https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/germany-moves-ahead-with-plans-buy-israels-arrow-3-missile-defence-4-bln-euros-2023-06-09/
>BERLIN, June 9 (Reuters) - Germany plans to buy Israel's Arrow-3 missile defence system for almost 4 billion euros ($4.30 billion) in total, and will ask lawmakers to release advance payments of up to 560 million euros next week, according to documents seen by Reuters on Friday.
>The Arrow-3 is designed to intercept ballistic missiles outside of the earth's atmosphere.
>It is the top layer of Israel's missile defence array, which extends from Iron Dome that intercepts short-range rockets to Arrow-3's long-range missiles that destroy any non-conventional warheads at a safe altitude.
Arrow-3 will now form the preliminary exo-atmospheric missile defense shield for all of Europe.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-13/nato-countries-back-german-plan-for-european-anti-missile-shield
>At least 15 countries mainly of the NATO military alliance, including the U.K. and the Netherlands, have signed a letter of intent to join a long-term German project to create a European anti-missile shield that would boost protection for much of the continent.
>The system will have several layers to intercept various kinds of missiles from different heights, possibly linking up Israeli Arrow 3 air-defense systems as well as US-made Patriots and German Iris-Ts, and would be fully deployable through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Better luck next time, Lockheed.
> Boeing is responsible for 40–50 percent of the production content of the Arrow 3. Expected work content includes motorcases, shroud, canister, safe & arm / ignition devices, power devices (batteries), and inertial navigation units, as well as several avionics packages and actuators & valves
> Stark, a U.S.-based subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries, was chosen to manufacture canisters for the Arrow 3
Yeah the US doesn't care, THAAD or Arrow 3, either one feeds the MIC.
The USA actually did care a lot and slowed down Germany's plans of getting Arrow 3.
I mean sure, the US would like ALL of the pie instead of just half of it, but it's not like they're really THAT upset at the end of the day.
>I mean sure, the US would like ALL of the pie instead of just half of it, but it's not like they're really THAT upset at the end of the day.
What pie? US' pie just goes to Israel anyways.
>It’s bad enough we have to buy tech instead of developing some ourselves, but buying rockets from…them?
Israel has zero strategic value to anybody in Europe, not even France. Israel's actually cost France's historical influence in Lebanon, Syria and Iran entirely.
I figure this German purchase, like a lot of expansive purchase of Israeli AD systems, is just mean to be a way to funnel more extortion money to Israel.
spoken like a dumbass who thinks fringe opinions make him smart
>spoken like a dumbass who thinks fringe opinions make him smart
Spoken like a true insecure israelite... with not even a rebuttal.
>spoken like a dumbass who thinks fringe opinions make him smart
What fringe opinions? Name Israel's value to Europe today compared to pre-20th century when it didn't exist and nobody cared for it to exist.
Name Israel's strategic value to Britain under whom Israel was created. All Britain got out of it was being kicked out of running the Suez Canal, and ultimately got kicked out of profiting from Iranian oil.
Name a single NET benefit to any country in Europe from Israel existing. Not marginal benefit compared to some random point of time AFTER Israel was created, but actual net benefit compared to before Israel's creation.
>I figure this German purchase, like a lot of expansive purchase of Israeli AD systems, is just mean to be a way to funnel more extortion money to Israel.
exactly
lmao. You do know that Israel doesn't just sell equipment to Germany and the US, right? Israel is one of the world's largest arms exporters. Arrow 3 is better than THAAD, simple as.
Arrow 3 seriously?
It’s bad enough we have to buy tech instead of developing some ourselves, but buying rockets from…them?
If developing something ourselves was really not an option (totally was if we maybe can get HYDEF going how hard could it be) why not buy European and go with aster?!?!?
heck buying American could have at least provided us with some brownie points with a country that is actually relevant.
Fricking hell, in two years that sellout c**t Christine Lambrecht did really her worst, good thing she is gone before she did something even more moronic than waste the financial support package…
although i don’t even want to imagine what she could have done with malice rather than just sheer incompetence
Arrow 3 is likely more similar to SM3 in capability than Aster BMD (which is vaporware) and THAAD. Going Aster would have left missile defense to the dogs. THAAD didn't have the range. Arrow was the obvious choice.
thaadface 🙁
>but buying rockets from…them?
SIX MILLION
With how much Germany subsidizes Israel every israelite weapon development is basically a joint venture anyway. Except out part in it is just paying twice but yeah
>Lockheed
More like Cucksneed
Can someone redpill us on the Arrow 3? If it beats THAAD in performance it must be seriously high-end tech.
It was developed a decade+ later, so you'd hope it would be better.
They were talking about shooting down satellites with it, and list it as having 2,400km range. Seems it's more like Aegis than THAAD, but ground-mobile and possibly with longer range. Israel already had Arrow 2 which fulfills a THAAD-like mission, and Arrow2/3 work in conjunction. Arrow 2 can take on MRBMs, but Arrow 3 seems able to take on IRBMs.
> Seems it's more like Aegis than THAAD
Sorta related, the army will soon have Typhon which is basically naval MK 41 VLS cells on a truck with some other trucks for sensors/fire control/etc. Gives them TLAM and SM-6, as well as I guess potentially anything VLS launched, so SM-3 IIA even for Aegis BMD assuming you built out the sensors and software to support such a scenario.
what are they planning for radar systems because AEGIS ashore is a huge building
They're not currently planning Aegis, but the US is pushing various ground based radar upgrades at the moment, so it wouldn't shock me to see something more capable of exoatmospheric target tracking in the next few years.
Raytheon I know is specifically upgrading AN/TPY-2 with gallium nitride (GaN) T/R Modules as well as providing the new LTAMDS radar set which will also use GaN T/R modules and is supposedly designed to counter hypersonic threats specifically.
>US wants new missile treaty with Soviets
>puts tomahawks on a truck to get them to the table
>it works
>years later
>russia violates the treaty
>US returns to putting tomahawks on a bigger truck
>russia begins opening up talks
History doesn't repeat but it rhymes
"ballistic" trajectory missiles are all but worthless to plan for anymore
It's the majority of the world arsenal and remains the greatest challenge. HGVs have a ways to go yet.
Isn't THAAD for the terminal re-entry? What's the point of comparing a sniper and a machine gun if both have different roles? Feel like a thread made by some moronic poo
>equating a four-round launcher to a machine gun
Just how many missiles do you think a four-round precision-munition launcher carries?
Why do decoy missiles not work against missile defence systems? It seems like a no-brainer, that an effective strategy to thwart missile defence systems would be to launch cheap decoy missiles and drones whose purpose is not to hit a designated target but to bait missile defence systems into launching their incredibly costly missiles. At the very least such a tactic would be effective via attrition. Presumably it might also work as a "boy-who-cried-wolf tactic", where if you spam cheap drones and missiles at an enemy long enough, they will stop launching their defence systems against you, then you attack them with a real weapon.
They do work, which is why the other part of response to a potential nuclear attack is your own nuclear attack. You don’t get to “it was just a prank bro” your way through a countries defensive missiles, unless you want to go down in history as the guy who got nuked because you tried to be funny
There are problems with decoy missiles. They have to properly imitate the actual live missiles to be effective which often means they have to implement similar solutions and cost nearly the same amount to be effective, which defeats their purpose. Decoy warheads are better but to get them to behave as similarly as live warheads they need to be very close to them in weight and size too. US and UK faced this issue from the mid 60s when ABM systems were a highly contested uncertainty and despite doing insane amount of research US decided it's just more effective to have more smaller warheads instead of wasting space on the decoys, resulting in the Posiedon SLBM with up to 14 small yield warhead capacity. UK decided to add decoys to their old Polaris A3 missiles later on and also developed very advanced ones but in the end switched to Trident missiles either way.
Russians are big on the decoys but their effectiveness is doubtful for me since to make them really effective you need to invest into decoy discrimination systems too and actually study how you identify them, which was always russia's weak point. The same way Iskander and Kinzhal missiles used small decoys to make them harder to shoot down which didn't help them one bit against an actually modern system made with that in mind. Russians in general were massively behind on specific points in rocket tech in the 80s when the majority of "modern" russian tech was actually being developed and russia has done few endeavors beyond finishing those projects.
Interesting info, thanks.
>They have to properly imitate the actual live missiles to be effective which often means they have to implement similar solutions and cost nearly the same amount to be effective, which defeats their purpose
This is true anywhere BUT nuclear missiles. In normal missiles the warhead is a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of the overall package. In nukes even with the most advanced ICBMs the warhead is still a massive cost, not just one time either but in required very expensive difficult ongoing maintenance (major aspects are literally decaying in real time all the time from the instant they are made). Plus there are warhead limitation treaties (which actually make sense, so not trivial to toss).
All of which adds up to decoy usage in nukes being potentially very, very worth it. The main thing has been that SMD systems have also been historically extremely expensive and technologically challenging, which means Soviets and then Russia simply had nothing worth noting, so NATO didn't need to bother thinking about decoys either because NATO had both conventional and often nuclear superiority. Didn't have to gild that lily. Chinese though could definitely consider it.
>In nukes even with the most advanced ICBMs the warhead is still a massive cost, not just one time either but in required very expensive difficult ongoing maintenance
The same concept applies with the missile though. Especially if we're talking 60s-80s liquid fueled rockets.