16 thoughts on “Israeli Claim Syria Fired SAM Missiles at IAF Planes Proven False – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. I’m not sure Israel has an interest in covering up a SCUD attack.

    Israel has also used very expensive munitions before – e.g. Patriots against quadrocopters –

    Technically, shooting at a -high altitude- SAM with an anti-missile missile is possible. high-altitude SAMs (specifically the old ones) behave a bit like a short-range ballistic missile – and can actually be used as such, see SA-2 for instance –

    Older US miissiles could also do this, see for instance –

    It is a good question whether shooting at whatever missile it was had any operational value (e.g. to aid an escaping aircraft from incoming SAM, or to shoot down a SCUD) – or if it was just a show of force.

    1. @ lepxii: SAMs are not “high-altitude” missiles. Arrows are. They travel at much lower altitudes than the Arrow. They also travel 5 times slower than the Arrow. Not to mention that the SAM profile isn’t even programmed into the Arrow database as a potential target.

      It makes no sense whatsoever to try to shoot down a SAM w an Arrow. Not to mention that the planes’ own counter measures would be sufficient to avoid SAMs.

  2. There is another option, a much simpler explanation…
    The launching of the ARROW might have been simply a malfunction of the system. The radar might have mistakenly recognized the SAM missile as a ballistic missile. This is very serious malfunction and something to be very worried about from the IDF view point.
    This is much more likely than the possibility that Assad took such a gamble as to send a Scud missile towards Israel, which may lead to scores of casualties among Israeli citizens . Assad has no interest in doing something that would almost for sure bring about an all out war.

    1. @ Amico: I doubt it. The SAM flies much, much lower than anything the Arrow would intercept.

      As for Assad, he has the backing of a power bigger and stronger than Israel: Russia. It, along with his recent victories, has emboldened him. The warning from Russia delivered via the Israel ambassador said basically (if my surmise is correct): Assad is the new sheriff in town–deal with it. Unless you want more SCUDs raining down on Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

  3. If you compare the specs of both missiles (on Wikipedia), the SA5 is both larger and faster than the scud. The warhead is much smaller though but it still capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

    So… if arrow is appropriate for a scud, it is the right measurement against an AS5.

      1. Is your source aware of the capabilities of the Arrow 2 block 4? this interceptor was develop to hit medium rage rockets and missiles. These type of rockets fly much lower than the SCUD.

        Moreover, given tat the SA-5 has a warhead containing 200 kg of explosives (!) it is reasonable that it would be targeted as a medium range rocket would be targeted.

        My new speculation is that Assad may have been more sophisticated than you suspect- he fired this SA-5 knowing that it will hit inside Israel (what goes up must come down…). However, since it is a weapon with a stated purpose of hitting an invading enemy aircraft than it is a is a legitimate action. Hezbollah used the same type of tactic when Israeli aircraft invaded Lebanon-it fired AA cannons that hit ground targets in Israel (in one such an incident a boy was killed in Shlomi). This is a much more reasonable action than firing a SCUD missile.

          1. Richard – can you please post a link to your source about Prof. Postol analysis? I can’t find it anywhere!

            I must say it is refreshing to see the guy who critiqued the effectiveness of the Israeli Iron Dome system is OK with the Arrow system shooting down a missile.

          2. @ Jim: It was based on my phone interview with him.

            the guy who critiqued the effectiveness of the Israeli Iron Dome system is OK with the Arrow system shooting down a missile.

            What the hell? Where did he say that? I make very clear in my comment rules that deliberately distorting, exaggerating or lying about my views or those of others (that includes putting words in anyone’s mouth as you have here) is a serious offense. If you do that again, you’ll be banned (you’re already moderated).

          3. @ Jim: Postol never said anything about approving Arrow’s use as you claim. As I said, don’t put words into people’s mouths here. If you do, your shelf life will be very short.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *