LONDON (Dispatches) -- A 
detailed report by the Hebrew-language financial daily Calcalist casts a far more sober light on Israel’s much-hyped Iron Beam laser defense system, exposing the vast costs, technical limits, and operational uncertainties behind what Israeli officials have promoted as a revolutionary breakthrough in air defense.
According to Calcalist, even as the Israeli military begins receiving initial Iron Beam units—also known as Or Eitan—it has long been clear inside the military establishment that full deployment would be slow, complex, and extraordinarily expensive. 
While officials have highlighted the minimal cost of firing a laser beam compared with launching interceptor missiles, the newspaper stresses that this framing conceals the true financial burden of the system.
Military officials have repeatedly claimed that intercepting a rocket with Iron Beam costs only “a few shekels,” compared with roughly $50,000 for a single Iron Dome “Tamir” interceptor. But Calcalist notes that each laser designator capable of directing the beam is estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars. Rafael, the Israeli military contractor developing the system, has refused to disclose exact figures.
With Iron Beam’s effective range currently limited to about 10 kilometers, the newspaper reports that protecting large areas would require dozens or even hundreds of laser units. When infrastructure, deployment density, maintenance, and power requirements are taken into account, the promise of cheap interception becomes far less convincing.
Atmospheric factors such as clouds, haze, dust, rain, and storms remain a significant weakness for laser weapons. While a senior military official told Calcalist the system can currently operate about 90% of the time, that figure depends on ideal conditions and careful placement of overlapping units.
Crucially, Calcalist underscores that Iron Beam will not operate independently in the near future. Instead, it will function as a supplementary layer alongside Iron Dome. Operators will be required to decide in real time whether to use a laser beam or launch an interceptor missile. In scenarios involving heavy barrages, both systems will be activated simultaneously, limiting any dramatic reduction in overall interception costs.
The newspaper reports that several Iron Beam prototypes were tested in operational conditions during the recent fighting with Hezbollah in northern occupied Palestine and amid increased drone threats. While military officials described the results as satisfactory, Calcalist notes that these trials were limited in scope and do not reflect the challenges of sustained, large-scale conflict.
Iron Beam’s short range makes unit placement critical, and its effectiveness depends on dense, overlapping coverage. The system does offer a new capability against mortar bombs, which Iron Dome has historically struggled to intercept due to their brief flight times. However, the report cautions against exaggerated expectations.
Perhaps most significantly, Calcalist stresses what Iron Beam cannot do. The system is incapable of intercepting ballistic missiles, such as those launched from Iran or Yemen. Israel remains dependent on costly kinetic systems like Arrow 3 and THAAD for such projectiles.
While Israel boast to be among the first militaries to integrate laser weapons into active operations, Calcalist concludes that Iron Beam is not a technological cure-all. Behind the futuristic imagery lies a familiar reality: enormous costs and technical limitations.