2 ms·

> Look at last weeks Iran ICBM barrage vs. iron dome and David’s sling. I believe the issue was not overwhelming the defences but rather the defences (Iron Dom

> Look at last weeks Iran ICBM barrage vs. iron dome and David’s sling. I believe the issue was not overwhelming the defences but rather the defences (Iron Dome and David's sling) were designed for short range and slow rockets from Lebanon or Gaza and not long range fast/high rockets from Iran. It may be that the cost per Arrow missile (for long range intercepts) is $3M as well, so they didn't fire that many of them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(missile_family) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(missile_family)

daedrdev 2y ago
Iron dome is only used against small rockets, and was never intended to hit ballistic or cruise missiles. Thus it's not a failure since they aren't used for that kind of defense. There are separate anti ballistic systems that were used and shot down many of the rockets.
- bhouston 2y ago
  Why are you repeating what I said? I am just confused as to why you are "correcting" me in a reply when you are saying the same thing.
jdietrich 2y ago
Interception comes with risks - the debris from that missile has to land somewhere. The only person confirmed to have been killed in the recent Iranian attack was a man in the West Bank who was crushed by part of a destroyed missile. It's clear that at least some of the missiles that got through were deliberately ignored because they were on target to hit open ground.
- bhouston 2y ago
  The best analysis I've seen is this Washington Post analysis that said that +24 Iranian missiles hit Israeli military/intelligence targets or were close misses: https://x.com/catebrown12/status/1842167731547721788 https://x.com/catebrown12/status/1842167731547721788 If there was 180 missiles were fired and 24 got through to targets, that is a penetration rate of 13%.
  - YZF 2y ago
    I would say that's a pretty incredible intercept ratio. We don't know if they were let through because their predicted targets or because there weren't enough interceptors or some other reason. Air bases are pretty hardened targets. Most important stuff is kept in bunkers. They're also huge. The design assumption of an air base is that it's the prime target for rocket/missile/air raid attacks (and Israel airbases have been attacked by rockets in past wars, e.g. in the Yom Kippur war). I've seen someone review satellite photos from Nevatim that seemed to indicate one or two hits to some structure. As far as we know nothing of value was hit and no one was hurt. All that said, I wouldn't want to be around when these volleys of ICBMs are fired at you. Definitely not fun. But not a war winner either as long as they're conventional warheads.
energy123 2y ago
> It may be that the cost per Arrow missile (for long range intercepts) is $3M as well, so they didn't fire that many of them? This. Israel knew the 3 targets in advance, according to reporting. Any jets or other valuable equipment from the two airfields would have been removed before the attack. It would have been a waste to use Arrow interceptors to protect empty hangars. Also, according to a satellite image of impact craters, many of the missiles hit dirt around the airbase, so wouldn't have been intercepted even if they needed to protect jets.

daedrdev 2y ago

Iron dome is only used against small rockets, and was never intended to hit ballistic or cruise missiles. Thus it's not a failure since they aren't used for that kind of defense. There are separate anti ballistic systems that were used and shot down many of the rockets.

bhouston 2y ago
Why are you repeating what I said? I am just confused as to why you are "correcting" me in a reply when you are saying the same thing.

jdietrich 2y ago

Interception comes with risks - the debris from that missile has to land somewhere. The only person confirmed to have been killed in the recent Iranian attack was a man in the West Bank who was crushed by part of a destroyed missile. It's clear that at least some of the missiles that got through were deliberately ignored because they were on target to hit open ground.

bhouston 2y ago
The best analysis I've seen is this Washington Post analysis that said that +24 Iranian missiles hit Israeli military/intelligence targets or were close misses: https://x.com/catebrown12/status/1842167731547721788 https://x.com/catebrown12/status/1842167731547721788 If there was 180 missiles were fired and 24 got through to targets, that is a penetration rate of 13%.
- YZF 2y ago
  I would say that's a pretty incredible intercept ratio. We don't know if they were let through because their predicted targets or because there weren't enough interceptors or some other reason. Air bases are pretty hardened targets. Most important stuff is kept in bunkers. They're also huge. The design assumption of an air base is that it's the prime target for rocket/missile/air raid attacks (and Israel airbases have been attacked by rockets in past wars, e.g. in the Yom Kippur war). I've seen someone review satellite photos from Nevatim that seemed to indicate one or two hits to some structure. As far as we know nothing of value was hit and no one was hurt. All that said, I wouldn't want to be around when these volleys of ICBMs are fired at you. Definitely not fun. But not a war winner either as long as they're conventional warheads.

energy123 2y ago

> It may be that the cost per Arrow missile (for long range intercepts) is $3M as well, so they didn't fire that many of them? This. Israel knew the 3 targets in advance, according to reporting. Any jets or other valuable equipment from the two airfields would have been removed before the attack. It would have been a waste to use Arrow interceptors to protect empty hangars. Also, according to a satellite image of impact craters, many of the missiles hit dirt around the airbase, so wouldn't have been intercepted even if they needed to protect jets.