>

True, but considering the possible volume, and the cost of ID interceptors, do you really think it is a viable solution?
Israel also has very well-performing counter-battery radars. Perhaps that would be a better solution?
"Likely" is a teaser word.  No guarantee Israel will officially send the Iron Domes to Ukraine anytime soon. >

Didn't they say a few months ago that it was "impossible"? >

From what I know about the iron dome(which isn’t much granted), it’s primarily meant to stop low altitude, low velocity projectiles like mortars, artillery, RPG, etc. 
It is “impossible” in the sense that it wouldn’t protect against the high velocity of Russian missiles or the large number of artillery. 
Israel has a significantly worse equipped adversary in Hamas where the iron dome is possible. >

No, originally Israel said it was impossible to give the iron dome tech to Ukraine, that's what I mean >

Israel doesn't have spare batteries to send, and the Iron Dome is not a good response to the threats in Ukraine. I see 0 chances of this happening from my armchair general position. >

True and false.
Israel doesn't have spare batteries - True. Officially it has 10, declared desired minimum is 15, total desired unknown. 
Iron Dome is not a good response to the threats in Ukraine - False. Ukraine is mostly threatened with drones and cruise missiles, making Iron Dome an ideal system. >

Considering the area of coverage and the cost per shot versus the amount of threats, solely on a cost benefit analysis it is far from an ideal system. >

Iron Dome's interceptors are the cheapest interceptors in the world, going from as low as $50k to as high as $150k (for unique US version). So how exactly are they "far from ideal"?
They are literally the cheapest way to down a cruise missile or a drone. >

No, not really. Specially against a high tier adversary that can provide large volumes of fire at short intervals. That's why Israel is investing in energy-based solutions with cost per shot in the less of hundreds, and other countries opted for point defense solutions like CIWS. 
Not only are Iron Dome shots expensive, they also take time to fabricate. 
> They are literally the cheapest way to down a cruise missile or a drone.  
Those are new and, as of now, barely tested Iron Dome capabilities. Thee system was not designed with these kinds of targets in mind. >


No, not really. Specially against a high tier adversary that can provide large volumes of fire at short intervals.

So you're saying Iron Dome is more expensive to use because an adversary can just shoot 20 of the same missile to overwhelm it? 
Do humor me then. How do other systems overcome this? Can their one missile shoot down 20 enemy missiles? Because as far as I can tell, you'll still need 20 missiles of whatever system you're referring to, which usually would cost at least an order of magnitude more than Iron Dome.
A single Iron Dome interceptor costs $50k. A single AIM-9X costs $500k. So to intercept 20 missiles, Iron Dome would cost $1 million. The AIM-9X would cost $10 million.
I personally think 10 > 1.

That's why Israel is investing in energy-based solutions with cost per shot in the less of hundreds

As if it's the only country that does that.

and other countries opted for point defense solutions like CIWS. 

CIWS systems and Iron Dome are about as comparable as a Pershing is to a Minuteman.

Not only are Iron Dome shots expensive, they also take time to fabricate. 

Literally the fastest produced air defense missile on the planet right now.

Those are new and, as of now, barely tested Iron Dome capabilities. 

Barely tested and fully certified AND deployed by multiple armed forces, for those precise missions.

Thee system was not designed with these kinds of targets in mind.

It's natural for systems to grow like that. Pick any item in the inventory of any armed force, and I can probably explain how it's evolved today to something it wasn't supposed to. >


So you're saying Iron Dome is more expensive to use because an adversary can just shoot 20 of the same missile to overwhelm it?

No, I am saying it is expensive, & against an adversary that can overwhelm it, offers even less in terms of cost to benefit.  
> Do humor me then. How do other systems overcome this?   
That system A doesn't offer a solution doesn't mean that system B does. Sometimes the only solution you have for a problem is a less than optimal one, which is the case here.
​
> As if it's the only country that does that.  
Did I say it is? No, i did not. I pointed out Israel is looking for a cheaper solution to the problem currently partly solved by the Iron Dome.   
> CIWS systems and Iron Dome are about as comparable as a Pershing is to a Minuteman.
​
Not in the role of point defense, which is why the US decided to go with CIWS for so long in Afghanistan and Iraq.   
> Barely tested and fully certified AND deployed by multiple armed forces, for those precise missions.
​
​
I'll have to ask for a source there. >

​
I wasn't aware simple logic needs substantiation. Which bit are you having problems with ?
> So you're saying it's cheaper/better to just let the Russian missiles just hit Ukrainian cities?
No, I am saying that the Iron Dome may not be a cost effective system for the Ukraine scenario. To wit: does Russia have more than 20 precise missiles ? Why, yes. Does the Iron Dome have more than 20 interceptors available at a time? Why, no. If the Iron Dome has a 100% intercept rate, which it doesn't, will the 21st Russian missile be able to hit the battery and negate whatever good it can do? Why, it can. Therefore perhaps it is more efficient to look for a solution that either negates the launching of the missiles, like heavy counter-battery fire at the launch of the first missile, or look for a different solution.
> The US did not prepare properly and left huge gaps
Which, considering the size of the Ukraine battlespace, would also be present and not plugged by the Iron Dome.
> The US bought Iron Dome specifically for cruise missile defense.
Your article is paywalled, but the operative word is in the title - "US *Tests*". Hardly "fullly certified AND deployed".
​
(edit: typo) >

a system that has to deal with the occasional barrage and has intercepted what.. 4000 to 5000 projectiles since its inception.
Russia has the ability to saturate this system quickly and for a lot less money then people think.
people need to realize that iron dome is like riot armor.. good for the occasional low intensity fight its not made for large peer level wars.
for the drones the cheapest and easiest solution is the Gepard which ukraine has, for real effective anti mortar defense one would want something like a CRAM system which the US has but not in any large amount.
in short. Iron dome is a great system that will have its uses but overall wont stop med to large barrage of artillery and one could add that other isreal weapon systems would be better to have >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)


Reports from Israel claim that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is willing to export some of these Iron Domes to Ukraine.
It's pertinent to note that Ukraine has been seeking military aid of all sorts from several countries and asked for the much famed 'Iron Domes' from Israel as well.
The fact is, till now Israel has supplied only lower end military requirements and 'Iron Domes' are definitely a big deal and would be noticed by the Russian establishment.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Israel^#1 supply^#2 military^#3 Iron^#4 Domes^#5 >

This would be excellent for border towns like Kharkiv. >

Probably not. It would invite saturation barrages that would probably kill way more civilians than otherwise. >

Only for a short time, until Russia runs so low on rocket ammo that they can’t fire more than they can produce.
And rocket barrages never prevented iron dome from doing its job in Tel Aviv.
Also, I’d rather their remaining ammo get fired into an iron dome than into a Ukrainian civilian flesh dome.
Interceptors are valuable. Ukrainian lives are more valuable. And all those Russia rockets will sooner or later be fired into one or into the other. >

>  runs so low on rocket ammo
I would think they still have enough artillery after that to still do a lot of damage.
> And rocket barrages never prevented iron dome from doing its job in Tel Aviv.
Frankly, Hamas' rocket barrages are definitely not in the same level of danger than Russian ones.
> Also, I’d rather their remaining ammo get fired into an iron dome than into a Ukrainian civilian flesh dome.
Agreed, but my point is that the barrages would be so big that the Iron Dome would be immaterial in this scenario. To your point, Hamas' barrages are random - they don't target the battery itself, but rather shoot in the general direction of what they want to hit. 
> Ukrainian lives are more valuable.
Completely agree. >

Few, many or anything In between, we don’t control how many Russia will yet fire (beyond prosecuting the war to the point Russia has to sto). 
The only thing you get to control is whether you use iron dome to intercept some of those that do get fired. 
Your only choice is either to attempt shooting some of them down or not to.