| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Hamas salvoes spur Israeli rocket defense rethink |
| 2008-03-17 |
| Spurred by a surge in Palestinian rocket salvoes and charges of arms industry protectionism, Israel is rethinking its rejection of deployable foreign defense technologies so a local system can be produced. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has staked his reputation on Iron Dome, a device in the works at Israeli state weapons firm Rafael that would use missiles to shoot down the short-range rockets favored by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. But Iron Dome will not be operational before 2010, a lag many Israelis consider insupportable given spiraling violence on the border with Gaza, the territory which Israel withdrew from three years ago and which Islamist Hamas seized last year. There are also ramifications for Israel's peace talks with Hamas's rival, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Barak would likely insist that any deal ceding the West Bank to Abbas be conditioned on deployment of a working anti-rocket apparatus. Under pressure to find stop-gap solutions, Barak is reviewing two potential substitutes for Iron Dome whose import was previously ruled out by Israel, defense officials said. One is Nautilus, a joint Israeli-American invention that uses lasers to blow up rockets and mortar bombs mid-flight. The other is Phalanx, an automated machinegun produced by U.S. firm Raytheon whose heavy bullets shred incoming shells. Senior Barak aide Pinchas Buchris flew to the U.S. state of New Mexico on Sunday to watch Nautilus -- now being upgraded under a new name, Skyguard -- in action. The mission is significant as Israeli experts long wrote off Nautilus's performance as inadequate. "Even if Nautilus is capable of only a 50 percent shoot-down rate, but can be here within eight months and at a reasonable cost of $20 million or $30 million, we'll take it," the Yedioth Ahronot newspaper quoted Buchris as saying. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #12 Just turn off power water and imports. done. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-03-17 21:28 |
| #11 The basic problem with any CIWS is that it may not work perfectly. At some point, Hamas is going to get "lucky" and hit a bunch of people - like say a school in session. At that point, I think, Israeli rage will overcome any squeamishness the current government has. Hamas's celebration will be short lived. As will be many Palestinians. |
| Posted by: Rambler in California 2008-03-17 17:16 |
| #10 Eohippus: The Qassam1 had a range of 3km, the current Qassam3 has a range of up to 10km -- from what I've read that's the ideal range for a Phalanx. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2008-03-17 16:26 |
| #9 Phalanx is idiotic. That thing has a range of 1-2km for incoming missiles. Which means the chance to hit a rocket .5-1km offset are low. For guns there are much better systems. |
| Posted by: Eohippus Hupomock2152 2008-03-17 14:07 |
| #8 But, but, but...I thought there was a truce. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque (aka Ebbang Uluque6305) 2008-03-17 12:24 |
| #7 Heh, we have TW talking about gun-sex ;-) |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-03-17 11:09 |
| #6 The anti-rocket 20mm shells are on a timed fused. They explode into pieces too small to cause damage on the ground. I would prefer white phosphorous with contact detonation fuses. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-03-17 08:33 |
| #5 Depeleted uranium, TW. All the Paleos would sprout additional rocket-launching and seething appendeges from the 'radiation'. In quotes, because it is, after all, depleted. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-03-17 08:11 |
| #4 A feature indeed, phil_b. Although how the damage from incoming bullets could be differentiated from the damage of up-going gun sex bullets is beyond me. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-03-17 07:56 |
| #3 The drawback of Phalanx is the machine gun rounds fall to earth somewhere. Although some would consider that a feature. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-03-17 02:01 |
| #2 The one drawback of the Phalanx is that some politico might have to admit there is an existing system available at reasonable cost and that they might be responsible for the dead & injured due to their neglect. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-03-17 01:18 |
| #1 I'd just buy the Phalanx. Those things seem to rock, and they're available now. What's the drawback? |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2008-03-17 00:11 |