Israel’s Antimissile System Attracts Potential Buyers

[jha]

Radar of this system is very interesting... Lets see if any procurement happens or, not.

From what I have heard : There is going to be a strong collaboration for next gen. LRTR for phase-2 of BMD...

 

[JayAtl]

Iron dome is designed keeping Hamas threat in mind, i.e., asymmetrical warfare.

err and? - F16 was designed to keep US foes in mind. so not a viable solution for others

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

err and? - F16 was designed to keep US foes in mind. so not a viable solution for others

Dont compare Hamas with Pakistan army.

 

[JayAtl]

Dont compare Hamas with Pakistan army.

don't compare Iron dome as only worthy of Hamas. It's the " threat" being discussed not whom it is coming from, that apparently you are not " getting"

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

don't compare Iron dome as only worthy of Hamas. It's the " threat" being discussed not whom it is coming from, that apparently you are not " getting"

Its the scale of threat that is being discussed.

 

[JayAtl]

Its the scale of threat that is being discussed.

which is what you are getting. tell us what is the "scale" of threat you have deduced and evidence backing your claim? Mine is simple- in a war missiles of all theaters, not just ICBM's or larger ones are lobbied over, and the accuracy of this system mitigates a high percentage of it's success at hitting Indian targets.

 

[500]

Then Problem solved, Iron dome is a waste for conventional warfare and only good for asymmetrical warfare.

You are unable to tell me what are these magic heavy caliber MBRLs that Pakistani army will use in huge numbers.

Poor US army has only 9 large caliber MBRLs in their heavy armored division, these 9 MBRLs will be shared between dozen battalions and each battalion commander will ask MBRL to support him. But unlike US, Pakistani army is so rich will use 20-30 heavy caliber MBRLs to attack one target.

 

[acid rain]

Iron dome is designed keeping Hamas threat in mind, i.e., asymmetrical warfare.

They used it against Hamas rockets which doesn't necessarily mean that it was designed only for Hamas.

It is meant as an area protection defense system from any threat. Hamas hasn't actually stretched the Iron Dome much.

 

[BlueDot_in_Space]

which is what you are getting. tell us what is the "scale" of threat you have deduced and evidence backing your claim? Mine is simple- in a war missiles of all theaters, not just ICBM's or larger ones are lobbied over, and the accuracy of this system mitigates a high percentage of it's success at hitting Indian targets.

I think you are smart enough to comprehend the difference between the threat levels of Hamas and Pakistan army. Iron dome is economically viable only against Hamas like threats (asymmetrical warfare) where the system needs to counter 1-2 rockets at a time. Even Hamas has changed their tactics of firing 1-2 rockets after initial success of Iron dome. Now they are firing a small volley of rockets that has forced Israel to deploy more batteries. Although, one battery carries 60 missiles; it is at most capable of countering only 4-5 unguided rockets simultaneously that is evident from the Hamas attack on Be'er Sheva
(Link: Israeli defense sources: Gaza terror groups changing tactics to avoid Iron Dome system - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper)

From the link: They did aim at Be'er Sheva on Saturday night, they did not fire one or two rockets, as in the past, but rather a volley of seven rockets almost simultaneously. Iron Dome intercepted five of them successfully, but one penetrated the defense system, exploding in a residential area and killing Yossi Shushan.

It’s clear from the link that a battery of Iron dome (with 60 missiles) is only capable of countering 1-2 rockets successfully or a small volley of 7 rockets partially (83%). Now when you talk about Pakistan army, the scale of attack using MBRLs (ex. 10 units can fire 120 rockets with far more damage capability in first salvo, see video link at 3 mins) and artillery units will swamp the iron dome batteries, unless you burn a lot of dollars and deploy enough overlapping batteries for 83% success.

They used it against Hamas rockets which doesn't necessarily mean that it was designed only for Hamas.

It is meant as an area protection defense system from any threat. Hamas hasn't actually stretched the Iron Dome much.

The have started to stretch it that has forced the israel to deploy more batteries and burn more dollars. http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...ng-tactics-to-avoid-iron-dome-system-1.379914

 

[Viper0011.]

Arrow is for Ballistic missiles and Iron dome for short range rockets.

I don't think where I am saying differently. I did mention Arrow, PAC3, etc for ballistic missiles. Also, for your information, ID is NOT just for the 'rockets' or 'artillery shells' it is for the projectiles that come underneath a certain range (speed, height and trajectory). In other words, a missile's warhead that's falling and has already defeated Arrow and the mid tier ABM, will then be targeted by the ID system. That's the idea. I don't think the radar or the missile lock 'refuses' to lock onto an incoming object because it feels like its not a rocket or artillery shell lol

 

[Tshering22]

That depends on how much destruction that $500 rocket can cause. What if that rocket can cause damage worth a million dollars or more? Would it then be worth taking it down using a $90,000 missile? And that is very much possible, if they hit a hangar or runway or radar system or a refinery or a fuel depot or a command and control center or a thickly populated civilian spot, like a stadium during a cricket match or....

Then would it seem worthwhile to expend a $90,000 missile to intercept it? I am sure the Indian military will choose wisely where to deploy it, to protect what targets. They do these cost benefit analyses much before and much better than we do.

Also, Akash is a medium range system, this is a short range one. And akash can't intercept rockets and mortar and artillery like this can. We don't have a domestic equivalent for the iron dome.

But our hostile zones are far away from populated areas which means that we have enough depth within for the army to deploy much more strategic defense systems like Akash to shoot down cruise missiles or fighter jets that attempt to penetrate into populated or critical areas. Not to mention the other layers of missile defense that is almost completing its testing and will be joining the SFC in the coming 2 years.

There is a big difference between Israel's threats and ours; and much of it is different simply due to geographical limitations for Israel versus the leverage in that area for us. Their system is no doubt cutting edge.

Tell me, which high value target is there within 50 Km range of a crude pipe bomb in western or eastern border? Even the supply depots of the military are kept only at secondary active bases during the most tense of periods to ensure supply-safety and flow without taking too much damage. During its need, they are transported by tactical transport assets like helicopters, transport aircraft etc to the forward areas.

There is a remote chance that we might have to face a Kargil like scenario (even if we hypothetically consider something like that to ever happen considering that Pakistan is currently severely affected due to financial constraints), do you really think in a place like Batalik or Drass sector, Iron Dome would be useful?

It will be a nightmare simply due to the terrain. Pakistani regulars were able to shell our position simply due to the simple and age-old rule of warfare: they got to the higher ground while our troops had vacated their posts. Iron Dome will have to spend so much time just to evade the terrain to get to the rockets (if any) that it would simply be a waste of time and money to be using it.

Instead of that, our military would be better off at enhancing the mobility of artillery guns, transfers and associated logistics from one place to another in case heavy artillery fire is needed in multiple sector for offensive or defensive roles.

 

[500]

I think you are smart enough to comprehend the difference between the threat levels of Hamas and Pakistan army.

You repeat it 20 times but failed to answer me which heavy MBRL will be employed by Pakistan in large salvos.

Iron dome is economically viable only against Hamas like threats (asymmetrical warfare) where the system needs to counter 1-2 rockets at a time. Even Hamas has changed their tactics of firing 1-2 rockets after initial success of Iron dome. Now they are firing a small volley of rockets that has forced Israel to deploy more batteries. Although, one battery carries 60 missiles; it is at most capable of countering only 4-5 unguided rockets simultaneously that is evident from the Hamas attack on Be'er Sheva
(Link: Israeli defense sources: Gaza terror groups changing tactics to avoid Iron Dome system - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper)

This happened more than year ago when system was only introduced. Yossi Shushan is only person killed in town protected by Iron Dome in 1.5 years since its introduction. In recent encounter Iron Dome shot down salvos of 15 and more. It can also calculate rockets that miss protected area and ignore them.

‫

 

[cloud_9]

Amritsar can be taken care with MBRL's from the centre of Lahore Other cities like Patnankot,Jammu,Ferozpur are sitting ducks when it comes to arty and MBRL's

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

You are unable to tell me what are these magic heavy caliber MBRLs that Pakistani army will use in huge numbers.

Poor US army has only 9 large caliber MBRLs in their heavy armored division, these 9 MBRLs will be shared between dozen battalions and each battalion commander will ask MBRL to support him. But unlike US, Pakistani army is so rich will use 20-30 heavy caliber MBRLs to attack one target.

He is right, let's suppose that the Syrian army three years ago involved in a war with Israel, how would you deal with 800+ MBRL which they had, I understand most of them are small caliber but their range varies between 30-150 km...

 

[JayAtl]

I think you are smart enough to comprehend the difference between the threat levels of Hamas and Pakistan army. Iron dome is economically viable only against Hamas like threats (asymmetrical warfare) where the system needs to counter 1-2 rockets at a time. Even Hamas has changed their tactics of firing 1-2 rockets after initial success of Iron dome. Now they are firing a small volley of rockets that has forced Israel to deploy more batteries. Although, one battery carries 60 missiles; it is at most capable of countering only 4-5 unguided rockets simultaneously that is evident from the Hamas attack on Be'er Sheva
(Link: Israeli defense sources: Gaza terror groups changing tactics to avoid Iron Dome system - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper)


It’s clear from the link that a battery of Iron dome (with 60 missiles) is only capable of countering 1-2 rockets successfully or a small volley of 7 rockets partially (83%). Now when you talk about Pakistan army, the scale of attack using MBRLs (ex. 10 units can fire 120 rockets with far more damage capability in first salvo, see video link at 3 mins) and artillery units will swamp the iron dome batteries, unless you burn a lot of dollars and deploy enough overlapping batteries for 83% success.


The have started to stretch it that has forced the israel to deploy more batteries and burn more dollars. Israeli defense sources: Gaza terror groups changing tactics to avoid Iron Dome system - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

dude, you are assuming that this being touted as be all it be system needing no additional layers of protection. what you are forgetting is the technology aspect of it which is proven highly effective which can be built upon. What you are also forgetting is that there are hot spots and not so hot spots like large cities that can also be targeted. So it takes additional batteries today , so what? the total amount of batteries needed for that country is stated to be 8 , they had only 3 or 4 this time around ready.

your fundamental argument is still flawed that just because it grabs 80% it is to be dismissed. in a war theater you have no clue what all assets need protecting. Bridges for example in remote areas or highways that could be the main artery for transportation of human and military assets. Things by it self that have high value but no population around it. The mobility of the iron dome making it all the more effective over.