So if I shoot more missiles at my target I have a better chance of causing more destruction? Their military prowess is astounding. Where do they even come up with this shit?
I think you may be assuming that all ballistic missiles use the same attack arc despite having wildly variable ranges.
Ballistic does not mean it goes into space, and that's the only time you're going to end up with "nearly vertical" arcs. You always want the path of least action, or as close to it as you can get. For an atmospheric missile to have that steep an angle it would need to bleed off momentum to change from its approach angle, making it easier to hit with interceptors.
Supersonic just means above Mach 1. Quite slow for a missile.
Ballistic misslies are even hypersonic after re-entry from space, meaning above Mach 5.
But judging for your many upvotes, a lot of people are very missinformed about technical details. Which is fine.
Ballistic misslies are kind of cool though. Launch a missile into space, and let gravity pull it back in order to re-enter at an insane speed so that it's really hard to shoot down.
There are five different "types" of ballistic missiles based on range: Close range, Short range, Medium range, Intermediate Range, and Intercontinental. Given the range between Iran and Israel, the missiles used today were likely Medium Range Shabab-3 or Khorramshahr missiles.
No they are not. In fact they are far far easier because they follow a ballistic trajectory... like the name says. A cruise missile can turn whenever it wants.
They are harder to shoot down in large numbers though, as there is less time available to intercept them. If your SAM launcher only holds 6 missiles, and there's 7 ballistic missiles screaming toward you from the edge of space, you're screwed. With cruise missiles and good radar covers you may have time to reload your launchers and fire off another salvo of interceptors.
1.8k
u/savois-faire Oct 01 '24
Ballistic missiles are harder to take down.