@
Secur
There is a debate underway about how effective Israels iron dome system is in protecting populated areas from missile attacks. On the pro side it is argued that somewhere between 85% to 90% of incoming missiles are destroyed. The con side argues that the proportion is much smaller, 40% or less. A large part of the difference comes from how one defines `destroy. Perhaps a better term would be intercept. It is possible that about 90% of incoming missiles are intercepted. However, a missile once intercepted may not have its warhead disabled, making at least one of the fragments that falls to ground (in a populated area) dangerous.
From the above article we can draw up that 90% intercept rate is possibly correct, what doesn't happen is that the artillery are not always destroyed and even though their momentum is lost they still fall off to a populated area thus killing people and this is what "the experts" claim as unsuccessful.
However in our case there will be no cities to protect as Indian army's own artillery unit will possess them for defense and the Pak army shells when struck will fall off in deserted areas and on top of that unlike the Hammas Pak army won't be able to retreat int urban areas and fire again tomorrow, they'll have to face a counter attack.
And maybe for the Israelis its not so much of a game changer but here with civilians to not hold the Indian army back it may very well be a game changer. Coz I don't know what you have seen but I haven't seen a such a quick response system with a crazya$$ radar range and maneuverable electro-optical missile.
Correction: you considered only those scenarios that that suit you.
Lets actually look at some of the scenarios.
Back in Tel Aviv the Hammas could put a towed artillery at different places and launch them simultaneously and it would be difficult to figure out where the fire is coming from until the radar has actually detected it, this is mainly because the DISTANCE is not so much between them and there is the urban environment that act as buffers.
Whereas Pakistan has modern weaponry Hammas doesn't. Therefore just like we have to cope with protecting all of the 2900km border(according to you) you too have to cope with hitting simultaneously with large units alongside the border to achieve that advantage.
If you want the same advantage the Hammas have then you'll have to do the same coz as far as I can gather you want the Iron Dome to have a disadvantage in such a situation yet you are not willing to see that the PA has to equally deal that kind of damage.
And I don't think small artillery units placed along the so called terrain-ed border is sufficient for the barrage of artillery fire that you are hoping for.
What do you think the rate of fire is for artillery weapons is? they are not automatic weapons.
Lets look at your highest caliber artillery weapon, the M110 with 203mm rounds, it can do a sustained fire at 1 round per 2 minutes lets look at a more usable artillery caliber weapon, the 155mm artillery the Norinco SH1 I don't know the sustained rate of fire but the max is around 3-4 rounds per minute.
As for rockets are concerned, if I am not mistaken Pakistan uses the KRL-122 which is said to be version of the Grad rockets the very same rockets that the Iron Dome has faced against.
The likely attack positions along the LOC are either already known and the ones that aren't are being monitored.
Lets be realistic apart from a few artillery units the Pakistan has around the border what kind of surprise of barrage fire will that achieve?
Besides cease fire violations happen all the time even artillery fire.
Kashmir: Residents near the LoC insist there is 'nothing unusual' about artillery fire there | Mail Online
No matter how "terrain-ed" the specific places are, IA is probably all ready with counter attack units.
AND AGAIN not all "terrain-ed" places are suitable for artillery fire. So don't jump up seeing huge numbers lik3 2900km.
Lets be honest in only a few years we'll have the capability of complete regional monitoring with the 7 IRNSS satellites and the spy satellite CCI-Sat to be launched next year which will have the capability continuously monitor the borders. SO there, I explained it for you.
The threat of continuous fire doesn't arise as I have said
FOR THE BILLIONTH time the Iron Dome if bought will be used in an artillery defense role.
Coz tell me how many cities are there along the border that require protection?
A complete border defense role
WHICH I AGREED WITH YOU IS UNREALISTIC AND COSTLY.
Do not be stupid the Hamas' objective was to hurt the urban area along side the military establishments. And they could do this only coz of the geography.
Pakistan will have only one objective that is to attack the vanguard units already placed alongside the border.
I completely disagree when you say that Israel didn't face anything, coz they had the added burden of protecting the urban establishments alongside the military stronghold, whereas we have no such constraints and an open area along side the LOC and the hills and mountains which are already monitored.
So quite the contrary where the Iron Dome protected a whole city it'll have less work to do, defending only a single artillery unit.
Why do u keep parroting the same thing? Why won't you just admit it that if a border defense role is not possible with a costly few units of Iron Dome then it'll probably used in a different context altogether? And I bet IA has thought of something along that line.
As for "assuming that it will be placed with a tank or artillery unit and you want to intercept every threat coming in , something which can easily overwhelm the system".
Why?
We are not looking to intercept every attack from the Pakistani side, just enough to give an apt counter attack to cripple the approaching forces.
As far as I can gather the Iron Dome can protect a 150sqkm of both urban and military establishment so how much space does a whole tank unit require? With all the radars pointed in the known direction and the mobile MFUs of the Tamir missiles pointed towards enemy fire it becomes quite easy.
You believe the Iron DOme will be easily overwhelmed, well that situation was when the missile MFUs were scattered all over the place, imagine when they are between and around a single a regiment it becomes quite easier then with the very powerful ELM-2084 with the air surveillance detection range at 256NM, continuously pointed in 1 direction .
"Nullify this advantage"???
Are you are taking for granted the fact that Indian army won't attack at all.
We will have more units than PA to begin with and we'll have as much firepower or don't you remember Kargil?
And lets for your sake accept the fact that Iron Dome is only 60% capable, still with more units on our side and Iron Dome still destroying 60% of ur "barrage" it seems the scale is still tilting on our side.
As for
I agree that it can indeed provide a certain level of protection , the only question is at what cost ? At what cost , does the price of winning , becomes too high a price to pay ?
Iron Dome isnt likely to be exported extensively. For one thing, it works best in a threat environment like that of Israel and its particular geography. Israel faces a unique mix of threats, especially to its population centers, in a geographically constrained space. Hostile groups are able to fire large numbers of unsophisticated rockets at close range and then melt back into a civilian population, making retaliation difficult and enhancing the value of active defenses.Second, the system is relatively expensive, although this has been contested by government and industry officials, as well as some outside analysts. Experts estimate that Iron Dome interceptors cost between $30,000 and $100,000 apiece, while the primitive incoming mortars and rockets may cost less than $100 and longer-range rockets may go for only a few thousand dollars. Then there is the question of how many Tamirs are fired to engage one incoming missilea matter of both shot doctrine and practical experience. Finally, the cost of Iron Dome as a system depends on how many batteries are required for full, or at least sufficient, coverage of a threatened area. For a large country such as India, for instance, the cost of obtaining sufficient batteries to protect its full expanse would likely be prohibitive. - Demystifying Iron Dome
Peter Dombrowski, Catherine Kelleher, Eric Auner
I don't believe that pak army will attack and then turn away which for us makes retaliation quite possible.
The Pak KRL-122 is a version of the Grad rockets that the Iron Dome intercepted.
Unlike the whole of Israel which is fixed and is free to attack, the Pak army will only get to attack a certain artillery unit which moves and is smaller than a whole of Israel.
Suppose Pak army gathers at point A anywhere in the 2900km border, assuming that the artillery unit is already detected the Indian artillery units will also gather there for a standoff.
As per your article "how many batteries are required for full, or at least sufficient,
coverage of a threatened area"
And again the area acquired by the tank unit will not be as big as Israel.
And in any scenario possible Pak army is attacking if we consider an Iron Dome system in our side, we are still able to protect to some degree while you'll have no such system, in all ends we last longer. As your article says "
Hostile groups are able to fire large numbers of unsophisticated rockets at close range and then melt back into a civilian population, making retaliation difficult", and since PA is not retreating all the more good for us.
As for
"the cost of obtaining sufficient batteries to protect its full expanse would likely be prohibitive".Correct thats not possible for India, so the Iron DOme will probably be used in a regiment defense role not an urban environment defense role.
Lets say we bring in 3/5th of our number, its stll more than Pakistan's. And I don't believe the Pakistani numbers in Kargil were that small, so why didn't the PA use more numbers back then, if they were not afraid of a two faceted threat?
I never said that it won't happen but since you are adamant on pointing out Kargil, how do you think that it actually happens?
Do you see a barrage?
As for "delusions of grandeur" and "conventional advantage" you do realize what happened when the Indian army brought all of the 250 Bofors field guns?
As much as I know the Hijara, H2 and H4 are not precision guided bombs and you want use air interdiction in a mountainous and foggy area so yes I believe the CBU-105 will have the advantage there.
Coz unlike the ones u mentioned, they use bomblets the CBU is however a precision guided bomb in itself and the bomblets inside the CBU are fused with sensors which will fire on a tank directly as they come over it, unlike dumb bombs.
The last I heard of Babur it traveled only 22km on its test run while already being "proclaimed" inducted. I would doubt its credibility.
Don't believe me? ask Oscar
http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/239648-nirbhay-cruise-missile-test-failed-18.html#post4026085
The point being I didn't name BrahMos for the sake of bragging like you did, coz what a BrahMos can do Raad or Babur can't. The Block 3 Brahmos had successfully hit the target behind a mountain range with its supersonic steep dive ability , and since we are talking LOC there is use for BrahMos there.
Lets imagine that Babur and Raad are operational however can they pull of a BrahMos? And besides are there regiments of Babur ready at the go alonside the artillery units? BrahMos is already a part of the 40th and 41st artillery units of IA.
Babur is simply not suitable for mountainous warfare.
Can Falco , Uqaab , Jasoos and Hornet operate in 17000ft, i.e. around LOC mostly Tiger hill? Maybe Falco can. Again the Heron is better in this aspect.
What kind of payload does the PRSS have? Does it have a navigation payload or a CDMA ranging equipment? WHat kind of signals does it generate? WHat is the precision?
If not then its not enough to continuously track and observe like the IRNSS can.
As for Beidou
Its better to have your own stuff than to rely on someone, just like during a BrahMos test the Americans tampered with GPS and it went off target.
ALL of these guided bombs, BrahMos, UAVs, satelllites etc, are in some way better than Pak's.
And on their own don't look much and you might say that each of them have only a little advantage but when all of it are bound together they form a unit that is more powerful.
You are still only giving statements not explanations.
But let me tell you what I mean by aggressiveness.
You must have seen the Video I posted and how frequent artillery fires happen so tell me how will you overwhelm a quick reaction system like Iron Dome if you don't fire around 50 shells simultaneously, and that is not even possible coz you need to have 100 artillery units to do that as u must know by now an artillery weapon's rate of fire, and supporting that-so many artillery units converging is not possible, and supporting that-an Iron Dome facing a large artillery fire is not possible either.
Is this analyzed enough for you?
Please do explain which scenario I painted that is not possible today??????????
As for "Iron Dome will face individual units in isolation". Are u that stupid or just stubborn?
The very 1st point that I made was that Iron Dome in itself will never face an artillery unit on its own, an escorting artillery unit on its side automatically gives counter attack abilities and that is wht will actually happen.
Assuming that range finding and precision fires are completed, then tell me if pak army's artillery can fire 5 rounds under a minute and suppose the Iron Dome intercepts 3 of them while IA's artillery too fires 5 rounds simultaneously tell me which side has chances of survival and counter attack?
As for "Keep in mind that even if 100 shells are fired by a unit , then the Iron Dome is overwhelmed ."
This is not possible as I proved above.
And what do you think artillery are? Do u think they can churn shells like news papers?
A unit has to wait after a significant amount of time to cool off,then to range find again, and do the calculation, observe enemy fire, allocate the movable units after doing all of this, and confirm a kill or no and go through the whole process all over again until they are hitting the right spot.
And 100 shells can hardly be fired in a day in a place like LOC with all its terrain.
As for "to expect Pakistanis to fire a bunch of rockets and then wait for days . Was I then wrong to point out that you lack the basic knowledge of warfare and merely posting stuff to continue the argument ?"
You are so linear minded, can you not understand that the Hammas had the ability to retreat and regroup and fire again, PA will not have that advantage coz as PA starts hitting IA will too and that in itself will lower your volley.
We would have already located and fired simultaneously along with PA.
That is the "basic knowledge" that u are so adamant in missing, and I am at least arguing to the point you are stubbornly repeating the same thing over and over again without any explanation and u expect me to believe u r the greatest armchair warrior ever.
As for
"it doesn't waste interceptors on incoming missiles which are deemed non-threatening. That's a false advantage which is only relevant against the most primitive of adversaries"
It doesn't waste interceptors coz in Israel they are protecting cities and it cannot afford to use every other Tamir interceptor on every other rocket that has strayed off target, whereas unlike the "primitive of adversaries" pakistan won't be able to run back to Islamabad to regroup and attack another day while we sit like ducks and don't even touch our artillery guns even though Pakistan has no urban areas to hide in.