Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: U.S. Army Buys Iron Dome
SYSOP    11/18/2014 5:33:46 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
keffler25       11/18/2014 11:38:24 AM
Eureka! Somebody in the American army finally figured out that there was a [cough "Israeli' cough] SAM system for battlefield mobile defense that lies somewhere between STINGER and PATRIOT that works. 
 
NASAMS is the other 'foreign' missile system that the US Army has purchased.   
 
 
Quote    Reply

Stephen in New York       11/18/2014 3:31:36 PM
Tamir is derived from Israeli air-to-air dogfight missiles and the end games seen in videos of Iron Dome interceptions show this.  Postol of MIT views the same videos and concludes ID failure, thinking he's watching the Tamirs missing their targets and self-destructing.  But Tamir intercepts.
 
Quote    Reply

Blacktail       11/20/2014 8:24:55 AM
The Iron Dome would be awesome for the US Army, but I'm not holding-out much hope for it. Remember all that song and dance about SHORAD weapons in the 1980s? In spite of trialing the Roland, Crotale, and ADATS in exactly the same manner, the Army ended up killing all of these programs the way they kill programs best --- by ceasing all mention of them, and slowly starving them of funding. After that, the Army purged their entire inventory of the Chaparral, Hawk, VADS, and 40mm Bofors in the 1990s, all without replacement. Even the M6 Linebacker --- though it's weapons and sensors were completely ill-suited for SHORAD use --- was thrown away, on the logic that the US military hasn't been bombed lately. That same logic would have cities disband their fire departments after a few years of no fires. They get rid of a lot of politically unfavorable programs this way. Remember when they procured small lots of the DM 11 HE round and the M329 APAM round for testing in the M1A1/A2 Abrams in the mid-2000s? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan made it impossible for the US Army to refuse to evaluate them, but they knew that if they pretended to do so long enough, Congress would forget about them. Again, straight to the oubliette.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       11/20/2014 8:41:47 AM
You seem to list systems that were discarded because of some perceived notion of 'politics'.
 
The systems you listed did not work to the desired performance levels (or were French--> which was actually political, but at the time was a justifiable decision as the US and France were frenemies and could or would not permit host nation production of aforesaid French systems or at the time were involved in some other disagreement that prevented acquisition.).
 
Portable rocket launchers and mortars are cheaper (tactically and logistically) than HE bunker buster shells fired from tanks.
 
Tanks kill tanks is a sound doctrine, plus smooth bore cannon and sabot high explosive shells = inaccurate at extended ranges.     

After that, the Army purged their entire inventory of the Chaparral, Hawk, VADS, and 40mm Bofors in the 1990s, all without replacement. Even the M6 Linebacker --- though it's weapons and sensors were completely ill-suited for SHORAD use --- was thrown away, on the logic that the US military hasn't been bombed lately. That same logic would have cities disband their fire departments after a few years of no fires.
They get rid of a lot of politically unfavorable programs this way. Remember when they procured small lots of the DM 11 HE round and the M329 APAM round for testing in the M1A1/A2 Abrams in the mid-2000s? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan made it impossible for the US Army to refuse to evaluate them, but they knew that if they pretended to do so long enough, Congress would forget about them. Again, straight to the oubliette.

 
Quote    Reply

Nate Dog    Iron Dome aside   11/20/2014 8:04:43 PM
Why is Tanks kill Tanks a sound doctrine?
That sounds like planes kill planes.
Wouldn't you rather your tanks were out there conquering territory, advancing and leap frogging enemy positions and doing a combination of blitzkrieg and infantry fire support?
Why not leave killing tanks to the experts, as in, A-10's and Apaches and get on with the conquest? 
 
As for Iron Dome, it's be useful for US army if it and its various components (C&C, radar) were mounted on trucks and could be easily deployed from base to base. I think (but not sure) that all Iron Dome components are mounted in containers? If thats the case then its a useful weapons system. If thats not the case, then no one outside of Israel can really use it. 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/21/2014 12:06:40 AM
Why is Tanks kill Tanks a sound doctrine?
That sounds like planes kill planes.
Wouldn't you rather your tanks were out there conquering territory, advancing and leap frogging enemy positions and doing a combination of blitzkrieg and infantry fire support?
Why not leave killing tanks to the experts, as in, A-10's and Apaches and get on with the conquest? 
You might want to look again at the record.  Aircraft didn’t do too well dealing with tanks in Kosovo War (actual tanks destroyed were 3% of claimed) and against the Iraqi Republican Guard.  Aircraft are too susceptible to the use of camouflage, decoys, and other deceptions.  They are also useless in inclement weather, and seriously degraded in contested air space or active air defense zones.  Aircraft are not experts at tank killing.  Ground units are needed, aircraft just provide an assist.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       11/21/2014 12:14:35 AM

Why is Tanks kill Tanks a sound doctrine?

Simple. Tanks hunt each other first. Once the enemy armor is out of the way, the friendly tanks do the infantry support thing. The thing that disguises this practical application of tanks is that in order for tanks to go hunting, they need friendly infantry and air bodyguards to protect them from the most efficient tank killers out there... well trained enemy infantry. Hence the combined arms mantra that all armies preach but few armies practice.

That sounds like planes kill planes.

Exactly. But I would say your friendly air force kills the enemy air force first, and then it does the infantry and tank support thing. (Combined arms again.)

Wouldn't you rather your tanks were out there conquering territory, advancing and leap frogging enemy positions and doing a combination of blitzkrieg and infantry fire support?

Tanks properly can't conquer territory without a lot of protection (infantry and air cover).

Why not leave killing tanks to the experts, as in, A-10's and Apaches and get on with the conquest? 

  1. Because AAA and enemy air power interfere with the kind of slow and close attack runs that helicopters and A-10s have to practice for cannon and missile kills.

  2. . PGM munitions in the Iraq wars near missed T-72s by as little as 3 meters. The blast was enough to kill the tank crew, but the tank was still usable. Bombing is no guarantee that a tank will be wrecked. You have no doubt when you see a T-72's turret fly off after a sabot round lights off the ammunition carousel at the bottom of the fighting compartment. Thermal image through a M-1's gunsight can be filmed for a BDA.

  3. Because aircraft and helicopters are transitory platforms that do not have a permanent controlling presence that a piece of mobile armored artillery designed to kill its opposite has.

  4. Because a tank can fight in a sandstorm or blizzard or a typhoon. Just as long as it can roll and shoot it is persistent and immediate. You have to call in for artillery a helicopter or airstrike. You can get dead in a hurry waiting for the fire or bomb mission to arrive or the weather to clear. Mister Tank is right next to you and all you have to do is pick up the phone on the fender... 

As for Iron Dome, it's be useful for US army if it and its various components (C&C, radar) were mounted on trucks and could be easily deployed from base to base. I think (but not sure) that all Iron Dome components are mounted in containers? If thats the case then its a useful weapons system. If thats not the case, then no one outside of Israel can really use it.

Iron Dome has canister missiles, truck mounted radar and a battle management center that is carried in vans or shipping containers. It is entirely mobile. It is eminently suitable for containerized movement. I would go so far as to say it could be a good fit for an expeditionary force as such a modular system could be added as a bolt on to STUFT shipping and used both afloat and ashore.

Previously the Americans were looking at something like a Phalanx or a particle beam weapon as a base defense, but Iron Dome manages to cover a larger radial defense zone foot print more cheaply and with a beter intercept change in mid-phase than either descent phase American system.



 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics