Wrong. The only thing you need to cover is Gaza Strip/Lebannon border, and only in places where a city or settlement is in the range of Kassam rockets. Odd larger missile can be handled by ID rocket. Had the system been designed to do anything else than stop crude rockets, maybe, but so far all it does and will ever do is killing 300$ junk.
If you knew what you were talking about you'd know they don't use Qassam rockets in Lebanon. Hezbollah has a very wide range of factory produced weapons. In fact Iron Dome is quite capable against more advanced rockets, all that matters as far as an intercept goes is how fast the damn thing travels and how big it is not how crude it was welded together. The US Army has been evaluating the system for a while and considering deploying it in Afghanistan.
That was exactly what I postulated. No tank, no armored turret, etc, just cheap gun system targeting incoming pipe rockets. At your cost, 1 mln $, one Iron Dome battery less would buy 'tens' of such systems, which then proceed to take out badly welded chunks of canalisation for ~100$ [link
to 30 mm HE round price from quick google] a pop, not 65.000$.
Its not going to cost 1 million dollars. The chassis is the cheap part, not the turret with guns, radar and computers. Try ten times that as a minimal ceiling, more if it was produced in the west, and considerable operating costs linked to operating so many separate radar and computer systems each requiring its own crew.
Also - it fired 40 missiles to defeat that last wave of 120 300$ rockets. That alone is 2.6 mln $ that would have paid by ~3 such systems by itself, isn't it?
Nope. Also a cannon system can only engage one target at a time, and will thus be easily overwhelmed by a salvo of rockets in view of its limited range and thus limited engagement time. Iron Dome can tackle multiple targets at once.
A) You'd need to burn ~650 rounds before approaching cost of a single missile.
Tunguska fires at about 5,000 rounds per minute, you'll easily end up expending 650 rounds on one rocket engaged as a crossing target. Guns completely suck against crossing targets.
Modern systems are capable of killing unguided rockets with a short burst, it wouldn't use 650 rounds to defeat the entire described attack of 120 missiles.
Yeah it wouldn't use 650 rounds, it'd use more like 50,000 rounds and several new gun barrels to defeat that many rockets, if it could ever engage them all.
B) Note you're spraying in the direction of Palestinian border, into area that is often under rocket attack anyway. Read, into expendable land. That thing would sit between city and launch site, not in public park.
Yeah, trying to use a gun to engage a target falling over your firing position is going to work like crap.
Also, modern anti-air shells are HE anyway, they are more reliable in this regard than a missile, and a single 30 mm round weighs nowhere near weight of ID rocket. You could well reverse the question and ask why risk adding to damage by spraying neighbourhood with rain of big rocket parts when remnants of a few 30 mm rounds are far less dangerous, IMHO.
Your opinion is wrong, your talking about firing thousands and thousands of shells, at least some of which will have fuse failures and come down live and whole. Its much easier to put a reliable fuse in a handful of missiles then large scale production runs of cannon ammunition.
Um... Were talking about Kassams, right?
122mm rockets in general. Not everything Hamas fires is home made, and nothing Hezbollah has is. Iron Dome was not meant to be the most minimal defense that might barely work some of the time like your idea to spread huge numbers of gun systems around would be. The US basically DID rush a minimal anti rocket defense into service with C-RAM and it only manages a 60-70% kill rate while defending a 500m radius and being easily saturated. Each C-RAM fire unit by the way costs 15 million dollars while being much smaller then a Tunguska turret.
Slow, unguided missiles with refrigerator-like radar signature, barely good enough to maybe hit a city in 1/3 of the cases? These are not Scuds, heck, I'd be surprised if that thing breached mortar round speeds. But, even if we cut the range in half, to 2 km, two of these will still cover about any settlement on Israel border, and they will do it far more efficiently than planting a missile battery costing tens of million $ around the whole border.
Yes because you are the super genius, and the Israelis don't know anything right?
As for the USA, aren't coastal cities in the USA a teeny tiny bit bigger (and that just one of them) than entire population of Israel put together? And weren't they protected from real rockets, not hobbyist crap filled with fertilizer explosive?
The hell are you even talking about now?
I don't postulate to replace ID with this, I just wonder why Israel spent hundreds of millions of dollars when a fraction of that would have supplemented Iron Dome's 85% hit ratio to something approaching 100% at fraction of the price. I can see coverage argument, but... Especially seeing they would have liberty to intercept all missiles then, not just 1/3, potentially saving a target ID programmers missed and sending much better message to Palestinians than 'we'll spend two orders of magnitude (two hundred twenty times!) more per rocket to intercept 1/3 of your missiles so keep sending 'em to bankrupt us!' one.
You wonder because you have reached hopelessly wrong conclusions, and somehow assumed that the difference between those conclusions and the conclusions of the IDF mean the IDF is wrong and not you. Did you even read that article and understand why Iron Dome was ineffective against very short range attacks? And how this might be relevant to a gun based system too?