News from Gaza Part 2

[Billy T]

Please, give a reference

Here is a video of CIWS in action in Iraq, with the happy GI voices in the back ground:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d306b12449

I do not think it could be staged.

Here is an even better daylight one - you can see the mortar shells explode:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a015fdb96

Do not miss the text posted above the second video. It reads:
"For the unbelievers of the video I posted earlier of the system in action against an actual mortar attack in Balad, Iraq, here is the system being tested. Here is the video I posted of it in action in Iraq. Also called Land-Based Phalanx Weapons System or LPWS. "

Note the word "video" is susposed to be another link you can follow, in the video page, but it did not work for me.

You actually seeing it happen (CIWS in action against mortar shell in Iraq) - that should be sufficient "reference."

BTW I asked you for a link back in my post 1037, but you never gave one. Now that I have given evidence for the successful use of CIWS in Iraq against faster and harder to hit falling mortar shells (as I claimed) perhaps you will try to support your claim (first made in your post 1025)?

 

[1100f]

that should be sufficient "reference."

You see 4 targets hits in a scenario where you don't even know if the target is toward the CWIS or not, and this is the reference that the probability of detection is 99.99% no matter the direction of the target?
WOW I am really impressed
And it is a proof that there were no misses

BTW I asked you for a link back in my post 1037, but you never gave one. Now that I have given evidence for the successful use of CIWS in Iraq against faster and harder to hit falling mortar shells (as I claimed) perhaps you will try to support your claim (first made in your post 1025)?

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/6/946.pdf

 

[S.A.M.]

From the Ha'aretz today:

At the start of the ground offensive, senior command decided to avoid endangering the lives of soldiers, even at the price of seriously harming the civilian population. This is why the IDF made use of massive force during its advance in the Strip. As a Golani brigade commander explained, if there is any concern that a house is booby-trapped, even if it is filled with civilians, it should be targeted and hit, to ensure that it is not mined - only then should it be approached. Without going into the moral aspects, such fighting tactics explain why there were no instances in which there was a need to assault homes where Hamas fighters were holed up.

Other outcomes of this fighting method were the extensive damage and the deaths of many civilians. According to IDF statistics, almost two thirds of Palestinians killed were civilians. Moreover, even though it was one of the war's aims, hardly any Hamas fighters were taken prisoner, and the holding center set up to imprison them remained almost empty.

The Israel Air Force, too, received a great deal of praise. The media asserted that during Cast Lead it proved that it is the world's best air force. While the IAF's quality is beyond dispute, it would be a serious mistake to bolster such a claim on the basis of its activity in the Gaza Strip. The planes operated in an environment free of air defenses, enjoying complete aerial superiority. A flight over the Strip and a mostly "accurate" bombing run, which can be dropped from a relatively short range, is not a complicated mission. The flights over Gaza are like test flights, which every pilot does dozens of times a year.

The IDF should relate to its performance in Operation Cast Lead with the necessary humility and proportionality. There was no war there.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058460.html

 

[Billy T]

...http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/6/946.pdf

Thanks for the link on "iron dome" threat interceptor system. I think it must be intended for more advanced (much more expensive) threat rockets than the cheap un-guided, high arc Quasam rockets typically fired from Gaza.

I am surprised that the iron dome design has the radar transmitter in the defensive missile. - That takes a lot more power and weight than just the radar receiver, and of course is destroyed by each use. As a ground based search radar is already part of the system, it would seem much cheaper per kill to have a cheaper, less massive, iron dome interceptor missile (faster accelerating also) with a bi-static radar system like the SM-2 missiles most navies use. I.e. a repeatedly used, ground-based, radar throws a beam on the targets and the defensive missile homes in on the reflection of that beam off the incoming threat.

For targets that CIWS can handle firing bullets, it is much cheaper and as the stream of bullets can continue until a kill is confirmed, the Pk is higher than most "one shot" (one interceptor missile / target) systems like iron dome. If Israel is going to make a new defensive system, perhaps a VT (Variable Time instead of fixed fuse time) shells is both cheap and deadly with proximity miss (instead of radar) fusing.

APL, where I worked, saved the US Pacific fleet in WWII (remaining after Pearl Harbor) from the Japanese Kama Kazi attacks by inventing the VT fused shell that was fired from ship's guns. Surely, 60+ years later they can be much better. (Each shell had a very rugged vacuum tube oscillator in it and tiny generator turned by a tiny prop on shell nose - no battery going dead in storage problem, but it was very hard to make a tube that could survive the acceleration of firing from a gun. With solid state oscillator that should be much easier and more sensitive now. The capacitive "pulling" of the oscillator frequency as the shell made a near miss of a metal target triggered the shell's HE.)

 

[disease]

When are the Palestinians going to get access to modern weapons, so they can defend themselves against Israeli aggression? And target 'civilian' institutions, like the Knesset buildings, universities and hospitals? Also the barracks of soldiers, i.e. residences in former Palestinian towns like Ashdod and Sderot, which are now occupied by the Israeli enemy?

You realise, Israel uses these facilities to develop weapons. It uses its parliament to plot assassinations and war crimes.

 

[1100f]

Thanks for the link on "iron dome" threat interceptor system. I think it must be intended for more advanced (much more expensive) threat rockets than the cheap un-guided, high arc Quasam rockets typically fired from Gaza.

I am surprised that the iron dome design has the radar transmitter in the defensive missile. - That takes a lot more power and weight than just the radar receiver, and of course is destroyed by each use. As a ground based search radar is already part of the system, it would seem much cheaper per kill to have a cheaper, less massive, iron dome interceptor missile (faster accelerating also) with a bi-static radar system like the SM-2 missiles most navies use. I.e. a repeatedly used, ground-based, radar throws a beam on the targets and the defensive missile homes in on the reflection of that beam off the incoming threat.

For targets that CIWS can handle firing bullets, it is much cheaper and as the stream of bullets can continue until a kill is confirmed, the Pk is higher than most "one shot" (one interceptor missile / target) systems like iron dome. If Israel is going to make a new defensive system, perhaps a VT (Variable Time instead of fixed fuse time) shells is both cheap and deadly with proximity miss (instead of radar) fusing.

APL, where I worked, saved the US Pacific fleet in WWII (remaining after Pearl Harbor) from the Japanese Kama Kazi attacks by inventing the VT fused shell that was fired from ship's guns. Surely, 60+ years later they can be much better. (Each shell had a very rugged vacuum tube oscillator in it and tiny generator turned by a tiny prop on shell nose - no battery going dead in storage problem, but it was very hard to make a tube that could survive the acceleration of firing from a gun. With solid state oscillator that should be much easier and more sensitive now. The capacitive "pulling" of the oscillator frequency as the shell made a near miss of a metal target triggered the shell's HE.)

I tried to do a search, I still couldn't find your references that predict a 99.99% probability of detection for the CIWS in any configuration

 

[Billy T]

I tried to do a search, I still couldn't find your references that predict a 99.99% probability of detection for the CIWS in any configuration

That was only my estimate* of CIWS shooting in the "fire until confirmed kill mode" against a target relatively slowing** falling from high altitude.
-------------
*Based on the high Pk against even super sonic sea skimmers, like the French Exocet, where as I recall the Pk is in the mid to high 90s percent. Against only one "leaker", of course and also considering the "target killed" if its warhead was exploded prior to your defended point / area, even if some pieces of the target do fall on the defended area. In some cases with the supersonic targets, some of their pieces do hit the ship that killed the target via CIWS, but the damage, if any is minor.(Break a radio antenna, wind gage, signaling lantern, etc.) Lets do some numbers:

If Exocet's Pk is 0.95 (a survival Ps = 0.05) then with 8 times more time** to kill the Quasam rocket, the Ps is:
Quasam's Ps = (0.05)^8 which is very much lower than my estimated Ps = 0.000,01 (or Pk = 99.99%).

My $10 calculator will not do the eight power of 0.05 but the fourth power is 0.000,006,2 so even if their is only four times more time available my estimate of Pk =99.99% is still conservative!

**At the peak of its near parabolic, high-arc trajectory the Quasam is nearly stationary compared to an Exocet. - Lots of time to shoot at it while still high and far from the defended area.

Also note that the Pk during the second "analysis interval" (of 8 or 4 analysis intervals) is higher than in the first as the CIWS then has much better trajectory data, the target is closer and CIWS has already nearly converged the bullet stream onto the target, but in my calculation of the estimated Pk (or Ps) I have ignored these facts and assume each interval starts with poor initial mechanical aim at the target. (Not the aim being constantly improved by tracking the outgoing bullet stream as well as the target.)

If your concern is focused on detection that too is very easy compared to an Exocet. There is no background clutter, no false returns from a wave crest, no electronic counter measures - Not detecting a Quasam against the non reflective sky radar background would be like a man with 20/20 vision not being able to see his house when walking up the straight walk to it.

I also postulated that the firing rate was greatly reduced (especially if first generation CIWS now sitting in warehouses are used) as they did jam when firing at the max rate (> 3000 bullets per second). At the 100 bullets / second firing rate I suggested for CIWS against Quasams, even the first generation will never jam. (If your concern is jamming.)

I do not know if you agree now, but think my estimate of Pk = 99.99% is very well based. Do you agree?

 

[1100f]

That was only my estimate of CIWS shooting in the "fire until confirmed kill mode" against a target relatively slowing* falling from high altitude.
-------------
*Based on the high Pk against even super sonic sea skimmers, like the French Exocet, where as I recall the Pk is in the mid to high 90s percent. Against only one "leaker", of course and also considering the "target killed" if its warhead was exploded prior to your defended point / area, even if some pieces of the target do fall on the defended area. In some cases with the supersonic targets, some of their pieces do hit the ship that killed the target via CIWS, but the damage, if any is minor.(Break a radio antenna, wind gage, signaling lantern, etc.)

I was not talking about Pk but about Pd

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

Semi-random aside; I was recently emailed this video which I think sums up the Israeli position quite nicely.
Its an IDF soldier speaking in Arabic with English subtitles.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8sznMP3dnCg&feature=PlayList&p=24B346594DCE3F37&index=5

 

[Billy T]

I was not talking about Pk but about Pd

Perhaps you replied while I was still editing and had not yet added:

"If your concern is focused on detection that too is very easy compared to an Exocet. There is no background clutter, no false returns from a wave crest*, no electronic counter measures. - Not detecting a Quasam against the non reflective sky radar background would be like a man with 20/20 vision not being able to see his house when walking up the straight walk to it.

I also postulated that the firing rate was greatly reduced (especially if first generation CIWS now sitting in warehouses are used) as they did jam when firing at the max rate (> 3000 bullets per second). At the 100 bullets / second firing rate I suggested for CIWS against Quasams, even the first generation will never jam. (If your concern is jamming.)
------------
*(This footnote is not in the original post, but added now for clarity): The CIWS uses Doppler shift to separately see the target and the out going bullet stream. Thus, the direct reflection from a wave crest is not much problem, but the Doppler shifted higher frequency target return can reflect off a wave which is about midway between the target and the CIWS, and even be stronger than the direct target return in very unusual conditions when the wave surface (shallow dish) is curved to focus a large area of wave reflection onto the CIWS.

 

[1100f]

Perhaps you replied while I was still editing and had not yet added:

"If your concern is focused on detection that too is very easy compared to an Exocet. There is no background clutter, not false returns form a wave crest, no electronic counter measures. - Not detecting a Quasam against the non reflective sky radar background would be like a man with 20/20 vision not being able to see his house when walking up the straight walk to it.

I also postulated that the firing rate was greatly reduced (especially if first generation CIWS now sitting in warehouses are used) as they did jam when firing at the max rate (> 3000 bullets per second). At the 100 bullets / second firing rate I suggested for CIWS against Quasams, even the first generation will never jam. (If your concern is jamming.)

Are you claiming that the radar system of the CIWS has a pd of 100%?
I know that if I had a radar with a 100% pd (for pfa = 0), I wouldn't sell it for cheap if I would sell it.
WOW, I am impressed that there exist such a radar system.
It has been 15 years that I am working in radar systems and this is the first time that I hear of a radar system like that.
WOW
WOW
WOW
And yes, as you said in a previous post, I admit my ignorance. I never knew that such a radar existed

 

[Billy T]

Are you claiming that the radar system of the CIWS has a pd of 100%?
I know that if I had a radar with a 100% pd (for pfa = 0), I wouldn't sell it for cheap if I would sell it.
WOW, I am impressed that there exist such a radar system.
It has been 15 years that I am working in radar systems and this is the first time that I hear of a radar system like that.
WOW
WOW
WOW
And yes, as you said in a previous post, I admit my ignorance. I never knew that such a radar existed

Pd of course is not a function of the radar alone. It strongly depends on the target - its RCS, which is a complex function of both frequency and aspect angle. When the Quasam aspect angle is near broadside (during the climb up and at peak altitude), it is very easy to detect. I do not have data on the RCS but I am sure it is much larger than an Exocet headed for the Ship's CIWS and again there are none of the background or sea bounce problems I mentioned, so:

Yes I will claim that the amount that Pd differs from unity (for Quasam in the "BROADSIDE" aspect against a sky background) is unmeasurably small.

If you work with radars you know that even single birds can be tracked at amazing distances, and they are not made of metal!

 

[pjdude1219]

I know its a little late but did anybody else notice how Israel's withdrawal coincided with Obama's Inaugratation

 

[S.A.M.]

Not in Gaza, but relevant to the future security of Palestinians

The front-runner in Israel's election next month said he would allow existing West Bank settlements to expand as the population grows — a policy likely to face opposition from the Palestinians and the new U.S. administration.

The comments by opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu appeared in an Israeli newspaper on Monday, just two days before Washington's new Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, is expected to make his first visit to the region. Mitchell, a critic of Israel's West Bank settlements, is expected to meet with Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, and focus on ways to revive peace talks in the wake of Israel's recent offensive in the Gaza Strip.

Unbelievable, like an incurable disease that keeps on spreading.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD95UUOL80

 

[Billy T]

I know its a little late but did anybody else notice how Israel's withdrawal coincided with Obama's Inaugratation

Yes. The invasion of Gaza was well planned (Israel did not act quickly as when it invaded Lebanon. - That caused many to lose their jobs, and command positions as was a poorly planned, quick response. The Gaza invasion was months in the planning* and the timing was set mainly by the US and Israeli elections.)
------------
*US even funded construction an urban village in Israel, complete with mosque towers, to help train for urban warfare prior to the invasion.

 

[Baron Max]

Unbelievable, like an incurable disease that keeps on spreading.

You mean the increasing numbers of Muslims who take the law into their own hands? Yeah, you're right ....it's like an incurable disease.

Baron Max

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Perhaps you replied while I was still editing and had not yet added:

"If your concern is focused on detection that too is very easy compared to an Exocet. There is no background clutter, no false returns from a wave crest*, no electronic counter measures. - Not detecting a Quasam against the non reflective sky radar background would be like a man with 20/20 vision not being able to see his house when walking up the straight walk to it.

I also postulated that the firing rate was greatly reduced (especially if first generation CIWS now sitting in warehouses are used) as they did jam when firing at the max rate (> 3000 bullets per second). At the 100 bullets / second firing rate I suggested for CIWS against Quasams, even the first generation will never jam. (If your concern is jamming.)
------------
*(This footnote is not in the original post, but added now for clarity): The CIWS uses Doppler shift to separately see the target and the out going bullet stream. Thus, the direct reflection from a wave crest is not much problem, but the Doppler shifted higher frequency target return can reflect off a wave which is about midway between the target and the CIWS, and even be stronger than the direct target return in very unusual conditions when the wave surface (shallow dish) is curved to focus a large area of wave reflection onto the CIWS.

Billy T, do you know what you are talking about????

CWIS, max rate of fire for block O and 1, is 3,000 rd, per minuet, not 3,000 per second, and even at 100 rd. per second as you have just stated the rate of fire would be--- 6,000 rd. a minuet, about twice what a block O and 1, CWIS is capabale of.

Gun and ammunition handling system

The Block O CIWS mounts (hydraulic driven) fired at a rate of 3,000 rounds per minute and they could only hold 989 rounds in the magazine drum. The Block 1 CIWS mounts (hydraulic) also fired at 3,000 rounds per minute with an extended magazine drum holding 1,550 rounds. The Block 1A and newer (pneumatic driven) CIWS mounts fire at a rate of 4,500 rounds per minute and also had the larger 1,550 round magazine. The velocity of the rounds once fired is approximately 3,600 feet per second (1,100 m/s). The rounds are armor-piercing tungsten penetrator rounds with discarding sabots

 

[disease]

Just drop a nuke, pal. Nukes solve everything.

 

[Billy T]

...
CWIS, max rate of fire for block O and 1, is 3,000 rd, per minuet, not 3,000 per second, and even at 100 rd. per second as you have just stated the rate of fire would be--- 6,000 rd. a minuet, about twice what a block O and 1, CWIS is capabale of. ...

Thanks for the correction. It was an accidental error saying "per second" instead of "per minute" probably caused by my also stating the velocity was about 1000m/ second which is correct. I think in earlier posts the rate was stated correctly. I do have mild dyslexia so hard for me to see these errors.

 

[S.A.M.]

Bullets in the brain, shrapnel in the spine

On just one day last week staff at the El-Arish hospital in Sinai were called to perform sophisticated CAT brain scans on a nine-year-old, two 10-year-olds and a 14-year-old - each of whom had a bullet still lodged in their brain, after coming under fire during the Israeli ground assault on Gaza.

Dr Ahmed Yahia, the head of the trauma team, broke the news to the grandmother of Anas, aged nine, that the girl was not expected to live.

"Anas was deeply comatose when she came in, and she remains deeply comatose," said Dr Yahia. "The bullet has damaged a big part of her brain. It came in, hit the skull wall and then changed direction downwards. I've seen a lot of gun injuries and the damage here is so extensive I think it may be fatal."

Dr Yahia, a professor of neurosurgery who has worked in both the United States and Britain, believes that the bullet was shot from close range. "If it changes course inside the brain it has high velocity and its penetrative force is also high," he said.

"I can't precisely decide whether these children are being shot at as a target, but in some cases the bullet comes from the front of the head and goes towards the back, so I think the gun has been directly pointed at the child."

Think anyone will bother to investigate? I doubt it.