- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
(I was directly involved in the manufacture of those)
Smaller missiles, probably slower and shorter ranged, but more available at once in any given launcher. The box launcher also appears to be easier and likely faster to reload.
This approach makes sense given their environment. The rockets they are intercepting are launched from far closer, and have a much easier intercept.
Slower and lower than a ballistic missile dropping in from the edge of space. This gives an easier solution to intercept because of the slower speed.
The area involved is small enough that fi the rockets are launched from close enough to a launcher it can be intercepted in boost phase, which is easier still.
Background - Patriot was not originally intended to intercept missiles, it was intended to intercept aircraft. Patriot is amazingly effective at this, a plane is a gimme compared to hitting a missile. Larger, and in nearly every case slower than a missile.
The design worked out so well capability wise, it was turned into an anti-missile system. Something definitely needed.
for these missiles;;; Hamas appears to have a very
good supply of theirs. -- j
1 they manufacture their own missiles for the system. They have been screwed over like that by the US to apply pressure on them more than once. They will not put themselves in that position if it can be avoided.
2 They will have stockpiled enough to allow production for more without running short. Numbers to stockpile would be a guess of course, but not a blind one.
Their is even some talk here in the US of importing some Iron Dome missiles from Israel, to use as a cheaper, short-range defense in certain situations where the PAC-3 system would be considered too much capability and cost...
Our current missile defense has 3 layers:
1) BMD (ballistic missile defense) - shooting down ICBMs (inter-continental ballistic missiles) preferably during boost phase or very high in the atmosphere during the inbound phase.
2) THAAD (theater high altitude aerial defense) - used in war zones or in defense against medium range inbound missiles.
3) PAC-3 - shorter range inbound missile defense, especially in war zones.
So, Iron Dome would classify as very short range missile defense, primarily against smaller, less lethal inbound missiles.
on duty in eastern and northern europe, too!!! -- j
in our support for them. my vote only seems to go
just so far. -- j
http://i-hls.com/2013/05/dr-danny-gold-i...
-- j
Everybody should know that Iron Dome is based on the Patriot missile system used during the gulf war, which had been rescued and repurposed by Dan Quayle.
The Israelis have a habit of taking American military tech and improving on it.