Posted on 11/22/2012 12:37:54 AM PST by neverdem
The performance of the revolutionary Iron Dome system in the ongoing defense of Israel from Hamas rocket attacks, dubbed Operation Pillar of Defense, has been so extraordinary as to be considered by all but the most hardline critics to have proven the efficacy of missile defense. By November 20, six days since Hamas dramatically increased the volume of rocket fire against Israel, 340 intercepts had been made, with the Iron Dome system achieving a greater than 80 percent success rate. For Israel, this capability not only saves lives but also provides the government with precious time to contemplate a response to each attack.
Iron Dome's proven effectiveness has greatly increased expectations that it will be a popular product on the world market and has drawn considerable attention to possible co-production in the United States.
Developed by the Israeli firms Elta, mPrest Systems, and Rafael, the relatively low-cost Iron Dome system (estimated to be $85,000 per Tamir interceptor missile and $20 million per battery), enjoyed an unprecedentedly rapid development cycle going from drawing board to operational system in five years.
Created to intercept rockets with ranges from 2.5 to 44 miles, Iron Dome is able to selectively engage incoming rockets and mortar and artillery rounds determined by the system to be headed for civilian population centers or national assets.
"Since we are talking about hundreds and even thousands of rockets that we have to deal with, we cannot intercept each one, and actually we don't need to," Lt. Col. Meyrav Davidovitz, Israeli Missile Defense Organization Liaison Officer, told a Washington, DC audience gathered at the Heritage Foundation earlier this month to discuss policy implications and future prospects, including potential U.S. co-production of the Iron Dome system. Such selective engagement keeps operating costs down and preserves the maximum number of interceptor stock for emergency situations, she said.
Iron Dome's affordability and effectiveness has had an enormous impact on both the United States government and the American aerospace and defense community. Congress increased U.S. assistance to allow Israel to field additional Iron Dome batteries after the system proved itself highly successful at intercepting Hamas rockets from its first in April 2011 through mid-2012.
At the end of July 2012, a new tranche of $70 million in U.S. support funds was sent to Israel to speed up the fielding of additional batteries intended to cover the Lebanon border as well as Gaza and Sinai. $190 million in Israeli government funding was recently approved; the ongoing defense of Israel from Hamas rocket attacks serving as an impetus for the additional procurement.
Support within Congress was made palpable by the recent insertion of language into the not-yet-approved FY-2013 Defense Authorization Act endorsing potential coproduction with Israel. The House Committee on Armed Forces wrote into the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013 that the Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, "should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system." This would likely entail joint research with American firms, facilitating improvements in the Iron Dome interceptors. The authorization bill would also allocate an additional $1 billion to support Iron Dome and David's Sling, a medium layer missile defense system. In the Israeli missile defense architecture, Iron Dome covers the low level, short-range threats, David's Sling handles the medium level threats, and the Arrow system covers the upper-tier threats.
Back in 2010, in recognition of the system's capability, the United States government agreed to fund Israel's acquisition of four additional Iron Dome batteries along with additional interceptors with an allocation of $205 million. This support expanded Israeli production capacity and expedited the deployment of the Iron Dome's components, improving the overall effectiveness of the system.
Davidovitz explained to the audience of policy professionals, Congressional staff and Pentagon analysts, that, "Terrorist organizations around the world have the same capabilities as Hamas and Hezbollah, making the Iron Dome useful to all nations."
American acquisition of Iron Dome technology is "inevitable," asserted Randy Jennings, a defense consultant and former congressional staffer. He told the audience that it would fulfill America's future and current military defense needs in theaters similar to Afghanistan, as well as provide a proven system during a time of strained defense budgets.
Davidovitz said that, "if the U.S. decides to produce the system for its own needs, a big part of the production would be in the U.S."
A domestic endeavor would likely include R&D on improvements to the system, as well as the production missile batteries that comprise of a rocket launcher, radar, and battle management and control modules, as well as interceptors, Jennings said. Iron Dome coproduction would benefit not only the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship, by lowering the cost per unit for both countries and promoting closer integration within the alliance, but could be expected to provide a boost to the American economy.
Hey, you’re right. It was produced by Rafael.. Perhaps you’re too young to remember U.S. Patriot systems loaned to Israel against scud missiles; I DO!!! I assumed Iron Dome was an off chute of that, WHICH IT WAS. The U.S. poured $250 million to spur development and production of Iron Dome. I’m sure 0bama wouldn’t want US to have it though. STOP PUNCHING YOUR FREEPER FRIENDS.
Lol. No.
Iron Doma was designed by Rafael, from scratch. With development financing by Israel.
No “off-chute” from Patriot. Wherever did you get that idea?
Anyway. The important thing is that Israel doesn’t let the US have any influence on the program or who ends up with the product, because the US interest is anti-Israel and pro-islamist.
There’s been enough technology developed by Israel and channeled by the US to the jihadis.
According to this Wiki on the Iron Dome it was developed by Rafael.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
Yes, In these threads, there’s always a few people who sound like the old USS Liberty gang. With fresh join dates ;).
Sec. 237. Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program.
Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by section 201 for research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, and available for the Missile Defense Agency, $210,000,000 may be provided to the Government of Israel for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program as specified in the funding table in section 4201.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
Section 1507—Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense Program
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to provide up to $205.0 million from the funds authorized in section 1506 of this title for Defense-Wide Activities Procurement to the Government of the State of Israel for procurement of the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-range rocket threats.
It basically provides for building a number of extra batteries, which the US is interested in having access to. No relevance as to development. Just a US toe in the shop door.
Once Raytheon or Lockheed get involved, the price will go from $20 million to $ 1 billion.
Absolutely right. Something like this needs to be installed along the DMZ, or at least near Seoul and Inchon for their defense.
Right now, the Kim dynasty has the ability to make good on their threats to light Seoul up in flames at the click of a button. Only political will, not military capability, prevents that from happening — and with dictatorial leaders in Pyongyang of questionable sanity, the South Koreans would be crazy not to try to build an anti-missile defense system.
North Korea is a state actor, not a non-state terrorist group, but what is happening now in Israel with Iron Dome may be a perfect example of how high-tech countries can counter the inherent advantages of asymmetrical warfare. While a Hamas rocket may cost $1,000 compared to $60,000 for the anti-rocket missile, I think it's patently obvious who has more money available and more ability to install defense systems without being tracked by drones and having their operations blown up. A 60-to-1 cost ratio is not a problem for Israel versus Hamas.
In the Summer of 2011, according to Wiki, South Korea did express an interest.
“During a visit to Israel in the summer of 2011, Kwon Oh-bong, vice commissioner of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration in Seoul, expressed interest in purchasing the system in order to counter the threat posed by North Korean artillery, rockets, and missiles”
Forget the R&D improvements, at least until after we make a bunch for ourselves. Buy the rights to manufacure, assuing we don’t already have an agreement to that effect, since we helped pay for the R&D as well as the Israeli procurement. IIRC.
A Patriot costs a lot more. Only thing that might be cheaper, and could work, is a ground based high energy laser. Incremental cost per shot would likely be fairly low, but overall system cost might be higher than Iron Dome
Only if you let them do R&D for "improvements", before buying a bunch of systems for the US.
Raytheon already teamed with Rafael over a year ago to market the system to the US.
No, it’s domestic.
(I work for Raf.)
Thank you... interesting!
Nice website, if I were local I’d probably be there every day
“To determine cost effectiveness, you don’t look at the cost of the system thwarted, you look at the value of the asset protected.”
True, from a defensive perspective. From the perspective of the offense, things look different. The offense can view the ‘target’ as the defensive missile. Since rockets are cheap and missiles are not, then the offense can consider the exchange as profitable even if it never hits Tel Aviv.
“A Patriot costs a lot more. Only thing that might be cheaper, and could work, is a ground based high energy laser. Incremental cost per shot would likely be fairly low, but overall system cost might be higher than Iron Dome”
Rockets are small, can be hard to hit, and hardened. Some can be made as decoys, nothing but a ‘rock’ with no explosive but very hard to kill.
Another problem with lasers. They’re not eye-safe. You have to be sure you’re not accidently burning the eye balls of a El Al pilot on final with 350 passengers on board.
Problem with all these ideas is simply this. Sooner or later the defense has to take out the launch sites. You can stand back and play defense forever. Sooner or later, one will get through.
No worse that smacking it with a Patriot, or a Standard missile. Problem with all these ideas is simply this. Sooner or later the defense has to take out the launch sites. You can stand back and play defense forever. Sooner or later, one will get through.
That the Israelis did. But some still got through. But even that isn't good enough with these small relatively cheap rockets. You have to take out the factory and/or the transports. The Israelis did that too. Plus you have to kill as many of the guys would make or launch them as you can, and every leader you can locate.
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.