Integration of missile defense systems from various countries

[Vivendi]

An interesting article about the challenges of operating Iron Dome in the US army.

If the Air Defense Artillery needs all the capacity it can get, why not keep Iron Dome?

The simple problem is that Iron Dome, designed as part of Israel’s layered air defense network, cannot currently be integrated into the US Army’s future air defense brain, the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS). Unless or until granted access to the underlying source code, cybersecurity concerns preclude that from happening. For better or worse, a requirement to plug into IBCS applies to virtually all new and legacy systems, including Patriot, Sentinel and LTAMDS radars, and IFPC. The requirement imposes costs on both these forthcoming systems and, in time, on other allies, such as the sixteen or so other operators of Patriot who will continue to use its organic command and control system, rather than getting IBCS.

Cyber uncertainty is why Army leadership has consistently made clear that it cannot integrate Iron Dome into its future force. Unless Israel permits access to address these concerns, these two batteries will remain a standalone, niche capability.

Why it’s time for the US Army to divest Iron Dome - Breaking Defense

1. I am surprised that the US, a very close ally of Israel, has not been given access to the system to perform an integration with the new US army system.

2. Is this more of an "Iron Dome" specific integration issue, or does it apply to other systems as well?

3. Many European countries are in the process of purchasing Israeli, European, and/or US missile systems. Have they paid sufficient attention to the potential issues of integrating the various systems to get synergies? In particular I wonder if the German Sky Shield initiative, which now includes 17 nations, have considered such integration issues? NATO - News: European Sky Shield Initiative gains two more participants, 15-Feb.-2023