no surprise ! after watching those videos looks like the ratio is at least -> 4/1 4 interceptors for 1 incoming missile !
Iran's military structure has always been about fighting an enemy who has air superiority they didn't even feel the need to replace their F4 Phantom until recently with that Su-35 order !
For Israel on the other side the cost must be staggering !
Edit :
After the Houthis Vs US aircraft carriers and now Iran Vs Israel we can see what asymmetrical warfare is all about -> very very expensive !!
my bet is at least 2 air refueling one on their way to Iran and the second when coming back cuz planes must be fully loaded (weapon wise) for their own protection and to accomplish their mission which often translates -> maximum weight for takeoff which means -> afterburner at 100%
Israelis are simply bleeding cash like craaazzyyyy !
Bro look at this piece… not sure if you seen it before
“Washington Post: 'Israel will only be able to maintain shooting down Iranian ballistic missiles for 10 or 12 more days, then they will need to start rationing munitions'
This could explain why Iran is opting to launch small but consecutive waves. Iran is likely using up some of their older / less sophisticated missiles to deplete Israeli defenses, to make way for the 'real' stuff later on. This is attritional warfare.
In most cases, a small wave of 3-5 Iranian ballistic missiles is enough to prompt the launch of about 10-15 Israeli interceptor missiles, with each one costing at least $12 million dollars (in the case of THAAD).
In contrast, even Iran's most modern missile, the Fattah-1, only costs about $200,000 to produce, according to the IRGC. If we assume 12 interceptors for one Fattah-1 missile (as seen in a video today), that means Israel is spending $144 million dollars to 'intercept' (not always successfully) a single Iranian hypersonic missile.
This is simply not sustainable. Within about two weeks, if Iran keeps up the current pace of fire, Israeli airspace will be at the mercy of Iran's far larger and more destructive solid fuel bsllistic missiles. Unless, of course, the U.S. intervenes directly.“