Researchers have used commercial satellite imagery to identify more than 30 points where Iranian missiles appear to have impacted an air base in southern Israel.

Based on preliminary calculations of what happened at Nevatim, Lewis believes a substantial number of Iranian missiles may have reached their targets.

Lewis notes that although over 30 missiles landed inside the base perimeter, the damage caused was still somewhat limited. That’s notable because Iran is believed to have used some of its most advanced Fattah missiles.

  • Creat@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    5·
    5 hours ago

    Is it feasible that there interceptor systems saw they weren’t a threat from the trajectory and prioritized those that were? I mean the article states that they might have prioritized defending the city over the airbase, but I don’t know how much manual decision making is likely to be involved as I don’t know the flight/travel times. Or Maybe the defense system is has target areas pre-prioritized?

    I mean a hole in a runway is somewhat inconvenient, but overall an easy fix. A destroyed hangar less so (but also depends on what’s in it, if anything). Casualties in a city are a different category, obviously.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.caOPEnglish
      2·
      2 hours ago

      I haven’t seen any report of missiles targeting populated areas. Only military targets. So I think we can scratch that from the equation. Either they let everything that was targeting the base fall or they were defending it and some got through. Doesn’t make sense that they intentionally let some hit the hangars and runways if they were defending the base. I doubt they can tell exactly where every projectile is gonna fall. It’s possible that they focused more on the other base that was being targeted. But I find it unlikely that they didn’t defend this base given they use it for their F35 fleet. At the very least there could have been enough damage to put it out of service for a while.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    104·
    7 hours ago

    Yes, Iran targeted legitimate military targets, while zionists have been murdering people at schools, hospitals, refugee camps, etc.

    Good luck hearing this basic fact from imperial media.

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.caOPEnglish
    232·
    1 day ago

    So it seems Iran overstated the accuracy of their missiles and Israel understated how many got through.

    • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      20 hours ago

      The interesting thing about interception is everything falls somewhere. You dont need great accuracy or in fact for isreali interceptors to be worse than claimed you just need to be generally accurate, go fast and be really dense. Honestly Syrian propane style concrete rockets would be pretty effective just hard to get close enough.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      8·
      1 day ago

      Israel had time to get its jets into the air so I wouldn’t be too surprised if evacuated hangars were not a high priority for the missile defense system.

    • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
      136·
      1 day ago

      I don’t think Iran was really targeting that precisely. Like last time, this is mostly just to do something in response. If they actually wanted to cause damage, they’d probably be more precise in their strikes.

      Appear weak when you are strong, and all that. No point in letting the enemy know how good your missiles can be if you don’t have to.

      • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 hours ago

        I’d go with the same thing but reverse logic: trying to appear strong, militarily supporting their terrorist allies, while hoping to avoid actual war with Israel

        Maybe the US leans on Israel, saying “let’s keep calm here, nothing got through”, while Iran can tell the whole region “ we attacked Israel in response and they’re afraid to strike back”.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
        91·
        23 hours ago

        I dunno, I feel like displaying how accurate your missiles are is a better deterrent

        • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
          64·
          21 hours ago

          It’s not, unless it shows an overwhelming advantage. Else you’ve shown your hand, and now your enemy knows exactly what you’re capable of, and what they need to do to counter your attacks.

        • PlasticLove@lemmy.todayEnglish
          46·
          22 hours ago

          I dunno, I feel like lulling an enemy whose frothing at the mouth to attack you into believing your missiles aren’t a real threat is a good strategy to get them to underestimate you at their peril.

      • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        22 hours ago

        I mean India missed some Israeli made glide bombs on Pakistan probably because they don’t have proper access to military GPS or their INS info had deviated, so all 3 bombs hit like 100 yards left of their intended target.

        I do find it sort of difficult to believe Iran’s INS technology could be that poor even for ballistic missiles, so I guess it’s possible, especially since both times they made it clear they never attacked US targets nor publicized destruction of some high value assets. Though I feel like Mossad would have figured this out since they seem to have so many informants.

        Still it kind of would have been cool to see Israel more exposed to aerial attack with some destroyed aircraft since they otherwise have complete air superiority in the region.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
      72·
      1 day ago

      The CEP on these ballistic missiles must be insane. Reminds me how the first SCUD missiles had a CEP of 3,000m. They just kinda chucked them in the general direction of something.