Fighting Hezbollah with frikkin' lasers

August 1, 2006 11:50 AM

THEL(Tactical High Energy Laser) is an anti-missile weapon jointly developed by the US and Israel (at great expense) to track and destroy incoming Katyusha rockets. It had even been recently suggested to deploy it in Iraq. Unfortunately, it seems that the program was shelved in September 'cause it doesn't work. You know the rest
posted by Skeptic (30 comments total)

I've been wondering, what about those Patriot missile batteries that Israel got during (and since) the first Gulf war? I guess that's something else that doesn't quite work as advertised.
posted by clevershark at 11:55 AM on August 1, 2006

I was wondering what happened to this program and why it wasnt being used right now in this conflict to stop incoming missles. Now, I know why. Thanks!
posted by SirOmega at 11:55 AM on August 1, 2006

STAR WARS! (A shout-out to Ronald Reagan and all his followers in the American War Department)
posted by kozad at 11:57 AM on August 1, 2006

The whole Hezbollah rocket thing brings up shades of Gravity's Rainbow.
posted by caddis at 12:11 PM on August 1, 2006

The whole Hezbollah rocket thing brings up shades of Gravity's Rainbow.

You mean that their rocket firings are correlated with someone's erections or that the whole thing is an inscrutable mess?
posted by justkevin at 12:14 PM on August 1, 2006 [1 favorite]

The linked article doesn't say it doesn't work, it says it's too expensive to use.

Although that amounts to the same thing for the situation at hand.
posted by uncle harold at 12:15 PM on August 1, 2006

I've been wondering, what about those Patriot missile batteries that Israel got during (and since) the first Gulf war? I guess that's something else that doesn't quite work as advertised.

I don't think Patriot missiles can track un-guided rockets that well, only other larger missiles and air craft. Even if they could, you'd have to look at the economic cost of firing a 4 million dollar guided missile at a $500 unguided early Soviet-era rocket.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 12:23 PM on August 1, 2006

Is it like lasing a stick of dynamite?
posted by sexymofo at 12:26 PM on August 1, 2006

The chief problems with the system was that it could not fire consecutively, so was useless in a barrage of missiles. Another problem was that it was just too big and if it was hit, could spew wonderful amounts of toxic chemicals into the surrounding area...where as, it was intended to be used to protect cities. Bad combination those two. The energy demands also were just too high. Popular Science a few issues back had an article on the state of lasers today, but for the life of me I can't recall if they discussed this particular system or not. Here's the article, complete with a quicktime video of a laser burning through some steel or something.
posted by Atreides at 12:34 PM on August 1, 2006

As often happens in the federal development of death rays, parts failed and costs soared.

Is that snark I'm hearing from the NYT?
posted by brain_drain at 12:34 PM on August 1, 2006

They said it would cost about $3,000 to fire. They also never tried it with more then two missles at a time.
posted by delmoi at 12:35 PM on August 1, 2006

Wow, you don't often see that in NYT articles. Where was the editor?
posted by caddis at 12:50 PM on August 1, 2006

Thel?
posted by Mcable at 12:57 PM on August 1, 2006

Laser weapons are easy. Take a hand size laser. Drop into a sock. Hit someone over the head with the laser in a sock.

For a tank killer, drop a very large laser on the tank.
posted by eriko at 1:00 PM on August 1, 2006

They also never tried it with more then two missles at a time.

Not true. They produced a series of videos promoting the system, one of which included footage of the system successfully targetting and destroying three simultaneously incoming rockets. You can probably find it on YouTube.

The system does work. It's just "too expensive" to deploy on a wide scale. Too bad — because if Hezbollah's rockets had been destroyed in midair a couple of weeks ago, the present campaign might have been avoided.
posted by cribcage at 1:14 PM on August 1, 2006

Careful, folks... there's a whole Special Warning on the article post page...
posted by baylink at 2:35 PM on August 1, 2006

complete with a Drudge-style flashing light.
posted by caddis at 2:48 PM on August 1, 2006

cribcage: I don't know where you're finding whatever videos you're talking about, but from the article under discussion:

"military officials say its testers never challenged its sensors and laser beam with more than two Katyushas at a time."

And

one guerrilla with a rocket launcher could fire 40 Katyushas in less than a minute, easily overwhelming most any defense.

It doesn't work, in any practical sense. That's why they shelved it.
posted by ook at 2:57 PM on August 1, 2006

They said it would cost about $3,000 to fire

In 2005 Israel spent close to $10 billion on defense, so I think they would be able to afford it. Like cribcage said, they would probably be cheaper off.
posted by beno at 3:02 PM on August 1, 2006

cribcage, from the NYT article it doesn't look like the system was just "too expensive":

“Frankly, its performance was not great,” said Penrose C. Albright, a former Pentagon official who helped initiate the project. “Under certain conditions you can make it work. But under salvo or cloudy conditions, you’ve got problems. In northern Israel, about 30 percent of the time, you’ve got a cloud deck.”

So, if Hezbollah was as nice as to shoot the missiles one by one and only in perfect weather conditions, then...perhaps it would work...and even then there would be the problem of having large containers of highly reactive chemicals in a densely populated warzone...
posted by Skeptic at 3:15 PM on August 1, 2006

whatever videos you're talking about...

Fair enough. Here you go.

It doesn't work, in any practical sense. That's why they shelved it.

I'm shocked and appalled that our military would impugn the viability of a technology they've decided to abandon. Shocked, I say.
posted by cribcage at 3:41 PM on August 1, 2006

cribcage, honestly, I've seen home shopping programs that looked more credible than that video.

I'm shocked and appalled that defense contractors would insist on the viability of a technology that has been discredited. Shocked, I say.
posted by Skeptic at 4:15 PM on August 1, 2006

Here's a link to a 25 minute film concerning alleged use of non-kinetic weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13129.htm

I originally saw this film on YouTube but can't track back the link for that. It's pretty interesting. These sorts of weapons may not be entirely practical or just not ready for prime-time but they appear to be on the horizon at least.

The portion dealing with pain inducing microwave transmitters is particularly spooky. Film includes several interviews with defense establishment people.
posted by wpbinder at 4:20 PM on August 1, 2006

successfully targetting and destroying three simultaneously incoming rockets.

Ok, that promotional video shows it targeting three mortar rounds -- not rockets. (A much easier target, since they're ballistic, not guided. Also, they're firing them in a nearly vertical trajectory, so the system has time to get them all.) But let's not nitpick, give it the benefit of the doubt and say it can hit three rockets. Hell, give it four, maybe Ace is manning the targeting system today. So our hypothetical guerrilla has to fire five cheap rockets to overwhelm a system that costs billions. Or use a realistic trajectory. Or wait for a cloudy day. Yeah, that works.

I'm shocked and appalled that our military would impugn the viability of a technology they've decided to abandon.

So what are you saying, exactly? That it worked, but they decided to shelve it anyway, and are therefore lying and claiming it didn't work after all?
posted by ook at 4:44 PM on August 1, 2006

The portion dealing with pain inducing microwave transmitters is particularly spooky

Ohh, that's called Active Denial. It's basically a phased array radar on the back of a truck, or more simply, a really big microwave oven with the door left open. There are a few of these in Iraq now, I think, and I'm pretty sure they're adapting it for littoral combat as well.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 5:00 PM on August 1, 2006

Ok, that promotional video shows it targeting three mortar rounds -- not rockets. (A much easier target, since they're ballistic, not guided. Also, they're firing them in a nearly vertical trajectory, so the system has time to get them all.)

The Katyusha rockets are not guided. By definition, no rockets are guided - missiles are.

our hypothetical guerrilla has to fire five cheap rockets to overwhelm a system that costs billions. Or use a realistic trajectory. Or wait for a cloudy day. Yeah, that works.

Uh, how exactly do you think they fire Katyushas? I don't know exactly what altitude the Katyusha has to reach, but the Fadjr-5 goes up to nearly 100,000 feet to reach it's max range of 46Km. Where are you getting your expertise in Katyusha fire control procedures?
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 5:10 PM on August 1, 2006

The Katyusha rockets are not guided.

My mistake.

Where are you getting your expertise in Katyusha fire control procedures?

I have none, obviously. But I figure the former pentagon official who says the system didn't work very well has some.
posted by ook at 6:50 PM on August 1, 2006

and if it was hit, could spew wonderful amounts of toxic chemicals into the surrounding area...where as, it was intended to be used to protect cities. Bad combination those two.

And yet they never saw that problem back when they were still sketching it out on the back of a napkin.

Tell me this is not direct evidence that military development programs are a get-rich-quick scam run by slick hustlers. How the hell else do you explain the huge investment in this program without foreseeing the problem of dangerous debris?

Gah!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:30 PM on August 1, 2006

five fresh fish writes "Tell me this is not direct evidence that military development programs are a get-rich-quick scam run by slick hustlers. How the hell else do you explain the huge investment in this program without foreseeing the problem of dangerous debris?"

It's not that they're get rich quick scams for hustlers; it's that defense spending is one of the legal ways of stealing money and giving it to your friends that politicians in modern times have worked out. And if anybody challenges it, they get called "weak on national defense." Cockamamie death ray type schemes seem high on the list of ways to funnel cash to your campaign contributors in the "defense industry."
posted by graymouser at 12:59 AM on August 2, 2006

They may not have an effective missle defense, but Israel is hacking into Hezbollah TV and performing other electronic psyops.
posted by caddis at 7:32 AM on August 3, 2006