Iron Dome Fake - A Massive Hoax - Missiles Blowing Up in the Air?

a reply to: glend

That is only one type of missile they have access to.

let the fools think it's fake. makes it even more effective.

The BBC seems to at least acknowledge the same doubts:

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
The BBC seems to at least acknowledge the same doubts:

so what? the liberals always said star wars would not work it's a point of ideological dogma to them. they said it didn't work even when it started working. they said it didn't work as the SM3 accumulated kill after kill. they said it didn't work when a modified SM3 took out a satellite. they are full of manure. always have been and always will be.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: kloejen

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) service features a news article titled, Iron Dome ineffective, says MIT scientist, July 23, 2014 6:18am. The expert states that the Iron Dome is ineffective and has about a 5% success rate.

The low casualty rate is due to an early warning system and a large number of bunkers. The US tax payers are funding this 225 Million dollar luxury item.

they are full of crap. period. end of story. I'd rather be right than so damned ideological that i believe the anti Israeli -hype to the point i disregard science. Since i know a great deal about counter RAM including several similar systems such as Patriot and THAAD and the SM3 i can tell you any claims that the iron dome is anything less than 90 percent effective is full of pig poop.

I wouldn't dispute your expertise, nevertheless here's another source,

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, by Theodore A. Postol (born 1946) Professor of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is a prominent critic of U.S. government statements about missile defense.

Analysis of photographs of contrails left by Iron Dome interceptor missiles can show whether or not an attempted rocket intercept could have been successful. Such analysis focuses on two connected facts: To have a realistic chance of destroying an artillery rocket's warhead, an Iron Dome interceptor must approach the rocket from the front—in fact, almost directly head-on. And for all practical purposes, an Iron Dome interceptor has no chance of destroying the warhead if the interceptor engages the rocket from the side or from the back.

Photographs of Iron Dome contrails indicate that most of the system's interceptors have either been chasing Hamas rockets from behind or engaging those rockets from the side. In both such cases, geometry and the speed of the interceptors and rockets make it extremely unlikely the interceptor will destroy the rocket's warhead.

In the absence of Israeli data backing claims of Iron Dome efficiency, and based on the unambiguous evidence I have reviewed, a conclusion seems clear: The Israeli government is not telling the truth about Iron Dome to its own population, or to the United States, which has provided the Israeli government with the bulk of the funding needed to design and build the much-heralded but apparently ineffective rocket-defense system.

a reply to: Gianfar

In the absence of Israeli data backing claims of Iron Dome efficiency, and based on the unambiguous evidence I have reviewed, a conclusion seems clear: The Israeli government is not telling the truth about Iron Dome to its own population, or to the United States, which has provided the Israeli government with the bulk of the funding needed to design and build the much-heralded but apparently ineffective rocket-defense system.

We don't have radar tracks to show the engagement in a real way and the odds of a military currently engaged just handing out those tapes that indicate their capabilities is about 0. The has UN gotten mad recently, thrown diplomatic tantrums and made big statements because Israel won't hand over technical data from what appears to be the most effective anti-missile interceptor system proven in combat to date. The US may have a good one too, but no one shot at US troops enough to test it like this.

The rockets are not stealthy. I hear no reporters, observers or UN people raising any serious question to the # sent North. The new system seems to work by the lack of damage from what went out. Almost no one in Israel was killed this time. Prior to Iron Dome, that was not the case. It's addition is the new factor.

It works, I would say.

a reply to: MrCynic

Right. The article I quoted said that Israeli officials held back the data from those doing another study based on photography. In logical terms, I would assume that any data that supports official claims of Iron Dome would be readily forthcoming. I'm somewhat of a cynic myself.

a reply to: Gianfar

Why would you assume Israel would make tactical data from a critical defense system they are using daily right now, available to anyone who wouldn't be trusted to keep it from the public and enemy knowledge?

Exposing the capabilities to defeat the big longer range rockets/missiles would be suicidal in stupidity while shooting is going on. Reports on the wire a few minutes ago said incoming rockets had come into Southern Israel by the way. The cease fire would appear to be over?

originally posted by: MrCynic
a reply to: Gianfar

Why would you assume Israel would make tactical data from a critical defense system they are using daily right now, available to anyone who wouldn't be trusted to keep it from the public and enemy knowledge?

Exposing the capabilities to defeat the big longer range rockets/missiles would be suicidal in stupidity while shooting is going on.

They already published that it was 90% effective. Only a gullible person would believe that. I would expect false data.

a reply to: Gianfar

Of course that is a false number. It's not 90% but it's a fair %. The U.S. lied like a Persian rug about intercept rates of Scud missiles in Gulf War I too. The real numbers eventually worked out, when the real numbers wouldn't encourage Iraq to fire more.

I don't go by Israel's word to see if Iron Dome works and I'm not going by people basing it all on the smoke trails from high speed engagements. A bullet hitting a bullet, or something like that. I'm looking at the damage Israel sustained before Iron Dome was developed compared to what they are losing now. The only real measure which matters anyway.

Unless Hamas is encouraging counter-battery fire into Gaza by shooting blanks? Then it would seem something is stopping a good % of the fire this time. I don't think God is involved, despite some Israeli troop's opinion. Someone finally made a system that works.

Israel has an advanced defense industry. It is one thing they do very well actually. They even have their own spy satellites in orbit. Watching them make a system which works for this isn't shocking. A bit surprising to see as the first but not shocking.

Israel did report that the qassam rocket was a psychological weapon with little possibility of harming anyone (because its a smoke bomb) so I guess you can look at iron dome as a very expensive psychological defensive weapon.

a reply to: glend

There is more than one rocket available to Hamas, as has been pointed out several times.

Gaza City (CNN) -- A brief period of calm in Gaza and southern Israel appeared in danger of coming to an end Friday as the Israeli military said rockets had broken the cease-fire amid no sign of a deal to extend the truce.

The 72-hour cease-fire expired at 8 a.m. Friday (1 a.m. ET). Roughly three hours before that, the Israel Defense Forces said two rockets fired from Gaza had hit southern Israel, without causing any casualties.

"Terrorists have violated the cease-fire," the IDF wrote on Twitter.

It wasn't immediately clear how Israel would respond. The IDF pulled its ground forces out of Gaza on Tuesday but said they were maintaining "defensive positions" around the territory.

"We are ready for the start of the battle again," the group's armed wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, said in a statement before the report of the rocket fire from Gaza

UPDATE

Number of rockets fired from Gaza are up to 5 now....

www.cnn.com...

There might be some point to it though.

Most anti-rocket defenses are intended to defend against guided munitions. It probably is less effective against unguided and wildly corksrewing rockets which aren't that far from being a glorified bottle rocket. Has to do with an erratically flying inbound being harder to track, and then because it's cheap, it's likely the numbers game is going to make it difficult. As fast and advanced a defense sentry gun may be, it's still going to have a problem if there's 100 rockets flying all at once.

Thing is, the smaller cheaper rockets likely don't have much more impact than a grenade. You're obviously not going to want to be outdoors, but if you're sheltered and taking cover in the interior of a building you'll probably be ok.

The iron dome missile will explode no mater if it hits or not.

In Vietnam and Libya when the US did airstrikes Vietnam and Libya did not have missiles with fail safe systems and both countries had there own weapons raining down on them.

Iron dome has fail safes that sets off the warhead after motor burnout if it drops below a set altitude.

originally posted by: pauljs75
There might be some point to it though.

Most anti-rocket defenses are intended to defend against guided munitions. It probably is less effective against unguided and wildly corksrewing rockets which aren't that far from being a glorified bottle rocket. Has to do with an erratically flying inbound being harder to track, and then because it's cheap, it's likely the numbers game is going to make it difficult. As fast and advanced a defense sentry gun may be, it's still going to have a problem if there's 100 rockets flying all at once.

Thing is, the smaller cheaper rockets likely don't have much more impact than a grenade. You're obviously not going to want to be outdoors, but if you're sheltered and taking cover in the interior of a building you'll probably be ok.

older radar tech did depend partially on a parabolic trajectory in order to place the tracking and verification beams but even with 1970's level equipment the raw data for some of the track of a erratic trajectory was sent to the signal processor. but the old algorithms would normally tell the signal processor to dump the data. never the less we still occasionally could track automatic gunfire and ricochettes for 50 caliber rounds or bouncing tank rounds or even helicopters that flew nape of the earth and popped upward to avoid an obstacle. In Bosnia we suppressed that sniper by sending helos to his location when we detected a few of his shots. the radar, trying to force a hyperbolic solution onto the round could not have been within CEP specs but it did give a grid close enough for the helos to scare him away.

the signal processing capabilities of older era equipment such as I used was limited. but now they have signal processing power to burn. Modern radars have no problem following a wildly maneuvering target any more. you see the track function is not a single beam its a a bracket of at least (during my time) 4 beams and the target will break at least one. and the radar will send out several cycles of those brackets before the comp decides to break the tracking function off as a false track.

by the time i left the trade our radars could track 250 RAM rounds at the same exact time and that was just with software changes and a few circuit card upgrades and that was a decade ago.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
The BBC seems to at least acknowledge the same doubts:

so what? the liberals always said star wars would not work it's a point of ideological dogma to them. they said it didn't work even when it started working. they said it didn't work as the SM3 accumulated kill after kill. they said it didn't work when a modified SM3 took out a satellite. they are full of manure. always have been and always will be.

Whoa there cowboy, I'm not taking sides. Chill out with the partisan rant.

I take all news sources with a grain of salt, and BBC I know very well have a slant on things.

Israel could quite easily do a demonstration with a tracer'd Qassam and show how their stuff is for real.

originally posted by: MrCynic
a reply to: Gianfar

In the absence of Israeli data backing claims of Iron Dome efficiency, and based on the unambiguous evidence I have reviewed, a conclusion seems clear: The Israeli government is not telling the truth about Iron Dome to its own population, or to the United States, which has provided the Israeli government with the bulk of the funding needed to design and build the much-heralded but apparently ineffective rocket-defense system.

We don't have radar tracks to show the engagement in a real way and the odds of a military currently engaged just handing out those tapes that indicate their capabilities is about 0. The has UN gotten mad recently, thrown diplomatic tantrums and made big statements because Israel won't hand over technical data from what appears to be the most effective anti-missile interceptor system proven in combat to date. The US may have a good one too, but no one shot at US troops enough to test it like this.

The rockets are not stealthy. I hear no reporters, observers or UN people raising any serious question to the # sent North. The new system seems to work by the lack of damage from what went out. Almost no one in Israel was killed this time. Prior to Iron Dome, that was not the case. It's addition is the new factor.

It works, I would say.

The analysis points to the early warning system as the determining factor in saving lives. Its as new as the missile system

why isn't this thread in hoax yet?

US sent fake replacements, ya right.

This site is losing credibility, needs more oversight by the owners.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
why isn't this thread in hoax yet?

US sent fake replacements, ya right.

This site is losing credibility, needs more oversight by the owners.

I agree but I believe the ? in the title prevents it from being a statement.

I've been told mods can't be everywhere but one has posted on this very thread so it must be sustainable by title alone.