Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So, where are those Patriot Missile batteries?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:04 PM
Original message
So, where are those Patriot Missile batteries?
Edited on Sat Jul-15-06 12:09 PM by msmcghee
These were touted during the 1992 Iraq war as providing an impenetrable defense for Israel against Saddam's scud missiles. Of, course, even the TV shots showed how they did nothing of the kind. Occasionally they'd hit something in the air but the missiles still fell and usually exploded in Jerusalem or wherever and killed people.

Scuds have a much greater range and I assume a greater descent velocity than the 120 mile range Iranian missiles that Hezbollah is reportedly firing at Israel now.

And, we've had 14 years to improve that technology and make it even better. So, where are they now? Where are the TV shots of the Hezbollah missiles being destroyed in the air and the jubilant Israelis taunting them to fire more? Why isn't *Bush touting their protective powers in order to support his claims for his multi-billion dollar boondoggle missile defense shield?

Color me curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. I Don't Think They Work.
I have seen studies that indicate those Patriot Missiles aren't much more effective than "air in a can".

If someone has evidence I'm mistaken I'd like to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. In Haifa
According to Haaretz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Patriots would be ineffective against Katyusha rockets.


The longer range missiles being fired are not ballistic missiles, patriots would have little chance of hitting them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Thanks for the answer.
Maybe you can help me out on this . . it seems then that Katyushas are old technology. They look cheap to make and easy to hide. Why don't we have a defense against them, even if that defense is not the advanced Patriot technology?

What if someone smuggled a few of those into the US? Can you imagine what would happen if someone randomly fired a few of those into the next Super Bowl?

No defense against Katyushas? I know we're screwed now.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Because They Are So Primitive They Are Hard To Defend
It would be like trying to protect your home from kids throwing bricks at it.

I hope that makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I see. It's like . . .
. . . burying a spent 155 mm shell under the road and waiting for the next Humvee to come by. Just the war we always not prepared to fight.

This is the most inept leadership we have ever ehad. The sad (sick) part is they'll blame whatever bad things happen to us on the liberal media . . and on folks like us here at DU . . because we were not is full sycophant mode like they are. I get it now. Thanks

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. They are Ballistic Missiles.
Ballistic Missiles are missiles that follow a trajectory, like an Artillery Round. Thus any rocket (except Guided Missiles for example air to air or ground to air or even air to ground missiles) are Ballistic Missiles. Air to Air Missiles and Ground to air (Except for the first generation of WWII and post-WWII air to air and ground to air Missiles) are either heat seeking or Radar guided Missiles, and thus not Ballistic. Air to Ground can be Ballistic, but NOT if Radar Guided, optical guided, heat seeking, or even direct aim.

The problem is people confuse the term Ballistic with long range rockets. All long range rockets are Ballistic, they follow a trajectory. The problem is once you have a target over about 20 miles there are to many variables to take into account for a ballistic missile to hit (Under 20 miles an 8 Itch howitzer can hit a pill pox firing it ballistic projectile, its round, to the target and this was possible during WWI). The problem once you start to go over 20 miles the calculations gets to be difficult Even with a computer (And impossible without accurate information such as the weather between the gun and the target which the enemy rarely will give you). Thus while accurate targeting can be made for ballistic weapons up to 20 miles away, once over that range the Launcher of the ballistic weapon rarely have the information needed to do the calculations needed to hit a target based on how the ballistic weapon was launched. Thus some sort of mis-course correcting device was needed (or an acceptance that the ballistic round was for large area targets only).

Second to the problem was how to move the weapon into a position to being able to hit a target in enemy territory. When the horse was the prime mover of artillery, artillery could not be heavier than about 75mm for guns or 105m for Howitzers (Howitzers had shorter barrels than Guns thus a 75 mm gun weighed about the same as a 105mm Howitzer). larger guns could be hauled by Horses, but that took teams of horses often pulling different parts of the Guns (Which were later assembled on site) or you had teams of horses that were used one after another to haul the bigger gun around (Oxen were also used on larger guns and later Steam tractors). These methods sufficed for gun up to 203mm(Eight Inch) but once you went over 8 inch you had a problem with these methods. Thus during WWI self-propelled Guns and Howitzers were used first for these larger guns. These first generation self-propelled guns were slower than horses (Thus horse drawn artillery stayed around through WWII) but better at moving the big guns but sonly so far. For the even larger guns (over 240mm) the armies of WWI went to Railroad guns, these tended to be naval cannons mounted on Railroad cars firing 8-14 inch ballistic rounds (The largest of these, the Paris Gun of 1918, had a range of almost 100 miles, but could only hit a target the size of Paris, thus its use only against that city).

During WWII, the prime mover shifted form Horses to Trucks. The British with is Land-rover (about a 1 1/2 ton Truck) to haul its "25 pounder" gun-howitzer (It was about 85mm diameter and designed to fire in high trajectories like a Howitzer but also on a line of sight aim like a gun, thus it was a "gun howitzer". The American 105 Howitzer was also a Gun Howitzer, but larger, for the US Army wanted close to the same range in the 105mm as the Army had in its previous M1897 French 75mm Howitzer from WWI. This was achieved, the 105mm had a range just about 100 yards less than the 75mm it replaced, most howitzers had 1/2 the range of Guns).

Note: In artillery use a Gun is a term reserved for a large Cannon designed to fire directly at a target. A Howitzer is a Cannon designed to fire at a steep angle (with the term Mortars used for weapons firing even steeper angles than howitzers). The main difference between a Howitzer and a Mortar prior to WWI was a Howitzer was designed for use in Mountains and Hills, while Mortars were design as siege weapons against Cities and Forts. Thus Howitzers looked like short barreled guns. Howitzer had wheels and were designed to be moved quickly if needed. Mortar rarely had wheels and were NOT designed for quick movement. Mortars were smooth bore for they were not intended for long range fire. Since they were NOT rifled, to achieve accuracy they fired fined projectiles on a ballistic course (these were called "Bombs" a term used by the first airplanes when dropping similar projectiles during WWI and a term still used for such weapons). Mortars were rare on the Battlefield given the fact they were hard to move.

Now during WWI, a new class of weapon came into the use, the Modern Mortar. Since it had a smooth bore and fired fined projectiles and had no wheels it was called a Mortar. It is designed for quick movement with the infantry, thus the term "Infantry Mortar" is often used for this new class of Ballistic weapon launcher.

Anyway back to the topic. During WWII the need for longer range for artillery was noted. To get that range you had to go to larger and larger artillery pieces. For example the US fielded not only a 240mm Howitzer but also a 240mm Gun as its largest field piece (and even shipped to Europe but never used a 36 inch mortar to used against German defenses on the Rhine). The Germans had a 800mm self-propelled Mortar (It had a very short barrel and was intended to use its track only for short distances). Furthermore the Germans fielded a 800mm GUN. This monster was built transporter by rail to where it was intended to be built. Then two sets of parallel railroad tracks were built. The gun was then assembled on site to fire its 800mm projectile into anything within 100 miles. It was designed for use against the French in 1940, but was produced to late for the French Campaign but was used against t Sevastopol in 1943. It took two weeks to set this monster up to fire its ballistic rounds into a target.

Anyway after WWII the need to such super projectiles was still needed (In fact even larger projectiles with further range were judged to be needed). Building these supper guns would cost millions of dollars AND air power was its chief threat. Some how such large projectiles had to be retained WHILE being launch from a much smaller launch vehicle.

Now the Russians had used Rockets in WWII, but as multiple launch weapons NOT as a single launch weapon, but the Russians and the Americans quicker saw the rocket as the solution to the above problem. Replace the huge cannon with a single rocket. You lose the ability to shoot several rounds, but you gain mobility. Thus the modern Ballistic rocket was invented. These were advanced during the 1950s and 1960s for even larger loads and increase accuracy. The problem was after a while the need to quickly launch the weapon without all the information for an accurate hit became a requirement. This was solved by adding the ability to make mid-course corrections as new information arrived at the launch site after the missile had been launched (This included radio transmissions from the Missile itself). Thus by the 1960s the previous generation of Rockets without Guidance after launched had been replaced by Missiles capable of mid-course corrections. This ability to adjust course also permitted greater range. Thus while all of the projectile I have discussed on this thread have been "Ballistic", in common usage the term came into use with these 1960s era missiles. People called them Ballistic missiles because it sounded better than rockets with mid-range correction.

As to the Patriot, its computer have advance a lot since 1990, but it still takes time to find that a rocket had been launched, to figure out its course and then to launch a missile to intercept it. Most of these Rockets are only in the air for seconds. The shorter range the less time int he air and thus the harder it is to detect, determine its course and launch a missile to intercept it. The Scuds of Desert Storm went from the Western Deserts of Iraq to Israel, these rockets are not going as deep into Israel as the Saddam;s Scuds did nor from as far away (Plus they are faster having no need to slow down to maintain communications for mis course corrections).

Thus these are Ballistic Missiles, just ones without the ability to hit accurately do to an inability to make mid-course corrections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Geez, thanks for the great explanation. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. I think I see some sarcasms here....
But since no one understand Sarcasm I will consider this a complement (See I can be a Republican if I really wanted to be one).

Anyway, one more problem in hitting one of these Rockets with a Patriot. One way to defeat Radar is to operate at low attitude so that mountains block the radar. This permit the Rockets to gain speed as it speeds upward. Thus crucial second are loss do to the launch being protected form detection by the Mountains. Furthermore one way to make it harder to detect the rocket is to make sure its trajectory is as flat as possible. Max range is achieved at a 45 degree angle in most ballistic launches, but if you go to a lower angle, you lose range BUT the rocket by flying closer to the ground is harder to detect.

To avoid detection by enemy radar Jet fighter-Bombers since the 1970s have flown at about 600 feet from the ground. Such Fighter-Bombers thus use terrain to hide from radar detection. . The same with these rockets, by flying low they can avoid being detected and if the Rocket is NOT detected the Patriot does not even warm up let alone prepare to launch a missile to intercept the ballistic Rocket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. At the time, while being questioned about all of this. they claimed
Edited on Sat Jul-15-06 12:12 PM by The_Casual_Observer
that they had "tuned up" the Patriot to do the job. Naturally, the idiots that call themselves reporters (who went in to that field because they couldn't pass geometry in high school) reported the success with great fanfare. Nothing has changed, except that reporters have become even more stupid over the years. Bogus pentagon technical claims and bullshit gets passed along without question every single time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. You got that right.! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. As demonstrated at the outset of the Iraq invasion, the patriot
works great for shooting down our own planes and helios, not much else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Whatever happened to this approach???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. No one would waste a quarter million dollar Patriot missile on
one "bottle rocket" Kytusha projectile. Their impact on Israel is being grossly overplayed in order to give the appearance of a two-sided war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I thought I read . . .
. . that there was a longer range missile that could hit Haiffa that was not a Katyusha. Is that one ballistic or just a bigger bottle rocket variety?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I can't answer that. The hit on the ship has been alternately
described as being a rocket or a drone airplane. The latest word is that it wasn't a drone. Who knows. If the guided a rocket to the ship, they've got better equipment than we've previously been aware of.

All of the talk about Iran supporting Hezbollah: If that is true, they haven't given them much support. Iran has all sorts of nasty and sophisticated short and intermediate range missiles in their arsenal. Hezbollah has shown no signs of possessing any of those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Going to be interesting to see what it turned out to be
The real issue is if there was a seeker or not (one of the differences between a missile and rocket).

Another theory floating around is that it was a steerable rocket with a crude data link (sort of like SLAM or Walleye)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. They Israelis have announced that it was an Iranian made
guided missile. If true, Hezbollah must have had only one, otherwise they would have taken out the entire Israeli group. (The Israelis might have bombed their own for strategic reasons.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Have a URL or other citation?
Not doubting you, but would like to do a bit of research on it.

Still seems to be a lot of different information about the damage it did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Here it is.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_attacked_ship

Iran has several very potent anti-ship missiles. They also can fire missiles from one of their submarines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Got it, thanks
Harpoon class weapon vice something homegrown.

As for the Sunburn missiles, those are a step up in size and sophistication. Though not a major issue for the US fleet, IDF would have limited defense against them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-15-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. The IDF claims that the ship that was hit was equipped with
sophisticated anti-missile defense but that it was turned off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC