I saw a different break down by Mover - AKA CW Lemoine - He suspected that there was an issue on the ship-based system IIRC - reasoning that one missile fired at one Aircraft - probably pilot error with their IFF system, 2 Missiles fired at 2 Aircraft - After the first one, the second one would have quadruple checked their IFF was set right and if they still got a missile...
However, whilst all systems have a degree of fallibility...
The difference is - even when the systems are failing on the US side, there is still a 'successful' intercept.
That is - the system thought there was an incoming threat and engaged that threat and neutralized it. Which is better than the Russian system that is not even switched on because it is broken.
As for China - they have not really battle tested any of their gear. Whereas the US systems have been tested in active combat. I would also be surprised if the system of Design, testing, procurement and critique in China is conducive to building effective systems.
How long do you think the Engineer who says 'This system sucks' to his boss is going to retain his job? Whereas the Engineer who signs off that everything meets the specifications and concurs with his bosses report to his superiors - is probably going to have a long and illustrious career.
Bookmarks