4 ms·
AFAIK that cost is mostly paid by US taxpayers. So, I guess it's sustainable for Israel.
by danmaz74 12y ago
AFAIK that cost is mostly paid by US taxpayers. So, I guess it's sustainable for Israel.
- ars 12y agoYou know incorrectly. The US does spend money on the system, but that's because they want it themself, so they invested in it. In general any money the US spends is earmarked for US companies, so it's a form of subsidy to US companies. The interceptors are made in Israel, so the US doesn't pay for them.
- dingaling 12y ago> The US does spend money on the system, but that's because they want it themself, so they invested in it. The US military does not use Iron Dome yet the $1 billion spent from DoD allocations so far on the system actually outweighs total Israeli spending. In March an agreement was signed to increase US contractor participation in manufacture so that it becomes eligible for FMS funding. The US solution to the same problem is C-RAM: http://www.msl.army.mil/Pages/C-RAM/default.html http://www.msl.army.mil/Pages/C-RAM/default.html
- ars 12y agoYour numbers are off. The US wants to invest that much, but has not actually done so. Meanwhile Israel has invested (or plans to, it's not clear) at least $1 billion, on R&D and a manufacturing line. That number doesn't make sense anyway - they built 9 batteries, 2 to 4 of which Israel did before the US got involved. Each costs 50 million. 5*50 million = 250 million which is approximately what the US actually spent (rather than talked about, or planned to, spend).