Miscellaneous News

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
Iron Dome is massively overhyped. It’s only virtue is that it’s massively subsidised by America so Israel can afford to spam them without a care.

In fact, when you look at the missile trails of them engaging in the sky, especially the ones of them doing sharp turns and big loops, that’s actually a very bad sign in my book, as it means those missiles messed up their initial approach and had to radically change course to try to re-engage.

Remember they are intercepting crude dump rockets that have already exhausted their fuel and would be flying purely ballistically without any terminal course correction. Basically the easiest target you can shoot at, and they need radical last minute course corrections? Those are either all misses, or if they did manage to hit a rocket, they only managed it because of how slow and straight flying those rockets are, and would be useless against any remotely modern missile.
I would not put it that way. Even ballistic trajectories of crude falling rockets can have in-flight directional changes due to so many environmental factors. It happens all the time with any unguided ballistic weapon, especially subsonic ones. That's why unguided artillery shells don't always hit the bullseye despite having modern ballistic computers. Why the Iron Dome missiles made calculation errors could be because of those random environmental factors that could have altered the trajectories of the falling dumb rockets.

ls the Iron Dome be overhyped? As of now, I don't think so. It is the only system to have seen the best interception success rates in real combat. The system that is truly overhyped: the Patriot missile system have been shown to be humiliatingly ineffective in Saudi Arabia. Soviet/Russian systems in Syria have even shown better performances than the Patriot system. There, they have faced against much more sophisticated guided munitions. Though their interception rates are far from perfect. But even these systems cannot, due to their design limitation, deal with any of the unguided rockets, and artillery shells that had been regularly peppering Aleppo and Damascus.

So for now, the Iron Dome still retains an unrivaled statistic for successful interception rates. Even with Hamas launching 1000s of rockets in saturation fire, the system was only minorly overwhelmed. I was surprised that the system coped relatively well against this nightmare scenario. So credit where it is due. Perhaps one day when it faces modern guided ballistic missiles, then we can see this system truly tested. But in the shorter term, could continuous Hamas saturation rocket attacks eventually exhaust the Iron Dome missiles? The Israeli Air Force is not waiting around to find out. We can see that they are already busy taking out those rocket sites and their supply chains.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I would not put it that way. Even ballistic trajectories of crude falling rockets can have in-flight directional changes due to so many environmental factors. It happens all the time with any unguided ballistic weapon, especially subsonic ones. That's why unguided artillery shells don't always hit the bullseye despite having modern ballistic computers. Why the Iron Dome missiles made calculation errors could be because of those random environmental factors that could have altered the trajectories of the falling dumb rockets.

ls the Iron Dome be overhyped? As of now, I don't think so. It is the only system to have seen the best interception success rates in real combat. The system that is truly overhyped: the Patriot missile system have been shown to be humiliatingly ineffective in Saudi Arabia. Soviet/Russian systems in Syria have even shown better performances than the Patriot system. There, they have faced against much more sophisticated guided munitions. Though their interception rates are far from perfect. But even these systems cannot, due to their design limitation, deal with any of the unguided rockets, and artillery shells that had been regularly peppering Aleppo and Damascus.

So for now, the Iron Dome still retains an unrivaled statistic for successful interception rates. Even with Hamas launching 1000s of rockets in saturation fire, the system was only minorly overwhelmed. I was surprised that the system coped relatively well against this nightmare scenario. So credit where it is due. Perhaps one day when it faces modern guided ballistic missiles, then we can see this system truly tested. But in the shorter term, could continuous Hamas saturation rocket attacks eventually exhaust the Iron Dome missiles? The Israeli Air Force is not waiting around to find out. We can see that they are already busy taking out those rocket sites and their supply chains.

Sorry, have to disagree.

The wind doesn’t blow especially hard on Hamas rockets only. What you have described are universal factors that any and all SAM and AAMs of any worth need to be able to easily and reliably deal with.

What Israel has and is facing is not saturation attack by any stretch of the imagination. When you can see massive course deviations of Hamas rockets at launch, those things are going to be scattered across dozens of miles and many minutes by the time they get to their targets. That’s why you don’t see any patterns in Iron Dome intercept videos. It’s just a lot of single or small groups of rockets coming in piecemeal and easy to deal with. So of course it’s intercept rates should be amazing. But those are the kind of standards no modern SAM would be tested against as it would be far far to easy. It would be like doing a simple addition and subtraction maths test for maths PhD entrance exams.

Below is just what a single TOS-1 does, and these things are usually fired in massed batteries in real combat, if you really expect Iron Dome to be able to stop that I got a few bridges to sell you in India.


The main reason Russia doesn’t intercept artillery and rockets in Syria is because they can’t get reimbursements from America, so don’t want to be wasting million dollar missiles on thousand dollar shells and rockets, especially when said shells and rockets are not coming anywhere close to the Russians themselves.
 

windsclouds2030

Senior Member
Registered Member
The Joe Biden's clip at Reddit when you download it is soundless, but it's okay if you watch it online.

This same one at Youtube is good when you download it:

Joe Biden says if Israel didn't exist, the US would have to invent one to protect US interests

 

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
Sorry, have to disagree.

The wind doesn’t blow especially hard on Hamas rockets only. What you have described are universal factors that any and all SAM and AAMs of any worth need to be able to easily and reliably deal with.

What Israel has and is facing is not saturation attack by any stretch of the imagination. When you can see massive course deviations of Hamas rockets at launch, those things are going to be scattered across dozens of miles and many minutes by the time they get to their targets. That’s why you don’t see any patterns in Iron Dome intercept videos. It’s just a lot of single or small groups of rockets coming in piecemeal and easy to deal with. So of course it’s intercept rates should be amazing. But those are the kind of standards no modern SAM would be tested against as it would be far far to easy. It would be like doing a simple addition and subtraction maths test for maths PhD entrance exams.

Below is just what a single TOS-1 does, and these things are usually fired in massed batteries in real combat, if you really expect Iron Dome to be able to stop that I got a few bridges to sell you in India.


The main reason Russia doesn’t intercept artillery and rockets in Syria is because they can’t get reimbursements from America, so don’t want to be wasting million dollar missiles on thousand dollar shells and rockets, especially when said shells and rockets are not coming anywhere close to the Russians themselves.
Yes I do get your point.

Until very recently, I absolutely doubted that the Iron Dome could intercept a saturation rocket attack. But then I saw videos like these surfacing. Those don't like individual rockets getting intercepted. That's a very busy night sky to watch. Sure some rockets eventually got through. But this is the first time I've seen Iron Dome missiles being launched with such rapidity. They appear to be coping relatively well to Hamas saturation rocket barrages.


Believe me, I'm not a fan of Israel and their atrocities. But their military and defense industries continue to produce some impressive results.
 

Lnk111229

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sorry, have to disagree.

The wind doesn’t blow especially hard on Hamas rockets only. What you have described are universal factors that any and all SAM and AAMs of any worth need to be able to easily and reliably deal with.

What Israel has and is facing is not saturation attack by any stretch of the imagination. When you can see massive course deviations of Hamas rockets at launch, those things are going to be scattered across dozens of miles and many minutes by the time they get to their targets. That’s why you don’t see any patterns in Iron Dome intercept videos. It’s just a lot of single or small groups of rockets coming in piecemeal and easy to deal with. So of course it’s intercept rates should be amazing. But those are the kind of standards no modern SAM would be tested against as it would be far far to easy. It would be like doing a simple addition and subtraction maths test for maths PhD entrance exams.

Below is just what a single TOS-1 does, and these things are usually fired in massed batteries in real combat, if you really expect Iron Dome to be able to stop that I got a few bridges to sell you in India.


The main reason Russia doesn’t intercept artillery and rockets in Syria is because they can’t get reimbursements from America, so don’t want to be wasting million dollar missiles on thousand dollar shells and rockets, especially when said shells and rockets are not coming anywhere close to the Russians themselves.
I think this TOS-1 video is edited or more than 1 unit. Look at Russian video single unit cannot fire that much.
 
Top