Iron Dome

R

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
26 January 2011
Messages
2,224
Reaction score
639
I was somewhat surprised to see no thread on the Iron Dome system, particularly after its success against the recent Hamas rockets fired against Israel. Does anybody have any information on the system?
 
May be because there is a lot of info available in the net, and Iron Dome is not an unbuilt missile system so it's not an specific subject here.

But If you like to treat it in the forum, I can move your post to the Aerospace section.
 
Please, that would be good. I am sure there is stuff out there which isn't in the mainstream media about this system.
 
Israel Plans to Expand ‘Iron Dome’ to Warships to Protect Offshore Facilities (Wall Street Journal, registration may be required.)

Israel to Use New Sea-Borne Missile Defense to Guard Offshore Gas Fields (Reuters, via gCaptain)

2016-05-18T153518Z_414924564_S1BETETVQKAA_RTRMADP_3_ISRAEL-MISSILES-DEFENCE.jpg

ORIGINAL CAPTION: A screen-shot taken from Israel Defence Forces (IDF) handout video footage received on May 18, 2016, shows a test-firing of a version of Israel’s Iron Dome missile interceptor. Handout via REUTERS.​

If I'm not mistaken, the Israeli Navy is going to need at least one new class of ship to mount this system, unless of course they're planning to operate it from mobile barges or similar.
 
Why not put it on the off-shore platforms themselves?
 
Madurai said:
An Israeli acquaintance of mine insists it's known locally as "Iron Yarmulke."
Click to expand...

The word in Hebrew is Kippah which means dome but is also the root of the name for the skull cap or kippa. Which is also known as the Yarmaluke though this word has a different root meaning (fear of god).
 
An article about the test in Haarez with a video (in Hebrew): http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/1.2947797

The idea is to protect the rigs against a volley of Grad missiles fired from Syria or Levanon.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Why not put it on the off-shore platforms themselves?
Click to expand...

The general layout of most such platforms means that there isn't that much free open space available to emplace the launchers and their support equipment. Also, with the way the Israeli Navy is currently stretched you couldn't guarantee that there would be a naval ship (as opposed to small patrol craft with limited sensors & comms gear) near enough to an endangered platform in the event of an attack to provide target cueing and midcourse guidance for the missiles (it's unlikely that they would be able to properly emplace the EL/M-2084 radar on your average off-shore platform, though a barge based solution is a possibility I suppose).
 
There were discussions within the UK MoD in the late 1970s about installing air defence radars and SAMs on production platforms in the North Sea. Didn't come to anything.

Chris
 
Grey Havoc said:
Kadija_Man said:
Why not put it on the off-shore platforms themselves?
Click to expand...

The general layout of most such platforms means that there isn't that much free open space available to emplace the launchers and their support equipment. Also, with the way the Israeli Navy is currently stretched you couldn't guarantee that there would be a naval ship (as opposed to small patrol craft with limited sensors & comms gear) near enough to an endangered platform in the event of an attack to provide target cueing and midcourse guidance for the missiles (it's unlikely that they would be able to properly emplace the EL/M-2084 radar on your average off-shore platform, though a barge based solution is a possibility I suppose).
Click to expand...

Considerations I am sure BUT this is the Israelis we are discussing and they invariably create solutions from outside the box to most problems. Putting a vertical (or near vertical) missile launcher on a resource platform wouldn't be difficult. It would be less subject to vertical and horizontal wave action than a barge and less likely to be attacked effectively by naval craft. Adding the sensors wouldn't IMHO create too much of a problem either. The Israelis could simply design space to do this.
 
Kadija_Man said:
Why not put it on the off-shore platforms themselves?
Click to expand...

Rocket engines in an environment full of volatile hydrocarbons? What could possibly go wrong?
 
https://www.defensenews.com/video/2017/11/27/israel-declares-operational-capability-for-sea-based-iron-dome/
 
http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23916&sid=79ded53c5ce223c2329fc9f8cbcb74ce#p330285
 
Iron Dome intercept from the ski slope. (Sorry for non-Twitter peeps.)

https://twitter.com/treyyingst/status/1087067579640963073?s=21
 
jsport said:
There are really lazy folks on this forum.
Click to expand...

That web page says precisely nothing to invalidate the comments from USAr. There's probably a political element to it, USAr wanting full access to the Iron Dome battle management system, because integrating it into the USAr battle management system is best done with full knowledge of how Iron Dome is designed to work. But USAr is talking about using Iron Dome world-wide, vs first tier opponents bringing their best EW game and missiles to town, and the Israelis have to face neither the environmental range, not the EW challenge, nor high-end cruise missiles. At the very least it will require testing the Israelis won't have had reason to do before now, and it's likely there will be issues arising.

There's absolutely nothing surprising about this, nor necessarily any criticism of Iron Dome beyond the Israelis not being quite as open as USAr would prefer.
 
jsport said:
ID is a Raytheon missile.
Click to expand...

For certain values of Raytheon. But the battle management system and radar is Israeli, and the US needs to integrate it into IBCS, or replace it. Which means knowing how it works.

“We already have a missile command center. IBCS [Integrated Battle Command System] is already firing all of our missiles; we need it to be able to fire their missiles,” Jette said. “How do we communicate with the radar? How can our radar work with their missiles? These types of things are all pieces we need to sort out.”
 
The line item will reappear in the full defense bill next year, they're just pulling it from the short-term bill.
 
Grey Havoc said:
More woe:
www.defensenews.com

Congress drops Army mandate to buy more ‘Iron Dome’ defenses against cruise missiles

The Army is off the hook to buy two more Iron Dome air defense batteries, leaving the service to focus on an enduring Indirect Fires Protection Capability that will be able to combat drones, cruise missiles and rockets, artillery and mortars.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
Not surprised as Army never wanted Iron Dome as understood it didn't integrate with the IBCS due to its proprietary nature of its software.

The Army has invested $2.7 billion in the NG IBCS its command-and-control system of Integrated Air and Missile Defense System taking input from THAAD and Patriot radars plus A4 Sentinel etc and controlling the missiles. It picked the Dynetics Enduring Shield a development of the abandoned Army MML, multi-mission launcher, for firing the Sidewinders and perhaps other missiles in future in preference to Iron Dome for its missile CIWS under the IFPC program which will be compatible with IBCS.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom