why not just shoot down rockets launched into Israel?

[wuushew]

Despite valid criticisms of current U.S. ballistic missile defenses, various point defense weapons have been used by the military for many years. For instance does not the US navy's phalanx system defend ships against incoming anti-ship missiles?


No one has die when you attack inanimate weapons instead of people.


Why can't the Israeli military think outside the box? Is whole slaughter in the end more cost effective than applied engineering?

[Oreo]

1. Katyusha's are too small to shoot down

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-3

It'd be similar to shooting down an artillery shell

[wuushew]

5. This is also on wikipedia

The U.S. Army's version of the Navy's CIWS Phalanx anti-missile system is called the "Land-Based Phalanx Weapon System" (LPWS). It is a type of "C-RAM" (counter-rockets, artillery and mortars) defensive weapon.

Whereas naval Phalanx systems fire depleted uranium or (more recently) tungsten armor-piercing rounds, the LPWS uses the HEIT-SD (High-Explosive Incendiary Tracer, Self-Destruct) ammunition originally developed for the M163 Vulcan air-defense system. These rounds explode in mid-air, raining shrapnel at the incoming rounds in order to destroy or deflect them. This difference is due to the risk that falling spent ammunition would pose to friendly forces on the ground


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. Short range point defense weapon

Not sure just what the range for the Phalanx is, but it would take a huge number of them to cover the targeted areas. Maybe they could defend specific buildings, but not a wide area.

[wuushew]

9. maybe so but look how tiny the Israeli/Lebanon border is

with fewer than a 100 guns you could theoretically create interlocking zones of defense to cover all the likely ballistic paths from Lebanon. Also if you needed to ration the guns, they could be placed in areas which had high population density not open country. Any idea of what the effective range of these defense systems are? The caliber and density of the munition should give them pretty good range.

[ThoughtCriminal]

11. I don't think that would work either

Don't take this as a definitive answer - I don't have enough data to say for certain.

I think that even a Katyusha BM-21 rocket would be flying too high (several miles) over the border for a Phalanx round to reach it. The weapon has to be very close to where the round is landing in order to have a chance of hitting it. Also, the geometry of a rocket flying overhead is different from one heading straight towards you - the latter is much easier to hit.

Edit - I do think that deployment of something like this would be a good idea to give some protection in high-density areas. It could also have some political benefits as a defensive weapon. In the first Gulf War, the Patriots deployed in Israel were not really very effective, but may have helped keep Israel out of the war. If there were some successful interceptions, it might help.

[bluerum]

2. I think that these are small ground to ground missles. They are

tiny (relatively) and are not in the air long enough to target and catch before they impact.

It's like swating a bullet out of the air.

[originalpckelly]

3. If our nation would figure out lasers are the only real way to do missile

defense, the Israelis would not be fighting this war. The laser based systems (which don't have to have a long time to acquire a target) can shoot very small objects out of the sky and quickly. If we would wake up and realize their importance we could save the billions of dollars we are spending on missile based systems (which is like hitting a bullet with a bullet.)

[Solo_in_MD]

4. Not technically mature enough yet

Saw a report here that some laser based efforts had been terminated as ineffective, though it was not clear which program.

It will get there, but in the immediate, its not ready yet

[longship]

8. Hollywood version of missile defense.

LASERs do not explode things like in Hollywood. The energy is concentrated by virtue of the coherence of the light, however, to burn anything like metal the beam has to be kept on the target for a period of time. In practice, there's a trade off here. The larger, more powerful the LASER, the less time, but the more difficult it is to keep it tracked because of mass. Remember, the target is travelling supersonically.

There are very simple and inexpensive defenses.

1. A simple and cheap reflective coating solves the problem and eliminates the threat of LASER interception. It doesn't even have to be perfect reflection, just enough to reduce the energy absorbed. Bright silver paint may do the job.

2. Overwhelm the defense with more missiles.

Missile defense is basically flawed in principle. It is just not practical.

[Burried News]

7. Ever try fighting off a yellow jacket with a garden hose? nt

I realize the Katyusha's (sp?)are not maneuverable in flight like the yellow jacket, but it gives a pretty good idea of the level of difficulty.

[longship]

10. Navy successes.

The Navy systems work for these reasons:

1. The system is made to protect the ship. It is presumed that the missile's target is the ship. So the system is aware of where the missile is headed.

2. The defense system can presume that the incoming target is coming straight in, meaning that it presents a steady target at which to aim. This simplifies--incredibly--the solution of aiming the defenses.

A defense system for any geographical area larger than a single ship cannot make these assumptions. That's why missile defense cannot work in this case.

[benEzra]

12. TRW's THEL laser did shoot down some Katyusha's in tests

and Israel IIRC was a development partner, but it's still in the prototype stage, I think. IIRC, THEL is a deuterium fluoride laser running in the infrared. TRW had a video on their web site of it shooting down two Katyushas that had been fired simultaneously, but I can't find that video anymore.

FWIW, THEL stands for "Tactical High-Energy Laser."

The Airborne Laser (YAL-1A?, the chemical oxygen-iodine laser aboard the 747 and firing through a nose turret) would seem to be just the thing you'd need in this situation, but it also is in the prototype stage.

[bigtree]

13. I saw an article on this. They tried, but the test didn't pan out,

too much area to cover for the technology the had at the time.