Arrow and THEL-- what is known?

AUG 28: ISRAEL REACTS TO ARROW 2 ATBM TEST

Israel: Arrow missiles score another successful test

Israel's Missile Killer Declared Operational
By Bradley Burston
posted: 03:59 pm ET
01 November 1999

ISRAEL: SYRIA PREPARES MISSILES

... the US and Israel has resulted in the deployment of the Arrow missile defense system,
and the continuing development of the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL). ...

While the Arrow, and the older American Patriot, are well known, there are other systems as well:

-The S-300PMU [SA-10 land-based, SA-N-6 naval version] surface-to-air missile system --

1 posted on 09/09/2002 4:04:15 PM PDT by backhoe

To: backhoe; Gunrunner2; Stavka2; All

Wow, this is a first. Usually on FR people never mention worthy weapon systems from foreign nations. Obviously US made stuff is almost always the best ....but not always! However it is nigh impossible to hear anything positive about foreign systems ....and at times it seems as if saying that a foreign weapon suite is great is tantamount to sedition!

And the thing is that although US brands are obviously the best in most aspects, there are several foreign weapon systems that we do not even have anything similar to.

One example is the Russian Arena tank defence weapon system on their latest deployed tanks (there is one variant on the current T-90s used by Russia but not the export versions for obvious reasons). This Arena is the one i was describing that can knock off attacking enemy missiles, including air launched and ground launched US Javelin and TOW missiles! It uses a mix of jamming (for radar and IR missiles), what is known as a 'dappler' not to be confused with doppler which is a radar (for IR), optronic defense (for semi-automated optically aimed missiles), and the best part are the tiny warhead projectiles that are sent off from the sides of the tank to intercept the incoming missile should all else fail. This would mean that the armor (including the chobham and the explosive reactive armor) would be made virtually redundant by the Arena System.

This is why in 2000 General Dynamics was working on a deal with Russia to acquire the Arena Defense system for US Abrams MBTs! I do not know whether the deal went on or not (the only other edal i know was the US military trying to purchase Russian T-90s that were NOT export versions just before 9-11 happened ...i also do not know what happened with that one).

Another interesting Russian system is the Shtora jamming system also placed on current Russian tanks (and again this is an actual weapons system that is deployed and not a 'research project. Also, like the Arena system, General dynamics has been trying to get it for our M1A2 Abrams).

Yet another is a Russian device (again not an 'experimental' thingimajig since it is actually been used) that explodes land mines as the enemy is setting them (in essence blowing up the mine in the face of the perp planting it). They have used it recently against Chechyan separatists who had been having a great time planting mines (the device somehow automatically makes the mine go ka-blooey when it is being armed).

Anyways my point is i am glad that some freepers exist who give credit where credit is due. Usually any mention of a system like the Arena would be met with ridicule and 'examples' of how the russian equipment 'performed' in the Gulf War ....when the fact is the Arena was never deployed in the Gulf by the Iraqis, it is a very recent system, no one but the Russians have it etc. And as for the 'Russian equipment' in the gulf war that is vintage stuff from the soviet era .....and even the T-72s are 'monkey model' tanks driven by asinine Iraqi soldiers. They were no match for the M1A1 Abrams which is obviously one of the world's best tanks.

A good example of 'monkey model' equipment is the F-16s we sold to Pakistan years ago. These are F-16As which have no real BVR capability due to the fact the Pakistani variants only pack Aim-9 SideWinders! If you compare them with the Indian planes (Russian made Sukhoi SU-30MKIs) which have BVR capability, better radar than the Pakistani F-16 variants, and missiles that can knock the Pakistani jets from over 50 miles you obviously have a mismatch. And if India and Pakistan ever went to war the Pakistani jets would be destroyed without any air to air loss on the Indian side (probably the only Indian loses would be due to ground missiles). And in such a scenario it could be said that US weapons are 'inferior' to Russian ones ....which would be a lie because the Pakistani F-16s were monkey model version while the Indian Sukhois were not.

What i am trying to say is that sending a highly trained tank commander in an M1A1 Abrams to face some underpaid stressed out Iraqi counterpart in a T-55 or T-62/64 (or even a T-72) is a total mismatch. The Iraqi guy would not even manage to kill the Abrams even if our Tank guy just sat there and did nothing (the Abrams Chobham armor can stop almost anything). Yet one shot from the Abrams would send the crazy iraqi guy to Allah's bosom (aka hell)! Same thing pitting Iraqi MiGs flown by pilots believing Allah will send thinderbolts to defend them, against US/British jets flown by aces who have hours of flight time under their belts.

Basically for our guys it is like shooting fish in a barrel. And the same would happen if Indian Sukhois ever faced Pakistani F-16As ......the Indians would have a great time shooting the Pakistani falcons while they are still in Pakistani airspace!

Anyways i digress. Nice to know someone mentions weapon systems worthy of mention (most is crap .....but some is very worthy).

2 posted on 09/09/2002 6:53:03 PM PDT by spetznaz

"Yet another is a Russian device (again not an 'experimental' thingimajig since it is actually been used) that explodes land mines as the enemy is setting them (in essence blowing up the mine in the face of the perp planting it). They have used it recently against Chechyan separatists who had been having a great time planting mines (the device somehow automatically makes the mine go ka-blooey when it is being armed). "

This paragraph is mostly composed of utter bulls***.

There's no way that anyone on the planet could have developed something that kind operate all the different kinds of mines available remotely. It's not physically possible.

The Russians may have developed a counter measure for certain kinds of mines, but there's no way on Gods green earth they can remotely detonate a buried pressure mine made from a captured artillery round when it's being set.

3 posted on 09/09/2002 7:09:07 PM PDT by Lurker

This paragraph is mostly composed of utter bulls***.

Well you never know for sure. It could be a little monkey thats trained to run up and arm the device while they are still digging the hole!

4 posted on 09/09/2002 7:44:19 PM PDT by e_castillo

To: Lurker; e_castillo; All

This paragraph is mostly composed of utter bulls***. There's no way that anyone on the planet could have developed something that kind operate all the different kinds of mines available remotely. It's not physically possible. The Russians may have developed a counter measure for certain kinds of mines, but there's no way on Gods green earth they can remotely detonate a buried pressure mine made from a captured artillery round when it's being set.

I knew it was only a matter of time before vitriol started heading my way to chastise me for even mentioning there is even the remotest chance someone else may have something we do not have. Actually i am shocked people have not started calling me names yet! Hmmm, must be a slow day. Hence i prepared myself adequately.

And by the way i never mentioned that the device was to be used against mines deployed by 'captured artillery pieces!' I said it was utilized against "land mines as the enemy is setting them (in essence blowing up the mine in the face of the perp planting it)." And in the article i provide below you will notice it is intended for use against Chechnyan terrorists. Anyway to the link.

Here is the link where you can find the article on the mine detonator. the link is as follows:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742539/posts

To go to the link i think the most expedient way is to copy and post.

Freegards.

5 posted on 09/09/2002 8:37:41 PM PDT by spetznaz

Thanks for looking, and for the further information. I first noticed back in the 1960's that some foreign weapons manufacturers, like Oto Melira, were producing cutting-edge designs.

6 posted on 09/10/2002 1:15:27 AM PDT by backhoe

I knew it was only a matter of time before vitriol started heading my way oops!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742539/posts
The article refers to remote-controlled land mines The key issue here is whether the remote control of the device is done thru RF. If it's an rf signal then there are many ways of detecting the signal before you ever arrive at the location of the mine and this could be a great distance depending on the signal strength. Once detected then apply counter measures. This is being done in many areas including the mideast.

7 posted on 09/10/2002 9:09:19 AM PDT by e_castillo

The key issue here is whether the remote control of the device is done thru RF. If it's an rf signal then there are many ways of detecting the signal before you ever arrive at the location of the mine and this could be a great distance depending on the signal strength. Once detected then apply counter measures. This is being done in many areas including the mideast.

Yeah, if it is a RF signal then several stratagems can be carried out to detect the signal and enable counter-measures. With enough hardware i believe i could rig a simple device to do that (although i would never personally try it out on a live minefield).

However if you read the article it says that the Russian device sets the mines off as they are being set. Not after .....but actually as the Chechyan sits down to set the mine. It is not meant to detect RF signals, nor to triangulate on mines (an adept physics student could easily come up with a concept to pick up RF signals ....but that is not what this device does). It actually somehow detonates the mine as it is being set ....meaning that it need not be located plus it kills the person who was trying to set the ordnance with his own mine! Two birds with one stone.

That is by far more complex than simply 'detecting' a RF signal. And the device seems to be working perfectly.

8 posted on 09/10/2002 9:24:40 AM PDT by spetznaz

"being set" Okay here we go again you are assuming that the device cannot be "armed" by remote means. If it can be armed remotely then it can be set off remotely. To be perfectly honest with you I doubt Russians capabilities. "They" invented stealth but why haven't they produced any aircraft that use the technology? They just don't know how to do it and are saddled up with a bureaucracy that prevents innovation.

9 posted on 09/10/2002 9:37:56 AM PDT by e_castillo

I am not assuming the device cannot be armed by remote means. I never said such a thing. And to be honest i do not know the exact specifics of how the device works ....but obviously it does work since it has killed several Chechyan terrorists as they try to set their mines.

And as for Russian tech in general. I actually concur with your doubts on its general efficacy. Most of their stuff is usually a generation behind comparative US hardware .....and our software is almost always better. On that we both agree.

However every now and then they come up with something we do not have. One example that i gave in my first post is the Arena system in their tanks (that we have been trying to get for our M1A2 Abrams) ....and by the way strangely no one has been mentioning it (just concentrating on the mine detonation device and whether or not it works on RF principles ...but no mention of the Arena or the Shtora. Hmm). Another example is the Shvkal hypercaviating torpedo that can travel up to 4times faster than anything we have currently....especially the 2nd generation Shkval (which is by far much better than its predecessor).

Anyways i am not here to argue about US versus Russian capabilities. The answer to that question is a given: US stuff is better since it usually has better software, and is usually a generation ahead of the competition. The good Russian stuff is either in experimental stages (and due to the financial state of Russia most of it stays there ....or gets released when the US already has a better system), or otherwise is produced in such small quantities as to be virtually negligible (a good example of this is how Nazi Germany came up with the jet plane at the end of WW2 but the numbers were too few to make any impact ...and anyway the war was all but over). Most Russian stuff cannot compare. On that we agree.

However there is some stuff like the Arena system that even we do not have a substitute for.

10 posted on 09/10/2002 9:55:06 AM PDT by spetznaz

They work, buddy. They work.

And Sadam's gonna have a real set of disappointments waiting for him if he tries to repeat Desert Storm.

11 posted on 09/10/2002 10:01:08 AM PDT by Redleg Duke

I think you're right, Duke- he hasn't rebuilt well, and our stuff is a quantuum leap better than Desert Storm.

12 posted on 09/10/2002 10:12:29 AM PDT by backhoe

However there is some stuff like the Arena system that even we do not have a substitute for.

Defending against top down attack has been around for years I don't know why the Russian Arena system would make any claims for being able to do something that everyone else has thought of already. Unless of course it's their marketing department sales pitch!

Arena can't defend against this:
Click here for Lockheed Martin info
Click here for Lockheed Martin info

13 posted on 09/10/2002 10:49:20 AM PDT by e_castillo

To: e_castillo; All

Now that is funny. You are saying that the capability of the Russian Arena system is basically nothing but a sales pitch ....but then why are we trying to buy the system for our M1A2 Abrams? If it was nothing but a sales pitch then we would not even bother to enhance our tanks with it, would we? Unless of course we just want to spend money on nothing that is sheer sales pitch.

And as for the Javelin i have to agree it is one of the premier Anti-Tank missile in the world today that is man portable (and in my book it is the premier). Its effectiveness is further compunded by the fact that it has a lofted trajectory (meaning it will hit the tank at its most vulnerable point ...the top) and it also packs a tandem warhead (just in case we face advanced tanks the precursor warhead will take out the Explosive Reactive Armor, while the second warhead will blow up the tank). Hence it is a very good tank killer, and to be honest with you overkill since all of the nations we face do not even have MBTs with ERA packs. However i love overkill!

However what you should know is that the Arena system was developed as a defence for the US Javelin and the Israeli Gill/Spike Anti-Armor system (which uses the same principle). Due to the fact even 2nd generation ERA packs could not defend against the Javelin and Gill the Arena was developed that works as follows.

It detects and tracks the missile, and once the missile gets withing range projectiles are fired at the missile from locations in the side of the tank (there are several at varius locations for an all round protection) and they meet the incoming warhead and blow it up before it can get close to the tank. This can be done repeatedly (until the tank can acquire the threat). And although this was specifically designed for the Javelin and Gill systems it has been shown to even work for small projectiles like grenades.

And by the way there is no similar system in the world as of yet. Before this the greatest development was the 2 nd generation Chobham armor plus ERA packs. The Arena system is the latest deployed system in the world, and due to its effectiveness we have been trying to buy it for our tanks.

Actually there is another system developed in Britain that utilizes a strong electric current to stop HEAT rounds from penetrating into the inside of the tank. In essence an internal 'force field' in a way. But this has not yet been deployed.

Anyways the Arena was developed as an answer to the Javelin missile, which is why i find it funny you sent me a link to the Javelin.

14 posted on 09/10/2002 2:00:35 PM PDT by spetznaz

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

1.	Technological Challenges in National Missile Defense
	CDI resources and outside links on Ballistic Missile Defense, including National Missile Defense and Theater Missile Defense.

2.	Missile Defense Milestones
	Missile Defense Milestones 1944 - 2000 8 Sep 44 The Missile Age began when the first German V-2 missile struck London. 1944/45 The Allies developed a plan to use timed anti-aircraft artillery barrages

3.	US wants an Arab Gulf anti-missile defense system against Iraq and Iran
	US wants an Arab Gulf anti-missile defense system against Iraq and Iran, Gulf, Politics. ArabicNews.com - Your source for Daily News about the Arabic world.

4.	Pentagon to seek international participation in missile defense programs
	METATEXT

5.	Theater Missile Defense
	Theater Missile Defense January 2002 Compiled by Stephen B.T. Chun, Bibliographer Air University Library Maxwell AFB, AL General Sources TMD in Asia Region General Sources The appearance of hyperlinks

1.	TRW Inc. - MarketPlace - Aerospace & Defense - Laser Systems - Government Products and Programs - Tactical High Energy
	TRW.com > MarketPlace > Aerospace & Defense > Laser Systems > Government Products and Programs > Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Aerospace & Defense Laser Systems Government Products

2.	Tactical High Energy Laser
	Fact Sheets Tactical High Energy Laser Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration Background The ability to use high energy lasers against short-range rockets was previously evaluated in the Nautilus p

3.	Tactical High Energy Laser ACTD
	FAS \| Space Policy \| Star Wars \| Programs \|\|\|\| Index \| Search \| Join FAS Tactical High Energy Laser ACTD The cooperative Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Demonstrator ACTD was initiated by a memorand

4.	ELECTRO-OPTICAL SYSTEMS FORECAST-TACTICAL HIGH ENERGY LASER (FORECAST INTERNATIONAL/DMS )
	ELECTRO-OPTICAL SYSTEMS FORECAST-TACTICAL HIGH ENERGY LASER (FORECAST INTERNATIONAL/DMS ) Outlook Graph - Forecast Funding Levels 2001-10 Orientation Orientation (CONT) Technical Data Technical Data (

5.	Yorkshire CND - Boeing completes testing of tactical high energy laser - 22/4/99
	Boeing completes testing of tactical high energy laser 22nd April 1999 Boeing has completed proof-of-concept testing of a new high-energy chemical laser designed specifically for tactical weapons appl

6.	The Tactical High Energy Laser
	Cyber encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture that covers everythingfrom anti-Semitism to Zionism. It includes a glossary, bibliography of web sites and books, biographies, articles, original docum

8.	TRW-Built Tactical High Energy Laser Wins Technology Grand Prize in Popular Science Magazine's 'Best of What's New' Awar
	TRW-Built Tactical High Energy Laser Wins Technology Grand Prize in Popular Science Magazine`s `Best of What`s New` Awards

9.	DefenseLINK News: TACTICAL HIGH ENERGY LASER ACTD ACHIEVES "FIRST LIGHT"
	Search: Home Site Map DoD Sites NEWS IMAGES PUBLICATIONS TODAY QUESTIONS? NEWS About News DoD News Advisories Contracts Live Briefings Photos Releases Slides Speeches Today in DoD Transcripts American

10.	The Tactical High Energy Laser Table of Contents
	Cyber encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture that covers everythingfrom anti-Semitism to Zionism. It includes a glossary, bibliography of web sites and books, biographies, articles, original docum

7.	What's a Tactical High-Energy Laser?
	Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) is a short-range, ground-based air-defense system under test and development by TRW Inc. for the U.S. Army and the Israel Ministry of Defence.