>


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.
"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.