3 ms·

According to the last bit of the article, it’s a bit concerning how much more it costs to operate that system than the cost to attack it. Seems like a high powe

According to the last bit of the article, it’s a bit concerning how much more it costs to operate that system than the cost to attack it. Seems like a high powered laser would be preferable for disabling attacks.

dogma1138 5y ago
I think it greatly underestimates the the actual cost of the rockets Hamas uses, especially the big ones which are clones of Iranian medium range field rocket artillery, as well as the cost of the infrastructure required to build and launch them which Israel constantly blows up. The Qassam rockets indeed used to cost around $1000 in raw materials in the mid 2000’s when they were common but these aren’t the rockets being fired at Israel today, and it’s not like you can order them on Amazon.
Thristle 5y ago
A laser powered solution was POCed, tried and found to be unsatisfactory. While laser based solutions today are much better than when it was tested, but in the end ID was chosen when the AD project started
- dogma1138 5y ago
  Lasers also don’t scale, even a single iron dome battery seems to be able to deal with rather large salvos because it can fire most of not all of its interceptors within the interception window. You will need many more laser based weapons than missile batteries for similar coverage.
- suifbwish 5y ago
  Thinking on it more the other problem is there is lasers deal no kinetic force thus a shell with reflective shielding might prove impervious to a pure light defense
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > lasers deal no kinetic force That’s...not true. (Well, “kinetic force” seems like a poorly chosen phrase, but lasers deliver both force and kinetic energy.) > a shell with reflective shielding might prove impervious to a pure light defense Good luck with making a mirror perfect enough to do that and keeping it in condition on a fited shell.

3 ms·

According to the last bit of the article, it’s a bit concerning how much more it costs to operate that system than the cost to attack it. Seems like a high powe

by suifbwish 5y ago

dogma1138 5y ago
I think it greatly underestimates the the actual cost of the rockets Hamas uses, especially the big ones which are clones of Iranian medium range field rocket artillery, as well as the cost of the infrastructure required to build and launch them which Israel constantly blows up. The Qassam rockets indeed used to cost around $1000 in raw materials in the mid 2000’s when they were common but these aren’t the rockets being fired at Israel today, and it’s not like you can order them on Amazon.
Thristle 5y ago
A laser powered solution was POCed, tried and found to be unsatisfactory. While laser based solutions today are much better than when it was tested, but in the end ID was chosen when the AD project started
- dogma1138 5y ago
  Lasers also don’t scale, even a single iron dome battery seems to be able to deal with rather large salvos because it can fire most of not all of its interceptors within the interception window. You will need many more laser based weapons than missile batteries for similar coverage.
- suifbwish 5y ago
  Thinking on it more the other problem is there is lasers deal no kinetic force thus a shell with reflective shielding might prove impervious to a pure light defense
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > lasers deal no kinetic force That’s...not true. (Well, “kinetic force” seems like a poorly chosen phrase, but lasers deliver both force and kinetic energy.) > a shell with reflective shielding might prove impervious to a pure light defense Good luck with making a mirror perfect enough to do that and keeping it in condition on a fited shell.