Part of an Iron Dome Tamir interceptor fell in the #Gaza Strip. pic.twitter.com/6Xj30m1JMW— Joe Truzman (@Jtruzmah) November 14, 2019
Warzone/The Drive: Intact Seeker Section From An Iron Dome Tamir Interceptor Fell Into Gaza
Losing these sensitive components could represent a huge technological loss.
Just hours after we posted a story about a report that an Israeli Stunner surface-to-air missile used in the David's Sling medium-range air defense system fell into Syrian territory and was transferred by the Assad regime to Russia, images have appeared on social media showing what appears to be the intact fuse section of a Tamir interceptor used by the Iron Dome system. This proximity fuse system is highly advanced as it has to detect a small and fast-flying target—a rocket in most cases—and detonate the missile's warhead with perfect timing in order to destroy it. It is also highly miniaturized yet hardened enough to withstand the extreme G forces sustained by the super-maneuverable interceptor.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This follows on the heels of this alleged loss of technology .... China's News Agency: Russia Has Obtained An Israeli Advanced Stunner Interceptor Missile (November 8, 2019).
7 comments:
I wonder how long before the antidote to this weapon will be announced. Or could the captured piece be a decoy?
What surprises me is that drones and missiles do not appear to have anti missile defenses like the discharge of particles launched by aircraft to distract the honing in apparatus. Perhaps an innovation yet to come now that this device has been found.
To do so would certainly add a complex and costly defense to a so equipped drone or missile. I think the particles you are referring to are chaff, a WWII innovation used to degrade radar detection and add complexity to the defender's attempts to use radar for target detection. Flares are the big ticket now though not for missiles. And not inexpensive in the amounts used for protection. There are electronic devices to degrade detection but $$$ again enters the scene.
Roger
"Flares are the big ticket now though not for missiles. And not inexpensive in the amounts used for protection."
Cost no doubt, but balance that against the need to ensure a hit justifying the launching of a missile in the first place. In other words, the cost of doing war.
Perhaps cutting up bits of sheet metal sprayed out into the air might be a reasonable idea.
My grandfather who was on loan to the Royal Navy in WW II told me that when the Germans developed sound seeking torpedos the initial and effective defense was to drag a sack behind the ships with a network of forks and spoons in the bag.
My point is that every weapon inspires a counter defense that eventually is effective.
You could have a defensive mechanism that can shoot down a fly but the question is, and I believe this came from JFK in response to such a claim by Nikita Khrushchov, which fly do you shoot down?
As a long time ago the CIA said: " a top level secret will be discover much earlier than we think".
Observation showed the German torpedoes hit near the targeted ship's propellers hence the eventual understanding that they were sensitive to sound.
It would be interesting to know how the Germans used the new weapons. A mix of older model torpedoes and the new sound seeking weapons would mask to some extent the tendency to experience high numbers of hits in the region of the ships' props if only the acoustic ones were used.
Yes. A counter measure to defeat a counter measure perhaps.
Post a Comment