A look at Israel's "Iron Dome" missile defense

[Developereo]

And we see no comparative table between them -- FROM YOU. I take it you speak from extensive personal experience with ballistic missile defense?

I already gave a comparison.

ESSM is reputed to have a response time of 6 seconds v/s your claim of 20 for ID.
ESSM can intercept advanced supersonic cruise missiles like the BrahMos.

NATO believes the ESSM's capability, to the tune of 2000 missiles in service, whether you do or not.

Good night, indeed. When all else fails, trot out Fox News.

When you trot out your predictable Islamophobic rants about Muslims acting as a collective entity, then don't be surprised when the sources of your hate indoctrination get dragged in.

Of course, given your desperation in this debate, it was inevitable that you would resort to attacking Muslims sooner or later. It's a pattern with you: when you need to run from a debate, you switch to Islamophobic rants.

And I take it you believe in 'Chinese physics'?

It's not just about physics. It's also about your racist speech towards them and you rightly getting spanked for your racist outbursts.

Wow...If it is that simple, why are we still having failures with our own systems? By your own argument, we should have have complete success against ballistic warheads back in the '60s.

More desperation on your part. Where did I claim 'complete success against ballistic warheads'?

No system is claimed to be perfect, including ID. They all evolve and improve.

It's sad that you are now arguing for the incompetence of the US/NATO defence industry in order to defend the ID.

Peddle your ignorance and misunderstanding to a more gullible audience.

No ignorance, just facts. Uncomfortable facts for you, since you have been cornered by your own blabbering.

The undisputed fact is that superior MD systems have been operational for quite a while, long before ID came online.

You are watching too much cartoons if you think that missiles are maneuvering all the time. All missiles fly through a straight line or ballistic trajectory. Very few missiles are making anti CIWS maneuver few kms before a target (in case of Iron Dome its irrelevant, coz Iron Dome intercepts rockets at much higher distances).

I never said missiles maneuver 'all the time'. I said advanced missiles have the capability to maneuver when needed, including target acquisition, evasive actions, etc. This makes the job of the interceptor harder. It's easier to intercept missiles which can not maneuver.

Plz show me any other system in the world that intercepts barrage of very small 2.5 Mach targets.

Already mentioned ESSM. Proven enough to satisfy NATO to the tune of 2000 missiles.

I suggest you to learn how to argue without personal attacks and racist stereotypes.

I suggest you don't dish out personal attacks in the first place if you are not prepared to accept them in return. I only retaliate in kind when people don't behave themselves.

Yes, my english is bad, because unlike u i did not change my country for better living standards.

The comment on your English was only because your missed the significance of single quotes around my use of the word catapulted and put WTF in your post. I assume it was because you took the word catapulted literally even though I had put it in quotes as is customary in English to indicate sarcasm.

1) What makes u think that cruise target is easier to hit than ballistic?

I am saying cruise missiles are harder to hit because they, by definition, have the ability to maneuver. You yourself admitted above that maneuverable missiles are harder to hit than unmaneuverable ones, so what's the issue then?

2) Can you give me any example when ESSM intercepted barrage or 2.5 Mach targets?

This is an older technology; ESSM is even newer than the missile tested here[/B]:

RIM-116 RAM System

The Block 1 upgrade program was successfully completed in August 1999 with a series of operational tests to demonstrate the system's introduction maturity. In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks.

With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%.

 

[500]

Already mentioned ESSM. Proven enough to satisfy NATO to the tune of 2000 missiles.

I asked you to show a test against salvo of 2.5 mach targets. You failed to do so. I will give u more time.

I suggest you don't dish out personal attacks in the first place if you are not prepared to accept them in return. I only retaliate in kind when people don't behave themselves.

I said that because you repeated debunked stupid claim twice.

The comment on your English was only because your missed the significance of single quotes around my use of the word catapulted and put WTF in your post. I assume it was because you took the word catapulted literally even though I had put it in quotes as is customary in English to indicate sarcasm.

"Catapulted rocket" is your personal invention, nonsense term by any sense.

I am saying cruise missiles are harder to hit because they, by definition, have the ability to maneuver.

Cruise missiles are flying by a straight line over sea. Their trajectory is much easier to predict and calculate than ballistic Grad rocket.

TERCOM cruise missiles like Tomahawk are slow big targets.

With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%.[/I]

I am still waiting for a single example of a specific test against a salvo of supersonic targets.

Here the announcement of French MOD, Aster-30 intercepted a single 2.5 mach target:

Interception d

They are pretty proud about it since released such announcement.

 

[Developereo]

I asked you to show a test against salvo of 2.5 mach targets. You failed to do so. I will give u more time.

No, it is you who failed reading once again.

Read my post again.

Slowly, perhaps, this time, paying special attention to the phrase 'stream attacks'. I even highlighted it for you.

And this was in 1999, against sea skimming, maneuverable missiles at Mach 2.5.

 

[500]

No, it is you who failed reading once again.

Read my post again.

Slowly, perhaps, this time, paying special attention to the phrase 'stream attacks'. I even highlighted it for you.

And this was in 1999, against sea skimming, maneuverable missiles at Mach 2.5.

These are just advertisement bla bla bla. Plz provide any example of specific test. Here an example of such specific test:

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualit...-cible-supersonique-evoluant-au-ras-de-l-eau.

A single supersonic target.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Kind of moronic to compare the latest hi-tech system against decades old, antiquated rockets which are little more than catapulted firecrackers.

The point being lives saved here.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Iron dome seems costly considering the Israel is seeking US funding over it

--------------------------------------------- ---------------
Iron Dome and Juniper Cobra - Strengthening the Relationship
--------------------------------------------- ---------------

¶21. (S) On Iron Dome, DG Buchris (Assisted by retired General
Nagel) briefed ASD Vershbow on the latest developments,
stating that Iron Dome is planned to have an initial
operating capability by the spring of 2010, and that
technological advancements have made the system much more
viable defending against short range rocket attacks from Gaza
or Southern Lebanon. Buchris also emphasized the need for
additional USG support to help fund additional production of
Iron Dome to protect the civilian population in both the
North and the South. Buchris also noted progress on the
upper- and medium-tier ballistic missile defense systems
(Arrow-3 and David's Sling, respectively). In an earlier
meeting, MG Gantz quantified the importance of fielding
adequate missile defense systems by citing critical Israeli
infrastructure such as Ben Gurion Airport and the Ashkelon
electricity plant. Suffering the loss or damage of places
such as these, according to Gantz, would be a major blow to
Israel and, therefore, every effort to
stand up a capable missile and rocket defense shield should
be taken.

Assistant Secretary Of Defense Vershbow Meets With Senior Israeli Defense Officials

 

[Developereo]

These are just advertisement bla bla bla. Plz provide any example of specific test.

I don't understand what else you are looking for. Here's more from that link I provided in that post:

RAM has been in production since 1989 and is now operational on more than 60 ships of the German and US Navies.

Greece and Korea have also signed procurement contracts, initially for 3 each of the RAM Launching Systems.

Based on the results of operational testing conducted aboard the USS GUNSTON HALL (LSD 44) in January 1999 and the Self-Defense Test Ship between March and August 1999, the Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force, declared the RAM Block I to be operationally effective against a variety of cruise missile threats and recommended fleet introduction. The Block I missile had successful intercepts in 23 of 24 development test firings. A full-rate production decision occurred in January 2000.

Are you saying all this is made up 'advertisement' and the tests never occurred?

 

[Developereo]

The point being lives saved here.

Yes, of course, no one is denying that it works and is brilliant engineering. My only point of contention was the claim that it is some sort of global technological breakthrough when, in point of fact, similar or superior systems have been operational elsewhere for quite a while.

 

[500]

I don't understand what else you are looking for. Here's more from that link I provided in that post:

RAM has been in production since 1989 and is now operational on more than 60 ships of the German and US Navies.

Greece and Korea have also signed procurement contracts, initially for 3 each of the RAM Launching Systems.

Based on the results of operational testing conducted aboard the USS GUNSTON HALL (LSD 44) in January 1999 and the Self-Defense Test Ship between March and August 1999, the Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force, declared the RAM Block I to be operationally effective against a variety of cruise missile threats and recommended fleet introduction. The Block I missile had successful intercepts in 23 of 24 development test firings. A full-rate production decision occurred in January 2000.

Are you saying all this is made up 'advertisement' and the tests never occurred?

I see only very vague statements. For examle there is no evidence that it was tested against multiple supersonic missiles.

 

[gambit]

I already gave a comparison.

ESSM is reputed to have a response time of 6 seconds v/s your claim of 20 for ID.
ESSM can intercept advanced supersonic cruise missiles like the BrahMos.

NATO believes the ESSM's capability, to the tune of 2000 missiles in service, whether you do or not.

More desperation on your part. Where did I claim 'complete success against ballistic warheads'?

No system is claimed to be perfect, including ID. They all evolve and improve.

It's sad that you are now arguing for the incompetence of the US/NATO defence industry in order to defend the ID.

No ignorance, just facts. Uncomfortable facts for you, since you have been cornered by your own blabbering.

The undisputed fact is that superior MD systems have been operational for quite a while, long before ID came online.

You have no 'facts' but only ignorance. I have explained the foundational principles of interceptions and its associated problems many times here before. Rational people who read them and double checked my arguments pretty much laughs at the feeble defense you gave for your equally feeble criticism of the Iron Dome system: That computers operate at the speed of light, and therefore the system is nothing extraordinary



Engineers the world over must be shocked at something they missed: Computers operate at the speed of light.

When you trot out your predictable Islamophobic rants about Muslims acting as a collective entity, then don't be surprised when the sources of your hate indoctrination get dragged in.

Of course, given your desperation in this debate, it was inevitable that you would resort to attacking Muslims sooner or later. It's a pattern with you: when you need to run from a debate, you switch to Islamophobic rants.

See your post 31. The desperation came from you and you had to...

...you can drop your servile appeasement on Israel's behalf.

That is pretty much the defaulted position for you.

It's not just about physics. It's also about your racist speech towards them and you rightly getting spanked for your racist outbursts.

And yet not once have I been suspended for such 'racist' speech while many certain members of the Chinese boys are repeated offenders.

 

[gambit]

I never said missiles maneuver 'all the time'. I said advanced missiles have the capability to maneuver when needed, including target acquisition, evasive actions, etc. This makes the job of the interceptor harder. It's easier to intercept missiles which can not maneuver.

Assumptions based on ignorance and arrogance.

First, the difference between accuracy and precision...

What judged a missile -- as a weapon -- as inaccurate and imprecise came from what is called 'trajectory perturbations' from missile launch to warhead impact. It does not matter if it is ground to ground, ground to air, air to air, or air to ground.

Trajectory perturbations can be caused by many factors/influences: manufacturing defects, unexpected launch errors that are external to the missile itself such as a delay in one of the several release detonation bolts, or atmospheric interferences.

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of the Franklin Institute - The perturbation calculus in missile ballistics

Abstract

The calculus of perturbations, as commonly used in exterior ballistics, is modified for application to rocket missiles, that is, to projectiles which experience thrust and lift forces. In this form, the calculus can be used as in conventional ballistics, to investigate the effect of disturbing factors upon a trajectory. In addition to this, it is of considerable value in establishing analytically certain principles of guidance and control. Two examples are given of this: the theory of range control of the German V-2 missile, and a theoretical system of free flight guidance by radio.

External launch errors and atmospheric influences can often -- not always -- be compensated by the missile's guidance and steering sophistication.

On the other hand, manufacturing and/or design defects cannot be compensated, or at best difficult for the guidance/steering mechanisms to maintain stable flight. A major problem under manufacturing defects and/or design flaws is fuselage flex, because the missile is essentially a hollow tube and this structure is prone to flex while under stress.

Rocket Vehicle Acoustics & Vibration Page

Rocket Basics

First stages usually are pressure critical; however, buckling and bending loads are high and may sometimes be critical.

Other problems under manufacturing defects and/or design flaws are imbalanced thrust if there are multiple motors, or aerodynamics deficiencies that often does not manifest themselves until certain airspeed are reached. The V-2's thrust deflector vanes falls under flight controls and they were the cause of the V-2's notorious inaccuracy and imprecision.

Cape Canaveral Rocket and Missile Programs:

...the German V-2, used exhaust deflector vanes to guide the missile...

The point here is that there if a missile is inaccurate and the system is proven to be imprecise, it is so because of UNINTENDED FLIGHT DEVIATIONS.

If a cruise missile maneuvers around or over an obstacle, that is an INTENDED FLIGHT DEVIATION.

If a descending warhead effect maneuvers designed to try to confuse air defense, those maneuvers are INTENDED FLIGHT DEVIATIONS.

Trajectory perturbations are usually attributed to unintended flight deviations. So it is absolutely wrong to say that the Hamas rockets do not maneuver because a great deal of them do not reach their intended ground targets and those that do not reach their intended ground targets failed because they produced UNWANTED MANEUVERS while in flight.

Maneuvers -- intended or unintended -- cannot be discerned by the air defense mechanisms. Pilots can created unpredictable maneuvers. So can good/bad programming. So can manufacturing defects. Air defense can only guess if a certain maneuver that hinted at a certain heading will land somewhere. But it is not certain. So the Iron Dome detection mechanism had to guess on which descending rockets are credible threats and which are not and execute an interception for each.

This is why the Iron Dome system is being quietly celebrated by air defense designers/engineers around the world. It may be too narrowly designed for too specific a purpose, but the system can be expanded to include other air defense scenarios to suit.

 

[Developereo]

You have no 'facts' but only ignorance. I have explained the foundational principles of interceptions and its associated problems many times here before. Rational people who read them and double checked my arguments pretty much laughs at the feeble defense you gave for your equally feeble criticism of the Iron Dome system: That computers operate at the speed of light, and therefore the system is nothing extraordinary



Engineers the world over must be shocked at something they missed: Computers operate at the speed of light.

You are moronic beyond belief.

People who can read English can read the thread and see for themselves how you are making things up out of thin air 'computers operate at the speed of light', and other nonsense to sustain your pathetic 'argument'.

Also, your continuous shifting of goal posts every time your pathetic servitude lands you with egg on your face.

Perhaps you can hire an English tutor to help you read my posts and he/she can explain to you that nowhere did I claim computers operating at the speed of light. However, even an English tutor will not be able to help you climb out of the ditch you have dug yourself into following your blind need for servitude.

I already gave specifics of a missile system operational in 1999 which beats Iron Dome on several capabilities.

See your post 31. The desperation came from you and you had to...

Post 31 is there for all to read. Every can also read how you, with your pathological hatred of Muslims, dragged Muslims into this thread for no reason.

And yet not once have I been suspended for such 'racist' speech while many certain members of the Chinese boys are repeated offenders.

Yes, we know you get away with racism on this board, which is why you continue to indulge in it.

 

[Developereo]

Assumptions based on ignorance and arrogance.

All your servile babbling and attempts at irrelevant distraction will not change the basic fact that a missile which can detect and try to evade the interceptor will be harder to hit than one which can do neither.

I am enjoying your desperate dash all over the board to salvage your indefensible position. The shifting goal posts which are your specialty are also entertaining.

I already gave the links on ESSM and RIM-116 RAM. Why don't you tell us what new significant capability ID adds which is not already provided by these earlier systems.

 

[VCheng]

It seems that Iron Dome is engaging only a minority of the rockets fired (lower right corner):

 

[500]

I already gave the links on ESSM and RIM-116 RAM. Why don't you tell us what new significant capability ID adds which is not already provided by these earlier systems.

RAM and ESSM are very impressive systems, but there is no evidence that they were tested against a salvo of supercruise missiles.

Also RAM and ESSM protect point object, while Iron Dome provides areal protection, defending 150 km2 territory.

It seems that Iron Dome is engaging only a minority of the rockets fired (lower right corner):

Iron Dome calculates whether rocket is going to hit a populated area and only then launches interceptor. Majority of Palestinian rockets miss their target. Also there are areas not covered by Iron Dome.