India eyes Israel's Iron Dome to counter Pak, puppets

[gambit]

Countries do not infinite money as you assume them to have ... The recent economic boom doesn't mean you can go on an endless shopping spree ... A 50k interceptor for some low cost rockets or shells , go for it !

That is the uncertainty Pakistan will have to consider: That Pakistan does not know how many ID-like units stationed anywhere by India.

Granted...Some high value targets are obvious. Still, how much will Pakistan be willing to spend on those low cost artillery shells and/or inaccurate and imprecise rockets in order to increase the odds of hitting those high value targets?

 

[Areesh]

Thanks u sirji but har mulk ki masheehat kerri lugar jaise billon ki wjah se nahi chalte we can and we will buy stuff which we can afford to and think is right for us theres nothing u could do about it

Humara paisa hamara desh hamaree defence tussi kyon parshan ho rahe ho sirji

Koi pareshani nahi. Hum to enjoy kar rahai hain.

Whether your country is run by Kerry Logar or by solar energy. You simply can't afford such expenses. Simple as that.

 

[Secur]

The flaw in your argument seems to be that you perceive the Iron Dome system have a fixed quantity of units, hence Pakistan will be able to numerically overwhelm any ground target. If India adopt the system, India will adapt the system into India's current air defense tactics, whatever those might be. If the incorporation require X quantity of units, India will build X quantity.

Well , I for sure do not ... But still you have to agree that India cant simply afford the luxury of fielding the x numbers of Iron Dome systems for the x numbers of threats emanating from western or northern border - I will leave the slow reaction and other shortcomings of the system in our specific scenario here ... The artillery or the MBRL's cost are 10x less than that of a single platform so India just cant build X quantity for every artillery fielded or MBRL's deployed ...

 

[cloud]

If a thread go this long... means it is definitely useful for us. .. Off course India will buy such systems only after testing it against the threats it is meant to tackle. That will definitely include key points such as efficiency and ability to differentiate the targets, effectiveness against rockets ranging of upto 80 kms(which will definitely include any short range rockets type which pakistani have in their current inventory)..

Also going by the relationship with Israel, we will surely have some sort to technology exchange or cooperation in later stages once a few systems are bought of the selves or components at higher prices ..

Probably later system can be modified to tackle even greater range rockets even if it is not able to find the location of origin, but probably the upgraded missile can be used to tackle the rockets ranging upto 160 kms or more in future..

 

[Secur]

That is the uncertainty Pakistan will have to consider: That Pakistan does not know how many ID-like units stationed anywhere by India.

Granted...Some high value targets are obvious. Still, how much will Pakistan be willing to spend on those low cost artillery shells and/or inaccurate and imprecise rockets in order to increase the odds of hitting those high value targets?

No , there isn't any uncertainty in the first place ... Pakistan Army is highly optimized for network centric warfare and has equipment that can detect said system in the area ...

Whatever Pakistan spends , it will be less by a factor of 10x to what India spends ... The sole thing that PA even today possess the countermeasure for such a system speaks volumes ...

 

[azim49]

That is the uncertainty Pakistan will have to consider: That Pakistan does not know how many ID-like units stationed anywhere by India.

Granted...Some high value targets are obvious. Still, how much will Pakistan be willing to spend on those low cost artillery shells and/or inaccurate and imprecise rockets in order to increase the odds of hitting those high value targets?

secur , my brother , let her go alone ....... shes just 14 ! still 1 year, to go ....

 

[gambit]

The system has been criticized for its slow reaction time by many military experts from Israel...

If true, those criticisms does not mean they do not like it.

Around 70% is for Hamas unguided and imprecise rockets , how low does it go now in case of sophisticated threats you are to face on the western or northern borders ?

What is contained in that sophistication?

Artillery shells do not deploy decoys. At least not yet in this lifetime. So we can rule out sophisticated artillery shells.

For ground-ground rockets, and because rockets are generally unguided else they would be missiles, their accuracy and precision depends on design and manufacture. In descent, because a rocket is unguided, an accurate and precise rocket will have no 'trajectory perturbations'.

For example...

CiteSeerX — Particularity Concerning Evaluation of Unguided Rocket Trajectories Deviation under the Disturbance Factors Action

Abstract

To achieve an accurate rocket launch, it is necessary to assess how the perturbations appearing when the rocket leaves the rocket launcher system, influence the rocket flight trajectory and shooting accuracy as well. Therefore, we will analyze the influence of the rocket launcher system oscillations, during the shooting, on the rocket movement. We are taking into account other perturbation factors that can appear during the shooting and the rocket flight in standard atmosphere. Index Terms — launching device, oscillation, disturbance, mathematical model.

Launch malfunctions will create trajectory perturbations. Sophisticated missiles with flight controls mechanisms can often compensate -- depending on severity of malfunction. Unguided rockets will suffer.

Trajectory perturbations in flight will create UNWANTED MANEUVERS.

Sophisticated missiles with programmable flight controls can create WANTED MANEUVERS to attempt to confuse the defense.

Both types of maneuvers can confuse the defense because the defense have no way of knowing at the intelligence of the attacker. So in order to have a defense, the defense method must be costlier and more sophisticated than the attacker. The analogy here is that body armor cost much more than the several bullets hitting it. So the calculus for the defense must be the value of what is worth defending and not how much it cost to build the defensive method.

Because an inaccurate and imprecise rocket maneuvers, those maneuvers actually renders it a sophisticated attacker as far as the defense goes. So if the intercept success rate is X for stupid attackers who just happens to maneuvers, there should be the same X success rate against smart attackers who also happens to maneuvers.

 

[Skull and Bones]

^^^^

That's what i tried to mention couple of times, but failed. Rockets follow a predictable trajectory, be it Fajr-5 or from any any state of the art Russian MBRL.

 

[Secur]

If true, those criticisms does not mean they do not like it.

What is contained in that sophistication?
Artillery shells do not deploy decoys. At least not yet in this lifetime. So we can rule out sophisticated artillery shells.

Both types of maneuvers can confuse the defense because the defense have no way of knowing at the intelligence of the attacker. So in order to have a defense, the defense method must be costlier and more sophisticated than the attacker. The analogy here is that body armor cost much more than the several bullets hitting it. So the calculus for the defense must be the value of what is worth defending and not how much it cost to build the defensive method.

Because an inaccurate and imprecise rocket maneuvers, those maneuvers actually renders it a sophisticated attacker as far as the defense goes. So if the intercept success rate is X for stupid attackers who just happens to maneuvers, there should be the same X success rate against smart attackers who also happens to maneuvers.

I know , I was just pointing out the obvious shortcomings of the system in this scenario ... The criticism was made after Iron Dome failed to stop several rockets which caused dozens of deaths in Israel ...

I mentioned " sophistication " in the case of rockets , not artillery ... Does Palestinian Hamas possess artillery ? ... Both Indo-Pak and Hamas-Israel are extremely different and by no chance one is comparable to another ... Well , the day they start to deploy decoys , they will cease to exist as a shell

Agreed , there are too many unknown variables but the same will be true for the interceptor missile too , right ? Again , we aren't thinking of using missiles against Iron Dome , we are confident that our artillery shells and rockets will be enough to do the trick of overwhelming and later neutralizing the system ...

Exactly , the defense has no ways of precisely knowing where exactly ( an approximate trajectory calculation by system's radar is another thing ) the hostile object is going to fall ... Again , the defense will be costlier but by a factor of what ? In this case , it is getting so expensive that it is ceasing to become even feasible for any army in a theatre level warfare ...

You are again assuming that Pakistan Army like Hamas will fire a few missiles with a delay of hours or days in a war !

 

[airuah]

i think the Iron dome is best suited to guard the military bases....i dont think its gonna be placed in frontline warfare against tanks....

best scenario is to capture territory, set up a camp there and use the Iron dome....In case of surprise attack, the Iron dome will be active against shelling for sometime while giving the personnel enough time to prepare for an offensive

 

[kṣamā]

If true, those criticisms does not mean they do not like it.


What is contained in that sophistication?

Artillery shells do not deploy decoys. At least not yet in this lifetime. So we can rule out sophisticated artillery shells.

For ground-ground rockets, and because rockets are generally unguided else they would be missiles, their accuracy and precision depends on design and manufacture. In descent, because a rocket is unguided, an accurate and precise rocket will have no 'trajectory perturbations'.

For example...

CiteSeerX — Particularity Concerning Evaluation of Unguided Rocket Trajectories Deviation under the Disturbance Factors Action

Launch malfunctions will create trajectory perturbations. Sophisticated missiles with flight controls mechanisms can often compensate -- depending on severity of malfunction. Unguided rockets will suffer.

Trajectory perturbations in flight will create UNWANTED MANEUVERS.

Sophisticated missiles with programmable flight controls can create WANTED MANEUVERS to attempt to confuse the defense.

Both types of maneuvers can confuse the defense because the defense have no way of knowing at the intelligence of the attacker. So in order to have a defense, the defense method must be costlier and more sophisticated than the attacker. The analogy here is that body armor cost much more than the several bullets hitting it. So the calculus for the defense must be the value of what is worth defending and not how much it cost to build the defensive method.

Because an inaccurate and imprecise rocket maneuvers, those maneuvers actually renders it a sophisticated attacker as far as the defense goes. So if the intercept success rate is X for stupid attackers who just happens to maneuvers, there should be the same X success rate against smart attackers who also happens to maneuvers.

Leave it last night I had a good discussion with them on the same topic but as we all know, "PAK 9mm bullet can kill an entire battalion. . .". They think the algorithm under the hood takes every airborne object as threat and the code is written in bulky C lang running on 8086 mp. According to the experts, like the one u are arguing with think that these system takes more than one minute to detect a target and few other to track, identify and classify and then when it has time after a "tea-break" it launches a 90K$ interceptor for a cannon ball which is supposed to land in a barren field.

So take the hint. Why are these pesky ppl so concerned about their mortal enemy spending a bomb in buying some "Outdated" tech , which can be very easily overwhelmed by throwing stones !!??

 

[cloud]

i think the Iron dome is best suited to guard the military bases....i dont think its gonna be placed in frontline warfare against tanks....

best scenario is to capture territory, set up a camp there and use the Iron dome....In case of surprise attack, the Iron dome will be active against shelling for sometime while giving the personnel enough time to prepare for an offensive

That is exactly what the purpose will be. to give a upper hand in start of a sudden conflict, otherwise it is universal fact that best defense is greater offense.

 

[Bang Galore]

So , we are discarding any causalities to the troops , right ? ...

Lets see it from your view point , provided the Iron Dome can detect , identify and engage any credible threat ( which is to say " less than the cost of the interceptors " ) , it simply will not have enough time to do that in Indo-Pak scenario since the enemy would be firing thousands of artillery shells or rockets ... The system has been criticized for its slow reaction time by many military experts from Israel ... Even if it does that without being overwhelmed by thousands of launches , the thing is that even credible threats would be in hundreds in war scenario , what is that you want to protect and at what cost ? ... & again what is the probability of a successful intercept ? Around 70% is for Hamas unguided and imprecise rockets , how low does it go now in case of sophisticated threats you are to face on the western or northern borders ?

You may be right or you may be wrong on whether such a system is viable on military & technical considerations. That was not the issue that I was addressing in my post. My post was limited to the cost analysis made by you in your earlier post. Btw, I'm not discarding/discounting troop casualties in my statement, they would obviously be worth the price of interception. The rest of your post lies in the realm of the imaginary because we have no way of figuring out how exactly a system like the Iron dome would be deployed and used in an Indo-Pak scenario. Whether we are just talking about artillery barrages or a full scale attack would be moot. You are unlikely to fire 1000's of artillery shell & rockets into a limited area since India would not be just playing defence. If you are suggesting that you would be firing those huge quantities to overcome any "Iron Dome" type defence, your costs have already been increased by that system and this, not counting the equally ferocious response that you will almost certainly invite with such massive attacks. No matter how you spin it, it will simply raise your costs along with your blood pressure. For that reason alone, I'm inclined to think that the "Iron Dome" might not be a bad idea. It is actually a "Nasr" in reverse. Just like the Nasr, regardless of any possibility of actual use in a war has given Indian generals pause & cause them to factor such a possibility in, any "Iron Dome" type system will elicit a similar response from your side. Considering the respective financial abilities of the two sides, I would wager that this might be a win-win situation for India. Good if it works, if it doesn't; no problem, it would have made up for it in increased Pakistani costs.

 

[Secur]

So take the hint. Why are these pesky ppl so concerned about their mortal enemy spending a bomb in buying some "Outdated" tech , which can be very easily overwhelmed by throwing stones !!??

Concerned ? ... Actually , we want you to acquire that system and fire a 50k interceptor which may or may not hit a shell or rockets from thousands of credible threats ... What we are doing here is discussing the system , its effectiveness and shortcomings so if you do not have anything to contribute except your cheap bantors then keep out of here ...

 

[Secur]

You may be right or you may be wrong on whether such a system is viable on military & technical considerations. That was not the issue that I was addressing in my post. My post was limited to the cost analysis made by you in your earlier post. Btw, I'm not discarding/discounting troop casualties in my statement, they would obviously be worth the price of interception. The rest of your post lies in the realm of the imaginary because we have no way of figuring out how exactly a system like the Iron dome would be deployed and used in an Indo-Pak scenario. Whether we are just talking about artillery barrages or a full scale attack would be moot. You are unlikely to fire 1000's of artillery shell & rockets into a limited area since India would not be just playing defence. If you are suggesting that you would be firing those huge quantities to overcome any "Iron Dome" type defence, your costs have already been increased by that system and this, not counting the equally ferocious response that you will almost certainly invite with such massive attacks. No matter how you spin it, it will simply raise your costs along with your blood pressure. For that reason alone, I'm inclined to think that the "Iron Dome" might not be a bad idea. It is actually a "Nasr" in reverse. Just like the Nasr, regardless of any possibility of actual use in a war has given Indian generals pause & cause them to factor such a possibility in, any "Iron Dome" type system will elicit a similar response from your side. Considering the respective financial abilities of the two sides, I would wager that this might be a win-win situation for India. Good if it works, if it doesn't; no problem, it would have made up for it in increased Pakistani costs.

Of course , I may be right or wrong but the evidence or discussion so far points to the fact that Iron Dome is close to useless in India-Pakistan theatre level warfare ... I know but the cost analysis is an important factor right considering the cost of the intercepting missile and its quantity ? If you starting to consider troops from artillery with the use of this system , then it becomes so expensive that even mighty US of A wont acquire it ... Actually , the thread itself lies in the realm of imaginary since you haven't even purchased the system ... But still a crude idea of how the system will be used in India-Pakistan scenario can be hypothesized which I have done in my previous posts , pointing out to the shortcomings of the system and astronomically high costs to the benefits it offers ... Both sides will fire 1000's of artillery shells and that is the smallest figure I have used ... Possibly , you haven't heard of artillery duels taking place on LOC before the ceasefire ... I haven't said that Pakistan Army will fire " huge " quantities to neutralize the advantage of the system , I have only pointed out that the usual warfare will be enough to overwhelm and render the system useless ... Our costs aren't going to rise that much with a few hundred more shells or rockets but yours are certainly going to hit the sky with the $ 50k tag of a single interceptor , combine that with the successful intercept probability ... About " Nasr " , Pakistan will most certainly try to take the Iron Dome out with artillery or stand off weapons and vice versa , if you field that system , the other side possesses weapon locating radar thus enabling artillery to take the Iron Dome down ... It isn't that simple as you assume it to be ...