Military Major General David Evri: I had to sell apartments that were the property of the army to finance the space program after launch failures * Evri was among the participants in the evening on the occasion of the publication of Moshe Ortes' book "The Challenge Beyond the Horizon" which describes his long period of work in the aerospace industry and the methods management its uniqueness.
The Arrow and the Ofek satellites were almost intercepted by the bureaucrats, the helicopter was shot down by "friendly fire" this was the message provided by Major General David Evri, at an event marking the publication of Moshe Orts' book, "Beyond the Horizon".
The event was held at the Air Force Base in Herzliya by the Fisher Institute headed by Avraham Eshal. The conference itself was organized by Tal Inbar, head of space and hydrology at the Fisher Institute.
Ivri told mainly about the Horizon but said that the Arrow missile also had many opponents. "His opponents were many, after the first two successes the criticism faded, but after the two failures they returned - we were on the verge of closing.
"In terms of the satellite - we were able to assemble it from parts of satellites that were produced for tests and experiments and together they were assembled into a complete satellite. But salaries had to be paid to the workers. The resistance in the security system was great, they didn't want to give a penny, they said we were being greedy, that it was too big for a country like Israel, and that it wasn't applicable."
"We had apartments throughout Israel, owned by the Ministry of Defense, but they were outdated and the standard no longer suited the permanent personnel who were supposed to live in them. The accountant of the office Victor Bar Gil sold the apartments, and with these millions I went to Rabin who was then the Minister of Security and got permission. After the success, I didn't have to sell any more apartments."
"One side does not want to give until it is proven that it is operational, and the other side cannot move towards a product without a budget. There were those in Arrow as well. Everyone turned to me and after the success, people got off the fence and joined us."
Former Defense Minister Moshe Arens also commented on the issue: "Many times the decision-makers preferred foreigners instead of Israelis, on the way the plane carrying the Lion fell down and he was shot down by friendly fire - all those Israeli officials - it was not the American pressure as everyone thinks. The engineering community struggled to prove that we can and therefore should meet the country's security challenges. In this struggle we won and today everyone understands that what is needed we know how to do perhaps even better than anyone else."
"As with any groundbreaking project, there were also glitches on the way to developing Ofek satellites, satellites fell due to problems with the launchers. The first launch of an operational satellite was not successful, there was a malfunction and then all those who opposed the whole project and saw it as something fantastic were happy. After that we made an effort to build the next satellite with as little financial expenditure as possible, of course we learned and improved from every failure. We saw our neighbors' airports, even the cars that were standing next to a space structure of the Mebat plant of the Aerospace Industry."
In an interview with the scientist website Ortes says: "As I wrote in the book, the idea of a missile against missiles appeared in a document I wrote about the future battlefield in 1984. I tasked Dov Raviv to carry it out. When I came to visit David Hebrew I told him that it is impossible to intercept a missile in space, but it is certainly possible to intercept it upon entering the atmosphere using a missile that reaches high speeds. I also proposed to develop an attack drone as well as an electromagnetic cannon which would be the last resort in case all other steps fail. The problem was that the Americans were willing to finance only defense systems and not attack systems and that's how the Arrow story began.
The first three tests of the Arrow missile ended in takeoff failures. We were able to improve the power at launch, but when it started to cut through the atmosphere at very high speeds, we saw that the head of the missile was less damaged and the body of the missile was the one that exploded. It turns out that the missile's head received thermal protection, while the cylinder containing the electronic systems was thinner. We came to this answer after doing simulations in wind tunnels at high temperatures."
Ortes criticized the fact that they did not choose the laser alternative instead of Iron Dome missiles. Today there are solid state lasers that can be aimed precisely at the level of optical centers and mirrors. "Iron Dome's missile is very similar to Rafale's Barak, Alta's command and control system used algorithms that had already been prepared earlier. There is no innovation in this - it was a quick response to a specific problem"
Also participating in the event was the director general of the Fisher Institute Brigadier General Mil. Ashal Avraham, the former director general of the aviation industry Moshe Kerat, the managers of the Elta plant for generations (including Dr. Dvir Meir and Nino Levy), senior industrialists past and present and his partner in the Israel Defense Award for 1972 Brigadier General Mil Oded Erez, who was also among the speakers.
12 תגובות
Even when they were debating about the iron dome, it was clear to me that the more correct direction was a laser. Mastering the laser technique guarantees many applications for many purposes, compared to the dead end of the Iron Dome.
It is true that at the time there were various obstacles to the laser solution: mobility, energy, weather. However, in my opinion, if they paid attention to each issue - they would solve it. Cross the river when you reach it.
Suppose the energy problem was not solved. So they would work from stationary buildings until Tishvi came. ("Until the day comes and the problem is solved"). The same goes for weather restrictions. Creative solutions have always been and will be. For example: an aerial platform like a hovering balloon that will launch the laser "up close".
The laser is suitable for intercepting anything: PGMs, Qassams, missiles, planes, drones, ships. If we devoted everything to this technology that we devoted to the missile systems - it is likely that we would not lack anything today. not late And we must act in that direction as soon as possible. Especially since the Americans have already succeeded beyond expectations.
Moshe, I don't have much to add, I just thought that maybe the lecture is available as a video on the Internet (I couldn't find it on YouTube)
Thanks anyway for the details, interesting topic.
1. The topic: The future battlefield where the trends are found is in my book: "The Challenge beyond the Horizon" pages 199-211. What was allowed to be published.
2. When talking about missiles against missiles the solutions should be adapted to the altitude and range layers. This was my perception even in the XNUMXs, so I brought up to David Hebrew, who was the chairman of the board of directors, an interception by means of the Arrow missile, which at that time had a trial for its existence.
3. For your information: The Boeing Company is building a laser cannon for the US Army which has already been proven to be operational both at sea and on land. It is a system (High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator - HEL MD) based on a powerful laser that is mounted on a large truck. Boeing announced that the system was tested a few months ago and managed to shoot down drones and mortar shells with a diameter of 60 mm at the test site in Florida. (from IHLS) magazine.
4. One of the professional experts (net) in this field, a former senior officer at Raphael, is: Dr. Oded Amichai, and his unequivocal position was to develop the laser. And there are more like him. Please ask for his opinion.
5. I hereby wish to end the discussion, because this topic is not the content of the article. You can send me your positions if you want. Send me your email at 0544290761 and we can continue to discuss the issue, if you wish. Thanks for the discussion
I understand that you had a lecture on an interesting topic "future technological trends", is it available to watch somewhere?
Each solution has considerations here and there in terms of cost/benefit, I'm not an expert in the field but I believe that people who are experts in the subject have considered all its aspects and have come to the conclusion that an anti-missile missile system in general ventilation gives a better solution.
Perhaps with the new laser technologies that exist today (and the ones you mentioned) the consideration would change.
rival! I never believed in magic solutions. There are environmental limitations in every operational solution, in which certain conditions exist that do not allow operational use, or partial or limited use, when those conditions exist. This does not rule out the operational use of the tools, under conditions where these constraints do not exist. The energy problems you mention are related to the nature of the solution. The energy needed for interception + the energy that turns into heat and is a waste of energy. In the first half of the 5s, there were camouflages to cover the low altitude of airplanes. Such an American system was a suitcase in a trailer and the price was about 100 million dollars. We thought that it was possible to provide a very effective solution in your system based on solid state components instead of tubes, it performs excellently and is installed on a tripod and the price is XNUMX thousand dollars with high profitability. I recommend that you take a look at what is happening on this topic today, for example at the Boeing company and elsewhere, and especially the latest developments of solid state lasers.
From what I remember, this laser cannon is not a magic solution, it has several disadvantages, among them lack of mobility, very high power consumption (roughly like a small town) and inefficiency in bad weather that includes fog and clouds.
I believe they didn't just give up on him.
In connection with the published article, I would like to expand and clarify. As early as 1984, I watched and also wrote a booklet that included my positions in everything related to the "future battlefield" that in the years 1990-200 it is necessary to enter into the development of means to intercept K/A threats on two levels a. At the level of systems: replacing surface-to-air missiles with "laser cannons" (limited in range) b. At the level of technologies: the development of a powerful laser (refer to my book: page 211). My starting point, rockets and missiles will characterize the battlefield, so it is necessary to look for technological solutions to this problem. Knowing the technological developments, I wrote my position. It was clear to me, and so I also wrote, that the future battlefield will be characterized by a high amount of means against which the torture must be developed. I saw the laser energy as "interception energy" of missiles moving at the speed of light towards the threat. This is the amazing parameter that makes the laser an authentic means once the full technological solution is achieved. The laser responds to a world view that was the title of my lectures on the need for development trends of systems that would be a response to an important goal: "from the moment the threat appears until its destruction in zero time" (almost zero time). In 1984 I did not recommend entering into development immediately, but I expected that a gradual entry would be necessary already during the 90s. Unfortunately, R&D funds were not invested in the self-development of capabilities in Israel in the field of laser device development until the stage of leading a first-generation, second-generation solution, as happened in all the operational systems we opened in Israel. (A/A missiles, arrow, ship defense system, the list is long). The Iron Dome was a response to an immediate threat, and in order to achieve it, magnificent work was done at Rafael and Alta, based on technologies developed at both Rafael and Alta, and the answer was given. (And for me, this is true even if the solution has limitations). What is important at this moment, is the need to invest resources today, as much as is required in order to arrive as early as possible in order for such systems to be operational and available to the IDF. Here, too, I have been of the opinion for close to 10 years, that the solution we have to work on is an energetic combination of solid state lasers, to an energetic beam level in space.
The Arrow missile and Ofek satellites were almost intercepted by the bureaucrats
By Avi Blizovsky December 13, 2015 3 comments
Military Major General David Evri: I had to sell apartments that were the property of the army to finance the space program after launch failures * Evri was among the participants in the evening on the occasion of the publication of Moshe Ortes' book "The Challenge Beyond the Horizon" which describes his long period of work in the aerospace industry and the methods management its uniqueness.
Moshe Orts and David Evri at the special evening on the occasion of the publication of Orts' book "The Challenge Beyond the Horizon". Photo: Tal Inbar
Moshe Orts and David Evri at the special evening on the occasion of the publication of Orts' book "The Challenge Beyond the Horizon". Photo: Tal Inbar
The Arrow and the Ofek satellites were almost intercepted by the bureaucrats, the helicopter was shot down by "friendly fire" this was the message provided by Major General David Evri, at an event marking the publication of Moshe Orts' book, "Beyond the Horizon".
The event was held at the Air Force Base in Herzliya by the Fisher Institute headed by Avraham Eshal. The conference itself was organized by Tal Inbar, head of space and hydrology at the Fisher Institute.
Ivri told mainly about the Horizon but said that the Arrow missile also had many opponents. "His opponents were many, after the first two successes the criticism faded, but after the two failures they returned - we were on the verge of closing.
"In terms of the satellite - we were able to assemble it from parts of satellites that were produced for tests and experiments and together they were assembled into a complete satellite. But salaries had to be paid to the workers. The resistance in the security system was great, they didn't want to give a penny, they said we were being greedy, that it was too big for a country like Israel, and that it wasn't applicable."
"We had apartments throughout Israel, owned by the Ministry of Defense, but they were outdated and the standard no longer suited the permanent personnel who were supposed to live in them. The accountant of the office Victor Bar Gil sold the apartments, and with these millions I went to Rabin who was then the Minister of Security and got permission. After the success, I didn't have to sell any more apartments."
"One side does not want to give until it is proven that it is operational, and the other side cannot move towards a product without a budget. There were those in Arrow as well. Everyone turned to me and after the success, people got off the fence and joined us."
Former Defense Minister Moshe Arens also commented on the issue: "Many times the decision-makers preferred foreigners instead of Israelis, on the way the plane carrying the Lion fell down and he was shot down by friendly fire - all those Israeli officials - it was not the American pressure as everyone thinks. The engineering community struggled to prove that we can and therefore should meet the country's security challenges. In this struggle we won and today everyone understands that what is needed we know how to do perhaps even better than anyone else."
"As with any groundbreaking project, there were also glitches on the way to developing Ofek satellites, satellites fell due to problems with the launchers. The first launch of an operational satellite was not successful, there was a malfunction and then all those who opposed the whole project and saw it as something fantastic were happy. After that we made an effort to build the next satellite with as little financial expenditure as possible, of course we learned and improved from every failure. We saw our neighbors' airports, even the cars that were standing next to a space structure of the Mebat plant of the Aerospace Industry."
In an interview with the scientist website Ortes says: "As I wrote in the book, the idea of a missile against missiles appeared in a document I wrote about the future battlefield in 1984. I tasked Dov Raviv to carry it out. When I came to visit David Hebrew I told him that it is impossible to intercept a missile in space, but it is certainly possible to intercept it upon entering the atmosphere using a missile that reaches high speeds. I also proposed to develop an attack drone as well as an electromagnetic cannon which would be the last resort in case all other steps fail. The problem was that the Americans were willing to finance only defense systems and not attack systems and that's how the Arrow story began.
The first three tests of the Arrow missile ended in takeoff failures. We were able to improve the power at launch, but when it started to cut through the atmosphere at very high speeds, we saw that the head of the missile was less damaged and the body of the missile was the one that exploded. It turns out that the missile's head received thermal protection, while the cylinder containing the electronic systems was thinner. We came to this answer after doing simulations in wind tunnels at high temperatures."
Ortes criticized the fact that they did not choose the laser alternative instead of Iron Dome missiles. Today there are solid state lasers that can be aimed precisely at the level of optical centers and mirrors. "Iron Dome's missile is very similar to Rafale's Barak, Alta's command and control system used algorithms that had already been prepared earlier. There is no innovation in this - it was a quick response to a specific problem"
Also participating in the event was the director general of the Fisher Institute Brigadier General Mil. Ashal Avraham, the former director general of the aviation industry Moshe Kerat, the managers of the Elta plant for generations (including Dr. Dvir Meir and Nino Levy), senior industrialists past and present and his partner in the Israel Defense Award for 1972 Brigadier General Mil Oded Erez, who was also among the speakers.
to Judah and miracles
I disagree with you. First of all about the comparison. "Iron Dome" is a unique solution
which has almost (if at all) an international market and the need for it is tactical - yet
that the atomic bomb had a strategic need. Since and allocation of resources
For innovative solutions that are not clear if they will succeed, it is limited in any case -
Especially when the need is tactical. Walking in both tracks was
Slows them both down and maybe even stops them completely.
However, when the "Iron Dome" is an existing fact, it is important
Continue developing a laser beam that can lower its price
The interception and maybe you will also gain abilities beyond what is expected today.
Yehuda
You are very right. There are many cases of critical developments that worked with this method. I get to participate in various exhibitions from time to time. In this case it is very common to develop at the same time: one system that is sure to be ready on time, and with low risk. At the same time, a second system is developed with all the innovations, while taking the risk that this system will not be ready in time.
In the Manhattan Project, the Americans did not know whether to make an atomic bomb based on plutonium or uranium, they did a simple thing and worked on both methods. In the end they succeeded with both methods. Sometimes you don't have to skimp and it was also necessary to try the solution of the laser beam. There may be cases where it is better than the iron dome.