More on cost effectiveness of weapons systems. See previous blog entries as applicable here and here.
From the latest edition of the DEBKAfile newsletter as extracted:
"Israeli strategists split over Iron Dome versus laser system missile interceptors"
30 June.
"Israel's military leaders are in a hot debate over whether to supplement Israel's expensive Iron Dome missile stocks with the new and cheaper US laser beam weapons. The arithmetic is simple: Downing an estimated number of 12,000 enemy missiles would take more than 30,000 Iron Dome missiles, at the astronomical cost of $5 billion. Fifteen SkyGuard lasers batteries (at $75 million apiece) would come to around $1.125 billion, representing a saving of $3.75 billion"
Missiles as being spoken about here more correctly understood as ROCKET ARTILLERY of the old-fashioned GRAD variety [but improved and larger].
Hezbollah in particular possessing rocket artillery in abundance courtesy of the Iranian. A formidable threat to Israel the counter of which is the Iron Dome surface-to-air missile counter-rocket/counter-mortar weapons system.
THE AMERICAN DIRECTED ENERGY SKYGUARD MUCH MORE COST EFFICIENT THAN IRON DOME? [DEVELOPMENT OF SKYGUARD IT SEEMS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF THE U.S AND ISRAEL]
SkyGuard I am totally unfamiliar with. Cost effectiveness until battle-tested only a speculation.
coolbert.