Gaza rockets penetrate Israeli defense system due to Iron Dome malfunction

[mnd]

Iron Dome is still in operational testing and will improve, there is no analogue system in the world to Iron Dome.

There is nothing with "no analogues" in Iron Dome, maybe horrible cost-effectiveness, but not really in technical characteristics.

It is not the only system which can perform that role, neither the best. A Tor battery, for example, is more effective in both ways.

 

[500]

There is nothing with "no analogues" in Iron Dome, maybe horrible cost-effectiveness, but not really in technical characteristics.

It is not the only system which can perform that role, neither the best. A Tor battery, for example, is more effective in both ways.

Tor is point defence system, Iron Dome protects 150 km2.

 

[mjnaushad]

Formally recent encounter started when Israel killed some terrorist and terrorists retaliated by rocket fire at Israeli civilians. But you should keep in mind that there is small rocket and mortar fire from Gaza almost all the time. There are also constant attempts to kill soldiers near the border with Gaza.

.

So you are saying Israel broke the peace agreement.... And people here are saying Israel RETALIATED.


Some guys need dictionary......But its not their fault....Its knee jerk reaction from certain members to defend anyone who kills muslims even if that mean muslim civilians, Childrens, Women.

 

[mnd]

Tor is point defence system, Iron Dome protects 150 km2.

Tor is versatile system with role varying with battery configuration. It can perform among others, similar role with much higher effectiveness and at much less expense.

 

[500]

So you are saying Israel broke the peace agreement.... And people here are saying Israel RETALIATED.


Some guys need dictionary......But its not their fault....Its knee jerk reaction from certain members to defend anyone who kills muslims even if that mean muslim civilians, Childrens, Women.

1) There is no peace agreement, just some kind of cease fire.
2) There is small fire from Gaza all the time.
3) Israel killed one terrorist.
4) Terrorists responded by massive rocket fire at civilians.

Few hours ago they fired two additional rockets at Beer Sheva despite cease fire which was declared yesterday. They were intecpeted.

Tor is versatile system with role varying with battery configuration. It can perform among others, similar role with much higher effectiveness and at much less expense.

* Tor is designed to protect point targets like column of tanks. Iron Dome is designed to protect towns.
* Tor can fire only 2 missiles simultaneously, for Iron Dome is virtually unlimited.
* Tor has simple radar, Iron Dome has very powerful artillery radar which can calculate rocket launch and impact area.

 

[Mahmoud_EGY]

1) There is no peace agreement, just some kind of cease fire.
2) There is small fire from Gaza all the time.
3) Israel killed one terrorist.
4) Terrorists responded by massive rocket fire at civilians.

i heared in the news that egypt has made a cease fire to end the strikes from both sides is this true ?

 

[mnd]

* Tor is designed to protect point targets like column of tanks. Iron Dome is designed to protect towns.
* Tor can fire only 2 missiles simultaneously, for Iron Dome is virtually unlimited.
* Tor has simple radar, Iron Dome has very powerful artillery radar which can calculate rocket launch and impact area.

Wrong, currently Tor is available in several vehicles (tracked, wheeled, towed) and in different battery configurations which reflects in different roles, stand alone operation or battery to protect areas, etc.

You did not understood. I speciffically mentioned batteries (not deployed individually) composed of several units, support, and integration with control systems and radars.
BTW, current Tor versions are four channel each (each vehicle can fire 4 missiles simultainously)

There is no advantage in radar. Tor battery can be integrated with an equally powerfull radar operating under provided information. In this aspect it is the same.

Such configuration of Tor battery is completely superior to Iron Dome because:

-Each Tor unit in battery can operate individually, loss of radar or unit does not cause loss of all battery which stills in operation. Loss of Iron Dome radar makes entire unit unoperable.

-Tor battery is more mobile than Iron Dome unit.

-Tor missiles are command guided, which is way cheaper and therefore effective than horribly expensive Iron Dome missiles, and more survivable in jamming conditions.

-Tor has capacity to not only operate against missile artillery as Iron Dome, but also against manned vehicles, cruise missiles and all kind of munitions. It is more versatile and of better military value, being effective in different echelons.

 

[500]

Wrong, currently Tor is available in several vehicles (tracked, wheeled, towed) and in different battery configurations which reflects in different roles, stand alone operation or battery to protect areas, etc.

You did not understood. I speciffically mentioned batteries (not deployed individually) composed of several units, support, and integration with control systems and radars.
BTW, current Tor versions are four channel each (each vehicle can fire 4 missiles simultainously)

There is no advantage in radar. Tor battery can be integrated with an equally powerfull radar operating under provided information. In this aspect it is the same.

Such configuration of Tor battery is completely superior to Iron Dome because:

-Each Tor unit in battery can operate individually, loss of radar or unit does not cause loss of all battery which stills in operation. Loss of Iron Dome radar makes entire unit unoperable.

-Tor battery is more mobile than Iron Dome unit.

-Tor missiles are command guided, which is way cheaper and therefore effective than horribly expensive Iron Dome missiles, and more survivable in jamming conditions.

-Tor has capacity to not only operate against missile artillery as Iron Dome, but also against manned vehicles, cruise missiles and all kind of munitions. It is more versatile and of better military value, being effective in different echelons.

* One Tor M1 unit costs 30 mln, battery of Iron Dome costs 45 mln. Battery of Tor will cost 120 mln + artillery radar that will be over 150 mln. More than 3 times cheaper.

* Iron Dome battery has 2 times more missiles 60 vs 32.

* Iron Dome missiles are not expensive and not jammable. On contrary since Tor needs to track target with radar all the time its more vulnerable to anti radar missiles.

* Iron Dome can be mobile too.

* Tor is designed for point defence so rocket wreckages will fall on city.

 

[mnd]

* One Tor M1 unit costs 30 mln, battery of Iron Dome costs 45 mln. Battery of Tor will cost 120 mln + artillery radar that will be over 150 mln. More than 3 times cheaper.

* Iron Dome battery has 2 times more missiles 60 vs 32.

* Iron Dome missiles are not expensive and not jammable. On contrary since Tor needs to track target with radar all the time its more vulnerable to anti radar missiles.

* Iron Dome can be mobile too.

* Tor is designed for point defence so rocket wreckages will fall on city.

Explotation of Tor is far cheaper and effective, as it uses inexpensive command guided missiles, as contrary to Iron Dome's which cost atleast 50000$ each, due to use of radar seeker for each missile, which is much more expensive.

Iron Dome has 60 missiles among 3 launchers. Battery of Tor has 32 among launch units, but it is also supported by loading and transport/loading vehicles which can carry 32-16 additional missiles. Number varyes depending on need. There is no limitation in number of missiles as you see.

Tor is more difficult to jam because it is harder to deal with vehicle powerfull radars than with missile seekers, and they also can track targets optically. It is way harder to eliminate Tor battery because you have to deal with each single unit, which can operate independently from the others. Loss of radar of Iron Dome, single target, leads to complete unoperation.

Tor is much more mobile as comparing vehicles and conffiguration, deployment time.

Not really.

 

[500]

Explotation of Tor is far cheaper and effective, as it uses inexpensive command guided missiles, as contrary to Iron Dome's which cost atleast 50000$ each, due to use of radar seeker for each missile, which is much more expensive.

No its not cheaper. Only thing is cheaper is manpower in Russia.

Iron Dome has 60 missiles among 3 launchers. Battery of Tor has 32 among launch units, but it is also supported by loading and transport/loading vehicles which can carry 32-16 additional missiles. Number varyes depending on need. There is no limitation in number of missiles as you see.

Loading vehicles - additional price.

Tor is more difficult to jam because it is harder to deal with vehicle powerfull radars than with missile seekers, and they also can track targets optically. It is way harder to eliminate Tor battery because you have to deal with each single unit, which can operate independently from the others. Loss of radar of Iron Dome, single target, leads to complete unoperation.

Missile seekers turn only at final stage. That's modern way, all the world is turning to it. Even Russia itself.

Tor is much more mobile as comparing vehicles and conffiguration, deployment time.

Iron Dome can be mobile too.

i heared in the news that egypt has made a cease fire to end the strikes from both sides is this true ?

This is true, but they continued fire.

 

[Archdemon]

Explotation of Tor is far cheaper and effective, as it uses inexpensive command guided missiles, as contrary to Iron Dome's which cost atleast 50000$ each, due to use of radar seeker for each missile, which is much more expensive.

There is no radar seeker in the Tamir missile, it has IR seeker.

 

[mnd]

No its not cheaper. Only thing is cheaper is manpower in Russia.


Loading vehicles - additional price.


Missile seekers turn only at final stage. That's modern way, all the world is turning to it. Even Russia itself.

In addition to another factors, Tor is much more effective to exploit, resources wise. For Iron Dome it costs 50000$ atleast, to intercept a single inexpensive and unsophisticated artillery rocket.

Tor battery already includes support and loading vehicles, though their number can be increased depending on need. But anyway it is always much less expensive, than Iron Dome.

There is no superiority at all in guidance method, in using missiles with seekers. In theory there are advantages, and disadvantages, but it depends on system overall, and necessity. One method, per se does not make system superior. And it is not "modern" or "future" wayю

In particular for the role which we are comparing, interception, defense against rocket artillery, Tor compared to Iron Dome is definitely superior, as:

- It uses inexpensive command guided missiles, cost wise it is much more effective against inexpensive munitions. Also allows to track and intercept targets by optical means as back up.

- Iron Dome uses extremely costly seeker equipeed missiles which give an horrible cost effectiveness against intended cheap targets.

So where is advantage in guidance method ? It is the opposite. In rest of characteristics, mobility, versatility, survivability, effectiveness Iron Dome cannot compete, let alone cost...

Iron Dome can be mobile too.

Iron Dome takes much more time to deploy than Tor battery, also Tor can be based on different vehicles, tracked, wheeled, etc which makes it more mobile and versatile.

There is no radar seeker in the Tamir missile, it has IR seeker.

It does not make any difference.

 

[500]

In addition to another factors, Tor is much more effective to exploit, resources wise. For Iron Dome it costs 50000$ atleast, to intercept a single inexpensive and unsophisticated artillery rocket.

Tor missile also costs tens of thousands of dollars. No any difference here.

But Iron Dome battery is more than 3 times cheaper than Tor battery, has 2 times more missiles and is battle proven.

There is no superiority at all in guidance method, in using missiles with seekers.

Thats why newest Russian missiles have seekers: 9M96E2, 9M96E, 9M100. I am not talking about the rest of the world.

 

[mnd]

Tor missile also costs tens of thousands of dollars. No any difference here.

Still no comparsion. Tor missile is several times cheaper, more in line to deal with relatively cheap munitions. Also it can shoot any kind of target, manned aircraft, cruise missiles which are much more costly, while Iron Dome has only one use, and not ideally, because of huge cost difference between interceptor and target.

But Iron Dome battery is more than 3 times cheaper than Tor battery, has 2 times more missiles and is battle proven.

Tor is more effective because once deployed explotation is cheaper, and also it is way more versatile in missions, more military value. There is no limitation of missiles in Tor battery as explained. Besides Iron Dome has only proven to intercept old artillery rockets (not without flaws) with simple trajectory, while Tor fared against many types of targets, munitions, cruise missiles, etc. So it is more capable system.

Thats why newest Russian missiles have seekers: 9M96E2, 9M96E, 9M100. I am not talking about the rest of the world.

This has nothing to do in this comparison, as they are different systems intended for different roles. Those mentioned are medium-long range missiles intended against more valuable targets. Short range systems, Tor, Pantsir, future Morfei, etc, are better with their guidance. Indeed, there wouldn't be a point in them having seekers in missiles.

Rest of the world has no comparable systems.

 

[500]

Still no comparsion. Tor missile is several times cheaper, more in line to deal with relatively cheap munitions. Also it can shoot any kind of target, manned aircraft, cruise missiles which are much more costly, while Iron Dome has only one use, and not ideally, because of huge cost difference between interceptor and target.

Tor is more effective because once deployed explotation is cheaper

First of all, you repeat that Tor missile is several times cheaper without any numbers and sources. Tor missile is much heavier than Iron Dome's and has TVC. Thats expensive. During the mass production electronics have a tendency of very high price drop, but mechanical things remain expensive. Today smartphone with megapixel camera, quality touchscreen, powerful processor, MP3 player, radio... costs 10 times cheaper than clumsy cell phone 20 years ago. On the other hand cars remain as expensive as before.

Second of all, Iron Dome battery is one command center one radar and 3 launchers. For Tor you have 4 manned machines, command center, radar - thats much more manpower and much more expensive to operate 24/7. I actually doubt that Tor can operate in this mode at all.

Third of all, Iron Dome battery is 100 million dollars cheaper. So even IF missile is 3 times cheaper, EACH BATTERY needs to fire THOUSANDS of them before it compensates the battery cost. And that does not include the higher manpower cost of Tor battery.

and also it is way more versatile in missions, more military value. There is no limitation of missiles in Tor battery as explained. Besides Iron Dome has only proven to intercept old artillery rockets (not without flaws) with simple trajectory, while Tor fared against many types of targets, munitions, cruise missiles, etc. So it is more capable system.

Nothing of it is battle proven. Why Russia is not offering Tor to South Korea as area protection system? I dont think it can do that job at all.

This has nothing to do in this comparison, as they are different systems intended for different roles. Those mentioned are medium-long range missiles intended against more valuable targets. Short range systems, Tor, Pantsir, future Morfei, etc, are better with their guidance. Indeed, there wouldn't be a point in them having seekers in missiles.

9M100 is short range system. Its going to replace Kinjal - the naval version of Tor.

Rest of the world has no comparable systems.

Yup, everyone else is stupid.