• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Barak: Israel soon to be able to block 90% of missile launch

#3
jimmys_best_mate said:
KGB_resident said:
How it is possible from military point of view?
Get a big radar capable of tracking inbound missiles. Buy lots of missiles capable of shooting down inbound missiles. Fire them at inbound missiles. Job done.
It looks as a pure fantasy. Previousluy I thought that mr.Barak is a serious politician.
 
#4
Well we already have missile systems like AEGIS or CIWS ones such as Goalkeeper whose whole point is to shoot down incoming missiles so I'd expect it to be mostly a case of building on and modifying something like that. The main problems to overcome that I can see would be the low altitude that the incoming missiles have, the short flying time and what happens to missiles you shoot down or ammunition that doesn't hit that might come down on your own territory.
 
#5
KGB_resident said:
jimmys_best_mate said:
KGB_resident said:
How it is possible from military point of view?
Get a big radar capable of tracking inbound missiles. Buy lots of missiles capable of shooting down inbound missiles. Fire them at inbound missiles. Job done.
It looks as a pure fantasy. Previousluy I thought that mr.Barak is a serious politician.


Barak is a deadly serious politician.

If he is touting a new missile defense program it is for a reason. Like mentally preparing Israelis for the next round of conflict - or sending a message to the Syrians and Iranians - or a hundred other reasons, but probably none of them foolish ones.
 
#6
The really serious thing would be to build a system that shot the misslies down over someone else's territory. Otherwise the Iranians would just build missiles that were fat and slow, but carried a lot of Anthrax (for example), so that shooting them down became an integral part of the delivery system.
 
#7
angular said:
The really serious thing would be to build a system that shot the misslies down over someone else's territory. Otherwise the Iranians would just build missiles that were fat and slow, but carried a lot of Anthrax (for example), so that shooting them down became an integral part of the delivery system.
8) 8) Very good idea,sure upset the firers. 8) 8) We dont have homosexuals in our country, do we? 8) 8)
 
#9
Shooting them down in the air is always difficult and expensive, it's far easier to target the threat before they're launched, maybe as they're setting up or moving to a potential launch site..................
 
#10
Blue_Monkey said:
Shooting them down in the air is always difficult and expensive, it's far easier to target the threat before they're launched, maybe as they're setting up or moving to a potential launch site..................
Yeah but that would involve deploying 49 Para and as you know 'they' are not allowed to work for the israeli's
 
#12
As I recall, I did read somewhere that the Israeli's were working on the Patriot system - to the extent that not only would it be grammatically accurate to describe the system as a true anti-ballistic missile system, it would be so factually accurate that the Americans were getting very excited and Israel could be looking at an export winner if they so choose. (Which I personally doubt - execpt to US)

Arrow - I am pretty sure that was it......makes you think. Imadinnerjacket could well get his nukes, even put them on missiles - and still not be able to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Wouldn't that be upsetting!!
 
#13
Looking deeper into the article makes it claer what sort of threat the IDF is thinking of, to wit. The Hamas free flight rocket, the Qassam and Iran's Shihab missile, which may be based in part on SS-9 design.

Not actually the latest threat in missile technology!
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
A nice, comprehensive defesnive ring of anti-missile missile batteries, alongside the new US anti-mortar system (which farts just like an A10) and does the slower stuff would probably be quite effective. Rumour has it that we are also looking at the Anti-mortar system, even though it is not exactly that portable.
 
#15
Biped said:
A nice, comprehensive defesnive ring of anti-missile missile batteries, alongside the new US anti-mortar system (which farts just like an A10) and does the slower stuff would probably be quite effective. Rumour has it that we are also looking at the Anti-mortar system, even though it is not exactly that portable.
What this one?

From Hansard;

12 Dec 2006 : Column 938W

Phalanx C-RAM Anti Mortar System
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has evaluated the existing Counter Battery Radar to be adapted to provide targeting data for the Phalanx C-RAM Anti Mortar system. [104488]

Mr. Ingram: Initial assessments of the Phalanx C-RAM Anti Mortar system indicate that it is not appropriate for our current requirements, but we keep the operational situation under review. We have not therefore considered the adaptation of the Counter Battery Radar to provide targeting data for this system. We provide layered protection for British bases in Iraq and Afghanistan through a range of force protection methods.
 
#16
Brick said:
Well we already have missile systems like AEGIS or CIWS ones such as Goalkeeper whose whole point is to shoot down incoming missiles so I'd expect it to be mostly a case of building on and modifying something like that. The main problems to overcome that I can see would be the low altitude that the incoming missiles have, the short flying time and what happens to missiles you shoot down or ammunition that doesn't hit that might come down on your own territory.
AEGIS maybe, and the USN is talking about using naval SAMs for theatre missile defence (and in a way we are having thoughts about it using Type 45/Aster) , however, CIWS systems like Phalanx engage low altitude missiles of relatively small size. Engaging a warhead re-entering the atmosphere is entirely different and very problematic. How do you tell the difference between real warheads and decoys?
 
#17
I am reminded of a saying from the late 1920's or early 30's and that was "The Bomber will always get through". And so, in this the 21st century it could be adapted to read "The Missile will always get through". And it will.

No matter how good we think our defences are, there will always be someone smarter who comes up with a way to defeat those defences. But we always have a chap who sits in a bunker somewhere working on a way to beat those missiles and so it goes on.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
PE4rocks said:
Biped said:
A nice, comprehensive defesnive ring of anti-missile missile batteries, alongside the new US anti-mortar system (which farts just like an A10) and does the slower stuff would probably be quite effective. Rumour has it that we are also looking at the Anti-mortar system, even though it is not exactly that portable.
What this one?

From Hansard;

12 Dec 2006 : Column 938W

Phalanx C-RAM Anti Mortar System
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has evaluated the existing Counter Battery Radar to be adapted to provide targeting data for the Phalanx C-RAM Anti Mortar system. [104488]

Mr. Ingram: Initial assessments of the Phalanx C-RAM Anti Mortar system indicate that it is not appropriate for our current requirements, but we keep the operational situation under review. We have not therefore considered the adaptation of the Counter Battery Radar to provide targeting data for this system. We provide layered protection for British bases in Iraq and Afghanistan through a range of force protection methods.
Yes, that one - except that for purely budgetary reasons (IMHO), it has been ruled out for the time being. The reply to the House question that Ingram made was total B.S. as anyone will know, if we had layered force protection in Iraq and the Stan, we wouldn't be getting mortared all the time - would we?
 
#19
KGB_resident said:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/911019.html

Within a few years Israel will be able to defend itself against 90 percent of missiles fired against it, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Tuesday according to Army Radio.
How it is possible from military point of view?

Sergey from Jerusalem.
We could tell you, but then mossad would have to come and kill you...

I'm going to guess a few rings of patriot missile batteries for outer defense and a few metal storms for short range defense hooked to rembass.

Perhaps a few of these? (I'm convinced they're operational, ala North Koreas missile test):

http://www.boeing.com/special/abl/schedules/milestones.html#2002

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/0d0a5b4a1db84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html


Sergey from Jerusalem
Just caught that. You on OPS sergey?
 
#20
This should enable the Israelis to address the ballistic threat. The really interesting question is whether they've got something shiny and new in mind to take care of the homemade rockets that the various Palestinian groups are fond of lighting the blue touchpaper on. Certainly, if they're talking about countering 90% of the threat then they've got a pretty decent radar network up and running.

Are Machbet or C-RAM capable of countering a rocket/missile threat?
 

Latest Threads