Iran vs Israel: Implications for Missile Defense
This Substack article originates in some long posts on X.
I will discuss the recent Iranian missile attack on Israel, and its implications for missile defense. Israel has one of the most advanced missile defense systems in the world, built with US assistance (Raytheon). Iran has advanced ballistic missiles, including hypersonic missiles, although they still lag Russia and China in sophistication.
In the recent attack, two US Arleigh Burke missile destroyers also participated in the defense, presumably using SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors.
I think the evidence is strong that Iran, which launched ~200 missiles, overwhelmed Israeli defenses. This suggests that Russia and China will be able to overwhelm the comparatively weaker missile defense systems of US aircraft carrier groups with their more advanced anti-ship ballistic and hypersonic missiles. It also suggests that US bases in the Pacific, as well as in Iraq, are highly vulnerable.
What will further escalation in an Iran-Israel conflict look like? Israel (with US assistance) can bomb Iranian oil and gas infrastructure, but Iran’s nuclear program is probably deep below ground and can’t be easily destroyed. Iran can attack Israel’s nuclear reactors and other key infrastructure with missiles. Both countries would likely suffer serious setbacks, but unless Israel uses its nukes, neither can completely defeat the other. It appears the Russians will assist the Iranians, and Israeli pilots may face Russian air defense systems like the S400. If the US gets directly involved, all bets are off…
The tweet below has a 15 minute video compilation of missile hits on Israel:
https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1841803757715161444
US and Israeli official sources claimed the attack was defeated. This is what I wrote on X:
If you want to claim a ~90% overall intercept rate, you have to explain why none of the videos show such a high rate.
In the case of Iron Dome vs Hamas rockets (totally different situation), there are videos showing high intercept rates. But in the case of the recent attack, I have not seen any such videos.
In the Nevatim airbase videos it looks like ~20 hits at that site alone. But probably only a fraction (1/3 at most?) of the total ~200 missiles were fired at Nevatim. So how high can the intercept rate be? At most ~40/60 or ~2/3.
There are also claims that some of the missiles used are actual HGV (Fattah 2), and IIRC in some of the videos there are missiles which move qualitatively differently than the others, which might have been old, non-MaRV, high CEP models. It would make sense for Iran to use a mix of missiles types, esp. lots of old models, to overwhelm the defense systems. It's quite possible the intercept rate against HGV is ZERO...
It's weird cope to claim Iranian missiles MUST BE crap, when it's well-known that their drones (eg Shahed, used in UKR) are effective weapons.
I further discussed the importance of MaRV and linked to more information about Iran’s Fattah missiles, and Israel’s missile defense systems:
https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1841914399063413088
Here are two explainer videos from https://x.com/Pataramesh
The first describes Iran's hypersonic Fattah missile. The second is an overview of Israel's missile defense system.
Readers may notice I keep mentioning MaRV = Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle. Maneuver capability is important for defeating intercept. One can avoid the cost of full-blown HGV (Hypersonic Glide Vehicle) or sustained hypersonic flight (eg scramjet) by using a simple conical reentry vehicle, but with fins for atmospheric maneuver, and perhaps thrust vectoring for exo-atmospheric maneuver. These features allow the vehicle trajectory to deviate randomly from a ballistic trajectory, and makes intercept very difficult. I discussed this in blog posts about the (conical) PRC DF-21 anti-ship missile, many years ago. PRC has since transitioned to an HGV weapon, the DF-17.
Since interception requires either a direct hit (kinetic kill) or close approach (~10m), even small fluctuations in missile trajectory are a problem for interceptors. I have never looked carefully at Iran's missile program, but according to the video Iran has deployed the Fattah missile, which is an inexpensive MaRV weapon.
Every year, US Physics and Engineering PhD programs receive large numbers of applications from very strong Iranian students. It would be foolish to dismiss their miltech capabilities.
The US stopped working seriously on hypersonic weapons after the Cold War; the basic technology is quite old. Sadly, this kind of hard engineering is very out of fashion in the era of SV "software eats the world" and financial grift.
Wind tunnels, aerodynamics, composite materials, missile guidance, rocket engines, etc. are areas that may receive MORE attention in Russia, China, Iran than in the US today.
An attack using ~200 ballistic missiles, lighting up the night sky over Tel Aviv, is a reminder that hard tech still matters!
Watch the 60 Minutes episode about the 2020 Iranian missile attack on a US base in Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani
CEP ~10m for the Iranian missiles used in this attack?
Satellite image, showing the damage to at least five structures at Ain al-Assad air base in Iraq in a series of precision missile strikes launched by Iran
Update:
https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1842093937827160395
32 hits on Nevatim. CEP does not look great!
I suspect a mix of missiles used by Iran, in order to overwhelm (expensive) missile defense. But the older missiles are not accurate.
Best case for Iran: newer models had low CEP and are actually effective for precision strike.
Some people claim Israel won't fire interceptors at incoming missiles that are going to hit open space, but radar/extrapolation accuracy + uncertainty in final trajectories is such that they can't know exactly where a missile headed to Nevatim will hit at the base - ie hangar vs radar vs runway vs sand. That level of intercept selectivity is not possible.
More details:
https://x.com/Pataramesh/status/1842075445606408247
More analysis and some nice video:
https://x.com/EterfnalPhysics/status/1841801509182271999
https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1845238774365819311
Data from Ukraine (NATO systems vs Russian missiles):
Sample interception rates for commonly used Russian missiles in 2024: 50% for the older Kalibr subsonic cruise missiles, 22% for modern subsonic cruise missiles (e.g. Kh-69), 4% for modern ballistic missiles (e.g. Iskander-M), 0.6% for S-300/400 supersonic long-range SAM, and 0.55% for the Kh-22 supersonic anti-ship missile. Data on interception rates of hypersonic missiles is scarce: Ukraine claims a 25% interception rate for hypersonic Kinzhal and Zircon missiles, but Ukrainian sources also indicate such interceptions require salvo firing all 32 launchers in a US-style Patriot battery to have any chance to shoot down a single hypersonic missile. By comparison, German Patriot batteries have 16 launchers, and Germany has 72 launchers in total.
Interesting. The US has to quickly adapt with low cost, high quantity of offensive weapons, because the "shield" concept is no longer possible and greater strike-back capacity is the only deterrence. In this case, Taiwan is a lost cause because China's production capacity is now superior to the west. Carrier groups are sitting ducks for low cost missile barrages.
Another technical question that seems very important is whether air defense can counter fifth generation fighters (f-35, j-20). It seems that hezbollah doesn't have this capability, since f-35s keep hitting beirut. Does Iran or Syria have the ability to combat the f-35? Does China or Russia?
If the technology exists and can be sent to lebanon, it would be an absolute game-changer.