Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 07/27/2006 View Wed 07/26/2006 View Tue 07/25/2006 View Mon 07/24/2006 View Sun 07/23/2006 View Sat 07/22/2006 View Fri 07/21/2006
1
2006-07-27 Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Skyhook - A Solution for the Katyusha Problem for Israel?
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by 3dc 2006-07-27 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Skyhook, heh, I'd prefer a full-court press. Take the gloves off and stop playing patsy with these Islamof=8ckers
Posted by Captain America 2006-07-27 00:41||   2006-07-27 00:41|| Front Page Top

#2 I've been wondering myself whether or not standard radar-guided antiaircraft guns might be effective against the rockets.
Posted by Phil 2006-07-27 01:14||   2006-07-27 01:14|| Front Page Top

#3 It would be interesting to see if it would work in a combat environment. It has the power (to vaporize incoming rounds and missiles) and speed (~ 1 shot per second) to do the job. Will be a challenge to acquire, track, and kill multiple incoming bogeys in combat. Also, the upkeep of the system will be very difficult and dangerous, but payback might be well worth it.
Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-07-27 02:22||   2006-07-27 02:22|| Front Page Top

#4 "standard radar-guided antiaircraft guns might be effective against the rockets."

Come in vfast, and too expensive to cover a country with CIWS, phalanx
Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-07-27 03:51||   2006-07-27 03:51|| Front Page Top

#5 Forget the rockets. Destroy the gene pool.
Posted by Poison Reverse 2006-07-27 06:54||   2006-07-27 06:54|| Front Page Top

#6 The author is right. Issues re: operational use of lasers do include power supply considerations (lower powered ones can run off of electricity, i.e. a local generator but these higher powered ones with chemical sources are indeed logistically intense).

But another issue is air space management. An energy beam that doesn't hit the intended target continues unabated for a good distance. There are a lot of coordination issues to consider if you've got air assets of your own in the region. Under just the wrong circumstances, you might even blind a low-altitude satellite. Lots of training and doctrine have to be developed before they're going to be deployed on anything other than a very limited trail basis.
Posted by lotp 2006-07-27 08:35||   2006-07-27 08:35|| Front Page Top

#7 An energy beam that doesn't hit the intended target continues unabated for a good distance.

Yea! And if you hit a UFO you could inadvertently start an intergalactic war!
Posted by DarthVader 2006-07-27 09:20||   2006-07-27 09:20|| Front Page Top

#8 The Arcturians aren't gonna be happy about this...
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-07-27 09:32||   2006-07-27 09:32|| Front Page Top

#9 Phika: I was thinking of something more along the lines of a radar-guided 3 inch gun.

If a radar guided 20mm gun can hit an incoming artillery shell, a 3" gun firing proximity fused shells ought to be able to handle an unguided artillery rocket that isn't maneuvering or anything.
Posted by Phil 2006-07-27 10:10||   2006-07-27 10:10|| Front Page Top

#10 An energy beam that doesn't hit the intended target continues unabated for a good distance.

But since it would be into Syria/Lebanon then ain't that a 2-fer?
Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats  2006-07-27 14:37||   2006-07-27 14:37|| Front Page Top

#11 The laser shoots upward at an angle. You're far more likely to hit an Israeli helicopter or fighter/bomber than anything on the ground in Syria or Lebanon. ;-(
Posted by lotp 2006-07-27 14:52||   2006-07-27 14:52|| Front Page Top

#12 If a radar guided 20mm gun can hit an incoming artillery shell, a 3" gun firing proximity fused shells ought to be able to handle an unguided artillery rocket that isn't maneuvering or anything.

Absolutely true, but the number of guns required we be crazy.
Posted by 6 2006-07-27 16:38||   2006-07-27 16:38|| Front Page Top

#13 The proximity fuse idea is ok. The thought of using a CIWS is nuts. The problem is that you'd have thousands of 20mm shells flying downrange within your own territory. They'd probably do more damage than the incoming missile.
Posted by remoteman 2006-07-27 17:35||   2006-07-27 17:35|| Front Page Top

#14 The Phalanx with proximity fused shells are being used for base protection in Iraq to take out rockets and mortars. But that has to be fairly expensive unless Raytheon changed the burst length (naval version was 100 rounds). Phalanx Zaps Mortar Shells in Iraq
Posted by ed 2006-07-27 17:50||   2006-07-27 17:50|| Front Page Top

#15 Hmmm, you may be right Phil but still dont like the idea of a radar guided aa gun defence, tried and tested in 44 against V1's but V2's were different. 60 years later different but same same, better to counterbattery and kill at source & supply.
Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-07-27 19:57||   2006-07-27 19:57|| Front Page Top

23:58 Kristine Kid
23:52 anymouse
23:51 3dc
23:50 djohn66
23:48 leroidavid
23:40 Thoth
23:39 Tibor
23:38 Barbara Skolaut
23:38 Raj
23:28 PBMcL
23:23 imoyaro
23:20 Barbara Skolaut
23:19 Brett
23:13 Barbara Skolaut
23:08 leroidavid
23:02 leroidavid
23:00 DepotGuy
22:57 Oldcat
22:55 PBMcL
22:54 Oldcat
22:53 BH
22:51 Alaska Paul
22:50 BH
22:49 leroidavid









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com