Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Israel's Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield Actually Works

Posted by Unknown on from the reagan-strikes-back dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Sarah Tory reports that the debut of Israel's Iron Dome missile defense shield has added a new element to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians in the Gaza strip, one that military officials are calling a 'game-changer.' Israeli officials are claiming that the shield is destroying 90 percent of missiles and rockets it aims at that have been fired into southern Israel by Hamas. This level of success is unprecedented compared with older missile defense systems such as the American-made Patriot model used during the 1991 Gulf War. The missile-defense system can detect rocket launches and then determine the projectiles' flight paths and only intercepts rocket or artillery shells if they are headed for populated areas or sensitive targets; the others it allows to land. It takes a lot of raw computing power to rapidly build a ballistic profile of a fast-incoming projectile, make a series of quick decisions concerning potential lethality, and launch a countermeasure capable of intercepting said projectile in-flight. One reason Iron Dome is showing a much more robust capability than the Patriot system did is simply that its battle control hardware and software are several generations more advanced than those early interceptor systems. 'Israeli officials point out that Iron Dome saves money despite the fact that the interceptors cost up to $100,000 each,' writes Tory. 'The cost of rebuilding a neighborhood destroyed by a rocket attack — not to mention people wounded and lives lost — would be far greater than the cost of the interceptor.' Most important, the system buys Israel time, allowing it to plan out an appropriate response without the political pressure that would be generated by hundreds of potential deaths."

24 of 861 comments (clear)

  1. OMFG Reagan was right? by concealment · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean that SDI might work after all?

    That will get us out of the nuclear age. A stop rate of 90% eliminates a first strike advantage.

    But what's going to replace mutually assured destruction (MAD) when the destruction isn't assuredly mutual?

    These missile shields could bring us closer to nuclear war, or end it forever when the party with the shield tells everyone else to drop their nukes or vanish in sparkly glowing fireballs.

    1. Re:OMFG Reagan was right? by Copperhamster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, it's more complicated than that, and that's the reason that the defense system was considered 'provocative'. It's also the reason the US and USSR arsenals were so 'over the top'.
      (I read a book by someone involved with the so called 'nuclear calculus' of MAD a few years ago and assuming he wasn't lying through his teeth, it's interesting)
      Let's say you want to nuke, say, Perth in Australia and remove it from the map. Without using the really really big ones, which were never deployed much really, you are talking about 6-10 mid 80s grade warheads. Let's say 10.
      Now if you want to land 10 warheads on Perth, in the mid 80s, you need to plan to launch 18-25 or so at it.
      The book went into the details of why.
      Now because of some of those details, let's say that Australia deployed an ABM system that can stop 33% of the warheads that complete their ascent stage and separate from their missiles. We're not talking about shooting down the missiles themselves, just the warheads after they separate. (Interesting note, as of 80s grade tech, boosted fission weapons were fully 'fail deadly' and could detonate at full yield when struck by an interceptor weapon, before that weapon could destroy the hardware. Full Fusion weapons would probably 'fizzle' producing a much lower yield explosion than they were rated for.)
      Based on his math, which was complex but did follow, assuming the underlying assumptions were correct, in order to turn Perth into a crater you now need to launch 60-80 warheads at it.
      To get a 'for sure' 10 warhead kill.
      Now when MIRVs were in style that doesn't seem like so much with a dozen warheads on each missile except that an iron clad rule was that those warheads each had to come off a separate missile. Because a lot of the reason for needing so many warheads was the assumption that a good percentage of those missiles carrying them would never make it to separation stage.
      Add to this the fratacide problem of warheads. Any warhead hitting Perth within 'a short time (which he couldn't give exacts of because it was classified, but indicated it was longer than 3-4 minutes)' of any particular detonation would be killed by it's own brother explosion before it detonated. (And nuclear detonation waves were one of the few things fast enough to kill, for example, a boosted fission weapon before it could set itself off). So if you launched 60 warheads at Perth, not only do they all have to come from different missiles, but you have to plan for them to land over a at least a 4 hour period. Which allows the ABM system to be more effective because you can't swamp it with everything you have in one big go and, assuming Australia has deployed it's own nuclear weapons, also allows them to strike back at your missile launching fields and command and control facilities. Which means you need to target even MORE warheads at Perth if you want to evaporate it.

      The Big Deal here is not that 'oh heck we may only lose half our country in a nuclear war woopie!'
      The Big Provocative Deal here is that once you have that 33% kill shield in place it requires a massive expenditure of warheads on the enemies part to really for sure kill you completely. Suddenly things are not MAD and now you have to worry about 33% shield country launching conventional ground invasions of parts of your territories or spheres of influence, feeling more sure that you won't escalate the conflict to the nuclear stage because suddenly you can't ensure the destruction of the other side, when they still have the ability to annihilate you.
      Now you may ask who would be insane enough to risk that nuclear war that wipes out only half their own country, given the rest of the situation, and my answer would Godwin the thread. Also, the USSR thought Reagan was that far off the rails as well. Who's to say who else would have risked such a level of brinksmanship.
      90% would be enough for a country to act pretty much with impunity against anyone except the really big nuclear players, without fear of major nuclear damage. The thought

  2. Re:Accuracy by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Miscalculation? Mechanical error in the defense? I imagine the margin of error is relatively significant just because it does all of this on the fly, so the best way to get a quick enough response is to guess at a few things.

    Given what it's doing, however, I'd say 90% is pretty damned good.

  3. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. by synir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not saying Israel's defenses don't work (I've no reason to think that) but given the timing do you think we'd be told

    a) If the defenses didn't work well at all
    or
    b) About all the instances the defenses failed to work?

    Given the circumstances what we hear *especially* from official sources on either side of this conflict should be taken with quite a grain of salt.

  4. Re:Does it really take so much computing power? by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You need to 1) detect the launch 2) determine the trajectory 3) determine the speed 4) determine a few other factors (mass? range? payload? whether it's capable of changing trajectory mid-flight?) 5) calculate where it's going 6) determine if that counts as a populated area 7) fill in any missing variables 8) make a decision 9) direct the defense

    How fast could you do this? What if there's a hundred rockets coming in at once? It's not like a dumb bomb that's dropped straight down on a given point.

  5. Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So the Palestinians launch missiles at Isreal and you are upset that Isreal is pissed off about it and launches counter attacks? If Canada started launching rockets at the US, I would expect us to invade and conquer them in short order.

    Well, if the US sent their military into Vancouver for "security" reasons, throwing out all the Canadians who lived there and allowed US citizens to build homes and "settle" the area and considering the US's superior military, I wouldn't blame Canada in the least for shooting rockets over the border.

    I'm surprised that Palestine has been allowed to exist as long as it has.

    You are either an excellent and crafty anti-Israel troll or an incredibly ill-informed person.

  6. Best Missile Defense Shield by anti-pop-frustration · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Best missile defense shield : peace treaty.

  7. Am I the only one? by Zibodiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reading the comments, it seems I'm the only one here who thinks this is awesome. When it comes to weapons development, this is exactly the sort of weapon we should be cheering for. Whether you agree with the ones using it or not, this is a wonderful thing. A weapon which only works as a shield to block incoming attacks; that is what the weapons used by enlightened countries should have evolved into.

    1. Re:Am I the only one? by happy_place · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It really is a triumph of human intelligence and there's a LOT of combined science and technology employed in this solution. It demonstrates the sort of ingenuity that happens in a highly cooperative intellectual landscape, when one puts aside their malicious intent, and thinks more on the need to protect rather than to kill. Combined, great minds can do great things. It's a shame too often great minds are wasted on revenge and retaliation, egos and avarice. Ethical intelligence is true intelligence.

      --
      http://www.beanleafpress.com
  8. Re:Too bad... by Formalin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A better example would be if American Indians, subjugated and embargoed on their reservation, started rocket attacks on the US.

  9. Re:Does it really take so much computing power? by rmstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does it really take so much computing power to calculate trajectory of a falling object?

    It's not a falling object, it has a rocket engine.

    You have to estimate acceleration, correct for mistakes, compute a plausible trajectory for it, compute a plausible trajectory for the interceptor, and since it involves objects moving at high speeds, it all has to be very accurate. You probably have a lot of crappy data sources to aggregate (radar, optical, etc) and things like wind and coriolis effects to take care of.

    The optimal control problems involving launching and controlling the interceptor are already hard to write down on paper, and solving them numerically is far from trivial. And it all has to be done in real time.

    In sum, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a 500-core, state-of-the-art supercomputer crunching the numbers.

  10. Apples and Oranges by necro81 · · Score: 5, Informative

    One other large difference that the summary glosses over is that there's a big difference between the Katyusha and improvised rockets of Hamas, and the much larger Scud missile used by Iraq. There's almost an order of magnitude difference in size and range, and a several-fold difference in speed.

    There's a correspondingly large difference between the Tamir interceptor missiles used as part of the Iron Dome and the Patriot missile.

    Still, on the whole, it's probably a good thing that we are getting better at setting our lethal weapons against each other, rather than at people.

    1. Re:Apples and Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hamas isn't using improvised rockets. It's using Iranian Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets, and Chinese-built BM-21 Grad rockets.

  11. Patriot Failures by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was a huge problem with the Patriot system early on where the tracking computers lost so much accuracy even after only running continuously for 8 hours that the system would fail to intercept threats. The short term solution was to reboot the system at regular intervals.
     
      GAO Report: Patriot Missile Defense (Official report)
     
      Patriot Missile Software Problem
     
      Round off errors and the Patriot missile

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  12. Missile command meets photon torpedoes! by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Holy crap, check this thing out!

    Color me impressed...

  13. Re:Accuracy by mapkinase · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have heard about 2/3 rate, not 90% rate. There is little room to independently separate propaganda exaggeration from actual facts.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  14. How much do missles cost anyway? by guises · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's a random question for some knowledgeable person: how much of that $100,000 cost per interceptor is overhead? I realize that missiles aren't simple things, but that strikes me as way out of line with what it would actually cost to build one of these.

    That goes for other missiles as well - you always hear about Tomahawks, etc., costing $1 million+, how much do they actually cost to build?

    1. Re:How much do missles cost anyway? by I.+M.+Bur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually you should look at the value of the target to be hit by the missile, not at the value of the missile to be intercepted. You can destroy infrastracture and equipment worth of millions of dollars with a single missile, not to mention that most of the stuff that is destroyed can't be replaced instantly. The $100,000 cost of the interceptor is small compared to that.

  15. Re:Too bad... by sycodon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, they were just thrown out of office.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  16. Re:Too bad... by robthebloke · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a handy diagram that may help to explain things. Try showing restraint when your neghbourhood has been invaded, bulldozed, and then built on.

  17. Re:You disgust me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was never an Arab state by the name "Palestine" which owned any of the land in what is known as Palestine or Israel. The West Bank was seized by Israel from Jordan in a self-defensive war in 1967, who had itself held it in an illegal occupation from 1948-1967. Prior to that the land was held by the Brits, and before them the Turks/Ottomans, before that the Crusaders, before that the Romans, and before them... the Jews.

    Gaza is at present fully under Arab rule, so none of your points apply there, it's not clear what they're "fighting back" against.

  18. Re:Accuracy by zig007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which is why it's so hard for the rest of the world to not buy into the deluge of photos of dead children, supposedly from Palestine. I mean seriously, I've seen more photos of dead children than the official numbers stated. It seems anti-semitic propaganda is alive and well in 2012.

    Hm. I sure haven't.
    Then on the other hand, I treat ALL information in situations like this as propaganda, which means I do not trust the "semitic" information one iota more than the "antisemitic" kind.
    Additionally, the "semitic" information gatherers only has the information of the weapon systems and their operators, which, to put it mildly, usually leads to quite crappy and low estimates of the civilian casualties involved. So it is not only "anti-semitic" propaganda that is alive and well in 2012.

    The correct number is usually somewhere in between.
    Humanitary organisations are usually pretty close. And their numbers are horrendous enough.

    To not "believe" either side of a conflict at all, is a very dangerous path.
    Completely innocent people, including children, going about their normal life, are ALWAYS terribly hurt in conflict.
    Especially so when they have nowhere to run, which is the common case here.
    That is just a fact. Try go to a war torn area sometime and see for yourself.

    --
    Baboons are cute.
  19. Re:Accuracy by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You see, this is what I don't understand about people looking at this. This isn't a numbers game. Yes, the Palestinians will eat the brunt of any casualties. Not only are they not represented by a military with a systematic defensive capability, their "military" doesn't even really care much for civilian casualties.

    Israel is going to have fewer casualties because they're going to be significantly better at preventing attacks on their people. That doesn't mean the threat is not real, nor does it mean that Israel should have to stand for random rocket barrages on their territory. Would there be a ground assault on Gaza if there were no rockets being launched? Of course not. So how is this about the Israeli election, other than the fact that the Israelis are being targeted at a time where everyone knows that they would want to respond strongly to any attack.

    I keep hearing about "proportional" response, but honestly, what does that do other than maintain the status quo? And how do you have a "proportional" response to weapons fired from civilian areas? Even the most surgical of strikes is going to hit civilians.

    I would like nothing better than for the Palestinians to have a normal economy and have peace, but honestly, it always seems like they have to keep poking Israel with rockets or attacks. And while many Palestinians do not support terrorists like Hamas, many do. I was just struck by reports of "spies" being dragged through the streets, while wondering if perhaps by giving good information for targeting, those same spies may have made it possible to save Palestinian lives by ensuring Israeli strikes are placed as accurately on rocket installations as possible.

    In the end, the Palestinians are pawns. They are not served by their so-called defenders, who are basically proxies for Iran and other regional troublemakers who want nothing more than to keep them a distraction so that the world does not turn its attention to their activities. It may be that the only way for them to save their lives is to realize that they exist only to garner sympathy for an otherwise unsympathetic Arab world.

  20. Re:Accuracy by dentin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a followup, I think those calling for a "proportional" response neglect the fact that ideology seriously skews what proportional means. How does one have a "proportional" response to a suicide bomber? How does one have a "proportional" response to rockets fired anonymously from densely populated civilian areas?

    Quite frankly, the only reasonable definition of "proportional" in these situations is "hurts the other side enough that they will think twice about doing it again". People condemn the Israelis for bulldozing the homes and towns of suicide bombers, for invading by ground, and for carpet bombing areas where rockets are shot from - but the simple fact of the matter is that it takes at least that level of force to get the attention of the extremists on the Palestinian side. Yes, it sucks, and yes, innocent people die, and yes, it's unfair. But "proportional" is in the mind of the attacker, not the mind of the defender, and lobbing rockets tit-for-tat back into Palestine just isn't going to cut it.

    That said, I think Israel has a serious problem with its religious nutjob haredim population. They are the primary driver of the idiotic Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, and their extremism and growth as a political power is going to cause nothing but problems going forward. It's not impossible that they will get a political ruling majority in coming years, at which point any prospect of peace or a two state solution will be completely off the table.

    My preferred mechanism for dealing with the Israeli haredim extremists in the outer settlements is to finish building the wall on the 67 borders and cut them off from all support. Let them defend the land if they think they can. No government assistance.

    --
    Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com