Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

thebulletin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#41

Post by ars »

Arnt wrote: post #37
erikb wrote: post #19

It's painful to see someone try a scientific approach (which is good!) but already fails in the assumptions. There are probably many ways a defense rocket could harm an incoming missile without hitting it directly up front. Destroying it's back might and should result in the warhead not reaching it's designated target, which is already a success. Even exploding near a missile might change the air environment of this…

Name some of the ways? Speaking as layman, it sounds plausible that a hit on the back would work while the target missile is ascending, but not when it's already descending towards the target.

If you watch videos it seems the hits are made during the ascent.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#42

Post by Bootvis »

cup wrote: post #2

I've seen quotes that suggest the missiles cost between 20 and 100,000 dollars. How is it suitanable to continue using the Iron Dome at such a high cost?

Well, if you want to look at it purely from a money perspective it might not be sustainable but it sure is cheaper than having an impact in a populated area.

Costs of a hit in populated area:

- Loss of life and productivity

- Hospitalization of injured

- Covering material damage - Large disruption of life

These easily cost 100k.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#43

Post by kamaal »

ars wrote: post #33
kamaal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>As an Israeli, I've always heard the Iron Dome rockets are stupid expensive to fire I was wondering how they deal with DDoS scenarios. Lets say the enemy just mixes genuine rockets with dummy one's and keeps firing. They could essentially create a scenario where a lot of Iron dome missiles can be wasted destroying dud rockets.

The enemy does actually do that now. Firing a dud is pointless since the cost of the rocket is the same, but they do fire many at once. So what the system does is calculate the trajectory of the rocket to see if it will hit anything populated, only a small portion of them do.

>>Firing a dud is pointless since the cost of the rocket is the same

If this is the case. Then in the presence of Iron dome, only impact those rockets have is in scaring away people.

It hardly makes any sense to fire a barrage of rockets in this case. A more optimal strategy is fire them a few at a time spread out over a period of time.

Either way Iron dome will still remain expensive.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#44

Post by ars »

beloch wrote: post #5

Interesting analysis. If the Iron Dome is mere security theater then it makes it makes sense that the IDF won't simply sit back and let Hamas fire away until they run out of rockets. Enough property damage may make Israelis' behind the Iron Dome realize that it's only the shelters that offer real safety. I'm curious about Hamas' choice in rockets though. Would larger rockets present as easier targets for the Iron Dom…

> then it makes it makes sense that the IDF won't simply sit back and let Hamas fire away until they run out of rockets

As many other posters have shown, the analysis is incorrect.

And Israel did in fact wait a while and just let them shoot. They escalated to a ground phase because of terror tunnels - missiles are a lower priority. You can tell because of where Israel is targeting during the ground phase - they have not gone deep into Gaza, but are staying right near the border where the tunnels start.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#45

Post by ars »

kamaal wrote: post #40
salberts wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth would they do that? If you can launch 9 dummy rockets and 1 real or 10 juts real rockets, wouldn't you just launch real rockets?! The effort and risk involved in launching any kind of rocket is about the same...

I don't have much knowledge in this domain. But it might be worth firing dud rockets if they cost lesser than the actual ones. If you can fire 10 rockets in the same cost as 1 genuine rocket. Then essentially the enemy can drag you into a war of attrition.

A dud would cost the same - the warhead is the cheapest part of the rocket.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#46

Post by erikb »

Arnt wrote: post #37
erikb wrote: post #19

It's painful to see someone try a scientific approach (which is good!) but already fails in the assumptions. There are probably many ways a defense rocket could harm an incoming missile without hitting it directly up front. Destroying it's back might and should result in the warhead not reaching it's designated target, which is already a success. Even exploding near a missile might change the air environment of this…

Name some of the ways? Speaking as layman, it sounds plausible that a hit on the back would work while the target missile is ascending, but not when it's already descending towards the target.

I'm far from being an expert, so everything I say could be wrong and I am aware of this! But I assume that because of wind influence, etc, I suspect that a rocket needs to have manoeuvring capabilities to reach a specific target, even on their descend. I also assume that works with little wings on its side and GPS. Destroying those wings or the GPS might be enough that it lands tens or hundreds meters aside from it's designated targets. Maybe even kilometres, but I really don't know enough about that to say.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#47

Post by ars »

kamaal wrote: post #43
ars wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The enemy does actually do that now. Firing a dud is pointless since the cost of the rocket is the same, but they do fire many at once. So what the system does is calculate the trajectory of the rocket to see if it will hit anything populated, only a small portion of them do.

>>Firing a dud is pointless since the cost of the rocket is the same If this is the case. Then in the presence of Iron dome, only impact those rockets have is in scaring away people. It hardly makes any sense to fire a barrage of rockets in this case. A more optimal strategy is fire them a few at a time spread out over a period of time. Either way Iron dome will still remain expensive.

You are forgetting that Israel [tries to] destroys the launcher and the attacker after every launch. So every rocket attack is basically a suicide attack.

I think that's the main cause of most of the civilian death - Israel doesn't have time to check for civilians in the area, they counter attack almost instantly.

So they'll launch a bunch while they can before they die.

I don't think you can really comprehend the level of hate going on there that would make someone suicide and take civilians with him for even a tiny chance of killing an Israeli.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#48

Post by nmeofthestate »

kamaal wrote: post #28
nrubin wrote: post #21

From what I understand, many of the statistics quoted about Iron Dome are for "attempted interceptions". This skews the effectiveness of the system towards high-priority scenarios, maybe those that are more likely to produce a winning outcome for Iron Dome. As an Israeli, I've always heard the Iron Dome rockets are stupid expensive to fire, so the IDF really only wants to fire them during scenarios that are high risk…

>>As an Israeli, I've always heard the Iron Dome rockets are stupid expensive to fire I was wondering how they deal with DDoS scenarios. Lets say the enemy just mixes genuine rockets with dummy one's and keeps firing. They could essentially create a scenario where a lot of Iron dome missiles can be wasted destroying dud rockets.

I would guess that a rocket without the explosive warhead isn't that much cheaper.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#49

Post by dingaling »

ars wrote: post #38
danmaz74 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK that cost is mostly paid by US taxpayers. So, I guess it's sustainable for Israel.

You 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.

> 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

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#50

Post by JoiDegn »

erikb wrote: post #17
sjtrny wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> alters the trajectory to bring down the rocket in a less populated area, fewer people die It might also cause more deaths.

It might but it is unlikely, considering that a rocket is aimed to be most efficient. Deviating it from it's course should be enough to decrease the effect. An exception to this might be that the rocket aims a city of thousands, who get sheltered successfully, which means the rocket would kill about zero people. When the rocket now gets deviated it might hit a target with hundred people who didn't get sheltered. Ther…

I dont think that the rockets are aimed to be most efficient but you could make the same argument by saying that the rockets are only intercepted if the iron dome system thinks they will hit a densely populated area.
Post reply on HN