Hamas launched at least one Ayyash 250 rocket — a two-year-old weapon believed to be the longest-range rocket that the militant group has with an operational range of 155 miles — at Israel from the Gaza Strip.

Unlike, the mobile Iron Dome, David’s Sling is stationary and can protect the entirety of Israel from its permanent location. The IAF received the defense system from the Defense Ministry in July 2017.

David’s Sling’s advanced, multi-mission interceptor, also known as the Stunne or the SkyCeptor, a joint endeavor of Rafael & Raytheon, two world leaders in advanced weapons system development, offer interceptor as lethal, flexible and affordable hit to-kill to defeat mass raids of  threats.

David’s Sling system is modular, scalable, and flexible to tailor-fit the area and topology to be defended.

The David’s Sling interceptor (Stunner/ SkyCeptor ) delivers superior kinematics, maneuverability and lethality by combining novel innovative steering control, multi-pulse propulsion and a next-generation seeker into a lightweight airframe.

Benefits

It is designed for “plug and play” insertion into fielded air and missile defence systems with open architecture. It has a Next-gen multi-sensor seeker. With  large interception envelope, it can effectively intercept threats during saturation attack.

The launcher carries up to 12 stunner interceptors, launched in a near-vertical orientation. It has multi-pulse propulsion and precision hit-to-kill aim point selection in the terminal phase.

Israel’s Air Defence Architecture

David’s Sling is the middle part of Israel’s sophisticated and multi-layer air-defense network. It strengthens the anti-missile defence already provided by the Iron Dome, Arrow 2, and Arrow 3.

Israel’s air defence systems are stationed throughout the country and are prepared to respond 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

David’s Sling is the middle layer of Israel’s sophisticated air-defense network and is complemented by the Iron Dome and the Arrow systems, for smaller and larger threats, respectively. Together, these protect Israel and its nearly 9,000 square miles of territory from artillery, drones, rockets, and missiles of all sorts.

According to Israel’s foreign ministry, many of the initiatives that fall under the country’s Missile Defense Organization (IMDO) operate in close collaboration with the US and receive joint funding. The three aforementioned weapons systems, for example, were developed as a result of cooperation between the two countries.

Iron Dome

First developed in 2011 and widely considered to be one of the most advanced air-defense systems in the world, the Iron Dome is designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery.

It consists of batteries that have multiple launchers, each of which can hold up 20 Tamir interceptors. The batteries — consisting of a radar and a battle management system — are scattered around Israel and can defend nearly 60-square miles. Interceptors are capable of engaging projectiles from 40 miles away.

The Iron Dome is the most well-known of Israel’s air-defense systems and has been put to serious work since fierce fighting broke out between Israel and Hamas over the weekend.

The IDF said that as of 13 October 2023, Hamas had fired over 6,000 rockets at Israel, keeping the Iron Dome busy as it works to defend civilian the country’s centers.

David’s Sling

David’s Sling is the next layer of Israel’s air-defense network, and its deployment on Friday marks one of only a few times that the system has been used since it became operational in 2017. Also known as the Magic Wand, it fires an interceptor called the Stunner (which doesn’t have a warhead) to defeat medium- to long-range rockets and missiles at a range of up to 185 miles.

The David’s Sling system includes a missile firing unit, a fire control radar, a battle management station, and the interceptor.

Arrow

The upper layer of Israel’s air-defense network consists of Arrow systems. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank, Arrow-2 was first deployed in 2000 and was later followed by Arrow-3 in 2017.

Both types of systems use two-stage solid-fueled interceptors to engage targets like short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in the upper atmosphere, and they each include a launcher, radar, and battle management system.

Arrow-3 serves as the top layer of Israel’s defense array. Its interceptor is a world-class missile that, together with the Arrow-2, significantly expands the State of Israel’s defense capabilities. The Arrow-3 system’s capabilities enable longer range, higher altitude (exo-atmospheric), and more precise ballistic missile engagements.

Patriot

Outside of those defense systems, Israel is also one of nearly 20 countries that operates the MIM-104 Patriot missile defense battery, which is a US-made truck-mounted surface-to-air missile system.

The Patriot is a top US air and missile defense system and is capable of engaging ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, drones, and loitering munitions. One battery consists of eight launchers that are armed with four interceptor missiles, each of which can eliminate targets at at altitude of nearly 80,000 feet.

MANPADS

The basic air defence system with the IDF are the notorious Stinger man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS). The Stinger, fired from the shoulders, is a battlefield short-range weapon system mainly for low-level and slow-moving threats like helicopters.

The missile had earned its notoriety in Afghanistan, when it was used by the Taliban to fight the Russian occupation. However, the latest variants of the Stinger can also target higher and fast-flying fixed wing aircraft within about 15,000 feet in air, besides cruise missiles and low-flying drones.

SHORADS

Israel also operates the Machbet short-range air defence system (SHORADS). This is a gun-and-missile system on a self-propelled tracked vehicle, based on the M113 armoured personnel carrier. The missiles on the vehicles are Stingers and can be used against incoming cruise missiles and drones. These vehicles usually travel with the mechanised forces to provide battlefield defences.

Spyder

The Spyder family of Short/Extended/ Medium/Long-Range Mobile Air Defence Systems (ADS) is used by Israel against a wide spectrum of threats, such as attack aircraft, helicopters, bombers, cruise missiles, UAVs and stand-off weapons.

Iron Beam

The Iron Beam is a new directed energy air defence system that is still being tested by Israel. This will not replace the Iron Dome, but will complement it.

The 100-kilowatt Iron Beam is designed to neutralise rockets, artillery and mortars (RAM), besides unmanned aerial systems (UAS), counter-unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS) and anti-tank missiles. It can function by itself or be integrated with other, broader defence systems. It uses a fibre laser to generate a laser beam to destroy an airborne target.

Each battery of the Iron Beam will consist of an air defence radar, a command and control (C2) unit, and two High Energy Laser (HEL) systems.

Naval AD System

While a naval air defence system is used usually to defend one’s own assets, given the location and size of Israel, it is also used as an alternative counter-measure for missiles travelling over the sea.

Installed on board an Israeli Navy Sa’ar-class corvette is the C-Dome, the naval version of the Iron Dome.

These corvettes are armed with two C-Dome systems, each having 20 Tamirs besides Barak-8 surface-to-air missiles, which are launched from 32 vertical launch cells.

While Barak-8 is long range, C-Dome is designed to intercept and destroy lower-flying aircraft, anti-ship missiles, as well as short-range rockets and drones.

Israel Air Force

Fighter aircraft and attack helicopters are another less talked-about air defence capability of the Israeli Air Force, along with the surveillance and command-and-control assets operated by it. The Israeli fighter jet fleet of F-15, F-16, and F-35 fighters have the capability to intercept and destroy cruise missiles and drones.

Israel had in 2021 shot down at least two Iranian drones that, it says, were heading toward Israeli territory.

This was the first time that F-35s operated by any nation were confirmed to have destroyed airborne threats, which showed how Israel has expanded the use of these fighters.

The post IRAN-ISRAEL-Israel’s Air Defence System appeared first on IMR.

Cost Ratios. The second aspect is the skewed ratio between cost to the attacker and defender. One Shahid drone costs about $10,000. Hence, Iran spent about $3.5 million on its attack, whereas, Israel had to fire off over $1.3 billion worth of anti-ballistic missiles, Patriots, MR SAMs and Iron Domes in just one night. This attack was with around 320 drones/ missiles. What if the next attack comes with 1,500 drones/ missiles and more? Iran claims that it has not yet used its hypersonic Fateh missiles in the last attack.

Iran’s Escalation Management and Control. Viewed in hindsight, Iran has shown tremendous strategic patience and ability to exercise escalation control. It has delivered a potent, strategic message of deterrence. “Pile up all the layers of air defence, get the US, British and French to help you with 200 fighters, but the simple fact is, that we will get through.” That was the essence of Iran’s deterrence message. It is said that Iran had sent signals to USA via UAE and intelligence channels that it was not interested in any further escalation that would involve the United States. Its sovereignty had been blatantly violated and under Article 51 of the UN Charter, it would exercise its right to retaliate. Yet it gave adequate notice to prevent uncontrolled escalation. It took 13 days to respond. It hit only three military targets. There were no attacks on civilian targets or infrastructure. It virtually sabotaged the military success of its own attack by this virtue signaling, but that did enable escalation control and dominance. It sent a clear deterrent message via the missile strikes that got through the very dense and layered air defences. It sent a clear message that it could and would get through, and not tolerate any violation of its sovereignty.

American Escalation Control Measures

For its part, the United States seemed equally keen that the issue should not escalate to a regional war. There was no way Iran could prevail in any conflict with US and Israel. However, it was capable of inflicting serious damage and pain.

It could hit Israel and the oil fields in the Middle East, it could block the Strait of Hormuz and send oil prices skyrocketing giving a big hit to the global economy. The US was in an election year and President Biden could not afford a rise in price of oil that would affect transportation costs and increase not only prices of fuel but also increase prices of food triggering an inflationary spiral.

The US strategic reserve of oil itself was down to just 17 days. The US interest would not be served by any escalation in the Middle East. As such, the US efforts were to put psychological pressure on Iran.

It sent back a second carrier battle group to the Mediterranean. It sent in General Korella, Chief of the US Central Command to coordinate missile defense measures. It tried to force Iran to recalibrate costs and limit or scale down its options.

READ MORE: ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR – Hamas Leadership, Setup and Capabilities

When all this dissuasion failed and Iran fired off three salvos of some 320 drones and missiles, both the US and Israel were surprised at the scale of this attack. However, due to ample warning and preparation time, the US theater ballistic missile defence grid and Israel’s formidable air defences were able to shoot down 97 to 98 per cent of the incoming projectiles.

The US and Western media now tried to entirely play down effectiveness of the attack. The fact was that drones were just decoys. The ballistic missiles had successfully penetrated the three most well -defended targets on planet Earth.

The US and Israel tried to play down the attack as a damn squib. The US intentions seemed to be to stop Israel from escalating by any significant retaliation. Joe Biden even suggested that it was a defensive victory for Israel and they should leave it at that.

He even suggested that should Israel go for serious retaliation, it would have to do it alone and the US would not take part. However, it was evident that due to the pressure of domestic politics, Netanyahu would simply have to respond in some way. The US tried to find a way out by suggesting to Iran that Israel would just mount a token strike and it should not escalate further.

Iran’s reaction was sharp. It was determined to react in a major way, whatever the scale of the provocation, it said. Attacks on its territory were simply not acceptable and Iran wanted no part in any dumb charade or fixed match. In many ways, the situation had closed parallels with the India-Pakistan post-Pulwama scenario. India simply had to retaliate to the terror strike but was keen to do it in a manner that would prevent a sharp escalation, maybe even to the nuclear level. Iran has rejected any suggestion that it permit Israel the luxury of a token strike. Netanyahu has been under major pressure from the United States and the Western allies not to escalate. However, the key factor was domestic political pressure that did force Netanyahu to do something, perhaps, more than tokenism.

Scott Ritter says it was a political and not a military decision. The Israeli war cabinet was split with three voting members against it while the hardliners were all for a massive response on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Netenyahu was under tremendous pressure from US and other Western allies to eschew a response or go in for tokenism. It is said that for 48 hours he refused to take any calls.

So, what could have been Israel’s response options and how would the escalatory spiral unfold? That was the key issue in the looming global crisis. Could an escalatory spiral be managed? What were the off-ramps for Iran?

Matrix of Israeli Response Options. Let us now examine what was the matrix of Israeli response options to Iran’s very massive missiles strike. For a long time, Israel had viewed Iran’s nascent nuclear capability as an existential threat. It was very keen to do an Osirak redux, that is, repeat its attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor with Iran. The problem in that was that to mount a credible and effective attack, it needed United States support in terms of satellite imagery, US air-to-air refueling aircraft, US help in getting permissions to overfly Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is doubtful if Iran could inflict any meaningful damage in a purely stand-alone mode. Even that was likely to provoke a regional war. As was evident, it is easy to start wars, far more difficult to end them.

So what then was the matrix of Israeli overt response options?

• Option One. Attack Nuclear Facilities of Iran. Iran has five major nuclear enrichment facilities at Natanz, Arak, Faradeh, Isfahan and Bordei. The main facility at Natanz is well dug in and is in a steep valley in the Zagros mountains, which is very difficult to attack. Ishfahan is the main nuclear processing centre. Israel’s options were to use the Jericho missiles or the F -35 or the F -15E fighters. These would of course need air-to-air refueling and they could possibly have attacked with stand-off cruise missiles and deep penetration retarder bombs that could pierce underground bunkers, (joint direct attack munitions). Iran had fairly good S-300 Russian SAMs based air defences and the F-35 or F-15E would definitely take some losses. Maj Gen Ahmed Hagatalab of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in charge of defending Iran’s nuclear facilities, had publicly warned that if Israel hit these, Iran would retaliate and target Israel’s nuclear facilities.

• Option Two. Attack Ballistic Missile Production Facilities. So far Israel regarded the nascent nuclear facilities of Iran as an existential threat. The Israeli military spokesman, Adm Daniel Hagare conceded that they had underestimated Iran’s ballistic missiles capability. This was in fact a real and present danger. Their storage facilities are in deep underground bunkers that would be difficult to attack, but the production centers could be targeted and one of them was, in Isfahan.

• Option Three. IRGC Headquarters Bases. The most logical target system would be the IRGC, that is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Headquarters, barracks, bunkers and weapons storage facilities. It would be the most justifiable target system in Iran.

• Option Four. Iran’s Petrochemical Facilities and Export Terminals. Iran’s oil exports provided the financial support to build huge missile arsenals and fund a proxy war against Israel via the Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and the Shia militias in Iraq and Iran. Iran’s war waging capabilities could be seriously hit if its oil export sector was targeted. There were the main ports at Bandar Abbas, etc, which could be primary targets in such an attack.

These were the main overt military options for Israel to strike in response to the Iranian military strike of 13 April. They could also use electromagnetic bombs to create EMP or electromagnetic pulses to fry up electronic circuits and destroy command control and communications in the critical areas. There were also media reports circulated that if Israel had to go it alone, it would seek air bases in Aizerbaijan to hit Iran from the north unexpected direction.

Covert Options. Given the tremendous US pressure on Israel to prevent escalation, Israel would most likely have to resort to a significant offensive against Hezbollah but confine the attacks in Iran to the covert level only. These would include possibly terrorist attacks by Baluch and Kurd insurgents, use of cyber warfare or (Stutnex redux) or use drones to strike these targets. Israel could also carry out covert action to destabilize and overthrow the Iran regime of the Ayatollahs but that would have to be a long-term covert action project in concert with the CIA. These could be the precise response options that could obviate Iranian retaliation and triggering a major escalatory spiral in the Middle East. Oil prices were already at $90 a barrel. A full-scale Iran-Israel war in the Middle East could send the oil prices skyrocketing through the roof and create a global economic crisis of major proportions That was in no one’s interest.

Israel’s Response Strike on 18 April. Israel mounted its counter-attack finally on 18 April, just five days after Iran’s missile strike. There was a lot of ambiguity and disinformation let lose in the media. The Israelis did not announce that they had carried out an attack, but explosions were reported in the sky over Isfahan. The Iranians equally seemed keen to play down the scale of the Israeli attacks. They said that a number of drones, (hand-held quad-copters of very limited range) had been seen flying over Tabriz and over Isfahan. Why Isfahan? Isfahan is the home base of the Iranian F-14 Tomcat fighter-bomber squadrons. It is also the home base of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps unit. It has an S-300 missile battery and reportedly also production facilities for missiles and drones. The targets that the Israelis actually struck was the S-300 missile battery and they claim to have damaged one of its radars that are used for fire control. Next day, pictures in the US media indicated that satellite surveillance had picked up the destruction of one of the Iranian radars in the S-300 missile battery which was struck by the drones. When Iran was quite clear that there had been no missile, oblique, cruise missile strikes or fighter-bomber attacks and it had been confined merely to hand-held drones, it seemed to relax and opened its air space which it had closed earlier. Similar small drone attacks had been done by the Ukrainian intelligence agents from the vicinity of Moscow with hand-held drones to strike some targets, largely for psychological impact. This was the precise, very limited nature of the Israeli response option and Iran seemed to be quite relieved. They played it down totally, and in fact, the Iranian foreign minister went to the extent of retorting to reporters, “What strike? What attack?” They said these were just infiltrators who had come in with handheld quadcopters and tried to launch them to create a media event. They understood that Israel was under tremendous pressure from the United States and the Western allies not to respond in a major way, and it had refrained from such a major provocation. So Iran has been very cautious and very pragmatic. It refused to get drawn in, refused to escalate, and for the time being, the crisis in the Middle East seems to have been averted. How long that will hold is a matter of conjecture and we will have to wait and watch.

READ MORE : ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR – Hamas Ideology and Gaza Politics

India’s Response Options. The simple fact is, what can India do? Like the rest of the world, a major conflict in the Middle East would considerably harm India’s interests. Any oil shock can have a major negative impact on the Indian economy. India has very friendly relations with both Israel and Iran and as such it would be very well placed if it has to play a mediatory role. I am not sure what mediatory role has so far been played behind the scenes, but I do not see any overt evidence of India taking such an initiative, (though we did have talks with Iran to get our crew released from the ship that the Iranian Navy had hijacked in the Red Sea). We will have to keenly wait and watch as to how events unfold in the Middle East. For the time being the world has pulled back from the brink of a disaster. From a military analyst point of view, we have a new form of war which is now fairly well established in all the battles that we have seen recently, whether in the Russia-Ukraine war or in the Middle East. The emphasis is shifting primarily to missile and drone strikes rather than manned air strikes. I would again like to reiterate that China was first off the starter blocks to create a Rocket Force after Gulf War I and II. It had feverishly started the construction of its Strategic Rocket Force as far back as the 1990s. It now has the biggest rocket arsenal in the world. It has also invested very heavily in drones of all shape and sizes. Therefore, we will have to study in very great detail the Iran-Israel missile clash and draw very pertinent lessons for our own context. Specifically, we will have to re-examine how much emphasis is to be put on manned air forces and how much onto the unmanned drones and missiles. The balance increasingly seems to be shifting in favour of drone and ballistic missile arsenals coupled with cruise missiles. We will have to gear up our military-industrial complex to churn out these drones/missiles in very large numbers to cater for intensive firing rates in actual combat. The Iran missile strike had deliberately been pared down for minimal impact to tamp down chances of escalation. A purposeful and destructive strike would have required some 1,500 drones and missiles for a similar target set. The accuracy and lethality of such unmanned systems is rising exponentially and Iran has just demonstrated their ability to penetrate even the densest Ballistic Missile Defenses (BMD). We are living through a new Revolution in Military Affairs. Pakistan is still stuck largely with its F-16s for retaliation. It is China that we will have to watch closely and match in numbers, throw-weight, accuracy and ability to penetrate dense AD environments.

The post IRAN-ISRAEL – An Analysis of Israel’s Response appeared first on IMR.

It all started with Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate in Syria on 1 April. Iran retaliated with a massive 320 drone-cum-missile barrage on 13 April, which left the world stunned with its scope and scale. There were fears of a massive war in the Middle East that could torpedo the global economy. For the time being, this threat has abated and the world can breathe a sigh of relief, but for how long remains to be seen.

Missile Power vs Air power

There is a wider professional military debate that has been ongoing since the start of the war in Ukraine. What is the inter-se emphasis that armed forces should place on missile/ drone power vs manned air power? This is a seminal question of allocation of resources that must now be seriously addressed. After Gulf War I & II, where Iraq had used Scud missiles to hit back at USA’s far superior airpower, China had drawn its lessons. Today, it has the largest Rocket Force in the world, which India, Taiwan, Japan and Philippines, etc, must all worry about.

The Israelis have traditionally placed very heavy emphasis on airpower and that has been the key to their technological-military superiority in the region. They could hit any country or non-state actor anywhere in the Middle East without any chance of effective response. Not anymore. We are witnessing a military paradigm shift in the region. Missiles and drones have caused a dramatic escalation of stakes. Even the Russian Air Force, though vastly superior to the Ukrainian Air Force in qualitative and quantitative terms, has been fairly restrained in its operations due to the sheer density of the air defences. Most of its attacks have been stand-off attacks with cruise missiles fired from own side of the border. It is only now that Russian Air Force has become more active over the tactical battle area with its Glide Toss Bombs (FAB- 2000 and 3000).

Density of AD Coverage: Israel vs Ukraine

There is also the aspect of force to space ratio. Israel is a small country with just 27,000 sq kms of area to defend. Ukraine is over 6,07,000 sq kms. Flight times from Russia for drones and missiles are far shorter. They are much longer in the case of Israel and so warning/ reaction times are far greater. Hence, military professionals in India must closely watch these ongoing missile wars and prepare accordingly. We will have to drastically enhance our drone and missile power, both in quantitative and qualitative terms. We will have to re-examine our allocation of resources to manned vs unmanned attack platforms. Air defenses are increasingly becoming more lethal. Missile-cum-drone wars are, therefore, the future. The Chinese have a head start in this respect and we have reason to be concerned. That is why, the recent Israel-Iran missile war has serious and pertinent lessons for us and we must examine these in depth. Israeli armed forces are very innovative and we must study the counter-measures they evolve. So let us now analyze the recent Iran-Israel conflict for immediate lessons learnt.

1 April Israeli Strike

On 1 April, Israel’s F-35 jets struck the Iranian consulate in Syria. Technically, under the Vienna Convention, that was sovereign Iranian territory. From their intelligence gathering facility in the Golan Heights, they had been tracking Iranian IRGC commanders on the way to Damascus for a conference. It is noteworthy that they did not attack them outside the consulate, but struck while they were in conference within the building. Some 11 Iranians, including three top commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were killed. These included Gen Hossein Salami, top commander of IRGC, and two other Brigadier Generals. There was speculation that the Israeli strike was deliberately designed to provoke Iran into a rash action that would justify Israeli retaliation of far greater intensity at its nascent nuclear capability. If that was the plan, it had apparently worked.

Israeli Miscalculation?

However, subsequent events do not bear out this deliberate provocation narrative. Rather, it now seems that Israel miscalculated. It had assumed that Iran would not react to the consulate strike but evidentially, it was quite mistaken. The recent resignation of the Israel’s Military Intelligence (Aman) chief on 22 April seems to confirm this. Though his resignation letter refers to the failure to predict/ forestall the 7 October strike, the timing of the resignation seems to suggest that the Iran strike was also a possible causative factor. Apparently, the intelligence chief had said Iran would not respond to an attack on its consulate. The timing of his resignation seems to confirm this major miscalculation thesis.

There was a great outrage and angst in Iran. Embassy is sovereign space and it was a direct affront to its sovereignty. Iran now considers itself a strong military power, courtesy its large arsenal of drones, cruise and over 3,000 missiles of various types.

Did Israel warn the US of this attack? It now emerges that this was done just minutes before the strike. In fact, it has been reported that US defense secretary Austin Lloyd called up the Israeli defense minister to complain that lack of adequate warning could have put US installations in Middle East at risk. US and Iran, meanwhile, stepped up backchannel negotiations to ensure that there would be no major flare up and escalation due to Iran’s impending retaliation. But Iran was adamant that it would have to react because its sovereign territory had been hit.

US Dissuasion Efforts

The US now made significant efforts to dissuade Iran from any major escalatory step. It made all efforts to make Iran recalculate and limit its response. In fact, it sent in its massive carrier battle group of the Eisenhower to the Mediterranean. General Korella, Chief of US Central Command, personally went to Israel to coordinate defensive actions to face such a missile attack. The simple fact is that Iran refused to be deterred or cowed down with these menacing preparations. It was desperate to demonstrate that it had the will and resolve to respond in a way that would underline its significant military power. Yet, it took deliberate steps at the same time that would limit the success of its own missile strike. Its aim was to make a strong statement of will and intent and underline its capacity to do deterrent damage, without crossing a threshold that would invite a devastating US-Israeli response.

Iran’s Missile Strike

Iran took 13 days to respond to the consulate provocation. When it did, Iran surprised the United States, Israel and the world with the scale and intensity of its response. This was a significant missile operation and deserves to be studied in detail for pertinent lessons. Unmanned missiles are rapidly overtaking manned air strikes as the weapon system of choice the world over. The Ukraine War bears ample testimony to this trend. The Iranian attack came in three distinct waves:-

•             First Wave. The slower moving Shahid drones, (speed 185 kmph) were launched late at night on 13 April 2024. They were launched from multiple directions from Iran, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. These would take about 4 to 5 hours to reach Israeli airspace. US satellites picked up this swarm of drones and alerted Israel and the world. President Joe Biden rushed back to the White House to huddle with his National Security Council (NSC) staff and monitor the operations in real time. Some 200 US, British and French fighters were scrambled to shoot down these drones before they entered Israeli airspace. US naval assets in the Mediterranean and Red Sea provided the sensor data to monitor and shoot down this drone swarm. The Shahid drones were based on GPS guidance. The Israelis simply shut off GPS guidance over Israel to spoof these drones. It is noteworthy that all Shahid drones purchased by Russia and used so extensively in Ukraine, have been retrofitted with GLONASS Russian navigational system, precisely for this reason. The drone swarms seemed headed for Golan Heights, Dimona nuclear facility and Southern Israel, as per initial estimates.

•             The Second Wave. A second wave of some 30 Paveh cruise subsonic cruise missiles with a flight time of 1 to 2 hours were launched by Iran. These had speeds varying between 500 to 600, kmph and a range of some 1000-1500 kms. These had much heavier warheads. Reportedly, some did get through. They were timed to arrive along with the drones. These were designed to strike Israeli AD locating and fire control radars and weapon systems. It is reported that they did hit two Iron Dome launchers and possibly a SAM battery. These have not been confirmed by Israel.

•             Third Wave. This third wave was the most lethal. It comprised of 120 Sahab Medium Range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) of 1500 km range. Their flight time to Israel was just 15 minutes. The Iranians claimed that the drones were largely inexpensive decoys designed to fool and overwhelm the Israeli defences. Most of the drones were based on GPS guidance systems. The Israelis simply switched off GPS guidance over their territory and the Americans spoofed the GPS guidance systems over Iraq and Syria. The Israeli’s layered air defences now came into action. These included Arrow 2 and 3 ABM systems along with Thaad, Patriots, David Sling, MR SAMs and Iron Dome tactical systems. These achieved a formidable 97 to 98 percent kill rate. This is not surprising, as even Ukraine has claimed kill rates varying from 70 to 90 percent using combination of S-300 surface-to-air missiles, Patriots and Stingers.

Analysis of Strike

One fact that has been lost sight of in the hoopla over the near total kill rate of Israeli air defences is that despite their formidable nature, many Iranian ballistic missiles did get through and hit their targets. These targets, especially the Nevatim Air Base were hit. This is Israel’s major air force base in southern Israel. It is claimed that F-35 and/or F-15E fighter jets from the base had carried out the air strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria on 1 April.

Nevatim Air Base is one of the most heavily defended locations on planet Earth. It has an X-band ANTP-Y-2 Over-the-Horizon (OTH) radar. This base is linked with the US Anti-Ballastic Missile (ABM) defense architecture with its HQ at Colorado. This in turn is linked to the US early warning satellite network that can pick up missile launches from anywhere around the globe. It is also linked to the US computational and communication systems as also the shooters.

A technical analysis indicates that these ballistic missiles had a booster rocket that propelled the warheads separately. Anti-ballistic missile systems then targeted the body of the missile permitting the explosives to get through. These also released decoys to fool the Iron Dome system. Iran claims that many of these ballistic surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs) got through. Video recordings do show seven major impacts and blast explosions. It is apparent that some more were perhaps able to penetrate Israel’s formidable air defence system. This is a very significant development.

Overall Drones/Missiles Fired by Iran

Admiral Daniel Hagare, Israel’s official military spokesman stated that Iran had fired a total of 320 drones/missiles. These included 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles and 120 surface-to-surface missiles. This was a formidable strike with huge number of drone swarms to overwhelm the Israeli air defence system and act as decoys. The amazing fact is Iran’s SSM missiles were able to penetrate this formidable and very dense AD cover at all three military targets attacked. It is speculated that Iran’s first wave of drones were designed to make Israel light up its detection and fire control radars. The second wave of cruise missiles then targeted these air defence batteries. It was stated that they were able to destroy two Iron Dome launchers. The third wave of ballistic missiles had separating booster propelled warheads and decoys that enabled the warheads to get through the Israeli air defences.

Iran’s Main Targets

Let us now examine the impact at each of the three bases targeted by Iran.

Iran confined its counter-attacks to three primary military targets that had been involved in the attack on its consulate. A target analysis is essential. The three targets were:-

•             Nevatim Air Base. This is Israel’s major Air force base in southern Israel. Iran claims that F-35 jets from this air base had struck the Iranian Consulate in Damascus. It is one of the most heavily defended places on planet Earth, as mentioned earlier. It has the best layered AD system in the world with Arrow 2 & 3 ABMs, Thadd ABMs, Patriots, David Sling and Iron Dome. Despite this formidable air defence, the shock was that 5 out of 7 Iranian ballistic missiles got through to this most heavily defended target in the world. Two of the war heads hit the runway and caused huge craters. The others hit storage facilities. If some eight such war heads had hit the runway, the air base would have been out of commission for some time. The real surprise was that despite 72 hours warning to the densest air defence target on planet Earth, these missiles (five of them) had managed to hit the primary target. It was part of deterrence signaling by Iran. Yet the Iranians had done it skilfully by giving adequate warning and virtue signaling of their intent not to escalate any further. They deliberately curtailed the amount of physical damage to prevent escalation. There were reports in the media that 72 hours prior to the Iran missile strike, Director CIA Willam Burns had met senior Iranian officials in a third country to work out a kind of deal to prevent escalation spinning out of control.

•             The Ramon Air Base. This is also the most heavily protected place on the planet with dense and layered air defences like at the Nevatim Air Base. Even here, some Iranian missiles were able to get through, leading to shock and concern in both US and Israel.

•             The 8200 Signal Intelligence Collection Unit. This unit in the Golan Heights also has an X-band ANTP-Y2 OTH radar and elaborate signal intelligence equipment jointly manned by Israel and CIA operatives. Once again, this is closely networked with the American anti-ballistic missile defence architecture with its array of satellites, sensors on US Aegis class destroyers and heavily defended by layered air defence systems.

The post IRAN-ISRAEL – An Analysis of Iran’s Strike appeared first on IMR.