Israeli Barak SAM system for Chinese ships
- Thread starter guitarjeff
- Start date
Yea, but while we all know that DPRK have nukes, we (and probably Israel, or else we would hear, during the start of the entire operation) didn't know that Hezbullah have ASM. (And there are no high-tech navies in the area.) So not expecting much, I wouldn't be surprised. While Israel has technology, they don't have much resource, so saving and conservation is a big thing to them, I guess.swimmerXC said:
Dear Sirs:
The Israeli claim that their defensive systems were turned off is one of the most unbelievable assertions I have ever heard. We often hear claims like this when something unpleasant happens, and it's called SPIN.
I hate to rehash old arguments but given the circumstances...
Why would Israel send in a warship specifically designed for air and missile defence if not specifically to provide that very cover for her sister ships during a bombardment operation? It just doesn't make sense.
The Barak system was not the only means of self-defense for this warship. She had other systems available - jammers, ECM/ESM, decoys... most of these systems are designed to operate automatically and independantly because during an attack, there is usually little time for a human being to intervene.
Were those systems also "off" at the time? How convenient! It wasn't the fault of our systems - we just forgot to turn them on! The explanation that Israel was concerned about overflight by civilian airliners flies in the face of facts.
************See the point, but let's not make thing provacative.
Logic dictates that the correct explanation lies elsewhere. I am sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities about Western superiority but Hizbullah did in fact stage a pretty neat ambush of the Israeli corvette - that fact must be accepted.
To repeat bogus Israeli propaganda as to the obvious failure of their weapons systems is an insult to our intelligence. It does however give us an insight into the thinking of your minds. Admission of defeat is always difficult.
Israeli weapons systems have a reputation for superior performance, particularly their electronic systems. For Hanit to have been hit by a outdated Iranian-made Chinese missile must be too hard for the West to swallow.
Explanations like the one you give therefore are the order of the day. Particularly for the purposes of propaganda, it cannot be admitted that any Western weapons system has failed. Particularly if it was defeated by a Chinese weapon being made by a "rogue" state.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
The Israeli claim that their defensive systems were turned off is one of the most unbelievable assertions I have ever heard. We often hear claims like this when something unpleasant happens, and it's called SPIN.
I hate to rehash old arguments but given the circumstances...
Why would Israel send in a warship specifically designed for air and missile defence if not specifically to provide that very cover for her sister ships during a bombardment operation? It just doesn't make sense.
The Barak system was not the only means of self-defense for this warship. She had other systems available - jammers, ECM/ESM, decoys... most of these systems are designed to operate automatically and independantly because during an attack, there is usually little time for a human being to intervene.
Were those systems also "off" at the time? How convenient! It wasn't the fault of our systems - we just forgot to turn them on! The explanation that Israel was concerned about overflight by civilian airliners flies in the face of facts.
************See the point, but let's not make thing provacative.
Logic dictates that the correct explanation lies elsewhere. I am sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities about Western superiority but Hizbullah did in fact stage a pretty neat ambush of the Israeli corvette - that fact must be accepted.
To repeat bogus Israeli propaganda as to the obvious failure of their weapons systems is an insult to our intelligence. It does however give us an insight into the thinking of your minds. Admission of defeat is always difficult.
Israeli weapons systems have a reputation for superior performance, particularly their electronic systems. For Hanit to have been hit by a outdated Iranian-made Chinese missile must be too hard for the West to swallow.
Explanations like the one you give therefore are the order of the day. Particularly for the purposes of propaganda, it cannot be admitted that any Western weapons system has failed. Particularly if it was defeated by a Chinese weapon being made by a "rogue" state.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
Last edited by a moderator:
duskylim said:
It may not make sense to the ignorant, but it was likely to be there as a Command and Control platform for the Saar IVs conducting the coastal bombardment.
Jammers, ECM and decoys are reactionary systems. They are not active as a matter of course. They may or may not have been activated - the result was that the missile hit the stern of the ship. Whether that is the result of ECM/decoys, we do not know. There was also no reason for the Barak anti-missile system to be active too, since there was no prior indication that the Hizbullah had any anti-ship missiles in their inventory. Moreover, with the ship that close to the coast, there would have been significant clutter problems with the radar leading to many false contacts - with the Israeli warplanes in theater there was a possibility that it could have led to an engagement and a friendly fire incident. Since the anti-ship missile threat was judged to be zero, why not turn it off?
If they had wanted to attack civilians, you would see not just 1,100 civilian casualties, but easily 50 times that number. There is a difference between targetting civilians specifically, and civilians being collateral damage as a result of airstrikes not being precise enough. The ignorant just see the number of civilian casualties and condemn the immediate party that causes them. The only reason why the Israelis suffer less casualties is because the IDF doen't hide among their own people in war, and they invested in civil defence.
Nobody denied that it was a spectacular ambush by Hizbullah. But what this event demonstrated was the failings of the Israeli intelligence services and not the Barak system.
Dear Sir, there was pretty much nothing to insult in your case. What you have demonstrated is precisely ignorance and the lack of intelligence.
Easy to attribute the truth to propoganda when it suits your purpose isn't it?
Sorry...but I disagree. I believe that the assertion is unbelievable...but for different reasons. It is unbelievable that they would be so politically correct, so foolish, and read their intelligence so wrong as to not activate their systems. So unbelievable in fact that it is clear to me that some heads must roll within the IDF for this horrible lapse in intelligence and in judgement.duskylim said:
I believe if the Barak system had been fully operational, if the CIWS system had been operational, and if the ECM systems had been up and running properly in a high threat environment, that the outcome would have been much different.
You are free to perceive it however you will...and Hezbollah certainly made a huge coup, along with Iran and China for that matter...but my thoughts, while similar to your in the incredulous department, are that way for different reasons that could be just as valid as those feelings you have. One thing is for sure...the command element on that vessel knows exactly what happened.
guys, let's just make sure to not drift this into a politcal discussion. this is strictly on Barak SAM.
To Jeff, I thought they said the system was not fully activated as in the Barak SAM was not on auto-on mode. I'm sure the crew and the system wasn't on full alert, but it was not as if the system was turned off. I think the real problem is that they were just so close to the shore that they had too little time to pick up the missile and react to it.
To Jeff, I thought they said the system was not fully activated as in the Barak SAM was not on auto-on mode. I'm sure the crew and the system wasn't on full alert, but it was not as if the system was turned off. I think the real problem is that they were just so close to the shore that they had too little time to pick up the missile and react to it.
I believe that they were not "active" and that, that, coupled with the range, contributed.tphuang said:
I believe they certainly should have considered the environment to be high threat and had a system that was fully operational with some kind of awacs (phalcon) coverage data linked.
In my opinion, they underestimated their enemy, even when they had very capable systems to defend against the threat, and they paid the price.