They are not “pinpoint” accurate as strikes against ISIS in Syria showed as well as strikes against Kurdistan headquarters or against terrorists in Pakistan lawless border.
Any improved accuracy vs LR missiles is due to distance. It’s well known a gyroscope loses accuracy the longer the missile is in the air due to vibrational effects. So naturally a 200KM missile gyroscope will retain its accuracy longer than a 2000KM missile given the much shorter flight time.
No dude. Let me make things clear:
1) Missile guidance error doesn't come from "gyroscopes losing accuracy with distance." In an inertial navigation system, both gyroscopes AND accelerometers contribute. Error accumulates primarily with time in flight, not kilometers traveled.
Gyro bias --> position error grows roughly t^2 (time spent in trajectory squared)
Accelerometer bias ---> position error grows either t^2 or t^3 (time spent in trajectory cubed). t^2 if it's a good accelerometer, t^3 if it's a bad one.
So yes, shorter-range missiles drift less, but it's mostly because they are in the air for fewer minutes, not because of fewer kilometers. That distinction matters. Physical forces matter but modern gyros are extremely vibration-tolerant, so it doesn't matter nearly as much as time spent in trajectory.
2) Let's do the math: The flight time from Iran to Iraq/Persian Gulf is 3-5 minutes depending on launch location.
Iran to Israel: Flight time of about 10-12 minutes.
So let's take the average of each: 4 minutes and 11 minutes.
11 min / 4 min = 2.75. Now let's calculate how much more error they accumulate: gyro error contribution grows by (2.75^2) = 7.56x. Accelerometer error contribution grows by (2.75^3) at worst and (2.75^2) at best. So that's another 8-20x error.
These differences are HUGE.
We haven't considered things like earth rotation and coast phase effects.
3) Let's assume two types of MRBMs, both of them traveling roughly to the same target, but one is twice as fast. The MRBM that is twice as fast will accumulate 1/4th to 1/8th of the error compared to the slower MRBM from gyro bias and accelerometer bias. The faster MRBM will be subject to much harsher physical forces but you can account for that by shaping the trajectory. A two-stage MRBM can be faster during mid-flight but land at re-enter at roughly the same velocity as a single-stage one, so the terminal velocity will be the same. In the end, the you will have gained more accuracy by spending less time in flight, than you lose by being subject to greater physical forces.
3) SRBMs, especially post-2020, have a real advantage of terminal guidance. You see, SRBMs renter 2-3 km/s. MRBM's reenter at around 4+ km/s. That matters a lot for IR / radar seekers. Plasma will form around the warhead so you're blinded if you come in too fast. The way to reduce this is to make the warhead more blunt, rather than pointy, but this is harder for MRBM's that it is for SRBMs.
Same with terminal maneuverability, a lot less time for course correction,
4) Longer-range ballisitic missiles have to deal with Earth rotation (Coriolis effect), and small angular errors that accumulate over time (here you are correct, but they are minor).
5) Finally, both the Al Asad air base strikes in 2019 and the al-Udeid strikes showed high accuracy. Certainly less than 50m CEP on Al Asad airbase in 2019 and less than 25m CEP on al-Udeid airbase in 2025. That is very accurate.
Iranian SRBMs are lethal. Mostly solid fuel. Very dangerous stuff. Why are you making things up?
www.theguardian.com
