Missiles - An Israeli Lesson
-
Missiles
An Israeli lesson
Few are assessing Hezbollah's missile war on Israel with greater interest than Singapore. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Sep 6, 2006
With its military system modeled and trained along Israel's 'reservist army' concept, Singapore had more than a passing interest on the Israelis' poor defence against the missile raids from Lebanon.
For years Singapore has had its own effective missile capability, but like Israel, Singapore is a small state - in fact much smaller - and could be even more vulnerable to a sustained series of missile attacks.
The Israeli-Hezbollah war proved how crucial air power and a well-trained army remain in a modern war - but improved missile technology could take away some of their effectiveness, as Hezbollah has shown.
Many of the missiles that hit Israel are Katyushas, with a range of 10 miles, but they may be less relevant to Singapore since not many countries can launch them to hit this country.
Two types, both capable of carrying nuclear or chemical warheads, are more threatening: -
* A short-range missile with a distant of 50-150 miles, and/or
* A long-range one that can hit 650 miles.
What happened to Israel has sparked off an urgent search for a defence missile shield in United States and Israel - and Singapore is watching the outcome with interest.
Last week the Republic of Singapore Air Force announced it would set its sights on an anti-missile shield, with two options.
One, Singapore could either defend itself with anti-missile missiles or, two, it could come under the sea-based missile defence shield provided by US warships deployed to the region.
The Minister for Defence, Mr. Teo Chee Hean said Singapore's air defences may need to address ballistic missiles.
"We don't expect that they will be a direct threat to us. But the fact of the matter is that we are now within their range rings when, prior to that, we were not.
"So this is something which, if we're prudent, we will take into account,' he said.
The minister said Singapore was planning its third generation air defence systems, good for another 20 years.
A total of 34 countries worldwide have some type of ballistic missile or other, almost one-third of which are in Asia.
American success
Meanwhile, the US has announced that an interceptor missile destroyed a mock warhead over the Pacific Ocean last Friday in a key test of the nation's missile defence system.
It was America's most realistic test of the systems that would be used against an attack.
The 54-foot interceptor shot out of an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast at 10.39 am, 17 minutes after the mock warhead was launched from Kodiak Island, Alaska, an official said.
For Singapore, this is a big step forward, militarily speaking.
By Seah Chiang Nee
-----------------
This does have implications for us,and for Malaysia,as it decreases the ability of their ASTROS to attack and effectively harm Singapores infrastructure,if properly implemented.
It is a powerful countermeasure to that possible threat.
Of course,there is always the threat of a saturation attack designed to counteract the missile defence shield. -
Skyguard for VSHORADS role and the S-400 or Aster 30 system for medium BMD role. Costly but effective..
I don't think we have been caught unaware, it's just some info is fed to the press to send a message out. -
do u guys think that malaysia may be interested in acquiring Katyushas rockets after seeing the success of their impact on lives of Israeli civilians even though they are largely inaccurate? lots of place where they can hide the rockets in malaysia eg dense forest etc and still within range of singapore if they were to employ guerilla tactics in any possible conflicts with us.
is there any effective measures to counter a barrage of such short range missles that currently exist? -
U guys can only start to worry when Malaysia starts mass purchase of Katyushas rockets. So in the meantime.. no worries.Originally posted by ProudlySingaporean:do u guys think that malaysia may be interested in acquiring Katyushas rockets after seeing the success of their impact on lives of Israeli civilians even though they are largely inaccurate? lots of place where they can hide the rockets in malaysia eg dense forest etc and still within range of singapore if they were to employ guerilla tactics in any possible conflicts with us.
is there any effective measures to counter a barrage of such short range missles that currently exist? -
Like they are going to roll out the marching band when they are going to do this?
Post it in this forum with all the photos? -
I think we shouldn't be overly rely on US for our protection. Maybe we can ask the USN to provide some form of protection with their SM while their destroyers are in the region but ultimately we must have our own defence capability.
There is an article in the ST by David Boey which did mentioned that the Patriot and Arrow systems are possible options. I think we should also consider the S-300/S-400 and Aster 30 as well. I think we should not be overly dependent on one supplier for our air defence (RSAF is made up of mainly US systems) . With the ground based missile defence and together with our frigates (where i think upgrade to Aster 30 from Aster 15 is possible), we will have a credible defence against ballistic missiles.
The MTHEL should also be taken into future consideration as it may be cost effective to be used against the much smaller rockets or missiles such as the Qassam and Katyusha rockets.
S-400: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-400.htm
THEL: http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html
Qassam rockets:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rockets
Katyusha rockets:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha -
for now, can just send foreign talentsOriginally posted by BadzMaro:U guys can only start to worry when Malaysia starts mass purchase of Katyushas rockets. So in the meantime.. no worries. -
that's why we need tomahawk as part of our pioson shrimp defence approach. We just let them know that for every rocket our neighour fires at us, we will rush a tomahawk to their capital with no delivery charge.
I think we can easily afford 100 tomahawk, not expensive for the sake of our safety. Bestest can launch it from submarine to make sure all neighbours have a fair share when need arise.
But will the US sell to us?
-
Tomahawks..Originally posted by audiovideo:that's why we need tomahawk as part of our pioson shrimp defence approach. We just let them know that for every rocket our neighour fires at us, we will rush a tomahawk to their capital with no delivery charge.
I think we can easily afford 100 tomahawk, not expensive for the sake of our safety. Bestest can launch it from submarine to make sure all neighbours have a fair share when need arise.
But will the US sell to us?
Nah.
We might have better stuff.
But enough of the politicking shall we. -
what kind of better stuff are u talking about? Long range missles?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Tomahawks..
Nah.
We might have better stuff. -
what better stuff??
-
Better can mean anything.
Doesn't have to be long-range.. -
we dont need tamohawks to his their capital!heck with tamahawks we cld most prob hit vietnam!
-
The SAF has long abandoned the poison shrimp concept, in fact since the 1990sOriginally posted by audiovideo:that's why we need tomahawk as part of our pioson shrimp defence approach. We just let them know that for every rocket our neighour fires at us, we will rush a tomahawk to their capital with no delivery charge.
I think we can easily afford 100 tomahawk, not expensive for the sake of our safety. Bestest can launch it from submarine to make sure all neighbours have a fair share when need arise.
But will the US sell to us? -
what's that poison shrimp thingy that u are talking about?
-
Yes thats true, what do they call our new strategy now? Forward Defence? Tim Huxley call it the Doomsday mechanism, but that doesn't sound very encouraging.Originally posted by ^Delta^:The SAF has long abandoned the poison shrimp concept, in fact since the 1990s 
-
Pre-emptive forward defense.Originally posted by tankee1981:Yes thats true, what do they call our new strategy now? Forward Defence? Tim Huxley call it the Doomsday mechanism, but that doesn't sound very encouraging.
Something the British should have done in WW2. Grab the southern Thailand bases and stage out to battle the Japanese before they landed at Kota Bahru. -
Say is Aster 15 but Aster 15 or 30 on our frigates we dun know
-
I think they only have Aster 15 as officially claimed for the time being but there is certainly room for the Aster 30 in the future should there be a requirement.Originally posted by spartan6:Say is Aster 15 but Aster 15 or 30 on our frigates we dun know -
There is a neat summary of the TBMD potential of Aster missiles at Richard Beedall's excellent Navy Matters site. The Aster 30 may not be good enough.
http://frn.beedall.com/paams.htmAnti-Ballistic Missile Capability
Cheers,
The 1998 UK Strategic Defence Review policy on British Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) deployment was, as one commentator put it "Wait (a long time) and see". However this policy is coming under increasing criticism as the USA and most European allies start to develop or even deploy BMD systems, leaving the UK's current position looking increasingly isolated and risky, especially as regards the protection of deployed forces. In the absence of a land-based surface-to-air missile, and in view of its expeditionary strategy, adaptation of the Type 45 destroyer to BMD is becoming an obvious option. Although no decision has yet been officially taken, in May 2000 the Ministry of Defence said that the Type 45's were being built with the capacity to fire BMD interceptor missiles, a spokesman saying, "The Type 45 has been built with enough space to put in longer missiles. What would be needed for BMD is a booster motor. The UK and the French have been examining this and looking at the potential for Aster to be turned into a BMD missile."
Unfortunately, with the exception of the Sampson multi-function radar, the various PAAMS components don't currently have a very great potential for the BMD task compared with systems such as the American AEGIS/Standard missile combination. However it's believed that it will be possible to give PAAMS a theatre anti-ballistic missile (ATBM) capacity in the future. Work started in May 2000 on a very limited "block 1" ATBM capability by Eurosam for France and Italy utilising the land-based equivalent of PAAMS - the "Land SAAM AD" system (formerly called "SAMP/T"). This capability should become available in 2004-5 and will be able to deal with unsophisticated threats such as Scud tactical ballistic missiles which have a range up to 600km and follow a simple ballistic trajectory.
It's hoped to follow this with a "Block 2" version capable of dealing with much more sophisticated and longer-range (1,000+ km) ballistic missiles, this will use a new "Aster 45" missile with an enlarged booster stage and if the go-ahead is given in 2002 it could enter service around 2010-2012. As of June 2005, Aster 45 has no firm timeline.
At the moment Aster Block 1 and 2 are land-only systems, but relevant parts of the "Block 2" system could be adopted by the UK (and the other partners) in to a proposed navalised Block 3 to give PAAMS on the Type 45 destroyers an ATBM capability (sometimes designated ABM-PAAMS or PABMS). This capability would approach that of the USN's Navy Area Defense (NAD) system which will enter service on AEGIS equipped cruisers and destroyers armed with the Standard SM2 Block IVA missile from 2003. NAD is a so called "Lower Tier" solution and will be able intercept ballistic targets in their final descent phase, within the lower half of the appreciable atmosphere, and provide protection to vital areas ashore such as ports, airfields and cities within range of the defending ship - up to about 100 nautical miles.
The USN was also developing an "Upper Tier" Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) capability to be based on the new Standard SM-3 missile. This Navy Theater-Wide (NTW) system was to be capable of ascent- and mid-course phase intercepts of ballistic targets outside the atmosphere, and in so doing provide much wider protection (hence 'theatre-wide') than is being considered for PAAMS. NTW was to be deployed from 2007 but technical problems and cost escalation lead to cancellation in early 2002.
Sunho -
before anyone get excited check out how it looks like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gzN-ZBdRgs&NR
from the firing point and results (briefly) -
Certainly looks impressive...but we shouldn't be too worried ourselves as we have our own surprises up our sleeves...
-
the good news is that at least our HS and BS can withstand up to 6 ton of HE at close prox.
thats almost equal to the total amount of explosives found in as many as 30 astros SS-80 rocket going off right outside your house simultaneously(which is theoretically impossible).
just wanna add:
its also practically impossible and logically stupid.
-
it is just too near to use missiles on SG if you guys are talkiing about up north and down south....
standing on their point of vew... it will be cheaper to used long range dump round ie arty round...
SG should be thinking where will the ppl be going/hiding during such attack... tell me... ppl really going to hide in your store room.... -
maybe its time to make use of the Metal Storm technology....