Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
Net-Centric
Nukes
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Israeli Missile Defense: Not Katyusha-Ready

Israelis are used to missile attacks; they've spent tons of cash on missile defense systems. So why have their interceptors been silent, as a thousand Katyushas have slammed into their soil? Victoria Samson, the Center for Defense Information's resident missile defense sage, has the answer: the Israeli systems are built to stop longer-range missiles -- ones that fly for hundreds of miles, like those Iraqi Scuds that fell on Tel Aviv during the first Gulf War, or the missiles Iran might one day nuke-equip.) The shorter-range projectiles that Hezbollah is firing are are too quick, and too mobile, for these interceptors to catch.

arrow_y.jpg

Israel has a two-tiered missile defense system. The first, the Arrow Weapon System, is to intercept ballistic missiles in their final phase of flight. It would do so by shooting the U.S.-developed Arrow II interceptor at a threat. Once the Israel-developed Green Pine Fire Control Radar, Citron Tree Fire Control Center, and Hazel Nut Tree Launcher Center have sent the interceptor near the target, the Arrow II would blow up, with the hope that the fragments from the blast would either destroy the target or knock it sufficiently off course so that it would no longer remain a threat. There are two Arrow batteries deployed. One covers the center of Israel from its position in Palmahim, while the other in Ein Shemer is supposed to defend Israel’s northern territory...

Israel also has an early version of the U.S. Patriot missile defense system. The Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-2 is designed to defend against ballistic missile targets in their terminal phase as well; also, it would provide defense via a blast-fragmentation warhead... The Patriot differs from the Arrow in that it aims at targets which are at lower altitudes.

[But] neither missile defense system has been used is because they are not designed to intercept short-range rockets. It is estimated that of the 13,000 or so rockets and missiles in Hezbollah’s arsenal, 11,000 of them are of the Katyusha type. These rockets have a short range – maybe up to nine miles or so – and a small warhead of roughly 40 pounds. Based on vintage Soviet technology, these rockets can be rolled out of a hiding place, shot, and rolled back in before any detection can be made. Their flight is over in seconds, making tracking difficult, much less shooting anything down. A system would have to be in exactly the right place to detect the missile once it is launched, then the defensive system would have to make a nearly instantaneous decision to respond, after which the interceptor would have to get to the target quickly enough to destroy it. It is an exceedingly difficult proposition when the flight times are as short as those launched by Hezbollah.

That's one of the reasons why Israel spent year pursuing a speed-of-light rocket defense, the Tactical High Energy Laser -- and why some folks are trying to re-introduce an updated version of the system to the Sabras.

But even an updated THEL will take years to get ready. In the short term, Israel's plan seems to be to clear out as much of southern Lebanon as possible, the Times notes.

Homes in southern Lebanon received taped phone calls in Arabic warning that they needed to evacuate because strikes would hit house by house. The recording ended by saying it came from the Israeli Army. The Israelis also used a radio station near the border to broadcast warnings into southern Lebanon for residents to leave.

The radio warning also stressed that any truck, including pickups, traveling south of the Litani River would be suspected of transporting weapons or rockets, and could therefore be a target.

(Big ups: TP)

Comments

How a $1 to $3 million, patriot and similarily Arrow is ever supposed to be usefull against $1000 Katyushas?

Posted by: Mehdi at August 17, 2006 05:21 AM


Israel; ABMs do not work! Please listen to me the only thing that will save you and your people from the missiles is "The Patriot Act" please try it and live, I beg you, please!

Posted by: Jaye at July 22, 2006 06:56 PM


I have to admit I have never been very impressed by Metal Storm. I think the hype is unjustified and the concept, while interesting, is overrated.

Metal Storm would be inferior to conventional, proven systems like the phalanx because the metal storm system lacks endurance, and lacks the ability to correct its aim and fire subsequent shots if it attempts to expend its ammunition making a "cloud" of rounds.

As far as I know there is no high-caliber metal storm system. The phalanx uses more powerful rounds than would otherwise be necessary to disable a missile because range is very important for an anti-missile system. More range means more time to engage the missile and means more area protected by the system.

If a "cloud" was good at stopping missiles, it would be much more effective, and cheaper, to use large flechette/shotgun type rounds or air-bursting rounds instead of a metal storm system. The air-burst type systems are probably the future of missile defense and they are being worked on now. Such systems can operate at much longer ranges than something like a phalanx, and with new computers/software/sensors handling complex calculations to ensure the round explodes close to the high-speed missile, you don't need to flood the sky with rounds to get a hit.

I do not think metal storm type weapons will replace conventional weapons because the systems get much heavier as you add more ammunition to them. More ammunition means more barrels. If you want 10 more rounds, you have to add another barrel. That is the whole point, the barrels are serving as magazines. This seems like it is really efficient until you have to reload, then you see how absurd it can be. Would you rather carry 10 more clips for your rifle, or 10 more much heavier barrels to get the same amount of ammunition?

This is not to say that the metal storm concept is entirely useless. I would love to be able to have aircraft paradrop robotic, remote controlled mortar systems that could support special forces in afghanistan, for example. With remote controlled systems, reloading isnt really an option anyway so the biggest disadvantage of metal storm disappears. If you can make the systems cheap enough, they can be considered used up and left behind after they fire their rounds. It would add a great capability to small light units operating in remote areas, who now have to rely solely on air support.

Posted by: Kaltes at July 22, 2006 05:59 PM


I looked at the Army FY07 budget documents posted online and the cost of a PAC-3 missile is approximately $4.6 million a piece. Even if a PAC-2 or an Arrow could intercept a Katyusha effectively and was a tenth of the price of a PAC-3, it still wouldn't be a cost effective solution. Assuming a perfect intercept ratio, stopping 100 rockets would be a hefty $46 million. The Phalanx concept posted before seems like I much more practical solution.

Whatever happened to using MetalStorm as a missile interceptor solution? Their multibarreled, multifiring concept seems like it would well suited to stopping slow-moving projectiles. A 4x4 wall of bullets would probably have a better chance of interception than a single stream of rounds.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at July 21, 2006 12:29 PM



Actually the US is now putting guidance systems on mortar bombs, as a way of providing precision indirect fire at a small unit level.

It's unlikely this sort of technology would be use by guerillas, just as they don't use many guided missiles.

Posted by: David Hambling at July 21, 2006 09:44 AM


Hi Allen,

There are two factors at work with precision guided munitions: cost and avoiding collateral damage. I'll just ignore the fact that the US and US allies will be the only ones with access to GPS-like networks for the forseeable future.

Mortar shells are extremely small, and pretty short range. Mortars haven't really changed much since WW 1 and for good reason. GPS guidance could probably already be put into the large mortar shells, but it really wouldn't be cost effective. There really is no need for highly accurate mortars. If you miss with a mortar, you merely fire another one. Mortars are cheap. If US troops were in a battle and needed to hit some target precisely to avoid collateral damage, that could be done more easily with a direct fire weapon like the AT-4.

Conversely, GPS guidance is put on weapons like bombs because accuracy is essential: if you miss, you can't merely fire again. A miss means a large time delay and another sortie. The price of that second shot is enormous, so paying extra for accuracy makes sense.

Of course the US military already has GPS guided MLRS rockets, though these can't hit "specific point targets" it will land pretty close to what you fire it at. These are big rockets with a 180lbs warhead and 70km range.

Then you have the Army Tactical Missile System, with a bigger warhead and GPS guidance out to 300+km! Here is a pic of this monster:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/mlrs6.html

These rockets aren't cheap without the guidance, so adding the guidance saves money by getting the job done with fewer rockets fired.

Now contrast these almighty bastions of US power and technology, in all their expensive glory, with Hezbollah's WW 2 technology Katyushas, which are tiny and primitive next to US rockets. These 107mm and 122mm rockets were made to be fired in massive volleys by rocket artillery batteries. I doubt any missile defense could stop a significant number of the 720 rockets that would rain down on an area in such a situation. Of course firing them one or a few at a time isn't very effective because they are so inaccurate, but adding GPS isn't the answer, because this would be absurdly expensive. If you had that kind of money to throw around, you would buy bigger and better rockets like the Fajr-5 and put your expensive guidance systems on those, or even bigger longer-range missiles.

The problem of defending against shorter range weapons is always solved by killing the people firing them with your own weapons. Defensive measures like digging holes and hiding in them also work well. Active defenses are always going to be expensive, and the attacker can overwhelm any such defense by saturating them with more and more cheap rockets.

Once you leave the short range world behind and start talking about the very expensive large missiles that can carry things like nuclear warheads long ranges, an active defense starts to make a lot more sense, because countries like North Korea simply can't afford to take the saturation approach like the USSR could.

Also, even if the enemies of the US could afford to build more missiles, the resulting arms race makes the world a safer place by diverting the enemy's limited resource into an arms race it can't ultimately win, and undermining the enemy's economy. It is accepted that this contributed to the USSR's collapse, and for all those Soviet ICBMs, who is scared of them now?

Posted by: Kaltes at July 21, 2006 07:41 AM



Let's note, for future reference, that the problem of defending against small, short-to-medium range munitions (rockets, mortars, artillery) is going to get more acute as GPS/INS PGM technologies percolate down to that level. And projects to develop such technologies are now well into their second decade.

What if a Katyusha or mortar shell could be fired with a good chance of hitting a specific point target, rather than a moderate chance of hitting something in the general vicinity?

Posted by: Allen Thomson at July 20, 2006 03:53 PM


I don't understand why Israel isn't rolling some of the trailer-mounted Phalanx systems in? The have met with some success, it seems in Iraq. From here, they look like just the thing, and they're (relatively) quickly available, unlike HELs.

Posted by: CR at July 20, 2006 02:58 PM


"The shorter-range projectiles that Hezbollah is firing are are too quick, and too mobile, for these interceptors to catch."

NONSENSE. The reality is that a Katyusha is too small and cheap to be worth shooting at. Katyushas were built to be fired in massed barrages as a form of artillery.

But instead of the exceedingly obvious answer of "not worth it" to the question of why Israel isnt using Arrows on Katyushas, you try to make it seem as if Katyushas are outside of the Arrow's and Patriot's capabilities. This is ignorance, bias, or both.

Posted by: Kaltes at July 20, 2006 12:58 PM


It shouldn't be a surprise that the Israeli army is going to shell every house near the border. They used the same tactic a few weeks ago in Gaza - shell every enclosed space within a certain distance from the border, then bulldoze the rubble.

It leaves a nice and neat no-man's land pushes the launch sites for Hezbollah Katyushas back a few miles. Judging by the apparent decline in Qassam attacks coming from Gaza, the move seems pretty effective.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at July 20, 2006 11:25 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.