Posted on 11/25/2012 12:50:31 AM PST by ilcenter
Yes, and we weren’t even sure it would work when we gave them $200 million.
Hey, you can't do a phukin thing without chemists! :-)
I have been there when a room full of caps were able to deliver a microsecond pulse as great as the power consumption of the entire country. Lots of heavy silver wiring, spark gap system since no solid state switch could come close :-) POP! it was able to crush oil drums into a crumpled mess of metal.
Chemists, they are intense ;-)
Exponential and not linear is what you meant.
I was happy to see a similar variant used while I was stationed in Iraq call a C-RAM. The Phalanx system used self-detonating incendiary shells. When the weapon fired at an incoming rocket it looked like a combination laser light show and fireworks show at the same time. The shells that did not impact the incoming rocket detonated harmlessly above the ground so there was no fear of casualties on the ground.
I've been in the business of making electronic components for Patriot missiles and radar systems. I don't believe it.
There is no analysis here of the cost to Israel of the disruption when under missile attack. Everybody heads for shelters. They are not working.
Nor does this analysis include the cost to Israel of maintaining the interdiction effort to interrupt supply to Gaza. These are not trustworthy numbers.
Further, when (not if) the Palis go to CBW, how effective will the Iron Dome be then?
I applaud the performance of the Iron Dome. But I do not think it is nearly the "gamechanger" proffered here.
“then their “cost” will likely drop to around $5,000. At 100 times as many the “cost” will approach the marginal cost of less than $1000.”.
Pure B.S.
If they are currently running about $50,000 a shot, mass deployment and R&D will likely net them some savings, but it will be minimal. In the mean time, the terrorists are winning with $1000 a shot rockets that someone else is paying for. Who is bankrupting whom?
And I use the term “winning” because the leftist propaganda is always going to portray Israel as the big bad bully.
I’m sure you saw some of the discussion here quickly turn to lasers. That’s where the marginal cost of use really drops.
Coming from a similar background, I agree with you 100%. While Iron Dome is certainly better than nothing, a better alternative approach toward defending against high-volume, low-tech rockets barrages that is more economically viable (lasers, TBD) is needed.
Asymmetric warfare requires creative thinking - not necessarily tons more money on high tech gadgets that are easily defeated by low tech tactics for a relative pittance. Or at least high tech solutions with "ammo" that costs less. In the interim it's the best thing they've got, so they'll have to pay to keep it going. But claims that it's "the answer" to low tech rocket attacks just sound like a sales job to me.
As for the claims in the article - the current costs don't match up with many other reports I've seen, even ignoring the super optimistic future cost projections. Does the author have a stake in selling more high tech Iron Dome systems and/or missiles?
The US and Russia were in an arms race. The US “won” by bankrupting Russia. Same idea here, essentially.
I've been in the business of making electronic components for Patriot missiles and radar systems. I don't believe it.The actual marginal cost of production of a Tamir interceptor is low and reflects the costs of the basic raw materials; metal, fuel, explosives and electronic components used in its manufacture, and the labor required to run the assembly line. If the IDF ends up ordering 10 times as many interceptors as originally estimated, then their “cost” will likely drop to around $5,000. At 100 times as many the “cost” will approach the marginal cost of less than $1000.Once and for all, the money spent on development is gone - a sunk cost. That is a cost of having decided you need the capability. The cost of deciding to engage a an individual target (and to buy a replacement interceptor missile to replace the expended missile) Is " the marginal cost of less than $1000.”
When you make again as many of something as you have made in all previous history, you will (by spending money on improved production methods) cut the cost of production of that item by something on the order of 25% (the reason Moore’s Law has held over the decades is that the marginal utility of semiconductor logic has held up under the onslaught of so many quick doublings of supply).There is of course no question that dumb interceptors like rail gun projectiles or destructive laser pulses would be more cost-effective on a unit cost basis than guided rockets can be.
Well duh. Given that I have also been an R&D project manager with responsibility for conceiving, designing, and installing the production machinery worldwide for making high volume low cost disposable products, one would think I would know what a sunk cost was.
The cost of deciding to engage a an individual target (and to buy a replacement interceptor missile to replace the expended missile) Is " the marginal cost of less than $1000.”
It won't be even close to that low. No way.
OK, I hear you.
I would have thought this was done on condition that the US can in turn build on Israeli improvements, so if we wanted to “Dome” Washington, DC we could. On the other hand, the current administration would just as soon leak it to all Araby out of “fairness.” It’s hard to know what sort of treachery would be beyond Big Ears’ administration.
What is need is to take the war to the enemy. Civilizations for centuries have built fortresses to protect them, none have ever worked. Israel should have some history with that concept.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.