I know nothing about military, but how is this supposed to be a reliable system of defense? I get it if you want to just neutralize a couple of missiles, but couldn't Iran/Arabs just overwhelm it by shooting multiple projectiles at once? There's no way for example that any structure can stop 100.000 missiles at once
don't ask questions, just consume propaganda and get excited for new propaganda
this area is so narrow, incoming missiles are primitive stuff with no guidance or maneuver. state of art missiles have terrain hugging, terrain matching capabilities. also recent iran israel shooting was nothing but show. so i dont comment on that.
also iron dome didnt do anything recently. it was combined airforce of western coalition shooting down everything iran sent over iraq.
>state of art missiles have terrain hugging, terrain matching capabilities
those arent ballistic missiles
>also iron dome didnt do anything recently.
iron dome is not designed to work against these.
i'm all about the TKD but damn you guys are just too lowIQ
>i denounce the talmud of course
you can overwhelm any defense by sending enough whatevers against it. it was mostly designed to take out most of the stuff which usually gets flung over from gaza and seem to do that quite well. things still get through of course. they used aircraft to thin the iranian bumrush out, iron domw tackled most of the rest.
its good. nothing is 100%
that only starts to become a problem when sandBlack folk actually learn to aim
>but couldn't Iran/Arabs just overwhelm it by shooting multiple projectiles at once?
Yeah, they shoot some $100 piece of shit they bodged together and then we shoot it down with a million dollar missile. Its great for Raytheon's stock price.
>I know nothing about military, but how is this supposed to be a reliable system of defense?
Is not
>I get it if you want to just neutralize a couple of missiles, but couldn't Iran/Arabs just overwhelm it by shooting multiple projectiles at once?
Correct
>There's no way for example that any structure can stop 100.000 missiles at once
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
That’s one of the ways the us lost a middle east war game.
>https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/status/1780642468762902912
dayyyyum
>"You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?"[2]
>After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory.
>Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of Blue's six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel
Shooting down missiles is a suckers game. The interceptors are more expensive. However it works if your sucker is the American taxpayer rather than you yourself.
And the missiles can be empty (without payload) too.
And the number isn't even close to 100000, and there are possible exploits due to the position of the interceptor launchers and other stuff.
you have to balance the complexity of an anti-missile system with the complexity of the enemy missile system and ideally create a cheaper anti-missile than the cost of the missile. then you have to overcome the difficulty of scaling the anti-missile system to provide total defensive coverage of your territory vs the simplicity of overwhelming that system with a point attack with the missile system. then you have to overcome the time advantage of the missile system since the timing of an attack is always known to the attacker, but the anti-missile system and defender must be ready to defend all potential times of attack. and finally you have to overcome missile system deceptions like decoys and false missile targets which are much easier and cheaper to loft than missiles and so inevitably a great majority of your anti-missile targets are false missiles. once you have overcome all these challenges of military employment of anti-missile systems, you must still manufacture, deploy, and maintain all these anti-missiles in sufficient quantity to defeat all of the many different potential enemies with missiles since you may have to fight more than one enemy missile system at a time.
ultimately you need to spend about 300x as much on anti-missile systems as missile systems for the same effect.
100 thousand missles? Who's got 100 thousand missles? Certainly not the dune coons!
Don't matter...pretty soon the israelites are gonna obliterate Iran .
Hamas overloaded the iron dome by firing a few hundred trash can rockets at a time. Everything can be overloaded, run out of ammo ect
saturation attack isn't a new idea
the us doctrine says focus instead on preemptively destroying launch platforms
it needs to be completely rethought. Like this anon said but way more fundamental. Not just US doctrine, but western military doctrine going back 500 years is to simply field a superior force and control the land. Other countries have learned how to beat this approach step by step, and drones are the final missing piece. They're a weapon for which there is no clearly superior western version, and there can be no superior version because so much of their design is about low cost and scalability. Drones democratize warfare as much as guns did.
wonder when gaza will get back to launching rockets again
ironically hamas might not have the political carte blanche from their own people right now. If I just snuck back into my house after six months, I would want them to take a break.
yup. the enemy went to ground so they took away the ground
>Drones democratize warfare as much as guns did.
Nah. A real air force that can establish air supremacy would obliterate your supply lines, factories, command posts, ammo depots and towns, and then you run out of drones in no time.
If Afghanistan or Iraq had a lot of drones when US attacked them it would make no difference at all.
And fighter jets can also help shooting down drones, just like they did with Iran's drones.
>supply lines, factories
they're in China
>command posts, ammo depots
set up new ones
>towns
modern militaries aren't set up for this, you need a 20th century military like Russia's.
My point was a bit more complicated than "drones beat planes", you need an elaborate method (developed through trial and error) to beat western colonialism. The superior force still comes in the form of planes and soldiers, so you let them in. They try to occupy, you do gorilla warfare with hearts and minds. Wait until the west are bored or their political will strays. However, the western army still decides the rough course of events as long as they can kill and not be killed efficiently. With guided munitions likely to remain a step ahead of jamming, this really could be the next evolution in making an untrained man equal to a government's man.
It can't shoot down 100 thousand missiles at once but arabs don't have 100 thousand missiles.
There are multiple radars, many launchers and a central system orchestrates the whole thing, and assigns launchers and tracking radars to contacts that the search radar picks up. It can engage dozens of missiles at the same time and that's good enough.
Stockpiling thousands of missiles takes a huge amount of space, there are many suppliers, lots of logistics and generally your spies should be able to find out about it. You don't just hide thousands of missiles in a basement. So any huge attack should be preventable with a preemptive attack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_attack
>I get it if you want to just neutralize a couple of missiles, but couldn't Iran/Arabs just overwhelm it by shooting multiple projectiles at once?
Yeah, it's called saturation attack.
It's not easy to pull off because of timing and it's also very costly.
Then there's this unfounded assumption that enemy knows exactly where the countermeasures are stationed and their exact characteristics.
There is absolutely a way to stop 100,000 missiles at once.
you play videogames? iron dome is like being a p2w whale. you spend 1 million dollars to stop the enemy's f2p missiles worth 100,000$. Yeah, the enemy could over whelm you with a zerg rush but they dont have the money for it. Thats the logic, pure talmudic warfare.
problem is, it's p2w with someone else's credit card and those poorgays are getting pretty tired of your shit. The whole idea is the usa spends their money to protect israel and if someone ever did commit enough resources to topple it, big goy america would step in and do something about it so no arab has the balls toactually do it.