Israeli Military Says Missile Struck Warship Instead of Drone
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I'd like to read that article. I still find it hard to believe that the IDF ship did not have the SAAR 5 in an operational status. Can a brother get someone to turn on the switch??? Jeez...
Now that this evacuation of other country national is under way..I have a some questions for since many people are leaving Beruit by ship do any you think that Hezzbollah would dare attemp a missile attack on one of these ships? Or one of the Naval vessels that are accompaning them?..And another question...Because of their success with the missile attack on the IDF ship why hasn't Hezbollah attempted another missile attack on IDF ships?..Do they fear severe escalation and retalation? Or do they have a limited suppy of missiles?
Now that this evacuation of other country national is under way..I have a some questions for since many people are leaving Beruit by ship do any you think that Hezzbollah would dare attemp a missile attack on one of these ships? Or one of the Naval vessels that are accompaning them?..And another question...Because of their success with the missile attack on the IDF ship why hasn't Hezbollah attempted another missile attack on IDF ships?..Do they fear severe escalation and retalation? Or do they have a limited suppy of missiles?
bd popeye said:
I would think that Hezbollah or more likely the IRanian operators of the missles are restriced from launching by the IAF and realize that now the Israelis will have their sensors on and guard fully up, making it difficult for them to use their probably small supply of missles. Maybe they have and an Israeli jet knocked out their launcher/s, or the missle was taken out in flight and for whatever reason the Israelis didn't report it. Who knows. The media has never been interested in going into depth on the sorts of stories that interest us SDFers.
What is the minimum range for C-802? It seems the SAAR-5 is rather close to shore when all this happened, it might be too close for C-802 to even hit it. So is it possible that Hezbollah might have use a less advanced missile or indeed a drone. While Israel try to play it up claiming that it is C-802, thus put pressure on Iran?
Finn McCool said:
This would suggest that they knew this specific ship did not have it system up...
No, I just think that Huzb Allah saves its tricks for the right time and effect in terms of psychological and media impact. Nasrallah promised suprises so they have to give these surprises the right conditions to look more impressive...
And why is everyone thinking these are Iranians firing the weapons? what Huzb Allah can't learn to fire a certain weapon?
Hi Guys,
Hello. Couldn't resist to get my 2 cents in. Lets summarize what we know of the SAAR 5 class of missile corvette: (from Naval Technology)
Length 85.6 m
Beam 10.4 m
Draft 3.2 m
Displacement 1,227 tons - all in all not a large warship.
Crew 61 sailors plus 10 aircrew.
Propulsion CODOG
Missiles
Anti Ship 8 Harpoon + 8 Gabriel
Anti Air 2 x 32 cell launchers for Barak (22 kg warhead, 10 km range)
Guns 20 mm Phalanx (1.5 km range) OR 76 mm OTO Melara Compact
Torps 6 Mk32 torpedo tubes
Helicopter is Dauphin
Sensors
Air Search Radar (mounted on the Aft mast)
Fire Control Radar Navigation Radar (both mounted on Forward mast)
Elisra Radar Warning Recievers
Hull mounted and Towed-array Sonars
Electro Optic surveillance and Fire control system with
Thermal (IR) imager
TV- imager
Laser range finder
Commmand and Control
Integrated Elbit combat data system and Tadiran communication system
Other Defenses
Elbit Deseaver chaff and decoy launchers (3 mounter for and aft)
Nixie Torpedo decoy
You know Golly is right, this ship is very heavily equipped, particularly for so small a hull.
We also know that the Phalanx system operates autonomously, although may be cued to the target.
If we presume that she was providing close air cover for her group, (what else was she there for? Prettying-up the battle group? Thickening up the barrage?) then because of the short range of both the
1) accompanying ships guns and,
2) her own Barak missiles (10 km),
then she would, like her charges, have to operate close to shore.
Doubtless this played into the hands of Hezbollah.
We also know the missile struck from the rear (where the Air-Search Radar and aft decoy launchers are mounted!).
Even if (as the Isreali's claim) the fire control radars were not active, would that mean that the ship's ESM/ECM systems, TV, IR and RWR as well as Air Search radar were inactive? More than half of those are passive systems, incapable of interference. Would they risk the ship with a hostile Syria so close by (across Lebanon)?
This is a small ship. A C-802's 165 kg warhead (plus any remaining propellant) would most likely sink it. Look at the damage done to the much larger HMS Sheffield by a warhead of the same size (which in fact did not explode!).
It seems apparent that the last summary maybe the most accurate. She was probably struck by a C-701 (29 kg warhead, mach 0.8, 20 km range, 100 kg, IR/TV guided). This maybe why all her electronic countermeasures and decoys failed her.
All just my opinion.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
Hello. Couldn't resist to get my 2 cents in. Lets summarize what we know of the SAAR 5 class of missile corvette: (from Naval Technology)
Length 85.6 m
Beam 10.4 m
Draft 3.2 m
Displacement 1,227 tons - all in all not a large warship.
Crew 61 sailors plus 10 aircrew.
Propulsion CODOG
Missiles
Anti Ship 8 Harpoon + 8 Gabriel
Anti Air 2 x 32 cell launchers for Barak (22 kg warhead, 10 km range)
Guns 20 mm Phalanx (1.5 km range) OR 76 mm OTO Melara Compact
Torps 6 Mk32 torpedo tubes
Helicopter is Dauphin
Sensors
Air Search Radar (mounted on the Aft mast)
Fire Control Radar Navigation Radar (both mounted on Forward mast)
Elisra Radar Warning Recievers
Hull mounted and Towed-array Sonars
Electro Optic surveillance and Fire control system with
Thermal (IR) imager
TV- imager
Laser range finder
Commmand and Control
Integrated Elbit combat data system and Tadiran communication system
Other Defenses
Elbit Deseaver chaff and decoy launchers (3 mounter for and aft)
Nixie Torpedo decoy
You know Golly is right, this ship is very heavily equipped, particularly for so small a hull.
We also know that the Phalanx system operates autonomously, although may be cued to the target.
If we presume that she was providing close air cover for her group, (what else was she there for? Prettying-up the battle group? Thickening up the barrage?) then because of the short range of both the
1) accompanying ships guns and,
2) her own Barak missiles (10 km),
then she would, like her charges, have to operate close to shore.
Doubtless this played into the hands of Hezbollah.
We also know the missile struck from the rear (where the Air-Search Radar and aft decoy launchers are mounted!).
Even if (as the Isreali's claim) the fire control radars were not active, would that mean that the ship's ESM/ECM systems, TV, IR and RWR as well as Air Search radar were inactive? More than half of those are passive systems, incapable of interference. Would they risk the ship with a hostile Syria so close by (across Lebanon)?
This is a small ship. A C-802's 165 kg warhead (plus any remaining propellant) would most likely sink it. Look at the damage done to the much larger HMS Sheffield by a warhead of the same size (which in fact did not explode!).
It seems apparent that the last summary maybe the most accurate. She was probably struck by a C-701 (29 kg warhead, mach 0.8, 20 km range, 100 kg, IR/TV guided). This maybe why all her electronic countermeasures and decoys failed her.
All just my opinion.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
planeman said:
If it was just a glancing blow, it would have probably been able to go back to shore on its own without the need of being towed. Also, the fire was still burning as it was being brought back to shore...the damage must have been pretty extensive.