What's new

Israel's Iron Dome grossly over-hyped: scientists

Duh. Palestinian resistance movements already knew this. The next wars will be much more devastating for the Zionist occupying entity.

With all the chest thumping and victory claiming of Hamas after Operation Pillar of Defence, rockets fired into Israel stopped completely for many months. The first rocket after the operation was fired a few days ago.

Far from being devastating, Israel achieved it's objective of pacifying Hamas. No surprise, because truth and justice always wins, represented by Israel.

Because it is an ethnic conflict and not a religious one. Tell me why South Asians should be so concerned about Arab affairs when any non muslim European or East Asian man can go to the GCC and expect better treatment? Especially South Asia's own living standards are far below Arabs?

I'm just amused after hearing about Bengali servants being beheaded weekly in KSA.

But excuse my interjection, carry on....

It is because of the Ummah concept of Islam. Muslims are supposed to be brothers and always favour each other over non muslims.
 
One Iron dome rocket cause like $60,000....

In a war against Hezbollah, Iron dome will bankrupt Israeli military lol....

I don't know why Israelis won't go for two-state solution based on 1967 borders. Hawkish Israelis are building more and more illegal settlements in West bank...
 
An interesting article on this subject, but focusing not so much on the Iron Dome per se, but on the media's credulity in accepting the IDF's claims at face value. For all of the Zionist whining fest about media hostility to Israel, it seems most Western journalists embrace IDF claims as if they came from Truth itself:

NEW STUDY: JOURNALISTS, EXPERTS ARE MASSIVE BULLSHITTERS


Yesterday, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that journalists and experts are bullshitters, nearly to the last one.

Some background. One unambiguous Israeli victory in its attack on Gaza last November, journalists and experts widely concurred, was the performance of its 'Iron Dome' missile defence shield in shooting down projectiles fired from Gaza. The BBC's Jonathan Marcus reported on the "remarkable" progress in missile defence technology represented by Iron Dome, evidenced by its "recent success" in the field. His colleague, Mark Urban, described Iron Dome's "impressive" performance, while the Guardian's Harriett Sherwood reported Iron Dome's "considerable success". "The naysayers now are few", observed the New York Times's Isabel Kershner—or non-existent, to judge by the number quoted in her article. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg was satisfied that Iron Dome "is doing a very good job", though he quoted a "friend... who knows a great deal" fretting that Iron Dome might, if anything, be too effective. The experts, too, seemed to agree. For dovish Israeli academic Ron Pundak Iron Dome was a "game changer"; for Shashank Joshi of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) it "represent[ed]... a major shift for Israel"; for the respected International Crisis Group, "the [technical] success of... Iron Dome" was not in doubt. The Council on Foreign Relations' Max Boot spoke for most when he wrote:

"The latest Gaza war is only a few days old, but already one conclusion can be drawn: missile defence works".

This expansive edifice of journalistic and expert analysis, pontification and reportage was based on a single source: official Israeli government statistics, which claimed a success rate for Iron Dome of approximately 84%. The BBC's Mark Urban was unusual in noticing that this was a not entirely disinterested authority—Israel's government being "anxious to dismiss the impression that it has not [sic] been humiliated by Hamas"—but he proceeded to rely on its data regardless. Most reported Israel's official line uncritically.

With surprising speed, the accumulating media and experty consensus on the success of Iron Dome became self-reinforcing, its existence taken as evidence of its own accuracy. Thus Max Fisher informed readers of the Washington Post that Iron Dome is, "by every appearance, a remarkable success"—"every appearance" being useful journalistic shorthand for "every regurgitation of the exact same set of official Israeli data".

irondome1.jpg


Iron Dome: Israel's near invincible* missile defense system. *Vulnerable to rain, teenagers, and missiles.

The sole sceptical note was sounded by the American scholar Norman Finkelstein, who wondered, in a post on his website, whether Iron Dome might be better named 'Swiss Cheese'. There, and in an article for New Left Project, Finkelstein observed that whereas during the three weeks of Operation Cast Lead (2008-09) three Israeli civilians were killed by projectiles from Gaza, during Operation Pillar of Defence—Iron Dome notwithstanding—rockets and mortars landing in Israel killed four in one week. Given that Hamas, with perhaps an occasional exception, did not use much more advanced weaponry in the most recent conflict, his conclusion was straightforward: Iron Dome "almost certainly did not save many and perhaps not any lives". Recalling the hype over U.S. Patriot missiles deployed in 1991 against Iraqi Scuds, subsequently revealed as completely ineffective, Finkelstein expressed scepticism about the veracity of the Iron Dome statistics provided by Israel. This scepticism was rooted in his political analysis of Israel's attack on Gaza, one that found no expression in the reams of columns, articles and reports published by mainstream journalists and experts. Israel attacked Gaza, he argued, to re-establish 'deterrence' vis-a-vis its regional neighbours. This backfired as Palestinians and regional powers managed to impose a ceasefire on Israel and residents of Gaza emerged from the conflict triumphant. The only plausible victory to which desperate Israeli officials could point was Iron Dome, which they played for all it was worth. Given this political context, and the Israeli government's clear commercial interest in marketing Iron Dome abroad, it was obvious that Israeli figures about Iron Dome's performance ought to be taken with a pinch of salt—except, it seems, to the journalists and experts quoted above, and many more besides.

Finkelstein's initial doubts were soon echoed by others. Notably, Ted Postol, the MIT researcher who led the debunking of the Patriot missiles in 1991, recanted his initially positive assessment of Iron Dome's performance: "I’m skeptical. I suspect it is not working as well as the Israelis are saying … but there is great value in the strategic deception". (See also here). But the conventional wisdom has stood firm.

Which brings us to yesterday's article in Ha'aretz. The Israeli military already effectively admitted, earlier this month, that Iron Dome cannot protect Sderot and other Israeli communities bordering the Gaza Strip, whose defence was its initial rationale for existence. Now Ha'aretz reports that separate studies by Ted Postol and two other scientists, formerly of Raytheon (which manufactured the Patriot missiles) and Rafael (which co-developed Iron Dome), have concluded that the official Israeli data on Iron Dome is almost certainly false. Whereas Israel claimed a successful intercept-rate of 84%, Postol, after examining video footage of Iron Dome in action, concludes that the real rate was "perhaps as low as 5%", and "could well be lower".

For the Israeli state, relying on Iron Dome's alleged success to qualify what was otherwise an unmitigated disaster in Gaza, the scientists' findings are deeply inconvenient. For all the journalists and experts who relayed official Israeli data uncritically, they are devastating.

***

The BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times and the Washington Post have so far decided against reporting Postol et al.'s critical findings. Nor, to my knowledge, have Joshi, Jeffrey Goldberg, the ICG et al. seen fit to alter their expert analysis.

bbcirondome.jpg


How Iron Dome Works – BBC diagram (updated)
 
Israel's Iron Dome grossly over-hyped: scientists

Israel's much touted Iron Done missile defense system has been grossly over-hyped, a team of renowned scientists have found.

The Iron Dome's success rate of 84 percent, as reported by the Israeli military, may be as low as 5 percent, according to international expert in military defense Theodore Postol. He previously proved that the joint American-Israeli Patriot missile defense system was ineffective against Iraqi Scud missiles in the second Gulf War.

Postol and two other scientists, who have worked for billion dollar defense companies Raytheon and Rafael, reviewed video footage of the Iron Dome's performance and concluded that images said to show rocket interception was actually showed the Dome's missiles self-destructing.

During Israel's vicious assault on Gaza last November, 3,200 civilian damage reports were filed due to retaliatory rocket fired from the coastal strip, although the Israeli military reported that only 58 missiles failed to be intercepted by the Dome. Scientists said this was 'impossible'.

The United States is currently providing funding for an additional eight Iron Dome units. $205 million has been authorized by Congress for the project.

[I had already posted a thread skeptical of the Iron Dome's alleged performance here. -- RFS]

A friend of mine was a janitor at NASA - does that make him a self professed space expert?

Iron dome works by exploding a charge in the path of incoming missile, the shrapnel debris created by this explosion collides with the incoming missile and causes it to detonate/destruct midair.

The patriot failure during the Gulf War 1 is well known and publicized however it wasn't due to in-capabilities of Patriot targeting and homing system itself but rather the electronic time keeping system of patriot batteries which would loose accuracy during computation. As a matter of fact if one of the above mentioned clown actually works for Rafael then he should know that Rafael co-developed Iron Dome system.

Missile trajectories predicted to no fall in civilian areas were not intercepted by Iron Dome. Additionally, due to low cost of Palestinian rockets and high cost of operating Iron Dome, it is probable that Palestinian could launch enough missile simultaneously to overwhelm the capabilities of Iron Dome unit deployed in that area.

The Patriot Missile Failure
The range gate's prediction of where the Scud will next appear is a function of the Scud's known velocity and the time of the last radar detection. Velocity is a real number that can be expressed as a whole number and a decimal (e.g., 3750.2563...miles per hour). Time is kept continuously by the system's internal clock in tenths of seconds but is expressed as an integer or whole number (e.g., 32, 33, 34...). The longer the system has been running, the larger the number representing time. To predict where the Scud will next appear, both time and velocity must be expressed as real numbers. Because of the way the Patriot computer performs its calculations and the fact that its registers are only 24 bits long, the conversion of time from an integer to a real number cannot be any more precise than 24 bits. This conversion results in a loss of precision causing a less accurate time calculation. The effect of this inaccuracy on the range gate's calculation is directly proportional to the target's velocity and the length of the the system has been running. Consequently, performing the conversion after the Patriot has been running continuously for extended periods causes the range gate to shift away from the center of the target, making it less likely that the target, in this case a Scud, will be successfully intercepted.
 
These are the official figures from the IAF, although I don't know if there's any independent way to verify them.

Total number of rockets launched from the Gaza Strip - 1,506
Open areas - 875
Urban areas - 58
'Iron Dome' Interceptions - 421
Failed launching attempts - 152

The Israeli Air Force : Pillar of Defense Ends in Ceasefire

A large number of rocket were spared the interception because the trajectory was aimed at open areas which risked no loss. By torturing the statistics enough and manipulating few news lines one can make a case for an in-effect or failed system . I mean come one what we are comparing here are rag tag home made unguided rockets against a system which cost 300 Million USD to design and develop. Additionally the cost of each Iron Dome missile - called a Tamir - is between $50,000 - $65,000 USD while home made unguided rockets merely cost $1000!
 
During Israel's vicious assault( :omghaha: ) on Gaza last November, 3,200 civilian damage reports were filed due to retaliatory rocket fired from the coastal strip, although the Israeli military reported that only 58 missiles failed to be intercepted by the Dome. Scientists said this was 'impossible'.

Are they serious? broken window is also a damage, most of impacts in civilian areas were within 5km area from Gaza border where Iron is not designed to intercept these threats, Iron dome envelope is 5-70km, so called "experts" gone senile.
 
is iaf chief only decide? what abt army... army need too against incoming mortar
Iron dome could not defend against mortars.It is trophy system which is suitable for them.

Also India do not need Iron dome as in situation like Israel,any country including India would respond with artillery strikes on source.also strategic depth of India make it impervious to being bombarded by rockets.
 
In some of the videos, it appears that the Iron Dome’s missiles made a very sharp turn shortly before self-destruction. That cannot be, say the scientists, as there is no way that the missile defense system could “remember” that it needs to turn in the direction of the incoming Grad missile a quarter-second before it self-destructs.

1:33 can clearly be seen that the system evaluating sharp arch trajectory for Tamir interceptor, the sharp turn is one of strategies
of interception and not self destruction maneuver proposed by "expert"


 
Last edited by a moderator:
The scientists point out that in every case the explosions, seen as balls of fire during the night and clouds of smoke at day , were round and symmetrical. In the case of successful interceptions, in which the incoming missile’s warhead is destroyed, there should have been another ball of fire or cloud of smoke.

The "experts" examine low resolution videos which were taken by simple cameras(most of which were smartphone cameras) taking videos with up to 30fps, what they can learn from that? not much, do they know how close interceptor explodes near the target?

Very close within 1/2 meters

0:20


the reaction taken to initiate explosion of target is in milliseconds, of course you will see one flash and unified cloud with 30fps camera.

What debris and cloud of smoke they were expecting to see? the target missile is a metal canister roughly the size of interceptor, with HE warhead, no fuel left no moving parts, the only debris are hot pieces of metal that can be only seen with thermal camera.

So the test were also not successful and were self destruction? did the "experts" bother to look at footages which were permitted to disclosure by MoD of Iron Dome tests?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They also uncovered a strange phenomenon whereby the Iron Dome’s missiles followed identical trajectories, and self-destructed at precisely the same time.
These morons dont even know that in many cases two interceptors were launched against one rocket.

In some of the videos, it appears that the Iron Dome’s missiles made a very sharp turn shortly before self-destruction. That cannot be, say the scientists, as there is no way that the missile defense system could “remember” that it needs to turn in the direction of the incoming Grad missile a quarter-second before it self-destructs.
These morons dont know that at final stage Tamir missile is guided by its seeker, it does not need to remember anything.

The scientists point out that in every case the explosions, seen as balls of fire during the night and clouds of smoke at day , were round and symmetrical. In the case of successful interceptions, in which the incoming missile’s warhead is destroyed, there should have been another ball of fire or cloud of smoke.
In case of direct hit or very close hit there is one ball of fire. Here is actual interception:

98089089.1363012728.jpg


Defense Ministry Presents: Watch Iron Dome Intercept - YouTube

Here is Lance interception by Patriot:

5676765.1363016352.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64_uov7jeP4

Also round and symmetrical. :coffee:
 
Considering that each intercepting missile is very expensive, but when translated in actually saving people's life, it has helped. Without Iron Dome, the next solution would have been the siege of Gaza. So in a way, things are balanced, yet economically, the advantage to Hamas remains.
 
Theodore Postol to MIT magazine November 26, 2012

It appeared to work very well—a lot better even than the people involved in building it expected. It’s an astonishing achievement—I think it’s even fair to use the word miraculous—to be able to hit these rockets with the reliability they demonstrated.

Ted Postol Says Israel

Pillar of defense lasted 14 – 21 November 2012, what made him to change his mind? no new technical data emerged after his interview.
 
Back
Top Bottom