In the early evening of October 1, the Israeli air defenses encountered a very significant attack by Iranian ballistic missiles, as the United States had announced a few hours earlier. Unlike the strikes of April 13, this attack was carried out only by medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), whose range, over 1000 km, is sufficient to reach the entire Israeli territory from Iranian soil.
Beyond the promises of retaliation announced by the Hebrew State, and supported by the United States, this attack was the most significant ballistic strike ever carried out to date, against the most advanced and dense anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic defense system of the Western camp.
And while Jerusalem claims to have destroyed all the threatening missiles, the videos now emerging on social media seem to show a very different reality. So did Israel's air defenses really repel the Iranian attack, or was it overwhelmed by it?
In this section:
181 Iranian ballistic missiles launched against Israeli targets in 30 minutes
It must be said that, for this attack, Tehran left nothing to chance. Not only was it the largest attack in history using ballistic missiles, but it also focused on a very short interval, 30 minutes separating the first and last explosions in Israel.
For this, it seems that the Revolutionary Guard Corps has used several models of MRBM missiles such as the Shahab 3, the Quiam-1, and perhaps even the new Fattah ballistic missile, which entered service in 2023. Using solid fuel, the Fattah is presented as having hypersonic maneuvering capabilities by Tehran, although this has not been confirmed to date.
In any case, the videos published on social networks, like the IDF statements, confirm that the Iranian missiles arrived with great density above their objectives, which seem, at this time, to have been exclusively military targets.
To counter this, Israel had the most advanced and densely deployed anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic defense system in the West. This consists of a high endo-atmospheric and exo-atmospheric layer, with the Arrow 2 and arrow 3, capable of hitting ballistic targets at an altitude of over 100 km.
From 5 km to 30 km altitude, it is the David Sling system that takes over. Capable of intercepting both aerodynamic targets, aircraft and cruise missiles, as well as ballistic targets in the terminal phase, it is, more or less, the Israeli counterpart of the American Patriot PAC, and the Franco-Italian SAMP/T.
Finally, below 5 km altitude, the famous Iron Dome system comes into play. Specialized in the interception of rockets, drones and artillery shells, this system is however not designed to intercept targets as fast as ballistic missiles in the terminal phase.
War of communiqués and demands between the Israeli air defense and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
As is customary, the communiqués of the Israeli armed forces and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards present a radically different, even opposing, assessment.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
BLACK FRIDAY : – 20% on new monthly and annual Premium and Classic subscriptions, with the code MetaBF2024, until 03/12/24
Hello,
I would like to thank you for your article because you are the only one who provides clear and complex details, unlike all the pseudo specialists who are invited into the media and who do not have a detailed analysis of the matter at all.
Merci à vous
SB
Thank you for all this information and analysis which is essentially military related (which is normal on this site and it is what I am looking for while being very satisfied with my subscription).
But here, can we not also argue that Iran may not have all the weapons and technological advances described here, but that the absence of an Iranian military response to the Israeli attacks that have seriously weakened Hezbollah, Iran's armed wing in Lebanon and the region, would have sent a disastrous political message to all the forces supported by Iran or seeking to be supported? The absence of an Iranian military response could have been interpreted as a sign of weakness and/or inconstancy that would have seriously discredited the mullahs' regime. And this perspective was simply unthinkable for those in power in Iran, both for internal considerations and vis-à-vis its "allies" outside Iran.