If that system works so well, why hasn't it been modified to deal with the rocket problems in Israel and Gaza? There must be a major flaw somewhere.
It's my understanding that the "rocket problems" you describe in Israel stem from ballistic rockets. Lifeguard deals in much smaller scales - a few hundred meters at most, perhaps a handful of kilometers at most - it's designed to detect a very fast moving object (a bullet), backtrack it to the firer, and saturate the area with machinegun fire or perhaps fire from grenade launchers. The technology limitation up to now has been to prevent the radar from getting false positives from ground clutter, speeding cars, and shooting from your own troops, and most of all, getting a sensor system sensitive enough to track a bullet to react to it. Note, the big weakness with the Lifeguard, obviously, is that any decent sniper will still hit his or her mark - he or she will just (hopefully) not live to shoot anyone else.
Ballistic rockets are a lot easier to deal with and the techniques for them are in are counter-battery radars which compute the trajectory back and can direct fire onto the rocket's launch-point. At least twenty years ago, the technology for missiles like the Patriot already existed to intercept such missiles in flight. However, the various groups lobbing rockets (and the Israelis) know a few things:
* If nobody lives nearby, the insurgents/terrorists (whatever you want to call them, I'm using them as an example, not to make a political statement, so choose whichever word suits you) will simply set-up the rockets ahead of time, then fire them remotely or even on a timer. It doesn't do much good if plaster an area and destroy maybe a few hundred feet of copper wire, some PVC pipe used as a tube, and an egg timer. The launching locations are pretty crude as rockets are essentially "terror weapons" (like the V-1s and V-2s during WW2) - accuracy isn't too important - as long as you fire into the city and it hits something.
* If the rockets are fired from a city, counter-battery fire isn't such a great solution. Counter-battery fire is pretty indiscriminate. If the rockets come from some apartment complex or residential area (which is where these types like to operate from), and someone splashes like nine rounds into the area - you're going to kill a bunch of civilians, and again, the actual terrorists/insurgents are probably long gone or triggering their weapons remotely.
* Shooting down rockets in flight isn't exactly the best solution - these are big rockets in most cases, like adapted rounds from obsolete Russian MLRS. As both the US and the Israelis learned during Gulf War I, the Patriots were intercepting the SCUDs. Sadly, unlike in video games and comic books whereupon when a missile is "intercepted" there's a large and colorful explosion that vaporized the missile, IRL there were still large portions of flaming "shot down" SCUD were still crashing into the cities and were causing nearly as many problems as letting the missiles simply hit (according to some sources, even more).
On a side note: Even those Lifeguard systems aren't totally perfect. I recall reading a tactic used during Beruit (before the Marine barrack bombing) where you'd get a shooter/sniper. Then you surround him with a crowd of children - usually boys ranging from their low teens to childhood. They basically cluster around the shooter as a human shield. The shooter lifts his rifle and pops a few rounds off then ducks back into his crowd. The effect of an "indiscriminate" burst from high-speed machineguns ... well, let's just say that'd be a very short one-way trip into the guide of "How NOT to win the hearts and minds of an occupied people."
---
I suppose my point is this: Often, infantry force-multipliers and high tech often mean your opponents who can't field similar technologies for whatever reason (low tech level, lack of resources, lack of credits, etc.) would simply adopt lower intensity guerilla-style insurgencies, which is probably a lot of what the Imperial Army and Marines would really end up dealing with.
but it was a vehicle mount. I never considered a man portable battledress version - but I have now... 
