Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • All I saw was "iron" and "missile", so I take it we finally developed an Iron Man suit for everyone?
  • Because the history of missile defense is replete with unwarranted claims of success, Congress should seek independent verification of Iron Dome's performance before providing Israel with additional funding for the system.

    Defending from that level of missile technology doesn't really mean it will work where US wants to use it.
  • Sometimes; I wonder if we should just let the Israelies have at the rest of the Middle East.

    / not often though
  • Because the history of missile defense is replete with unwarranted claims of success, Congress should seek independent verification of Iron Dome's performance before providing Israel with additional funding for the system.

    They can hire someone to stay in a hotel in Ashkelon next time it flares up. It's not like Israel has a good way to conceal the performance data for Iron Dome.
  • I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?
  • While a missle defense system that can shoot down 90%-95% of incoming missles would be an excellent defensive capability, one of the biggest bonuses a missle defense system that can shoot down even 25% of incoming wepaons is that when it comes to large scale missles, often reducing the chance of success from 100% to 75% will require an enemy to fire a second missle, or even a third, to really guarentee taking out the intended target.

    I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of much larger hostilities with more modern weapons, and I get that ICBMs armed with multiple nuclear warheads are different than the junk Hamas is using, but the actual value of a missle defense system isn't entirely tied to just it's ability to knock down missles, but how much uncertainty it can add to an aggressor's plan.

    Now, is it cost effective to operate that sort of system for this type of threat? I don't really have an answer for that.
  • FTFA: Iron Dome has reportedly received $275 million from the United States so far, and there is another $600 million in the defense bill for 2013
    and
    Israel seems to have shared little information to date, and so there is no way for observers outside the Israeli defense forces to know how successful Iron Dome actually was.

    I'm quite pro-Israel, but if we're paying for the fu*king thing, shouldn't we be getting performance data back?
  • meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?


    It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

    Attrition wins wars.
  • Banned on the Run: meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?

    It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

    Attrition wins wars.


    *one encounter
  • I saw an Iron Dome intercept with my own two eyes and heard three others (it makes a distinctive boom, louder than a rocket strike, actually.)

    I'd be happy to testify before Congress.
  • Banned on the Run: meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?

    It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

    Attrition wins wars.


    Perhaps, but Israel has a lot more resources than Hamas.
  • meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?


    Weighing lives is part of every countries economic evaluations, they just don't advertise it.
  • Banned on the Run:

    It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

    Attrition wins wars.


    It's not always that simple. 1400 rockets launched unopposed hitting urban areas results in costs to Israel much greater than the costs of the Iron Dome interceptors. Plus the cost of the loss of life.

    And this doesn't even take into account the 800 rockets fired from Gaza this year before the latest flareup.

    Iron Dome pretty much just ensured that Hamas succeeded in killing more Gazans than Israel even managed.
  • Will Iron Dome protect Israel from Iron Sky?
  • Sounds like the solution is a better field trial. Give Hamas some real armament and see how well "iron Dome" does against something better than fireworks/modified mortar rounds. Of course, we'd need to modify the scoring system, given that Israelis don't seem to view the Palestinians as human.

    Bonus: We could make serious money selling to both sides of the "conflict". Hell, we could even sell footage on Pay-Per-View.
  • Ted Postal is still around? I like the suggestion of using commercial video cameras to capture and analyze missile intercepts. The frame rate of commercial cameras (those used for recording television) are not remotely high enough for any sort of accurate analysis. Ted Postal makes his living by standing on the sidelines and saying "It can't be done! Look at me! Give me money and I'll produce data to show it can't be done!"

    Also, missiles may have guidance systems, but once they're out of their boos phase, they follow predicable, ballistic trajectories. That's why they're call "ballistic missiles."

    Also, Phalanx is a Gatling gun that fires at a high rate and chews up the incoming threat. It only works when the incoming weapon is really close. And about to hit you. Probably in the face. If you hear Phalanx going off, duck because shiat is about to get real. Good luck porting that model over to a theater-wide, much less nation-wide, defense system against ICBMs. You would need a bajillion of them and by the time they kicked in, it would be too late for Seattle, LA, Phoenix, Vegas, etc.

    The author has no idea what he's talking about.
  • Give Hamas some real armament and see how well "iron Dome" does against something better than fireworks/modified mortar rounds.

    The US is more than welcome to test Iron Dome against other armaments in some isolated location.
    But that would probably not satisfy your bloodlust.

    Of course, we'd need to modify the scoring system, given that Israelis don't seem to view the Palestinians as human.

    If that were true, Israelis would have gone Arab on their asses, and the casualties in the latest flareup would not have been less than the casualties that Syria inflicts on itself EVERY DAY.
  • Kirby Muxloe: Sounds like the solution is a better field trial. Give Hamas some real armament and see how well "iron Dome" does against something better than fireworks/modified mortar rounds. Of course, we'd need to modify the scoring system, given that Israelis don't seem to view the Palestinians as human.

    Bonus: We could make serious money selling to both sides of the "conflict". Hell, we could even sell footage on Pay-Per-View.


    Israel puts its own citizens at risk by trying to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties. Gaza is a very small area - if the IDF "didn't see Palestinians as human" it would level any and all hint of terrorist infrastructure without regard for collateral damage.

    Where is your indignation when it comes to Israeli civilians coming under continual rocket fire or being killed in terror attacks?

    You can criticize Israel's policies, but making blanket inaccurate claims like yours just shows that you've swallowed the Palestinian PR line whole hog (pardon the expression.)
  • Iron Dome is shooting at targets that are much easier to hit than ballistic missiles.

    Furthermore, it's using a shrapnel kill which means the defenders don't really know if the inbound is dead or not--fine if your objective is to reduce the threat but not a good idea when the target is sufficient high value that you keep shooting until you know the inbound is down. (Or it's outside your engagement envelope.)

    There's also not the issue of salvage-fused warheads. Salvage-fusing does nothing to get the missile through to it's target but if you do it right it can be a great help in getting the *NEXT* one through.

    Lets say you're trying to nuke Washington. There are a lot of good interceptors, you don't have enough missiles to deplete the racks. What do you do? You harden your missiles a bit and design them to salvage fuse. You then trickle them in rather than firing them all at once.

    Missile #1 comes into range and is knocked down easily--but when the missile records the hit of the interceptor it triggers the warhead. This is high above the city and does no harm except possible EMP effects. (Yes, the warhead can function in this situation. Electricity from the sensor travels a *LOT* faster than the shock wave from the interceptor hit. You simply need a bit of space between the sensor and the warhead.) However it leaves behind a cloud of ionization--oops, your radar can't see through that. Missile #2 comes into range--it only gets tracked once it clears the ionization. Again, the interceptor comes up but this time it's at less than half of the range of the interceptor when it'shiat. Again we have a cloud of ionization, this time closer to the target.

    Each missile gets closer until you get through. The defenders can perfectly well know what you're going to do and yet there is no counter other than intercepting them in space--and there you face decoy hell.
  • papajoefong: Also, Phalanx is a Gatling gun that fires at a high rate and chews up the incoming threat. It only works when the incoming weapon is really close. And about to hit you. Probably in the face. If you hear Phalanx going off, duck because shiat is about to get real. Good luck porting that model over to a theater-wide, much less nation-wide, defense system against ICBMs. You would need a bajillion of them and by the time they kicked in, it would be too late for Seattle, LA, Phoenix, Vegas, etc.

    The author has no idea what he's talking about.


    Plus some varients of the Phalanx use DU, which is oh so popular these days...
  • iheartscotch: Sometimes; I wonder if we should just let the Israelies have at the rest of the Middle East.

    / not often though


    I think a wall is the solution, like 300 ft high. Give 6 months for everyone who wants out to get out, then wall all of those farkers up and give 'em about 10 isolated years to iron out their shiat. Open the gates in the wall, but don't tear it down for 5 more years. If these morons start their little reindeer games again, then close and lock the wall again. Eventually they'll figure it out.
  • Even if it is effective, why are we paying for it? Is Israel broke? What are we getting in return?
  • Lets say you're trying to nuke Washington. There are a lot of good interceptors, you don't have enough missiles to deplete the racks. What do you do? You harden your missiles a bit and design them to salvage fuse. You then trickle them in rather than firing them all at once.


    That's the thing, though. America has enemies, and America has rivals. Our enemies are batshiat crazy and brutal, but that means what nation states they have, they run into the ground without getting that level of military organization and power. Our rivals could nuke DC if they wanted to, but they're only rivals. They're not crazy, and they don't want shiat to get real any more than we do.

    (Bet we could goad the Chinese into another peaceful space race, though. Whether we win or lose, science will win.)
  • papajoefong: You would need a bajillion of them and by the time they kicked in, it would be too late for Seattle, LA, Phoenix, Vegas, etc.


    You can leave Phoenix out. Sheriff Joe swears that he bought the .50 cal machine gun the county now owns to protect Phoenix from terrorists either in airplanes or rogue semi trucks. Personally, I think the old fart is going to be in for a hell of a surprise if he shoots at ANY target other than the range. He doesn't seem to have factored in the idea that those >50 cal bullets have to come down somewhere.
  • Load 25 of 70 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.