To Defend Israel, Rearrange the Sky
By Brig. Gen. (res.) Eran Ortal and Brig. Gen. (res.) - Ran Kochav - August 11, 2024
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 2,292, August 11, 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current war, and Hezbollah’s drone strikes, have made clear that Israeli air superiority does not apply to the “low sky” layer. The fact that the enemy is targeting the air defense itself stands out. The security establishment is working on finding solutions to the challenge, but development and procurement alone will not be enough. The basic premise of our air defense system has been undermined. The system must be reorganized on the basis of two understandings: first, that destroying Israeli air defense will be the enemy’s first goal; and second, that the challenge of protecting the forces at the front requires different organizational and command and control means than the challenge of protecting the home front. As did the anti-aircraft units of the past, our tactical air defense at the front requires reorganization.
Air superiority
David Ben-Gurion experienced the London Blitz in World War II. Though he was not a military man, he well understood the significance of air superiority and, in its absence, the weight of an air threat to the Israeli home front. When, as Israel’s first prime minister, he was about to make his historic decision on the Sinai war (1956), he set a condition for the French allies: that they place two fighter squadrons to defend Israel’s skies during the war.
Since then, air superiority has been a fundamental pillar of the Israeli security concept. Absolute control of the skies was intended to prevent the Arab air forces from hitting the Israeli home front and to ensure that in an emergency, reserve forces could be mobilized and reach the front without interruption while the limited regular forces holding the lines were being supported. The regular forces would defend, air superiority would enable, and the reserves would regain the initiative.
Over the years, the Israeli Air Force has become one of the most advanced in the world. Israel’s confidence in its air power, an offensive force at its core, left limited room for a defensive approach. In the 1960s, advanced Hawk missile batteries were purchased from the United States despite opposition from the Air Force. Considerations of air coordination and flight safety led to the transfer of the anti-aircraft units from the Artillery Corps to the Air Force under the central control method used in it.
In June 1982, the Air Force stunned the world with a brilliant strike operation on Syrian surface-to-air missile batteries (SAMs) in Lebanon. In addition to destroying the SAM formations, the strike shot down dozens of enemy planes. Since then, no Arab air force has challenged the skies of Israel. Absolute air supremacy was achieved.
Gradually, over the following decades, two processes took place. The first was the reduction of tactical anti-aircraft formations, the main purpose of which was to provide mobile protection at the front for ground forces against enemy aircraft. Mobile formations protected the ground maneuver and shot down enemy planes and helicopters in the Yom Kippur War, and also fought in the First Lebanon War. Despite its long-lasting deployment and use against some terrorist airborne attacks from the Lebanese border in the 1980s, the formation was a low priority for the Air Force. After the Second Lebanon War, the last of these units were shut down and the anti-aircraft formation moved in full force to its new mission, which had been evolving since the 1990s: defense of the home front against missiles and rockets.
The second significant process to occur over recent decades was the development and purchase of Arrow interceptors, Iron Dome and David’s Sling to protect the home front from the missiles and rockets that were accumulating on the other side. This threat intensified over the years and the air defense corps, which, in 2011, officially changed its name from Anti-Aircraft to Air and Missile Defense, adapted itself, shifting its focus to the emerging threat that had replaced the anti-aircraft mission. The working assumption was, and remains to this day, that Israel’s Air Force rules the skies. The job of air defense, therefore, is to focus on missiles and rockets.
This assumption is no longer valid.
The “low sky” layer
The current war illustrates what military professionals and observers already knew . After all, this development has been observed in all recent wars in the world, particularly in Ukraine. At the beginning of this decade, a new-old threat layer gradually developed: numerous cheap, small, unmanned aircraft with a low radar signature. The world of drones and unmanned aircraft completely changed the premise of absolute air superiority. The Israeli Air Force does continue to rule the skies, but “under the noses” of the advanced fighter jets, a new air layer has been created. This is the “low sky” layer.
The enemy has found a loophole here. The Air Force (and, within it, the air defense corps) is required to defend against the combined and coordinated threats of missiles, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), and rockets (MUR(.
The older precision missile threat was already a challenge. The risk of precision strikes applies not only to military and civilian infrastructure but also to the air defense system itself. This array was built over the years under the premise of Israeli air superiority. The air defense itself was not supposed to be hunted. Today, the enemy is able not only to accurately target our air defense elements but to maintain a real presence in our skies. Using UAVs, and even drones in shorter ranges, it can search for targets and strike them in real time. The enemy is able to penetrate deep into Israel and engage the air defense system in one lane while other aircraft take advantage of the diversion and penetrate in another, more covert lane. It can identify targets and strike immediately using armed or suicide UAS. Above all, it strives to locate, endanger, and destroy key elements of the air defense system itself. It is capable of all this and more. We have to defend our Air Defense.
The transition from dealing with piloted aircraft to aircraft with pre-programmed, changing routes that can perform a variety of tricks turns the aerial clash between defender and attacker into a complex professional battle. Such a battle requires additional measures. These consist mainly of finding means of detection, localization, tracking, accurate identification, and above all, faster decision-making that is based on more information in real time. As the challenge of managing the air battle increases, the air defense system, even one that is capable of successfully intercepting thousands of missiles and rockets, can engage fewer air targets at once. The array thus becomes more vulnerable and exposed.
The current war greatly accelerated the development of this threat. The enemy has spotted the breach and is daily improving the means and operational techniques at his disposal. The UAS threat can no longer be seen as separate from the ballistic, missile and rocket threats. The enemy is perfecting techniques by which to use these tools in a coordinated manner to overcome our air defense arrays, destroy them, and continue to hit targets on our front and home front.
This dangerous process, which is accelerating fast, requires quick learning, effective organization and practical preparation on Israel’s part. Here are three practical issues to be addressed, from light to heavy:
Central control
Central control is meant to enable effective, optimal and efficient decision-making. Processing information from all sensors makes it possible to launch the best interceptor from the best location at the best moment.
This approach is designed to deal mainly with quantity, on the assumption that it will be possible to see in real time where the enemy’s missiles are aimed. In a reality in which UAS appear and disappear from radar screens quickly, decentralized processes might also be required, under a central policy. This complexity will affect the scope of the threats the defense system can deal with simultaneously and also the extent of the possible savings in interceptors and management of interceptor stockpiles.
Absolute central control could also prove to be a single point of failure. The air defense control model must adapt and integrate decentralized decisions with a central policy and allow the integration of air assets like attack helicopters and fighter jets, as is the case these days.
The defense of air defense
Anyone who deals with air defense knows what “multi-layered” means. Multi-layered defense is the aerial version of the principle of operational depth in land defense. An attacking aircraft will relatively easily overcome a single SAM battery. But if, while attacking one battery, it is exposed to another one, or to a different type of radar or missile, or possibly even to a third battery, it will have much more difficulty. The principle of layered protection allows different batteries and types of detection and interception systems to back up and protect each other.
If some of the detection and interception means also change location from time to time, defend, and camouflage and scatter dummy targets, the challenge to the attacker is enhanced.
The Israeli air defense system is multi-layered, but the degree of mutual assistance and protection between the layers is relatively limited. The premise, as mentioned, was that of complete air superiority. The main challenge was to optimize the use of interceptors against a tremendous load of missiles and rockets. The result was that each tier was designed to deal with a specific type of missile or rocket. Iron Dome can’t really assist Arrow batteries or support their missions. This limitation is equally true among the other layers.
As noted, the degree of mobility, protection and hiding ability of the Israeli air defense system is inadequate. Unlike similar systems in the world, our air defense system was not built with synchronization as a critical goal. If we expect our air defense system to continue to provide the level of protection we have enjoyed so far or even close to it, it will have to go through a significant series of adjustments, and fast.
The first and most important will be the addition of another interception layer – point protection – which will enable a relatively high level of security for essential sites and assets. This layer would only be launched when it is clear that the other layers have failed and only to protect a critical asset for the country, such as an important power plant or vital component of the air defense system.
Another adjustment would be the shielding, camouflage and mobility of some of the elements of the array to make it difficult for the enemy to acquire these targets in real time. The hiding of air defense components and deception by dispersal of fake systems are common and essential methods of operation around the world.
Tactical air defense system
The air defense system must also adapt to the more demanding combat conditions at the front. This area, where ground troops from both sides are engaged in battle, will face thousands of missiles and rockets and hundreds of UAS and cruise missiles. The front is a smaller and denser area where civilian communities as well as concentrations of forces need to be defended from tens of thousands of short-range rockets, advanced anti-tank missiles, and aircraft and drones in abundance, and all in a very short time frame.
On both the home front and the battle front, our defense will depend on a prior decision on the identification of essential assets and a prioritizing of defense. The complexity will be twofold: the battle picture will be intricate and dynamic, and it will demand real-time prioritizing. Because of this, the air defense batteries will have to change position frequently for protection. The shorter ranges of the threat and defense elements will require closer coordination between the movement of air defense batteries that protect each other. Each location will have to be chosen in view of the risk from enemy ground forces and the need to protect our forces.
At the front, it will be necessary to (re)establish an organization that uses short-term, more mobile tactical measures. This flexible organization will have to be much more coordinated with the picture seen by the ground combat commanders. A tactical air defense system will be required – one not much different from the northern anti-aircraft units that were closed down almost 15 years ago.
The tactical air defense array that operates at the front will have to wear two hats. In one hat, it will protect the forces fighting on land and the vital assets in the sector. It is possible that, thanks to its radars, the array will also be an important partner in locating sources of enemy fire, producing targets for ground forces fire support. In the other hat, the array will serve as the “front layer” of the home-front air defense array. The aerial battle picture – the coordination of air operations for safety and the identification of friends and foes – will have to be managed by the centralized control of the air force.
More importantly, the relative density of the tactical air defense system at the front will make it possible to detect and stop some threats designed to penetrate deep into our territory while they are still in their early stages of flight, above the front. The array will serve as a kind of “front wall” for the defense of the home front. It will reduce the number of missiles and aircraft the home front defense will have to deal with and channel some of them to flight paths that are easier to detect and defend against within the Israeli topography.
Arrange the sky
On the eve of the Battle of France in May 1940, the Anglo-French alliance possessed more tanks and aircraft than were available to the invading force of the German Wehrmacht, and their models were superior and more modern. They were nevertheless defeated. Their defeat was not due to lack of means but to an inferior understanding of mechanized warfare. The Wehrmacht was better organized for the battle and made better use of the tanks and planes it had at its disposal.
The rapid procurement of means is not a sufficient answer to the challenge we now face. If we do not reorganize the battle for the sky, especially at the front, we can’t hope for a real improvement in the results. If we just add more measures without managing the layered defense with the required dynamism, we will experience not only waste but failure. A multi-layered and advanced air defense would not be complete without tactical capabilities for the defense of the front. Such air defense requires significant conceptual, operational and organizational adjustments to the existing structure.
Defending the country’s air space is the first mission of the Israeli Air Force. The recognition that our air superiority is not absolute is dramatic, but it must be acknowledged. Despite our control of fighter jets and traditional air superiority, our forces at the front suffer from a dangerous level of inferiority and lack of protection. The “low sky” has become a real threat.
It is vital for Israel to reestablish a tactical air defense system at the front. Israeli air superiority is incomplete without it. The sky needs to be rearranged.-
About:
Brig. Gen. (res.) Eran Ortal recently retired from military service as commander of the Dado Center for Multidisciplinary Military Thinking. His book The Battle Before the War (MOD 2022, in Hebrew) dealt with the IDF’s need to change, innovate and renew a decisive war approach.
Brig. Gen. (res.) Ran Kochav (RanKo) recently retired from the IDF. Among his duties he served as commander of the Air and Missile Defense Corps and IDF Spokesperson and was a member of the General Staff forum.
++++++++++++++
领英推荐
Choose Your Own Kamala
She’s been compared to John Kerry, but he was a relatively honest flip-flopper.
By Kimberley A. Strassel - Aug. 8, 2024
Who exactly is the 59-year-old woman aspiring to be the world’s most powerful person? That’s the beauty of the Kamala Harris campaign. Who knows? The Democratic nominee has already become the political equivalent of the “Choose Your Own Adventure” books.
As in those 1980s sensations, readers have been provided the basic plotline—and an obvious conflict. We know Ms. Harris is a San Francisco prosecutor, with a Senate voting record and 2020 presidential bid that proposed a radical progressive agenda. We also know she’s spent the past four years as partner to Joe Biden , who at least officially still disavows some of those radical policies. How would a President Harris govern in the final pages?
Kamala isn’t saying. The candidate who no longer speaks impromptu is instead issuing backtracks and innuendoes via spokespeople. Readers can choose to believe she’s still the left-wing Kamala of old, faking a pivot, or the reformed Kamala of new, acolyte of “Scranton Joe.” How does this story end? You choose!
Ms. Harris in 2017 was the first senator to co-sponsor Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for all plan, and in 2019 she vowed in a primary town hall to eliminate private insurance. She then backtracked on that threat, then readopted it in a Democratic debate, backtracked again, then issued a hybrid approach (which helped blow up her campaign). Mr. Biden has continued declining to support single-payer healthcare. Where is Ms. Harris now? Campaign officials vaguely explain that she, too, no longer supports single payer.
Which means—what exactly? Would she, as promised in 2019, create a system in which private insurers can cover the “very little” that is “not otherwise covered” by Medicare “because almost everything will be covered” by government? Would she lower the Medicare age to 30? Pour money into the status quo? You decide. To muddle on under ObamaCare, turn to page 24. To succumb to European-style waiting lines, turn to page 33.
Ms. Harris in 2019 told voters “there’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking,” detailing her “day one” priority of eliminating it “on public lands” as well as ending “offshore drilling” and enacting further legislation, presumably to kill it on private land. A spokesperson now generically says she no longer wants to ban fracking. Any fracking? Certain categories? Where is she on other Biden policies that are killing the energy and auto sectors? The crackdown on federal leasing? The moratorium on liquefied natural gas exports? The de facto electric-vehicle mandate? Make your best conjecture and vote on.
Ms. Harris in 2019 cosponsored the Green New Deal and its promise of a “federal jobs guarantee.” Campaign staff say she’s changed her position. She came out for confiscating guns through a mandatory “buyback.” Campaign staff says she’s not there anymore. Asked if she favored abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, she once said ICE was bad enough that we needed to “think about starting from scratch.” Campaign staff suggest she no longer holds that view. How would she handle jobs, guns, the border? It is Ms. Harris’s firmly held conviction that every voter deserves to wonder.
Republicans are already slamming Ms. Harris as the John Kerry of 2024. He was a relatively honest flip-flopper: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” She’s loosely disavowing certain policies while refusing to fill in the blanks. And it’s hardly correct to assume Biden policies fill those holes since she doesn’t mention him or his agenda on the trail.
Also, note that the positions from which Ms. Harris is detaching herself weren’t issued from a college debate stage. They were her views of five years ago, when she was in her mid-50s and serving in the U.S. Senate. That massive shift itself requires explanation. Has she had an epiphany? Been inhabited by an alien? Or are voters being asked to elect a woman who in her third decade in the political arena has yet to decide what she thinks about the most pressing policy questions of the day?
Of course not. This is deliberate evasion, and she learned it from a pro. Covid was nobody’s idea of a good time, but the 2020 Biden campaign realized its political upside. The benefit of the “basement campaign” was it allowed the team to control the message. On paper, the Biden agenda reassured progressive activists he’d be their man in office. On camera, his tightly scripted comments were all generalities—“leadership,” “hope,” “the middle class.”
The Kamala version is the teleprompter campaign. Every word is scripted, crafted around hazy themes of “freedom” and “the future.” “I’m running to fight for an America where the economy works for working people” and where “hard work is rewarded” “because that’s the America I believe in.” (Said every politician ever.) No questions. No interviews. No acknowledgment of the past four years. No answers. Choose your own Kamala.
Absent answers, voters would be wiser to look to Ms. Harris’s actual record and assume they already know how this boilerplate plot ends. Far-left governance, on steroids.
++++++++++
Kamala Harris’s Economic Team and Agenda Start to Take Shape
Democratic nominee is seeking to differentiate herself from Biden even as she amplifies many of his policy proposals
By Andrew Restuccia - Tarini Parti - Emily Glazer - Aug. 14, 2024
WASHINGTON—Shortly after President Biden announced his decision to drop out of the race , an informal group of economic advisers began quietly discussing how to best articulate Vice President Kamala Harris ’s economic vision. Their challenge: differentiating the candidate from her unpopular boss without abandoning his policies.
Harris’s team is now crafting a policy framework focused on making housing more affordable, lowering costs for families, taking on corporate excess and boosting small businesses, according to people involved in the discussions.
The plan is intended to make her priorities clear to voters amid criticism that she hasn’t presented a detailed agenda during her first few weeks on the campaign trail. But aides said the exact contours of the plan are still in flux days after Harris told reporters that she planned to release a policy platform this week, a time frame that surprised some of her advisers. Harris is expected to test drive her messaging during a Friday speech in Raleigh, N.C., that will focus on decreasing costs and confronting alleged price gouging.
When she does put out a more detailed agenda, which could come in the form of several plans released in the coming weeks, she is unlikely to break with Biden on substance, according to her advisers. Instead, they expect small shifts in emphasis that highlight her résumé and priorities. Harris is planning to lean into her background as a prosecutor, as well as her focus on issues such as paid family leave as a senator and vice president.?
Harris, the first Black woman to become a major party’s nominee, is known to encourage staff to look at policy issues through the prism of how they affect women, children and minorities, and she plans to help drive that message on the campaign trail. She was a vocal supporter of the Biden administration’s proposals to make child care and eldercare more affordable.
“She recognizes that there are particular places within their shared agenda where her values and her voice could particularly shine through,” a Harris adviser said.
Though Biden repeatedly went after corporations for alleged price gouging, Harris’s advisers believe they can use the vice president’s experience as attorney general to draw renewed attention to the issue on the campaign trail.??
Harris has made taking on wrongdoing in American corporations a central part of her pitch to voters. “As attorney general, I held Wall Street banks accountable for fraud,” she has said in recent rallies, referring to her role in a multistate mortgage settlement during the foreclosure crisis.
In a sign that Harris is also willing to get ahead of Biden on policy, she called on Saturday for ending taxes on tips, embracing an idea first advanced by her Republican rival, Donald Trump . Biden hadn’t backed the proposal before Harris’s Saturday remarks. The White House said on Monday, two days after Harris’s endorsement of the proposal, that Biden supports it.
“They’ve been aligned for the last 3? years,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said this week. “There’s not been any daylight.”
Harris has embraced key parts of Biden’s agenda, while distancing herself from proposals she backed during the 2020 campaign, when she moved to the left as she competed with progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.). In recent weeks, Harris pledged not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year, continuing a bedrock element of Biden’s economic agenda. She also walked back her previous support for banning fracking.?
As they flesh out Harris’s agenda, her economic advisers have debated how detailed they should be, some of the people familiar with the discussions said, amid concerns from some Democrats that releasing a lengthy plan could open the vice president up to criticism from Republicans and members of her party. The policy framework is expected to outline broad policy areas she supports, while avoiding many of the thorny details. Aides said they want her agenda to provide a contrast with Trump without reading like a think tank white paper.?
Harris’s ascension to the top of the ticket has energized Democrats and some allies have cautioned against doing anything that could slow that momentum, including lengthy interviews with media outlets.?
Harris’s economic team includes:
Harris’s coming policy agenda will focus broadly on the pocketbook issues facing working families with young children, advisers said. She is expected to call for paid family leave, affordable child care, less costly healthcare and drug prices, and an expanded child tax credit. Those are all issues that Biden proposed early in his term, but were rejected by Republicans and some Democrats.?
Lowering the cost of housing will also be a central part of her agenda, according to advisers. Amid mounting frustration from voters about the cost of rent and high mortgage rates, Harris’s team has been weighing new proposals to ease the burden, including additional tax credits for home buyers and incentives for local and state governments to build more affordable housing, people familiar with the matter said.?
Meanwhile, Harris has embraced the Biden administration’s housing plans. She has called on the campaign trail for Congress to pass legislation that would withhold key tax breaks from landlords who control properties with more than 50 units if they don’t agree to limit rent increases to a maximum of 5%.?
Harris’s advisers are also looking at ways to boost small businesses, advisers said, hoping to build on an effort she spearheaded alongside the Treasury Department to help communities get access to the capital needed to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic.?
Harris struggled during the 2020 Democratic primary to articulate a detailed policy vision when she was pressed for specifics in interviews or on the debate stage. As a senator, Harris supported Medicare for All, which would shift the healthcare system from private and employer-based insurance to a government-run program.
But in 2020, during her run for the White House, she released a more moderate proposal to expand access to Medicare while keeping private insurance intact. Harris, however, gave varying responses on the role of private insurance in her plan, and at one point said after a debate that she misunderstood a question on the subject.??
The End++++++++++++
Independent Information Services Professional
3 个月Thanks for sharing
National Security and Defense Consultant
3 个月A very good point. I recommend reorganizing the battle space.
Brigadier General Ortel's and Brigadier General Kochav's article concerning reooganization of the Air Defense battle and the air space was a very interesting read. I recommend it.