In the days preceding the Jerusalem Day, Israel witnessed clashes between the rioting Palestinians and the Israeli Military and the police. Amidst the conflagration of communal unrest surrounding the Temple Mount Hamas threated to start rocket barrages and it did. Various Gaza based terror groups joined in the campaign to cause further damage by stirring virulent propaganda against Israel as the oppressor of Palestinian .
What may have started as a communal clash, soon escalated into a full scale conflict as Hamas and Islamic Jihad launched a fusillade of 2300 rockets and mortars at Israel. As expected, retaliation followed with Israel striking strongly with its Air Force and going primarily for command and control targets (house of head of Hamas, Chief engineer, Cyber warfare head and Commander of Rocket forces)with casualties on both sides. However, the number of fatalities in Israel were considerably less than expected, as the incoming rockets were intercepted by Israel`s Iron Dome Defence system. The Iron Dome was developed by Rafael Advanced Defence Systems in collaboration with Elta systems, which is famous for producing radars and missiles.
A decade since its first deployment in Beersheba, the Iron Dome has known to have intercepted some 4,300 rockets and missiles in several weather conditions with 90 per cent success rate as reported by various military sources and Rafael Advanced Defence Systems. The Iron Dome is an effective, multi mission, mobile, short range air defence system. The system was created to counter short range rockets and 155mm artillery shell threats with ranges up to 70km. The effectiveness of the system lies in reducing the collateral damage by strategically placing it in various locations, this as we know has proved successful against the recent attacks in the past week.
The Iron Dome is capable at detecting, analysing and intercepting threats, which also includes C-RAM, precision guided missiles, UAV`s, Cruise missiles and air breathing threats. The Iron Dome batteries include a radar system, a command system and three to four launchers. Each launcher carries twenty interceptor missiles. Other features of the system include, vertical launch interceptors, several steering fins for high mobility along with electro optics receptors, warhead and proximity fuse and compatibility with various radar and detection systems. I-Dome`s special war heads allow the projectile targets to be detonated in the air. After the target is detected and identified, the path of the rocket is analysed by the Iron dome radar monitors while the system’s BMC calculate the possible point of impact. Once the target is confirmed as the threat, the system commands the interceptors to be launched while detonating the target in a neutral area.
Currently, one unit of Iron Dome is priced at over $50 million while the cost to build one interceptor Tamir missile is $80,000. The rocket costs $1000 only. ELM 2084 MMR is a 3D AESA radar which functions in the S-band frequency. According to the radar’s manufacturer, the ELM 2084 has a target capacity of “up to 1100 targets for air surveillance purposes.” The ELM 2084 is also used as the fire control radar for Israel’s David Sling missile defence system.
The Israel Defence Ministry has used the Iron Dome for the protection of its Northern and Southern borders. It is also worth mentioning, Israel`s doctrine against high trajectory weapons is based on various kinds of defence, from active to passive defences, which involves the interception of rockets and missile by Iron Dome, David`s Sling, the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 miisiles. Recently, the Iron Dome system was tested in March 2021 in southern Israel and it had successfully performed at intercepting and destroying the existing and incoming threats.
The Iron Dome Defence system, background and its Development
Israel had seen many rocket attacks, from the shelling of Galilee pan handle towns in the 70`s to the second Lebanon war in 2006, following the consistent attacks from the Gaza strip. The constant threats appearing from the Hezbollah and the Hamas was a huge factor for the consideration of having an air defence system such as the Iron dome.
The development of the system was initiated in 2005 by Brig. Gen. Dr Danny Gold (Head of Defence Ministry`s Research and Development Unit), however the project received a favourable boost post the second Lebanon war in 2006 by the Israeli Government. By February 2007, Defence Minister Amir Peretz nominated Iron Dome as Israel’s defence against this short-range rocket threat. In early 2011, the final tests of the system were concluded. On March 28th 2011, the first battery was deployed to Beersheba, the second battery within a week was deployed to Ashkelon. On April 7th, 2011 the Iron Dome shot down its first incoming rocket from the Gaza strip. The first two batteries were initially funded by Israel alone.
In 2010, President Obama, recognizing the threats by Hezbollah and Hamas on the state of Israel, announced that he would provide 205 million dollars in his 2011 budget from the US congress to expedite the development of the Iron Dome. This was the first American investment in the Israeli project. By 2016, US committed $5 billion to its development costs. According to experts, a total of 13 Iron Dome batteries are required to defend the entire territory of Israel. Currently 10 batteries are deployed. Israel plans to increase them to 15 batteries in near future. In August 2019, the US Army decided to procure two Iron Dome batteries to augment its own short-range missile defence capabilities.
Criticism of the Iron Dome defence system
Apart from Iron Dome, another system similar to it is owned by the United states – the Centurion System, which is based on Phalanx anti-ship missile defence system. The Centurion was used to intercept rockets and mortars at short-range using fast moving 20mm canon. It has served extensively in protecting US forces and assets in the Iraqi “Green Zone” under US command.
On the level of technology, several arguments had also erupted against the Iron dome
1. The inability of the system to deal with very short-range targets, whose range may be less than 5-7km and also its inability to shoot down mortar shells.
2. The critics argued, since the threats also included mortar shelling, the defence ministry should have favoured acquisition of already existing systems such as the Centurion and the Sky Guard (was proposed by Northrop Grumman based on the Nautilus tactical laser system. The development of the system is complete but remains non-operational)
3. There is also a speculation that the Iron Dome system may face difficulty combating the rockets launched at flat trajectories.
4. The cost of the interceptor missiles is high, use of two interceptor missiles on one target could also raise costs and difficulty for Israel to acquire more interceptor missiles in a prolonged conflict.
5. Also, the system faces a “saturation point”, its inability to engage beyond a certain number of threats could lead to a defence breach.
Operational Criticism
According to the Iron Dome developers, the defensive foot print of one battery extends up to 100 square kilometres, however its competitors believe it is far less. This would prove difficult to protect an entire population of a town or city, unless many batteries are deployed.
This would also cause many citizens to be evacuated to bunkers or shelters, while an extensive damage to the areas will be predictable. The purchase of the interceptors is also limited, so the decision to protect a select populations would have to be made. So, this poses the question if such an expensive defence system would be apt for Israel. The debate on whether to rely too much on the Iron Dome defence system vs focusing on simply protecting the strategic facilities is often raised. No doubt the Iron Dome is a tactical and technological success, but does it equate to leak – proof defense?
We must bear in mind, over the years Hezbollah has managed to acquire and improve the ranges of their missile systems. The weapons in their possession are statistically distributed as they are also expensive. Since it would defeat the purpose to attack strategic facilities as the damage would be negligible, the focus would be deviated to using them against waging terror on the civilians. However, the Iron Dome doesn’t give the option of securing the entire population.
Hence the critics believe, deploying an active defence system for civilian protection would defeat the purpose as the system cannot protect all. Their suggestions have stressed on deploying the systems for protecting the strategic facilities, as it would be futile to prevent some damage no matter how negligible and which may be incurred by the country from the rocket attacks.
Iron Dome, IDF and defending the Offense
IDF security concept has relied consistently on their three pillars of “deterrence, early warning, and decisive battlefield victory (hachra’a in Hebrew)”. It has stringently followed an offensive tactic over defence tactics. By ensuring its strong offensive power it has deterred enemies from attacks and strengthening its advance intelligence networks, it has managed to detect early threats when deterrence fails.
The subject of defensive power made the talks in 1960`s, when Israel expressed its interest in procuring the Hawk surface-to-air missile system from the US. A stiff opposition was met at the highest bureaucratic and military ranks. Some military commanders accused this move as the agenda of the political lobbies to back away from offensive operations which may account to a sure shot victory or a fast affirmative decision. The other argument was to spend on planes which would serve the purpose of both offensive and defensive roles.
Eventually, 5 Hawk missile batteries were acquired and they proved to be cohesive to the existing offensive plan by protecting Israeli air force facilities, while maintaining the IAF deterrence and first strike capabilities.IDF BG (res.) Dr. Meir Finkel in his article, “Iron Dome – the New Maginot Line,” has laid a strong comparison between the defensive systems and the defensive fortifications line built by France in the 1930`s to ward off the Germans. The Maginot line had consumed about 6% of the French budget which took away the much-required funds for its offensive capabilities. Finkle stated the same can be applied in the context of the Iron dome, which would lead to “the creation of false security and the atrophy of the army’s offensive thinking”.
The concept of strong defence capability to strengthen the offense soon crept in post the Hezbollah`s success in maintaining Katyusha rocket attacks in the second Lebanon war in 2006. In 2007, the Meridor Committee on Israel’s National Security Doctrine integrated defence as the fourth pillar in their national security doctrine. This year the Israeli government approved Iron Dome as Israel’s answer against the short-range rockets.
Conclusion
Israel has come to be one of the first amongst the nations to use an anti-Rocket system to protect its civilian population and it certainly isn’t a surprise, given the number of attacks this nation has suffered. It is logical for Israel to invest extensively in the Iron Dome defence systems, but the quandary may arise when it may come to limiting the funds invested in its defensive ability without hurting the IDF’s offensive capabilities.
Looking at the range of the considerations to invest in the Iron Dome defence systems, it appears the decision to acquire the anti-rocket system was a smart one. Israel’s solution to the rockets attacks comes with a controversy but it is still regarded as a technological breakthrough, which Israel should be proud of. Israel’s defense in the latest round of casualties has been impressive and yet Israel has hit back hard with its Air power to hit the Hamas command and control and propaganda elements and imposed prohibitive costs.
