This is interesting:

In July 2008, Aviation Week reported that the US Missile Defense Agency is considering a land-based variant of the SM-3 Standard missile – largely due to specific requests from Israel.

Israel currently fields the medium range Arrow-2 land-based ABM system, supplemented by Patriot missiles for point defense. The Arrow has performed well in tests, however, and an order for more was placed as recently as February 2008. What could Israel’s rationale be?  [Defense Industry Daily]

The first thing I wondered when I read the headine that Israel wanted SM-3′s, was, I thought that had Arrow?

Well here is Israel’s supposed rationale for wanting the SM-3:

Several possibilities exist that would allow Israel to keep its Arrow system as an active program, and still deploy the SM-3s.

For one thing, Israel’s new LCS-I frigates will have the ability to fire SM-3 missiles. They would need to link to an ABM radar for guidance, however, unless their SPY-1F radars are modified for an ABM role. SPY-1F radars have yet to be modified in this way, unlike their larger and more powerful SPY-1D cousins. In contrast, Israel already fields ABM-capable land radars like its “Green Pine” system. Linkage of the missile’s guidance to those kinds of land platforms, however, would involve many of the same modifications required by a fully land-launched and controlled SM-3.

Second, the SM-3 boats a range about 5x longer than the Arrow, at 300 miles vs. 50-60 miles. A tripartite system of SM-3, Arrow-2, and Patriot missiles would effectively cover the 3 layered tiers required by a country Israel’s size: national defense/ first line of defense, defense of key regions/ second shot, and defense of specific sites/ final attempt.

Read the rest on your own, but it is true that the SM-3 has a tremendous range advantage compared to Arrow.  It makes me wonder if the Israelis are trying to send a message by trying to upgrade their Air Defense Systems plus adding increased C-RAM capability as well?