Did Israel's Arrow Really Shoot Down a Syrian Rocket?

Michael Peck

Security, Middle East

Knocking a SAM down with a ballistic-missile interceptor seems a chancy and expensive way of protecting aircraft.

Last week’s report that Israel’s Arrow missile-defense system shot down a Syrian missile was remarkable on two levels.

It was the first time that the Arrow had shot down a missile in combat. And, the target the Arrow destroyed wasn’t a ballistic missile like a Scud—it was a Russian-made surface-to-air missile. This would mark the first time that a missile-defense interceptor shot down a SAM.

Yet even some Israelis aren’t quite sure what really happened on the night of March 16. It is clear that Israeli jets attacked targets inside Syria, which Israel has repeatedly raided to stop Iranian weapons shipments to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Though Israel doesn’t usually publicize these attacks, an IDF press release announced that “aircraft targeted several targets in Syria. Several anti-aircraft missiles were launched from Syria following the mission and IDF Aerial Defense Systems intercepted one of the missiles. At no point was the safety of Israeli civilians or the IAF aircraft compromised.”

Soon the questions began. The missile reportedly was a Syrian SA-5 Gammon (also known as the S-200), a big SAM with a range of almost two hundred miles. Developed by the Soviet Union in the late 1960s, the SA-5 was really designed for high-altitude intercepts of slow bombers, rather than fast tactical-strike aircraft the Israelis fly over Lebanon.

And if the Syrians fired a SAM, then why did they wait until the Israeli aircraft had exited Syrian territory and were over Israel? The Arrow intercepted the missile over Jordan, which shares a border with Syria and northern Israel.

And could an Arrow even shoot down a SAM? The Arrow is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles like the Scud (though not ICBMs). More important, it is also an exoatmospheric interceptor that hits its target above the Earth’s atmosphere, in outer space (the closest U.S. equivalent would be the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system).

I contacted Ted Postol, a professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and one of the most knowledgeable of missile defense critics. Postol was dubious about the intercept:

Read full article