Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: fso301

Tell me when has missile defense ever worked beyond what I have always heard? The best I have ever heard, besides the Iron Dome was somewhere around 20-40%. I’ve seen many people blast the fact that it’s just not possible. Unless you can perfectly plot the trajectories of both missiles, in time to launch the second and have it intercept the first.

So what makes Israels Iron Dome different? It is provided by American engineers, isn’t it? I understand enough of the science to know that it would be very very hard to work, and that everyone else who has tried can’t get it to work 90-95%.


10 posted on 08/18/2014 1:54:22 AM PDT by FreedomStar3028 (Somebody has to step forward and do what is right because it is right, otherwise no one will follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: FreedomStar3028
Tell me when has missile defense ever worked beyond what I have always heard? The best I have ever heard, besides the Iron Dome was somewhere around 20-40%. I’ve seen many people blast the fact that it’s just not possible. Unless you can perfectly plot the trajectories of both missiles, in time to launch the second and have it intercept the first.

So what makes Israels Iron Dome different? It is provided by American engineers, isn’t it? I understand enough of the science to know that it would be very very hard to work, and that everyone else who has tried can’t get it to work 90-95%.

I don't know details about the rockets used by Hamas but assume none have a top speed of more than mach 2.5. So, they basically fly at about the speed of a fighter jet on afterburner. Probably less. The trajectory is predictable.

At launch, the Iron Dome missile only has to get to an approximate intercept point at which time an active/passive seeker will home it in. Proximity fuzing does the rest.

12 posted on 08/18/2014 2:19:18 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: FreedomStar3028

I think he was blathering on and on with his point, which seemed to be that ID wasn’t successful at detonating/destroying the inbound *warhead* and that it was simply knocking them off trajectory, and allowing the still live warhead to fall, albeit not along it’s initial trajectory, and still detonate upon impact.

Well, maybe so... But in my stinky opinion, ID should still be credited with the intercept for knocking the inbound missile off it’s trajectory, even if it didn’t manage to destroy the warhead.

I do agree that early warning and shelters are vitally important, but I can’t blame the IDF for doing everything and anything to defend and defeat. The author seems to think that ID should be abandoned based solely on cost/benefit ratio. Well, perhaps the IDF is gathering the same data in order to improve ID. Nothing hones better than practice!


33 posted on 08/18/2014 4:47:58 AM PDT by jaydee770
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson