New Missile Defence system can shoot down multiple salvos of Mortar, Rocket and Artilery shells.

[Qianglong]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=320_1173106615&c=1

Pretty impressive i think.

 

[So]

Yeah, THEL was designed jointly w/ Israel, to target the exact type of threat they faced last July, yet once hte prototype proved it worked, they decided they didn't need it and stopped funding. The US continued, but is miniaturizing it as MTHEL to fit on the back of a truck for point defense. It would have probably meant most of the hezbollah rockets would have exploded harmlessly, possibly before they even crossed the border.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: So
Yeah, THEL was designed jointly w/ Israel, to target the exact type of threat they faced last July, yet once hte prototype proved it worked, they decided they didn't need it and stopped funding. The US continued, but is miniaturizing it as MTHEL to fit on the back of a truck for point defense. It would have probably meant most of the hezbollah rockets would have exploded harmlessly, possibly before they even crossed the border.

Israel decided against this system because of the prohibitive cost of deploying numerous systems, and because it's at least 4 years away from becoming operational. They are working with other missile defense systems.

 

[ElFenix]

:Q

 

[So]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: So
Yeah, THEL was designed jointly w/ Israel, to target the exact type of threat they faced last July, yet once hte prototype proved it worked, they decided they didn't need it and stopped funding. The US continued, but is miniaturizing it as MTHEL to fit on the back of a truck for point defense. It would have probably meant most of the hezbollah rockets would have exploded harmlessly, possibly before they even crossed the border.

Israel decided against this system because of the prohibitive cost of deploying numerous systems, and because it's at least 4 years away from becoming operational. They are working with other missile defense systems.

It was 4 years away from being viable, six years ago.

 

[J0hnny]

A rail gun would probably be better than a laser based system.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: J0hnny
A rail gun would probably be better than a laser based system.

Uhhh......

why?

 

[Kur]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: J0hnny
A rail gun would probably be better than a laser based system.

Uhhh......

why?

Because spraying 1000's of rounds in the sky to hit 1 thing won't cause any collateral damage a few miles away duh!

/sarcasm

 

[J0hnny]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: J0hnny
A rail gun would probably be better than a laser based system.

Uhhh......

why?

Think about it... there are many reasons.

1) Easy to defend against lasers - thicker missile coating that can reflect specific wavelengths of light (requires longer "burn" time so a large salvo can easily defeat multiple lasers since it'll take more than half a minute to destroy each target)

2) Lasers require expensive focusing lenses

3) Not as useful against cluster munitions

4) Limited targets (if used against vehicles, it's possible the enemy may use heat shields)

Benefits of rail gun:

1) Can be used on wide range of targets including tanks

2) "bullet" will instantaneous destroy target

3) Cheaper and easier to deploy (although portable power systems need to be strong)

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: J0hnny

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: J0hnny
A rail gun would probably be better than a laser based system.

Uhhh......

why?

Think about it... there are many reasons.

1) Easy to defend against lasers - thicker missile coating that can reflect specific wavelengths of light (requires longer "burn" time so a large salvo can easily defeat multiple lasers since it'll take more than half a minute to destroy each target)

2) Lasers require expensive focusing lenses

3) Not as useful against cluster munitions

4) Limited targets (if used against vehicles, it's possible the enemy may use heat shields)

Benefits of rail gun:

1) Can be used on wide range of targets including tanks

2) "bullet" will instantaneous destroy target

3) Cheaper and easier to deploy (although portable power systems need to be strong)

since there is only one rail working now, how would this be better?

 

[randomint]

uh..but they still got their asses kicked by hezbolla

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: So
Yeah, THEL was designed jointly w/ Israel, to target the exact type of threat they faced last July, yet once hte prototype proved it worked, they decided they didn't need it and stopped funding. The US continued, but is miniaturizing it as MTHEL to fit on the back of a truck for point defense. It would have probably meant most of the hezbollah rockets would have exploded harmlessly, possibly before they even crossed the border.

And what about the Israeli shells going the other way?

 

[RichUK]

That's pretty cool.

 

[RichUK]

Can you use it against suicide bombers?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: RichUK
Can you use it against suicide bombers?

If you point it low enough, sure.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: So
Yeah, THEL was designed jointly w/ Israel, to target the exact type of threat they faced last July, yet once hte prototype proved it worked, they decided they didn't need it and stopped funding. The US continued, but is miniaturizing it as MTHEL to fit on the back of a truck for point defense. It would have probably meant most of the hezbollah rockets would have exploded harmlessly, possibly before they even crossed the border.

Israel decided against this system because of the prohibitive cost of deploying numerous systems, and because it's at least 4 years away from becoming operational. They are working with other missile defense systems.

It was 4 years away from being viable, six years ago.

I followed the story in the Israeli media when they were deciding which system to go with. This was only a few months ago, and it was said that this system was still four years away. I could be wrong though, I'm going by memory.
What I am pretty sure of is that one of the reasons Israel did not select that system is that each system did not cover enough territory to make sense for them. To cover their entire border would be very costly.

 

[Aquaman]

why spend billions on that system when you can clone Chuck Norris and he can do the same with his spin kicks

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[VanTheMan]

Imagine what would happen to flocks of birds flying by... POOF POOF POOF POOF

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: J0hnny

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: J0hnny
A rail gun would probably be better than a laser based system.

Uhhh......

why?

Think about it... there are many reasons.

1) Easy to defend against lasers - thicker missile coating that can reflect specific wavelengths of light (requires longer "burn" time so a large salvo can easily defeat multiple lasers since it'll take more than half a minute to destroy each target)

2) Lasers require expensive focusing lenses

3) Not as useful against cluster munitions

4) Limited targets (if used against vehicles, it's possible the enemy may use heat shields)

Benefits of rail gun:

1) Can be used on wide range of targets including tanks

2) "bullet" will instantaneous destroy target

3) Cheaper and easier to deploy (although portable power systems need to be strong)

since there is only one rail working now, how would this be better?

yeah all his points will be moot when the projectile welds itself to the rails in a fit of sparks or comes out the other end as a plasma, (yes i know you then mount in a sabot preferably made of some non metalic, yet still conductive material so the round itself doesnt just melt away). lol

plus you need to seriously high currents for a rail gun, 100's maybe 1000's of ampere's its hardly handy on a mobile platform, where you gonna get all that juice from? what about recharge times?

 

[J0hnny]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: J0hnny

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: J0hnny
A rail gun would probably be better than a laser based system.

Uhhh......

why?

Think about it... there are many reasons.

1) Easy to defend against lasers - thicker missile coating that can reflect specific wavelengths of light (requires longer "burn" time so a large salvo can easily defeat multiple lasers since it'll take more than half a minute to destroy each target)

2) Lasers require expensive focusing lenses

3) Not as useful against cluster munitions

4) Limited targets (if used against vehicles, it's possible the enemy may use heat shields)

Benefits of rail gun:

1) Can be used on wide range of targets including tanks

2) "bullet" will instantaneous destroy target

3) Cheaper and easier to deploy (although portable power systems need to be strong)

since there is only one rail working now, how would this be better?

yeah all his points will be moot when the projectile welds itself to the rails in a fit of sparks or comes out the other end as a plasma, (yes i know you then mount in a sabot preferably made of some non metalic, yet still conductive material so the round itself doesnt just melt away). lol

plus you need to seriously high currents for a rail gun, 100's maybe 1000's of ampere's its hardly handy on a mobile platform, where you gonna get all that juice from? what about recharge times?

All done with capacitors. Lots and lots of them!

Wouldn't the laser be faced with the same power consumption problem?