From Moti from MP forum:

OK, it could be to 2 different country, for 2 different system here.

Some info abt Iron Dome:
Link

But I heard it is not perfect, , if if the enemy arty fire less than 4 km away, it has too little time to respond to it.
Link

yeah, true it could be for 2 different countries but something tells me it's not impossible that a certain "Republic of Annoymous Armed Forces" would buy it... :rolleyes:

Hmm don't we already use Barak missiles on our ships?

The one who is going to buy the Iron Dome could very possible involve in the development of the project for quite some time either in the R&D or funding, otherwise no one would commit to buying a yet to be fully operational system like the Iron Dome.

It kind of remind me of CAEW where where IAF & RSAF got their plane almost simultaneously.

i understand that S'pore funds helped kicked off the Barak missile series too

As a guess, I would say South Korea for the iron dome. Barak 8 is probably india.

IAI Awarded Contract Worth $50 Million for Iron Dome's Radar System
Jan 27, 2010

ELTA's MMR Radar


Israel Aerospace Industries' (IAI) group and wholly owned subsidiary ELTA Systems Ltd, has been awarded a contract worth $50 million to provide several of the radar systems used in the "Iron Dome", for integration into a national self-protection system. The customer chose ELTA's radars after a series of successful tests were performed on the systems.

The "Iron Dome" radar system belongs to the Multi-Mission Radar (MMR) family, designed and manufactured by ELTA for Weapon Location and Air Defense missions. The "Iron Dome" Radar System is designed to detect, track, measure and anticipate trajectories of mortars, "Kassam" rockets and "Grad" missiles, and to measure the exact spatial location of each threat.

The information provided by the "Iron Dome" radar system is used to warn endangered areas, and to locate exact targets in order to effectively intercept threats. Additional foreign customers have shown growing interest in the "Iron Dome" System and its subsystems, indicating large contracts in the future.

if its a national system, can $50mil cover the length of the Korean border? Maybe just Seoul? I don't have the numbers off the cuff, but I'm expecting Korea to pay a lot more of its a national defense of sorts...

btw I found something! from here

That's a fairly old article. And while the actual cost estimates for the rockets/interceptors were probably accurate then, another thing to note is that Iron Dome was supposed to asses and only intercept rockets that were targeted at populated areas or targets of value. Which certainly makes sense for the Israelis, since the unguided rockets have a huge CEP. Why shoot down a rocket that is going to blow up some rocks?

For us, we have few areas that are not populated, so it will probably be trickier. Incoming rounds may very well hit a populated area fairly easily. More importantly however, is the range of potential incoming fire. Anything longer ranged, i.e. MLRS rounds, can be detected, and probably intercepted by Iron Dome. Successful interception would be another matter entirely of course.

Home-made rockets wouldn't exactly be the target our Iron Dome, should Singapore be the purchaser, would be targeted against.

May not be S. Korea... I'm of the view that this system does not meet S. Korean national needs. If the system is used in S. Korea, it would perform a point defence role for key installations rather than for general population defence.

Its only radars purchased whose distinctive features should be relatively easy to sight if it was SG.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/IAI-Sc...rt-Order-06150/

"At the time, Flight International reported interest from “2 Asian countries” in the system; based on security needs and customer status, the top 3 assumptions would be South Korea, India, and Singapore."

IAI press release and Flight international article can be accessed through the links in the article. Flight also reports that US is interested as well for the Afghan mission.

Range = up to 70km

Link to official site:
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/area.asp...=186&docID=1530

Brochure:
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STOR...FILES/6/946.pdf

Thanks. We'll have to wait for pictures, if any to appear (if it is Korea but I still have my doubts). ;)

There are reports stating that it is India who bought 34 units of the EL/M2084 radar in 3 variants (incl the iron dome one) with some pics.

http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/06/i...ews-briefs.html

I was under the impression that DSTA had some input on the Iron Dome system.

we should have placed bets on this :P

replace rapier only? would it be more cost effective if they they replace both the rapier and i-hawk together with 1 system?

I think that the Spyder AAM (to be equipped with Derby) would be phased in over the time to replace the Rapier and I-Hawk. Anything longer than that would be taken care of by the fighters and Formidable-class FFGs.

Does that mean that we might see Python 5 and Derby on the Vipers in the future? Exciting development!

163 had recent upgrades. I-hawk can handle threats out to 35km+. Systems like the ICWAR still makes it difficult to avoid.

Spyder SR has range of 15km (w 360 coverage x 2).

2 FUs can cover entire SG battlespace. 1 bn (eg 165sqn) already yields sufficient FUs to do so + overlap. The anti-PGM capability makes it useful to defend high value targets beyond airfields.

Replacing all SAMs at one go means entire rear line is in training ie offline. Makes sense to take a sqn by sqn replacement approach. I'm only surprised that rsaf don't replace 160 first unless they're looking ahead (pun intended). Rapier missile lifespan may make the decision moot.

I do see truck mounted as a way to support the wheeled AFV bdes. Think it makes sense to replace V-200/RBS-70s in 369 as well.

369? Don't they have the Igla/M113 thingy?

David`s Sling or Magic Wand with the Stunner interceptor would complete the layered system; albeit with possibly different sensors and C & C systems. ;) What is so wonderful is the progressive upgrades that will come with Israel using the system in a hot environment. It is supposed to be cheaper too.

Edit:

Stunner missile; http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/area.asp...=251&docID=1607
Effective against cruise missiles, aircraft, short range ballistic missiles and long range large calibre rockets.
Max range is up to 200 km.

Iron Dome; http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/area.asp...=251&docID=1530
Effective against short range rockets, 155 mm artillery shell threats and reportedly mortar rounds
Max range is up to 70 km.

And of course the Spyder short range system;
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/area.asp...D=251&docID=704
Max range is 1-15km.

I think all 3 systems are able to leverage on Elta's EL/M-2084 Multi-Mission Radar phased array radar offered together with Iron Dome or Iron Cap. The radar is capable of detecting aircraft and missile targets at ranges up to 350km, depending on altitude. For ballistic targets the radar can spot and track hundreds of targets simultaneously, and pinpoint artillery fire sources at a range of 100 km. The system will also calculate the anticipated impact points for each target, alerting the locations that might be affected by the threat.
From;
http://defense-update.com/events/2007/summ...airshow07ad.htm

Recently, the radar systems were exported to an undeclared country;
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=4066

wah, didn't know that unit got 'gangster influence'...probably cuz they are operating alongside the armour mafia? B)

http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum_pic/S...our_Army_03.jpg

We still have 18DA who operate Mistral to support 21 Div. The 369 numbering is to show the linkage with the respective CAD likewise 3 Sig, 6 Sig etc. One more DA forming up to support 2x Div.

Just thinking that some cost savings might be achieved by hooking up the spyder to existing radars.

Having said that, the newer digital radars are a lot more capable with higher update rates, better ECCM, multi-beam, more tracking etc. Particularly for Israel who is one of the few countries that can produce AESAs.

The ATAR shouldn't be that exp either. Better detection compared to giraffe for low-level.

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/7/35407.pdf

The old radars function as decoys too (or increase redundancy) making for target deception techniques to waste KH-31s and increase ARM sortie needs for enemy.

Was Iron Dome defense system actually built for Singapore?

A Paris-based online magazine covering intelligence and security issues this week called Singapore one of the most important customers of Israel's defense industry, laying bare the active, though secret, relationship between Israel and Singapore that began more than 40 years ago - a statement that comes after years in which Israel censored all local articles on the subject.

Intelligence Online, which is published in English on a bimonthly basis, states that the Southeast Asian island state helped finance the Iron Dome system designed by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems to intercept short-range missiles and rockets, in exchange for which it is supposed to receive several Iron Dome systems to deploy on its territory.

Even more interesting is the possibility the article raises that Iron Dome was designed first and foremost for the benefit of Singapore - not for the protection of Sderot and the southern communities in Israel that suffered from Qassam rocket attacks and mortar fire for seven years and are still suffering (though Iron Dome is not capable of intercepting mortar shells).

Israeli media have previously hinted at this, but the Defense Ministry has vehemently denied it.

The suspicions were bolstered by the fact that after the system was developed and one battery had been deployed as an Israel Defense Forces base, it turned out that the Defense Ministry had no budget for additional batteries. In that case, why was there a need to develop a system for which there is no budget and which the IDF does not intend to deploy?

According to Intelligence Online, which focuses on arms transactions between countries and corporations and on appointments of intelligence personnel and their clandestine activity, the Iron Dome transaction is the latest between Israel and Singapore.

The Web site, whose articles are available only to paid subscribers, has thousands of readers, including Israelis.

Iron Dome, which its developers said was tested successfully a few months ago, as Israeli media have previously reported, cost roughly $250 million to develop.

One battery, whose production cost is about $50 million, has already been deployed at a base in the south of the country, but so far has not been readied for operational purposes and has not yet been activated.

The anti-aircraft division of the Israel Air Force, which is responsible for operating Iron Dome, is training teams at a base in the north.

They will be operating the system in Israel, with the aim of intercepting Qassam and Katyusha rockets up to a distance of 40 kilometers.

Vulcan-Phalanx: cheaper and more accessible

Intelligence Online also repeats an argument published in recent years in Israel to the effect that if the Defense Ministry had really wanted to protect the residents of the south quickly and cheaply, it could have acquired a cheaper and more accessible defense system than Iron Dome: the batteries of the Vulcan-Phalanx cannon system manufactured by Raytheon.

The land-based version of the batteries, called Centurion, are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they are used to protect American and NATO forces.

Although Defense Minister Ehud Barak has told Haaretz several times that Israel will acquire the Vulcan-Phalanx system, that has yet to happen.

In other words, the Defense Ministry may have given Rafael a development budget as a way of positioning the project as an Israeli military system that is ostensibly being used by the IDF but is really aimed at improving Israel's chances of selling it to Singapore and other countries.

Small country, hostile population

The cooperation between Israel and Singapore rests on the two small countries' shared sense of being under threat, since both are surrounded by a hostile Muslim population and want advanced weapons systems to maintain a qualitative advantage over their neighbors.

The Intelligence Online article argues that the fight against fundamentalist Islamic terror over the past decade has increased the cooperation between the two countries, as well as their sense of a shared destiny. In recent years, Singapore has confronted threats by Jemaah Islamiyah, a terrorist group that operates in Southeast Asia.

The island state, a neighbor of Indonesia and Malaysia, has arrested dozens of the group's operatives and exposed plans to attack the Israeli, American and Australian embassies, along with ships from those countries. One of Singapore's main sources of income is the Port of Singapore, which claims to be the busiest port in the world.

According to the article, immediately after Singapore declared its independence in 1965 it asked Israel to help it establish an army. IDF officers including Rehavam Ze'evi (who became a right-wing cabinet member assassinated in 2001) and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer (now the industry, trade and labor minister) were sent to Singapore to head large delegations of military advisers, and helped build the army on the model of the IDF. Israeli military representatives have been active since then at the Israeli Embassy in Singapore, which was opened in 1969.

One of the issues the IDF representatives deal with is promoting large arms deals. Transactions mentioned in the article include Singapore's purchase of Barak surface-to-air missiles manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries and Israel's upgrading of fighter planes belonging to Singapore's air force.

In addition, Rafael supplied drones for naval missions and Israel's Elbit Systems supplied its Hermes drone.

Intelligence Online also says there is naval cooperation between the two countries, and notes that the commander of Israel's navy, Admiral Eli Marom, had previously represented Israel in Singapore.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159036.html

Short answer: No.

Long answer:
Singapore does not face the threat of unguided rockets in peacetime and funding a system that costs as much as the iron dome just because some neighbours procures a few MLRS would not be consistent with RSAF procurement practices.

UAVs can detect rocket battalions well within range. Such provocation would already signal defcon 5 with fighters/apaches on the ready.

If rockets are fired, its war and unlike Israel, SG will have no hesitation occupying a buffer zone even if it means a 300km one.

Nevertheless, its peacetime and the threat does not justify the cost. The alternatives are cheaper eg ahead rounds for existing 35mm guns.

Countries that face similar and worse constraints include South Korea eg proximity of seoul.

The iron dome was developed with one country in mind. Israel.

Israel faces constant rocket barrages. It has both the political desire and economics to develop such a shield.

The article only raises the possibility. Its imaginative but no.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

However, that does not mean Israel won't or can't export it.

What is the issue now?

We cannot say that our pre-emptive solutions will prevent leakers absolutely. Especially; if fired in multiple salvos of the short range kind. I reckon Spyders can tackle the latter but it would be cost prohibitive. And we would want Spyders to focus on more complicated missiles.

At $250 million shared cost, it is not far fectched in terms of shared costs plus possible insights and access to such systems; including new phased array radars.

35mm ahead rounds would have limitations in terms of range and it might be too late to react. The better if the rockets are shot over enemy territory which will be the case if such a system is purchased.

Would Singapore buy it as part of a larger system of safeguards to protect bases and Singapore at large? I would certainly think so.

US$35-50k per iron dome tamir missile to whack a rocket isn't worth while. Spyder is a more exp missile.

35mm range not too bad. 4km effective range. 2km for AHEAD round = 4 km side to side. x 10 = 40km frontage. And there's a squadron of those guns which basically = enough coverage.

Spend US$50k for a LJDAM or US$100k hellfire or a nice little cute himars rocket. Take out a MLRS with 32 rockets on it. Have to be within 9-80 km range, well within bombing and detection range.

Israel MoD denied. No reason for MoD to lie. Its a defensive system, not offensive. Only kills rockets, not people.

My point being that it woud be better to use a Tamir over Derby and Python to whack a missile because it is cheaper hence the purchase.

Well, obviously it would be better to get rid of the launchers in a pre-emptive strike. But we cannot be possibly certain if we have the option all the time. Or that it will be completely successful.

We cannot prevent Malaysia from stationing batteries within range of Singapore all the time though, admittedly, an outright invasion would be noticeable long before it is affected. But we cannot predict rogue elements from suddenly launching a volley at us.

It may be very difficult in taking out a salvo of 32 or more rockets coming at you with guns trailing and tracking just individual rockets with a range of just 2km per Ahead rounds versus rockets that travel at extemely high speeds and with understandably erratic trajectories. Same with phalanx systems. They are called point defence systems not for nothing. They would be good against leakers however.

Did they? I thought they denied Singapore`s involvement which could mean a great deal of things and open to interpretation.

And I thought the article was on covert ties between the two countries. They could just as well make the announcement later. There are a lot of things which have not been officially declared in regards to sales between the two countries.

I forgot to add that whilst is a defensive system, it does have the clear impact of reducing someone`s offensive capability indirectly and whatever leverage that country gets from deploying such systems. In that sense, it might be prudent if the sale is delicately handled.

well definitely SG has been getting lots of Israeli stuff on the sly...and they are good stuff. Personal experience, but its VERY opsec.

anyway forward defence doctrine doesn't eliminate the possibility of insurgents treating SG like the next Sderot.

The resilience of the city-state is under-estimated. Even launching a few thousand rockets at SG. There will be significant damage but will it kill SG or the SAF? I don't think so. The response however, will not be mild.

Spending a few hundred million just to cater for rogue elements is not imho cost effective.

As to covert ties, that's not so covert nowadays. CAEW, barak, spike, matador are just some of the more obvious examples. Iron dome is not one of the items they will need to hide.

Overall, my assessment is that it is unlikely SG had participated in the development of iron dome (though in other cases, possible). Its only my opinion.

I think MFA would have a problem with this statement

The cooperation between Israel and Singapore rests on the two small countries' shared sense of being under threat, since both are surrounded by a hostile Muslim population and want advanced weapons systems to maintain a qualitative advantage over their neighbors.

The more objective analysis is that Singapore, is small and vulnerable against long range weapon systems that may damage its economic infrastructure.

Whoever who wrote that article doesn't appreciate that Singapore is on friendly relations with our neighbors. The system is meant to address a vulnerability and not an overt threat made by our neighbors.

I think writer of that article needs to realise that we rely on Israel than the other way round. Furthermore, Israel, with a right frame of mind, is very much unlikely to develop systems for others, regardless the relations. (just like F-22 is a no-no to anybody)


And this article, seems to hint that we are unable to develop our own defense capabilities. We aren't fully self-sufficient but still we got a robust defense industry to rely on. And lastly, it is like an open secret about Singapore and Israel, so what's the big deal?

Wocelot, I know this is subjective but I have to disagree. I think the article is trying to say that the Israeli-SG ties go way back, and this is one of the juicier secrets they stumbled upon. Neither is the article condescending in its tone.

Moreover, I don't see why Israel would not create the Iron Dome for SG. If you do have the know how and people are paying you for it, plus there isn't a 'loss of face' for Israel, then why not? There is no major political issue there, its not like it was a sale to Iran or Syria. The open secret has been blown anyway. Unless they dedicated a special and large section on SAF's Israeli purchases, I don't think they are trying to play up our dependence on Israel. Its not like we are shy to admit we do have Israeli hardware on our soil anyway.

Btw its not as if SG has been on the receiving end of Israeli goodies. In Op Cast Lead, one of the more well known engagements involved Hamas holed up inside a building. Shoulder-launched anti tank weapons were fired, but the militia was finally flushed out when a wall-breaching round was fired from a MATADOR.

Note, the haaretz article is merely commenting on the Intelligence Online article. Original article's title was "Singapore’s arms tests in Gaza". Link is http://www.intelligenceonline.com/governme...2940008-EVE-HOM

Note that you need to be a subscriber for access and the title does seem somewhat excessive.

The "paid" subscription should already provide an indication of the benefits of sensationalising imagination.

Its a good read but loopholes abound. There's no factual base other than Singapore-Israel co-operation is signficant.

So is Singapore-US co-operation. In the same manner, its as accurate as speculating Singapore funding Boeing's silent eagle developments. Nice thought and the latter is more likely but as equally inaccurate.

I am trying to say our relation more two-way than one-way that the article seems to suggest. And it is this way on paper, but in reality, i doubt we are that rosy with them.