OK, a Tamir is just $50,000, but small simple drones are still cheaper. Especially since the likelihood that fake, cheap unarmed decoys will be used. Many of those "missile launchers" the US hit are probably decoys. Decoys are used in the Ukraine. It is easier to fake a little drone launcher than fake a tank. Ultimately, industrial capacity is a key factor of drone vs. anti-missile. Drones have the edge in swarms. The USA industrial capacity was sent to China. Industrial capacity wins.
Great article on cost-effective defensive solutions. Two additional hurdles to overcome: 1. At-sea replenishment of these new missile systems. 2. Overcoming energy depletion and laser diffraction of the laser-bssed defensive systems, especially in high moisture environments (rain, snow, fog, clouds, etc).
The AEGIS system cannot be replenished at sea. I don't know if the Israelis can replenish the Tamir missiles at sea, but those missiles are a good deal smaller than the SM-2.
Lasers do have a problem in certain weather conditions. .
What stands out is the gap in costs: Arrow 3, Israeli exo-atmospheric hit to kill missile is $2.3M vs $3M for Patriot PAC-3. Tamir is $20-100K and is an area defense missile vs Stinger $38-100K shoulder launched missile with limited capability.
A GAO with teeth should examine Pentagon purchasing costs.
"an SM-2 costs over 1,000 times more than a basic Houthi drone"
A basic Houthi drone hitting an oil refinery, aircraft carrier or hospital causes much more damage than the cost of an SM-2, hence the economic sense of the tradeoffs.
That is a valid point to make, but if you still face the unenviable situation that you have blown off your SM-2s that you might need for strategic threats such as ballistic missiles.
Is there a possibility that Iran directly or through one of their proxies might attempt the firing of drones to defuse the ships' defenses followed up by a ballistic missile - sort of like a one-two punch? Additionally, how close are we to war in the Middle East (again) versus the current round of skirmishes?
The first answer is even the Houthis are trying that trick --sending a swarm of drones and then a cruise or ballistic missile. Luckily so far they have bad aim.
The bottom line for now is that America, Iran, the Saudis, UAE, Lebanon and others don't actualllly WANT a wider war, for various reasons, chiefly economic.
So we have a kind of strangely choreographed set of interlocking tactical chess games, with as far as I can see only Netanyahu pushing for an expanded conflict - in my view largely because he knows that war is his only way to stay in power and out of prison.
Hamas of course started this, unpopular in Gaza and threatened by an Israel-Saudi accord, and the Houthi intervention was also an opportunistic response to domestic pressure.
But even the Houthis are calibrating their attacks, and none of the.primary players except some in Israel and Gaza seem to want further escalation.
The corruption trial - with 333 witnesses - is currently on hold but will resume once N steps down.
The cabinet has deepening rifts and is only kept together by the war for which it was formed.
Only 15% of Israeli voters now support N contnuing as PM after the war ends.
Fawad Gerges ascribed the same motivation to N on GPS last Sunday, and Zakaria considered it a valid perspective.
Of course the dynamics of any military conflict are complex, and one person's motivation does not determine everything, but many serious, well-informed observers consider N's perceived personal self-interest a significant component in the complex wider dynamic.
You think, Stephen, that I support the Houthis. I don't, but like most regional and global leaders question the strategic logic of attacking them.
I think we largely share our criticisms of Zelensky and his backers - but you seem to support Netanyahu, and I don't fully understand why.
Just like the old 'weapons of mass destruction'' in Iraq that turned out to be a lie, and the goatherders blowing up the twin towers and the missile, oh, sorry aircraft hitting the Pentagon.
It's all hogwash. It's funny reading it though. I would love to know how much this guy takes home for his weekly shill.
OK, a Tamir is just $50,000, but small simple drones are still cheaper. Especially since the likelihood that fake, cheap unarmed decoys will be used. Many of those "missile launchers" the US hit are probably decoys. Decoys are used in the Ukraine. It is easier to fake a little drone launcher than fake a tank. Ultimately, industrial capacity is a key factor of drone vs. anti-missile. Drones have the edge in swarms. The USA industrial capacity was sent to China. Industrial capacity wins.
Great article on cost-effective defensive solutions. Two additional hurdles to overcome: 1. At-sea replenishment of these new missile systems. 2. Overcoming energy depletion and laser diffraction of the laser-bssed defensive systems, especially in high moisture environments (rain, snow, fog, clouds, etc).
The AEGIS system cannot be replenished at sea. I don't know if the Israelis can replenish the Tamir missiles at sea, but those missiles are a good deal smaller than the SM-2.
Lasers do have a problem in certain weather conditions. .
Again, a good analysis, but better tactics are no substitute to better strategy. Saw a headline today that Maersk ain't coming back soon.
I think most people hope that israel will not be around to test out these weapons.
Most people don't think that at all.
I didn't say think, i said hope.
What stands out is the gap in costs: Arrow 3, Israeli exo-atmospheric hit to kill missile is $2.3M vs $3M for Patriot PAC-3. Tamir is $20-100K and is an area defense missile vs Stinger $38-100K shoulder launched missile with limited capability.
A GAO with teeth should examine Pentagon purchasing costs.
GAO is not taken seriously by the Pentagon.
Defense economics can seem strange to outsiders.
Chuck Grassley compared the cost of a $10,000 USAF toilet seat to $30 at Costco.
But that multiple is only 333x, while an SM-2 costs over 1,000 times more than a basic Houthi drone.
Talk about asymmetric warfare.
As the lawyers ask, Cui Bono?
"an SM-2 costs over 1,000 times more than a basic Houthi drone"
A basic Houthi drone hitting an oil refinery, aircraft carrier or hospital causes much more damage than the cost of an SM-2, hence the economic sense of the tradeoffs.
That is a valid point to make, but if you still face the unenviable situation that you have blown off your SM-2s that you might need for strategic threats such as ballistic missiles.
Is there a possibility that Iran directly or through one of their proxies might attempt the firing of drones to defuse the ships' defenses followed up by a ballistic missile - sort of like a one-two punch? Additionally, how close are we to war in the Middle East (again) versus the current round of skirmishes?
The first answer is even the Houthis are trying that trick --sending a swarm of drones and then a cruise or ballistic missile. Luckily so far they have bad aim.
And some of those drones may be even cheaper unarmed decoys.
The bottom line for now is that America, Iran, the Saudis, UAE, Lebanon and others don't actualllly WANT a wider war, for various reasons, chiefly economic.
So we have a kind of strangely choreographed set of interlocking tactical chess games, with as far as I can see only Netanyahu pushing for an expanded conflict - in my view largely because he knows that war is his only way to stay in power and out of prison.
Hamas of course started this, unpopular in Gaza and threatened by an Israel-Saudi accord, and the Houthi intervention was also an opportunistic response to domestic pressure.
But even the Houthis are calibrating their attacks, and none of the.primary players except some in Israel and Gaza seem to want further escalation.
There is no legal threat anymore to Netanyahu and he has a cabinet that includes some opposition members. Be careful how you ascribe motivations.
The corruption trial - with 333 witnesses - is currently on hold but will resume once N steps down.
The cabinet has deepening rifts and is only kept together by the war for which it was formed.
Only 15% of Israeli voters now support N contnuing as PM after the war ends.
Fawad Gerges ascribed the same motivation to N on GPS last Sunday, and Zakaria considered it a valid perspective.
Of course the dynamics of any military conflict are complex, and one person's motivation does not determine everything, but many serious, well-informed observers consider N's perceived personal self-interest a significant component in the complex wider dynamic.
You think, Stephen, that I support the Houthis. I don't, but like most regional and global leaders question the strategic logic of attacking them.
I think we largely share our criticisms of Zelensky and his backers - but you seem to support Netanyahu, and I don't fully understand why.
The US and israel want to go to war with Iran.
They have shills laying the ground work.
Just like the old 'weapons of mass destruction'' in Iraq that turned out to be a lie, and the goatherders blowing up the twin towers and the missile, oh, sorry aircraft hitting the Pentagon.
It's all hogwash. It's funny reading it though. I would love to know how much this guy takes home for his weekly shill.
You are imagining things.