Security

Laser Weapons Better Against Rockets?

The barrage of Qassam rockets landing on Israel is igniting a number of controversies in the country at the moment over defense policy, including a debate over which technology is best able to defend against such attacks. While the Israeli government is backing the domestically-built Iron Dome system, the Ha’aretz newspaper is (again) arguing that […]

Skyguard_laser_defense_system The barrage of Qassam rockets landing on Israel is igniting a number of controversies in the country at the moment over defense policy, including a debate over which technology is best able to defend against such attacks. While the Israeli government is backing the domestically-built Iron Dome system, the Ha'aretz newspaper is (again) arguing that a Northrop-built laser system called Skyguard is a better technology:

*One need not be privy to classified information in order to understand that Iron Dome is not the solution to the Qassam rockets. The data are public knowledge: The Qassam's speed in the air is 200 meters per second. The distance from the edge of Beit Hanun to the outskirts of Sderot is 1,800 meters. Therefore, a rocket launched from Beit Hanun takes about nine seconds to hit Sderot. The developers of Iron Dome at Rafael Advance Defense Systems know that the preparations to simply launch the intercept missiles at their target take up to about 15 seconds (during which time the system locates the target, determines the flight path and calculates the intercept route). Obviously, then, the Qassam will slam into Sderot quite a number of seconds before the missile meant to intercept it is even launched. *

But besides not being able to protect the border communities, Iron Dome will also not be able to cope with rockets that are launched much farther away. According to data available from Rafael, the average flight time of the intercept missile to the point of encounter is another 15 seconds. In other words, to intercept a rocket using Iron Dome requires at least 30 seconds. This is the time it takes a Qassam to cover six kilometers.

Ha'aretz, for reasons I can't quite understand, continues to be aone-newspaper cheer-leading squad for Northrop's Skyguard, which started out in life with Israeli cooperation as the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)/Nautilus. Well, it really started out in life as Then it became the the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser, but the engineers probably snickered so much every time someone said "mobile" that the program managers finally had to ditch that word. The problem is THEL was eventually canceled for pretty good reasons: enormous development costs, large footprint, and questionable utility in real world conditions.

Skyguard may have some niche applications, but right now it's essentially a Northrop marketing campaign, because it doesn't have a military customer. Also, it's a chemical laser, and may eventually be eclipsed by solid-state laser technology. Yet at least twice now, the Israeli newspaper has declared Skyguard's possible revival in Israel, lauding the technology:

**

*The major advantage of Skyguard is its use of a laser beam for interceptions. The beam travels at the speed of light, allowing the system to intercept short-range rockets like the ones aimed at Sderot. The cost of implementing the laser system is also far lower than Iron Dome. The cost of launching one laser beam will be between $1,000 and $2,000. On February 6, 2007, Mike McVey, vice president of Northrop Grumman's Directed Energy Systems business area, sent a letter to Ehud Olmert, with copies to the defense minister at the time, Amir Peretz, and the then director general of the Defense Ministry and present chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, undertaking to install in Israel an operational system within 18 months and at a fixed price ($177 million for the first system). As far as is known, McVey has not received a reply to this day. *

Asked why Israel rejected the laser system, the Defense Ministry's spokesman replied: "The Nautilus system is defined as exemplifying technologies and not as an operational instrument. Bringing the Nautilus system into Israel today will cost about $100 million, and it might take up to two years for the system to become active. The Nautilus system is operationally inferior to the Iron Dome system, is far more costly and does not provide an answer to volleys of missiles, as Iron Dome is meant to do. Tests of Nautilus did not achieve the goal of 100 percent hits but far less, and even that under optimal conditions, which, regrettably, do not exist in the western Negev." The reply is studded with inaccuracies, to say the least. The Nautilus / Skyguard will not be "far more costly" than Iron Dome, but probably "far less costly." Nor is it clear what the Defense Ministry spokesman is referring to when he states that Nautilus "did not achieve the goal of 100 percent hits but far less." For his part, the IDF Spokesman, who was also asked to comment on the decision not to acquire the laser system, copied the reply of the Defense Ministry spokesman. Former air force commander Major General (res.) David Ivry is one of those who favors adopting the laser system, but the ministry's R&D directorate did not accept his position. Another former air force commander, Major General (res.) Herzl Bodinger, also tried to persuade the ministry to purchase the laser defense system, again to no avail.

Yes, yes, everybody loves lasers. I love lasers. I'd have liked to attach a laser to the head of a frickin' shark and take out the crack dealer who took up residence for a brief time in the alley outside my window last year, but it's not going to happen yet. Back when Ha'aretz was on its Skygaurd kick last year, Strategy Page had a very decent explanation for why the laser was not the cure-all for Israel's rocket woes:

*It took nine years, and over a half a billion dollars, for American and Israeli engineers to get as far as they did (one working prototype system) with THEL. Aside from the systems size and cost, there's also the problem of lasers being weakened by clouds, fog, mist or even artificial smoke. For that reason, there's not a lot of enthusiasm for proceeding right now on such a bulky and expensive system for use against small rockets. But by the end of the decade, a smaller, and cheaper, version will be more attractive, and more likely to be purchased. *

THEL is a bulky system, and not really mobile. Each system requires half a dozen or more large tractor trailer trucks to carry the radar, fuel supplies and laser. A new version, the MTHEL (Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser) was designed (using three tractor-trailers) and was tested. Engineers believe that MTHEL could be ready for battlefield use in about six years, at a cost of another billion dollars. In another few years, engineers believe they could create a MTHEL that could fit in a hummer.

The costs of THEL and MTHEL were so high, that both the American and Israeli governments pulled their support earlier this year. The manufacturer put some of their own money into the project and came up with Skyguard. This is basically THEL, which is actually suited for defending an airport against someone using portable anti-aircraft missiles (like Stinger, or the Russian made SA-7) to attack aircraft landing or taking off. Skyguard would be cheaper than equipping thousands of aircraft with individual anti-missile systems. But first, THEL has to prove that it is reliable enough to stay on-line 24/7 (or nearly so), and act effectively if there is ever an attack.

The* Ha'aretz* article indicated that parochial interests, i.e. the lack of cooperation with Israeli firms on the laser, may help explain why the system wasn't selected. There's no doubt some truth in that, but it still doesn't mean Skyguard is really the silver bullet solution to rocket attacks.

ALSO: