• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Hamas armed UAV

GJ33

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hamas said that on July 14th they had three flights with UAVs originating from Gaza. One was blown away with a Patriot missile.
A video was shown of a UAV with 4 rockets. The rockets appear to have a small ractangualr shaped box on top of the missile and they seem connected to the hardpoint with a wire. Does anybody know what the purpose is of such a thing?
And how do you aim when the cams are at the back of the plane?
 

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
279
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
GJ33 said:
Does anybody know what the purpose is of such a thing?
Show.

And how do you aim when the cams are at the back of the plane?
Keep in mind the V-1 didn't have *any* cameras. It served the same purpose as the Hamas rockets... you aim 'em "thataway" and hope you hit a city rather than a farm.
 

Kiltonge

Greetings Earthling
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
202
Reaction score
3
GJ33 said:
Does anybody know what the purpose is of such a thing?
Filling a void until the FMS credits come through to buy F-16s..?

Unlikely to be any more accurate than ground-launched rockets but able to launch from unexpected vectors, perhaps with the intention of approaching 'around the back' of Iron Dome. Also probably able to extend the range of the rockets significantly.

It does show some ingenuity in terms of what can be achieved with the technology they have available.

Edit: upon reflection it could also be designed to dilute Israeli resources, in that they will dedicate time and effort to tracking these UAVs .
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,278
Reaction score
154
I think the question is specifically about the box on the pylon, which I take to be an improvised firing mechanism.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
27
One can't help but notice that


1 x Patriot = $$$$$$$
1 x Ghetto R/C = $


if you could assemble 100 of these, that would make a dent on the stock of missiles required to shoot them down. Before that you would think that the IDAF would find a cheaper way of countering these. Maybe jamming?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
279
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
UAVs like this would be perfect targets for lasers. Laser units are expensive, but the shots are cheap. And a UAV should be easier to hit than a rocket.

Thing is, these UAVs almost certainly cost considerably more than rockets. Rockets are simple metal tubes filled with simple chemicals, with no electronics; UAVs are complex and expensive. Of course, they're probably being supplied by Iran so that might not matter so much.

One might wonder is Israel should consider something of a civilian aeronautical corps. Provide a *lot* of light aircraft training and flight corridors along the borders. Flight hours would count against mandatory military service time, or taxes or something. The planes would be akin to modernized Spads... cheap, fast, light and perhaps armed with something capable of taking out a UAV. One might consider a lightweight turret equipped with some sort of fully automatic shotgun, appropriate optics and a communications system. If a pilot up bopping along finds a UAV, he sidles up behind it, flips a switch that activates the turret, the turret begins to communicate with the IDF, and a ground controller fires the weapon to bring down the UAV. Keep control on the ground so the pilot can't go do something dumbass with the gun, and keep the switch in the cockpit so control can't be readily hacked & hijacked.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
AeroFranz said:
One can't help but notice that


1 x Patriot = $$$$$$$
1 x Ghetto R/C = $


if you could assemble 100 of these, that would make a dent on the stock of missiles required to shoot them down. Before that you would think that the IDAF would find a cheaper way of countering these. Maybe jamming?
Cynically, I might suggest that it was done to demonstrate Patriot's capabilities against low-RCS targets as part of the effort to win the Polish SAM tender.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
Orionblamblam said:
UAVs like this would be perfect targets for lasers. Laser units are expensive, but the shots are cheap. And a UAV should be easier to hit than a rocket.


One might wonder is Israel should consider something of a civilian aeronautical corps. Provide a *lot* of light aircraft training and flight corridors along the borders. Flight hours would count against mandatory military service time, or taxes or something. The planes would be akin to modernized Spads... cheap, fast, light and perhaps armed with something capable of taking out a UAV. One might consider a lightweight turret equipped with some sort of fully automatic shotgun, appropriate optics and a communications system.
What about a squadron of JLENS or another large tethered aerostat with an anti-UAV payload of some type?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
279
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
That would be a static and obvious system, easily dodged. And depending on altitude, *perhaps* easily taken down with massed gun and rocket fire.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
Orionblamblam said:
That would be a static and obvious system, easily dodged. And depending on altitude, *perhaps* easily taken down with massed gun and rocket fire.
By static, obvious and easily dodged you mean something like this?

 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
24
marauder2048 said:
Cynically, I might suggest that it was done to demonstrate Patriot's capabilities against low-RCS targets as part of the effort to win the Polish SAM tender.

What was the low RCS target?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
279
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
marauder2048 said:
By static, obvious and easily dodged you mean something like this?
Yup. Those can be seen *miles* away. I saw one at a range of ~50 miles a year or two back. If someone had a UAV, it'd be easy to know where the aerostats were, and to fly between them.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
quellish said:
marauder2048 said:
Cynically, I might suggest that it was done to demonstrate Patriot's capabilities against low-RCS targets as part of the effort to win the Polish SAM tender.

What was the low RCS target?
At Ka-Band, your basic fabric-and-wood RC type airplane (1.4m wingspan x 1.5m fuselage length) has an average RCS of about -14 dBsm

For Comparison (all at Ka-Band):

an unarmed adult male human has an average RCS of around -8 dBsm

an RPG-7 (the deployed round about 7cm x 1m) has an average RCS of about -17 dBsm
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
24
marauder2048 said:
At Ka-Band, your basic fabric-and-wood RC type airplane (1.4m wingspan x 1.5m fuselage length) has an average RCS of about -14 dBsm

For Comparison (all at Ka-Band):

an unarmed adult male human has an average RCS of around -8 dBsm

an RPG-7 (the deployed round about 7cm x 1m) has an average RCS of about -17 dBsm

Patriot uses a much lower frequency than Ka band. σ will be much larger just because of that - the frequency is much close to the electrical size of the object. At Ka band the scattering sources would primarily be in the high frequency optics region, while at Patriot frequencies it would be in the resonant and optical region.


For comparison, at the lower end of the Patriot frequency range, the RCS for a human is -4dBsm to +3dBsm. At the high end of the range, it is -3dBsm to +1dBsm.
Unless the human is very sweaty, or has a well balanced diet. Then all bets are off, as that changes his electrical properties considerably!
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
Orionblamblam said:
marauder2048 said:
By static, obvious and easily dodged you mean something like this?
Yup. Those can be seen *miles* away. I saw one at a range of ~50 miles a year or two back. If someone had a UAV, it'd be easy to know where the aerostats were, and to fly between them.
We're talking about the Gaza Strip here; a littoral plain that's at most 25 miles x 5.5 miles. It has no functioning airport; anything exhibiting the doppler profile of a UAV takeoff/launch is probably a UAV.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
quellish said:
Patriot uses a much lower frequency than Ka band. σ will be much larger just because of that - the frequency is much close to the electrical size of the object. At Ka band the scattering sources would primarily be in the high frequency optics region, while at Patriot frequencies it would be in the resonant and optical region.


For comparison, at the lower end of the Patriot frequency range, the RCS for a human is -4dBsm to +3dBsm. At the high end of the range, it is -3dBsm to +1dBsm.
Unless the human is very sweaty, or has a well balanced diet. Then all bets are off, as that changes his electrical properties considerably!
PAC-3's terminal seeker is Ka-Band, hence my figures.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
17
Orionblamblam said:
That would be a static and obvious system, easily dodged. And depending on altitude, *perhaps* easily taken down with massed gun and rocket fire.
Still, it is hard to give up the idea of putting a 60Kw laser on a blimp...
 

phrenzy

as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
If it was just for the UAVs and not also for fired rockets you could probably get away with even less power than that.

Given that hamas UAVs are a relatively new phenomenon I can see why they would use whatever was at hand to take it down but it might serve Israel to keep using Patriots. If they set a precedent for needing Patriots for defence against terrorism it's political cover to ask for more from the USA and build up larger stockpiles. There aren't to many other semi strategic weapons, defensive or otherwise, that would be useful in a large six day war scenario that could also be used against Hamas.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
279
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
phrenzy said:
Given that hamas UAVs are a relatively new phenomenon I can see why they would use whatever was at hand to take it down but it might serve Israel to keep using Patriots.
I can't see the Israelis wasting a Patriot on a UAV when a much smaller Iron Dome missile, or a 20mm CIWS, would work as well at lower cost. Patriots cost two to three million per missile; Iron Dome is something like $20,000. And 20mm rounds are tens of dollars a pop.
 

phrenzy

as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
I agree it makes no economic sense and if it becomes a weekly occurrence I'm sure they would do as you suggest (although I like the laser idea :) but if they only get a couple a year then sending up a Patriot or two might be worth it just so they can make an argument for asking the US for an extra couple dozen that same year.
I mean who knows, it could be 50 next year, right?

I suppose the US hasn't been super shy about selling Patriots, it's just where they get deployed (Turkish/Syrian border, Japanese cost etc.) that makes waves.

If they were loooking for a cheap option this would seem like a job for a radar controlled gatling/quad machine gun tracked AA vehicle (do they have a name as a class of thing? ). Does anyone in the West still make/use something like that or are they only found on ships? I seem to remember a land based phalanx on a towed trailer but not a self propelled/armored AA gun.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
Iron Dome was developed precisely because the Israelis were not even remotely interested in gun-based C-RAM systems (despite many variants being offered)
 

phrenzy

as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
What's the rationale there? Is it a range issue or that the Israelis are looking to create something unique for export? I know compared to patriot or sm-3 type missiles iron dome is cheap per intercept but from the admittedly little I've read it doesnt seem hugely flexible on terms of potential intercept vectors/solutions so what's the major advantage over a gun based c-ram?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
The export market probably factored into it but I believe the major drivers were range, responsiveness and reliability. It's hard for gun-based C-RAM systems to have all three at the same time.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
17
I'd also suspect that there might be some concern about shells and dudes returning to earth? If you're defending civilian areas you want weapons that are large enough to have a very reliable self-destruct mechanism.
 

phrenzy

as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
Joined
Oct 31, 2013
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
I think you might be surprised how much of a missile survives an impact, particularly smaller and slower ones like iron dome/qassam (compared to say a strategic kinetic kill vehicle/icbm bus speed impact).

I remember going up to woomera test range here in South Australia and seeing the remenants of missiles fired against simulated airframes and there was plenty of solid bits left to inspect afterwards.

I suppose a solid cannon round retains its shape if it doesn't hit anything though so it might be a bit more likely to fall fast nose first which might make it a little more dangerous.

I'm not sure which I would pick if I had to choose between standing in my backyard and having either 1-2kg rocket engine parts or ~100g fmj rounds falling out of the sky even if it's only at gravity/drag terminal velocity. I don't think either is a good choice though.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
78
Orionblamblam said:
That would be a static and obvious system, easily dodged. And depending on altitude, *perhaps* easily taken down with massed gun and rocket fire.
Still, it is hard to give up the idea of putting a 60Kw laser on a blimp...
It is.

(from Shiffler's Armaments 2019 "Directed Energy and Base Defense")


afrl-hydra.png
 
Top