The recent Iranian ballistic missile assault on Israel on Tuesday was characterized by its larger scale, increased complexity, and the deployment of more sophisticated weaponry compared to the strikes in April, according to experts. This escalation has intensified the pressure on missile defense systems, resulting in a higher number of warheads penetrating defenses.

While debris from the over 180 missiles is still being gathered and examined, analysts suggest that the recent attacks likely utilized Iran’s Fattah-1 and Kheybarshekan missiles, both boasting an estimated range of approximately 1,400 kilometers (870 miles).

Iran claims that these missiles are equipped with maneuverable warheads, complicating defensive measures, and utilize solid fuel, which allows for rapid launch capabilities with minimal warning. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, noted that the reduced preparation time for launches means that these missiles can strike simultaneously, further challenging defense systems.

The warheads possess the ability to maneuver slightly, which complicates the allocation of interceptors. This maneuverability enhances their striking accuracy, allowing them to effectively hit targets once they have passed through initial defenses.

During the April strike, some Fattah-1 missiles were deployed, but they were largely intercepted by U.S. and Israeli missile defense systems. The majority of the missiles used were liquid-fueled Emad ballistic missiles, which reportedly have a failure rate of 50% and can only accurately strike targets larger than 1 km in diameter, according to Lewis.

In contrast, Iran claims that its more sophisticated ballistic missiles have a “circular error probable” of approximately 20 meters, indicating that half of the missiles aimed at a target will land within that distance. These missiles are described as “Iran’s most advanced ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel,” as noted by Fabian Hinz, a research associate for defense and military affairs at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

Videos from Tuesday’s assault seemed to depict missile re-entry vehicles, which transport their warheads, along with fiery debris descending to the ground. Some of these missiles were intercepted, including several at altitudes above the Earth’s atmosphere. The Pentagon reported that two U.S. Navy destroyers launched approximately a dozen interceptors against the Iranian ballistic missiles.

Ankit Panda from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted that making direct comparisons with the strikes in April would be challenging due to changes in both the weaponry and the structure of the attacks and defenses. He pointed out that the April strikes involved slower drones and cruise missiles, which allowed for more warning time for defenders.

“We are observing a different attack pattern… likely a more depleted Israeli Arrow interceptor inventory, with the IRGC Aerospace Force seemingly opting for a larger quantity of more advanced missiles,” he stated, referring to the missile division of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Reports of damage have been minimal, and Israel initially indicated that there were no fatalities resulting from Tuesday’s assault. However, Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, cautioned that future attacks could become increasingly complex and involve a greater number of missiles.

“If the Iranians execute another significantly larger attack, it is probable that more missiles will penetrate defenses, especially if ballistic missile strikes are synchronized with cruise missile and drone assaults,” Davis remarked. “Thus, I believe we have not yet witnessed the full scale of potential attacks.”