Iron Dome Plus: How Israel's Famous Air Defense Works

Israel possesses arguably one of the most effective, battle-tested air defence systems in service today. The system is often described in the media as the“Iron Dome”, but this is not quite correct.

Israel's defences have several layers, each designed to address threats coming from different ranges.

Iron Dome is just one of these layers: a short-range, anti-artillery defence system , designed to intercept short-range artillery shells and rockets.

In essence, Iron Dome consists of a network of radar emitters, command and control facilities, and the interceptors (special surface-to-air missiles).

The radar quickly detects incoming threats, the command and control elements decide which are most pressing, and the interceptors are sent to destroy the incoming shells or rockets.

The other layers of Israel's defence system include David's Sling , and the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 interceptors. These are specifically designed to engage longer-range ballistic missiles, both within the atmosphere and at very high altitudes above it (known as exoatmospheric interception).

Spectacular footage has been captured of what are likely exoatmospheric interceptions taking place during this latest conflict, demonstrating Israel's capacity to engage longer-range missiles.

The US military has comparable missile defence systems. The US Army has the Patriot PAC-3 (comparable to David's Sling) and THAAD (comparable to Arrow 2), while the US Navy has the Aegis and the SM-3 (comparable to Arrow 3) and the SM-6 (comparable again to Arrow 2).

The US deployed Aegis-equipped warships to support Israel's defence against missile attacks in 2024, and appears to be preparing to do the same now .

Iran possesses some air defense systems such as the Russian S300, which has some (very limited) ballistic missile defence capabilities, but only against shorter-range (and thus slower) ballistic missiles. Further, Israel has been focusing on degrading Iran's air defenses, so it is not clear how many are still operational.

Iran has been focusing on developing technology such as maneuverable warheads , which are harder to defend against. However, it is not clear whether these are yet operational and in Iranian service.

Missile defenses are finite. The defender is always limited by the number of interceptors it possesses.

The attacker is also limited by the number of missiles it possesses. However, the defender must often assign multiple interceptors to each attacking missile, in case the first misses or otherwise fails.

The attacker will plan for some losses to interceptors (or mechanical failures) and send what it determines to be enough missiles for at least some to penetrate the defenses.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

When it comes to ballistic missiles, the advantage lies with the attacker. Ballistic missiles can carry large explosive payloads (or even nuclear warheads), so even a handful of missiles“leaking” past defensive systems can still wreak significant damage.

What now?

Israel's missile defenses are unlikely to stop working completely. However, as attacks deplete its stocks of interceptors, the system may become less effective.

As the conflict continues, it may become a race to see who runs out of weapons first. Will it be Iran's stocks of ballistic missiles and drones, or the interceptors and anti-air munitions of Israel, the US and any other supporters?

It is impossible to say who would prevail in such a race of stockpile attrition. Some reports suggest Iran has fired approximately 1,000 ballistic missiles of an estimated 3,000. However, this still leaves it with an enormous stockpile to use, and it is unclear how fast Iran can make new missiles to replenish its resources.

But we should hope it doesn't come to that. Beyond the tit-for-tat exchange of missiles, the latest conflict between Israel and Iran risks escalating. If it is not resolved soon, and if the US is drawn into the conflict more directly, we may see broader conflict in the Middle East.

James Dwyer is lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
• Click to print (Opens in new window) Print