Fri, 07/18/2014 - 09:30

Iron Dome: Images of failure

Figure 1_new.jpg

Figure 1. An Iron Dome interceptor engages a rocket in the proper orientation. The blue dashed line emanating from the forward section of the interceptor depicts the line-of-sight of its laser fuse.

Figure_02-new.jpg

Figure 2. Deciding when to explode: A conceptual diagram showing, via the blue arrow, the correct orientation if an Iron Dome interceptor warhead is to destroy a target rocket warhead.

Figure_03-new.jpg

Figure 3. A slightly more detailed view of the outcome, if an Iron Dome interceptor works as intended, spraying fragments at high speed into a rocket warhead, causing it to explode.

figure-4-new.jpg

Figure 4. A view of damage apparently caused by the detonation of the warhead of this rocket when it hit ground.

figure-4A-new.jpg

Figure 4A. Holes in an empty rocket motor casing suggest that an Iron Dome interceptor warhead exploded too late to detonate the target rocket warhead in the air.

figure-5-new.jpg

Figure 5. This vector diagram shows how a skewed frontal approach would tend to spread fragments from an Iron Dome interceptor warhead in directions unlikely to contact or explode a target rocket warhead. (Vector diagram speeds in feet per second.)

figure-6-new.jpg

Figure 6. This vector diagram of an Iron Dome interceptor attacking a Grad rocket from the side shows how unlikely it would be for fragments from the interceptor warhead to hit the rocket warhead.

figure-7-new.jpg

Figure 7. A vector diagram of a different sidelong approach, showing, again, that the spread of fragments from the Iron Dome interceptor would be unlikely to strike the warhead area of the rockets.

figure-8-new.jpg

Figure 8. An Iron Dome interceptor attacking a rocket from behind would have a low probability of spraying fragements into the rocket warhead. (Vector diagram speeds in feet per second.)

figure-9-new.jpg

Figure 9. A photo from November 2012 shows Iron Dome interceptor contrails that suggest ineffective sidelong or rear approaches to the target rocket.

figure-10-new.jpg

Figure 10. Another 2012 photo suggesting ineffective, non-frontal attacks by Iron Dome interceptors.

figure-11-new.jpg

Figure 11. More apparently ineffective Iron Dome attacks.

figure-12-new.jpg

Figure 12. Two intercept attempts in July 2014 that suggest Iron Dome interceptors attacked in a sidelong orientation unlikely to destroy the target rockets.

figure-13-new.jpg

Figure 13. A contrail photo that suggests another sidelong approach by an Iron Dome interceptor.

figure-14-new.jpg

Figure 14. What an Iron Dome hit looks like in the sky.

figure-15-new.jpg

Figure 15. Published warning times for artillery rockets of varying ranges attacking Israel from the Gaza Strip.

figure-16-new.jpg

Figure 16. A screen shot of the red alert mobile phone app that issues an audible alert of an impending artillery rocket impact in Israel.
Slide 1 of 17

Figure 1. An Iron Dome interceptor engages a rocket in the proper orientation. The blue dashed line emanating from the forward section of the interceptor depicts the line-of-sight of its laser fuse.

Figure 2. Deciding when to explode: A conceptual diagram showing, via the blue arrow, the correct orientation if an Iron Dome interceptor warhead is to destroy a target rocket warhead.

Figure 3. A slightly more detailed view of the outcome, if an Iron Dome interceptor works as intended, spraying fragments at high speed into a rocket warhead, causing it to explode.

Figure 4. A view of damage apparently caused by the detonation of the warhead of this rocket when it hit ground.

Figure 4A. Holes in an empty rocket motor casing suggest that an Iron Dome interceptor warhead exploded too late to detonate the target rocket warhead in the air.

Figure 5. This vector diagram shows how a skewed frontal approach would tend to spread fragments from an Iron Dome interceptor warhead in directions unlikely to contact or explode a target rocket warhead. (Vector diagram speeds in feet per second.)

Figure 6. This vector diagram of an Iron Dome interceptor attacking a Grad rocket from the side shows how unlikely it would be for fragments from the interceptor warhead to hit the rocket warhead.

Figure 7. A vector diagram of a different sidelong approach, showing, again, that the spread of fragments from the Iron Dome interceptor would be unlikely to strike the warhead area of the rockets.

Figure 8. An Iron Dome interceptor attacking a rocket from behind would have a low probability of spraying fragements into the rocket warhead. (Vector diagram speeds in feet per second.)

Figure 9. A photo from November 2012 shows Iron Dome interceptor contrails that suggest ineffective sidelong or rear approaches to the target rocket.

Figure 10. Another 2012 photo suggesting ineffective, non-frontal attacks by Iron Dome interceptors.

Figure 11. More apparently ineffective Iron Dome attacks.

Figure 12. Two intercept attempts in July 2014 that suggest Iron Dome interceptors attacked in a sidelong orientation unlikely to destroy the target rockets.

Figure 13. A contrail photo that suggests another sidelong approach by an Iron Dome interceptor.

Figure 14. What an Iron Dome hit looks like in the sky.

Figure 15. Published warning times for artillery rockets of varying ranges attacking Israel from the Gaza Strip.

Figure 16. A screen shot of the red alert mobile phone app that issues an audible alert of an impending artillery rocket impact in Israel.