Will "iron dome" work against ballistic missiles?

The "iron dome" anti-rocket defense system appears to have functioned well in the recent Gaza crisis.  There remain questions as to whether saturation of the system defense by Hizbullah's massive rocket and missile inventories  could occur, and more importantly, does this system work against ballistic missiles.  pl  

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Nov-22/195872-hezbollah-missiles-would-be-test-for-iron-dome.ashx#axzz2CzMQp5d5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_domestic_weapons_production

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missiles 

 

Comments

[Pirouz]

How well did it work? Some sources say 60%, others claiming 90% with figures that don't add up.

The system was never taxed with the larger 333 mm rocket artillery fire. Even the smaller 122 mm fire was fired in salvos smaller and from more predictable trajectories than south Lebanon in 2006.

For Bibi to have blinked suggests the system claims may be inflated (per Desert Storm and the early Patriot claims) and the threat of more rocket fire was coming, or at least more being promised over a sustained period with resupply a possibility.

[JohnH]

How do we know that Iron Dome worked? Couldn't reports of success be just more hasbara? Certainly Israel and its military contractors have an enormous stake in the success of the system, even if it is only the illusion of success. Without a successful Iron Dome, they have no deterrence.

If it worked, the real question is its feasibility. What is the full system cost/per Iron Dome missile compared to the relative cost of the incoming rockets? 100:1, 1000:1?

[Fred]

"Without a successful Iron Dome, they have no deterrence."
They could always talk to their enemies.

[jake]

How did it work? Well from what I have seen 300 "targeted" intercepts out of a 1000 launches at first appears to be a lousy ratio. But note the word targeted. The IDF was forced to target the more advanced guidence systems that were inbound to Israeli population centers rather than target the dumb missiles. This is both interesting in terms of atmospheric intercepts and also interesting in terms of what was not intercepted. Saturation? Well that would have been interesting to watch. What it also shows is that Hamas did not have a large stockpile of the more advanced pencils.. So Iron Dome IMHO was a mixed bag of successes and failures....

[Anonymous]

As a long time ballistic missile and missile defense analyst, the answer is a definite "maybe." For a short range ballistic missile with a ballistic trajectory, that is definitely possible. But any SRBM carrying submunitions and employing an early release of those munitions would be able to defeat the defense, and any carrying decoys and flying non-ballistic trajectories would also defeat the defense. For MRBMs and higher type of missiles with a higher re-entry velocity, the Iron Dome probably won't work without significant upgrades to radar, computers and software.

[Norbert M Salamon]

please use google to find
"Iron Dome shottdowns Gaza rockets costs $25mln-$30mln- Isreal"

The article claims that 491 of 1500 rockets were intercepted.

[jake]

I even ponder whether this entire event was a systems stress test of the Iron Dome System... Say by Iran or even NK?

[JohnH]

$100K per kill.

So if Hezbollah fired 10,000 rockets at Israeli cities, it would cost Israel $1 Billion and a minimum of 1000 would get still through.

At least now we know what it's worth to Israel to NOT talk. Or is rich Uncle Sami footing the bill in this time of "austerity?"

[Anonymous]

Iron Dome wasn't design to knock out longer range ballistic missiles. That's the job of the Arrow ATBM.

[Andy]

Iron Dome would not be effective vs. ballistic missiles. For that, Israel would rely on Patriot batteries as well as the Arrow system. Iron Dome is optimized to engage low-velocity, short range projectiles and it isn't capable of successfully engaging ballistic missile reentry vehicles.

Iron dome works by exploding a small missile in close proximity to an incoming rocket or shell, causing the rocket or shell to detonate harmlessly in the air. It's unlikely that Iron Dome's small warhead would do much to a big ballistic missile reentry vehicle (a Scud warhead is about 1000kg, the shells Iron Dome is optimized for are around 25kg). That's assuming the system could hit a ballistic missile - that's unlikely because ballistic missiles reach much higher terminal velocities than rockets or artillery/mortar shells.

As for the performance of Iron Dome, only Israel knows, but I haven't seen anything to suggest the Israeli's are unhappy with how the system performed over the past year.

[jake]

I understand the differences between Iron Dome and Arrow 2. The point I was making was that it appeared that Iran purposely smuggled the more advanced pencils not just in an attempt to defeat Iron Dome but to test its actual capabilities. Let face it if war broke out in the PG are you going to launch a ballistic system with a conventional warhead? We know the fleet is defenseless against ballastic systems. But without a nuke that is one very expensive waste of a launch vehicle unless your guidence systems are as good as ours. In Iran's case they need the nuke on a ballastic currently because their guidence system operates by the "almost" rule..

Now with regards to Arrow 2. Plainly if you can't intercept non-ballastic systems then your pissing in the wind with ballistic systems. The key to both in my opinion is all about guidence systems and countermeasures.

[jake]

Good overview of Iron Dome...

http://thediplomat.com/2012/11/24/iron-dome-and-an-israeli-strike-on-iran/

[JJackson]

Israel's Iron Dome: Doubts over success rate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21751766

Any one know of Prof. Postol (MIT)? Credible?

Love the graphic at the bottom - as if Hamas had any of the kit shown. Maybe a picture of someone lighting the blue touch paper of a rocket might have been closer to the truth.