www.twz.com
t.me
And both sides had it arranged before the attack; so even if some missiles "spill over", they wouldn't cause a massive damage/death toll since Iran is targeting empty fields and at most runways (as they cowardly always do against anyone besides non-state actors.)
Okay, as I look at the video footage, I see approach speeds that are too low for incoming missiles that have not been intercepted and some even flaring and shedding parts, somewhat like seeing the STS Challenger break up imagery. I would think missiles getting thru would not typically be seen - the motors would have long burned out and the rest is coasting to the target. Am I missing something?
No, the trajectory seems all wrong altogether. They are following a ballistic arc but the profile seems to match shorter range MLRS fire rather than the high altitude descent of an MRBM or the high altitude manoeuvring on a HGV-type.The ultra fast missile depicted in this vid would certainly bypass any AD, incl. the Iron Dome. Could that be the Fattah-2?
Middle East Spectator
— / WATCH: The speed of an Iranian hypersonic missile @Middle_East_Spectator
The White House has already issued a statement.
Yeah, this. I'm not really sure RVs still emit a visible yellow glow just before hitting the ground, maybe I'm wrong. Glowing yellow at that late stage seems to imply it's been hit. Trying to find footage of a successful test strike with similar to verify. Just found one, no glowing yellow.
Well, when sattelite photos became available, there probably would be some hard data about impacts at least around air bases.
Source:
In a word 'no'. The missile will put itself on the correct ballistic course for the target area post launch anyway. Launch angle has nothing to do with flight trajectory.
Turns out this might be part of the penaid system.
I see. Could you please also explain another matter? Yesterday's attack took place with various Iranian missile systems. Some were solid fuel, some were liquid fuel. If I understood correctly, such MRBMs have a booster that is rejected during the descend (terminal) flight, and only the warhead flies toward the target to make it more difficult to intercept by the AD/MD. Right? If yes, why there was yellowish fire still visible till the last moment before impact? What caused that fire?
May have answered that in the post immediately prior to yours. It could be part of a penaid system (to optically mask the warhead) that I wasn't aware of. This is why the Pershing RV doesn't glow (because manoeuvring is its penaid) while the Peacekeeper RVs do.
It could just be that the missile was fired on a lofted trajector and had a higher apogee than nominal, leading to higher reentry velocity and a subsequent glow. You could see the same glow on the North Korean BMs that shares lineage with Iranian ones.
There is no need for any sophisticated penaid, since like I've said before, Iron Dome is not meant for BMD. It's a C-RAM system.
Exactly, thay's what I've been saying on the previous page as well as on the post just above yours.
I think it should just be classified as long-range C-RAM, and not BMD. This would help to avoid confusion.
Obviously there's the problem regarding rockets, especially since red-for has been fielding various large-diameter MRLs since BM-30. Most of these newer large-diameter MRLs in use within Russia, China, NK and Iran are guided and probably outside the Iron Dome's intercept capability. I think 300mm is a good ballpark to distinguish traditional C-RAM targets and those rockets that requires capabilities closer to BMD.
What are you talking about? The Iron Dome isn't designed to intercept M/IRBMs.
Where is the thread for Arrow ABMs?
That'll make a nice conversation piece...
Then why are they coming in so horizontal?
I'm suggesting a possibikity at this point. Quite a few of those missiles were known to have MaRV, so maybe a terminal maneuver that made it more horizontal?
What's even more amusing is it looks like someone is using a garden hose to put the fire out.
Seemed to be broadly ballistic though, and MARVs tend to do the opposite of that - pitch up and come down vertical - to maintain velocity better.
Looks like this ended up like the iron fist issue, not quite what the army wanted but it actually exists and has been used in combat. Only this time the army didn't buckle and gust buy it this time. Leading to them still not haveing anything.More woe:
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
You need to read the rest of the first page of the thread, USAr backed out of Iron Dome because Israel wouldn't give them the access into the Iron Dome battle management system they needed to integrate it with IBCS. Fielding it without IBCS integration would be worse than useless - the left hand and right hand of Army missile defence wouldn't know what the other hand was shooting at.
That's exactly what he's suggesting. To stop making fun of Iron Dome for things that it can't do because it's not meant to do.
Do we have reliable information on whether the last-ditch intercepts at very low altitude used tamir/Iron Dome interceptors (presumably making last-ditch/marginal/trash-fire engagements) or stunner/David's Sling interceptors?
IBCS has been going on for two decades now and is an entirely Patriot centric system, which makes it of absolutely no use to the Israelis. Iron Dome is outstandingly effective, and moreover cost effective, as a stand alone system. Now obviously the Army chose Leidos and AIM-9Xs that cost 20 times as much as Tamir interceptors. And as of July, the Army won’t accept any existing missile as the interceptor for increment 2, so it’s back the drawing board. When we could have a mature, cheap and fully built out capability.
NIH is usually an issue with any US procurement, but in this case I'd say IBCS integration is actually a valid reason for binning Iron Dome.
