Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | 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)

Latest 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 5:21 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 6:56 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 5:59 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 9:44 AM


» View All 10 Comments

» Post a Comment