[metaslider id=54006]After citizens of three Middle East countries two nights ago heard the wail of air raid sirens and explosions of missiles in the sky above them, hundreds of thousands of people were terrified and wondered what had happened. In the Arab world, rumors swirled that Arab militants had fired rockets from Jordan toward Jerusalem (a highly improbable scenario). Then the IAF began to release information on the incident: it claimed that its warplanes had attacked a Hezbollah weapons convoy near Palmyra which was transshiping advanced weaponry across Syria. The military further claimed that the Syrians had fired SAM-5 missiles at the planes and that Israel had fired an Arrow interceptor which destroyed one of the SAMs.
As I’ve written here numerous times in the past concerning IDF cover stories, there was something fishy about this one. For one, the Syrians have fired SAMs at IAF jets before without Israel responding by firing any missiles, let alone Arrows. Second, the wide swath over which wreckage of the air encounter was strewn indicated something far more complex than a single Arrow intercepting a single SAM.
As time went by, more details and speculation by experts pointed to discrepancies between the IAF claims and known details about the weaponry involved. The Arrow system is meant to shoot down ballistic missiles. SAMs are not ballistic weapons. They fly much lower and slower than Arrows. In a sense, using it to down a SAM is like using a machine gun to kill a fly. In other words, you just wouldn’t do it.
If it wasn’t a SAM, then what was it? Barbara Opall Rome of Defense News suggests it might be a SCUD missile. That makes more sense and may explain why the IAF released a bogus claim about the type of Syrian weapons. Firing SCUDs would indicate a Syrian intent to retaliate against the Israelis by targeting population centers. If this scenario is correct, then the predictable Israeli response would be another air attack against Syrian SAM launch sites. That hasn’t happened yet. But if/when it does, we will know Opall Rome’s conjecture is correct.
Retired MIT Prof. Ted Postol reviewed the photographs and IAF account: he confirmed a portion of Opall Rome’s report. The Syrian missile could not be a SAM. He could not say for sure what weapon it was, because Israel has released no ground photographs of the remains of what the Arrow hit. Postol added that the carcass which landed in Jordan was the first stage of the Arrow (see slideshow), which is jettisoned in flight.
News media have noted that this is the first time Israel has publicly acknowledged attacking Hezbollah targets in Syria. But this incident marks even more ominous “firsts.” It marks a significant escalation of the Israeli-Syrian rivalry. It threatens to draw other neighbors like Jordan into the conflict (the remnants which fell to the ground could easily have killed people). This is a warning by an Assad growing in power that Israel will pay for future incursions into Syrian territory. The Israeli response, if there is one, could significantly escalate tension and draw it even more overtly into the conflict against the regime.
Russia summoned Israel’s ambassador to the Kremlin over this incident. I’ve never heard of Putin doing this before. It would indicate his extreme displeasure at Israel’s latest invasion of Syrian sovereignty and mark a new flexing of muscle on the part of Assad and his Russian ally. This may mean that Israel will have less maneuvering room in future in its ongoing combat against it’s Lebanese arch-enemy, Hezbollah. Alternatively, the Russians may be urging the Israelis not to retaliate against the Syrians for launching the SCUDs at Israel. It’s not in Russia’s interests to have yet another power intervening overtly in Syria and mucking things up even worse than they already are.
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 –
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/03/15/us-ally-used-patriot-missile-to-shoot-down-small-drone.html
http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/326302
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 –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udr–3ttyQs
Older US miissiles could also do this, see for instance –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-14_Nike_Hercules#Surface-to-surface_mode
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.
@ 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.
[comment deleted: I repeat–a comment must have a substantive argument. Not an unfounded opinion or claim.]
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.
@ 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.
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.
@Jim: my information comes from one of the world’s leading experts on missile technology. Yours comes from Wikipedia. Who should we trust?
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.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/1.1793655
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.
@ Amico: You’re asking whether one of the world’s foremost experts on missile technology knows about the Arrow? Are you daft? That’s like asking whether Einstein knew about gravity.
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.
@ Jim: It was based on my phone interview with him.
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).
Last comment was about Pastor, not you!
@ 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.