Talk:Arrow (missile family)/Archive 1

Should this be moved to Arrow Interceptor?

 * Nope, as that could be confused to mean an interceptor aircraft. Besides, all SAMs are technically intercepting missiles, so no need to differentiate. Impi 16:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, SAMs go after aircraft. Interceptors go after missiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.250.2.10 (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Regime?
"...Israel is in negotiations with India to sell the system to them, but the US arms control regime has blocked the sale of the actual missiles..." "US arms control regime?" interesting choice of words... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.31.106.35 (talk • contribs) 21 June 2006.


 * That must mean regimen. --Dual Freq 00:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, regime is the correct word. It's a standard phrase. Fasrad 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah/Israel war
Nothing is mentioned about this missile system and the rocket attacks on Northern-Israel by Hezbollah. If this "system is meant to intercept medium- and short-range ballistic missiles and was designed with an eye towards the advanced missile programs of Iraq and Iran" - then shouldn't it be able to counter some of those missiles from Hezbollah?Scott 110 05:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Arrow was designed for ballistic missiles like the Scud, 11.25 meters long and 0.88 meters in diameter. The scud has a range between 130km and 700 km depending on the model. Arrow itself is 7 meters long and .8 m diameter. A scud is a ballistic missile, a Katyusha or similar rocket is an Artillery rocket. Artillery rockets are much smaller 130mm to maybe 250mm in diameter and much shorter range. They are in the air for a short period of time. They also cost a fraction of what an arrow missile costs. I'd bet more rockets were launched in an hour than the total number of arrow missiles ever constructed. What is needed for the defense of tactical artillery rockets is something similar to the Tactical High Energy Laser. A missile vs rocket is not going to happen. Dual Freq 00:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahab-3
Should the arows capebilities agianst the Shahab-3 missle be meintioned?--J intela 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Was the Arrow designed to be especially effective against the Shahab-3, or is there a special function of the Shahab-3 that the Arrow counters particularly well? If so, cite a source and add the content to the article. --Hojimachongtalk con 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not an expert in that matter, but from what I understand, as Israel considers Iran as its worst enemy (and most powerful one too) it's pretty obvious that the arrow has been designed and tested bearing the Shahab-3 in mind. I mean, when designing an interceptor system you'd probably design it against what you will most likely be attacked with, although the system may very well destroy other missiles as well (as I recall it's been tested against several American missiles as well as Scuds). NegativeIQ (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys even read the Article? The Arrow was designed years before the Shihab and Iranian Nuclear weapons program was made public. Generally speaking, The program went into high gear after the First Gulf war in 1991, bearing in mind the SCUD missiles fired upon Israel major populated urban areas, and the failed defense strategy that relayed on Anti Aircraft Patriot missiles.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Arrow 3 was designed to be effective against Shahab-3 and actually it was tested successfully against a target that simulated it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.123.116 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ballistic missile interceptors aren't designed to defend against certain types (e.g. Shahab-3) of incoming missile so much as certain missile flight envelopes. E.g. One interceptor might be effective against targets descending at up to 1.5 km/s, a more advanced missile might handle targets descending at up to 3.5 km/s, and so on.  Except for the latest Russian "quasi-ballistic" missiles, virtually all threat systems follow a purely ballistic trajectory, so this incoming velocity is the key characteristic.  Successive versions of the Arrow have been designed to handle faster and faster incoming targets (the longer-ranged the missile, the longer its ballistic path and the faster it descends, broadly speaking) so when the IDF states the Arrow 3 was "designed" to be effective against the Shahab-3 that's more of a public relations statement.  It was designed to cover a threat envelope in which it is hoped the Shahab-3 will fall.  I guess that's a minor quibble on my part, but thought I'd put it in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.133.128 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Content erased
There was a lot more information on the system, but it was erased, and replaced with text that seems more convenient. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, is it possible the IDF is rewriting Wikipedia?
 * Sorry, my bad. Wrong language wiki.

Huh?
"On 6 December 2008, the Turkish Defense Industry's (SSM) Executive Committee, eliminated Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) (Ofeq satellite) from Turkey's Göktürk electro-optical satellite project and also the Arrow missile defence system from the Turkish High Altitude Missile Shield project tender."

A time travelling editor? 203.35.135.133 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother opening the reference? it is dated December 6th 2007.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, work blocks all other websites. I just went by what had been written. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrow range
Please see the discussion here and reply here-it's highely important for the article.--Gilisa (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)