You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Israeli Rocket Defense System Is Failing at Crucial Task, Expert Analysts Say
2014-07-13
Although it appears to hit incoming Hamas rockets, Israel's system could be falling short of detonating the rockets' warheads.
Wotta piece of junk!
Even though Israel's U.S.-funded "Iron Dome" rocket-defense interceptors appear to be hitting Hamas rockets in recent days, they are almost certainly failing in the crucial job of detonating those rockets' shrapnel-packed explosive warheads, expert analysts say.
They should just ditch the whole thing.
As a result, rockets fired from Gaza are probably plunging to the ground with intact explosives. The fact that they aren't causing injuries or deaths in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other cities is mainly a matter of luck, the analysts add.
Yeah. They were better off with what they had before.
On Thursday, the Israel Defense Forces said missiles from the system had intercepted 56 rockets fired out of Gaza, preventing strikes in several cities. Yet Richard Lloyd, a weapons expert and consultant who is a past Engineering Fellow at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, says that because these interceptions had almost certainly not detonated the rockets' warheads, the system is essentially failing.
Money pissed away that could have gone to public works projects and that sort of thing.
The Iron Dome system--meant to hit rockets traveling tens of miles from launch to landing--is a smaller cousin to the Patriot system, which attempts to hit much longer-range, faster incoming missiles. Iron Dome fires interceptors six inches wide and 10 feet long and uses sensors and real-time guidance systems to try to zero in on the rockets.

When an Iron Dome interceptor gets close to an incoming rocket, a proximity fuse triggers the interceptor to detonate, spraying out metal rods that are intended to strike and detonate the warheads on the incoming rockets, neutralizing their ability to maim people and destroy things on the ground.

Ted Postol, the MIT physicist and missile-defense expert who aided Lloyd's analysis and who in 1991 debunked claims by the U.S. Army that its Patriot missiles were successfully shooting down Iraqi Scud missiles during the first Gulf War (see "Postol vs. the Pentagon" and "Preventing Fratricide"), agrees that Iron Dome's interceptors have not been succeeding at this crucial warhead-detonation job.
Anybody remember what 'e pur se muove' means?
Postol had been an admirer of Iron Dome after initial reports of its performance during previous rocket assaults in 2012 (see "Why Israel's Iron Dome Missile Defense System Actually Works"). But later analyses of interceptor contrails showed that its guidance system was behaving erratically. Instead of smoothly rising to meet their targets, the interceptors were making sharp turns and engaging from the side or behind, he says.

Those problems appear to be continuing, he says. "We expected that after more than a year and a half of time, whatever problems there were in the system related to guidance and control would be mitigated, or somewhat mitigated," he says. "As it turns out, this is not the case. As far as we can tell, it is behaving in the same erratic way as it did in November 2012."

The Iron Dome interceptors need to hit an incoming rocket head-on to have much hope of detonating a warhead, Lloyd says. And initial visual analysis of the engagements in recent days shows that the interceptions that are occurring are from the side or behind, which provide "essentially a zero chance of destroying the warhead," based on the basic physics of such engagements, he adds.

Efforts to reach the Israel Defense Forces for comment were unsuccessful.
Posted by:Flick Snore3762

#17  FYI CNN this AM > repors that Israel is claiming that over 800 rockets have been intercepted by its Iron Dome BMD System.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2014-07-13 22:03  

#16  The PATRIOT was originally designed as a fixed-wing Air Defense system, later given Missle Defense capability.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2014-07-13 19:32  

#15  Depends on the nature of the explosive. Some require high energy, some not as much. For instance, you can burn C4 or hit it with a hammer, it will not explode. You need a blasting cap or det cord for that stuff. And if it were shock sensitive, most stuff would not survive artillery shell launch forces. Shrapnel through the casing is likely enough to cause the warhead to malfunction, possibly without detonating it.
Posted by: OldSpook   2014-07-13 19:09  

#14  There is no such thing as a conventional explosive which doesn't detonate sympathetically.
Posted by: Throth Mussolini4291   2014-07-13 18:27  

#13  These are also the people who have been saying for the past forty years that a working system would be destabilizing and evil. And have been actively goldbricking US antimissile efforts during that time period.

BUT, of course, we can trust them to tell us whether Iron Dome is working or not, even though a working Iron Dome would invalidate their last forty years of belief systems.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2014-07-13 17:19  

#12  Stupid autocorrect. "fusing mechanism" (not rising).
Posted by: OldSpook   2014-07-13 17:15  

#11  What a fundamentally stupid error in his logic. You do not need to detonate the warhead, just render it inoperative. That means taking out the rising mechanism, or damaging the structural integrity of the explosives within it, or similar damage that refers the warhead ineffective. The shock and high speed shrapnel can do that without "detonating" the warheads.

What a piece of crap article.
Posted by: OldSpook   2014-07-13 17:14  

#10  Mr Postol has obviously never been faced with the project-options of Time, Money, Effectiveness, and Need; with having a choice of only two of those.
Posted by: Pappy   2014-07-13 12:43  

#9  The Iron Dome system is pretty good. It ignores things that are going to miss, and things that are going to hit something get a hard whack, way up in the air to send it off course.

The key success is that the Israelis do not feel helpless, instead they are confident that they can respond and triumph. War is politics by other means, and this system is great politics.
Posted by: rammer   2014-07-13 11:46  

#8  In the first Gulf War, the Patriot was in the initial stages of development for theater anti-missile defense. It wasn't designed for that. It was designed for anti-aircraft defense as a replacement for the much older Nike Hercules AA system. As an AA system, all you had to do was get in the proximity of the target and explode a warhead creating shrapnel that would degrade engines and fuselages, making it an unstable air platform or reducing its ability to reach its target. Studies* in the 80s suggested its employment in the other capacity and modification development didn't start till the end of the decade for want of priority funding. As an anti-missile system, you need a kinetic round, hit a bullet with a bullet, or at least near on to direct contact to divert.

When the initial batched were deployed in the Gulf, there was no direct linkage between intel that reported a launch and the units in the field. The detect time even with the local phase array radar only allowed about a second to determine to launch. There was no chance to shoot, then look to see if you hit before you would launch again (shoot-look-shoot). Too quick. Instead, they ripple fired two at a time (shoot-shoot-look) in the hopes that they could direct the second one to vector intercept if the first missed. Statistically, at that rate, the best you can do is 50%. Hip shooting with an initially fielded system. Good luck.

The barracks that got hit was because the Patriot battery was down for an upgrade in its software as begin among the first fielded, they were still working on the system and literally sending software patches as quickly as they could get them out.

* Those studies were funded by an authorization put into the budget by a Senator from Indiana, Dan Quayle. He'd picked up a study paid for by the (then) West German government to study theater missile defense potential of the long in development Patriot system. That Dan Quayle the MSM enjoyed maligning at every turn for things the one gets away with daily.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2014-07-13 08:53  

#7  and gas and power
Posted by: Frank G   2014-07-13 07:52  

#6  A good first step in ancient castle sieges applies. Turn off the water.
Posted by: 3dc   2014-07-13 06:55  

#5  The entire conflict becomes a one-sided war of missile attrition if a sweeping ground assault is delayed. Without going after the bastids decisively, and finally putting them to the sword, the economics and time favour Hamas.
Posted by: Besoeker   2014-07-13 03:48  

#4  In the first Gulf War the Patriot intercepts rates were worse in Israel then in Saudi. The reason for that was a more random mix of delay times in the Israeli phone system. In Saudi microwave links were used instead of phone ones. I hope Iron Dome makes no use of said phone network.
Posted by: 3dc   2014-07-13 03:40  

#3  Richard Lloyd, a weapons expert and consultant who is a past Engineering Fellow at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems

I've nothing to add.

Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2014-07-13 01:11  

#2  This has always been typical of missile interceptors. A SCUD warhead that was from a missile that was hit by a Patriot slammed into a barracks in the first Gulf War.

The primary goal of the interceptor is to knock the missile off target. Where the Patriot failed at times, was that the interception took place late in the flight path. Iron dome intercepts farther away so hopefully the warhead, after being knocked off target, falls into an unpopulated or lightly populated area.
Posted by: DarthVader   2014-07-13 00:39  

#1  some (maybe most) of the Hamas missiles don't actually have warheads.
Posted by: lord garth   2014-07-13 00:34  

00:00