Talk:MIM-104 Patriot

message: A brief explanation of the differing "success rates" of the system
The outgoing to incoming missile count is not 1 to 1. If your job is to defend an area against a threat (aircraft or missile) you’re not just going to fire one shot. At the speeds that missiles travel if the first misses you may not get a second chance. During the war an average of 4 patriots were fired at every scud. Even if every scud is destroyed, a 100% kill rate, the accuracy is only 25%. In addition the patriots used in the first gulf were proximity devices (go up next to the target and explode). Sometimes the scud warhead would survive and fall into populated or troop areas. Concerned at the threat of chemical or bio agents additional missiles were fired at the falling warhead (a much smaller radar target) this additionally lowers the accuracy.
--Mitrebox 23:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Patriot Success Rate

message: Standardise on the use of scud, Scud or SCUD. The report on the Dhuran error I just read used "Scud".
:As well as correcting typos (many of which I introduced last edit!)... I've converted all the scud/SCUD to Scud. I'm not sure whether Scud or SCUD is correct, but at least it's consistent now. Motor 12:03, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Section: Psychological effects of the system
This small section seems very weak.
Section: Usage during the 2003 invasion of Iraq
The words "it was claimed" are not very clear about who made this claim
Section: Patriot upgrades
:As of 2002, Israel currently uses the Patriot as part of a two-tier anti-ballistic missile defense system, with the Arrow missile in the role of high-altitude interceptor and the Patriot for point defense.  Patriots are deployed around Israel's nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons assembly point at Dimona.
Is this still true? Motor 17:28, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Section The Patriot Guided Missile 
"There are a total of eight different variants of Patriot missiles: Standard, ASOJ/SOJC, PAC-2, PAC-2 GEM, GEM/C, GEM/T (or GEM+), and PAC-3" There's a ninth variant called the Analog, which preceded the Digital missile. Both are commonly referred to as Standard. The Analog missile has only been in the US inventory, but is no longer in use. The Digital missile is still in use outside of the US. The PAC-2 is usually referred to as ATM (anti tactical missile) and the PAC-2 GEM just as GEM.--jirnsum 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested improvements

message: acronym or backronym? Ojw 15:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: If Israel counter-attacked I don't think saddam thought it would cause the arab members of the coalition to suddenly switch side and ally with Iraq, I think he just wanted them to withdraw which would cause the allies to lose crucial support.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 11:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: good point  Historian932 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of attacking israel 

message: As of Nov 05, the plan is that both will operate on the same battlefield along with THAAD until at least 2030, or until we get lasers or something like that.  MEADS is not designed to replace PATRIOT, especially in a tactical sense.
A.R. 12:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that MEADS and PATRIOT will work together, but isn't the THAAD Project dead?--BohicaTwentyTwo 17:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PATRIOT will not be replaced by MEADS 

message: I completely redid the "upgrade" section.  It is correct now. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duckhunter6424 (talk • contribs) .
:Thanks so much for your knowledgeable, detailed contributions. It is greatly appreciated. Joema 14:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Upgrade" section redone 

message: Whew, that took a while.  This article is now factually correct, within the limits of security classifications.  Also added plenty of additional information on the Patriot equipment and its engagement procedures.  
I'm sure there are some typos and poor wordings in there, so have at it.
Duckhunter6424 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for the time and effort. Wikipedia and all readers will benefit. If only all editors were equally focused on substantive contributions. Joema 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made article much more thorough.  Described system equipment in much greater detail and edited some incorrect information. 

message: Uh...yeah.  I don't even know where to start with that.  Editing back to the way it was before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.178.6.3 (talk • contribs) .
Uh ... yeah. Then given that NATO acknowledged that to be true since they've seen the S-300 systems of the Slovak Army perhaps you should not have started and left it the way it was.
And while on the topic I find it interesting that you epigons of NPOV have this sentence
This gives the radar an unmatched ability to detect small, fast targets like ballistic missiles, or low radar cross section targets such as stealth aircraft or cruise missiles.
Meanwhile there is revert war on the S-400 page where the same claim is made. The reasoning given there for removing it is that the S-400 has not intercepted any stealth aircraft. Care to list the stealth aircraft intercepted by this system? I don't care whether the claim stays or goes on both entries, but there should be consistency. kovesp (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  S-300/400..."superior"? 

message: I removed this statement for two reasons: (1) cannot possibly be true (2) citation needed to corroborate: "(and the most expensive, at over $3 million each - including develpoment costs- or a missile unit cost of approximately 1.5 milion)"
It's virtually certain the  Nike Sprint and  Spartan missiles were much more expensive than Patriot, esp if including development costs. The currently operational  US National Missile Defense GMD missiles are more expensive without a doubt. Re current Tactical ballistic missile interceptors, I think the Navy SM-3 costs over $3 million each. Joema 14:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most expensive interceptor statement 

message: At what point should we use "PATRIOT" and at what should we use "Patriot"? --Kitabparast 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PATRIOT vs. Patriot 

message: there seems to be some confusion about whether or not South Korea uses the PATRIOT Missile. At the moment, they do not. They are negotiating buying PAC-3 missiles from the US, but the do not have the system in use right now. According to Duckhunter6424 "South Korea has operated Patriot for many years. They are currently negotiating for PAC-3 systems (or more PAC-2 interceptors, one or the othe).". Look [here] for a short article on their efforts to procure the system. The [Raytheon product page] doesn't list Spain as a customer, but this is probably because they've only entered the program last year. jirnsum 18:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries that have Patriot in use

message: Replaced: Missile Section Enhancement with Missile Segment Enhancement, which is the correct name source
Deleted the line "The upgrade is similar to the GEM+T/C upgrade, in that it consists of a body redesign and subsequent replacement of the PAC-3 interceptor. " The GEM+T/C upgrade is completely different than the MSE upgrade. The next line of the article even illustrates this: "The upgrade includes a new fin design and a new, more powerful rocket motor". The GEM+T/C upgrade involves upgrading of the forebody internal systems, not the rocket motor, nor the aerodynamic controls. Also I doubt the MSE will replace the Baseline and CRI missiles in the stockpile: they will be added to them.
jirnsum 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Future

message: What's the range of the Patriot? I think it's kind of an important bit of information.
Tullie 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: 70km for the early variants, somewhere over that for PAC-2 (but <150-160) and about ~15km for PAC-3 are the most commonly cited. Long answer to follow. Kazuaki Shimazaki 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, a target that's closing at a moderate speed (relative to the maximum engagement speed of the system in question) will be threatened at a larger range compared to a loitering aircraft - the closure rate allows the missile to fly a shorter distance. You are otherwise correct in saying target range is variable, but I think it won't hurt to include the brochure ranges with the understanding that they are such. At least the situation isn't as bad as with a AAM, in which the range depends on the target and your own speed, aspect and altitude. Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the minimum range at which the Patriot can intercept a target? Lklundin (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um... range? 

message: If AESA technology is already available, it does not make sense for the system to use an outdated passive electronically scanned array.--Arado 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AESA is a fairly new technology, and the Patriot system isn't. Unless they have spent the money to upgrade it, why would it being using the newer tech? --OuroborosCobra 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing about the military, they are fairly conservative when it comes to upgrading it's equipment.  With the large number of PATRIOT systems already employed, it would be a huge budget strain to upgrade all of the RADAR systems.  Not only do you have to figure the cost of the RADAR itself, but the cost to re-program the missiles, change hardware on the individual missiles themselves, and retrain the 14E (PATRIOT Missile Radar Operators).  The Operator course itself is almost a year long all by itself.  The PAC-3 was first tested in 1994, but because of cost it is employed in less then half of the PATRIOT batteries.  75.211.202.129 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radar 

message: Could the "Patriot Arrow" in Robin Hood: Men in Tights be a valid point to put on the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardkselby (talk • contribs) 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They could watch the movie. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If they haven't watched to movie, I doubt they are going to look up here to see whether it was a reference or not. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not IMDB; go there for this kind of crap. Someone looking at an article for a military Surface-to-Air missile system is not expecting nor should they expect references to some irrelevant comedy. Come on now people. 99.173.63.38 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References in Pop Culture

message: In 2001 Taiwan was offered 6 PAC-3 batteries - how many launch stations would that be per battery? What I'm talking about when I say "launch station" is the quad-launcher carried on the back of every trailer, such as you can see in the first three pictures on the article. John Smith's (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Patriot "battery"

message: Contrary to the misinformation provided by a number of internet warriors, the PAC-3 interceptor does in fact have a warhead.  It is referred to as a "lethality enhancer", and it is a pseduo-proximity fused device (meaning it detonates based off of calculations from the active seeker) that is used only in anti-aircraft engagements.  In ballistic missile engagements, the interceptor is of course hit to kill, and the LE is not necessary.
Duckhunter6424 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PAC-3 "warhead" confusion.

message: If you look carefully at this photograph you will notice that the RADAR vehicle in the foreground is spliced with the missile unit in the background.  I'm not entirely sure what is going on here.
Agreed, the picture is clearly altered and should be removed and replaced with a non-altered one.  It's not just that the people's faces are blurred, this appears to be usage of the clone tool.  I don't know the wiki policy on this, but I'm certain a better picture could be easily found.Rpm5099 (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something wrong with picture "A detailed view of an AN/MPQ-53" 

message: I am looking for information on US Army National Guard PATRIOT units.  Please add info here and on my talk page so I can update this article.(I'm active duty with a Patriot brigade) Lyta79 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: US National Guard Patriot Units

message: Earlier today (21.12.2011) A cargo ship (Thor liberty) was impounded in Kotka harbor - Finland for containing 69 patriot missiles classified as "fireworks". These missiles were signed to a (yet unspecified) South Korean lieutenant colonel and were seized by the Finnish Defense Force. 
As this is more like a developing news story i don't think it has yet a place in the main article, but it would be good to mention it here on the talk page as south Korea is not on the list of patriot customers (except for 2nd hand) and the arms smuggling is highly suspicious activity on this scale. --83.150.124.31 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Finland's confiscation of Patriot shipment from the article. The missiles have been released and the ship has left Finland after the missing armament shipping permission was granted.   MKFI (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted patriot missile smuggling to south korea

message: The end of this particular section (~last nine lines) is in dire need of a rewrite including spelling corrections and citations. There may also be some POV mixed in. --IcyEd (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriot in Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) 

message: What does MIM stand for? --217.82.188.164 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mobile Launched Interceptor Missile. I guess MLIM didnt sound so good, so they cut it to MIM. I got that from a list of US military acronyms. The MIM-23 Hawk had the MIM acronym too, so I assume it dates from the 50s. Irondome (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does MIM stand for? 

message: The missiles deployed for the Syrian crisis in Turkey are American, Dutch and German systems owned and operated by those armed forces. Merely being placed in another country does not that them an operator as well. I've checked both your sources, Raytheon and US government sources, none of which mention Turkey being an operator. PraetorianD 12:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US and European Patriot missiles in Turkey. 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: maybe you're right if you do not want to accept external sources.
but always depends on the distance of interception target speed))))))))))))) and there is nothing to think ......
Can shoot down ballistic missiles with a flight range of up to 1,000 km. http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/patriot-pac-1-pac-2-pac-3/  pac-3 15km pac-3mse 22km  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of taking the bait, I don't understand what point you are trying to make. http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/sites/default/files/missile/c300v/s-300vm-envel.jpg supposedly shows the flight envelope of S-300. What does that have to do with this article? --Dual Freq (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Ahh ok I see now. Well at least the first link actually adresses Patriot, and in a detailed and sober fashion. The second link does not look good.. The point is, is rbase sufficiently RS? Irondome (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are fluent in English. Source http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/erint/erint.shtml directly has a web link -> *Federation of American Scientists* -> http://www.fas.org/ 
You can check the source http://www.fas.org/ ??? Is there a figure in 1000 ??? For example here in the site, I could not find http://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/patriot.htm89.105.158.243 (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Ok, I think you are saying that it should be mentioned that Patriot is part of a multi-layered missile defence system if words to that effect are not already in mainspace. That would provide a good source for including that short assertion, which has been mentioned in many sources. The U.S - I.D.F joint missile defence exercises, the largest in 2013 I think -  drilled with Arrow (Israeli missile), Patriot, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System and THAAD, integrating all the systems successfully in simulated interceptions of various threats. It would seem that 5 countries have this multi-layered defence system in various stages of completion. Irondome (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  an shoot down ballistic missiles with a flight range of up to 1,000 km 

message: "the changes weakened the missile and made it unstable during flight, creating a tendency for the SCUD to break up upon re-entering the atmosphere". Since when SCUDs leave the atmosphere? They are tactical missiles. They don't go to outer space. This should be corrected. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They are ballistic missiles. They reach an altitude of 150 km, above the Kármán line of 100 km. Whether their application is tactical or not, they reach space. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCUDs re-entering atmosphere? 

message: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/11553975/Poland-to-buy-US-Patriot-missiles-as-it-keeps-wary-eye-on-Russian-expansion.html
Sweden is looking into ASTER or Patriot since they need a replacement for HAWK like yesterday.
http://www.svd.se/patriotmissiler-for-miljarder-kan-bli-sveriges-nya-luftvarn/om/det-skarpta-sakerhetslaget  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.66.100.152 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user Patriot  

message: Does anyone have a reliable source, preferably in English, that indicates Morocco has Patriot? --Dual Freq (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Might not help but they dont appear here http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php if you enter United States to Morocco. MilborneOne (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Also had a quick check through some other sources like http://www.dsca.mil/search/node/Morocco or http://www.dsca.mil/search/node/Patriot and no mention at all of Morocco. I would conclude that they have not got any. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morocco 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MIM-104 Patriot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://mate.uprh.edu/~pnm/notas4061/patriot.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MIM-104 Patriot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://peoamd.redstone.army.mil/NEW/project-offices/PATRIOT/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While I understand Wikipedia's style guide, I don't understand why Wikipedia would encourage the incorrect use of what is basically a brand name. The developer of the product named it with all capital letters. Would a commercial brand name be similarly edited on Wikipedia to follow its style guide? If so, then that makes sense and is consistent. If not, then I question the differentiation. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article uses the DoD designation. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it does not. Literally part of my job is ensuring the correct DoD nomenclature for DoD technical documentation on weapon systems. PATRIOT is the official U.S. Army designation for the system. I consider the Army to be the "developer" in my analogy above, not Raytheon. Raytheon was the designer and manufacturer. The Army named, paid for the development of, and owns the product.Mistress of Awesome (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalisation of the name in technical manuals is just a style issue, this is an encyclopedia not a technical manual. Google (other search engines are available) indicate that Raytheon and DoD sources use "Patriot". MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're wrong. Capitalization of the name in technical manuals is based on the actual engineering drawings and technical documentation of the system; it is not a "style issue." Google is not the authority on this subject, unless Google has the technical data supporting the system. In my opinion, an encyclopedia should accurately reflect the official name of a product, but perhaps my opinion is misguided. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, the Army itself is inconsistent. That's mainly because people are lazy, "Patriot" is easier to type, and eventually such things become common usage. You will also see "Hawk" for "HAWK" and "Blackhawk" for "Black Hawk." I even sometimes see "Thaad" instead of "THAAD." ADA is the user of the system, which is why they generally follow the official designation. People who write media/publicity pages are not familiar with the actual equipment, and therefore they don't know any better. This is how the capitalization is in literature from the Army project office for the system: PATRIOT Provides the Only Combat-Proven Missile Defense System in the World. As you can see from the fact that the first instance of PATRIOT isn't spelled out, like all the other acronyms are, the Army itself realizes how silly the backronym is. It's of no consequence to me what decision is made for this article, but I do wonder about the logic behind it. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The US military uses all caps for a lot of words that aren't usually written that way in the civilian world. The Navy had a tendency to use all caps for ship names, but Wikipedia doesn't follow that style either. How the Army or Navy does things is their business, but Wikipedia's own style guide takes precedence here. The primary guidelines for this are found at WP:ALLCAPS and WP:TMRULES. If you have more questions after reading those pages, feel free to ask. - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So the same rules are applied to trademark names, I see. Then that makes sense to me. Again, the capitalization of PATRIOT is like a brand name. It's not a "style guide" or just the military capitalizing something in their literature because they felt like it - it is the official name of the product. Don't get me wrong, I think all-caps brand names are a bad idea unless they're actual acronyms, but plenty of companies do the same. Since all-caps trademark names are not allowed on Wikipedia either, then the decision makes sense to me. While I personally don't see why an encyclopedia would want to inaccurately reflect something like product names, because that seems antithetical to the purpose of an encyclopedia (the fact that there are discussions on the capitalization of this and similar names shows that people are asking the questions and having a difficult time finding authoritative information for a solid answer), I do understand not wanting to fill up an article with capitalization with no acronym behind it. Maybe there could be a sentence saying that the Army considers "PATRIOT" the official name, but common usage is "Patriot," just to provide an answer to someone looking to Wikipedia with that question? Thank you for the information. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is OK we already mention the capitalised PATRIOT as an invented acronym. Also note http://www.dimoc.mil/documents/styleGuide/StyleGuide-141017.pdf this DoD style guide uses "Patriot" as well as the defintive DoD offical naming document DoD 4120 http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l.pdf MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming in ALLCAPS

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MIM-104 Patriot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140730051438/http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/entry1493.aspx to http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/entry1493.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016125635/http://www.msl.army.mil/Documents/peoWeaponSystems.pdf to http://www.msl.army.mil/Documents/peoWeaponSystems.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Please explain your reasoning for adding Anti-aircraft warfare which is an article dealing with AAA and other irrelevant info to the article subject. I am confused why you seem to want to discourage users from actually reading the article. I will certainly not revert again and I am confident you will not either. This needs to be resolved by discussion. Regards, Irondome (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overstuffed info box 

message: The news is out on the public press that ROMANIA has been "authorized" by the DOD/Congress to buy the Patriot missile system.47.215.180.7 (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROMANIA 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MIM-104 Patriot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/19691/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/600a9352-1c22-46c3-870d-f60dc987403e/en/Casualties_Scud_Attacks.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160509140920/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p70xfVFKXyg to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p70xfVFKXyg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: MIM-104 Patriot#Future mentions that PDB 7.x is the most recent software version. I added Template:When to note the issue; going forward, "most recent" should probably have a date attached to it. However, I want to also raise a question of what constitutes most recent before changing the article. New versions are not fielded all at once; presently 8.0 is (as I understand) run by most units, but some have yet to be upgraded. 8.0.6 exists (primary source, I know) but I can't find sources stating much more than existence and LOR support. 76.73.175.43 (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent software 

message: Slovakia has donated its S300 to Ukraine in exchange for US Patriots (or promise of them, not sure). So maybe it should be listed as future/potential operator? 95.102.191.167 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia 

message: It's not final yet, but it looks like Ukraine will be getting Patriots.  331dot (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait on addition until the plans themselves have been finalized and formally announced. While approval may be expected, the beginning of the article notes at least two ways this could be stopped, such as SecDef or POTUS not singing off on it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Did you check to see if it's already in the article? Because it's already in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine 

message: In the current revision, we have following claims:
"However, evidence confirming the downing of the X-47 has not yet been presented,What the Ukrainian authorities demonstrate does not correspond to the combat part of the X-47 Kinzhal" 
This is not even a proper English statement, and can be easily proven by various OSINT sources:
We have the following social media images regarding the may 16th claim 6 missiles shot down) here: https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPR/status/1658302771886448642 
We also have confirmed PAC3 activity in Kyiv here: https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1658421211142004737?cxt=HHwWgoC9ocHT8oMuAAAA 
Regarding the 4th of May, we have images from the Kinzhal missile: https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1654778289947303939?cxt=HHwWhoCzpcuF-vYtAAAA 
:Could you please show on the Kinzhal scheme (link added) where on this scheme is the part hit by Patriot missile (link added)?
:Kinzhal scheme: https://images.techinsider.ru/upload/img_cache/47f/47f49d8246dea4d058de4a8cdd9c1698_cropped_1332x924.webp
:Shown part picture: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvW5lw3WcAANIL8?format=jpg&name=large  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.138.221.155 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly an attempt at inserting debate into the live article (rather then talk/discuss first), no factual reporting based on evidence provided by this new editor. Please revert - if he/she/they provide reported evidence with qualified links, rather then propaganda or conjecture then its relevant. 109.78.74.98 (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the pictures of pieces paraded as parts of Kinzhal missiles are very obviously not what they claim.   Then there's the fact that when a Kinzhal hits the ground, unless something very strange happens, it literally disintegrates due to the kinetic impact energy, which by itself causes more damage than the warhead.   3rd, all available evidence, including Shoigu MOCKING Ukraine about it, for shooting down more Kinzhal than Russia used in the strike.   All information available that i can aquire says 2 Kinzhal were used.   And as far as i can find, based on impact effects, both Kinzhal still hit their targets.   Total Kinzhal shot down by Patriot=Zero.   And anyone who knows even the slightest about the systems involved, that would be obvious.   A Patriot might hit a Kinzhal, but the probability is something like 1 in 10 thousand, even the 40 years more advanced S-550 cannot reliably intercept Kinzhal.   178.174.137.13 (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clearly spreading disinformation! 144.130.166.10 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please DO try to disprove anything i stated as fact.   Oh, you cannot, what a surprise. 178.174.137.13 (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian propaganda claims regarding May4th/May16th 

message: Posting this to remind myself or anyone who sees it in a few weeks. After current events cool down, I don't think we need a daily play-by-play for May 16, 17, 18. I think the whole event should be reduced to 2 or perhaps 3 sentences in length. And barring any pictures of destroyed launchers or radar stations that may surface in the coming days, the whole part where '5 launchers and a radar station were destroyed' shouldn't be included in the rewrite. Most (if not all) credible sources point towards it being a false claim. I.e., all sources that say it was destroyed, simply quote the Russian MOD, which is hardly good proof. Hiding an entire destroyed Patriot battery is pretty much next to impossible. But since the event is still current, I think it's worth including for now. Binglederry (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 16 Events in Ukraine 

message: Request adding Mach speed to max speed row for the missiles in the missile specs table. Please substitute the current use of Template:Cvt with , which should render as . 111.220.98.160 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: AnnaMankad (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023