermediate ranges. however, despite its increases in ballistic missile defense capabilities, the pac 3 missile has a shorter range and a smaller explosive warhead compared to older patriot missiles, making it a less capable interceptor of atmospheric aircraft and air to surface missiles. during initial production run, range was increased and other cost reducing enhancements were incorporated to the pac 3 missile, with the final variant renamed pac 3 cost reduction initiative (cri).[33][34] since the pac 3 ground units can control both m901 pac 2 launchers and m902/m903 pac 2/pac 3 launchers, patriot batteries employ a mix of pac 3 hit to kill active missiles and pac 2 gem t blast fragmentation warhead semi active missiles to counter both ballistic missile and aircraft threats.[35][36] while the pac 2 is able to intercept targets up to an altitude of 20 km (66,000 ft), the pac 3 can destroy incoming missiles at an altitude of 40 km (130,000 ft).[37] lockheed martin proposed an air launched variant of the pac 3 missile for use on the f 15c eagle, the f 22 raptor and the p 8a poseidon.[38] lockheed martin missiles and fire control is the prime contractor on the pac 3 missile segment enhancement upgrade (mse) to the patriot air defense system which will make the missile more agile and extend its range by up to 50%.[39][40] patriot's pac 3 mse interceptor was selected as the primary interceptor for the new meads system when its design and development program began in 2004.[41][42] meads is designed with plug and fight capabilities to support data exchange with external sensors and launchers through standardized open protocols for integrated air and missile defense (iamd), so that meads elements can interoperate with allied forces on the move, attaching to and detaching from the battle management network as necessary.[43] meads was scheduled to enter service alongside patriot by 2014, with expectations that existing patriot batteries will be gradually upgraded with meads technology in the long run.[44] because of economic conditions, in 2013 the u.s. chose to upgrade its patriot systems instead of buying the meads system.[45] the pac 3 missile segment upgrade consists of the pac 3 mse missile, a very agile hit to kill interceptor, the m903 launching station, a fire solution computer, and an enhanced launcher electronics system (eles). the pac 3 missile segment enhancement (mse) interceptor increases altitude and range through a more powerful dual pulse motor for added thrust, larger fins that collapse inside current launchers, and other structural modifications for more agility.[46] the pac 3 mse is capable of intercepting longer range theater ballistic missiles.[47] the u.s. army accepted the first pac 3 mse interceptors in october 2015,[48] and initial operational capability (ioc) was declared in august 2016.[citation needed] the new m903 launching system has a modular design capable of holding a total of 4 pac 3 launching canisters (16 missiles), 12 pac 3 mse canisters (in 3 rows of 4), or 4 pac 2 gem canisters.[49] it can mix different missiles, such as 6 pac 3 mse canisters (in 3 rows of 2) and either two pac 3 canisters (8 missiles) or two pac 2 canisters on the same launcher, down to combinations of a single pac 2 canister, a single pac 3 canister (4 missiles), 4 pac 3 mse canisters (in 2 rows of 2) or 2 pac 3 mse canisters in a single row.[50][51][52][53] in december 2023 it was stated that production of patriot interceptors was 550 a year and would be increased to 650 a year in 2024.[54] in february 2023, lockheed martin showcased integration of pac 3 mse missile with mk 41 vls used by aegis bmd and aegis ashore.[55] lockheed announced it is spending $100 million to integrate the missile with the aegis combat system and plans to test whether it can fire the missiles from a vertical launch system tied into aegis’s command and control technology and the spy 1 radar in early 2024.[30] in 2024, it was integrated with aegis and launched from a mark 70 payload delivery system vls launcher at white sands missile range.[56] in august 2013, raytheon and rafael advanced defense systems announced plans for patriot advanced affordable capability 4 (paac 4), which would integrate the stunner interceptor from the jointly funded david's sling program with patriot pac 3 radars, launchers, and engagement control stations. the two stage, multimode seeking stunner would replace single stage, radar guided pac 3 missiles produced by lockheed martin, providing improved operational performance at 20 percent of the $2 million unit cost of pac 3 missiles.[57] israeli program officials have said that a previous teaming agreement between raytheon and rafael would allow the u.s. company to assume prime contractor status, and produce at least 60 percent of the stunner missile in the united states.[57] in 2016 raytheon announced that it had been authorized to bid skyceptor, a stunner derivative, as part of its polish patriot bid.[58] in march 2017 it was announced that poland will acquire 8 patriot batteries, with the majority of missiles deployed being skyceptors and only a small number of patriot pac 3 mse missiles.[59] ultimately, poland did not procure skyceptor missiles,[60] ordering a new short range air defence system based on camm and camm er missiles, integrated with patriot batteries through the ibcs battle command system. electromecanica ploiești, romania, will start local production of skyceptor missile interceptors by 2026.[61] pac 3 system upgrades continue under the international engineering services program (iesp) which includes all countries that rely on the patriot for integrated air and missile defense   as of 2022, the united states of america, the netherlands, germany, japan, israel, saudi arabia, kuwait, taiwan, greece, spain, south korea, united arab emirates, qatar, romania, sweden, poland, bahrain, and switzerland.[62] the pdb 6 software update was released in 2004.[63] this update allowed configuration 3 to discriminate targets of all types, including anti radiation missile carriers, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles. the pdb 7 system upgrade was released in 2013. it improves radar search capabilities with a transition to digital signal processing, resulting in much better reliability and 30% longer range comparing to analog circuits. processing power of the new command and control computer is higher by several orders of magnitude. operator's monochrome crt displays with hard wired buttons were replaced by two 30 inch (760 mm) color touchscreen lcd monitors.[64][65] [66][67] the pac 3 missile segment enhancement (mse) upgrade was fielded in 2015. it includes a new fin design and a more powerful rocket engine. in 2017, the an/mpq 65 radar was upgraded with active electronically scanned array (aesa) solid state gallium nitride (gan) transmitters in place of conventional traveling wave tubes with a passive array of transmitters. the new radar has been redesignated an/mpq 65a.[68] it includes a bolt on replacement antenna array and two smaller rear panel arrays which provide 360 degree coverage. during 2018 2023, raytheon company will further enhance the system under a modernization task order from the united states army, resulting in configuration 3+. the order includes five annual, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity task order awards with a total contract ceiling of more than $2.3 billion, funded by patriot partner states. the initial $235 million award was allocated in january 2018.[69] the pdb 8 upgrade released in 2018 includes redesigned fire control computers which support mse capabilities, new weapons control computers with increased processing power, and software enhancements to radar search and target detection and identification which help reduce friendly fire incidents.[70][68] the latest pdb 8.1 software started testing in 2019 and will reach operational status by 2023. it adds a revamped game style gui named warfighter to machine interface (wmi) which employs 3d graphics to render the terrain and the airspace.[71][72][73][74][75] future upgrades to the patriot system will include new ghosteye radar (formerly lower tier air and missile defense sensor or ltamds)[76][77] with support for a integrated air and missile defense battle command system (ibcs)   which will integrate patriot's ghosteye, an/mpq 53 and an/mpq 65/65a radars with an/mpq 64 sentinel and an/tps 80 g/ator,[78] ghosteye mr (nasams), mfcr and sr from meads, an/spy 1 and an/spy 6 (aegis bmd), an/tpy 2 (thaad and gmd) and an/apg 81 (f 35 lightning ii) radars   and mode 5 transponder interrogation in the identification friend or foe system.[68] in the u.s. army, the patriot system is designed around the battalion echelon. a patriot battalion consists of a headquarters battery, which includes the patriot icc and its operators, a maintenance company, and between four and six "line batteries," which are the actual launching batteries that employ the patriot systems. each line battery consists of (nominally) six launchers[citation needed] and three or four platoons: fire control platoon, launcher platoon, and a headquarters/maintenance platoon   either a single platoon or separated into two separate units, at the battery commander's discretion. the fire control platoon is responsible for operating and maintaining the "big 4," radar, the engagement control station, the antenna mast group, and the electric power plant. the launcher platoon operates and maintains the launchers. the headquarters/maintenance platoon(s) provide the battery with maintenance support and a headquarters section. the patriot line battery is commanded by a captain and usually consists of between 70 and 90 soldiers. the patriot battalion is commanded by a lieutenant colonel and can include as many as 600 soldiers. once deployed, the system requires a crew of only three individuals to operate. the tactical control officer (tco), usually a lieutenant, is responsible for the operation of the system. the tco is assisted by the tactical control assistant (tca). communications are handled by the third crewmember, the communications system specialist. a "hot crew" composed of an ncoic (usually a sergeant) and one or more additional launcher crew members is on hand to repair or refuel launching stations. a reload crew is on standby to replace spent canisters after missiles are launched. the icc crew is similar to the ecs crew at the battery level, except its operators are designated as the tactical director (td) and the tactical director assistant (tda). patriot battalions prefer to operate in a centralized fashion, with the icc controlling the launches of all of its subordinate launching batteries through the secure uhf padil communications network. the dismounted patriot icc (d picc) is a set of equipment which is composed of the same hardware as that at battalion level, but which distributes command and control over the launching batteries, which allows the batteries to disperse over a wider geographic area, with no loss of command and control. d picc is deploying to pacific command first.[79][80] u.s. army patriot battalions have been heavily deployed, and for years maintained the highest operational tempo across any units in the service with the longest deployments.[5] following is the process a pac 2 firing battery uses to engage a single target (an aircraft) with a single missile:[citation needed] following is the process a pac 3 firing battery uses to engage a single tactical ballistic missile with two pac 3 missiles:[citation needed] prior to the first gulf war, ballistic missile defense was an unproven concept in war. during operation desert storm, in addition to its anti aircraft mission, the patriot was assigned to shoot down incoming iraqi scud or al hussein short range ballistic missiles launched at israel and saudi arabia. the first combat use of patriot occurred january 18, 1991, when it engaged what was later found to be a computer glitch.[81] there were actually no scuds fired at saudi arabia on january 18.[82] this incident was widely misreported as the first successful interception of an enemy ballistic missile in history. throughout the war, patriot missiles attempted engagement of over 40 hostile ballistic missiles. the success of these engagements, and in particular how many of them were real targets, is still controversial. postwar video analysis of presumed interceptions by massachusetts institute of technology (mit) professor theodore postol suggests that no scud was actually hit.[83][84] this analysis is contested by peter d. zimmerman, who claimed that photographs of the fuselage of downed scud missiles in saudi arabia demonstrated that the scud missiles were fired into saudi arabia and were riddled with fragments from the lethality enhancer of patriot missiles.[85] on february 25, 1991, an iraqi al hussein scud missile hit the barracks in dhahran, saudi arabia, killing 28 soldiers from the u.s. army's 14th quartermaster detachment.[86] a government investigation revealed that the failed intercept at dhahran had been caused by a software error in the system's handling of timestamps.[87][88] the patriot missile battery at dhahran had been in operation for 100 hours, by which time the system's internal clock had drifted by one third of a second. due to the missile's speed this was equivalent to a miss distance of 600 meters. the radar system had successfully detected the scud and predicted where to look for it next. however, the timestamps of the two radar pulses being compared were converted to floating point differently: one correctly, the other introducing an error proportionate to the operation time so far (100 hours) caused by the truncation in a 24 bit fixed point register. as a result, the difference between the pulses was wrong, so the system looked in the wrong part of the sky and found no target. with no target, the initial detection was assumed to be a spurious track and the missile was removed from the system.[89][90] no interception was attempted, and the scud impacted on a makeshift barracks in an al khobar warehouse, killing 28 soldiers, the first americans to be killed from the scuds that iraq had launched against saudi arabia and israel. two weeks earlier, on february 11, 1991, the israelis had identified the problem and informed the u.s. army and the patriot project office, the software manufacturer.[87] as a stopgap measure, the israelis had recommended rebooting the system's computers regularly. the manufacturer supplied updated software to the army on february 26. there had previously[when?] been failures[clarification needed] in the mim 104 system at the joint defense facility nurrungar in australia, which was charged with processing signals from satellite based early launch detection systems.[91] on february 15, 1991, president george h. w. bush traveled to raytheon's patriot manufacturing plant in andover, massachusetts, during the gulf war. he declared, the "patriot is 41 for 42: 42 scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[92] the president's claimed success rate was over 97% at that point in the war. on april 7, 1992, theodore postol of mit, and reuven pedatzur of tel aviv university testified before a house committee stating that, according to their independent analysis of video tapes, the patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate.[93][94] on april 7, 1992, charles a. zraket of harvard kennedy school and peter zimmerman of the center for strategic and international studies, a think tank funded by the united states government and raytheon, testified about the calculation of success rates and accuracy in israel and saudi arabia and discounted many of the statements and methodologies in postol's report.[95][96] according to zimmerman, it is important to note the difference in terms when analyzing the performance of the system during the war: in accordance with the standard firing doctrine, on average four patriots were launched at each incoming scud   in saudi arabia an average of three patriots were fired. the large number of missiles fired suggests low confidence in individual missiles and that a higher rate of successful interceptions was achieved through brute force. for example, if a patriot has a 50% individual success rate, two missiles will intercept 75% of the time, and three will intercept 87.5% of the time. only one has to hit for a successful interception, but this does not mean that the other missiles would not also have hit. the iraqi redesign of the scuds also played a role. iraq had redesigned its scuds by removing weight from the warhead to increase speed and range, but the changes weakened the missile and made it unstable during flight, creating a tendency for the scud to break up during its descent from near space. this presented a larger number of targets as it was unclear which piece contained the warhead. according to the zraket testimony, there was a lack of high quality photographic equipment necessary to record the interceptions of targets. therefore, patriot crews recorded each launch on standard definition videotape, which was insufficient for detailed analysis. damage assessment teams videotaped the scud debris that was found on the ground. crater analysis was then used to determine if the warhead was destroyed before the debris crashed or not. part of the reason for the 30% improvement in success rate in saudi arabia compared to israel is that the patriot merely had to push the incoming scud missiles away from military targets in the desert or disable the scud's warhead in order to avoid casualties, while in israel the scuds were aimed directly at cities and civilian populations. the saudi government also censored any reporting of scud damage by the saudi press. the israeli government did not institute the same type of censorship. patriot's success rate in israel was examined by the israel defense forces (idf) who did not have a political reason to play up patriot's success rate.[citation needed] the idf counted any scud that exploded on the ground, regardless of whether or not it was diverted, as a failure for the patriot. meanwhile, the u.s. army, which had many reasons to support a high success rate for patriot, examined the performance of patriot in saudi arabia. both testimonies state that part of the problems stem from its original design as an anti aircraft system. patriot was designed with proximity fused warheads, which are designed to explode immediately prior to hitting a target spraying shrapnel out in a fan in front of the missile, either destroying or disabling the target. these missiles were fired at the target's center of mass. with aircraft this was fine, but considering the much higher speeds of tactical ballistic missiles, as well as the location of the warhead, usually in the nose, patriot most often hit closer to the tail of the scud due to the delay present in the proximity fused warhead, thus not destroying the missile's warhead and allowing it to fall to earth. in response to the testimonies and other evidence, the staff of the house government operations subcommittee on legislation and national security reported, "the patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the persian gulf war that the american public was led to believe. there is little evidence to prove that the patriot hit more than a few scud missiles launched by iraq during the gulf war, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. the public and the united states congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and raytheon representatives during and after the war."[97] a canadian fifth estate documentary, the best defence, in february 2003 quoted the former israeli defense minister as saying the israeli government was so dissatisfied with the performance of the missile defense, that they were preparing their own military retaliation on iraq regardless of u.s. objections.[citation needed] that response was canceled only with the ceasefire with iraq. patriot was deployed to iraq a second time in 2003, this time to provide air and missile defense for the forces conducting operation iraqi freedom (oif). patriot pac 3, gem, and gem+ missiles both had a very high success rate, intercepting al samoud 2 and ababil 100 tactical ballistic missiles.[44] no longer range ballistic missiles were fired during that conflict. the systems were stationed in kuwait and iraq, and successfully destroyed a number of hostile surface to surface missiles using the new pac 3 and guidance enhanced missiles.[98][99] patriot missile batteries were involved in three friendly fire incidents. on march 23, 2003, a royal air force tornado was shot down, killing both crew members, flight lieutenant kevin barry main (pilot) and flight lieutenant david rhys williams (navigator/wso). on march 24, 2003, a usaf f 16cj fighting falcon fired a harm anti radiation missile at a patriot missile battery after the patriot's radar had locked onto and prepared to fire at the aircraft, causing the pilot to mistake it for an iraqi surface to air missile system because the aircraft was in air combat operations and was on its way to a mission near baghdad. the harm destroyed the patriot's radar system with no casualties.[98][99] afterwards the patriot radar was examined and continued to operate, but was replaced due to a chance that a fragment might have penetrated it and gone undetected.[clarification needed][100] on april 2, 2003, two pac 3 missiles shot down a usn f/a 18 hornet, killing u.s. navy lieutenant nathan d. white of vfa 195, carrier air wing five.[101][102] a us army patriot battery in erbil, iraq shot down at least one iranian ballistic missile during the 2024 iranian strikes in israel.[103] the israeli air defense command operated mim 104d patriot (pac 2/gem+) batteries with israeli upgrades. the israel defense forces' designation for the patriot weapon system was "yahalom" (hebrew: יהלום, diamond). on 30 april 2024, the israeli air force published an article stating that their patriot batteries would be decommissioned in two months, being replaced by "more advanced air systems". according to the war zone, the patriot was replaced by the david's sling and arrow systems.[104][105] following the announcement, ukraine initiated talks on obtaining retired israeli patriot systems in april 2024. on 28 january 2025, a us defense official confirmed to the cnn that 90 ex israeli interceptors were transferred to ukraine via the united states. reportedly kyiv will also receive components for the system, including radars, after being refurbished in the us.[105] during operation protective edge, patriot batteries of the israeli air defense command intercepted and destroyed two unmanned aerial vehicles launched by hamas.[106][107] the interception of a hamas drone in july 2014, was the first time in the history of the patriot system's use that it successfully intercepted an enemy aircraft.[108] in israeli service in the syrian civil war, patriot has primarily been active in drone and air defense, rather than a missile defense capacity. in august 2014, a syrian unmanned aerial vehicle was shot down by an israeli air defense command mim 104d patriot missile near quneitra, after it had penetrated the airspace over the israeli controlled golan heights.[10] in september 2014, a syrian air force sukhoi su 24 was shot down in similar circumstances.[10][109] since 2014, israeli patriots have missed several syrian drones, including two misses in july 2016[110] and another in june 2018;[111] as well as several successful shootdowns against syrian drones in april 2017[112] july 11 and july 13, 2018,[113][114] as well as against a hezbollah intelligence drone attempting to infiltrate israel in september 2017 through the golan.[115] on july 24, 2018, an israeli patriot missile shot down a syrian sukhoi su 22 fighter which had crossed into israeli airspace.[116] patriot has continued to see usage in saudi arabia against houthi missile attacks. in june 2015, a patriot battery was used to shoot down a scud missile, fired at saudi arabia by houthi rebels in response to the saudi arabian led intervention in yemen.[117] another scud was fired at an electricity station in jizan province and intercepted by a saudi patriot in august 2015.[118] saudi arabia claims that another long range ballistic missile was fired toward mecca and intercepted by a saudi patriot in october 2016.[119] houthi sources said that the missile's intended target was the air force base in king abdulaziz international airport in jeddah, 65 km (40 miles) north west of mecca.[120] in march 2018, another missile, apparently fired from yemen, was intercepted by a patriot missile over riyadh.[121] videos showed one interceptor exploded just after launch and another did a "u turn" midair toward riyadh.[122][123] during the abqaiq khurais attack in september 2019, the six battalions of patriot missile defense systems owned by saudi arabia failed to protect its oil facilities from attacks by multiple drones and suspected cruise missiles.[124] the united states removed two of its four patriot antimissile batteries securing oil fields in saudi arabia in may 2020, following an easing of tensions with iran. they were to be replaced by saudi's own patriot batteries.[125] in february 2021, a patriot battery intercepted a ballistic missile over riyadh that was fired by houthis as a formula e race was held on the outskirts of the city in diriyah, attended by crown prince mohammed bin salman.[126] according to brigadier general murad turaiq, the commander of some of the yemeni forces allied to the saudi led coalition currently fighting in yemen, patriot air defense systems deployed to yemen by the united arab emirates (uae) have successfully intercepted two ballistic missiles fired by houthi forces. general turaiq told the abu dhabi based the national newspaper on november 14, 2015, that the first missile was shot down late the previous day in the al gofainah area and a second was intercepted before it hit the building hosting the control centre for forces operating in marib and al baydah provinces. airbus defence and space satellite imagery obtained by ihs jane's showed two patriot fire units, each with two launchers, deployed at the safir airstrip in marib province on october 1.[127] in july 2021, the us army used a battery of patriot missiles in the exercise talisman saber in the shoalwater bay training area in queensland, australia.[128] the us army test fired patriot pac 2 interceptor missiles and successfully intercepted target drones.[129] russia's 2014 invasion of crimea led to a "sales burst" for the patriot system, with romania, poland, and sweden signing onto the system between the start of the invasion and the wider invasion of ukraine in 2022.[5] in response to russia's invasion of ukraine, on 9 march 2022, the u.s. european command announced that it would send two patriot air defense systems to poland to "proactively counter any potential threat to u.s. and allied forces and nato territory".[130] poland asked germany to transfer the patriots to ukraine. germany declined.[131] on 19 december, ukraine president zelenskyy talked about negotiating personally with us president biden over a potential transfer of patriot missile systems. he said they offer "a (better) distance, radius of reflection, protection". ukrainian foreign minister dmytro kuleba said that this was the most difficult diplomatic issue they had faced.[132] one day later, the biden administration announced it would be delivering another $1.85 billion in aid to ukraine that would include a patriot battery[133] during a meeting with zelenskyy in front of the press at the white house on december 21, biden confirmed that the united states would send a patriot battery to ukraine, noting that it would take "months" to train the "dozens" of soldiers needed to operate the system, probably in germany.[134][135][136] providing a patriot missile system is seen as a symbol of western engagement in the conflict, although its range is only local.[135][137] other nations subsequently announced plans to send their own patriot batteries. on 5 january 2023, germany announced that it would supply one patriot battery to ukraine as a part of their own military aid package.[138][139] on 17 january 2023, the netherlands announced it too will send one launcher, and added a second launcher on 20 january.[140] the dutch government announced it will send launchers (dutch: lanceerinrichtingen) and missiles, not complete systems (a battery) which includes radars, etc.[140][141] on 19 april, a german government website announced that the country had delivered a patriot system to ukraine.[142][143] a second patriot battery was delivered on april 27[144] from the united states. on august 9, 2023, it was announced that germany would provide an additional complete patriot battery to ukraine. the system was delivered on december 13 after the ukrainian crew completed training in germany.[145] so, during 2023, three patriot batteries were delivered to ukraine. patriot has had a successful track record in ukraine during the russo ukrainian war, successfully intercepting a wide range of russian weaponry and aircraft.[5] it has shot down russian aircraft like su 34 fighters flying nearly 100 miles away, and intercepted missiles as far as 130 miles away, according to defense ngo reports.[5] during october 2023, under a program called "frankensam" western and soviet air defence technologies are being combined in ukraine. one of three programs involves a ukrainian radar guiding a patriot missile. it has been tested and is expected to be operational by winter.[146] on may 13, 2023, a patriot battery was allegedly used to destroy at least four (possibly five) aircraft belonging to a russian strike package over bryansk oblast, russia.[147] visually confirmed losses included a su 34, su 35, and two mil mi 8 helicopters.[148] on 19 may, u.s. defense officials and congressional staffers told cnn that a patriot system had been used by the ukrainian army to shoot down at least one russian jet a few weeks before.[149] the spokesman of the ukrainian air force later confirmed the shoot down of a russian su 34, su 35, two mi 8mtpr ew helicopters, and an mi 8 transport helicopter by the patriot system.[150] during a night time attack on the kyiv region on may 4, 2023, ukraine air defense claimed a hypersonic kh 47m2 kinzhal ballistic missile was shot down by a patriot missile defence system.[5][151][152][153][154][155][156] yurii ihnat, the spokesman for the ukrainian air force, initially denied the claim of interception,[157] but on may 6 it was finally confirmed by commander of the uaf mykola oleschuk.[153][154] prior to this interception, intercepting a kinzhal missile was only a "theoretical" capability.[158] unnamed us officials claimed the missile was aimed at the patriot system which intercepted it, and that the ukrainians fired multiple patriot missiles at different angles to intercept the kinzhal missile.[159] a pentagon spokesman later confirmed that ukraine downed the kinzhal missile.[160] on may 16, 2023, the ukrainian air force claimed to have shot down eighteen missiles, including six kh 47m2 kinzhal missiles, and uncertain number of attack drones.[161][162] the russian defense ministry stated in response that six kinzhal missiles hadn't even been fired, and furthermore claimed that a patriot battery in kyiv was destroyed by a kinzhal missile, citing social media footage.[163][162][164][161] u.s. officials confirmed that the patriot system was damaged, but stated that the damage was "minimal" or "insignificant", the radar was intact and that the system could likely be repaired locally without needing to be moved out of ukraine. the battery was returned to operational status after minor repairs.[165][166] it has not yet been established whether the patriot had been damaged by the fragments of the downed russian missile or by a direct hit.[167] the following day, u.s. officials told the new york times that "a patriot system had been damaged in the attack but added that the patriot remained operational against all threats,"[168] while deputy pentagon spokeswoman sabrina singh announced that the patriot system had been fixed, with assistance from the us.[169] in contradiction to the u.s. announcement, the russian ministry of defense claimed that the system's multifunctional radar station and five launchers were destroyed.[170] after two missile attacks on may 29, 2023, ukrainian president zelenskyy announced that all missiles were intercepted and according to ukrainian air force spokesman, yuriy ihnat, these were assumed to likely be iskander m ballistic missiles.[171] dashcam video captured the debris from an expended pac 3 cri missile falling in between passing vehicles.[172][173] on march 9, 2024, video footage emerged showing the destruction of an armed forces of ukraine convoy that allegedly contained at least two m901 patriot missile launchers near the city of pokrovsk in donetsk oblast. the convoy was reportedly struck by a russian iskander m ballistic missile. the armed forces of ukraine has not commented on the video.[174][175][176][177][178] on 5 april 2024, a damaged ukrainian patriot launcher was delivered to the united states. it is not yet known exactly where the launcher was damaged.[179] including the united states, 18 countries operate patriot missile systems. outside the us, only japan's mitsubishi heavy industries appears to build patriot missiles, under licence from various us companies. this has led to a demand on the us army. patriot batteries are the most deployed units in the us army by early 2021. some units have had a 6 month deployment extended up to 15 months.[5][180][181][182] the missile is currently being used in active service in saudi arabia.[183] in active use by the idf in the "southern negev desert".[184] the patriot missile batteries are also seeing active service in ukraine, where there are three batteries in service.[185] to refill us stockpiles, japan has modified its export rules to allow export of missiles to the united states. previously only specific components could be exported now entire missiles can be exported. they cannot be sent directly to ukraine, however they can backfill us stockpiles.[181] recent withdrawal of the missiles from the middle east were done to help deal with a potential crisis in the pacific.[182] likewise germany has withdrawn its three patriot units from poland.[186] nato has announced a plan to purchase some 1000 patriot missiles. a $5.5 billion contract has been awarded to raytheon and mbda to establish a new production facility in germany.[187] the u.s. is also ramping up production domestically. in 2018, lockheed martin was building 350 pac 3 mse missiles annually and was working to ramp up its production to 500 missiles a year prior to russia’s full scale invasion of ukraine in february 2022.[30] in december 2023, lockheed hit their production goal of 500 missiles per year, and is "fully funded by the u.s. army to build 550 missiles annually" at its new 85,000 square foot camden, arkansas facility.[30] lockheed has announced plans to ramp up production of pac 3 mse interceptors to 650 annually by 2027, though it notes this will be done through internal investment, having not received army funding for the production increase.[30] lockheed also intends to increase export shipments for the missile, with six new international customers signing letters of approval in 2023.[30] aerojet rocketdyne, which produces the pac 3 mse motor, opened a 51,000 square foot production facility next to lockheed's camden site in 2022, and has increased rocket motor production by 60% from 70,000 in 2021 to 115,000 in 2023 across all types including the pac 3 mse rocket motor.[30] on 20 june 2024, the us government is set to announce the suspension of all exports of patriot missiles and systems “until ukraine has enough to defend itself from russia’s air attacks”. this decision affects five countries who have agreed to the suspension.[188] the romanian government has announced that it will send a “full” patriot battery to ukraine, provided that the us government “help(s) cover the gap”.[189] current operators:[190] the rjaf operates three[197][198] or four[199][200] patriot missile batteries, acquired from germany. batteries are in operational deployment. in august 2010, the us defense security cooperation agency announced that kuwait had formally requested to buy 209 mim 104e pac 2 missiles.[201] in august 2012, kuwait purchased 60 mim 104f pac 3 missiles, along with four radars and 20 launchers.[202] in march 2018 the ministry of national defence signed a deal worth $4.75 billion for two patriot configuration 3+ batteries, to be delivered in 2022.[205] the purchase included northrop grumman's integrated air and missile defense battle command system (ibcs) and four fire units equipped with four an/mpq 65 radars, 16 launchers, four engagement control stations, six engagement operation centers, 12 ifcn relays and 208 pac 3 mse missiles.[206] in december 2022 the first battery was delivered to poland.[207][208] in june 2023, the state department approved a potential sale of additional ibcs capable equipment valued at $15 billion, which included 12 ltamds (ghosteye) radars, 48 m903 launchers, and 644 pac 3 mse missiles.[209] finally, contracts for the purchase of six complete patriot batteries with a training, service and logistics package were signed and approved by the minister of national defense mariusz błaszczak on september 5, 2023, at the international defense industry exhibition in kielce, poland.[210] in november 2012, it was announced the export from the united states of 11 patriot batteries (pac 3 configuration), 246 mim 104e gem t and 786 pac 3 missiles and related equipment.[211] declared operational in november 2018.[212] the romanian air force received its first system of patriot surface to air missiles in september 2020, with the last three received by 2023.[213] the government of romania signed in the agreement to purchase seven patriot configuration 3 units, complete with radars, a control station, antennas, launching stations, and power plants in november 2017.[214] included are 168 patriot advanced capability   3 missile segment enhancement (pac 3 mse) and 56 patriot mim 104e pac 2 guidance enhanced missile tbm (gem t) missiles. the agreement was valued at around $4 billion.[215] another three systems are to enter service with the land forces.[216] sweden decided in competition with aster 30 samp/t to request an offer for the patriot system in november 2017[219] and in august 2018 an agreement was signed[220] for four units and 12 launchers to form two battalions. no follow up orders are to be made. the initial cost was to be around 10 billion sek but the price is deemed much higher the granted funds for the sale is $3.2 billion,[220] known as luftvärnssystem 103 (anti air system 103) in swedish service, would be delivered in 2021 and 2022. the first swedish troops were training on the system at fort sill in december 2018.[221] the swedish defence materiel administration accepted the first deliveries in april 2021 and system integration and check out was initiated by swedish armed forces. the system was officially activated with the swedish armed forces in november 2021.[222][223][224] the final unit was delivered in december 2022.[225] in 2014, the united arab emirates closed a deal worth nearly $4 billion with lockheed martin and raytheon to buy and operate the latest development of the pac 3 system, as well as 288 of lockheed's pac 3 missiles, and 216 gem t missiles. the deal was part of the development of a national defense system to protect the emirates from air threats.[226] in 2019, the united arab emirates armed forces purchased 452 patriot advanced capability 3 (pac 3) missiles segment enhanced (mse) and related equipment for an estimated cost of $2.728 billion.[227] the us army operates a total of 1,106 patriot launchers. in 2023, 480 were in service.[228] ukraine currently has seven complete batteries donated along with an additional nine launchers.[230][231] three batteries each have been donated by germany and the united states[232] with an additional four launchers donated by germany[233] and one battery by romania with an additional five launchers donated by the netherlands.[234][235] in january 2024, the u.s. government allocated funding to replace the existing donated battery using fy 23 supplemental funding.[236][5][237] it has also pledged to prioritize missile deliveries to ukraine and has halted deliveries of other allies' orders temporarily, in order to help protect critical ukrainian infrastructure from russian air attacks.[238] operated 8 pac 2/gem+ "yahalom" batteries. replaced by the david's sling and arrow systems in 2024. in january 2025, a us defense official confirmed that about 90 interceptors kept in storage were transferred to ukraine. it was also reported that components from these systems, including radars, will be refurbished in the united states before being transferred to kyiv.[105]

official websites use .mil secure .mil websites use https publishing disclaimer: in all of its publications and products, military review presents professional information. however, the views expressed therein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the army university, the department of the army, or any other agency of the u.s. government. integrated air and missile defense in the u.s. central command area of responsibility col. glenn a. henke, u.s. army download the pdf a patriot surface to air missile is fired on 7 november 2017 at the nato missile firing installation in chania, greece. the u.s. made patriot weapon system is used by numerous u.s. allies around the world and is a crucial component of integrating air and missile defense in the u.s. central command area of responsibility. it has been employed successfully by saudi arabia and the united arab emirates in defense against iranian backed houthi missile and drone attacks. (photo by officer candidate sebastian apel, german air force) integrating air and missile defense forces in the u.s. central command (uscentcom) area of responsibility (aor) spans all phases of conflict, from competition to large scale combat operations (lsco). much like in the other geographic combatant commands, this integration occurs with multiple partners and allies against a backdrop of emerging threats and external competitors. these partners pursue integrated air and missile defense (iamd) solutions tailored to address their unique requirements, which challenges broad discussions of regional integration in favor of more precise and discrete outcomes for common defense of mutual interests. unique to uscentcom, u.s. forces face lethal air and missile threats from iranian forces and their proxies who have conducted (and continue to conduct) attacks against american troops. this reality raises the urgency of all integration efforts and creates challenges not faced by forces serving in other geographic combatant commands. the 2022 national security strategy assessed that iran remains a critical strategic concern due to the regime’s continued hostility to u.s. interests and active interference in the affairs of its neighbors.1 in addition to their robust missile and unmanned aircraft systems (uas) capabilities, groups across the region supported by iran have demonstrated both the means and intent to attack u.s. forces. these groups range from militant groups operating in iraq and syria to proto state actors like the houthis in yemen, with some measure of territorial control within existing states. these actors wield a broad range of threat capabilities, including tactical ballistic missiles (tbm), cruise missiles, and uas. hostile forces have employed many of these systems against u.s. and allied forces, sometimes with lethal effect. in 2020, iran launched multiple tbms against two u.s. bases in iraq.2 iran has continued to launch ballistic missiles against kurdish forces in iraq, with the most recent attack occurring in 2024.3 one of saudi arabia’s largest oil refineries suffered a significant complex attack by iranian cruise missiles and lethal uas in 2019.4 houthi forces are by far the most prolific tbm users in the region, launching frequent attacks against both saudi arabia and the united arab emirates (uae) for nearly a decade. saudi arabia credits the houthis with more than 430 tbm and 851 uas attacks against the kingdom since 2015.5 houthi forces have also launched several ballistic missile and uas attacks against the uae during the same period.6 in january 2022, a terminal high altitude area defense (thaad) battery operated by uae missile defense forces successfully intercepted missiles launched against the southern portion of the country in two separate attacks, the first ever combat engagement by the thaad system.7 while iranian made uas employed in ukraine have focused global attention on this threat, uas attacks have been a regular feature in the middle east for some time. militant groups have launched one way attack uas against u.s. bases for several years, intensifying since october 2023, with some attacks resulting in u.s. casualties.8 one point worth emphasizing is that these attacks all occurred in what current u.s. joint doctrine would describe as the “competition phase” and not during large scale conflict. these limited attacks have demonstrated only a small sample of the extant capabilities that could be brought to bear by iranian military or proxy forces in a crisis that would drive the ruling regime to employ more of its extensive arsenal. while much of the international community remains understandably focused on iran’s nuclear aspirations, the regime has invested significant resources into building lethal ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and uas. the center for strategic and international studies (csis) credits iran with the “largest and most diverse missile arsenal in the middle east, with thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles.”9 ever since the u.s. led coalition expelled iraqi forces from kuwait in 1991, nations across the region have endeavored to build their own missile defense capacity. kuwait understandably led this trend and remains one of our longest enduring ballistic missile defense (bmd) partnerships. saudi arabia and uae have also built robust missile defense forces armed with u.s. built patriot and thaad systems that they have employed successfully in recent years to defend their interests against houthi attacks. the csis missile defense project estimates that saudi forces intercepted 177 missiles launched by the houthis between 2015 and september 2020 (when csis ceased collecting data).10 qatar and bahrain are presently fielding u.s. built bmd systems to deal with many of the same threats from across the region. in 2020, president donald trump updated the unified command plan to shift israel from the u.s. european command (useucom) aor to the uscentcom aor.11 israel and the united states have long partnered on building bmd capacity to defend the country, with israeli forces using patriot and their own home built systems developed with u.s. support and funding. these systems include iron dome, david’s sling, and arrow. the 2020 abraham accords, during which uae and bahrain agreed to recognize israel’s sovereignty and right to exist, began the initial steps of normalizing israeli relationships with some gulf arab states.12 the effect of these two developments added one of the world’s most bmd capable nations as a potential partner for the countries in the region. while the ultimate results of these changes remain to be seen, particularly in the aftermath of the gaza crisis beginning in october 2023, israeli bmd capability and systems have the clear potential to accelerate capacity building across the uscentcom aor in the years to come. with an active and growing threat, u.s. forces cannot build a “break glass” capability for the simple reason that the glass is already broken. the uscentcom iamd enterprise operates continuously and must maintain the ability to expand as required through all phases of conflict. as with all geographic combatant commands, joint doctrine provides the defensive counterair framework to organize air and missile defense, as described in joint publication 3 01, countering air and missile threats.13 under this construct, the combined forces air component commander (cfacc) is the supported commander for air and missile defense, responsible for integrating amd forces and effects. in this capacity, the cfacc serves as the area air defense commander (aadc) for the joint force commander, developing the area air defense plan for the joint force commander and supervising daily execution of these operations. in the uscentcom aor, the u.s. air forces central commander fills these doctrinal roles. the army provides significant support to the aadc, primarily with the 32nd army air and missile defense command (aamdc). the 32nd aamdc commanding general serves as the deputy area air defense commander to the cfacc, responsible for integrating all army amd capabilities and supporting the integration of joint and combined capabilities. the 32nd aamdc also leads all combined and joint amd planning to develop options for the aadc to present to the uscentcom commander for decision. like all aamdcs, the 32nd aamdc commanding general also serves as the theater army air and missile defense coordinator and senior air defense artillery (ada) commander for u.s. army central in its role as both the combined forces land component commander and army service component command to uscentcom. as the senior ada commander, the 32nd aamdc commander exercises control over most army amd forces in the region. unique amongst the three active component aamdcs, the 32nd aamdc also serves as the global force provider for active component amd on behalf of u.s. army forces command. unlike the aamdcs assigned to useucom and u.s. indo pacific command, the 32nd aamdc is both service retained and aligned with uscentcom. i will address the implications of this force provider role later in this article. with this framework in place, the uscentcom commander maintains the capabilities to pursue assigned strategic objectives. since the end of operation desert storm in 1991, the united states has maintained a near continuous presence of u.s. patriot units in the region, with only a short gap between the elimination of the iraqi tbm threat in 2003 and the ascendency of the iranian tbm threat, which drove the united states to reintroduce u.s. patriot units in 2006, where they have remained ever since.14 beyond patriot units, the army has deployed numerous short range ada capabilities to the region. this includes the counter rocket, artillery, mortar (c ram) system based on the navy’s phalanx system used to defend ships against air threats. c ram units first deployed to iraq in 2010 and have remained in use ever since.15 in 2021, c ram units defended u.s. retrograde operations at kabul’s hamid karzai international airport following the collapse of the u.s. backed government. as uas threats have proliferated, the army has upgraded the c ram system to address some uas platforms.16 the united states also employs stinger based avenger weapons systems and continues to field additional counter uas capabilities across the region.17 the uas threat is clearly the most visible growth portfolio in our adversaries’ capabilities, which, in turn, has driven significant efforts to develop defeat options by the united states and partners. the department of defense designated the army as the executive agent for defeating groups 1 3 uas, that, in turn, established the joint counter small uas office (see figure).18 uscentcom has c uas capabilities across the region to defend u.s. forces. while kinetic, electronic warfare, and directed energy capabilities are critical, optimizing how these systems are integrated into a layered defense has proven to be the more significant planning task. given the range of threats and tactics available to iran and proxy groups, no single system can provide a comprehensive defense by itself. in short, there are no “silver bullets” in the counter uas fight. instead, commanders must take all capabilities and employ them intelligently while looking for every opportunity to innovate. figure. unmanned aircraft system groups (figure courtesy of the joint counter small uas office) enlarge the figure as the united states employs a broad range of amd capabilities, partners and allies continue to build and employ capabilities to address the range of threats. the united states supports these efforts in three broad categories. the first is through the initial capability fielding, particularly in cases of u.s. foreign military systems, where we provide fielding teams to assist. during fielding activities, partners receive both materiel and operator training. the second category begins once units begin to employ the new amd capabilities. in this phase, the united states supports capacity building through exercises and combined training events intended to enhance interoperability. capacity building efforts typically occur over many years and signify u.s. commitment to its partners. the third category covers broader regional integration efforts. in this case, conversations about integration require precision and must focus on specific goals. this prevents the term “integration” from becoming too vague to be useful. to paraphrase a panel discussion during the 2023 u.s. army fires symposium, the key questions are to determine what is being integrated and for what purpose.19 meaningful integration efforts cannot describe broad end states. instead, they must be more precise and discrete. one example is the middle east air defense initiative.20 in spite of the expansive name that suggests a comprehensive effort, it is focused on establishing a shared regional air picture available to partners and allies through the combined air operations center at al udeid air base in qatar.21 this one example demonstrates the need to constrain and, therefore, focus integration efforts in order to achieve desired objectives. broad and seamless integration remains elusive for a number of reasons, not the least of which is cost. in some cases, the limiting factor is our partners’ relations with each other. the recently healed split with uae and other gulf arab states offers one example of these types of challenges. addressing the persistent air and missile threat in the uscentcom aor requires significant organizational energy and leadership. in this environment, the gravitational pull of current operations certainly has the potential to become all consuming for headquarters staffs rightfully focused on solving pressing problems. however, like all geographic combatant commands, uscentcom must be prepared to respond to a broad range of contingencies that could tip into lsco. the addition of israel to the uscentcom aor also brings the responsibility to execute operations in that country if directed by national leadership. routine exercises with partners and components provide the best opportunities to prepare for potential lsco. these exercises typically provide u.s. and partner forces training opportunities nested within theater security cooperation objectives, some of which primarily focus on iamd. whether a specific exercise or training event mimics what may be required during lsco is largely beside the point. training with partners is more about building relationships and identifying future combined training requirements than perfecting any given operational task. when training headquarters staffs, amd focused exercises must provide a range of “bad days” for the training audiences. like all units, headquarters staffs require stressful training environments to achieve desired readiness objectives. the more robust the exercise, with broad component participation and a fully committed higher headquarters stimulating the event through decision making (and all the supporting mechanisms that support decision making), the more effective the training. this is as true for amd exercises as for any other type of operation. since any fight in uscentcom aor will undoubtedly include a robust air and missile threat, this is truly foundational training. theater level amd exercises generally train on two separate levels. in the first level, those units specifically tasked to execute the air and missile defense fight will practice the specifics of their craft. this includes the air component command (under u.s. air forces central) in its role as the area air defense commander (and supported commander for air and missile defense), the maritime component command (under u.s. naval forces central command) executing aegis ballistic missile defense, and the army air defense units operating under the control the 32nd aamdc. at this level, these exercises focus on both active defense to defeat inbound threats and attack operations to defeat threats before they can be launched. at the second level, uscentcom and its component commands execute the totality of combat operations outside the direct amd fight but considering the effects of possible enemy attacks on friendly forces. for instance, if a specific base is the primary target of iranian ballistic missiles, the affected component (or components) must adjust their plans in the aftermath of these attacks. these exercises further inform the development of future plans and options in order to provide the uscentcom commander the maximum level of flexibility to achieve u.s. objectives in the region. this is in marked contrast to the u.s. army’s mission command training program warfighter exercises used to train corps and division staffs. in these exercises, the scenario is designed to stimulate training objectives, not test the validity of any specific war plan. in theater level exercises executed by geographic combatant commands, the validity of plans themselves are part of the assessment process. a 2023 report discussed the challenges facing u.s. army ada units. this report highlighted the gap between supply and demand that has endured for decades, concluding that the “simple, pure math” suggests that the united states has far more air defense requirements than the army has capacity.22 some groups like the missile defense advocacy alliance have suggested that the army needs to immediately reprioritize force structure to deal with this reality, and that the department of defense (dod) mission area itself requires a “fundamental review.”23 the war between russia and ukraine has reinforced both the criticality of air defense and the effectiveness of the patriot system in particular. unlike u.s. indo pacific command and useucom, uscentcom has no forward stationed army ada units. every patriot, c ram, and avenger formation serving in the region since the end of operation desert storm in 1991 deployed from the united states (and sometimes from other geographic combatant commands). under any force generation model, this continued commitment ties up large portions of the army’s amd forces, making them unavailable for other requirements. as previously mentioned, the 32nd aamdc also serves as the army’s global force provider for active component amd forces. this puts the command in the unique situation of having to provide military advice to meet uscentcom objectives that may directly impact its mission to provide trained and ready forces for u.s. army forces command when balanced with global requirements. as the aamdc supporting uscentcom responsible for all army amd forces in the region, the 32nd aamdc is primarily providing forces to itself in its warfighting role. regional integration with partners and allies offers a potential way to mitigate this gap between supply and demand. in theory, partners can replace u.s. units with their growing amd capacity. this regional integration certainly offers opportunities, although this comes with two extremely important caveats. the first caveat is the capabilities of systems such as patriot, which are ultimately point or small area defense systems that can cover a discretely defined geographic area (such an airbase). these systems cannot provide wide area defense, and those systems that can provide this type of defense (such as thaad) face limitations on the threats they address. critics of the patriot system usually overlook this point; the system will only engage direct threats to the defined defended asset. in short, nonengagements of threats impacting outside the defended asset are a conscious decision and not a bug in the system. this reality leads to the second caveat, which is the geopolitical requirements of the partners themselves. without exception, every nation builds air and missile defense capacity primarily to defend its own interests. with point and small area defense systems, every defended asset decision requires acceptance of what will not be defended. none of our partners across the globe purchased patriot or thaad to become a force provider for the united states. these trade off decisions are particularly acute in the uscentcom aor, where our partners face the same robust iranian and proxy threat that we face. given the enduring presence of u.s. patriot units across the region, army ada forces themselves could also be viewed as clear demonstrations of american commitment to the region; while any force posture must be viewed in totality and not focused on any specific unit type, the presence of u.s. army ada units remains a concrete symbol of resolve.24 this perception has the potential to increase the difficulty of conversations with partners on a range of topics not limited to air defense. over the past ten years, air and missile threats to u.s. forces and american interests in the uscentcom aor have continued to multiply. this should hardly surprise any observer familiar with the army’s role in the middle east since the end of the 1991 gulf war. operation desert storm made the patriot widely known and ada forces a near continuous feature of posture decisions from then until now. the current air and missile threats are also multiplying against our allies and partners, who are accelerating their own efforts to build robust air and missile defense capabilities. it is worth highlighting that israel, uae, and saudi arabia’s amd forces are combat tested and proven against persistent lethal threats. importantly, all of this is occurring against the backdrop of competition for influence with china and russia. based on iran’s tbm and uas inventory alone, future lsco in the region have the near certain potential to see missile and air attacks that make russian attacks on ukraine seem small in comparison. american units operating in the uscentcom aor remain the only u.s. forces across the globe who face routine air and missile attacks. this challenging threat also offers the army unique opportunities to experiment in real time with the range of amd capabilities available to joint and combined forces. while the dod must balance global force posture decisions in pursuit of the national military strategy, the uscentcom aor and iran remain critical to defined strategic objectives. although “centcom fatigue” is certainly a real challenge, the region also borders china and russia, which raises the stakes of competition.25 given this stark reality, the army should expect to provide some level of amd forces to uscentcom during competition phase and be prepared to surge during lsco. how the dod and the army balance these requirements going forward remains a critical challenge. col. glenn a. henke, u.s. army, serves as the military deputy director for the joint counter small unmanned aircraft systems office, a direct report unit to the vice chief of staff of the army. he previously served as the deputy commanding officer of the 32nd army air and missile defense command, a division level warfighting headquarters aligned with u.s. central command that is also the army’s force provider for active component air and missile defense forces. call for speculative essays and short works of fiction military review calls for short works of fiction for inclusion in the army university press future warfare writing program (fwwp). the purpose of this program is to solicit serious contemplation of possible future scenarios through the medium of fiction in order to anticipate future security requirements. as a result, well written works of fiction in short story format with new and fresh insights into the character of possible future martial conflicts and domestic unrest are of special interest. detailed guidance related to the character of such fiction together with submission guidelines can be found at https://www.armyupress.army.mil/special topics/future warfare writing program/future warfare writing program submission guidelines/. to read previously published fwwp submissions, visit https://www.armyupress.army.mil/special topics/future warfare writing program/. back to top space & missile defense 2024 quick links archive by year order a book fort leavenworth book series large scale combat operations book set doctrine and operations wars contact website feedback military review branch journals nco journal edición hispanoamericana edição brasileira journal of military learning warrant officer journal film of the month feature film catalog classroom resources from the vault faqs suggest a documentary traditional staff ride virtual staff ride staff ride handbooks staff ride resources request a staff ride request the building of a staff ride csi battle maps sme by last name sme by category nco journal submission guide military review submission guide books and manuscript submission guide plagiarism policy contact website feedback army university press nco journal military review latam aup privacy and security policy | aup user terms of agreement | army university | web policy | information quality | plain writing | privacy program | no fear act | foia | open gov | strategic plan | usa.gov

"in my home there are few publications that we actually get hard copies of, but [arms control today] is one and it's the only one my husband and i fight over who gets to read it first." for more information on the european system, see european phased adaptive approach (epaa) at a glance and for the asia pacific region, see u.s. and allied ballistic missile defenses in the asia pacific region. contact: xiaodon liang, senior policy analyst for nuclear weapons policy and disarmament, 202 463 8270 x113 executive summary congress has appropriated over $250 billion for the missile defense agency’s programs between fiscal years 1985 and 2023, according to calculations by aca based on missile defense agency (mda) estimates and the legislative record. that total does not include spending by the military services on programs such as the patriot system or the many additional tens of billions of dollars spent since work on anti missile systems first began in the 1950s. for nearly two decades, u.s. ballistic missile defense (bmd) policy has sought to protect the homeland against limited long range missile strikes from states such as iran and north korea, but not major nuclear powers like russia and china as that mission would pose significant technical, financial, and geopolitical challenges. the united states has also pursued programs to defend u.s. troops and facilities abroad, as well as some close allies, from attacks by ballistic missiles and to a much lesser extent cruise missiles. the overall u.s. missile defense effort enjoys strong bipartisan support in congress. additionally, many u.s. allies place a high value on missile defense cooperation with the united states. however, the u.s. pursuit of effective missile defenses has been accompanied by intense debate about the technical capabilities of the system and realism of testing, the scope of the ballistic missile threat, the deterrence and assurance benefits of defenses, the cost effectiveness of shooting down relatively inexpensive offensive missiles with expensive defensive ones, and the repercussions for u.s. strategic stability with russia and china. according to the defense department’s independent testing office, existing u.s. missile defenses have "demonstrated capability" to defend the u.s. homeland against a small number of intercontinental ballistic missile (icbm) threats that employ "simple countermeasures." the testing office assesses that defenses to protect allies and u.s. troops deployed abroad possess a capability to defend against small numbers of intermediate range ballistic missiles (irbms) and medium range ballistic missiles (mrbms). the capability of defenses against short range ballistic missiles is limited to the threat posed by a “representative raid.” until recently, the only u.s. bmd system to ever be used in combat was the point defense patriot system. in april 2024, u.s. navy ships in the middle east equipped with the aegis bmd system intercepted iranian ballistic missiles inbound toward israel, using the sm 3 interceptor. leaders of the u.s. missile defense enterprise have increasingly voiced concerns that the current u.s. approach to national and regional missile defense is unsustainable and that existing defenses must be augmented with emerging capabilities to reduce the cost of missile defense and keep pace with advancing adversary missile threats. recent policy shifts under the trump and biden administrations, the ambitions of u.s. missile defense policy have expanded while funding has remained roughly flat at approximately $10 billion in congressional appropriations each fiscal year. the trump administration’s 2019 missile defense review argued the need for an improved capability to intercept cruise and hypersonic missiles, including long range strikes targeting the continental united states. the biden administration’s 2022 missile defense review acknowledged these concerns. the missile defense agency is managing several new programs to improve hypersonic missile defense, such as the hypersonic and ballistic tracking space sensor and the glide phase interceptor. u.s. northern command and the mda have done limited tests and studies on improving homeland defense against cruise missiles. other aspects of the trump administration’s missile defense policy have been set aside by the biden administration’s 2022 review, however. these include endorsements of boost phase interceptors, space based interceptors, and adapting the sea based aegis missile defense system for homeland defense. in 2020, the department of defense conducted a test of an aegis sm 3 block iia interceptor against an icbm class target. the 2022 missile defense review restated the traditional u.s. policy that ground mid course defense (gmd) is “neither intended nor capable of defeating the missile capabilities of russia and china”. the review also reaffirmed “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive systems”. it also emphasized, for the first time, the lower tier threat posed by unmanned aircraft systems. for ballistic missile and missile defense basics, as well as the historical background of missile defense programs, please visit “missiles and missile defense systems at a glance.” elements of the current u.s. ballistic missile defense system the u.s. missile defense system has three critical physical components: 1) sensors/radars, 2) interceptors, and 3) command and control infrastructure. this factsheet primarily discusses interceptors and radars. for ballistic missile and missile defense basics and the historical background of missile defense programs, please visit “missiles and missile defense systems at a glance.” the following is an overview of early warning and missile tracking systems intended to complement the missile defense interceptors listed above. the space based sensors are supported by land  and sea based radars. the arms control association depends on the generous contributions of individuals who share our goal of promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies. aca is a nonpartisan, nonprofit membership organization, and your financial support makes a difference. your membership comes with a 12 month subscription to arms control today. 1200 18th street nw, suite 1175 washington, dc 20036 tel: (202) 463 8270 | fax: (202) 463 8273

improving economic policy suggested keywords: europe has long relied on us weapons but the us military industrial base faces constraints and its production may be redirected elsewhere the united states under the outgoing biden administration has supported the transatlantic relationship, both through nato and by providing support to ukraine. at the same time, the biden administration has generally positioned itself against european attempts to reduce reliance on foreign arms. for example, the us ambassador to nato criticised the eu’s aim of buying more home produced weapons 1 stuart lau, ‘us envoy to nato questions eu’s ‘buy local’ strategy on weapons’, politico, 22 october 2024, https://www.politico.eu/article/us envoy to nato questions eus buy loca…. , as set out in the eu defence industrial strategy, proposed by the european commission in march 2024 2 european commission press release of 5 march 2024, ‘first ever defence industrial strategy and a new defence industry programme to enhance europe’s readiness and security’, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_1321. . now, with president trump soon returning to office, us policy towards european security could be at a turning point. leading figures around trump argue that us security policy should focus on the pacific as the us defence industrial base is too small to cater for all threat theatres 3 for example, trump’s former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development elbridge colby. see piotr smolar, ‘elbridge colby, ex secrétaire adjoint à la défense américain : « nous ne voulons pas être le gendarme du monde »’, le monde, 18 july 2024, https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/07/18/elbridge colby …. see also https://x.com/elbridgecolby/status/1750658274662236247. . implicitly, there is thus support for the idea that europe should become more self sufficient in military terms. whether this view will become us policy or whether the current policy driven by the defence industry’s interests to sell to the attractive european market will continue to dominate is to be seen. meanwhile, some in europe see defence equipment purchases from the us as a strategic tool to fend off tariffs 4 for example, european central bank president christine lagarde has raised this point. roula khalaf, patrick jenkins and olaf storbeck, ‘christine lagarde interview’, financial times, 28 november 2024, https://www.ft.com/content/c4ddf3ab 94c6 41b3 95c1 1afd38d23704. . but this strategy would need sufficient capacity in the us military base and timely delivery or, rather than procuring modern equipment fit for its eastern flank, the eu would risk overpaying for late and second rate products, entrenching dependence through long term contracts for maintenance and supply. we assessed non us demand for us military industrial capacity by analysing us foreign military sales (fms), compiling a database from us defense security cooperation agency data, as reported by the pentagon 5 the data covers fms contracts since 2008. we restrict the military sales agreements to those signed after russia’s invasion of ukraine (february 2022). see https://www.dsca.mil/major arms sales/archive date. . we show that large shares of us produced weapons, such as shells for tanks and artillery and air defence missiles and their components, are sold currently to europe and israel. if trump wants to re calibrate us defence sales, for example to increase domestic stockpiles or to increase supplies to allies in asia, then europe could face shortages in arms availability. this raises two immediate consequences. first, europe will need to increase domestic production of weapons systems, and this is in line with us interests. second, the eu cannot rely on arms purchases as a negotiating tool with the incoming us administration to obtain a favourable deal on tariffs. us production is insufficient for europe to meaningfully buy, let alone increase, its weapons purchases. the us military industrial base: production and readiness concerns the us military industrial base is not suited for high intensity conflict against other major powers (see for example jones, 2023). much of the us’s own demand for arms in recent decades has been for military operations against relatively small and weaker opponents. this has likely left the us military industrial base ill equipped for conflict with a peer of similar military strength. for example, in a scenario of conflict over taiwan, the us would run out of some key munitions in less than a week (cancian et al, 2023). to better understand us capacities, we examined specifically the production and sales of two major weapons systems: patriot air defence missiles and f 35 fighter jets. we chose these two systems because they represent high end capabilities that are central to nato’s and europe’s deterrence of russia. russia is a peer competitor with large land forces, a sizeable air force including the most modern (fifth generation) fighter jets, an integrated air defence network and a vast arsenal of long range precision munitions (wolff et al, 2024). high end capabilities are essential for nato and europe to meet the russian challenge. the us fms data documents a total of 1119 patriot missiles sold under five contracts since russia’s invasion of ukraine in february 2022 (up to time of writing; table 1). this number is separate from and does not include all the missiles sent from us stockpiles to ukraine as these can be provided through emergency aid procedures 6 helene cooper, eric schmitt, edward wong and julian e. barnes, ‘u.s. to send another patriot missile battery to ukraine’, the new york times, 11 june 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/us/politics/patriot missiles ukraine…. . table 1: fms contracts, patriot missiles since february 2022 year month purchasing country quantity $ millions 2024 august germany 600 5000 2023 october spain 51 2800 2022 november switzerland 72 700 2022 august saudi arabia 300 3000 2022 july the netherlands 96 1219 total 1119 12 719 source: bruegel. note: most of the contracts include more goods and/or services in addition to patriot missiles included in the purchase agreement. in the dutch contract, the patriot missiles are the main item, allowing the unit cost to be estimated. not reported here are missiles sent by the us to israel, which are not patriot missiles, but david’s sling missiles produced by the same company rtx, which shares components and production lines with the patriot. however, they could affect the patriot missile production numbers. the total of 1119 contracted missiles must be compared to the us defence industrial base’s current production of missiles. the current production rate per year is below 740 7 see lockheed martin press release of 14 november 2024, ‘u.s. army awards lockheed martin contract to increase pac 3 mse production capacity’, https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2024 11 14 us army awards lockheed mart…, and jen judson, ‘how companies plan to ramp up production of patriot missiles’, defense news, 9 april 2024, . the stated aim is to scale up to 1070 by 2027 8 numbers are derived from current production capabilities of lockheed martin (500 missiles annually) and raytheon (240 annually), and planned future annual production of 650 annually (lockheed) and 420 (raytheon). armyrecognition.com, ‘lockheed martin to increase pac 3 mse missile production by 30 percent with new us army contract’, 15 november 2024, https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army news/army news 2024/lockheed …. . actual production capabilities are currently thus just meeting foreign demand. the fms data also allows the pricing of patriot missiles to be estimated. while most contracts include several goods and additional services in the purchase agreement, the contract with the netherlands includes almost only missiles. even though prices vary across contracts, we estimate that a patriot missile can cost up to $13 million. concerns around inflated prices charged by defence contractors to the us and its allies exist 9 bill whitaker, ‘weapons contractors hitting department of defense with inflated prices for planes, submarines, missiles’, cbs news, 21 may 2023, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/weapons contractors price gouging pentagon…. . it is worth contextualising this production by looking at patriot usage rates in ukraine. patriots are used for defence against russian cruise and ballistic missiles, of which russia has fired over 10,000 in the conflict. typically, at least two interceptor missiles are used against each incoming missile   more as the sophistication of the incoming missile increases. patriots are not used for every interception, being reserved typically for high end russian missiles, especially ballistic and hypersonic, but the data suggest that demand for air defence missiles is substantial. current us production capacities and prices are clearly not compatible with a long lasting war in which allies would rely primarily on us production. purchase data on f 35s, the flagship of the us and allied air forces, also demonstrates the problems faced by the us military industrial base. costs have increased considerably, and delays continue to occur (gao, 2024a). lockheed martin started the f 35 development programme in 2001, with a goal of producing 2866 f 35s over 40 years 10 paul barrett, ‘is the f 35 a trillion dollar mistake?’ bloomberg, 4 april 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017 04 04/is the f 35 a trilli…. . this target subsequently dropped to 2470, while costs have increased by more than 50 percent (gao, 2024a). an important indicator is the availability rate, meaning the percentage of aircraft in inventory that are operational and mission capable at any time. for at least the past five years, f 35 availability rates have been well below 50 percent (gao, 2024b), meaning most f 35s are stuck in hangars. since the invasion of ukraine, lockheed martin has been contracted under fms agreements to produce around 150 new f 35s, out of which more than 75 percent correspond to contracts with european nations 11 the number includes purchase agreements with romania (32 aircraft), greece (up to 40), czechia (24), germany (35) and south korea (up to 25). . before 2022, contracts to supply f 35s to other european nations, such as switzerland, often saw delays 12 larissa rhyn and beni gafner, ‘kommt die f 35 zu spät, bezahlt die schweiz’, tages anzeiger, 14 august 2023, https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/kommt die f 35 zu spaet bezahlt die schwei…. . the delays have tended to become longer, with lockheed martin delivering 91 percent of the aircraft late in 2023, versus 41 percent in 2014 (figure 1). furthermore, none of the engines (supplied by pratt & whitney) were delivered on time in 2023. figure 1: % of f 35s delivered late source: gao (2024c). for main battle tanks, a similar picture emerges. current annual production numbers of the us m1a2 abrams are between 60 and 120, with investment ongoing to ramp up supply 13 precious grundy, ‘major improvements coming to lima’s tank plant’, the lima news, 20 may 2024, https://www.limaohio.com/top stories/2024/05/20/major improvements comi…. . delays to planned initial operational capacity, meanwhile, are also being seen in us submarine production (such as aukus 14 sbs news, ‘aukus revamped: australia to indemnify us and uk against ‘any liability’ from nuclear risks’, 12 august 2024, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/aukus revamped australia to indemni…. ) and other military programmes (figure 2). figure 2: delay (in months), selected us military programmes source: gao (2023). conclusions european countries should continue defence procurement from the us, especially for high end and high demand systems, munitions and enablers, for which europe lacks domestic alternatives. however, production and readiness concerns about the us military industrial base, together with the changing us foreign policy, should highlight the need for further investment in the eu. the war in ukraine is also testimony to the rapidly changing nature of wars, with drones and other technologies playing greater roles. this is a further reason for europe to invest substantially in new capacities and agile production sites where commercially available components can easily be upgraded using military components. reliance on foreign partners is critical for cutting edge technology in areas such as long range missile defence interceptors or fifth generation aircraft (draghi, 2024). yet, where the supply from the us might face difficulties, the need for long term investments in europe is particularly great. ukraine’s military industrial capacity could also play a key role in europe’s security because of ukraine’s unique experience and expertise, economies of scale, innovation and r&d and competitive costs. the united kingdom’s industrial base should also be seen as part of the eu defence industrial base. relying on the us defence industrial base is unlikely to be sufficient and may not even be an asset in negotiations with the us on trade because the us wants to redirect weapons to different threat arenas. most importantly, the eu needs to boost its single market for defence and strengthen the european defence industrial base for its own security and for better cost effectiveness (mejino lopez and wolff, 2024). references cancian, m.f., m. cancian and e. heginbotham (2023) the first battle of the next war: wargaming a chinese invasion of taiwan, center for strategic and international studies, available at https://www.csis.org/analysis/first battle next war wargaming chinese invasion taiwan draghi, m. (2024) the future of european competitiveness, european commission, available at https://commission.europa.eu/topics/strengthening european competitiveness/eu competitiveness looking ahead_en gao (2024a) weapon systems annual assessment, report to congressional committees, us government accountability office, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao 24 106831.pdf gao (2024b) ‘military readiness, actions needed for dod to address challenges across the air, sea, ground, and space domains’, statement of diana maurer, director, defense capabilities and management, us government accountability office, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao 24 107463.pdf gao (2024c) f 35 joint strike fighter: program continues to encounter production issues and modernization delays, report to congressional committees, us government accountability office, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao 24 106909.pdf jones, s.g. (2023) empty bins in a wartime environment, center for strategic and international studies, available at https://www.csis.org/analysis/empty bins wartime envirotnment challenge us defense industrial base mejino lopez, j. and g. wolff (2024) ‘a european defence industrial strategy in a hostile world’, policy brief 29/2024, bruegel, available at https://www.bruegel.org/policy brief/european defence industrial strategy hostile world wolff, g.b., a. burilkov, k. bushnell and i. kharitonov (2024) ‘fit for war in decades: sluggish german rearmament versus surging russian defence production’, analysis, 16 september, bruegel, available at https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/fit war decades sluggish german rearmament versus surging russian defence production dr. alexandr burilkov is a researcher at the centre for the study of democracy (zdemo), leuphana university of lüneburg. he obtained his phd in political science from the university of hamburg. he is an expert on military and security issues in russia, china, and the post soviet space. he is also a member of the european expert network on terrorism issues. juan is a research analyst at bruegel. he studied economics (bsc) at the university of salamanca, with one year erasmus exchange at ku leuven. he was granted a scholarship from ramón areces foundation to pursue a msc in economics at the university of warwick. in his msc thesis he studied the relation between automation and offshoring in spain, as well as automation impacts on the spanish labour market. prior joining bruegel, juan worked as economist at cambridge econometrics carrying economic analysis for different institutions such as ilo, un or the european commission. he also worked as research assistant at the university of salamanca, creating a database to analyse institutional transaction costs. juan was a football referee for 7 years in spain. juan is a native spanish speaker and is fluent in english. he is currently learning french and dutch. guntram wolff is a senior fellow at bruegel. he is also a professor of economics at the université libre de bruxelles (ulb). from 2022 2024, he was the director and ceo of the german council on foreign relations (dgap) and from 2013 22 the director of bruegel. over his career, he has contributed to research on european political economy, climate policy, geoeconomics, macroeconomics and foreign affairs. his work was published in academic journals such as nature, science, research policy, energy policy, climate policy, journal of european public policy, journal of banking and finance. his co authored book “the macroeconomics of decarbonization” is published in cambridge university press. an experienced public adviser, he has been testifying twice a year since 2013 to the informal european finance ministers’ and central bank governors’ ecofin council meeting on a large variety of topics. he also regularly testifies to the european parliament, the bundestag and speaks to corporate boards. in 2020, business insider ranked him one of the 28 most influential “power players” in europe. from 2012 16, he was a member of the french prime minister’s conseil d’analyse economique. in 2018, then imf managing director christine lagarde appointed him to the external advisory group on surveillance to review the fund’s priorities. in 2021, he was appointed member and co director to the g20 high level independent panel on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response under the co chairs tharman shanmugaratnam, lawrence h. summers and ngozi okonjo iweala. from 2013 22, he was an advisor to the mastercard centre for inclusive growth. he is a member of the bulgarian council of economic analysis, the european council on foreign affairs and advisory board of elcano. he is also a fellow at the kiel institute for the world economy. guntram joined bruegel from the european commission, where he worked on the macroeconomics of the euro area and the reform of euro area governance. prior to joining the commission, he worked in the research department at the bundesbank, which he joined after completing his phd in economics at the university of bonn. he also worked as an external adviser to the international monetary fund. he is fluent in german, english, and french. his work is regularly published and cited in leading media. the continent has a chance to address its own weaknesses the entry of nine new countries into the eu would impact the eu budget modestly while boosting national revenues for current members at the 2024 forum (17 30 august 2024), bruegel participated as a track reporting partner covering the finance and economy track the european union needs to adapt its emergency funding mechanisms to the increasing number and severity of climate catastrophes © bruegel. all rights reserved. design and development by soapbox.

official websites use .gov secure .gov websites use https a compilation of platforms and weapons, the three legs of the u.s. nuclear triad serve as the backbone of america’s national security. the triad, along with assigned forces, provide 24/7 deterrence to prevent catastrophic actions from our adversaries and they stand ready, if necessary, to deliver a decisive response, anywhere, anytime. land sea air responsive video details more than 10,000 people provide up to 400 on alert, combat ready lgm 30g minuteman iii intercontinental ballistic missiles, or icbms, in hardened silos across five states. complicate enemy attack & capable of providing prompt, overwhelming response. lgm 30g minuteman iii up to 400 minuteman iii missiles make up the most responsive leg of the nuclear triad. america's icbm force has remained on continuous, around the clock alert since 1959. the ground based strategic deterrent program will begin the replacement of minuteman iii and modernization of the 450 icbm launch facilities in 2029. the minuteman is a strategic weapon system using a ballistic missile of intercontinental range. missiles are dispersed in hardened silos to protect against attack and connected to an underground launch control center through a system of hardened cables. launch crews, consisting of two officers, perform around the clock alerts in the launch control center. a variety of communication systems provide the president and secretary of defense with highly reliable, virtually instantaneous direct contact with each launch crew. should command capability be lost between the launch control center and remote missile launch facilities, specially configured e 6b airborne launch control center aircraft automatically assume command and control of the isolated missile or missiles. fully qualified airborne missile combat crews aboard airborne launch control center aircraft would execute the president's orders. the minuteman weapon system was conceived in the late 1950s and minuteman i was deployed in the early 1960s. minuteman was a revolutionary concept and an extraordinary technical achievement. both the missile and basing components incorporated significant advances beyond the relatively slow reacting, liquid fueled, remotely controlled intercontinental ballistic missiles of the previous generation. from the beginning, minuteman missiles have provided a quick reacting, inertially guided, highly survivable component to america's strategic deterrent program. minuteman's maintenance concept capitalizes on high reliability and a "remove and replace" approach to achieve a near 100% alert rate. through state of the art improvements, the minuteman system has evolved to meet new challenges and assume new missions. modernization programs have resulted in new versions of the missile, expanded targeting options, and improved accuracy and survivability. today's minuteman weapon system is the product of almost 60 years of continuous enhancement. the current icbm force consists of minuteman iii missiles located at the 90th missile wing at f.e. warren air force base, wyoming; the 341st missile wing at malmstrom air force base, montana; and the 91st missile wing at minot air force base, north dakota. primary function: intercontinental ballistic missle contractor: boeing co. weight: 79,432 pounds / 36,030 kilograms diameter: 5.5 feet / 1.67 meters date deployed: june 1970, production cessation: december 1978 power plant: three solid propellant rocket motors first stage: atk refurbished m55a1 | second stage: atk refurbished sr 19 | third stage: atk refurbished sr 73 range: 6,000+ miles / 5,218 nautical miles speed: ~15,000 mph / mach 23 or 24,000 kph at burnout ceiling: 700 miles / 1,120 kilometers inventory: active force   406 | reserve   0 | air national guard   0 technologies chemical systems division thrust: first stage: 203,158 pounds | second stage: 60,793 pounds | third stage: 35,086 pounds current as of april 2017 defense secretary dr. mark t. esper "the nuclear strategic triad is the most important part of our military. it's key to our nation's defense. it provides that strategic nuclear deterrent that we depend on day after day   that we've depended on decade after decade." survivable video details ballistic missile submarines or “boomers” are undetectable platforms for submarine launched ballistic missiles. they are on constant patrol with enough firepower to make just one boomer the sixth most powerful nuclear power in the world. assure we can strike at any time, anywhere, even after a surprise attack. this survivability gives national leadership greater flexibility in the decision making process. ohio class ballistic missile submarines   ssbn fourteen ohio class ssbns make up the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. their stealth design makes finding an ssbn an almost impossible task, giving pause to potential adversaries. the columbia class ssbn program will begin to replace the ohio class ssbns starting in the early 2030s. the navy's ballistic missile submarines, often referred to as “boomers,” serve as an undetectable launch platform for missiles. they are designed specifically for stealth and the precise delivery of nuclear warheads. each of the 14 ohio class ssbns can carry up to 20 submarine launched ballistic missiles with multiple, independently targeted warheads. the ballistic missile submarine's strategic weapon is the trident ii d5 missile, which provides increased range and accuracy over the now out of service trident i c4 missile. ballistic missile submarines are specifically designed for extended deterrent patrols. to decrease the amount of time required for replenishment and maintenance, ohio class submarines have three large diameter logistics hatches that allow sailors to rapidly transfer supply pallets, equipment replacement modules and machinery components, thereby increasing their operational availability. the ohio class design allows the submarines to operate for 15 or more years between major overhauls. on average, the submarines spend 77 days at sea followed by 35 days in port for maintenance. each submarine has two crews, blue and gold, which alternate manning the submarines and taking them on patrol. this maximizes the submarine’s strategic availability, reduces the number of submarines required to meet strategic requirements and allows for proper crew training, readiness and morale. uss henry m. jackson (ssbn 730), bangor, wash. uss alabama (ssbn 731), bangor, wash. uss alaska (ssbn 732), kings bay, ga. uss nevada (ssbn 733), bangor, wash. uss tennessee (ssbn 734), kings bay, ga. uss pennsylvania (ssbn 735), bangor, wash. uss west virginia (ssbn 736), kings bay, ga. uss kentucky (ssbn 737), bangor, wash. uss maryland (ssbn 738), kings bay, ga. uss nebraska (ssbn 739), bangor, wash. uss rhode island (ssbn 740), kings bay, ga. uss maine (ssbn 741), bangor, wash. uss wyoming (ssbn 742), kings bay, ga. uss louisiana (ssbn 743), bangor, wash. current as of january 2016 for more than six decades, the united states has emphasized the need for a nuclear force that credibly deters adversaries, assures allies and partners, achieves u.s. objectives should deterrence fail and hedges against uncertain threats. the fact sheet flexible video details america’s bomber fleet provides a range of both conventional and nuclear response options. consisting of 46 nuclear capable b 52h stratofortress and 20 b 2a spirit aircraft, the nation's bomber fleet is the most flexible leg of the triad, capable of providing massive firepower in a short time anywhere on the globe, even through the most advanced defenses. b 52h stratofortress the b 52 is a long range, heavy bomber that can perform a variety of missions. it can carry nuclear or precision guided conventional weapons with worldwide precision navigation. the b 52 is slated to be in service beyond 2040. in a conventional conflict, the b 52 can perform strategic attack, close air support, air interdiction, offensive counter air and maritime operations. during desert storm, b 52s delivered 40 percent of all the weapons dropped by coalition forces. it is highly effective when used for ocean surveillance, and can assist the u.s. navy in anti ship and mine laying operations. two b 52s, in two hours, can monitor 140,000 square miles (364,000 square kilometers) of ocean surface. all b 52s can be equipped with two electro optical viewing sensors, a forward looking infrared and advanced targeting pods to augment targeting, battle assessment, and flight safety, thus further improving its combat ability. pilots wear night vision goggles, or nvg, to enhance their vision during night operations. night vision goggles provide greater safety during night operations by increasing the pilot's ability to visually clear terrain, to increase the peacetime and combat situational awareness of the aircrew and visually acquire other aircraft. b 52s are currently upgrading from the litening advanced targeting pod to the sniper advanced targeting pod. sniper pods provide improved long range target detection/identification and continuous stabilized surveillance for all missions, including close air support of ground forces. the pod’s advanced targeting and image processing technology significantly increases the combat effectiveness of the b 52 during day, night and under the weather conditions in the attack of ground targets with a variety of standoff weapons (i.e., laser guided bombs, conventional bombs and gps guided weapons). the use of aerial refueling gives the b 52 a range limited only by crew endurance. it has an unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles (14,080 kilometers). for more than 40 years b 52 stratofortresses have been the backbone of the manned strategic bomber force for the united states. the b 52 is capable of dropping or launching the widest array of weapons in the u.s. inventory. this includes gravity bombs, cluster bombs, precision guided missiles and joint direct attack munitions. updated with modern technology the b 52 will be capable of delivering the full complement of joint developed weapons and will continue into the 21st century as an important element of our nation's defenses. current engineering analyses show the b 52's life span to extend beyond the year 2040. the b 52a first flew in 1954, and the b model entered service in 1955. a total of 744 b 52s were built with the last, a b 52h, delivered in october 1962. the first of 102 b 52h's was delivered to strategic air command in may 1961. the h model can carry up to 20 air launched cruise missiles. in addition, it can carry the conventional cruise missile that was launched in several contingencies during the 1990s and 2000s, starting with operation desert storm and culminating with operation iraqi freedom. the aircraft's flexibility was evident in operation desert storm and again during operation allied force. b 52s struck wide area troop concentrations, fixed installations and bunkers, and decimated the morale of iraq's republican guard. from sept. 2 to 3, 1996, two b 52h's struck baghdad power stations and communications facilities with 13 agm 86c conventional air launched cruise missiles, or calcms, as part of operation desert strike. at that time, this was the longest distance flown for a combat mission involving a 34 hour, 16,000 statute mile round trip from barksdale air force base, louisiana. in 2001, the b 52 contributed to the success in operation enduring freedom, providing the ability to loiter high above the battlefield and provide close air support through the use of precision guided munitions. the b 52 also played a role in operation iraqi freedom. on march 21, 2003, b 52hs launched approximately 100 calcms during a night mission. only the h model is still in the air force inventory. it is assigned to the 5th bomb wing at minot air force base, north dakota, and the 2nd bomb wing at barksdale air force base, louisiana, both of which fall under air force global strike command; and to the air force reserve command's 307th bomb wing at barksdale air force base. primary function: heavy bomber contractor: boeing military airplanes co. power plant: eight pratt & whitney engines tf33 p 3/103 turbofan thrust: each engine up to 17,000 pounds wingspan: 185 feet / 56.4 meters length: 159 feet, 4 inches / 48.5 meters height: 40 feet, 8 inches / 12.4 meters weight: ~185,000 pounds / 83,250 kilograms maximum takeoff weight: 488,000 pounds / 219,600 kilograms fuel capacity: 312,1970 pounds / 141,610 kilograms payload: 70,000 pounds / 31,500 kilogramst speed: 650 miles per hour / mach 0.84 range: 8,800 miles / 7,652 nautical miles ceiling: 50,000 feet / 15,151.5 meters armament: ~70,000 pounds / 31,500 kilograms mixed ordnance   bombs, mines and missiles (modified to carry air launched cruise missiles) crew: five   aircraft commander, pilot, radar navigator, navigator and electronic warfare officer unit cost: $84 million / fiscal 2012 constant dollars initial operating capability: april 1952 inventory: active force   58 | reserve   18 | air national guard   0 current as of september 2014 b 2a spirit the b 2 spirit is a multirole stealth bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons. the b 21 raider will first supplement, then eventually replace, the b 2 beginning in the mid 2020s. the b 2 provides the penetrating flexibility and effectiveness inherent in manned bombers. its low observable, or "stealth," characteristics give it the unique ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended, targets. the b 2’s capability to penetrate air defenses and threaten effective retaliation provides a strong, effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century. the revolutionary blending of low observable technologies with high aerodynamic efficiency and large payload gives the b 2 important advantages over existing bombers. its low observability provides it greater freedom of action at high altitudes, thus increasing its range and a better field of view for the aircraft's sensors. its unrefueled range is approximately 6,000 nautical miles (9,600 kilometers). the b 2's low observability is derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic and visual and radar signatures. these signatures make it difficult for sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track and engage the b 2. many aspects of the low observability process remain classified; however, the b 2's composite materials, special coatings and flying wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness." the b 2 has a crew of two pilots, a pilot in the left seat and mission commander in the right, compared to the b 1b's crew of four and the b 52's crew of five. the first b 2 was publicly displayed nov. 22, 1988, when it was rolled out of its hangar at air force plant 42, palmdale, california. its first flight was july 17, 1989. the b 2 combined test force, air force flight test center, edwards air force base, california, is responsible for flight testing the engineering, manufacturing and development aircraft on the b 2. whiteman air force base, missouri, is the only operational base for the b 2. the first aircraft, spirit of missouri, was delivered dec. 17, 1993. depot maintenance responsibility for the b 2 is performed by air force contractor support and is managed at the oklahoma city air logistics center at tinker air force base, oklahoma. the combat effectiveness of the b 2 was proved in operation allied force, where it was responsible for destroying 33 percent of all serbian targets in the first eight weeks, by flying nonstop to kosovo from its home base in missouri and back. in support of operation enduring freedom, the b 2 flew one of its longest missions to date from whiteman to afghanistan and back. the b 2 completed its first ever combat deployment in support of operation iraqi freedom, flying 22 sorties from a forward operating location as well as 27 sorties from whiteman air force base and releasing more than 1.5 million pounds of munitions. the aircraft received full operational capability status in december 2003. on feb. 1, 2009, the air force's newest command, air force global strike command, assumed responsibility for the b 2 from air combat command. the prime contractor, responsible for overall system design and integration, is northrop grumman integrated systems sector. boeing military airplanes co., hughes radar systems group, general electric aircraft engine group and vought aircraft industries inc., are key members of the aircraft contractor team. primary function: multirole heavy bomber contractor: northrop grumman corp. and contractor team: power plant: four general electric f118 ge 100 engines thrust: 17,300 pounds each engine wingspan: 172 feet / 52.12 meters length: 69 feet / 20.9 meters height: 17 feet / 5.1 meters weight: 160,000 / 72,575 kilograms maximum takeoff weight: 336,500 pounds / 152,634 kilograms fuel capacity: 167,000 pounds / 75,750 kilograms payload: 40,000 pounds / 18,144 kilogramst speed: high subsonic range: intercontinental ceiling: 50,000 feet / 15,240 meters armament: conventional or nuclear weapons crew: two pilots unit cost: approximately $1.157 billion / fiscal 1998 constant dollars initial operating capability: april 1997 inventory: active force   21 (1 test) | reserve   0 | air national guard   0 current as of september 2015 the department of defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.

our programs and centers deliver in depth, highly relevant issue briefs and reports that break new ground, shift opinions, and set agendas on public policy, with a focus on advancing debates by integrating foundational research and analysis with concrete policy solutions. when major global news breaks, the atlantic council’s experts have you covered delivering their sharpest rapid insight and forward looking analysis direct to your inbox. new atlanticist is where top experts and policymakers at the atlantic council and beyond offer exclusive insight on the most pressing global challenges and the united states’ role in addressing them alongside its allies and partners. a weekly column by atlantic council president and ceo frederick kempe, inflection points focuses on the global challenges facing the united states and how to best address them. ukrainealert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture. ukrainealert sources analysis and commentary from a wide array of thought leaders, politicians, experts, and activists from ukraine and the global community. menasource offers the latest news from across the middle east, combined with commentary by contributors, interviews with emerging players, multi media content, and independent analysis from fellows and staff. econographics provides an in depth look at trends in the global economy utilizing state of the art data visualization tools. ukrainealert march 2, 2024 by olivia yanchik with efforts to pass new us military aid to ukraine still stuck in congress, ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy recently singled out reinforcing the country’s air defenses as one of kyiv’s most pressing priorities. “the most important thing is to unblock the sky,” zelenskyy commented during a press event in kyiv to mark the second anniversary of russia’s full scale invasion on february 25. recent reports indicate that unless congress is able to break the current deadlock, ukraine will face potentially catastrophic shortages of ammunition and air defenses within weeks. meanwhile, russia is reportedly bolstering its own growing stockpiles with deliveries of ballistic missiles from iran. ukraine’s western partners have provided significant air defense capabilities over the past two years since the onset of russia’s invasion. this proved particularly crucial during the first winter of the war, when russia launched a sustained air offensive against ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure in an apparent bid to freeze the country into submission and force kyiv to surrender. despite improvements in ukraine’s air defenses, the country remains highly vulnerable to russian missile and drone attacks. while kyiv now has relatively strong air defense coverage, other major cities such as kharkiv, odesa, and zaporizhzhia are far less protected and regularly experience deadly bombardments. the most prized assets within ukraine’s patchwork air defenses are the patriot systems the country has received from international partners. the us military’s most advanced air defense system, patriot batteries are capable of shooting down nearly all of the missile types currently being used by russia to strike targets across ukraine. the ukrainian military has also reportedly deployed patriots in an innovative offensive capacity to shoot down russian war planes close to the front lines of the conflict. so far, ukraine has only received a handful of patriot systems. given their effectiveness, kyiv is understandably eager for more. speaking in late february, zelenskyy said the delivery of ten patriot systems would be enough to have a significant impact on the course of the war. he argued that this would allow ukraine to shield big cities and vital infrastructure while also defending the skies above the battlefield and potentially enabling ukrainian troops to break through fortified russian defensive lines. at the same time, there is recognition in kyiv and among the country’s partners that ukraine’s air defense challenges cannot be solved by more patriot systems alone. with individual missiles costing millions of dollars, the patriot system is not a cost effective option, especially when targets include waves of relatively cheap kamikaze drones that russia is receiving from iran and also producing domestically in increasingly large quantities. in order to counter russia’s growing aerial threat, ukraine’s partners must continue helping the ukrainian military establish a multi layered air defense network covering the entire country. this network should be designed with economic factors and supply sustainability in mind. it should also reflect the expanding variety of drones and missiles being deployed by the russians. russia’s most dangerous missiles, such as the kinzhal, are often deployed within larger bombardments that include a range of ballistic and cruise missiles alongside drones. these complex attacks are particularly challenging for ukrainian air defense units. “the most difficult is an attack by various types of aerial targets,” confirmed one kyiv air defense commander in summer 2023. ukraine’s international partners need to provide a range of additional air defense tools such as laser guided weapons that can help counter russia’s use of drones. us made hawk systems, which predate the patriot system, have also proven a valuable addition to ukraine’s air defense arsenal, as have gun trucks. a more diverse array of systems will enable ukrainian air defense units to target large numbers of incoming drones without depleting their own limited supplies of expensive interceptor missiles. providing ukraine with enhanced air defenses is essential for the country’s war effort. this will allow ukraine to defend its civilian population and vital infrastructure from russian attack, while also strengthening the country’s resilience and making it possible for business and everyday life to continue. this is critical if ukraine is to withstand the kremlin’s attrition tactics. with russia now reportedly receiving missiles from both iran and north korea, it is time for ukraine’s partners to step up their own deliveries of air defense systems and ammunition. olivia yanchik is a program assistant at the atlantic council’s eurasia center. ukrainealert feb 12, 2024 by peter dickinson vladimir putin turned his hotly anticipated interview with tucker carlson into a history lecture that laid bare the dangerous delusions and imperial ambitions driving the invasion of ukraine, writes peter dickinson. ukrainealert feb 22, 2024 by victoria vdovychenko, alexander khara ukraine is hoping a new campaign of long range drone strikes against russia’s strategically vital oil and gas industry can help weaken putin’s war machine, write victoria vdovychenko and alexander khara. ukrainealert feb 20, 2024 by mykola bielieskov as putin’s invasion passes the two year mark, tech savvy ukraine is betting on drones as the best way to overcome russia’s increasingly overwhelming advantage in traditional firepower, writes mykola bielieskov. the views expressed in ukrainealert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the atlantic council, its staff, or its supporters. ukrainealert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture. the eurasia center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in eurasia, from eastern europe and turkey in the west to the caucasus, russia and central asia in the east. image: rescuers work at a site of an apartment building heavily damaged by a russian drone strike, amid russia's attack on ukraine, in odesa, ukraine, in this handout picture released march 2, 2024. (press service of the operational command 'south'/handout via reuters) © 2025 atlantic councilall rights reserved. if refreshing the page doesn't resolve the issue you could try clearing the sites browser cache.

our programs and centers deliver in depth, highly relevant issue briefs and reports that break new ground, shift opinions, and set agendas on public policy, with a focus on advancing debates by integrating foundational research and analysis with concrete policy solutions. when major global news breaks, the atlantic council’s experts have you covered delivering their sharpest rapid insight and forward looking analysis direct to your inbox. new atlanticist is where top experts and policymakers at the atlantic council and beyond offer exclusive insight on the most pressing global challenges and the united states’ role in addressing them alongside its allies and partners. a weekly column by atlantic council president and ceo frederick kempe, inflection points focuses on the global challenges facing the united states and how to best address them. ukrainealert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture. ukrainealert sources analysis and commentary from a wide array of thought leaders, politicians, experts, and activists from ukraine and the global community. menasource offers the latest news from across the middle east, combined with commentary by contributors, interviews with emerging players, multi media content, and independent analysis from fellows and staff. econographics provides an in depth look at trends in the global economy utilizing state of the art data visualization tools. by jacob mezey the purpose and composition of the united states’ homeland and regional missile defenses has long been the subject of a divisive public debate. in 1973, just a year after the landmark anti ballistic missile (abm) treaty was signed, noted strategic forces scholars bernard and fawn brodie wrote that the “whole abm question touched off so intense and emotional a debate in this country as to be virtually without precedent on any issue of weaponry.1bernard brodie and fawn m. brodie, from crossbow to h bomb, rev. and enl. ed. (bloomington and indianapolis, in: indiana university press, 1973). this debate continued through the strategic defense initiative (sdi), the passage of the 1999 national missile defense act, the george w. bush administration’s subsequent withdrawal from the abm treaty, and has now received renewed attention in the recently released report of the congressional commission on the strategic posture of the united states.2madelyn r. creedon et al., america’s strategic posture: the final report of the congressional commission on the strategic posture of the united states, institute for defense analyses, october 2023, https://www.ida.org/research and publications/publications/all/a/am/americas strategic posture. the primary point of contention in this debate besides the cost and effectiveness of missile defense programs has been the reaction of the united states’ main nuclear armed strategic rivals, russia and china. critics have argued that us defenses against intercontinental ballistic missiles (icbms) and submarine launched ballistic missiles (slbms) could generate an arms race dynamic either by forcing adversaries to increase their nuclear arsenals or by engendering fears of a us preemptive first strike, which could indirectly create crises.3leah matchett, “debating missile defense: tracking the congressional record,” arms control association, march 2021, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021 03/features/debating missile defense tracking congressional record#endnote_bio. similar statements have been expressed by russian and chinese officials, who have leveraged complaints that us ballistic missile defenses undermine the efficacy of their states’ nuclear deterrents and therefore their security.4for a russian view see: “deputy foreign minister sergey ryabkov’s opening remarks at a briefing at the rossiya segodnya international information agency on arms control and strategic stability,” ministry of foreign affairs of the russian federation, february 11, 2021, https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1415641. for chinese responses see: jing dong yuan, “chinese responses to u.s. missile defenses: implications for arms control and regional security,” nonproliferation review, spring 2023, https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp content/uploads/npr/101yuan.pdf. this paper focuses on strategic ballistic missile defense (bmd), defined as systems of interceptors, sensors, and supporting infrastructure designed to defeat medium  to intercontinental  range ballistic missiles, especially those carrying nuclear warheads. this definition preferences medium range ballistic (mrbms), intermediate range ballistic missiles (irbms), and icbms, as opposed to short range ballistic missiles (srbms), cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) for several reasons. while these latter systems can certainly have strategic implications due to their range, precision, and ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, they can be defeated by far less sophisticated air defense systems which may not necessarily be designed specifically for a missile defense role. developing the capability to intercept long range ballistic missiles represents a far greater technical barrier and indicates a clearer interest in strategic defense by a given state. this paper will, however, address systems with limited capability against long range ballistic missiles as a technological steppingstone in strategic bmd. often missing from this debate is the context of russian and chinese efforts to develop their own strategic missile defense systems, their reasons for doing so, and the implications for us strategy. there is a need for more open source treatments of both countries’ missile defense programs, especially as their development has accelerated and even begun deployment in recent years.5one excellent recent treatment of the issue is conjoined papers in tong zhao and dmitry stefanovich, missile defense and the strategic relationship among the united states, russia, and china (cambridge, ma: american academy of arts and sciences, 2023). this research annex follows matthew r. costlow and robert m. soofer’s paper, us homeland missile defense: room for expanded roles, and seeks to inform debates about missile defense policy by placing arguments that us ballistic missile defenses are uniquely destabilizing in the context of efforts by russia and china to deploy similar systems.6matthew r. costlow and robert m. soofer, us homeland missile defense: room for expanded roles, atlantic council, november 2023, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp content/uploads/2023/11/costlow soofer homeland missile defense.pdf. this section outlines the historical missile defense programs of the soviet union, the current development by the russian federation, and the broader trends in russian thinking on missile defense. of particular note are the a 135 anti ballistic missile systems around moscow and new mobile missile defense systems such as the s 500. with regard to doctrine, russia orients its air and missile defense strategy around defeating a us led aerospace strike campaign that moscow believes could include a full spectrum of threats from aircraft to strategic missiles. the defense of the homeland against strategic air and missile attack has featured heavily in russian military planning and doctrine since the early cold war. this focus likely emerged from the experience of suffering massed german air attacks in world war 2 and continued into the twenty first century due to a perceived advantage of the united states in the air and space domains.7victor gobarev, “the early development of russia’s ballistic missile defense system,” journal of slavic military studies 14, no. 2 (2001): 29 48, https://doi.org/10.1080/13518040108430478. during the 1950s and 1960s, the union of soviet socialist republics (ussr) sought to defend its airspace against us strategic bombers by deploying hundreds of early generation surface to air (sam) missile batteries across its territory. later, with the advent of icbms, the ussr developed a missile defense system around moscow. the soviet union’s primary goals in developing strategic defenses were to protect party leadership, prevent a decapitation of nuclear command and control, and limit damage in a strategic exchange.8sayre stevens, “ballistic missile defense in the soviet union,” current history 84, no. 504 (1985): 313 316, https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.1985.84.504.313. it also likely saw a need to compete technologically with the united states for reputational reasons, especially after the highly public announcement of the sdi in 1983.9ibid. since 1991, following observation of us air campaigns, russian doctrine has emphasized the need to defend against complex threats in the air and space domain, especially a massed aircraft and missile attack by the united states and nato that would incapacitate russian military and civilian leadership.10michael kofman et al., russian military strategy: core tenets and operational concepts, cna, august 2021, 56, https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/russian military strategy core tenets and operational concepts.pdf. to integrate russia’s capabilities across these domains, then russian president dimitry medvedev authorized the creation of the aerospace defense forces in 2011, which was ultimately merged with the russian air force in 2015 to form the russian aerospace forces (vks). this move demonstrated the russian military’s focus on developing an integrated approach to a wide array of offensive long range strikes, including strategic nuclear attack, as well as conventional aircraft, cruise, and ballistic missile defense. russian military analysts often cite the us pursuit of concepts such as conventional prompt strike as indicative of the need to address strategic missile attacks across the nuclear and conventional spectrum.11mikhail n. kumakshev and aleksandr v. kravtsov, “противоракетная оборона как составляющая системы стратегического сдерживания российской федерации” [missile defense as a component of the strategic deterrent of the russian federation], военное мысль [military thought] 12 (december 2021): 21 26. the vks is organized into several “air force and air defense armies,” including both aviation and ground based elements, with one typically being subordinated to each military district of russia.12thomas withington, “defending mother russia’s skies,” rusi (royal united services institute), july 13, 2022, https://rusi.org/explore our research/publications/commentary/defending mother russias skies. these armies provide aerospace domain awareness to, and are coordinated by, military and political leadership through the national defense management center, which serves as the primary command and control center for the russian ministry of defense and general staff.13kofman et al., russian military strategy, 39. moscow’s thinking on missile defense prioritizes protecting russian leadership, critical command and control, and nuclear forces, with bmd capabilities being a critical component. in the russian defense ministry journal, военное мысль (military thought), mikhail n. kumakshev and aleksandr v. kravtsov write: “the main direction of further development of the про [missile defenses] of the russian federation is the creation of a layered system covering not only the high levels of leadership, but also the positions of the сяс [strategic nuclear forces].”14kumakshev and kravtsov, “противоракетная оборона.” furthermore, the russian ministry of defense has officially stated that: while this definition is expansive, the relative ordering of priorities is indicative of the weight placed on protecting civil military leadership. furthermore, the us department of defense assesses that “russia is developing a layered missile defense to enhance its anti access/area denial capabilities, preserve its nuclear deterrent, and ensure regime survival.”16us department of defense, “chinese and russian missile defense: strategies and capabilities,” 2020, https://media.defense.gov/2020/jul/28/2002466237/ 1/ 1/1/chinese_russian_missile_defense_fact_sheet.pdf. while defending political leadership and nuclear forces are clearly the primary roles for missile defenses, developing this technology may also have broader benefits from the perspective of the russian government. it may view its own development of bmd capabilities as necessary not only to keep pace with the united states and nato allies technologically, but also to defend against possible future contingencies involving iran, china, north korea, or even non state actors.17jana honkova, current developments in russia’s ballistic missile defense, george c. marshall institute, 2013, https://web.archive.org/web/20140426201121/httpc://missilethreat.wpengine.netdna cdn.com/wp content/uploads/2013/04/russian bmd april 13.pdf. the soviet union’s development of bmd began with the experimental “system a,” which was developed and tested between 1957 and 1961 at the sary shagan test site in soviet kazakhstan. this served as a proof of concept for the possibility of a missile defense system, and sary shagan continues to serve as the main test area for new missile defense technology.18victor gobarev, “the early development of russia’s ballistic missile defense system,” journal of slavic military studies 14, no. 2 (2001): 33, https://doi.org/10.1080/13518040108430478. the experiments with system a led to the deployment of the soviet union’s first early warning radar network. these also influenced the decision to develop the a 35 anti ballistic missile system designed to protect moscow over various other prospective bmd projects. the a 35 system became operational fitfully, with various phases being completed between 1967 and 1972; however, ultimately, it did not live up to the expectations of soviet leaders, helping spur the signing of the abm treaty.19ibid. in 1989, the a 35 system was upgraded and replaced with the a 135 system, which was based around the don 2n radar; sixty eight short range, endoatmospheric 53t6 “gazelle” interceptors; and sixteen 51t6 “gorgon” long range, exoatmospheric interceptors, both armed with nuclear warheads.20honkova, current developments. these warheads were likely enhanced radiation weapons, or neutron bombs, designed to use the radiation from their detonations to cause nearby incoming warheads to undergo partial fission and fail to detonate. in 1985, before the deployment of the a 135 system, soviet official vitalii leonidovich kataev described its capability as providing protection from “1 2 modern icbms and up to 35 pershing 2 type intermediate range missiles.”21pavel podvig, “very modest expectations: performance of moscow missile defense,” russian strategic nuclear forces (blog), october 23, 2012, https://russianforces.org/blog/2012/10/very_modest_expectations_sovie.shtml. kataev also described a planned a 235 follow on system, which would be effective against eight to twelve icbms. the use of enhanced radiation weapons for bmd suggests that this system was primarily for the protection of military and political leadership in the city’s center, given that these systems’ detonations could spread dangerous radiation across much of the countryside and outskirts of moscow itself.22jim garamone, “missile defense becomes part of great power competition,” dod news, july 28, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/news/news stories/article/article/2291331/missile defense becomes part of great power competition. in the 1980s, due to concern about the increasing accuracy of us icbms and intermediate range weapons, the soviet union also experimented with developing terminal defenses to increase the survivability of its missile silos. these terminal defenses involved launching a canister of metal balls or rods above the silos to disrupt an incoming reentry vehicle.“23окр мозырь/изделие 171/камчатская про” [r&d mozyr/product 171/kamchatka missile defense], militaryrussia, november 15, 2011, http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic 604.html; bdm federal inc., “soviet intentions 1965 1985 volume ii: soviet post cold war testimonial evidence,” national security archive, eds. john g. hines, ellis m. mishulovich, and john f. shull, george washington university, september 22, 1995, accessed august 4, 2023, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/vol%20ii%20kalashnikov.pdf. these projects, alternatively referred to as “sambo,” “mozyr,” or “active defense complex,” were cancelled after the fall of the soviet union in 1991, but there is some indication that the russian government may be considering resuming development of a similar capability.24alexey mikhailov and dmitry balburov, “последний рубеж про вооружат стрелами и шариками” [the last line of bmd will be armed with arrows and pellets], izvestia, december 11, 2012, https://iz.ru/news/541076. in the 1980s and 1990s, the soviet union, and later russia, also continued to upgrade its network of national sam sites, including deploying the s 300 (sa 10) air defense system, with some early versions having limited terminal defense capabilities against mrbms.25debiaso, “russia and missile defense.” one notable aspect of the soviet union’s and later russia’s approach to building missile defenses was a tendency to develop and deploy systems with initially relatively limited capabilities that could later be upgraded over time or abandoned if progress proved unfeasible.26stevens, “ballistic missile defense.” as discussed below, this pattern appears to hold true today, either by design or due to the capacity limitations of the russian defense industry. today, russia deploys several systems that can provide layered missile defense across its territory. the a 135 system deployed around moscow is currently russia’s only system designed specifically to defend against icbms. the system is based around the don 2n radar, which receives data from russia’s wider early warning system.27sean o’connor, russian/soviet anti ballistic missile systems, air power australia, december 12, 2009, updated april 2012, https://ausairpower.net/apa rus abm systems.html#moztocid700952. the don 2n provides targeting data for the sixty eight silo based 53t6 “gazelle” endoatmospheric interceptors, which are based at five sites around moscow. as noted previously, the system was originally composed of both endo  and exoatmospheric interceptors; however, the sixteen 51t6 “gorgon” exoatmospheric interceptors were retired between 2006 and 2007.28honkova, current developments. the gazelle interceptors were, until recently, equipped exclusively with nuclear warheads. as such, they likely suffered from the drawback that these warheads were stored separately from the missiles, reducing their readiness.29hans m. kristensen and matt korda, “russian nuclear weapons 2022,” bulletin of the atomic scientists 78, no. 2 (2022): 98 121, https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2022.2038907. the a 135 is operated by the 1st special purpose air and missile defense army of the vks, which is responsible for the air defense of the moscow region.30maxim starchak, “russia to upgrade moscow’s missile defenses by year’s end,” defensenews, march 29, 2023, https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/03/29/russia to upgrade moscows missile defenses by years end. according to interviews with col. andrei cheburin, the commander of the missile defense wing of the vks, and retired col. gen. viktor yesin, a former chief of russia’s strategic missile forces, russia is reportedly embarking on a process of overhauling the entire a 135 system.31vadim matveyev, “new missile defences being developed,” russia beyond, february 3, 2016, https://www.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/02/03/new missile defences being developed_564505. this redesigned system has been referred to as a 235 and, while it is unclear if this structure is still reflective of current russian planning, it was described as including three layers of defense: this plan also includes an upgrade of the don 2n radars and the elbrus 2 battle management computer associated with the system, as well as the activation of the razvyazka space monitoring radar.33starchak, “russia to upgrade.” in 2018, russia began deploying the short range missile envisioned in this plan, an upgraded version of the gazelle interceptors termed the prs 1m/53t6m, which can reportedly use either a conventional warhead or a nuclear one.34nikolay surkov and alexey ramm, “москва получит новую противоракетную защиту” [moscow to receive new missile defenses], izvestia, february 21, 2018, https://iz.ru/710845/nikolai surkov aleksei ramm/moskva poluchit novuiu protivoraketnuiu zashchitu. these missiles are reported to have the 350 km range described above and have either replaced the previous generation of interceptors or are deployed alongside them in the formerly mothballed 51t6 silos.35lukas andriukaitis, “#putinatwar: new russian anti ballistic missile,” digital forensic research lab, atlantic council, december 1, 2017, https://medium.com/dfrlab/putinatwar new russian anti ballistic missile 4a4194870e0d. if the range reported for these interceptors is to be believed, then they could provide some capability to defend the russian icbm sites of the 28th rocket division headquartered in kozelsk and 54th rocket division in teykovo (some 200 km southwest and northeast of moscow, respectively).36kristensen and korda, “russian nuclear.” russia is also reportedly still developing the long range exoatmospheric midcourse defense component of the a 235 system, which will be the successor to the 51t6.37garamone, “missile defense.” while it is unclear what systems will specifically fill that role, the pl 19 “nudol” direct ascent anti satellite (asat) weapon, which russia tested in november of 2021, may be the basis of the interceptor that will eventually fill that role.38ankit panda, “russia conducts new test of ‘nudol’ anti satellite system,” diplomat, april 2, 2018, https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/russia conducts new test of nudol anti satellite system/. in the 2021 test, the pl 19 impacted a defunct soviet satellite at an altitude of around 480 km, placing it within the described range for the a 235 exoatmospheric interceptor.39ankit panda, “the dangerous fallout of russia’s anti satellite missile test,” carnegie endowment for international peace, november 17, 2021, https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/11/17/dangerous fallout of russia s anti satellite missile test pub 85804. there is also evidence of a program for a midcourse interceptor referred to as “aerostat,” being developed by the same company, almaz antey, but with a different subcontractor than the pl 19.40bart hendrickx, “aerostat: a russian long range anti ballistic missile system with possible counterspace capabilities,” space review, october 11, 2021, https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4262/1. the other recent development in russian missile defenses is the first deployment of the s 500 missile system, which was delivered to the 1st special purpose air and missile defense army (tasked with the defense of the moscow area) in 2021.41“first regiment of s 500 air defense systems to defend moscow   source,” tass, october 12, 2021, https://tass.com/defense/1348691. the s 500 is russia’s latest mobile air and missile defense system, and is designed to target irbms, early warning aircraft, and satellites in low earth orbit.42“s 500 prometheus,” missile threat, missile defense project, center for strategic and international studies, july 1, 2021, https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/s 500 prometheus/. in february of 2024, the russian ministry of defense announced that it had successfully tested the weapon against a hypersonic target representative of an icbm reentry vehicle.43“вс рф протестировали с 500 на способность сбивать гиперзвуковые цели” [the russian armed forces tested the s 500’s ability to shoot down hypersonic targets], izvestia, february 27, 2024, https://iz.ru/1656259/2024 02 27/vs rf protestirovali s 500 na sposobnost sbivat giperzvukovye tceli. the system was previously tested at a range of 481 km and has a claimed flight ceiling of 100 200 km, which may indicate that it fills the medium range role envisioned for the a 235 project.44miko v. vranic, “russia begins series production of s 500 air defence system,” janes, april 27, 2022, https://www.janes.com/amp/russia begins series production of s 500 air defence system/znljk3dhvu9mz28xajrjvkc5dvi5vfp1cvmwpq2. as currently deployed, it will complement the a 135 system and, in the future, could provide regional terminal icbm defense across russia or form the basis of a future sea based missile defense capability.45yuri smityuk, “new generation missile destroyer under development in russia,” tass, october 21, 2014, https://web.archive.org/web/20141024041212/http://en.itar tass.com/russia/755539. the s 500 is designed to use the new 77n6 family of interceptors when engaging ballistic missiles that likely have a kinetic energy hit to kill warhead, which is more effective against ballistic missile targets than the blast fragmentation warheads of interceptors used by the s 400 and s 300 variants.46“s 500 prometheus,” missile threat; zhao and stefanovich, missile defense. however, the first operational version of the s 500 reportedly has reduced capabilities, and the further ten units which were slated for production in 2022 have not yet been delivered.47maxim starchak, “where is russia’s s 500 air defense system?” defense news, october 5, 2023, https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/10/05/where is russias s 500 air defense system/. members of the russian defense industry have already begun discussing a planned upgrade, the s 550, which will be solely optimized for missile defense and be more capable against icbms.48“источники раскрыли особенности новой зенитной ракетной системы с 550” [sources reveal features of new anti air missile system], риа новости [ria novosti], november 13, 2021, https://ria.ru/20211113/s 550 1758871100.html. despite setbacks to the s 500, there have been several proposals for a national mobile nonstrategic missile defense system composed of s 500s, s 400s, and s 300vms to protect cities and industrial centers from regional missile attacks.49zhao and stefanovich, missile defense. one other notable russian strategic capability is “peresvet,” a mobile, high powered laser system designed to blind imaging satellites in orbit. peresvet has been based near mobile icbm bases, such as the one at teykovo, suggesting that it is intended to inhibit targeting of those missiles.50bart hendrickx, “peresvet: a russian mobile laser system to dazzle enemy satellites,” space review, june 15, 2020, https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3967/1. peresvet could also potentially be used to prevent adversaries from tracking mobile bmd systems, like the s 500. russia fields a number of systems, including the s 400 as well as the s 300 pmu 2 and s 300vm variants, that have some capability against mrbms but are primarily designed to defend against airbreathing cruise missiles, aircraft, and srbms.51garamone, “missile defense.” the vks had an estimated 584 s 300 launchers of various types and over 248 s 400 launchers in inventory before the invasion of ukraine on february 24, 2022.52international institute for strategic studies, the military balance (london: routledge, 2022), 201. furthermore, the s 300f variant is integrated into many russian navy surface combatants, with newer ships being equipped with the “redut” air defense system that shares the same 9m96e interceptors with fragmentation warheads as the s 400.53honkova, current developments. the russian vks is also in the process of modernizing its space based early warning and ground based tracking capabilities. the current soviet era “oko” early warning satellite constellation is slated to be replaced by the единая космическая система (eks) [unified space system] often referred to as “kupol.” the system was planned to be completed by 2020; however, currently only six of the ten highly elliptical orbit “tundra” satellites for the constellation have been placed in orbit, and none of the planned geostationary satellites have been launched.54maxim starchak, “sanctions further delay russian missile early warning program in space,” defense news, march 12, 2023, https://www.defensenews.com/space/2023/03/12/sanctions further delay russian missile early warning program in space/https://www.defensenews.com/space/2023/03/12/sanctions further delay russian missile early warning program in space/. experts have attributed the lengthy timeline to production delays caused by sanctions and russia’s ongoing war in ukraine.55ibid. russia’s ground based radar modernization has fared better, with nine 77ya6 “voronezh” radar early warning and tracking sites having been constructed around russia’s borders and five 69ya6 “rezonans” radar systems deployed within the arctic circle specifically to monitor icbm launches.56naqi wasif, “hammer and shield: russia’s modernized radar and early warning systems,” janes, february 25, 2022, https://www.janes.com/defence news/news detail/hammer and shield russias modernised radar and early warning systems. in late may 2024, two voronezh radar sites were targeted in attacks by ukrainian uavs, raising concerns about potential escalation risks by some experts. 57james acton, “the united states should not further loosen its prohibition on ukraine’s using u.s. supplied weapons to strike russia,” carnegie endowment for international peace, june 6, 2024, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2024/06/ukraine prohibition us weapons strike russia?lang=en&center=india. one bottleneck in russia’s ability to produce advanced capabilities is the capacity of its defense industry, particularly almaz antey, which produces most of its air defense systems. almaz antey has struggled with meeting delivery dates and production quantities in the past, and it can only be assumed that these problems will increase due to export restrictions on critical components resulting from russia’s invasion of ukraine.58pavel luzin, “russia’s mystery of missile defense,” eurasia daily monitor 20, no. 49, 2023, https://jamestown.org/program/russias mystery of missile defense/. it is also worth noting that, following the invasion, ukraine has launched several attacks on the moscow region with various types of uavs. although these attacks were not officially acknowledged by the ukrainian government, they raise questions about the effectiveness of moscow’s air defenses against small, low flying targets. in march of 2023, then russian defense minister sergei shoigu announced that the air and missile defenses of moscow would be upgraded by the end of the year, likely referencing the threats of drones and cruise missiles, rather than ballistic missiles.59starchak, “russia to upgrade.” while relatively effective against ukrainian aircraft, russian tactical air and missile defense systems seem to have a mixed record in combat since russia’s february 2022 invasion. so far, russia has claimed interception of approximately a dozen ukrainian soviet era tochka u srbms; however, ukraine has also used the same missile for several successful strikes, including sinking a russian landing ship in the opening months of the war.60“russian air defenses intercept 8 tochka u, two s 200 missiles, 34 mlrs rockets,” tass, january 3, 2023, https://tass.com/russia/1729035; “russia salvages landing ship hit by ukraine missile fire,” bbc, july 2, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/world europe 62022476. more recently, ukraine has used us supplied army tactical missile system (atacms) srbms in several successful strikes, including a pair of attacks on airfields, which destroyed approximately fourteen russian helicopters.61elen mitchell, “14 russian helicopters likely destroyed by us provided atacms missiles in ukraine: uk intel,” the hill, october 20, 2023, https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4267375 russian helicopters lost to us atacms missiles ukraine/. russia has claimed to have shot down three us supplied atacms srbms in a coordinated strike; however, this claim has been disputed with evidence that some of the missiles reached their target.62stefan korshak, “kremlin claims it shot down atacms, other sources say the us weapons took out russian anti missile systems,” kyiv post, october 27, 2023, https://www.kyivpost.com/post/23353. regardless, russian effectiveness against atacms missiles will likely increase, even if slowly, over the course of the conflict, as russia trains air defense crews to address the threat.63“russian air defense forces practice intercepting atacms missiles, says general,” tass, november 2, 2023, https://tass.com/defense/1700647. despite a mixed record in ukraine and severe resource constraints due to sanctions, russia is moving to develop more advanced missile defense systems and modernize existing ones. key metrics for assessing russian progress will be further development of a midcourse interceptor, confirmation of a hit to kill capability for the existing moscow defense system, or wider deployment of the s 500. this section details the history of china’s development of missile defenses and its ongoing programs. given the relatively recent nature of china’s missile defense capabilities, this section assesses china’s possible motivations for developing strategic bmd rather than attempting to describe its doctrine. special attention is also paid to the overlap of china’s bmd development and its asat program. despite only recently beginning to deploy missile defenses, china’s interest in the technology dates back to the 1960s. in 1964, mao zedong ordered the commencement of project 640, an effort to develop the technology necessary for a bmd system, including research into kinetic kill vehicles, high powered lasers, as well as early warning and tracking radars.64brad roberts, china and ballistic missile defense: 1955 to 2002 and beyond, institute for defense analyses, 2003, https://nuke.fas.org/guide/china/doctrine/bmd.pdf. this research may have been prompted by observation of us and soviet missile defense developments, as well as a fear that the united states might consider a preemptive attack to eliminate china’s nascent nuclear deterrent.65william burr and jeffrey t. richelson, “whether to ‘strangle the baby in the cradle:’ the united states and the chinese nuclear program, 1960 64,” international security 25, no. 3 (winter 2000/01), https://doi.org/10.1162/016228800560525. early chinese nuclear planners were preoccupied with the survivability of their forces and the credibility of their retaliatory capabilities, a theme that would persist into the twenty first century.66wu riqiang, “no stability without limits on missile defense,” bulletin of the atomic scientists, september 24, 2014, https://thebulletin.org/roundtable_entry/no stability without limits on missile defense/. as will be discussed later, missile defense may be one possible solution to this survivability problem. project 640 was hampered by technological challenges and the upheaval of the cultural revolution and ultimately ended without deploying any operational systems.67roberts, china and ballistic missile defense. however, the project laid the groundwork for future chinese missile defense and asat capabilities. the announcement of the sdi by then us president ronald reagan in 1983 prompted renewed chinese research into missile defense, and particularly space based technology, under project 863 launched by then chinese president deng xiaoping.68qiang zhi and margaret m. pearson, “china’s hybrid adaptive bureaucracy: the case of the 863 program for science and technology,” governance: an international journal of policy, administration, and institutions 30, no. 3 (2017): 407 424, https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12245. from this point onward, chinese research of missile defense technology occurred in parallel with its development of counterspace capabilities designed to neutralize possible us space based defenses resulting from the sdi. in the 1990s and early 2000s, china repeatedly voiced opposition to us national missile defense development.69roberts, china and ballistic missile defense, 24 26. china was also outspokenly critical of us led theater missile defense projects in east asia, such as the sale of the patriot system to taiwan in 1997, participation of japan in the aegis bmd program in 2003, and the deployment of the terminal high altitude area defense (thaad) system to south korea in 2016, which china viewed as undermining its strategic deterrent and, potentially, its coercive leverage over taiwan.70roberts, china and ballistic missile defense, 20; marc r. devore, “off the radar? china, thaad and northeast asia’s alliances,” global asia 12, no. 3 (september 2017), https://www.globalasia.org/v12no3/feature/off the radar china thaad and northeast asias alliances_marc r devore. however, in the mid 1990s, the central military commission initiated a ten year program to develop an indigenous missile defense capability, including interceptors and early warning satellites.71mark a. stokes, “chinese ballistic missile forces in an age of global missile defense,” strategic studies institute, us army war college, 2002, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep11959.8.pdf. this development may have been spurred by chinese observation of the 1991 gulf war and the vulnerability of iraq to a coordinated us air and missile strike campaign.72roberts, china and ballistic missile defense, 22. at this time, china was heavily reliant on russia for advanced radars and air defense capabilities and purchased the s 300pmu in 1991 as well as the s 300f naval variant in 2002, which would form the basis of its own domestic production.73“hongqi 9 (hq 9),” claremont institute, may 6, 2006, https://web.archive.org/web/20060506100233/http:/missilethreat.com/systems/hq 9_china.html#note4. in 2001, china introduced the hq 9 sam system, which is derived from the s 300 and forms the basis for a family of chinese air and missile defense systems, including those with some limited capability against srbms and mrbms.74“hq 9/ 15 and rf 9 (hhq 9 and s 300) (china), defensive weapons,” jane’s strategic weapons systems, january 7, 2010, accessed august 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20120503102455/http://articles.janes.com/articles/janes strategic weapon systems/hq 915 and rf 9 hhq 9 and s 300 china.html. during the 2000s, china continued its development of asat weapons, including conducting a destructive direct ascent test in 2007 at an altitude of 863 km with an interceptor designated sc 19 by us intelligence and believed to be based on its df 21 mrbm.75brian weeden, “chinese anti satellite test fact sheet,” secure world foundation, updated november 23, 2010, https://swfound.org/media/9550/chinese_asat_fact_sheet_updated_2012.pdf. since then, china has continued to expand its asat capabilities and, in 2010, claimed to test a midcourse bmd interceptor, as will be further detailed below. china has also gained greater technology independence from russia over the last decade; however, it has continued to take advantage of russian technical experience and purchase russian designed systems. in 2014, china purchased the s 400, which began delivery in 2018.76franz stefan gady, “china makes progress in induction of second s 400 air defense system regiment,” diplomat, may 27, 2019, https://thediplomat.com/2019/05/china makes progress in induction of second s 400 air defense system regiment/. china also announced its cooperation with moscow on developing its space based early warning system which, as will be discussed later, has been at least partially successful.77dmitry stefanovich, “russia to help china develop an early warning system,” diplomat, october 25, 2019, https://thediplomat.com/2019/10/russia to help china develop an early warning system/. compared to sources on russian missile defense, there is less public information on chinese doctrine regarding missile defense; however, it is possible to draw some conclusions from the available evidence. china has strong incentives to develop nonstrategic air and missile defenses to help defend its airspace from hostile attack and allow it to project power into the pacific. however, china’s interest in strategic ballistic missile defense and its associated technologies likely stems from several related objectives. the list below relies heavily on research conducted by bruce w. macdonald and charles d. ferguson in 2015, for which they interviewed chinese experts and officials regarding various rationales for developing bmd.78bruce w. macdonald and charles d. ferguson, understanding the dragon shield: likelihood and implications of chinese strategic ballistic missile defense, federation of american scientists, september 30, 2015, 43, https://uploads.fas.org/2015/09/dragonshieldreport_final.pdf. the most likely drivers of china’s bmd development include: over the past decades, china has demonstrated a commitment to the development of asat systems, including kinetic interceptors, as a key part of its strategy for prevailing in a possible conflict with the united states.79office of the secretary of defense, military and security developments involving the people’s republic of china: 2023, annual report to congress, us department of defense, 2023, 98 99, https://media.defense.gov/2023/oct/19/2003323409/ 1/ 1/1/2023 military and security developments involving the peoples republic of china.pdf. the technology for kinetic asat weapons overlaps significantly with strategic bmd, as both capabilities involve intercepting high speed objects at various altitudes outside the earth’s atmosphere.80ashton b. carter, “the relationship of asat and bmd systems.” daedalus 114, no. 2 (spring 1985): 171 189, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024984. strategic bmd development may be a natural offshoot of china’s efforts to enhance its asat capability or an effort to gain additional utility from its research investments. however, chinese and russian destructive asat testing has drawn international condemnation and provided the united states an avenue to push for limitations and bans on such systems.81heather foye and gabriela rosa hernández, “un first committee calls for asat test ban,” arms control association, december 2022, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022 12/news/un first committee calls asat test ban. therefore, bmd may serve as a useful cover for tests of systems privately envisioned as having a primarily asat role. for example, in 2014, china conducted what it claimed was a missile interception test; however, the us department of state later assessed that it was intended as a test of an asat weapon.82frank a. rose, “ballistic missile defense and strategic stability in east asia,” remarks, federation of american scientists, washington, dc, february 20, 2015, https://2009 2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/2015/237746.htm. one result of china’s incentive to misrepresent is that it is difficult to categorize claimed chinese bmd tests or determine whether systems in development are primarily intended for bmd or asat roles. china may also be interested in strategic bmd as one solution to long standing concerns about its resilience to a first strike by the united states or russia and the growing sophistication of india’s nuclear arsenal. while a defense against the united states or russia would only be very limited for the foreseeable future, china may view it as beneficial for complicating a possible strike on beijing or its icbm silos.83macdonald and ferguson, understanding the dragon shield, 23 25. noted expert on chinese nuclear forces tong zhao has suggested that one explanation for the relatively dense arrangement of china’s newly constructed icbm silos could be to facilitate a possible area defense for those weapons.84tong zhao, “managing the impact of missile defense on u.s. china strategic stability,” in tong zhao and dmitry stefanovich, missile defense and the strategic relationship among the united states, russia, and china (cambridge, ma: american academy of arts and sciences, 2023), 11. other possible targets to be defended might include military command and control locations during an ongoing conflict or critical infrastructure, such as the three gorges dam.85wan yung kui, “can the chinese armed forces successfully protect the three gorges dam?” hong kong tangai, no. 31, october 15, 1993, 72 80, cited in roberts, china and ballistic missile defense. another driver of chinese interest in strategic bmd could be the increasing range and capability of indian ballistic missiles.86macdonald and ferguson, understanding the dragon shield, 24. in 2014, india deployed a small number of agni iii irbms capable of striking the majority of china and is developing an improved agni iv irbm with even greater range.87hans m. kristensen and matt korda, “indian nuclear weapons, 2022,” bulletin of the atomic scientists 78, no. 4 (2022): 224 236, https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2022.2087385. india also recently successfully tested its developmental agni v icbm with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles.88abdul moiz khan, “india’s agni v test: implications for regional strategic stability,” diplomat, march 18, 2024, https://thediplomat.com/2024/03/indias agni v test implications for regional strategic stability/. given increased tensions with india, it would be hard to believe that chinese decisionmakers are not concerned about the potential for india to hold any chinese target at risk with a new generation of ballistic missiles. however, india will likely deploy a far smaller number of delivery vehicles with nuclear warheads compared to the united states or russia, making a more comprehensive chinese bmd shield a potentially attractive goal. china may wish to develop strategic bmd as part of a broader technology development strategy beyond the immediate benefits of a bmd capability. given its outspoken concern over us missile defense capabilities on strategic stability and interest in defeating them, china may hope to gain a greater understanding of how bmd operations are conducted and the limitations of the technology through its own research and development.89macdonald and ferguson, understanding the dragon shield, 23. chinese experts have argued that, as long range strike missiles become increasingly sophisticated and proliferated, it is necessary for china to be competitive in all areas of advanced air and missile defense technology.90陈翔 [chen xiang], 董立勇 [dong liyong], and 于宁宇 [yu ningyu], “美军导弹防 御拦截武器发展趋势分析” [analysis of the development trend of u.s. military missile defense interceptor weapons], 军事文摘 [military digest], no. 23 (2020): 44 47. cited in zhao, “managing the impact.” as such, achieving an icbm midcourse intercept capability would be a strong signal of chinese military technology parity with the united states. finally, chinese development of the necessary sensor architecture for bmd could complement its interest in the capability to adopt a launch on warning (low) nuclear posture.91office of the secretary of defense, military and security developments, 112. the ability to detect and accurately characterize an incoming missile attack is a necessary prerequisite of both a low posture and a strategic bmd capability. as noted below, china is actively expanding its number of ground based large, phased array radars and has recently launched satellites for missile detection. in macdonald and ferguson’s study, they noted that “a chinese move to deploy early warning satellites would be a significant indicator of greater interest in bmd deployment.”92macdonald and ferguson, understanding the dragon shield, 4. if china does choose to deploy strategic bmd, it will be notable which people’s liberation army (pla) branch is responsible for its operation. the most likely candidates are the pla strategic support force, which is responsible for counterspace capabilities, or the pla air force, which operates china’s ground based air defense.93office of the secretary of defense, military and security developments. since 2010, china has been actively developing a ground based midcourse interceptor, with the first tests occurring in 2010, 2013, and 2014. while these early tests may have been primarily oriented around asat capabilities, china’s latest interceptor, designated the dong neng 3 (dn 3), has undergone recent successful bmd tests in 2018, 2021, and 2023.94“china says conducted mid course missile interception test,” ap, april 15, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/china interceptor missile test defense c77ae53a43f5e74bc48c4be45e46af80. the dn 3 is a hit to kill interceptor that has been used to intercept a target df 21 mrbm and has been compared to the us standard missile 3.95ankit panda, “revealed: the details of china’s latest hit to kill interceptor test,” diplomat, february 21, 2018, https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/revealed the details of chinas latest hit to kill interceptor test/. it has yet to be tested against an icbm class target, but the us department of defense assesses that the dn 3 will “form the upper layer of a multi tiered missile defense.”96office of the secretary of defense, military and security developments. the dn 3 may be a variant of earlier chinese asat weapons, iterations of which have been occasionally referred to as dn 1 and dn 2.97jennifer dimascio, “china may have operational asat program, reports say,” aviation week, march 31, 2020, https://aviationweek.com/shows events/space symposium/china may have operational asat program reports say. china has also tested the hq 19, a kinetic interceptor derived from the hq 9, which has the capability to intercept ballistic missiles with a range of 3,000 km in their midcourse and terminal flight stage and has been called “roughly analogous to the us [thaad] system.”98phillip c. saunders, “testimony before the u.s. china economic and security review commission hearing on china’s nuclear forces,” june 10, 2021, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2021 06/phillip_saunders_testimony.pdf. the hq 19 has not yet publicly been deployed and is presumed not to have the capability to defeat an icbm class target; however, it could possibly be adapted to do so in the future. 99hans m. kristensen, matt korda, and eliana johns, “chinese nuclear weapons, 2023,” bulletin of the atomic scientists 79, no. 2 (2023): 108 133, https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2023.2178713. notably, china has also expressed interest in purchasing the s 500 system from russia, which would likely be complementary to the hq 19.100“india, china may be first buyers of russia’s latest s 500 air defense system,” tass, november 2, 2021, https://tass.com/defense/1356905. furthermore, the people’s liberation army navy (plan) is reportedly planning to develop the hq 26, a midcourse interceptor designed to defend against irbms, which will eventually be installed on its type 055 destroyers.101thomas corbett and peter w. singer, “china’s big new warship is missing an important new weapon,” defense one, january 23, 2023, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2023/01/chinas big new warship missing important new weapon/382082/. these systems are complemented by china’s arsenal of sams, primarily designed to defeat aircraft and cruise missiles but with residual srbm defense capability. china has deployed the hq 9 to contested islands in the south china sea and has developed a naval variant, which is integrated into a number of plan surface ships.102jenevieve molenda, “chinese hq 9 sams no longer visible on woody island,” missile threat, missile defense project, center for strategic and international studies, updated june 15, 2018, https://missilethreat.csis.org/chinese hq 9 sams no longer visible on woody island/. finally, china also fields a number of russian sam systems with capabilities to defend against srbms, including the s 300 pmu 2 and the s 400.103gady, “china makes progress.” china’s lack of early warning sensors represents the largest gap in its missile defense architecture.104justin bronk, modern russian and chinese integrated air defence systems: the nature of the threat, growth trajectory and western options, royal united services institute, 2020, https://static.rusi.org/20191118_iads_bronk_web_final.pdf. to fill this gap, china is undertaking several initiatives. as noted previously, russia has signaled that it may aid china in developing satellites for ballistic missile launch detection. this partnership seems to have been successful as the us department of defense assesses that “as of 2022, [china] likely has at least three early warning satellites in orbit.”105office of the secretary of defense, military and security developments. china is also building additional ground based large phased array radars to provide coverage of japan, russia, and the korean peninsula, as well as for space observation.106mike yeo, “new chinese radar looks toward japan, satellite image shows,” defense news, april 18, 2022, https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia pacific/2022/04/18/new chinese radar looks towards japan satellite image shows/. finally, the plan plans to develop a new naval radar system to be integrated into its surface combatants that could support a sea based bmd capability.107stephen chen, “china is building the most powerful warship radar on record: scientists,” south china morning post, june 7, 2023, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3223091/china building most powerful warship radar record scientists. china is moving quickly to develop various types of missile defense technology including strategic bmd. the defining feature of its bmd development, however, is its overlap with asat testing, an area which likely is a greater priority than missile defense.108macdonald and ferguson, understanding the dragon shield, 23. one of the key enablers of china’s progress is its ability to rely on russian technology and expertise both in developing its interceptors and sensor architecture. while china has made large strides in exoatmospheric interception with hit to kill technology, it still has to develop a robust sensing and data processing system as well as trained personnel to create a true capability. the united states’ bmd capabilities remain more advanced than those of russia or china. while both russia and china are developing the capabilities for midcourse interception of icbms, only the united states deploys both the interceptors and sensors to achieve a degree of bmd coverage over its entire territory in the form of the ground based midcourse defense (gmd) system. furthermore, only the united states maintains a sea based midcourse defense and missile tracking capability through the aegis bmd system. both russia and china, however, are actively pursuing parity. china’s midcourse interception capability is being actively tested and russia has development plans for a similar system. both countries also aim to match the us thaad system with the russian s 500 system and chinese hq 19 designed for high altitude terminal defense. the united states, russia, and china are also all carrying out programs to update their early warning and tracking capabilities. the united states is embarking on an ambitious plan to modernize its space based tracking for a wide variety of threats, such as hypersonic glide vehicles.109masao dahlgren and tom karako, getting on track: space and airborne sensors for hypersonic missile defense, center for strategic and international studies, 2023, https://www.csis.org/analysis/getting track space and airborne sensors hypersonic missile defense. russia is also recapitalizing its space based early warning satellites and ground based radars but faces serious resource and sanction constraints. china is moving quickly to improve its early warning system but is still far from a comprehensive architecture. the united states, unlike russia and china, does not deploy significant ground based defenses on its homeland territory, aside from the gmd system. other than a thaad deployment on guam and cruise missile defense of the national capital area, the united states typically does not deploy terminal defenses near domestic military facilities or critical infrastructure.110trevor wild, “thaad battery in guam successfully completes table viii evaluation,” us army, march 21, 2024, https://www.army.mil/article/274693/thaad_battery_in_guam_successfully_completes_table_viii_evaluation. in contrast, both russia and china deploy a larger number and wider variety of ground based area air and missile defense systems than the united states. russia has deployed the s 400 and s 300 systems at military facilities, including those in kaliningrad, belarus, crimea, and the arctic circle. china deploys several varieties of air and missile defense systems around beijing and near military facilities, including basing the hq 9 at its contested border with india and on artificial islands in the south china sea.111molenda, “chinese hq 9 sams.” ground based air defenses remain central to russian and chinese military thought. unlike the united states, russia and china have historically relied on sams for homeland defense. russia and china have clear incentives to develop advanced nonstrategic air and missile defenses systems such as the s 400 and hq 9. these systems are primarily aimed at denying the united states and its allies and partners the ability to operate aircraft or launch cruise missiles near russian or chinese territory.112kofman et al., russian military strategy. as the united states begins to develop longer range conventional ballistic missiles over the next decade, such as the precision strike missile, the ability of russian and chinese systems to defeat these threats will become increasingly operationally relevant. furthermore, russia and china likely view us conventional precision strike capabilities as having strategic deterrence implications. the united states has previously signaled that it would consider responding to limited nuclear escalation with a massed conventional precision strike campaign.113edward helmore, “petraeus: us would destroy russia’s troops if putin uses nuclear weapons in ukraine,” guardian, october 2, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us russia putin ukraine war david petraeus; matthew kroenig, “memo to the president: how to deter russian nuclear use in ukraine and respond if deterrence fails,” atlantic council, october 2, 2022, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content series/memo to the president/memo to the president how to deter russian nuclear use in ukraine and respond if deterrence fails/. russia and china may fear that, under various scenarios, us conventional munitions could be used to target their political and military leadership, command and control systems, and/or nuclear forces.114office of the secretary of defense, military and security developments involving the people’s republic of china: 2022, annual report to congress, us department of defense, 2022, 158, https://media.defense.gov/2022/nov/29/2003122279/ 1/ 1/1/2022 military and security developments involving the peoples republic of china.pdf. therefore, systems that might be referred to as nonstrategic or tactical could have strategic significance. russia and china share many motivations for developing strategic bmd systems but emphasize different applications in their approach. russia’s a 135 system defense of moscow likely has the primary goals of providing a degree of protection for political and military leadership in case of nuclear attack and also complicating us targeting of the moscow region. however, if the system’s planned modernization is completed, it could also provide a degree of defense for several russian icbm bases in the region. furthermore, systems like peresvet and the s 500 can serve as protection for mobile icbms. these capabilities coincide with the overarching program of nuclear modernization which russia has undertaken to increase the survivability and effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent. china may also see a role for strategic bmd in defending its strategic forces and political leadership. china’s pursuit of the capability is intertwined with its development of sophisticated asat capabilities. china may frequently label tests of asats as bmd efforts. russia’s pl 19 nudol system has also been referred to as both an asat and bmd system. in fact, most exoatmospheric missile defense systems are at least theoretically usable as asat weapons, although the reverse is not always true. this dual functionality likely makes these systems a more attractive investment for russia and china. the most troubling possible use case of missile defenses for russia and china is to provide a backstop to nuclear aggression against the united states or its allies and partners. while this option is not discussed in russian or chinese doctrine, in a conflict, either country might consider using nuclear weapons in a limited manner to coerce war termination and rely on missile defenses to deny a proportionately limited us response. in this case, russia or china would gamble that the united states would be unwilling to consider a response that would be guaranteed to overcome any missile defenses as doing so would require using a large enough number of weapons to risk provoking a strategic exchange.115ottawa sanders, mark massa, and alyxandra marine, the impact of the evolving sino russian relationship on chinese military modernization and the implications for deterrence in the indo pacific, atlantic council, (unpublished manuscript, 2022). on a positive note, russian and chinese development of limited missile defenses could also produce stabilizing effects and create opportunities for arms control agreements. when developing plans for missile defense capabilities, the defender is forced to consider the lowest possible efficacy of their system while the attacker is forced to plan for the highest possible level in order to create a worst case scenario assessment.116macdonald and ferguson, understanding the dragon shield, 16 17. this means that the attacker may be deterred from conducting a limited strike, for fear it would fail, even while the defender might not be fully confident they could defeat it. this condition could contribute to strategic stability by disincentivizing either side to take provocative actions. this effect primarily applies to a limited system, as opposed to an effort to create a comprehensive defense, as the attacker still has recourse to an overwhelming strike to maintain its deterrent. to the extent that limited missile defenses can reassure russian and chinese leaders that they need not fear a decapitating first strike by the united states, they could support crisis stability and reduce the need for russia and china to expand the size of their nuclear arsenals to ensure survivability. furthermore, a more robust understanding of missile defense capabilities could moderate russian and chinese fears of us missile defense systems, such as their claim that us sm 3 missiles could intercept their icbms. finally, a demonstrated russian or chinese strategic bmd could reopen avenues for arms control negotiations on missile defense or strategic forces more broadly. the united states has not been willing in the past to put its own missile defense capabilities on the negotiating table, but, as the united states would have an interest in limiting deployment by russia or china, it might be possible for all three parties to reach a reciprocal agreement. in conclusion, both russia and china have far greater missile defense capabilities and ongoing development programs than are often acknowledged and are pursuing closer parity with the united states. bmd will likely become a feature of the strategic relationship between the three countries, which could have both positive and negative implications for us national security. understanding russian and chinese reasons for developing this capability can yield insights into their broader defense priorities. former staff former program assistant forward defense scowcroft center for strategy and security forward defense, housed within the scowcroft center for strategy and security, generates ideas and connects stakeholders in the defense ecosystem to promote an enduring military advantage for the united states, its allies, and partners. our work identifies the defense strategies, capabilities, and resources the united states needs to deter and, if necessary, prevail in future conflict. image: a hq 9 sam system, the basis of the chinese air and missile defense systems, displayed at china’s 60th anniversary parade in 2009. source: jian kang © 2025 atlantic councilall rights reserved. if refreshing the page doesn't resolve the issue you could try clearing the sites browser cache.

a family of autonomous systems, powered by lattice, that provides integrated, persistent awareness and security across land, sea and air    all at the tactical edge. autonomous air systems that are tasked, connected and controlled by lattice. together, they enable a variety of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission profiles. most reliable and flexible auvs, tailor made for littoral and deep water survey, inspection & isr, applicable to a wide range of defense and commercial mission sets. anduril is a full service, high volume merchant supplier of conventional and next generation rocket motors. thinkers and doers working interdependently. we bring the brightest minds and best in class talent together with veterans who have lived the problems of our warfighters.

we’re sorry, this site is currently experiencing technical difficulties. please try again in a few moments. reference id:
russia ukraine war supported by the system is one of the best air defense weapons, but the united states and its allies have a limited supply. by helene coopereric schmittedward wong and julian e. barnes reporting from washington president biden has approved the deployment of another patriot missile system to ukraine, senior administration and military officials said, as the country struggles to fend off russian attacks on its cities, infrastructure and electrical grid. mr. biden’s decision came last week, the officials said, after a series of high level meetings and an internal debate over how to meet ukraine’s pressing needs for bolstered air defenses without jeopardizing u.s. combat readiness. the new patriot system   the second that the united states has sent to ukraine   will come from poland, where it has been protecting a rotational force of american troops who will be returning to the united states, officials said. the system could be deployed to ukraine’s front lines in the next several days, u.s. officials said, depending on any maintenance or modifications it needs. considered one of the united states’ best air defense weapons, the patriot includes a powerful radar system and mobile launchers that fire missiles at incoming projectiles. it is also one of the scarcest weapons systems in the u.s. arsenal. pentagon officials refuse to disclose how many it has, but one senior military official said that the army has deployed only 14 of them, in the united states and around the world. american allies also have patriots, and two of those nations have sent a couple to ukraine, but u.s. officials say they hope european powers will send more.

photo: bulent kilic/afp via getty images critical questions by mark f. cancian and tom karako published december 16, 2022 press reports indicate that the united states is in the final stages of planning to send a patriot battery to ukraine. this would constitute both a strong statement of u.s. commitment to defend ukraine and a modest improvement in ukrainian air defense capability and capacity. at the same time, the move raises several questions, including the need for extensive training, the prospects for long term sustainment of the unit, and the short  and long term effects of the effort on u.s. air defense capacity and readiness. furthermore, patriot will not be a game changer, being limited by the area it can cover, the single unit being deployed, and the high cost of its interceptors. q1: what is patriot? a1: first deployed in the 1980s, patriot has become the u.s. army’s air and missile defense workhorse, a key element of u.s. power projection, and a premier symbol of u.s. commitment to allies and partners. more than a particular missile interceptor, patriot comprises a family of elements, including command and control units, radars, a family of interceptors, and other support equipment. today, 18 nations currently operate or plan to soon acquire patriot. ukraine would grow that number to 19. the word patriot is an acronym for phased array tracking radar for intercept on target, the name given during the 1976 bicentennial to what was formerly known as sam d. that program’s genesis dates back to the 1960s, as part of efforts to replace or supplement the hawk and nike hercules air defense systems. older patriot missiles designed for air defense were rushed into combat in desert storm as a strategic asset, although the effectiveness against iraq’s scud missiles has been the object of considerable dispute. the follow on efforts in the 1990s resulted in the patriot advanced capability (pac) to better defeat theater ballistic missiles.