Beny Karachun
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 6,521
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
No doubt that the Iron Dome isn't our most capable system. But you're wrong about its capabilities, it is much more versatile than you think.In addition, Iron Dome has well known limitations acknowledged by Israel itself and many other countries with similar systems.
Israel has David's Sling and Arrow as high end systems, for instance.
US and China both have equivalent short ranged missile systems for use against naval threats with similar speeds and missile size:
HQ-10 - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.orgRIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Those missiles aren't really equivalent, HQ-10 is simply too small to be compared (20kg vs 90kg)
RIM-116 range is closer in weight (70kg) but much shorter range (¬10 kilometers)
Iron Dome has a range of 70km (It's actually more than that, range has been improved in later updates)
There's a reason why Israel invested in Arrow 3, and did not use Iron Dome for everything.
Missile warheads for reentry have ablative armor that can withstand 2000+ C.
Atmospheric entry - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Artillery shells travel at 1000 m/s (only Mach 3) at the muzzle. Their terminal speed is lower and speed at intercept height lower still.
Anyhow this is a moot point until Taiwan makes or imports Iron Dome.
Muzzle velocity - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Iron Dome isn't intended against ballistic missiles, you are correct. However I don't think it would be completely useless against it, a direct hit would neutralize a warhead I believe. It can withstand constant heat, but I don't know if it can withstand a fragmentation warhead. It hasn't been tested so I can't know for sure. It would work against heavy artillery for sure though.
Yes you are correct about the artillery thing, my mistake.
I am not here to defend Taiwan, I just tell you about the Iron Dome.
Last edited: