Comments on: Lessons learned from Israel’s defeat http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919 Cutting straight to the point Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:23:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Joseph Hertzlinger http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19110 Joseph Hertzlinger Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:33:51 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19110 The object of missile defense is not to stop missiles, but to break them. As for predicting where missiles will be, the object is not to predict their paths from the start, but to predict their paths from the moment they're detected. The object of missile defense is not to stop missiles, but to break them.

As for predicting where missiles will be,
the object is not to predict their paths from the start, but to predict their paths from the moment they’re detected.

]]> By: david foster http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19083 david foster Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:18:55 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19083 Tatter...well, it sounds like Northrop Grumman has a lot of confidence in their laser system...seems to me like DoD should give them a contract, with appropriate performance clauses, to get it into production. Prior to WWII, the conventional wisdom was the "the bomber will always get through" and that effective defense was impossible. It turned out that with radar (including airborne radar), centralized command-and-control networks, and mechanical and electronic fire-control computers for AA guns, a heavy price could be exacted on attacking bomber forces. Tatter…well, it sounds like Northrop Grumman has a lot of confidence in their laser system…seems to me like DoD should give them a contract, with appropriate performance clauses, to get it into production.

Prior to WWII, the conventional wisdom was the “the bomber will always get through” and that effective defense was impossible. It turned out that with radar (including airborne radar), centralized command-and-control networks, and mechanical and electronic fire-control computers for AA guns, a heavy price could be exacted on attacking bomber forces.

]]> By: Tatterdemalian http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19072 Tatterdemalian Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:11:24 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19072 "There’s no need at all to negate momentum. Missiles such as Scud and Katyusha are ballistic: their future trajectory is entirely predictable from its history." Not with the precision needed to knock the missile out of the air in mid-flight. Ballistic projection (like almost everything in science, really) produces areas of probability, not exact and precise locations. We can narrow down the projected location and origin of a rocket to an area about two meters radius, with 98% confidence. That's good enough to determine what building the missile was launched from (and even what room in that building), and good enough that an airplane can drop a bomb on the missile's estimated origin and destroy whatever's there (especially if it's a cluster bomb). But it's not good enough to stand a very realistic chance of hitting the missile, which occupies maybe 5% of that volume, in the less than 30 seconds it takes to reach its target. Our detection and computation technology has long passed the point of diminishing returns. We could load each ABM with the equivalent of a supercomputer and a gigawatt radar antenna, and we would only shave a few centimeters off that probability radius. Lasers offer more promise, but have issues of their own, especially since they can be defeated easily with a light-reflective coating that can be improvised from mylar balloons or even aluminum foil. Masers would be much more effective, since even when reflected, they induce enormous voltages in metal and explosive compounds that would severely damage a missile, if not destroy it outright, before it reaches its destination. Unfortunately, they are also absorbed by water vapor, and even in the desert there's more than enough of that to put severe limits on their range. Plus, a baggie filled with water over the nose of the missile would send us back to square one. It would also mess up the missile's flight path pretty badly, but Hezbollah doesn't even care if their missiles hit Palestinian cities. Bottom line, there are so many limits on missile interception technology that the old standby - bomb shelters - are still the most effective and least expensive defense. “There’s no need at all to negate momentum. Missiles such as Scud and Katyusha are ballistic: their future trajectory is entirely predictable from its history.”

Not with the precision needed to knock the missile out of the air in mid-flight. Ballistic projection (like almost everything in science, really) produces areas of probability, not exact and precise locations. We can narrow down the projected location and origin of a rocket to an area about two meters radius, with 98% confidence. That’s good enough to determine what building the missile was launched from (and even what room in that building), and good enough that an airplane can drop a bomb on the missile’s estimated origin and destroy whatever’s there (especially if it’s a cluster bomb). But it’s not good enough to stand a very realistic chance of hitting the missile, which occupies maybe 5% of that volume, in the less than 30 seconds it takes to reach its target.

Our detection and computation technology has long passed the point of diminishing returns. We could load each ABM with the equivalent of a supercomputer and a gigawatt radar antenna, and we would only shave a few centimeters off that probability radius.

Lasers offer more promise, but have issues of their own, especially since they can be defeated easily with a light-reflective coating that can be improvised from mylar balloons or even aluminum foil.

Masers would be much more effective, since even when reflected, they induce enormous voltages in metal and explosive compounds that would severely damage a missile, if not destroy it outright, before it reaches its destination. Unfortunately, they are also absorbed by water vapor, and even in the desert there’s more than enough of that to put severe limits on their range. Plus, a baggie filled with water over the nose of the missile would send us back to square one. It would also mess up the missile’s flight path pretty badly, but Hezbollah doesn’t even care if their missiles hit Palestinian cities.

Bottom line, there are so many limits on missile interception technology that the old standby – bomb shelters – are still the most effective and least expensive defense.

]]> By: david foster http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19067 david foster Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:23:28 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19067 There's no need at all to negate momentum. Missiles such as Scud and Katyusha are ballistic: their future trajectory is entirely predictable from its history. And in the case of the laser-based system, momentum isn't a factor at all (except for the angular momentum of the ground-based projection device) There’s no need at all to negate momentum. Missiles such as Scud and Katyusha are ballistic: their future trajectory is entirely predictable from its history.

And in the case of the laser-based system, momentum isn’t a factor at all (except for the angular momentum of the ground-based projection device)

]]> By: Paul http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19057 Paul Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:16:50 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19057 Olmert needs to go and Israel will have to endure some harsh times, but Israel will win in the end !! Olmert needs to go and Israel will have to endure some harsh times, but Israel will win in the end !!

]]> By: Tatterdemalian http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19048 Tatterdemalian Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:19:26 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19048 Pretty much everything in Newtonian physics. You're trying to essentially hit bullets with bullets of your own, and even if the bullets can shoot smaller bullets, it's still so fiddly that even under carefully controlled conditions, where you know the location from which the missiles are launched and where they are headed, intercepts are only successful 60% of the time. Barring some sort of breakthrough that allows missles to suddenly shed their momentum to change direction abruptly in mid-flight, I just don't see any way to make a great improvement in that percentage, no matter how much the technology is refined (which usually winds up meaning "more expensive and even more fiddly for little improvement"). I'd love to be proven wrong, and especially love to see momentum-negating devices developed, but some things just can't be changed by throwing more money or more scientists at them. Pretty much everything in Newtonian physics. You’re trying to essentially hit bullets with bullets of your own, and even if the bullets can shoot smaller bullets, it’s still so fiddly that even under carefully controlled conditions, where you know the location from which the missiles are launched and where they are headed, intercepts are only successful 60% of the time. Barring some sort of breakthrough that allows missles to suddenly shed their momentum to change direction abruptly in mid-flight, I just don’t see any way to make a great improvement in that percentage, no matter how much the technology is refined (which usually winds up meaning “more expensive and even more fiddly for little improvement”).

I’d love to be proven wrong, and especially love to see momentum-negating devices developed, but some things just can’t be changed by throwing more money or more scientists at them.

]]> By: david foster http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19037 david foster Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:37:47 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19037 Which specific laws of physics do you think are in the way of anti-missile technology? Which specific laws of physics do you think are in the way of anti-missile technology?

]]> By: Tatterdemalian http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19035 Tatterdemalian Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:22:24 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19035 Anti-missile technology is like solar power... it would be wonderful to have, but there are all those pesky laws of physics in the way. And just saying "we need to do more research" can't cancel the effects of inertia or momentum. Anti-missile technology is like solar power… it would be wonderful to have, but there are all those pesky laws of physics in the way. And just saying “we need to do more research” can’t cancel the effects of inertia or momentum.

]]> By: Ozzie http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19030 Ozzie Sat, 19 Aug 2006 01:23:46 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19030 It is too early to call it a defeat, at least a "complete defeat". I know that sounds ridiculous, but it is still too early to draw conclusions. Events like this take a little time to make determinations about. Yawp! It is too early to call it a defeat, at least a “complete defeat”. I know that sounds ridiculous, but it is still too early to draw conclusions.

Events like this take a little time to make determinations about.

Yawp!

]]> By: david foster http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919/comment-page-1#comment-19025 david foster Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:05:00 +0000 http://www.yourish.com/2006/08/18/1919#comment-19025 Both Israel and the US need to get very serious, very quickly, about the appropriate anti-missile technologies: <a href="http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_photoncourier_archive.html#115559598123218352" rel="nofollow">link</a> also <a href="http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_photoncourier_archive.html#115569672379905241" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Both Israel and the US need to get very serious, very quickly, about the appropriate anti-missile technologies:
link

also
here.

]]>