One of these days Iran is going to do some serious damage to Israel. Israel may consider it a real existential threat and release hell in the form of a tactical nuke and wipe Tehran off the map.
Existential threat to the Jewish nation could warrant such a response.
Pray it does not happen.
"Iran has completed the construction of a major onshore oil pipeline, the Goureh-Jask pipeline, which will allow the country to bypass the Hormuz Strait for its oil exports. The 2-billion-U.S.-dollar project will allow the crude to travel some 1,000 km from Iran's pumping facilities in Goureh located on the southwestern shores to the Oman Sea port of Jask on the southeastern shore of the country."
I think you would find that most of the expense in the missile is bound up in the seeker electronics and flight control system. Making it smaller because it uses less solid rocket propellant will not decrease the cost as much as you think. It still has to home on the target at multi-mach speed while maneuvering to intercept, and if it also has a smaller warhead would need a more precise hitAirplanes only have a few seconds of ammo.
The f-16 has 511 rounds, and fires at 6k per minute
That's 5.5 seconds.
How much does it cost when missiles/drones hit.
What we need, is a missile/drone defense platform that can launch smaller (less ranged) missiles.. purpose built.
That could extend the amount of missiles engaged, and range, from a city or ship
The attack aircraft were operating at the extremes of their performance envelope and wouldn't have had sufficient maneuverability to go to guns. If balloons were to become a regular problem, might need a gun pod option on a U2 or WB-57Why did the US Air Force waste expensive missiles to shoot down a friggin chinese ballon? Half a second of machine gun fire would have done the job just as easily
Because planes only go so highWhy did the US Air Force waste expensive missiles to shoot down a friggin chinese ballon? Half a second of machine gun fire would have done the job just as easily
I think you would find that most of the expense in the missile is bound up in the seeker electronics and flight control system. Making it smaller because it uses less solid rocket propellant will not decrease the cost as much as you think. It still has to home on the target at multi-mach speed while maneuvering to intercept, and if it also has a smaller warhead would need a more precise hit
You're right it was only like 98.434%That doesn't look like a 99% intercept rate to me.