‘Israel’s missile-defense system could crumble at the moment of truth’
‘Israel’s missile-defense system could crumble at the moment of truth’ | JPost | Israel News.
( Convincing and scary, this article supports Luis’ argument that a “surgical strike” is a terrible idea. It also supports my argument in favor of using a massive EMP attack. Why take chances with our lives if we can avoid it? – JW )
In a piercing, informative and opinionated article based on data, Dr. Nathan Faber criticized the Israeli missile-defense concept (the “tiered defense”) this week. The conclusion of Dr. Faber’s article, published in the Magen Laoref (“Homefront Shield”) foundation’s website, is that if Israel finds itself in an all-out war on several fronts facing enemies that are showering it with hundreds of missiles a day (perhaps over a thousand), this concept could crumble due financial, operational and technological reasons.
The tiered-defense concept is based on different types of defense missiles to intercept the different variations of enemy projectiles in a number of ranges and altitudes (“interception tiers”). According to Dr. Faber’s article, the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic-missile system (that is still under development) is designed to intercept Iranian Shihab missiles (that have a range of 1,300 km.), at an altitude of 250-300 km., hundreds of kilometers away from Israel’s borders (over Jordan). In the future, Arrow 3 missiles will also have to intercept Sejil missiles, that have a range of over 2,000 km.
Arrow 2 missiles are designed to intercept mostly Syrian Scud missiles (Scud B, C and D) that are launched from a distance of 300-700 km. Arrow 2 can intercept missiles at an altitude of 30-100 km., over Israeli territory or over the West Bank.
The David’s Sling defense system, that is also still being developed, is designed to intercept Syria and Hezbollah’s tactical ballistic missiles (Fateh-110, M-600), that have a range of 200-300 km., at an altitude of 15 km. The different Patriot missiles, that failed to intercept Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War, are meant to be a final backup and intercept missiles at an altitude of 10-12 km.
Against artillery rockets (Grad rockets with a range of up to 40 km. and Iranian Fajr rockets with a range of up to 70 km.) Israel has the Iron Dome missile-defense system, that is designed to intercept rockets at an altitude of 2-3 km., “right overhead.” As previously mentioned, Arrow 3 and David’s Sling, that are still under development, will not appear in the battlefield in the next few years.
Dr. Faber is a doctor in the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at the Technion, who worked in the military industry for 30 years. In his last position there, he served as the chief scientist of the missile division. He worked for ten years at Wales, a company that advises the Air Force and Israel’s security forces. Today he is an independent researcher, studying the planning and analyzing of anti-ballistic-missile systems.
In recent years, Dr. Faber has fearlessly and in an unbiased manner expressed opinions that may praise the technological achievements of Iron Dome developers, but questions the Israeli security forces’ announcements of successful interceptions during the 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense in Gaza. In the past, Dr. Faber called for the protection of Sderot and towns on the Gaza border (that Iron Dome, contrary to initial promises of its Refael developers, cannot protect due to its technological limitations), even as an temporary solution, using the American Phalanx CIWS close-in weapon system for anti-ship missiles. Even now, Dr. Faber believes Israel’s security forces need to add the Phalanx CIWS system to the tiered-defense concept.
In his article, based on unclassified sources, Faber calculated that in its next war, Israel could be threatened by some 800 ballistic missiles in Iran’s possession, some 400 Syrian Scud missiles that are left in President Bashar Assad’s possession (some of these missiles were used in the Syrian civil war), some 500-1,000 tactical missiles (Fateh and Fajr) that Hamas and Hezbollah possess, and more than 100 thousand artillery rockets that Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah possess.
In Dr. Faber’s assessment, about a third of the missiles and rockets launched towards Israel will be intercepted by the Air Force, a third will not launch due to malfunction, and a third will be on its way to hit its target. According to Dr. Faber, this data is established among IDF experts and in the intelligence community.
Regarding Shihab and Scud missiles, Faber says “we are talking about an arsenal of 1,000-1,300 ballistic missiles of all types. Not all of them will be launched and not all of them will hit their target. A reasonable assessment is that Israel’s security forces will have to take care of at least a third of them, meaning about 400 missiles.”
On tactical missiles Faber writes: “Since these are very precise missiles, the great majority of them will hit their target, meaning the tiered-defense system will have to intercept the great majority of these missiles.”
Regarding artillery rockets, the assessment is that just Hezbollah has 50-70 thousand rockets. When you add that to the Syrian rocket arsenal and Hamas’s rockets, the number doubles. From that it appears the Iron Dome will have to deal with about 30 thousand rockets.
“How many interceptor rockets are needed to handle this massive threat?” Feber wonders. “To handle the ballistic threat, two interceptors are required to shoot down every ballistic missile. In addition to that, during a full military confrontation, Israel’s security forces would undoubtedly make many mistakes, which means wasting interceptors. Therefore, for 400 ballistic missiles, Israel will need 800-1,000 interceptors. An Arrow interceptor (2 or 3) costs $3 million. So the cost of ‘pulling the trigger’ is 2.4-3 billion dollars. To intercept tactical missiles Israel will also need two interceptors. Since David’s Sling’s cost is around a million dollar, the total cost would be 1-2 billion dollars.”
“To that we need to add the cost of deploying the defense system and the cost of the batteries, which could double the assessment. Against artillery rockets Israel will need 60 thousand Iron Dome missiles, each costing $100,000, which means a total of $6 billion. This cost does not include deploying additional batteries (a few additional hundreds of thousands of dollars).”
Dr. Faber’s conclusions are in two main categories: financial and operational. Financially, during wartime, Israel will need interceptor missiles that, according to Faber, “cost more than $10 billion (35 billion shekels). In such a confrontation, Israel will undoubtedly use all of its defensive arsenal, and will have to invest a similar amount in restocking (a process that can last several years). Does anyone believe a venture of this magnitude makes sense? It is likely that no one believes in such nonsense.”
In the operational category, Faber claims that “today, Israel is not protected from ballistic missiles and this protection’s efficiency in the future is also in doubt.”
Regarding Iron Dome, his assessment is that it has a 66% success rate, and perhaps even less, and not 85% as its developers Refael and Israel’s security forces claim.
“The classic claim of the Iron Dome’s supporters is: ‘so what? 66% is better than zero. Any successful interception is pure gain because it saves human lives.’ Really? Well, here’s another point to think about: the Iron Dome does not save lives. What saves lives are the shelters and safe rooms that citizens escape to whenever there’s a rocket attack.”
This article first appeared in The Jerusalem Post‘s sister publication Sof HaShavua. Translated by Yaara Shalom.
WarSclerotic 
October 26, 2013 at 3:07 PM
”( Convincing and scary, this article supports Luis’ argument that a “surgical strike” is a terrible idea. It also supports my argument in favor of using a massive EMP attack. Why take chances with our lives if we can avoid it? – JW ) ”.
Any antimissile system in the world can fail if face with hundreds of incoming targets, simultaneously. The wisdom is, not to reach such a situation. And now, how should we operate that not so many incoming missiles will enter our space? We should attempt to terminate their silos b e f o r e the party will begin, or at least, terminate most of them. In such a situation, there will be less missiles that will attempt to hurt us and, with that number, our system can deal with more chances of success. And how we will destroy as many missiles silos as we can ? We can do that by applying, from the beginning, maximum assets in minimum time. We’ll call this principle : ”operational pressure”.
If we can achieve a high ”operational pressure” than the effects will be at the maximum.
A high Operational Pressure will be achieved, as we previously said, by using maximum assets in minimum time. This can be achieved unconventionally or, with conventionally assets.
Israel will not use unconventional means for the overture, meaning that a nuclear EMP will not be used. Israel will achieve the EMP effect by using conventional payloads which were used in the past by the USA Army and are in the dotation of the Israeli Army as well.
EMP-like effects will be achieved also by applying a sever cyber strike, prior to the start of the operation/hostilities. This electronic strike will attempt to terminate the electrical grid power of the enemy, practically leaving him military blind and paralyzed.
…And thanks Joseph, for quoting me regarding the inefficacity of a ”surgical” strike in Iran.
October 26, 2013 at 3:12 PM
Yep if you have to play ball hit them hard, a EMP is good but not enough, wipe them clean from nuclear possibilities and destroy the command system, including ayashitheads and more of that weird stuff. a lot more rockets won,t be fired.
And not enough, ultimate , the new negotiations will be held in iran at a glass table.
Would be a nice business card for the rest of the Islamic world.
Come in peace brothers and eat the fruit of our trees but my name is ISRAEL
End it now . end it forever. so we can use our full capacity for the good of humankind instead to waste a lot in defending ourself continual.
October 26, 2013 at 6:24 PM
Beautiful words. And in place, too.
October 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM
Luis there is just one chance, so it must be devastating to them.
No time to react , no time to breath, shock and awe quadruple
October 26, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Very good, Joop, really. That is what we all ask.
October 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM
But we won,t get it
October 26, 2013 at 6:25 PM
We have to take it, by ourselves. Meaning, we have to act.
October 26, 2013 at 4:36 PM
“Luis there is just one chance.” Sad state of affairs to say the least. How did it get to this and who should be held accountable. IMHO the architects of Oslo are the perpatrates of this said story.
October 26, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Stillborn to say the least!
“In Israel, a strong debate over the accords took place; the left wing supported them, while the right wing opposed them. After a two-day discussion in the Knesset on the government proclamation in the issue of the accord and the exchange of the letters, on 23 September 1993, a vote of confidence was held in which 61 Knesset members voted for the decision, 50 voted against and 8 abstained.
Palestinian reactions were also divided. Fatah, the group that represented the Palestinians in the negotiations, accepted the accords. But Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine objected to the accords because their own charters refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist in Palestine.
On both sides, there were fears of the other side’s intentions. Israelis suspected that the Palestinians were entering into a tactical peace agreement, and that they were not sincere about wanting to reach peace and coexistence with Israel. They saw it as part of the PLO’s Ten Point Program which calls for a national authority “over every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated” until “the liberation of all Palestinian territory.” For evidence they brought statements by Arafat in Palestinian forums, in which he compared the accord to the Hudaibiya agreement that Muhammad signed with the sons of the tribe of Quraish.[citation needed] They understood those statements as an attempt to justify the signing of the accords in accordance with historical-religious precedent, with step agreements to reach a final goal.”
October 26, 2013 at 10:04 PM
You are right when referring to Oslo agreements. They were a national disaster which price we are paying till today.
October 26, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Oh, i forgot something, be prepared to get the blame for igniting ww III.
The Chinese would not be harpy, and Russia also
October 26, 2013 at 3:50 PM
No WWIII will be ignited. If acting hard and fast, this world wont even notice it, hehe… .
October 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM
Perhaps you are right, please let me be wrong.
October 27, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Luis, Iran is a geographically large country. “With an area of 1,648,000 square kilometres (636,000 sq mi), Iran ranks eighteenth in size among the countries of the world.” Israel by contrast is about the size of New Jersey.
When the US took down Saddam it took great effort, bombing, troops and months of work. Israel is mighty but not infinitely so.
Iran will not be a one building strike like Syria and Iraq. If Israel attacks, Iran will respond and after that who knows where things will go.
Israel now, because of years of delay has no choice but to promise Iran that any nukes on Israel will mean dozens on Iran
and that there’s nowhere the Mullahs can hide to avoid retribution.
That’s sadly the current state of affairs.
October 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM
Hi John. Iran should not be able to respond after its electrical grid power will be shut down. Its like a street fight, and this is like striking your opponent in the eyes at the opening of the fight.
After that, the long range missiles Jericho II and III will be launched for getting specific targets in seconds. This is like kicking them in the balls, if we are to continue the precedent metaphor of street fighting.
So, John, repeat after me: first strike between the eyes, then kick the balls. Ok? Keep asking me the details, if you still are not sure how we’ll do it. But the formula is simple: its a 1-2 move : eyes and balls. Like a dance.
October 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM
Or the world make the decision to get rid from Israel as independent state.
So go whit the flow or play ball
What will you do if you was in command to make this decision.
October 26, 2013 at 4:53 PM
I understand your concerns. What will the Russians do? Will invade through Haifa? W i l l T h e R u s s i a n s A t t a c k
I s r a e l ? We hope we’ll not get so far, for the sake of the Russians. Lets say only that: Israel’s Jericho III type of missiles has Moscow in its 6, 000 km range of action. ”He who will mess with us, we’ll mess with him”, a paraphrase of …but better you’ll try to guess who said that.(we’ll provide the answer if badly needed, of course. Hint: a(n) (in)famous American public figure).
The State of Israel is not an usual state. It was founded in very extreme conditions and environment. Because precisely of those dangerous factors and a continuing threat to its very own existence, Israel has developed its military methods accordingly. The Israeli Doctrine of War has two aspects: Immediate Threats and Far Threats.
[Iran is still been considered an immediate threat, also because its proxies are very close to Israeli borders].
We already know how Israel dealt with Immediate Threats, through the wars and operations it has conducted along the years.
We don’t know how Israel will deal with a Far Threat – starting a war with a great power, by the initiative of that power. However, a classic assertion on this issue is claiming that, because Israel cannot take the initiative in such a conflict – Israel will not attack, for example, Russia in a preemptive fashion, if even knowing that the Russians are preparing to do that – then Israel has to be in a position of deterring even a power like Russia. The second strike capabilities of Israel are known and feared, but, most of all, is the
Samson Option feared by those who might think funny things.
The essence of the Samson Option is that in case a World Power will decide to attack the State of Israel, then Israel, if falling, will take down with it that Power, too. All the actors implicated in such a show are supposed to know this and they actually know it.
In the past, the deterrence was played by knowing that US will not allowed Russia to initiate any military active operations against Israel. Today, because of the deep geopolitical changes that took place in the region and in the world, Israel is counting mostly on itself. This is why, The Samson Option, is been taken into consideration today by all the superpowers who might think to initiate anything against us.
[We warmly recommend to the readers not familiarized with the Samson Option, to do a google search on it. Its very instructive.]
October 26, 2013 at 4:11 PM
Even when Bush was considering an Iran strike 6 years ago there was a lot of speculation about whether “tactical nukes” would be needed.
Considering how much more advanced and buried the Iranian program is now, I can’t imagine a successful strike could be done with conventional weapons alone.
October 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM
You are still missing the essential here. No ”surgical”, ”intelligent” strikes should be taken into consideration by Israel, anymore. You don’t have, of course, but I still recommend you, if I may, to read my recent comments on how Israel should prepare itself for the Iranian operation, why and how to act. I’ll be glad to answer and clarify any question on this issue.
Regards, Luis.
October 27, 2013 at 4:57 AM
agree
October 26, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Well mark, the brave iranien soldier can not send children whit a key for the heaven around there neck into minefield to clear the pad for them if bombs are flying , so i think it will be over very soon if the bombs start falling on there heads, and there is no command structure any more.
Just show them that allah is on eternal vacation .
October 26, 2013 at 4:31 PM
We are dealing whit a special kind of species, species who have to take a step more on the ladder of evolution to humankind.
October 26, 2013 at 5:06 PM
That was a bomb joke and not an easy one! Joop, you must warn people here before using your humor, otherwise people here might die laughing. I know it was close for me.
October 27, 2013 at 4:59 AM
well said and unfortunately very true.
October 26, 2013 at 4:33 PM
What are you doing whit a mean dog, you put him on a chain and teach him to behave whit patient and love.
October 26, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Oeps, my new keyboard is just steaming again, cannot afford to buy every 2 weeks a new one.
Keep your soul in sanity , but be on guard for the mean dog.
October 26, 2013 at 7:58 PM
If you neutralize the people with the knowledge and capacity to launch missiles, then the question of the efficiency of the shield is moot.
October 26, 2013 at 9:11 PM
Also agreed, however is not easy to get to those people. The simple solution is to turn their power down. Indefinitely.
October 27, 2013 at 2:26 PM
And what do you think the IDF will be doing? The IDF has been training to invade and stop an all out missile attack. The missile defense system is a ‘stop gap’ measure meant to give the IDF time to do its ‘thing’
October 27, 2013 at 2:49 PM
Right. That is true in the Hezbollah case. There, the IDF will ”invade and do its thing”, to use your expression. In the Iranian case, an invasion is not in the cards so more drastic measures will be adopted; the Iranians, for example, would not be able even to use a toilette.[ no kidding, because the water needs pumps which in turn are activated by electricity. So, no electricity, no toilets. And a few couple of things more.]