I've been in the business of making electronic components for Patriot missiles and radar systems. I don't believe it.
“then their “cost” will likely drop to around $5,000. At 100 times as many the “cost” will approach the marginal cost of less than $1000.”.
Pure B.S.
If they are currently running about $50,000 a shot, mass deployment and R&D will likely net them some savings, but it will be minimal. In the mean time, the terrorists are winning with $1000 a shot rockets that someone else is paying for. Who is bankrupting whom?
And I use the term “winning” because the leftist propaganda is always going to portray Israel as the big bad bully.
Coming from a similar background, I agree with you 100%. While Iron Dome is certainly better than nothing, a better alternative approach toward defending against high-volume, low-tech rockets barrages that is more economically viable (lasers, TBD) is needed.
Asymmetric warfare requires creative thinking - not necessarily tons more money on high tech gadgets that are easily defeated by low tech tactics for a relative pittance. Or at least high tech solutions with "ammo" that costs less. In the interim it's the best thing they've got, so they'll have to pay to keep it going. But claims that it's "the answer" to low tech rocket attacks just sound like a sales job to me.
As for the claims in the article - the current costs don't match up with many other reports I've seen, even ignoring the super optimistic future cost projections. Does the author have a stake in selling more high tech Iron Dome systems and/or missiles?
I've been in the business of making electronic components for Patriot missiles and radar systems. I don't believe it.The actual marginal cost of production of a Tamir interceptor is low and reflects the costs of the basic raw materials; metal, fuel, explosives and electronic components used in its manufacture, and the labor required to run the assembly line. If the IDF ends up ordering 10 times as many interceptors as originally estimated, then their “cost” will likely drop to around $5,000. At 100 times as many the “cost” will approach the marginal cost of less than $1000.Once and for all, the money spent on development is gone - a sunk cost. That is a cost of having decided you need the capability. The cost of deciding to engage a an individual target (and to buy a replacement interceptor missile to replace the expended missile) Is " the marginal cost of less than $1000.”
When you make again as many of something as you have made in all previous history, you will (by spending money on improved production methods) cut the cost of production of that item by something on the order of 25% (the reason Moore’s Law has held over the decades is that the marginal utility of semiconductor logic has held up under the onslaught of so many quick doublings of supply).There is of course no question that dumb interceptors like rail gun projectiles or destructive laser pulses would be more cost-effective on a unit cost basis than guided rockets can be.