Stryker1982
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 4,864
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Not Gaza unfortunately, Iron done wouldn't survive that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not Gaza unfortunately, Iron done wouldn't survive that.
New Recruit
This is a miscondtruction of the facts. Iron dome is a relatively successful system with low cost of intercept.
Intercepting the warhead is the ideal scenario in a fragmentation interceptor. But splitting the Rocket in half (even if warhead stays in tact) is still a success as most of the rockets will then fall into open fields.
The interceptor missile does not "split the rocket in half". It explodes in some distance and the splinters are supposed to penetrate the missile body and destroy the warhead. If you look at the photographs of the rocket body where the splinters hit, the holes are quite small.
I`d say that just the seeker alone on those interceptors would likely be costing well in excess of $40,000.00.LOL, low cost. What is the cost of a single interceptor missile, $40.000? And you fire two of them at any target. Iron Dome is a concept that is feasible even in principle only because of a highly unusual situation, where you have an adversary who is blockaded and needs to hand craft its rockets.
The interceptor missile does not "split the rocket in half". It explodes in some distance and the splinters are supposed to penetrate the missile body and destroy the warhead. If you look at the photographs of the rocket body where the splinters hit, the holes are quite small.
The idea is to penetrate and destroy the warhead, not to somehow "body slam" the rocket off course as you seem to imagine.
Of course, as shown in the analysis, Iron Dome is not very good in realizing this concept. The interceptor missile was in less than 20% of cases even facing the front section of the interceptee rocket and in less than 5% of cases was the angular alignment good enough and the distance small enough to make a penetration and destruction of the warhead likely.
Since most interceptions are in the terminal phase of the ballistic trajectory and with the rocket already in a steep dive, the opportunity to deflect its course are very limited anyway. Not that it matters, since the Palestinian rockets are not very precise, so any course change is as much likely to lead it to a target as it is to lead it away.
This also goes for another silly excuse made by the Israelis for Iron Dome when it fails to intercept rockets, namely that Iron Dome is smart enough to distinguish whether a rocket is bound to hit a target or fall into open field. Fact is, most Palestinian rockets fall into open field because of their poor accuracy. The current situation is simply that the number of rockets launched by the Palestinians is larger than usual, so more are likely to hit something despite their poor accuracy. The performance of Iron Dome or lack thereof has little to do with it.
I`d say that just the seeker alone on those interceptors would likely be costing well in excess of $40,000.00.
Yavar,One IRGC Quds personal we have lost so far confirmed
إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون
🕊
WHAT!?
Yavar,
Do you have any videos that can be shared about the impacts. My father is not believing me here lol.
There is no link
we don’t even admit we are there
we deny even being there officially
so you need to wait week or two or even more when the Batoul pictures gets released then I can post it
Video is old, and from Lebanon.WHAT!?
Wheres the footage of them being FIRED!!
You cant just show us footage of the launcher getting into position.......and then.....NOTHING!!,thats totally anticlimactic
Bit of a difference there m8Iran loitering 358 Missile/SAM
View attachment 743381
survive
Bit of a difference there m8
The 358[?] uses a passive optronic seeker borrowed from the [low subsonic] sadid glide bomb,the tamir uses an active radar seeker.
One is a loitering munition built to operate below mach one,likely quite a ways below in fact,by comparison the tamir is an abm interceptor that not only has to be capable of very fast acceleration,probably topping out at over mach 2,but also very high maneuverability as well,so is likely pulling tens of Gs and the onboard systems like the seeker have to be built to able to withstand this very high G load,by comparison the optronic seeker on the loitering munition does not.
Essentially its like comparing the systems on an atgm like the kornet to a laser guided anti-tank artillery round like copperhead,one costs $5,000+,the other costs $70,000+.