Israeli Anti-Missile Defence Systems

Mike E wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:This is a bit off topic but apparently theirs a MIT professor (Theodore A. Postol Professor of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology) that claims Israel's "Iron Dome" has a missile interception rate which is much lower than their claimed 84%. Professor Postol compares Iron Dome to the Patriot SAM's in interception success rate. I hadn't had the time to read through it however some people who have read through it are saying that he's making the case that Iron Dome's success rate is less than 20%:

http://www.magenlaoref.org.il/IndicatorsofIronDomePerformanceMarch122013.pdf

Well, I think Iron Dome proves itself with the number of Israelis killed (or lack thereof).

Actuall casualties happening vs. actual casualties being  reported is the question. The Israeli's have a long history of covering their tracks or spinning tall tales to make themselves look better. Just some examples of Israeli misinformation:

1.) In 2007 Israeli's claimed they struck Syria's nuclear reactor and claimed they defeated the Pantsir SAM complex with ease, only for the Russian side to point out that the Pantsir complexes weren't even delivered in the first place.

2.) The Israeli's claim that they could defeat the S-300 SAM complex easily with advanced jamming tactics, only for Netanyahu to beg Putin not sell them to Syria anyway, if they could defeat the S-300 system so easily then why would they need the leader of their country to beg to prevent them from being delivered?

3.) The Israeli's claim they can defeat advance Russian weapon systems when they never actually tested against them. They claim their Trophy APS can defeat the advanced RPG-30's (designed to defeat APS) when they never actually tested against them, they also claim their SAM's can defeat the advanced Iskander-M system, when they never actually tested against them either. Hard for me to believe you can actually defeat a system if you never tested against them!

4.) Israeli's claim Hezbollah and Hamas are their eternal enemies and threats to their national security only to later to admit that: The fall of Saddam Huessin (which the Israeli's supported) saw the rise of Hezbollah in their "golden age" where they can move freely from Lebanon, to Syria, to Iran, through Iraq with little resistance (which would never happen under Saddam), and the IDF also admitted they helped create the Islamist Hamas to fight the Secular PLO:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123275572295011847

I doubt they would lie about their own casualties. (Not to say they have a good history of telling the truth...)

Mike E wrote:I doubt they would lie about their own casualties. (Not to say they have a good history of telling the truth...)

Only time will tell when the dust settles.

However, I do see its potential when it comes to reducing drag, which is almost invaluable. (Agni III, which is India's longest-range missile with a capability of striking targets 3,500 km away, may now have an extended range of around 5,000 km thanks to a unique solution discovered by Indian scientists at the prestigious Indian Institute of Science (IISc) here.) Those 1500 km are a huge deal.

What makes me suspicious is that a 3,500km range ballistic missile probably spends some time in space so this drag reducing mechanism would only work during the initial portion of flight as it climbs up out of the atmosphere and then when it comes down... but when it comes down it is essentially falling anyway so reduction in drag would do very little to extend range in that portion of flight.

Well, I think Iron Dome proves itself with the number of Israelis killed (or lack thereof).

I think that has more to do with the random nature of the primative nature of the rockets hamas is using and the relatively small warheads, and the comparison of the precision aimed retaliation strikes that seem to invariably hit apartment blocks.

GarryB wrote:

However, I do see its potential when it comes to reducing drag, which is almost invaluable. (Agni III, which is India's longest-range missile with a capability of striking targets 3,500 km away, may now have an extended range of around 5,000 km thanks to a unique solution discovered by Indian scientists at the prestigious Indian Institute of Science (IISc) here.) Those 1500 km are a huge deal.

What makes me suspicious is that a 3,500km range ballistic missile probably spends some time in space so this drag reducing mechanism would only work during the initial portion of flight as it climbs up out of the atmosphere and then when it comes down... but when it comes down it is essentially falling anyway so reduction in drag would do very little to extend range in that portion of flight.

Well, I think Iron Dome proves itself with the number of Israelis killed (or lack thereof).

I think that has more to do with the random nature of the primative nature of the rockets hamas is using and the relatively small warheads, and the comparison of the precision aimed retaliation strikes that seem to invariably hit apartment blocks.

Well, I get your point. However, the initial stage of flight (in the atmosphere) is crucial, and the extra speed (as a result of this technology) is needed to extend the range. On the other hand, having this tech on the descent would be almost useless.

That is true, but there is no denying Iron Dome has done its job successfully.

That is true, but there is no denying Iron Dome has done its job successfully.

With out any data on effectiveness you can't really say that.

Well you can, but you can also say:

"That is true, but there is no denying "my home made electronic missile diverter" has done its job successfully."

I keep it turned on all the time and what it does is send out radio waves that reduce the accuracy of unguided rockets launched from makeshift launchers without proper meteorological data to levels that make them rather ineffective except for the occasional lucky strike.

i call my home made electronic missile diverter: the Radio Electronic Accuracy Lowering Widget Open to Ridicule by Less eDucated people... or known better by the acronym... REAL WORLD.

It even works from New Zealand and creates a powerful electronic field of accuracy reduction for all unguided poorly aimed projectiles.

...I have some questions for our elder statesman GarryB, with a massive modern and sophisticated aerospace network in place and integrated with all domestic SAMS,

First of all it wont be integrated with all domestic SAMs... The Air Force, Army, Navy, Strategic Rocket Forces and other branches all have their own SAM assets and roles.

This system will be an attempt to use ground, air and space based sensors to cover the airspace above Russia from ground to beyond orbit... (might include space debris protection eventually). In a few years it will become very powerful and capable, but there will be gaps in sight and reach.

For example we have the S-400 with 400km range, and the S-500 with 600km range...assuming the range is not downplayed, is it possible within this aerospace defense network within domestic Russian aerospace, that the S-400 can have an enhanced range of 600km, and the S-500 could have an enhanced range of 800km?

No. AFAIK these ranges are kinematic ranges... in the case of the S-400 to hit targets 400km distant a lofted flight profile is adopted to get that sort of reach... it will be the same for S-500.


With an IADS it is possible that a missile might be launched at a target but a platform that is closer could take over control of the missile for the final stage of interception... ie an S-400 could be launched at an enemy aircraft 350km distant but an A-100 AWACS aircraft is flying within 200km of the target, so it could provide guidance for the missile while the S-400 battery concentrates on other targets.

Also isn't it true that S-400's 400km range is the maximum range of having a 95% interception probability after firing 2 missiles, but could the S-400 theoretically intercept targets at significantly greater ranges but at the cost of significantly lower interception percentage (for a theoretical example 95% at 400km, 85% at 600km, 75% at 800km)?

If it is using a lofted trajectory then it will be at a practical physical limit of range.

often greater range can be achieved against larger less manouverable targets like AWACS aircraft or B-52 bombers in the case of air to air missiles.
I
In this case you can hit a B-52 at greater range because the target will be unable to pull a high g manouver to evade your missile, so a 110km range RVV-SD might be able to hit a B-52 at 130km with the missile using a lofted trajectory and having glided further it will attack theB-52 with less speed and energy but because the target is a B-52 it wont need as much manouvering energy to get a kill.

And you could guess ,after some long Range ,the radar of any system of defense no matter how good
it is ,will not see anything that is flying under the radar Horizon . In the picture the radio tower signals will not reach the House ,because is under their horizon.

Quite true, but with multiple and linked radars on the ground and in the air and indeed in space the coverage of Russia territory will soon become fairly comprehensive.

With the end of the 1978 ABM treaty OTH radars can now be pointed into Russian territory to look for threats in Russian air space. Even if an S-400 battery can't see the target it can launch missiles at targets using target data from other sources and when the missile gets to within range it can use its own radar to find and destroy the target even if it is flying near the ground.

True, I basing my "confidence" in the system on the fact that hundreds of missiles have been fired, and only a few actually hit their target. It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams.

Any more opinions on the new Aero tech (from India)?

True, I basing my "confidence" in the system on the fact that hundreds of missiles have been fired, and only a few actually hit their target. It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams.

I want to see actual performance figures before I form an opinion on the system... how many of those rockets were going to take lives and were prevented from doing so by the interceptor missiles.

It could be argued that the Qassams have been about as effective as the Scuds in 1991 except that one Scud hit a target and single handedly killed more Americans than any other Iraqi system in the conflict.

Of a total of about 90 Scuds fired, 42 were fired at Israel and were directly responsible for the death of 1 Israeli. And that is without Iron Dome.

One Scud was hit by Patriot and, with its flight path redirected, hit a US army barracks in Saudi Arabia killing about 30 soldiers.

The simple fact is that unguided rockets fired at large population areas are not enormously effective in terms of actually killing people... especially smaller missiles with small payloads.

You either need guidance for precision or you need very very powerful warheads.

Notice how I said " It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams".


Against Smerch missiles for instance, it may not work at all. I also doubt it would stand even a slim chance against an Iskander.

Mike E wrote:Notice how I said " It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams".


Against Smerch missiles for instance, it may not work at all. I also doubt it would stand even a slim chance against an Iskander.

...Exactly, the likeliness that the Israeli's have any air defense system capable of defeating Iskander is very slim, but that doesn't stop them Israeli's (on the the same lines mp.net/F-16 forum maggots  ) from creating a circle-jerk marketing campaign against a system (Iskander) that they never even tested against...   

Notice how I said " It may not work against higher-tech missiles (?), but it sure does against Qassams".

Qassams are unguided, so anything is higher tech than they are.

The important point is that there is a huge range of higher tech missiles from Smerch rockets... most of which are not guided but do use a course correction system... think of it as a stabiliser to keep all the rockets closer together rather than actual terminal guidance... and a missile like Iskander that actively manouvers and tries to evade intercepting missiles.

Another proof of the Idon Dome's hoax

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/29/israeli-scientist-exposes-iron-dome-hoax/

As confirmed by Pr Theodore Postol who said that in the best case the Idon Dome intercepted only 5% of palestinian roquettes. With several thousands of palestinian roquettes launched in Israel, the success rate of Iron Dome could be in the best case 1%. Let's bet that this filthy AEGIS and other THAAD, or hypothecal shield anti missiles -all are soviet legacy, du the the fled of several soviet scientists during the 90's- are all myth.

They don't try to intercept most rockets because they have set kill "areas" that are likely to hit populated areas.

Try as hard to discredit everything Israel does militarily, but their civilian casualties to rocket attacks have been almost non existant.
I would say Iron Dome works just fine, and there is no reason it shouldn't.

TR1 wrote:They don't try to intercept most rockets because they have set kill "areas" that are likely to hit populated areas.

Try as hard to discredit everything Israel does militarily, but their civilian casualties to rocket attacks have been almost non existant.
I would say Iron Dome works just fine, and there is no reason it shouldn't.

TR1's definition of working just fine = spending nearly $100,000 per missile ($95,000 to be exact) for crude hand made rockets that cost $800 a piece, that doesn't sound too cost-effective. It's like spending millions of dollars on MRAP's when IED's cost $20, $30, $40 ,$50 to create:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/iron-dome-gaza-israel-air-defence-missile

Shouldn't a system like Iron Dome be better suited for defending against PGM's? Plus there's air defense guns such as RapidFire 40mm 6x6 system from Thales (May'be a bigger round such as a 57mm for better range) could do the same job at a fraction of the cost, and also with an additional ability to engage insurgents on the ground:

TR1 wrote:
I would say Iron Dome works just fine, and there is no reason it shouldn't.

As Iam not a specialist regarding this question.
Feel free to ask him whatever you want
Here is his detailed proofs.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528991/an-explanation-of-the-evidence-of-weaknesses-in-the-iron-dome-defense-system/

He said between 6% to 15%.
15% swaggered by Israel Defense Industry. Believe me, if their system, either Trophy, Iron Dome, or Merkava, were effective as they claimed, nowadays, we should see Netanyahu at Gaza city, with Ismael Hannyeh, Zahar, and all other palestinians insurgents hanged, killed, or assassined. And -the big bullshit of- Mahmud Abbas, if not Dahlan, in Gaza praising Israel help.
See what's happened in 1982 in Lebanon and you would realize how Israel is weak today. In spite of the help of near all western world.

Even if it had anywhere near that accuracy, you are still breaking the bank spending $20k to destroy a $10 rocket.

Haven't checked it myself since there are no reliable sources on Iron Dome mainly advertisement crap and war propaganda, but Finkelstein also tells that the best accuracy of Iron Dome is around 5%.

Vladimir79 wrote:Even if it had anywhere near that accuracy, you are still breaking the bank spending $20k to destroy a $10 rocket.

Actually it costs nearly $100,000 per Iron Dome missile.

If that $10 rocket was going to land on a nuclear power station then I think any amount of money to prevent that would be worth it.

Personally I like the idea of 57mm guns with laser guided shells.

those shells wont exactly be cheap but with a number of target marking stations and a couple of guns it should be quite effective even against quite a few rockets at once.

GarryB wrote:If that $10 rocket was going to land on a nuclear power station then I think any amount of money to prevent that would be worth it.

Personally I like the idea of 57mm guns with laser guided shells.

those shells wont exactly be cheap but with a number of target marking stations and a couple of guns it should be quite effective even against quite a few rockets at once.

Even if this 10$ firecracker lands thousand times on a nuclear power station it will cause ZERO damage. Those firecrackers can't even damage asphalt roads not to mention high reinforced concrete walls on power plants.

Vladimir79 wrote:Even if it had anywhere near that accuracy, you are still breaking the bank spending $20k to destroy a $10 rocket.

Israel had not this worry. America, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Australia,  etc... are all ready to spend, if not waste, whatever it is possible in amount of money, hardware, military equipement, economic support support, financial support, psychological support, in order to save Israel. If Israel lost a tank, an aircraft, helicopter, etc...all these hardware are immediatly replaced, without regarding how much it is cost.
To sumarize, Israel is a mere western military basis in this region, not more, not less. Without this western support Israel might disapeared for a long time ago. For example the "Iron Dome" is US technology, as near all of israelis hardware.
Israel is also a western laboratory to test western weaponnery, and western tactics, against russian fighters, against chinese-russian rockets, against chinese-russian anti-tank missiles.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:Even if it had anywhere near that accuracy, you are still breaking the bank spending $20k to destroy a $10 rocket.

Actually it costs nearly $100,000 per Iron Dome missile.

Says who? Israel says $20k...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4541496,00.html

nemrod wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:Even if it had anywhere near that accuracy, you are still breaking the bank spending $20k to destroy a $10 rocket.

Israel had not this worry. America, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Australia,  etc... are all ready to spend, if not waste, whatever it is possible in amount of money, hardware, military equipement, economic support support, financial support, psychological support, in order to save Israel. If Israel lost a tank, an aircraft, helicopter, etc...all these hardware are immediatly replaced, without regarding how much it is cost.
To sumarize, Israel is a mere western military basis in this region, not more, not less. Without this western support Israel might disapeared for a long time ago. For example the "Iron Dome" is US technology, as near all of israelis hardware.
Israel is also a western laboratory to test western weaponnery, and western tactics, against russian fighters, against chinese-russian rockets, against chinese-russian anti-tank missiles.

What you say is true for America and a lesser extent Australia. Europe and Asia don't care much about it but waving fists at one side or the other. To summarise, Israel is the 51st US state.

Vladimir79 wrote:

nemrod wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:Even if it had anywhere near that accuracy, you are still breaking the bank spending $20k to destroy a $10 rocket.

Israel had not this worry. America, UK, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Australia,  etc... are all ready to spend, if not waste, whatever it is possible in amount of money, hardware, military equipement, economic support support, financial support, psychological support, in order to save Israel. If Israel lost a tank, an aircraft, helicopter, etc...all these hardware are immediatly replaced, without regarding how much it is cost.
To sumarize, Israel is a mere western military basis in this region, not more, not less. Without this western support Israel might disapeared for a long time ago. For example the "Iron Dome" is US technology, as near all of israelis hardware.
Israel is also a western laboratory to test western weaponnery, and western tactics, against russian fighters, against chinese-russian rockets, against chinese-russian anti-tank missiles.

What you say is true for America and a lesser extent Australia.  Europe and Asia don't care much about it but waving fists at one side or the other.  To summarise, Israel is the 51st US state.

You are wrong. This title claims Germany and 52nd is Japan and 53rd South Korea.

Vladimir79 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:Even if it had anywhere near that accuracy, you are still breaking the bank spending $20k to destroy a $10 rocket.

Actually it costs nearly $100,000 per Iron Dome missile.

Says who?  Israel says $20k...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4541496,00.html

Israel also says Hamas is their eternal enemy, but usually neglects to mention that they helped create Hamas...here's the link pointing out Iron Dome missile cost:

Each interception rocket costs around $95,000 (£55,000) so Iron Dome is not used against missiles heading for open ground.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/iron-dome-gaza-israel-air-defence-missile