Meeting the “Depth Threat” in Iraq – The Origins of Israel’s Arrow System (JCPA-JERUSALEM CENTER FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS) Jerusalem Issue Brief Vol. 2, No.19 – 5 March 2003)
Source: http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-19.htm
JCPA-Jerusalem Center Public Affairs
JCPA-Jerusalem Center Public Affairs Articles-Index-Top
Publishers-Index-Top
During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq’s use of El-Hussein missiles, an
upgraded Scud with a range of 600 km., meant they could reach not
only Teheran but Tel Aviv – and we realized we had no way to stop
them.
The soul of any missile defense system is not the missile; it is
the radar, its main sensor. It took us some time to appreciate that
we needed to develop a system program rather than a missile program,
based on the “Green Pine” early warning and fire control radar and
the “Citron Tree” battle management system.
In seven interception tests of the Arrow-2, six have been
successful. Technically, we have every reason to believe it is going
to work. If we can destroy the hostile warhead above the jet stream,
which flows from west to east, everything that comes down from the
destroyed warhead will enter the jet stream and be blown back to the
sender.
A Wake-Up Call from the Iran-Iraq War
The United States faces two different missile threats: a tactical
threat to its military forces and a strategic threat to its home
territory. In Israel, the tactical threat and the strategic threat
are encapsulated in the same territory. First and foremost is the
tactical threat of interdiction of the mobilization of Israel’s
military reserves, or the interdiction of our air force. Then there
is the strategic threat of nuclear missiles. In between lies the
threat of missiles with chemical warheads. In a country with a large
territory, the threats tend to be separated from each other, but with
Israel’s constricted territory, everything is meshed together.
This is the story of how Israel developed its response to the missile
threat and the considerations behind it. In 1988, during the Iran-
Iraq war, we first saw Iraq’s use of El-Hussein missiles, an upgraded
Scud with a range of 600 km., which was not only capable of reaching
Teheran but also Tel Aviv. This meant that we were facing a future
threat that we had not considered before, what is now called
the “depth threat” – attacks from beyond the immediate tier of
neighboring countries. We also realized that we had no way to stop
it.
Passive Defense: An Initial Approach
In the discussions in Israel about what to do, the decision-makers
initially concluded that unless the threat involved nuclear missiles,
there was no need to invest in anti-missile defenses. What was
considered important against chemical missiles was passive defense
(sealed rooms and gas masks) with early warning. This is why the
passive defense program in Israel is so extensive.
However, passive defense without early warning is worthless. A
minimum warning time is required to put on protective gear and move
into sheltered areas. In Teheran in 1988 when missiles struck without
any early warning, people were caught in the streets and in the
markets, with hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded.
In retrospect, the decision at that time not to embark on a missile
defense system was not very wise. In the 1991 Gulf War, despite
overconfident predictions that the Iraqis wouldn’t dare fire one
missile at Israel, they fired 40 missiles. In reaction, Israel began
the Arrow program.
The Arrow program was actually launched under Scud fire, and I was
appointed head of the program on an evening when two Scuds fell. I
was called to the director-general of the Defense Ministry and he
told me to start work. It was like a battlefield commission. As the
saying goes, “there is nothing that clarifies the thought processes
like the threat of death.”
Born with “Star Wars”
In 1986, Israel had joined the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative
(SDI), popularly referred to as “Star Wars.” Lt. Gen. James
Abrahamson, the first director of the SDI, met with David Ivry, then
chairman of Israel Aircraft Industries and later director-general of
the Ministry of Defense. Abrahamson suggested that since the SDI
charter was to defend the United States and its allies, and since
Israel was an ally that faced a threat from short-range missiles in
the Middle East, Israel should work on defense against “theater
ballistic missiles.” In 1988, a commercial contract was signed
between Israel Aircraft Industries and the Strategic Defense
Initiative Organization (SDIO) to develop an experimental missile,
not a system, and to try to hit a target in the upper reaches of the
atmosphere. It was defined as an experiment, not as the development
of a system.
Israel’s program was called “Homa,” an acronym for “Hetz” (Arrow)
and “Makam Hagana” (early warning radar). The acronym forms the
Hebrew word for “defensive rampart.” Yet until 1994, the program
experienced failure after failure. Finally in July 1994 we managed to
hit a target with the Arrow-1 missile. Though big and cumbersome, the
success of the Arrow-1 encouraged us and saved the program.
To Develop a System, Not a Missile
In parallel, we developed the initial version of the “Green Pine”
early warning and fire control radar, as well as the “Citron Tree”
battle management system. This was really a turning point to the
program because the soul of any missile defense system is not the
missile; it is the radar, its main sensor. It took us some time to
appreciate that we needed to develop a system program rather than a
missile program. In 1995 we rolled out the first version of “Green
Pine.”
The Arrow program used practically no U.S. technology, just U.S.
money. It was almost entirely based on Israeli technology, though we
bought some components in the U.S. because they were cheaper.
When I showed the first photographs of the newly assembled radar to
the Pentagon, I could see they were impressed at how we were
developing a full system.
The Arrow-2 achieved its first successful interception in 1997. In
seven interception tests of the Arrow-2, six have been successful. In
1999, the full system operated on its own and correctly detected a
realistic target. An intercept solution was automatically computed,
the Arrow missile fired, and scored a direct hit. In 2000 the first
battery was delivered, and today two batteries are deployed – one in
the south and one in the north.
Key Questions in the Arrow Decision
In the development of the Arrow, the questions we sought to answer
included: Will the system work? Will it be effective? Will it be
affordable? And how is it going to impact on regional stability?
Is it going to work? Yes, technically we have every reason to believe
it is going to work.
Is it going to be effective? Effectiveness is really a question of
resources. If we want to be very effective, we can fire five Arrows
against every target, but this becomes very costly.
We were frequently criticized about launching an expensive Arrow
against a cheap Scud, but that is not really a proper equation.
During the 1991 Gulf War, an el-Hussein missile – a Scud with only a
quarter ton instead of a ton of explosives – fell in a Ramat Gan
courtyard between four apartment houses. Fortunately, no one was
killed, though scores of people were injured. Everyone was evacuated
and the buildings had to be condemned; after the war, the 48
apartments were bulldozed. The cost of the damage to these four
buildings caused by one Scud shows that the real equation must
compare the cost of the Arrow to the damage caused by the Scud, and
this is without taking into account the cost of human life.
Regarding the question of regional stability, the Arrow was blamed
for instigating an arms race. However, the development of the Arrow
was actually Israel’s response to the arms race. The Arabs started
arming with ballistic missiles not because of Arrow, but because they
sought a way to penetrate Israeli skies that are so efficiently
protected by the Israeli Air Force.
Furthermore, any government is obliged to defend its people. This is
the moral and ethical dimension of the issue. We regarded the Arrow
program as the fulfillment of the Israeli government’s obligation to
Israel’s people.
The Situation Today
The Iraqis have a very limited capability to fire any missiles toward
Israel, but one can still be surprised. They are adept at hiding
their secrets. The Iraqis also have capabilities in other areas, such
as unmanned aircraft, which are also quite dangerous.
If they do have the capability, will they use it? I am doubtful they
will. As soon as they fire a ballistic missile anywhere, this will
justify the entire effort of the Bush administration to take out
Saddam. It would be a very irrational thing for the Iraqis to do.
Even if Saddam personally is in danger, his Takriti clan will want to
stay in power and I doubt they would want to see the war justified by
firing one missile. So they may not do so even if they have the
capability.
The Arrow will be very effective against Iraqi Scuds. It was designed
against missiles of this type. Of the 40 missiles fired at Israel
during the Gulf War, only eight caused damage and casualties. All the
rest fell into the sea or into the open spaces east of Tel Aviv and
Haifa. They were rendered inaccurate precisely because they broke up
in mid-air.
How Effective Against Chemical Weapons?
The Arrow system – like the Patriot system – does not distinguish
between missile warheads. We really don’t know what is coming at us,
so we designed our defense system in such a way that it destroys any
warhead of whatever type. To do so, our defensive system employs a
very powerful warhead of its own to impart a lot of impact onto the
incoming missile and destroy it completely. The Arrow is also
designed to intercept the missile as high as possible. We tested to
see whether chemical agents would reach the ground after interception
and reached the conclusion that absolutely nothing comes down to the
ground. If we can destroy the hostile warhead above the jet stream,
which flows from west to east, everything that comes down from the
destroyed warhead will enter the jet stream and be blown back to the
sender.
The missile threat to Israel is extensive and growing. Long-range,
nuclear missiles are clearly a possible threat. If and when we have
peace, the Arrow is part of a shield that Israel will have to
maintain in order to preserve that peace.
***
Uzi Rubin is former head of Israel´s Arrow–Homa Anti-Missile Defense
Program. This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation at
the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem on 27 January
2003. (JCPA.ORG 03/05/03)
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
