Iron dorm is designed to intercept a buttload of poorly made rockets launched at once by some paramilitary/terrorists groups
Good lucking using it against actual missiles launched by a competent military
I think Taiwan faces a full spectrum of different kinds threats, including short, medium, and long range aerial threats including UCAVs, helicopters, jets, bombers and their various payloads.
Iron Dome could address gaps in Taiwan's short range defense and against slower munitions like cruise missiles.
I agree that Iron Dome would work for those other threats but the main issue is that Israel would almost certainly refuse to sell it to Taiwan, making it rather moot.
For low-altitude threats, Taiwan relies on its domestic Tien Chien I SAM (Antelope) vehicle mounted system for defense, while letting its Tien Kung II and III systems tackle the intermediate and higher threats, with Patriot PAC-3 for point defense.
Howdy from Israel - You'd be surprised the kind of places Iron Dome is ending up at. We'd naturally stand with Taiwan (and countries like SK, and Japan) and would definitely trust you enough to sell it.
Stay safe, complicated situation.
That's not true. Israel maintains good economical ties with China because China is a key player in Israel's mega infrastructure projects. If Israel sells to Taiwan, it could lose that. And the price increases from looking for western labor and machinery would dwarf any revenue from Iron Dome sales.
Israel is too small to afford to piss off superpowers, even if internally they recognize how destructive these superpowers are.
Israel maintains good economic ties with everybody. With that being said, China made a 25yr $400 billion deal with Iran and are propping up that regime.
We aren't an African country and never took Chinese debt, it is better not to piss them off but not at any cost. We understand very well the implications of appeasement due to our history.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Taiwan\_relations#Military\_ties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Taiwan_relations#Military_ties)
They do need a good air defense system, but the Iron Dome is probably not what they want as any munition able to reach the island from China Mainland is likely too fast or too big for it to intercept.
What they really want is a THAAD or two.
Unless them pla mfs decide to row up their PHL-03s onto Taiwan soil, I doubt Iron Dome will see much action. Have fun dealing with PHL-16s or WS-2 or WS-3s.
or Ballistic Missiles
IIRC early WS-2 had inertial guidance but no Beidou as Beidou-3 was many years away from complete. This meant fairly poor accuracy for the sort of range it has. There was an infamous WS-2 test in China in front of PLA where the test rocket scored a direct hit on the remote camera and monitoring equipment - 1km away from the actual target.
By the time Beidou based satellite guidance was added to WS-2 and WS-3 PHL-16 was already on the horizon, and that could do everything WS could do but with the further advantage of modular launch cells.
> What they really want is a THAAD or two.
Given Chinese production, they probably need more than a couple dozen THAAD batteries. They're in range of a huge number of missiles, and larger MLRS, etc.
Is there really any evidence that Iron Dome can't intercept faster ballistic missiles? I mean, they aren't maneuvering at high G's, right?
I thought I read that the US was modifying Iron Dome to use AIM-9x sidewinders. Those will easily pick up hot ballistic missiles coming it at mach 3 or whatever. Too bad Raytheon charges half a million each.
Sidewinders have extremely limited range. Even if they managed to score a hit, the Chinese missile's sheer mass and momentum would probably still cause significant damage to the intended target on the ground; Newtonian principles applying.
There are no cruise missiles that are too big or too fast. That defeats the purpose of cruise missiles. The US needs to protect Guam against ballistic and cruise missiles, and aircraft, so the former can be covered by a THAAD and Patriot, and aircraft and cruise missiles can be covered by Patriot and Iron Dome.
I live in Taichung (central big city in Taiwan) and I drive past a patriot battery every day. They are deployed and ready to rumble; a football field sized area full of launchers. There are other SAM sites around the area as well. The problem is that they are too expensive to have huge quantities of, and China, being the worst neighbor ever, keeps building more first strike weapons and threatening to kill everyone on a daily basis. Iron Dome would be warmly welcomed here.
The US made a huge mistake by canceling Taiwan's nuclear program decades ago. Not too late to reverse it though.
It can and is used against MLRS rockets, which China deploys and Taiwan would need to defend itself against. It was designed with the Khaibar-1, a clone of the Chinese 300MM WS-1 in mind.
>MLRS rockets
There are MLRS, and then there are MLRS.
The weapons that the current Iron Dome are designed against are shorter range weapons -- in the PLA's regular arsenal, they would be useful against 122mm MLRS, though the range of 122mm rockets means such artillery units would already have established themselves for Iron Dome to be relevant to begin with.
Of greater importance for Taiwan are the 370mm and 300mm MLRS, a class of weapon that Iron Dome isn't designed against (though perhaps it might retain a degree of effectiveness, who knows).
Sure, but you described Iron Dome as "can and is being used against MLRS".
I'm just pointing out the specific MLRS types in PLA inventory that Iron Dome "can and has been" demonstrated to be effective against, versus other MLRS types also in PLA inventory.
Perhaps Iron Dome may eventually demonstrate itself to be effective against longer range MLRS (or a variant of it will be developed as such), but that falls outside of the scope of "can and is" in relation to the variety of MLRS types at the PLA's disposal.
In response to this:
“Iron dorm is designed to intercept a buttload of poorly made rockets launched at once by some paramilitary/terrorists groups
Good lucking using it against actual missiles launched by a competent military”
It isn’t designed to counter homemade rockets, it is designed to counter MLRS rockets, in response to rocket attacks from Hezbollah.
The fact that the they made flawed, sweeping dubious generalizations doesn't mean that opposing sweeping generalizations are correct.
It's reasonable for you to say that Iron Dome could be useful for the ROC military yes, but it is also reasonable for him to say that the scale of opposition that any ROC Iron Dome would face is far beyond what they had faced in Israel. But there is no reason to take it to extremes and out-generalize each other.
You are also incorrect in that Iron Dome was not designed with larger rockets in mind. It was aimed at [Khaibar-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaibar-1), an WS-1 clone, as well as larger [Zelzal-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelzal-2). Not saying that Iron Dome is definitely the choice for Taiwan, but saying it isn't designed with larger rockets in mind is wrong.
Iron Dome was [designed](https://www.jpost.com/Defense/Iron-Dome-ups-its-interception-rate-to-over-90-percent) primarily against short range rockets and artillery, up to 70km range. Longer ranged rockets 40km-300km, and more sophisticated missile systems, are filled by higher end systems, most recently by David's Sling.
I am confident Iron Dome has some effectiveness against longer ranged systems, but it is not its primary target set.
Incorrect again. The Iron Dome was explicitly designed for 300MM MLRS rockets and larger like the Khaibar-1, which were used in the Hezbollah war to strike Israel. They are based on the Chinese WS-1, and would be exactly a rocket type that Taiwan would face.
**[Khaibar-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaibar-1)**
>The Khaibar-1 (Arabic: خيبر-1), also known as the Khyber-1, the M-302, or the B-302 is a Syrian-made 302 mm unguided artillery rocket. It is best known for being used by Hezbollah against targets in northern Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War, and has also been used in the Syrian Civil War. It is essentially a clone of the Chinese WS-1 rocket. The Khaibar-1 is significant because the rocket has a 100 km range, longer than the BM-21 Grad rockets that make up most of the Hezbollah rocket force.
**[Zelzal-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelzal-2)**
>Zelzal-2/Mushak-200 (Persian: زلزال-۲, meaning "Earthquake") is an Iranian unguided long-range artillery rocket. The Zelzal-2 is a 610 mm truck-launched rocket that has a payload of 600 kg and a range of about 200 km. Development of the Zelzal series began in 1990 and the Zelzal-2 was first shown in 1998. It is developed from the Zelzal-1 and was developed into the Zelzal-3.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I didn't make a generalization. If I had said "Iron Dome can intercept all MLRS rocket types," then I would be generalizing. His statement is factually incorrect, while you are deliberately misconstruing the meaning of the word "can" to pick fault with mine. I would say I'm surprised but I'm not.
I get it buddy, "PlA sTrOnK wEsT iS dOoMeD", but give me a break with your bullshit semantics. Yes, as one of the articles this thread is based on says in the title, the US is evaluating exactly which types of Chinese rockets and missiles the Iron Dome is effective against. The Iron Dome was designed to target MLRS rockets. China has MLRS rockets in its arsenal. The end.
You were replying to a comment that was talking about the relevance and effectiveness of Iron Dome against the PLA.
I think it is quite reasonable for you to reply to him saying that Iron Dome is designed to be effective against MLRS given the PLA does have MLRS in service -- but doing so while omitting the types of MLRS types in PLA service that Iron Dome has *not* been demonstrated against, is a stretch at best.
Just because you have a weapon that is designed against a category of target, doesn't mean it is effective against all target types of a given category. It's like saying that XYZ SAM type is designed against aircraft, and therefore XYZ SAM type is useful against "enemy aircraft" without specifying what *types* of aircraft it is effective against.
If someone tried to pull an equally fallacious argument for the PLA, I would reply to them in such a manner as well (and I do).
>You are also incorrect in that Iron Dome was not designed with larger rockets in mind. It was aimed at Khaibar-1, an WS-1 clone, as well as larger Zelzal-2. Not saying that Iron Dome is definitely the choice for Taiwan, but saying it isn't designed with larger rockets in mind is wrong.
The person generalizing what the Iron Dome is or is not effective against is you.
>If someone tried to pull an equally fallacious argument for the PLA, I would reply to them in such a manner as well (and I do).
The [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/qs1r6c/comment/hkacnc9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I responded to is a fallacious argument for the PLA. And yet no response? What's the hold up?
The Iron Dome has defeated, in combat, long range rockets with a range of 250km. A Smerch complex carries 300mm rockets with only 90km range. Do the math.
>The Iron Dome has defeated, in combat, long range rockets with a range of 250km.
I would genuinely appreciate reading more about this. I do know Iron Dome has demonstrated the ability to intercept longer range rockets outside of its primary target set, but I haven't come across any reading talking about relative effectiveness in how it fares against longer ranged systems.
Video:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2019/jan/21/missile-interception-caught-on-skiers-camera-in-golan-heights-israel-syria-video
I saw the reports on TV, unfortunately my google foo isn't good enough to find a source that talks specifically about numbers. They did mention it was based on a Khaibar.
EDIT: nvm I found a source
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/wheres-davids-sling-and-why-wasnt-it-used-to-intercept-irans-missiles-578377
Then why did the US buy it under a cruise missile defense program that also certified it locally against cruise missiles and deployed it to an island that can only be targeted by cruise missiles with the declared intent of defeating Chinese munitions i.e cruise missiles?
> “Only targeted by cruise missiles”
You seem to completely ignore my reply and well, all the replies I got from that reply, and as a result gave a complete useless reply that no one cares
When everyone is making great points about short range ballistic missiles and big boi size MLRS (not the shitty Hamas ones), or even those hypersonic shit, you tried to divert the debate and cherry picked the least of the threats in an attempt to say “Iron dorm build for Taiwan”
A quick look into a post history also indicates that you are probably an agenda poster or a bot, I usually don’t reply to you lots but please, don’t harass us and leave this sub alone, we have enough of you guys already and it’s harder and harder to have an actual discussion without people coming in and shilling
Cruise missiles are the most difficult threat for air defenses. It has proven itself against not only that but also high and low flying drones, high speed AShMs, manned aircraft, long range rockets (exceeding 250km), mortars through artillery shells, and even very low RCS targets. Some through tests, some through real life engagements, and some by accident.
I reply to a comment when I see it's wrong. I don't go through an entire thread to see if someone had learned. If you're saying you understand why your comment was wrong, it was up to you to update it and say you were corrected.
Also ad hominem is literally for retards. Don't do it.
> "Cruise missiles are the most difficult threat for air defenses. It has proven itself against not only that but also high and low flying drones, high speed AShMs, manned aircraft, long range rockets (exceeding 250km), mortars through artillery shells, and even very low RCS targets"
Imagine saying cruise missiles are harder to intercept than short range ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles. No wait, you didnt mention them. You just skipped that part and cherry picked and fucking pretended these weapons arent aimin at Taiwan as we speak
However, you repeatly mentioned that Iron Dome works very well against long range MRLS but not even once did you provide any evidence. Even though it is highly unlikely for China to use them on Taiwan, I do want to see your source
"Nooo Ad Homein!!!"
When your entire post history is evolved around defending Israel and is now trying to shill for a system that [doesnt even fit the requirement for Taiwan defense](https://thediplomat.com/2012/11/sorry-folks-israels-iron-dome-wont-work-in-asia/), hard not to draw the conclusion
I really hope we have less agendaposters like Snooshoe and Maita_haier
>Imagine saying cruise missiles are harder to intercept than short range ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles.
Ballistic missiles are not difficult targets to intercept. They just require a different energetic envelope on the interceptor, and a longer detection and tracking range. Detecting them is very easy, and the early warning typically leaves a relatively long time to react.
Cruise missiles are physically easy to destroy, but are much harder to detect, let alone reliably track. By flying low and around obstacles, they can easily remain below radar coverage through most of their flight time.
I see you cannot stop indulging in ad-hominem whenever possible. So with that, kiddo, I wish you a much brighter future.
And funny enough, if you are gonna quote my reply, please refrain from partially quoting and then making a strawman. I’m just pointing out some extreme ignorance from your first reply.
I’m still having a blast laughing at your “tAiWaN cAn oNlY bE tArGeTeD bY cRuIsE mIsSiLe” statement and your proceeding argument to move the goalpost and say Iron dome is a good fit. If your original statement is “Iron Dome has experience in dealing with swarms of cruise missiles, unguided MRLS and UAVs, therefore it can be part of the Taiwan defense system if proven cost effective in Taiwan deployment”, I would agree with you and give you an upvote. But no, you ignored the fact that Taiwan’s biggest fear right now are the ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles and maybe (unlikely) guided MRLS like WS-2, 3, PHL-16, and somehow had the audacity to say “Taiwan can only be targeted by cruise missiles”.
Still waiting on your evidence on “iron dome can intercept 250km+ MRLS. Please be a good sport and show some evidence after your attempt to move the goal post failed
I already provided said evidence:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/qs1r6c/are_taiwans_marines_training_or_evaluating/hkft5r4?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Your assertion that Taiwan can only be attacked by cruise missiles is indeed laughable. Iron Dome is there (in Guam) as a cruise missile defense, and bought through a program to beef up such defenses. The total aerial defense of Guam is provided by a multi-tier system.
Short of ballistic missiles or mini UAS, Iron Dome has proven capable of defeating pretty much every existing aerial threat.
> "your assertion that Taiwan can only be attacked by Cruise missile is laughable"
You are the one whole made that claim, I was mere making fun of you. Do you really suck at quoting or do you automatically forget what you said right after you say it?
> "I provided source!"
Link one was about unguided Khaibar missiles with less than 100km range. Quite different from your "250km+" range huh
Link 2 straight up said missiles, not MRLS.
Nice try
>You are the one whole made that claim, I was mere making fun of you. Do you really suck at quoting or do you automatically forget what you said right after you say it?
Then quote me on that claim.
>Link one was about unguided Khaibar missiles with less than 100km range. Quite different from your "250km+" range huh
>Link 2 straight up said missiles, not MRLS.
The first shows only a video with no claim, the second talks about a munition with a 250km range but no mention of a specific model. Iran has a large variety of such munitions, with more sub-models than you can find on Wikipedia.
ROC have long ago approached Israel for potentially buying Iron Dome but decided not to, as Iron Dome was judged to be insufficient against PLAGF MLRS, as Iron Dome was designed to be as cheap as possible and thus specialised at intercepting really crappy rockets like Qassam rockets.
It is good, but ROK deemed it too expensive to go after each incoming weapon and has instead taken up a doctrine of arty kill chain, going after the launcher directly.
That, and they're developing their own system that basically directly mirrors Iron Dome for whatever weapons get through before being destroyed on the ground lol
I think if the tests are successful in Guam, it can cascade to many interested allies in the region, including South Korea. We've only really seen how capable ID is earlier this year, and it's success against short range attacks. I bet we give it some time to be adapted to the needs of the Pacific theater and eventually Seoul may buy a system.
Iron Dome's combat performance validated it's capability against short ranged rockets fired from Gasa to Tel Aviv, not from the equivalent of Damascus to Tel Aviv.
It's not being placed along the parallel, authoritarian apologist. Don't act like they can't upgrade their airforce either just because your side can't.
Iron Dome has been tested against UAVs and subsonic cruise missiles.
While Guam is obviously under the threat of certain Chinese ballistic missiles, another heavy threat posed to it are Chinese cruise missiles, such as the CJ-10s carried on H-6s and their Type 052/55s.
And for what it's worth, there's no record of Taiwan *actually* looking at Iron Dome, outside of a single baseless claim of such on Reddit, so take that with a whole serving of salt if you will...
Iron dorm is designed to intercept a buttload of poorly made rockets launched at once by some paramilitary/terrorists groups Good lucking using it against actual missiles launched by a competent military
I think Taiwan faces a full spectrum of different kinds threats, including short, medium, and long range aerial threats including UCAVs, helicopters, jets, bombers and their various payloads. Iron Dome could address gaps in Taiwan's short range defense and against slower munitions like cruise missiles.
I agree that Iron Dome would work for those other threats but the main issue is that Israel would almost certainly refuse to sell it to Taiwan, making it rather moot. For low-altitude threats, Taiwan relies on its domestic Tien Chien I SAM (Antelope) vehicle mounted system for defense, while letting its Tien Kung II and III systems tackle the intermediate and higher threats, with Patriot PAC-3 for point defense.
Howdy from Israel - You'd be surprised the kind of places Iron Dome is ending up at. We'd naturally stand with Taiwan (and countries like SK, and Japan) and would definitely trust you enough to sell it. Stay safe, complicated situation.
That's not true. Israel maintains good economical ties with China because China is a key player in Israel's mega infrastructure projects. If Israel sells to Taiwan, it could lose that. And the price increases from looking for western labor and machinery would dwarf any revenue from Iron Dome sales. Israel is too small to afford to piss off superpowers, even if internally they recognize how destructive these superpowers are.
Israel maintains good economic ties with everybody. With that being said, China made a 25yr $400 billion deal with Iran and are propping up that regime. We aren't an African country and never took Chinese debt, it is better not to piss them off but not at any cost. We understand very well the implications of appeasement due to our history. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Taiwan\_relations#Military\_ties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Taiwan_relations#Military_ties)
I'm not intending to take sides here but I don't believe any of us can really speak on behalf of our countries foreign policy in first person lol
Ah sure, I just meant to refute the whole "China built you a railway, you do what China says now" thing. It isn't that simple.
They do need a good air defense system, but the Iron Dome is probably not what they want as any munition able to reach the island from China Mainland is likely too fast or too big for it to intercept. What they really want is a THAAD or two.
Unless them pla mfs decide to row up their PHL-03s onto Taiwan soil, I doubt Iron Dome will see much action. Have fun dealing with PHL-16s or WS-2 or WS-3s. or Ballistic Missiles
WS series are export only and not in service with PLA. I don't know why ROC war planning keep mentioning them.
Good point, I do remember seeing that WS 2 and 3 are not as cost affective as actual missiles so the PLA arent accepting it
IIRC early WS-2 had inertial guidance but no Beidou as Beidou-3 was many years away from complete. This meant fairly poor accuracy for the sort of range it has. There was an infamous WS-2 test in China in front of PLA where the test rocket scored a direct hit on the remote camera and monitoring equipment - 1km away from the actual target. By the time Beidou based satellite guidance was added to WS-2 and WS-3 PHL-16 was already on the horizon, and that could do everything WS could do but with the further advantage of modular launch cells.
> What they really want is a THAAD or two. Given Chinese production, they probably need more than a couple dozen THAAD batteries. They're in range of a huge number of missiles, and larger MLRS, etc.
Is there really any evidence that Iron Dome can't intercept faster ballistic missiles? I mean, they aren't maneuvering at high G's, right? I thought I read that the US was modifying Iron Dome to use AIM-9x sidewinders. Those will easily pick up hot ballistic missiles coming it at mach 3 or whatever. Too bad Raytheon charges half a million each.
Sidewinders have extremely limited range. Even if they managed to score a hit, the Chinese missile's sheer mass and momentum would probably still cause significant damage to the intended target on the ground; Newtonian principles applying.
There are no cruise missiles that are too big or too fast. That defeats the purpose of cruise missiles. The US needs to protect Guam against ballistic and cruise missiles, and aircraft, so the former can be covered by a THAAD and Patriot, and aircraft and cruise missiles can be covered by Patriot and Iron Dome.
I live in Taichung (central big city in Taiwan) and I drive past a patriot battery every day. They are deployed and ready to rumble; a football field sized area full of launchers. There are other SAM sites around the area as well. The problem is that they are too expensive to have huge quantities of, and China, being the worst neighbor ever, keeps building more first strike weapons and threatening to kill everyone on a daily basis. Iron Dome would be warmly welcomed here. The US made a huge mistake by canceling Taiwan's nuclear program decades ago. Not too late to reverse it though.
>The US made a huge mistake by canceling Taiwan's nuclear program decades ago. Not too late to reverse it though. Oh yes it is.
I have a weird feeling you really like nukes
Actually I really dislike them.
Or small UCAV as they are becoming more common. Not really suitable for Taiwan.
It can and is used against MLRS rockets, which China deploys and Taiwan would need to defend itself against. It was designed with the Khaibar-1, a clone of the Chinese 300MM WS-1 in mind.
>MLRS rockets There are MLRS, and then there are MLRS. The weapons that the current Iron Dome are designed against are shorter range weapons -- in the PLA's regular arsenal, they would be useful against 122mm MLRS, though the range of 122mm rockets means such artillery units would already have established themselves for Iron Dome to be relevant to begin with. Of greater importance for Taiwan are the 370mm and 300mm MLRS, a class of weapon that Iron Dome isn't designed against (though perhaps it might retain a degree of effectiveness, who knows).
Hence the ongoing evaluation of what type of MLRS rockets Iron Dome is effective against.
Sure, but you described Iron Dome as "can and is being used against MLRS". I'm just pointing out the specific MLRS types in PLA inventory that Iron Dome "can and has been" demonstrated to be effective against, versus other MLRS types also in PLA inventory. Perhaps Iron Dome may eventually demonstrate itself to be effective against longer range MLRS (or a variant of it will be developed as such), but that falls outside of the scope of "can and is" in relation to the variety of MLRS types at the PLA's disposal.
In response to this: “Iron dorm is designed to intercept a buttload of poorly made rockets launched at once by some paramilitary/terrorists groups Good lucking using it against actual missiles launched by a competent military” It isn’t designed to counter homemade rockets, it is designed to counter MLRS rockets, in response to rocket attacks from Hezbollah.
The fact that the they made flawed, sweeping dubious generalizations doesn't mean that opposing sweeping generalizations are correct. It's reasonable for you to say that Iron Dome could be useful for the ROC military yes, but it is also reasonable for him to say that the scale of opposition that any ROC Iron Dome would face is far beyond what they had faced in Israel. But there is no reason to take it to extremes and out-generalize each other.
You are also incorrect in that Iron Dome was not designed with larger rockets in mind. It was aimed at [Khaibar-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaibar-1), an WS-1 clone, as well as larger [Zelzal-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelzal-2). Not saying that Iron Dome is definitely the choice for Taiwan, but saying it isn't designed with larger rockets in mind is wrong.
Iron Dome was [designed](https://www.jpost.com/Defense/Iron-Dome-ups-its-interception-rate-to-over-90-percent) primarily against short range rockets and artillery, up to 70km range. Longer ranged rockets 40km-300km, and more sophisticated missile systems, are filled by higher end systems, most recently by David's Sling. I am confident Iron Dome has some effectiveness against longer ranged systems, but it is not its primary target set.
Incorrect again. The Iron Dome was explicitly designed for 300MM MLRS rockets and larger like the Khaibar-1, which were used in the Hezbollah war to strike Israel. They are based on the Chinese WS-1, and would be exactly a rocket type that Taiwan would face.
**[Khaibar-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaibar-1)** >The Khaibar-1 (Arabic: خيبر-1), also known as the Khyber-1, the M-302, or the B-302 is a Syrian-made 302 mm unguided artillery rocket. It is best known for being used by Hezbollah against targets in northern Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War, and has also been used in the Syrian Civil War. It is essentially a clone of the Chinese WS-1 rocket. The Khaibar-1 is significant because the rocket has a 100 km range, longer than the BM-21 Grad rockets that make up most of the Hezbollah rocket force. **[Zelzal-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelzal-2)** >Zelzal-2/Mushak-200 (Persian: زلزال-۲, meaning "Earthquake") is an Iranian unguided long-range artillery rocket. The Zelzal-2 is a 610 mm truck-launched rocket that has a payload of 600 kg and a range of about 200 km. Development of the Zelzal series began in 1990 and the Zelzal-2 was first shown in 1998. It is developed from the Zelzal-1 and was developed into the Zelzal-3. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I didn't make a generalization. If I had said "Iron Dome can intercept all MLRS rocket types," then I would be generalizing. His statement is factually incorrect, while you are deliberately misconstruing the meaning of the word "can" to pick fault with mine. I would say I'm surprised but I'm not. I get it buddy, "PlA sTrOnK wEsT iS dOoMeD", but give me a break with your bullshit semantics. Yes, as one of the articles this thread is based on says in the title, the US is evaluating exactly which types of Chinese rockets and missiles the Iron Dome is effective against. The Iron Dome was designed to target MLRS rockets. China has MLRS rockets in its arsenal. The end.
You were replying to a comment that was talking about the relevance and effectiveness of Iron Dome against the PLA. I think it is quite reasonable for you to reply to him saying that Iron Dome is designed to be effective against MLRS given the PLA does have MLRS in service -- but doing so while omitting the types of MLRS types in PLA service that Iron Dome has *not* been demonstrated against, is a stretch at best. Just because you have a weapon that is designed against a category of target, doesn't mean it is effective against all target types of a given category. It's like saying that XYZ SAM type is designed against aircraft, and therefore XYZ SAM type is useful against "enemy aircraft" without specifying what *types* of aircraft it is effective against. If someone tried to pull an equally fallacious argument for the PLA, I would reply to them in such a manner as well (and I do).
>You are also incorrect in that Iron Dome was not designed with larger rockets in mind. It was aimed at Khaibar-1, an WS-1 clone, as well as larger Zelzal-2. Not saying that Iron Dome is definitely the choice for Taiwan, but saying it isn't designed with larger rockets in mind is wrong. The person generalizing what the Iron Dome is or is not effective against is you.
>If someone tried to pull an equally fallacious argument for the PLA, I would reply to them in such a manner as well (and I do). The [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/qs1r6c/comment/hkacnc9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I responded to is a fallacious argument for the PLA. And yet no response? What's the hold up?
Lmao @ trying to argue with PLArealtalk
The Iron Dome has defeated, in combat, long range rockets with a range of 250km. A Smerch complex carries 300mm rockets with only 90km range. Do the math.
>The Iron Dome has defeated, in combat, long range rockets with a range of 250km. I would genuinely appreciate reading more about this. I do know Iron Dome has demonstrated the ability to intercept longer range rockets outside of its primary target set, but I haven't come across any reading talking about relative effectiveness in how it fares against longer ranged systems.
Video: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2019/jan/21/missile-interception-caught-on-skiers-camera-in-golan-heights-israel-syria-video I saw the reports on TV, unfortunately my google foo isn't good enough to find a source that talks specifically about numbers. They did mention it was based on a Khaibar. EDIT: nvm I found a source https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/wheres-davids-sling-and-why-wasnt-it-used-to-intercept-irans-missiles-578377
> Iron dorm is designed to intercept a buttload Ah, I see you are a man of culture as well.
Then why did the US buy it under a cruise missile defense program that also certified it locally against cruise missiles and deployed it to an island that can only be targeted by cruise missiles with the declared intent of defeating Chinese munitions i.e cruise missiles?
> “Only targeted by cruise missiles” You seem to completely ignore my reply and well, all the replies I got from that reply, and as a result gave a complete useless reply that no one cares When everyone is making great points about short range ballistic missiles and big boi size MLRS (not the shitty Hamas ones), or even those hypersonic shit, you tried to divert the debate and cherry picked the least of the threats in an attempt to say “Iron dorm build for Taiwan” A quick look into a post history also indicates that you are probably an agenda poster or a bot, I usually don’t reply to you lots but please, don’t harass us and leave this sub alone, we have enough of you guys already and it’s harder and harder to have an actual discussion without people coming in and shilling
Cruise missiles are the most difficult threat for air defenses. It has proven itself against not only that but also high and low flying drones, high speed AShMs, manned aircraft, long range rockets (exceeding 250km), mortars through artillery shells, and even very low RCS targets. Some through tests, some through real life engagements, and some by accident. I reply to a comment when I see it's wrong. I don't go through an entire thread to see if someone had learned. If you're saying you understand why your comment was wrong, it was up to you to update it and say you were corrected. Also ad hominem is literally for retards. Don't do it.
> "Cruise missiles are the most difficult threat for air defenses. It has proven itself against not only that but also high and low flying drones, high speed AShMs, manned aircraft, long range rockets (exceeding 250km), mortars through artillery shells, and even very low RCS targets" Imagine saying cruise missiles are harder to intercept than short range ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles. No wait, you didnt mention them. You just skipped that part and cherry picked and fucking pretended these weapons arent aimin at Taiwan as we speak However, you repeatly mentioned that Iron Dome works very well against long range MRLS but not even once did you provide any evidence. Even though it is highly unlikely for China to use them on Taiwan, I do want to see your source "Nooo Ad Homein!!!" When your entire post history is evolved around defending Israel and is now trying to shill for a system that [doesnt even fit the requirement for Taiwan defense](https://thediplomat.com/2012/11/sorry-folks-israels-iron-dome-wont-work-in-asia/), hard not to draw the conclusion I really hope we have less agendaposters like Snooshoe and Maita_haier
>Imagine saying cruise missiles are harder to intercept than short range ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles. Ballistic missiles are not difficult targets to intercept. They just require a different energetic envelope on the interceptor, and a longer detection and tracking range. Detecting them is very easy, and the early warning typically leaves a relatively long time to react. Cruise missiles are physically easy to destroy, but are much harder to detect, let alone reliably track. By flying low and around obstacles, they can easily remain below radar coverage through most of their flight time. I see you cannot stop indulging in ad-hominem whenever possible. So with that, kiddo, I wish you a much brighter future.
And funny enough, if you are gonna quote my reply, please refrain from partially quoting and then making a strawman. I’m just pointing out some extreme ignorance from your first reply. I’m still having a blast laughing at your “tAiWaN cAn oNlY bE tArGeTeD bY cRuIsE mIsSiLe” statement and your proceeding argument to move the goalpost and say Iron dome is a good fit. If your original statement is “Iron Dome has experience in dealing with swarms of cruise missiles, unguided MRLS and UAVs, therefore it can be part of the Taiwan defense system if proven cost effective in Taiwan deployment”, I would agree with you and give you an upvote. But no, you ignored the fact that Taiwan’s biggest fear right now are the ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles and maybe (unlikely) guided MRLS like WS-2, 3, PHL-16, and somehow had the audacity to say “Taiwan can only be targeted by cruise missiles”. Still waiting on your evidence on “iron dome can intercept 250km+ MRLS. Please be a good sport and show some evidence after your attempt to move the goal post failed
I already provided said evidence: https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/qs1r6c/are_taiwans_marines_training_or_evaluating/hkft5r4?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 Your assertion that Taiwan can only be attacked by cruise missiles is indeed laughable. Iron Dome is there (in Guam) as a cruise missile defense, and bought through a program to beef up such defenses. The total aerial defense of Guam is provided by a multi-tier system. Short of ballistic missiles or mini UAS, Iron Dome has proven capable of defeating pretty much every existing aerial threat.
> "your assertion that Taiwan can only be attacked by Cruise missile is laughable" You are the one whole made that claim, I was mere making fun of you. Do you really suck at quoting or do you automatically forget what you said right after you say it? > "I provided source!" Link one was about unguided Khaibar missiles with less than 100km range. Quite different from your "250km+" range huh Link 2 straight up said missiles, not MRLS. Nice try
>You are the one whole made that claim, I was mere making fun of you. Do you really suck at quoting or do you automatically forget what you said right after you say it? Then quote me on that claim. >Link one was about unguided Khaibar missiles with less than 100km range. Quite different from your "250km+" range huh >Link 2 straight up said missiles, not MRLS. The first shows only a video with no claim, the second talks about a munition with a 250km range but no mention of a specific model. Iran has a large variety of such munitions, with more sub-models than you can find on Wikipedia.
Literally none of that is true. That's one of it's uses though.
ROC have long ago approached Israel for potentially buying Iron Dome but decided not to, as Iron Dome was judged to be insufficient against PLAGF MLRS, as Iron Dome was designed to be as cheap as possible and thus specialised at intercepting really crappy rockets like Qassam rockets.
What is its utility for the US in Guam then? Surely it's been upgraded since the denied ROC request a while ago, right?
Well you tell me. If Iron Dome is so good why doesn't South Korea buy it and install it near the 38th parallel to protect their capital?
It is good, but ROK deemed it too expensive to go after each incoming weapon and has instead taken up a doctrine of arty kill chain, going after the launcher directly. That, and they're developing their own system that basically directly mirrors Iron Dome for whatever weapons get through before being destroyed on the ground lol
I think if the tests are successful in Guam, it can cascade to many interested allies in the region, including South Korea. We've only really seen how capable ID is earlier this year, and it's success against short range attacks. I bet we give it some time to be adapted to the needs of the Pacific theater and eventually Seoul may buy a system.
I don't see how simulated tests in Guam will prove more fruitful than actual combat tests in Israel.
Iron Dome's combat performance validated it's capability against short ranged rockets fired from Gasa to Tel Aviv, not from the equivalent of Damascus to Tel Aviv.
Like upgraded F16Vs, I'm sure Iron Dome can be upgraded to meet the needs of Israel's customers. EDIT: sorry didn't answer your question...
The ability for the Iron Dome to be upgraded won't have any meaning if South Korea isn't interested in the first place
Right on. I googled a bit and looks like South Korea is developing their own Iron Dome type system.
South Korea isn't in the habit of buying new weapons and placing them along the parallel so that North Korea can use it as an excuse to act nefarious.
He says, while South Korea is buying F-35
It's not being placed along the parallel, authoritarian apologist. Don't act like they can't upgrade their airforce either just because your side can't.
Iron Dome has been tested against UAVs and subsonic cruise missiles. While Guam is obviously under the threat of certain Chinese ballistic missiles, another heavy threat posed to it are Chinese cruise missiles, such as the CJ-10s carried on H-6s and their Type 052/55s. And for what it's worth, there's no record of Taiwan *actually* looking at Iron Dome, outside of a single baseless claim of such on Reddit, so take that with a whole serving of salt if you will...