Talk:Iron Dome

Espionage

We need to enhance the page with more discussion about the espionage that leads to these weapon systems development. Leaving this out creates the erroneous perspective that Israel and Israelis developed these systems without direct assistance and the indirect, ie. espionage. This system in particular owes much to reverse engineering followed-up by alterations to suit Israels specific threats. Many other systems have been derived from methods other than development, see the history of the Kfir fighter and Dassault.

operational in 2008

i've read the link and no such statement was made there. the story on haaretz says that a breakthrough was made in the interception mechanism of the system and that experiments can begin in half a year. it says that the system "might be ready in 2010". knowing military projects in israel or in general that means the system would be ready later than 2010 and in every means not in the end of 2008.

---

I believe you should add sources that display this information. In this case, I'll do it for you: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/10/17/us-israel-palestinians-rockets-idUSN1739007320071017

Anyone interested in adding (along with Ehud Barak and Arrow III?

Twillisjr (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Per ShamWow's request for comments on this article:

• Firstly, it's a good effort, the article certainly looks much better and especially more comprehensive now.
• The main issue however is still comprehensiveness. Like you said, what's most lacking is a background section—I'm sure unfamiliar readers would want to know what's the point of investing $200 million on a system to intercept 10 km-range rockets (the lead gives an overview, but this should summarize a part of the article, which should go into detail). Also information on where/how the system is planned to be deployed.
• The "Testing" section should be expanded and converted to prose. Since every declassified test is widely covered in the media, I'm sure that it is possible to describe the time and circumstances of the test in more detail. For example, "The Tamir interceptor missile underwent successful testing." does not really say anything at all.
• Lastly, the lead should only summarize parts of the article. Therefore, the part about Amir Peretz and that paragraph should go somewhere in the article (with more detail, per above points).

Cheers, —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Israeli site

This Israeli site: [Ynews] has a short article about this missile.Agre22 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

What happened with the system?

The system is expected to be operational by May 2010.

It's June. Someone can investigate what happened with the Iron Dome? it was implemented or not?--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Cost "contradictions"

I've removed the contradition tag from the "Criticism" section. While no explanation is given on the talk page, it appears to be about the claimed costs of the missiles vs. the rockets in that section. Please note that the prices are provided by critics of the program, so these are just claims, and both claims are cited. Further, Pedatzur's claim of $5. for rockets is ridculously low, suggesting he's either wildly exaggerating for effect or just plain lying (often the same thing), as critics often do. Always consider the source, and weigh accordingly. As long as it's clear the costs/prices are what the critics claim, not the actual prices, then there's no contradiction. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Specialized portals say each Tamir missile costs Israel between US$50-90,000 - http://missilethreat.com/israels-iron-dome-anti-missile-system-works/ Main article estimate every launch in US$20,000 based on "Local reports", some media raise it up to US$95,000, By consulting several media sources I´ll say it would be more accurate to say it costs between US$50,000 - 90,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.49.165 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Point less pondered

It’s not that there is no answer it is that the answer depending on who gets it could also be the problem.

Considering that I could give some group an answer here would also mean those who it defeats read it as well and can counter it which would not make it an answer at all but rather a prolonged and unnecessary course of action that would only waste time and resources.

It’s like I told other governments but they never really got the answer as the ISP got it too, the people it was not meant for got it, the people who were against them got it, companies who want to profit got it, governments got it.

EG if I were to give a solution to the dumping of rubbish by neglectful companies in rivers to those who are cleaning it up then those who dump the rubbish would see the solution I proposed and would therefore counter the actions that might be taken based on the solution provided and would then take an alternate course of action to counter the actions of those who want to either catch or stop them and then the solution provided would not be a solution because it would also be a heads up to those causing the problems on how to continue doing what they are doing. --Ryzler (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First intercept

Added the first intercept on April 7, 2011 to the lead, article. First successful intercept of a short-range in history etc. PluniAlmoni (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that, and the subsequent interception of 3 additional rockets a day later, is there any point to keeping the obviously incorrect criticism from a year ago, which claimed the system cannot intercept such rockets? Jeff Song (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I find the end commentary to provide nothing more than that one (admittedly quite uneducated) opinion on the system and support its removal. As an aside, it's important to note that this isn't the first intercept of a short range projectile in history, merely the first time in ISRAELI history, and that fact itself is questionable. The US has been successfully employing a modified version of the Phalanx CWIS system in its C-RAM solution for years now. Mortar threats are largely a thing of the past. -173.166.45.177 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This article even has a picture of a successfull test where the Irondome system intercepted a Grad rocket in 2010, so this was hardly the first intercept of a short range rocket, neither of the world nor of Israel. Maybe it's the world first intercept in a real combat situation, but that claim should be backed by a military source, not a haaretz article imo. 188.192.9.154 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed it now, see here for a missile intercept in real combat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILcVt9p7cug&feature=related 188.192.9.154 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert by BilCat

I believe a recent revert by Bilcat[1] was incorrect. In the edit summary, BilCat wrote “Reverted non-productive or POV changes - no rocket costs 423162281!”

1) The edit was productive because it added a wikilink Kassam rocket cost and removed a phrase “his cost estimates” that was not supported by the source. The cost estimates may or may not be Pedatzur’s, and the source did not say that they were his. To conclude that they are Penatzur’s cost estimates just because he mentioned them in his comments, is a violation of WP:NOR. Also, including them in such a way implies that the estimates are questionable, which is a violation of WP:NPOV, especially since it is the editor’s conclusion that they are Pedatzur’s estimates.

2) Bilcat’s other edit summary comment “no rocket costs 423162281!” needs to be further explained by that editor, to say the least.

3) I changed from “concludes” to “comments” because I thought that would help avoid the implication that the costs were an accepted premise for Pedatzur’s conclusion. An alternative phrasing “According to Pedatzur” could also be used.

75.47.143.52 (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You think anyone in their right mind thinks these rockes costs $5.?? (“no rocket costs 423162281!” was some kind of browser screw-up - I wrote "$5"). That is exaggeration for effect, or outright lying, as I discussed in a section above. Adding "his cost estimate" is being generous. Anyway, I'm removing the whole paragraph as based on commentary, which we don't usually report anyway, and which recent events have proven to be incorrect analysis. - BilCat (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree with the removal of the paragraph, my reason is that it can be appropriately covered in the rest of the section, rather than using OR that those estimates are incorrect. Our function as editors is to report what is in the sources in a neutral way, giving various sides when a topic is controversial. 75.47.136.51 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, with the removal of the Pedatzur paragraph, could you remove the NPOV banner that you put up in the section. Otherwise, please indicate what other issues remain that you feel are related to NPOV and discuss them here. 75.47.136.51 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Interceptor/System specifications

The current specifications table in the lead refers mainly to the interceptor (e.g. the Weight and Length parameters) and not to the entire system, mainly because the weapon infobox regards it as a "missile" (no separate "interceptor system" template apparently). This is the same condition as in the Arrow article, but there it's okay because the Arrow is the Interceptor and not the entire system. On the other hand, Iron Dome refers to the entire system (launcher, radar, interceptor, control system etc.). So, the question is: Do we want the table to only reflect the interceptor and not the entire system? Or should we create a separate article for Tamir and put its specifications there? Any other suggestions? PluniAlmoni (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Iron Dome in Action: A Preliminary Evaluation - by Uzi Rubin

http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/docs/perspectives151.pdf Flayer (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How Big is a Battery?

I see lots of mentions that these anti-missiles are divided into batteries. Just wondering how big is a battery, and could the info also be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.170.246 (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Three launchers, one radar, one BMC. Flayer (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Funding

I've noticed the funding paragraph is consistently rewritten to play down US contributions, in defiance of what the sources say (that the US is paying for this project following Israeli funding of the startup costs). I've edited the lead in this paragraph to reflect what the sources in the graph' are actually saying. If that's a problem, find some sources that aren't saying this. Abe Froman (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's happened again. Abe Froman (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a big mess, feel free to remove it. On the other hand, if you have more time, maybe it's worth rewriting to include the important points. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Israeli funding is completely erased. Why? The first line should say that the initial funding until the deployment of the first two batteries was done by Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.55.117.197 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ground Impacts

Interceptor of Iron Dome (Tamir missile) believed to be designed in such way that it selfdestructs if missed. There are explicit direct instructions of [command] to avoid staring on interceptions because of possible collateral damage by Grad/Interceptor fragments falling down. There was a case in first days of Cast Lead operation when person lightly injured in head by rocket fragments (somewhere in ynet should be a report). 85.65.20.251 (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Another evidence of ground impact collected on date 18/11/2012 by photographer Gilad Kvalerchik in city of Ashdod, who caught Tamir interceptor moments before it nearly hit building nearby. It can be suggested from the picture, that interceptor was chasing the rocket until the last moment and had not enough time to selfdestruct. Another clue may be from debris in air (on same picture) suggesting that there were two interceptors one of which intercepted grad rocket last moment and second reached the ground. This may be as result of failure or as result of preprogrammed restriction of selfdestruction (in favor of shutting down the missile) below certain height to avoid causalities from explosion. Pictures taken from Ynet report in English and Ynet report in Hebrew (which contains more pictures). 85.65.20.251 (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Iron Dome is not combat capable against an enemy that has radio-elecronic warfare troops.

> The system, created as a defensive countermeasure to the rocket threat against Israel's civilian population

This statement is not true, as 75% of the launch capacity is concentrated around the zionist nuclear weapons factory, the Dimona reactor.

Furthermore, the very low price (alleged 50-60k USD) per Iron Dome missile launch is achieved by omitting EM impulse and radio-electronic warfare hardening from the missiles, thinking palestinians are stone age. (Anti-EW and anti-EMI are the big arcanum that make full-featured guided missiles cost six to seven digits in USD, because one has to use 15k USD / m2 shielding materials and specially manufactured semiconductors to achieve it.)

Lack of EMI/EW hardening in Iron Dome system means the iranian, chinese and russian experts who downed the CIA's RQ-170 drone intact, could help the gazan palestinians jam the datalink of Iron Dome missiles in flight and let the Grad break through. The missiles could even be fooled to hit "friendly" targets, especially if a hacker was able to infiltrate the lauch control network. That is another place where the Iron Dome system was made in a very budget way, because EAL-graded IT-security, especially wireless network security costs whole heaps of money.

However, Iran is probably happy about jews gaining hubris with easy Iron Dome successes now and get suprised by huge EM/EW effort later, when they march against Persia, so the palestinians are left helpless as of now.

Without these details the article is just another free advertisement for RAFAEL. 87.97.50.104 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the details, but like everything else, you need to provide websites as sources (valid sites as well). Then, it will have a greater likelihood of being added to the current article.

Twillisjr (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

He said "zionist nuclear weapons factory". I wonder if it is the weapons or the factory that approve of the writings of Theodor Herzl. Seriously, why can't these haters acknowledge that there is a State called Israel since 1948? --93.219.106.247 (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The etymology of Zionism should be further explored, it seems you are of impression that it is an anti-semitic term. This is not the case as the dominant political party of Israel is Zionist. Please look into the definition as it may clarify your future remarks. Twillisjr (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Zionist" or "Zionist entity" is usually a term used by those who reject the right of the State of Israel to exist, so no, your statement above is flawed. No Israeli calls Israel the "Zionist state". They call it Israel, or home. People who throw the term "Zionist" about in leiu of the nations proper name usually have serious POV problems. They cant even bring themselves to utter the words State of Israel. Thats an issue, especially on WP. Irondome (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That is just ridiculous. "Zionist" has always been a term of pride for pro-Israel American Jews. It is used as a term of disparagement by Israeli Sabras when referring to pro-Israel American Jews. "Zionist" used in an international context is, I think, generally understood to mean all supporters of Israeli hegemony in the disputed territories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Manual Defense

The defense system is referred to as "automatic" although Maj. Itamar Abu seems to be launching the missiles manually. Automatic or Manual? Source: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=292639

Twillisjr (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Iron Dome is no mere C-RAM

I have redefined its descriptor in main info box to air defence system. I have also amended the Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar Iron Dome entry. Its no simple gun based system like other operational C-RAM systems are. Alrhough it was originally mooted as a CRAM system, the system capabilities have mushroomed. Its now a fully fledged air defence system. It certainly now has a 60 mile plus engagement range and a respectable anti aircraft capability. I hope I can get consensus on this. Its development is ongoing, and it seems to be merging into the testbed for the medium range Davids sling. It aint no C-RAM anymore people. Happy to discuss. Irondome (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

While I don't object to your changes, the article says it is effective only up to altitude of 10,000m, significantly less than systems such as Hawk (14km) and Patriot (20+km), isn't this rather limited for an all around anti-aircraft system? Marokwitz (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

At this point it is not as mature as the purely dedicated AD systems that you note, but the systems developmental potential (and lets face it, that kind of AA performance is great for a system not designed originally for that purpose) would appear to be be extremely high, based on the systems rapid and ongoing advance in capability. I think the argument for its re-definition is compelling. It already is in a completely different league from any existing C-RAM system, which are short ranged, "dumb", and based on simple chain gun systems. Also, its SAM capability is already 10km, and Patriot is only 20+km. HAWK only 14km. Patriot was developed in the 70s and HAWK in the early 60s. By that measure Iron Dome is not doing badly for a service life of only 2 years or so, especially as its AA role was not envisioned then, as far as I am aware. It seems to be developing into an incredibly flexible system. Irondome (talk) 08:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy over success rates

The Postol report is recent news, but it ought to be incorporated throughout the article rather than merely mentioned in the end. The article as a whole accepts former claims of near-100% success rates, and this language should be changed to reflect controversy among leading experts regarding whether these claims are true. I'd like to check for consensus here before getting stuck in, as this is a rather emotive topic. 201.230.141.122 (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It is equaly controversial as landing on the moon. Flayer (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't consider Postol to be a serious source on the matter? 201.230.175.86 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Flayer (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhhh, why? The BBC apparently does. As does the Independent. MIT apparently thinks he knows a thing or two. So what basis do you have for claiming that he is not a serious source? nableezy - 18:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case, either he is or he isn't. If he is, we shouldn't be baldly stating the official success rate as fact; if he isn't, we shouldn't be mentioning his findings at all. FWIW, I consider his findings to be extremely relevant to this article, but if other editors see them as a transparent conspiracy theory then we need to reach a consensus before proceeding. 201.230.175.86 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Worthy of only a minor line or two at best. He has a track record of disputing interceptor technology and admits that he does not know the actual rate. He even attempted to provide possible reasoning which is way out of his expertise and has no merit.2620:0:1009:A:2962:DE90:1392:A53D (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely either there is or there is not doubt over the success rate. 201.230.175.86 (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This isnt how this works. Random people on the internet cant dispute what reputable sources report. That the BBC considers Postol's findings worthy of publishing is enough for Wikipedia to include it. A random person on the internet cant claim that an MIT professor whose findings are published in a news source read across the world has no merit. Well, he can, but Wikipedia should not, and will not, give that random person on the internet any attention. nableezy - 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. So, can we agree on modifying all statements on success rates made in the article to reflect that uncertainty? 201.230.175.86 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

At least start by saying they are the IDF's reported figures. Once in the lead saying that those reported figures have been questioned, that should do it in my view. nableezy - 21:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. One expert disputing the IDF statements does not make for a controversy and does not mean we need to qulify each and every statement. How about you let us in on what changes you intend to make? Poliocretes (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One expert producing the figures, one disputing them; it looks like a controversy. I don't feel comfortable stating the official success rates as fact when they have been disputed, and that dispute has received coverage in major global media. 201.230.175.86 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Looks like a controversy"? That's WP:OR. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary references. We're talking about one report (that already appears in the article), the effects of which (if any) are yet to be seen. To turn the article on its head because one expert published his misgivings is WP:UNDUE. Poliocretes (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You have the IDF claiming that the system achieved a certain success rate. You have what you call an expert, or what Wikipedia would call a reliable source, saying those figures are not correct. By definition the IDF statement is a disputed statement. Wikipedia cant take that disputed statement and act as though it were objective fact. So when Wikipedia reports what the IDF says is the success rate it cant accept that rate as fact, it has to report it as what the IDF says is the rate. Nobody said anything about turn[ing] the article on its head, or at least I havent. But the article cant just accept as fact what the IDF says when other sources dispute it. nableezy - 22:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about the IDF versus disinterested experts, this is about one report contradicting what a multitude of sources (including multiple Israeli and international media outlets, each with their own experts) have reported over the past months. IP wants to modify every relevant statement in the article ("can we agree on modifying all statements on success rates made in the article to reflect that uncertainty") based on this one report. This is WP:UNDUE. Up to now IP's changes are not unacceptable, and have thus not been reverted thus far, but that's not to say every change he makes will be ok. Poliocretes (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Postols attention seeking again. If Iron Dome hadnt worked, then Gaza would have been invaded. Simples. A couple of lines at most should do justice. The BBC is hardly sympathetic to Israel in any event, so its par for the course they would have leaped on this. I expect a dreary article in the Guardian tomorrow. The usual media suspects. It all rather smacks of desperation really. Irondome (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The BBC and The Independent are generally seen as reliable sources, so we'll need some reason for defining them otherwise in any particular case. I don't really see the relevance of your point on a theoretical invasion of Gaza, particularly as it's precisely the IDF (who are presumably that group that you think would have been invading Gaza) who are asserting that Iron Dome was working at such a high success rate. In any case, the question is one of notability and reliability. If Postol's claim is true, it's definitely relevant to the article; and serious news organizations are taking it seriously. What's the problem?201.230.175.86 (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP Undue is the problem. Postol is actually using very vague language, and does not appear to have hard facts and figures. He appears to be rehashing his patriot argument in its entirety. Now he may have had a point regarding a five ton SCUD, but the much smaller missiles ID is designed to kill seems to be stretching his point to absurdity. If you actually read the BBC article, Postol claims that the success rate merely MAY have been drastically lower. Sounds crap to me. The point about a ground invasion seems obvious. If ID was failing to stop missiles getting through, and they were falling on population centres causing significant casualties, then a ground invasion would have happened. Hard political reality would have made a ground invasion inevitable. You are obviously aware of Israels sensitivity to civilian loss. There are loads of recorded instances of successful interceptions captured by many news outlets on video. They were being blasted out of the sky. There are probably dozens of recorded successful ID interceptions posted on YouTube, many by private citizens as well as official media. Postol also seems to be claiming some conspiracy whereby the IDF was lying about the success rate of ID. Well the proof of IDs effectiveness is the fact that there were only 6 Israeli fatalities in the whole Hamas rocket onslaught. You cant cover up large numbers civilian casualties in a democracy such as Israel. Hamas rockets were being destroyed en masse. A couple of lines in criticism section is more than sufficient to do justice to Postels little self- publicity push.Irondome (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We're well into the realms of original research by now, but that's fine on a talk page. You say that 6 Israeli fatalities proves that the system works; but according to the wikipedia page, based on Israeli official sources, in 2008 there were 3000 rocket and mortar attacks on Israel, no Iron Dome, and 8 killed. 201.230.175.86 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In nov 2012 several hundred rockets were being fired A DAY. This was a sustained attack on civilian population centres, with far more varied pop centres being targetted. Without ID the casualty rate would arguably have been far higher. Also the usage of the Fajr 5 was unique. The comparison fails I would say. Irondome (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

1734 rockets and mortars fired, 3 Israelis killed. Compare that to the first half of 2008, with 4 killed from 2378 attacks, without Iron Dome. The Fajr 5 is a red herring, as very few were fired and no deaths were caused; so you could compare rates for the other weapon types apart from the Fajr 5.201.230.175.86 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"1734 rockets and mortars fired, 3 Israelis killed" What period are you referring to there? Mention of Fajr 5 usage, targetting TA and Jerusalem is certainly not a "red herring" Irondome (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

November 2012, precisely the period you suggested; getting the info from the Wikipedia page. Call it this: 1734 (actually fewer) mortars and rockets other than Fajr 5 launched into Israel; 3 killed. Compare with 2378 mortars and rockets other than Fajr 5 (because there were not Fajr 5 used) launched into Israel and 4 killed. 201.230.175.86 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There were 6 Israeli fatalities in the nov clash. Anyway, bed. We will continue this unagressive discourse tomorrow. Good night. Irondome (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Experts who read Postol's report and arguments considered it completely baseless. Postol doesn't know how Iron Dome's interceptors work and he clearly didn't checked all 400+ intercerptions (I doubt if all of them were recorded on camera). The facts are increadibly low casualties out of 1000+ rockets. Every media who covered the conflict and did the counting report 80-90% success for Iron Dome. Today, you can find for any fact a professor who doubts it - so one man doesn't qualify for a "controversy" or as a RS for disputing a fact, a specially when almost all other experts say otherwise. (P.S.: BBC News Department isn't considered a reliable source by many britains, it is biased and makes full of reporting errors.) MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Which experts? Where are these experts' findings published? If youd like to argue that the BBC is not reliable you can try doing that, Id be rather interested in seeing the response at RS/N. nableezy - 13:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The IDF's and the manufacturer's success rate claims should have been presented as claims anyway, regardless of Postol. Both parties have obvious conflicts of interest in the matter and are not "thirty-party sources" like we are supposed to seek. Regarding Postol, his expertise and track record (see the Patriot controversy) is rather impressive and his opinion should be mentioned briefly in the lead and in more detail elsewhere (not all over the place, though). Zero^talk 14:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Postol was actually parrotting the original Israeli findings about the Patriot issues. The Israelis originally questioned Patriots effectiveness, not Postol. It is very doubtful whether Israel would have introduced a piece of crap into service, especially in such a politically sensitive strategic role (the avoidance of civilian casualties) Postol is a one trick pony, and he is using vague language. "May have", "might" is not good enough. Postols' mention is sufficient in effectiveness section. If a real, data-rich technical report is issued, then it can be revisited. Irondome (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That the Israelis would not invest so much money in a faulty weapon is a strong argument on several counts. While significant effort has been spent in history on deceiving the enemy, it's often low-cost (say, fielding inflatable tanks), or intended for a limited period (say, concealing where the WWII D-Day invasions would happen). A deception won't work over the long term, because someone's going to find out. In the broader picture, a country -- particularly one under constant military threat -- absolutely does not want to become known for having ineffective weapons. That tends to mitigate the deterrent value of all of the other country's military.

Organizationally, it's difficult to indefinitely sustain defective development. But it does happen, for example with the faulty torpedoes developed, ironically, by both the Nazis and the United States in the WWII era. A part of the organizational justification for the lapse was the same: Torpedoes were too expensive to test exhaustively in the field. The advent of WWII gave the opportunity to "test" those torpedoes in real life situations. At that juncture, the Nazis and the United States independently figured out the torpedoes were faulty within a few months (by somewhat "renegade" processes). Note how different this is from the Iron Dome type weapons. They have now been tested in combat over decades -- plenty of time to improve whatever problems originally existed.

Technically, it's difficult to believe that Iron Dome type weapons are in any definitive, ultimate sense, ineffective. A weapon is not invulnerable, it simply outpaces the efficacy of rival weapons of its time. The longbow may have been a weapon of doom (for the French, in the time of Henry V), but nowadays an army with longbows is little or no threat. There is no ultimate solution to this "Spy vs. Spy" Mad Magazine situation (unfortunately). What's happening is simple in a sense: Israel is outspending its enemies.

The question for Wikipedia remains: Why is this subject being broached at all? Even in Talk? There seem to be clouds of mystery about important aspects of this sub-topic. From the talk here, one can see that there is a strong difference of opinion among Wiki editors whether Postal's report is so biased as to be unusable. And yet the argument that Iron Dome is ineffective relies largely on this controversial source. As much as we all would like to know the truth behind this, it's possible the truth is being manipulated by Israel and the United States or is, at the least, subtle beyond the limits of those, say, without a special technical training and a secret clearance, to resolve. Rather than flail indefinitely about this, it might be preferable from the general Wikipedia reader's perspective simply to tag the "Effectiveness" section as "currently unknowable". As it stands, the article leaves the reader hanging, not knowing the editorial concensus. Leptus Froggi (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the above comment. The system is by almost all technical consensus, highly effective. A professional anti missile iconoclast (he appears to have issues with all ABM type systems) Postols' latest ejaculation is not a weighty argument, especially with the utter vagueness that his latest attack on the ID system has been couched. The system is highly expensive, and appears to use cutting edge seeker heads, probably derived from the Python 5, which from all evidence is hugely effective. Also this is 1 tier of an emerging multi layered anti missile system. Davids sling is due to go into service soon, to replace the PAC2 IDF/AF Patriots, and obviously Arrow 3 shows amazing promise. The head of the US Missile defence agency is on record of saying that Arrow is the most advanced ABM system in existence, in advance of anything the US has attempted or fielded. Witness the apparantly stunning success of the Arrow 3 exo-atmospheric test this month. It appears to be noting less than an autonomous manoevering space based missile killing vehicle. It isnt just a dumb hit to kill warhead. This is confident ground breaking technology at the highest technical level. This is no bluff. Whether or not Israel would go nuclear in a future conflict arguably depends on the effectiveness of at least one of these systems. They are strategic assets of the highest order. That Israel would indulge in some "bluff" is implausable in the extreme, and feeds, arguably into the usual "anti "Zionist" conspiracy complex, much favoured in the Islamic world and in some Western far-left and far-right quarters. I do sense an air of desperation in attempting to latch on to Postols "argument" by some editors. I repeat. Leave the article as it is until, or if ever a hard scientific critique is published. Irondome (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhhh, neither of you are reliable sources. Your personal opinions are best suited to a blog. Postel's findings, unlike yours, however were in reliable sources, and that is enough to include them. We dont just accept as fact the reports of the IDF when those reports have been questioned in reliable sources. Finally, you dont own this article. You do not get to demand that no changes be made, or determine what criteria should be used to accept reports questioning the efficacy of the system. We already have the criteria, that is that it be published in reliable sources. nableezy - 17:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

And neither do you. Own it. Theres a difference between "ownership" and defending an excellent article from POV and Undue additions. This is the Talkpage remember? Ideas and theories can be expressed here which would be inpermissible in an article mainspace. More than one mention of Postol would be seriously WP Undue. Postols already mentioned. Its actually lucky to be in here considering its unscientific waffle That seems to be based on a vague assertion, that looks tailored more for the media than science. If a serious critique is published, then the subject can be revisited. Irondome (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I dont own it, but Im not the one saying unless my peculiar and unsupported by policy requirements are met no changes can be made. You dont decide if including something is UNDUE, the sources do that. The sources give Postel's findings serious consideration, and so to should Wikipedia. nableezy - 15:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is that Postol has only made statements in the media. WP NOTNEWS springs to mind too. I am willing to give a serious scientific critique of ID SERIOUS attention. But not this vague stuff. Postol is mentioned already. It would be grotesque to litter the article with refs to P at this time. I am just one ed, but I would argue that the P reference already in the mainspace is sufficient for now, until or if there are other developments. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTNEWS before citing it again. nableezy - 19:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. When Postol decides to actually publish a scientific report, instead of going to the media...Cheers Irondome (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The comments of Leptus Froggi and Irondome on the effectiveness of the system do not belong here. As it says in WP:TALK, " Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral." There is not a chance in hell that the Postol story fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. The mere fact of its publication in multiple respected newspapers is enough. We don't take sides on whether Postol is correct or incorrect, we just attribute the opinion to Postol. Zero^talk 22:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about "meeting the criteria for inclusion"? Not me. I have never advocated its removal. As I have said above multiple times, my issue with Postol is WP UNDUE. Now a few days ago the Postol ref was mentioned twice, in the lede and in criticism. For a vague press-based intervention, it was clearly UNDUE. I supported removing multiple refs to P because it was frankly unbalanced. I have never supported its removal in its entirety. The present mention is sufficient. That has been my point throughout. I hope thats now clear. Irondome (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ive suddenly realised I have been spelling Prof Postols' name incorrectly throughout, even though I have seen his name multiple times in other media. Odd lapse. :/ Amended all my spelling blindspots. Irondome (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Lots of interwikilinking and the same digging of heels that is expected in the topic area. I mentioned above (since we like repeating ourselves here and i was not logged in), the guy is going off very limited evidence. He does not deny it. He has never thought such systems were good. The newest technology of the interceptor and the laughable payload of the rockets do not mean anything. What matters is that reliable sources point to high success rates. Nableezy, you have been given an opportunity to work with other editors. No one should be arguing against you inserting a line in the body somewhere. Just don't over do it. No need to get bent out of shape unless you are a rocket scientist or military analyst who actually have information RS don't have available.Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and kind of like how it turned out. The guy's thoughts have some mention but I wonder of it is too much. I might be over thinking it but it seems like the whole paragraph is unneeded noise that might need to be reduced. It seems to be discredited (no we cannot pick and choose but yes, as editors we have some responsibility) so should it even have that much space. The rebuttals alone make up a good size of the paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but I wonder:

• Where are the Postols findings and analysis described? There's only citings of newpapers.
• How an expert saying that rockets' warhead are not detonated is a more reliable source than an actual video footage showing clearly (at least in a single case) otherwise? Why can't such an evidence make its way to the "Effectiveness" section? --Elaz85 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet another rebuttal to Postol and his friends

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130331/DEFFEAT05/303310011/Cold-War-Mentality Flayer (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Postol's 2013 Memo was 'published' by Magen Laoref, a registered Israeli non-profit (though the confirmation of proper management was rejected by the Ministry of Justice: http://www.guidestar.org.il/en/organization/580503670) which promotes the use of laser defensive systems. it is available here: http://www.magenlaoref.org.il/IndicatorsofIronDomePerformanceMarch122013.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.10.142 (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Where have all the Gaza rockets gone? By Uzi Rubin | Haaretz, Mar.19, 2013

Where have all the Gaza rockets gone? By Uzi Rubin | Haaretz, Mar.19, 2013 "If only 10 percent of the rockets fired from Gaza were intercepted by the Iron Dome system, where did the nearly 430 rockets that apparently fell nowhere vanish?" 87.69.14.42 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

what

Why does this article mention the same incident where Iron Dome missed one rocket that killed a guy three different times? Jtrainor (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

should the article mention the recent deployment

according to the ltest news it is deployed outside tel aviv in case syria attacks israel if usa attacks syria. i cant find a source online, only on the tv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.64.62 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/irondomeairdefencemi/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Section overlap

Did anyone realise that the Funding and Co-production subsections are practically saying the same thing? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Tamir is an abbreviation

Tamir sounds like an abbreviation, not an acronym (קיצור vs ראשי תיבות). Not changing it because I don't really know the etymology. ailaG (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is an acronym (ראשי תיבות) of "Til Meyaret" (טיל מיירט, lit.: intercepting missile). An abbreviation is defined only as a contraction of a single word :) 82.166.114.239 (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Description

It is not correct that the system was "designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 4 to 70 kilometers away and whose trajectory would take them to a populated area". It was "designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells". The trajectory could take them to any area, not just populated areas. The system does not distinguish! Royalcourtier (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. The trajectory can be calculated, once the thrust has stopped. --Elaz85 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

'Obviously' you can calculate a ballistic object's trajectory from a number of points. But would the system go 'No, I can't intercept that, it's headed for the ocean'? The operators may well choose not to do so, but the capability to intercept objects not headed towards a populated area exists. Or did the initial tests involve the team deliberately firing things at Israeli towns? Lovingboth (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that one of the points? That the BMC actually automatically selects what to intercept or not, without any operator involvement? It wouldn't that different from running the Goalkeeper CIWS in autonomous mode, where it automatically performs the entire process from surveillance and detection to destruction, without any form of operator involvement. --188.120.84.168 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

So, there's an inbuilt automatic awareness of which areas happen to have a population (regardless of who lives there)? Reference? Lovingboth (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Contents

Hi, Will someone please fix the location of the contents box? It is in an awkward position. Thanks. (User:Nusent) 15:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Singapore

No other source confirms that Iron Dome was ever exported to Singapore. Flayer (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A Simple Google search can give many links. Faizan 15:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I've not seem them in any SAF unit.Phd8511 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

Explain please. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you have undid my edits, I can only assume you were talking about them. I don't really know why do you call POV edits that were intended only to remove the news-like feed from the top of the article (without removing any reference; only grouping them together). The anecdote was moved to where it belong - design. And I have added the objections to the reported hit rate, to balance the Israely reports.

What is the POV here? Is Wiki about citing newspapers chronologically? Because that's how this article looks like right now.

Example: "On 10 March 2012, The Jerusalem Post reported that the system shot down 90% of rockets launched from Gaza that would have landed in populated areas". Wow. similar reports are all over the place in the last two years, with the same reliability; what's so important about citing a Jerusalem Post report from some random date? These numbers are claimed by the IDF and Rafael, and should be presented as such.

What exactly are "Israeli hopes" doing in the first paragraph? What are phrases such as "most-effective, most-tested missile shield the world has ever seen" doing there, too?

The whole article is a mess, regardless of any POV. It has nothing but an unreadable list of reports.

The last edit which could resemble anything like POV was the addition of a link to a video clip in which it is possible to see mid-air detonation. Well, it could be the case that YouTube videos aren't such a reliable resource, but they are the main source for the claim that Iron Dome is not effective and failing to detonate warheads, so this is a relevant, and definitely not an "arbitrary, random", video. I agree it should be noted that this single example might be an exception.

Last point, which I haven't added yet since I don't know how to present it, is that the IDF does have access to credible data - the system's radar. So it could be lying, but it does know the actual numbers. No one outside IDF has this raw data to begin with. Is that a POV too? I think that's a simple fact, which should be noted somewhere, somehow.

So again, my last edit was not POV in any way - it did not change the information in the article at all. Only removed some noise and added some order. Some earlier edits could be regarded as POV. Mistakenly; they were facts, relevant facts, and nothing more.

But if you prefer adding Uri Misgav's thoughts over supplying raw data, go for it. I'm done.

--Elaz85 (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Elaz85's edit that removed the news-feed-like citation from the top of the article, and moved the anecdote to the design section.

I agree that the article reads too much like citing newspapers chronologically, and that this is not desirable for an encyclopedic article.

Terms such as "Israeli hopes" and "most-effective, most-tested missile shield the world has ever seen" should be removed or re-phrased for neutrality.

YouTube videos showing some flying objects and some explosions aren't a reliable source for a rebuttal of the claim that Iron Dome is not effective and failing to detonate warheads. Note that the claim that Iron Dome is not effective is made in a verifiabile reliable source, and the rebuttal should likewise be made in a verifiable reliable source, and not in a YouTube video that, in the personal view of a Wikipedia user, shows the right kind of mid-air explosion that constitutes a so-called "relevant" rebuttal.

Elaz85 wrote: "Last point, which I haven't added yet since I don't know how to present it, is that the IDF does have access to credible data - the system's radar. So it could be lying, but it does know the actual numbers. No one outside IDF has this raw data to begin with. Is that a POV too? I think that's a simple fact, which should be noted somewhere, somehow." [End quote by Elaz85] ----- I (Ijon) agree with this statement.

" ... Only removed some noise and added some order." ----- I agree that this article needs significant removal of noise and re-ordering of the present mess.

In fact, this Wikipedia article comes close to reading like an overly long, tedious advertisement/ promotional/ marketing material for a commercial product. The only thing currently preventing it from reading like a clear, blatant, obvious case of corporate promotional material is the 'Criticism' section.

Uri Misgav's thoughts are very important, because his article appears to be the first, and perhaps the only, reliable source (that I'm aware of) that addresses the key issues of the social and cultural impact of the technology. Before Misgav's insightful, highly perceptive, in-depth analysis, these issues apparently have not received adequate coverage -- in fact, it appears they have received almost no coverage at all -- in the many dozens of reliable sources written on the Iron Dome in the last 10 years or so.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Misgav quotation is good. The rest can be fixed. The problem of percieved "promotional" wording, vids, etc is rampant on many many WP mil tech articles unfortunately. Irondome (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And not only on mil tech articles, but more generally on many tech articles. IjonTichy (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears most of the funding for Iron Dome development came from the US

Article in TheMarker (Hebrew) IjonTichy (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent citation from the Washington Post

Thanks for the link to the Washington Post article. It is an interesting and useful article (at least to some extent) and, in principle, I don't have a problem with citing from this reliable source. However, the statement that "The almost-total lack of Israeli civilian causalities during the July, 2014 conflict with Gaza cast further doubt on (Postol's) analysis" is not supported by the source, and constitutes original research. That's why I removed it. Please cite from the source properly, without OR. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk)

Misleading effectiveness section

The last line in this section states that :

"During Operation Protective Edge Iron Dome was claimed to intercept more than 346 rockets out of over 1,663 fired"

However, the interceptor is being launched only after the system concluded that the rocket is going to fall in populated area. Israel official sources said that the system reach over 90% effectiveness, please update.

Quotes In Lead

I have removed the following quote "On 28 September 2011, Flight Global reported that according to a source at Rafael, the Israel Defense Forces learned during its deployment that Iron Dome is also effective against aircraft up to an altitude of 32,800 ft (10,000 m)" Seriously? Someone said someone from somewhere said etc. You think that's credible for an encyclopedia? Did the Rafael source ask to be anonymous? If not, why wouldn't Rafael itself have a statement about that? Are there other sources?

The criticism section should be taken out with the critical statements incorporated into the body of the article itself. That way the positive and negative could be evaluated together. The article flows much better that way. A lot of people feel criticism sections only encourage negative statements (both big and small). Just a suggestion. Dkspartan1 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Date of Jerusalem Post article

Rather than trade reverts, I'll open disccussion here. This is the latest in a series of edits differing over whether the date of this JP article is 10 April 2011 or 4 October 2011. The edit summary says, "Funding: I also infer dmy, which is what I said - If dmy, the article's date of 4/10/2011 is 4 October 2011, which is what I had, and what I am reverting to". The basis of my revert was the presence of the line in the article which reads, "By YAAKOV KATZ, JPOST.COM STAFF \ 10/04/2011 23:48" which, presuming DMY dating from the line with today's date which reaads, "02.09.2014 | 7 Elul ,5774", I take to mean day 10, month 4 (April), year 2014. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You are correct sir. I must be losing my eyesight, my mind, or both. I have self-reverted. Sorry for the inconvenience.

As a note to all editors, the cite template doesn't like "date=04/10/2011", "date=10/04/2011", or anything else containing slashes. In this article, which uses dmy dates, it needs to be like "date=10 April 2011". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)