David
02-28-2008, 03:30 PM
AP
JERUSALEM - Israel is spending millions on a high-tech system meant to protect its citizens from barrages of Palestinian rockets. There's only one problem: the vaunted Iron Dome needs 15 seconds to respond, not enough time to intercept many of the militants' projectiles.
A rival U.S.-developed system that uses lasers to shoot down rockets is favored by opponents, who contend the Iron Dome would leave thousands of Israelis unprotected.
Crude rockets are launched from Gaza into Israel nearly every day, including dozens that have landed in the last two days, sparking a debate over the best technology to stop them.
The Defense Ministry is pushing the Iron Dome, an Israeli-developed system that would detect an incoming rocket in the air and launch a missile to intercept it.
Critics, including two former Israeli air force commanders, argue the system isn't fast enough to protect the border towns closest to Gaza and are pushing for the U.S.-developed Nautilus.
Both sides accuse the other of being motivated less by national defense than by money.
With the army and air force unable to stop the rocket fire and the public clamoring for a solution, the Israeli government decided last year to spend more than $200 million to develop the Iron Dome.
At the moment, the system exists only on paper — in development by RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., the government's weapons subsidiary. It's scheduled to be operational in 2010, though critics doubt it will meet that target date.
In choosing the Iron Dome, the government rejected the Nautilus system developed by the American company Northrop Grumman Corp. with Israeli participation. It fires beams of concentrated energy to pick rockets out of the sky.
Residents of the battered Israeli town of Sderot — the favorite target of the Gaza rocket squads — have accused the government of "gross negligence" for waiting for the Iron Dome and demand the Nautilus be installed immediately. They announced Tuesday they were suing the government, a day after a 10-year-old boy's arm was nearly severed by a rocket.
Both systems have advantages and drawbacks: The Nautilus is cheap to fire, costing only several thousand dollars each time a beam is released, and it works at the speed of light, its proponents say.
A prototype in White Sands, N.M., could likely be installed in under a year, experts say. But the system is large, and it's rendered ineffective by fog, meaning it could be out of commission for long stretches in the winter.
Northrop officials did not return several messages from The Associated Press seeking comment.
The Iron Dome, on the other hand, is smaller and more mobile, and will have fewer weather drawbacks. But each missile will cost $30,000 to $40,000, the Defense Ministry says, and likely won't be fast enough to stop the Palestinian rockets at short range.
The Iron Dome requires 15 seconds to launch an interceptor, said Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and lecturer at Tel Aviv University.
That isn't fast enough to stop a rocket fired on Sderot from Beit Hanoun, a Gaza rocket squad stronghold only a mile away, he said.
"Everyone involved in this project knew the system would not be able to protect Sderot," Pedatzur maintained.
The government chose the Iron Dome so that Israel's defense industry would be able to develop the system for export, he said.
Other Nautilus proponents include David Ivry, a former Israeli air force commander and ambassador to the United States. "The Nautilus trials show laser defense is viable," Ivry told a conference on missile defense late last year.
Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, acknowledged the Iron Dome might not be effective at short range. But he said the system was still the better choice and not just because it's being developed at home.
The Nautilus is still just a prototype and is far less effective than its backers claim, Dror said. He denied the Iron Dome had been chosen with export in mind, though he said Israel would be "happy" to sell the system when it's complete.
"We see it as important to develop something in Israel, but of course if we had found a system abroad that was better and cheaper, we would have used it," he said.
The debate reflects a major shift in how countries perceive defense, said Avi Schnurr, director of the Israeli Missile Defense Association.
Israel faces long-range missile threats from Iran, mid-range missile threats from Syria and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, and short-range rockets from Gaza, and has no choice but to reconsider the way it protects itself, he said.
That may well involve more than one defense system, supplemented by attack operations and bomb shelters, he said.
"Now that missiles can easily be launched from inside civilian areas in an enemy country, offense is no longer enough — we need an offense-defense mix," Schnurr said. "Israel isn't the only one dealing with this, but Israel finds itself at the forefront of this rethinking process."
JERUSALEM - Israel is spending millions on a high-tech system meant to protect its citizens from barrages of Palestinian rockets. There's only one problem: the vaunted Iron Dome needs 15 seconds to respond, not enough time to intercept many of the militants' projectiles.
A rival U.S.-developed system that uses lasers to shoot down rockets is favored by opponents, who contend the Iron Dome would leave thousands of Israelis unprotected.
Crude rockets are launched from Gaza into Israel nearly every day, including dozens that have landed in the last two days, sparking a debate over the best technology to stop them.
The Defense Ministry is pushing the Iron Dome, an Israeli-developed system that would detect an incoming rocket in the air and launch a missile to intercept it.
Critics, including two former Israeli air force commanders, argue the system isn't fast enough to protect the border towns closest to Gaza and are pushing for the U.S.-developed Nautilus.
Both sides accuse the other of being motivated less by national defense than by money.
With the army and air force unable to stop the rocket fire and the public clamoring for a solution, the Israeli government decided last year to spend more than $200 million to develop the Iron Dome.
At the moment, the system exists only on paper — in development by RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., the government's weapons subsidiary. It's scheduled to be operational in 2010, though critics doubt it will meet that target date.
In choosing the Iron Dome, the government rejected the Nautilus system developed by the American company Northrop Grumman Corp. with Israeli participation. It fires beams of concentrated energy to pick rockets out of the sky.
Residents of the battered Israeli town of Sderot — the favorite target of the Gaza rocket squads — have accused the government of "gross negligence" for waiting for the Iron Dome and demand the Nautilus be installed immediately. They announced Tuesday they were suing the government, a day after a 10-year-old boy's arm was nearly severed by a rocket.
Both systems have advantages and drawbacks: The Nautilus is cheap to fire, costing only several thousand dollars each time a beam is released, and it works at the speed of light, its proponents say.
A prototype in White Sands, N.M., could likely be installed in under a year, experts say. But the system is large, and it's rendered ineffective by fog, meaning it could be out of commission for long stretches in the winter.
Northrop officials did not return several messages from The Associated Press seeking comment.
The Iron Dome, on the other hand, is smaller and more mobile, and will have fewer weather drawbacks. But each missile will cost $30,000 to $40,000, the Defense Ministry says, and likely won't be fast enough to stop the Palestinian rockets at short range.
The Iron Dome requires 15 seconds to launch an interceptor, said Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and lecturer at Tel Aviv University.
That isn't fast enough to stop a rocket fired on Sderot from Beit Hanoun, a Gaza rocket squad stronghold only a mile away, he said.
"Everyone involved in this project knew the system would not be able to protect Sderot," Pedatzur maintained.
The government chose the Iron Dome so that Israel's defense industry would be able to develop the system for export, he said.
Other Nautilus proponents include David Ivry, a former Israeli air force commander and ambassador to the United States. "The Nautilus trials show laser defense is viable," Ivry told a conference on missile defense late last year.
Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, acknowledged the Iron Dome might not be effective at short range. But he said the system was still the better choice and not just because it's being developed at home.
The Nautilus is still just a prototype and is far less effective than its backers claim, Dror said. He denied the Iron Dome had been chosen with export in mind, though he said Israel would be "happy" to sell the system when it's complete.
"We see it as important to develop something in Israel, but of course if we had found a system abroad that was better and cheaper, we would have used it," he said.
The debate reflects a major shift in how countries perceive defense, said Avi Schnurr, director of the Israeli Missile Defense Association.
Israel faces long-range missile threats from Iran, mid-range missile threats from Syria and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, and short-range rockets from Gaza, and has no choice but to reconsider the way it protects itself, he said.
That may well involve more than one defense system, supplemented by attack operations and bomb shelters, he said.
"Now that missiles can easily be launched from inside civilian areas in an enemy country, offense is no longer enough — we need an offense-defense mix," Schnurr said. "Israel isn't the only one dealing with this, but Israel finds itself at the forefront of this rethinking process."