Israeli Military Says Missile Struck Warship Instead of Drone

Well, well, well. This is looking more like WWIII every second.

How did Hezbollah fire the missle? I take it that it was truck mounted. If Hezbollah has more YJ-62s, the Israelis are going to have to be on alert and reevaluate their blockade procedures. I also am certain that this was an operation conducted by the Revolutionary Guard.

As for AEGIS in this situation-The Israeli ship was very close to shore, giving it very little time to react, and Israel did not have AWACS/AEW planes alerting it (I think). None of those situations would ever happen in the USN. Lastly, the Israelis did not suspect that they would be targeted by a modern ASM. That would not happen to the USN either, at least if we were going against the PLAN or the Iranian Navy/Army.

But this does confirm suspicions that I have always had about the AEGIS system, even though this ship did not have AEGIS. Hitting a missle with a missle is a very difficult task, and even a system as advanced as AEGIS can fail easily.

I think it is very easy to sit back and talk about this.....but can you imagine what was going through that poor radar operators head as the Ant-ship missile came streaking towards him and his ship. That was probably the first time anything like that has happened to him. I bet there was chaos in the CIC of that ship if they knew what was coming at them. I simply cannot believe the warship was not prepared for such an event. After all they are in a combat zone with at least the possibility of a Syrian warplane coming in and attacking. I am simply not buying that the systems were not up and running for ASM attack. I think the ship simply "FAILED in its mission" and was mission killed by a weapon system that they could not defend against.

Finn McCool said:

Well, well, well. This is looking more like WWIII every second.


**************************************************
As for AEGIS in this situation-The Israeli ship was very close to shore, giving it very little time to react, and Israel did not have AWACS/AEW planes alerting it (I think). None of those situations would ever happen in the USN. Lastly, the Israelis did not suspect that they would be targeted by a modern ASM. That would not happen to the USN either, at least if we were going against the PLAN or the Iranian Navy/Army.********

Finn ,you cannot assume that this could not happen to the U.S navy. You cannot under estimate your enemy. You have to understand the enemy wants to kill you and has a plan to conduct such operation to kill you. The U.S navy could very well suffer some of the same pains in the persian Gulf. Hopfully the U.S navy is prepared but never never never underestimate the OPFOR. We are looking at some very capable systems that the Iranians are fielding.

Click to expand...

An report on this that is posted on DT, although the poster did not really leave the link for this.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel said on Saturday the Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah had fired an Iranian-made guided missile at one of its naval ships off Beirut and not hit it with an explosives-laden drone as previously claimed.

A military source said a C802 radar-guided missile with a range of 60 miles (100 km) had been fired at the ship as it sat off the coast on Friday, enforcing a blockade on Lebanon's ports.

Israeli media reported that Hizbollah had said it had hit the ship with a drone packed with explosives.

The missile strike caused substantial damage to the vessel and left four sailors missing. Israel recovered the body of one of the four on Saturday. The ship was towed back to port in Haifa, still smouldering from the attack.

"This is sophisticated weaponry," the Israeli military source said. "This is advanced weaponry that is being supplied by one terrorist state (Iran) to another," he said.

The source said two of the land-to-sea missiles were fired on Friday. The other hit and sank an Egyptian merchant ship, he said. Egypt has not confirmed the loss of a merchant vessel.

Israel believes Hizbollah, a group backed by Iran and Syria, has between 10,000 and 12,000 rockets in its arsenal with a variety of ranges, from around 30 km to 70 km.

walter posted an article regarding Iran getting C-802 and C-701 from China a while back
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1627


has an interesting section on what kind of AShM are sold to Iran from China

I can't imagine Israel being too pleased with China right now

TO me it smacks of arrogance by the Isrealis. They are not the first to make this kind of mistake in a war nor the first to pay the price.

I would guess that they came far too close to shore and simply had not enough time to react (or enough deep water to maneouver perhaps).

I also wonder if the Sub sonic nature of the missile played in its favour, I would guess a supersonic weapon or aircraft would make a lot of "noise" through shock waves etc, that are quite easy to detect and pinpoint. Subsonics I would imagine make little impression and hide in the clutter untill it is too late.

If the ship was close to shore, Hezbollah could have directed the missile operator by eyesight observations untill it entered the kill zone.

tphuang said:

I can't imagine Israel being too pleased with China right now

Click to expand...

As Isreal were never likely to place an order, I seriously doubt if they care.

utelore said:

Finn ,you cannot assume that this could not happen to the U.S navy. You cannot under estimate your enemy. You have to understand the enemy wants to kill you and has a plan to conduct such operation to kill you. The U.S navy could very well suffer some of the same pains in the persian Gulf. Hopfully the U.S navy is prepared but never never never underestimate the OPFOR. We are looking at some very capable systems that the Iranians are fielding.

Click to expand...

I'm not underestimating the enemy. I was focusing on the USN's superior training and capabilites. Of course, I have never said that the USN is invinceible, if anything I have always argued the other way. That always pissed of Sea Dog. However, barring some sort of Iranian sneak attack on American assets in the Gulf (which could happen), I don't think that the USN would willingly move into closed in waters were it can be hit by a missle quickly. For example, in the event of a war with Iran I do not think that he USN would move into the Gulf until Iranian anti-ship assets had been dealt with.

Following the 1991 Gulf War Iran imported the C-802 antiship cruise missile from China. China suspended exports in 1996 in response to comlaints by the the United States. In December 1996 Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashivili, warned Chinese Defense Minister General Chi Haotian that arms exports would increase destabilizing factors in the region. No international agreement bans transfers of anti-ship missiles, and the C-802 is not covered by the MTCR, which controls exports of ballistic and cruise missiles that can deliver 500 kg. warheads to 300 km. Iran expected to purchase 150 C-802 missiles from China but only received a half of them because of the arms suspension. By mid-1997 Iran reportedly possessed some 60 of the missiles deployed in coastal batteries on Qeshm Island, a strategic point on the eastern side of the Arabian peninsula. In 1997, General J.H. Binford Peay, Central Command commander, said that China transferred 20 patrol boats with 15 equipped with C-802 missiles (Washington Times, January 29, 1997). [Some reports claim that China may have transferred hundreds of C-802s, although these claims are not widely attested].

In early 2000 it was reported that North Korea and Iran were jointly developing an advanced version of the C-802 cruise missile. These missiles initially acquired by Iran were not equipped with advanced systems, and the missiles acquired by Iran were rather outdated. Iran turned to North Korea for missile system technology, and the two countries are jointly developing an upgraded version with improved accuracy. ["N. Korea, Iran Jointly Develop Missile: Report" Korea Times February 17, 2000

utelore said:

In early 2000 it was reported that North Korea and Iran were jointly developing an advanced version of the C-802 cruise missile. These missiles initially acquired by Iran were not equipped with advanced systems, and the missiles acquired by Iran were rather outdated. Iran turned to North Korea for missile system technology, and the two countries are jointly developing an upgraded version with improved accuracy. ["N. Korea, Iran Jointly Develop Missile: Report" Korea Times February 17, 2000

Click to expand...

Sounds like they may already be deployed. The Saar 5 was there to protect against this type of attack. The IDF expected it or the Saar 5 would not have been there.

If they were too close in, then they misjudged the nature of the threat. Clearly, they understand it now.


My point is that the IDF had their best there toi defend against air attack, with a ship specifically designed to defend against missilies and aircraft. They themselves were targeted and defeated.

In the Hormus Straits and the Gulf, US vessels will face a smiliar threat and you can bet that they are learning how serious that threat is. AWACS, AEW, full data linking and the advanced nature of the AEGIS system may be enough Until yesterday, I would have thought the Saar 5's systems were up to the task. Except for them having to be too close in and allowing the capabilities of the C-802 to be maximised, I still think they are. But they had to be close to protect those gun ships doing the bombarment.

The IDF needs longer range shore bombarment capability. Not having it, and wanting to protect the shorter ranged batteries, put their high value vessel at unacceptable risk. That's my assessment.

Another interesting bit is how Pakistan and India will react this. We know that PN will be operating ships that fire C-802. At the same time, India operate Delhi which uses Barak.

tphuang said:

Another interesting bit is how Pakistan and India will react this. We know that PN will be operating ships that fire C-802. At the same time, India operate Delhi which uses Barak.

Click to expand...

Here's the lesson to learn I believe, and represents my initial Here's my initial, thought-out assessment:

The IDF had their high value AAW vessel there to protect its gun boats who were shelling the Lebannon shore. Those gun boat' main batteries have a short range which means the Saar 5 had to be close in to shore to protect them. That allowed it to be targeted in an evironment which minimized it's defenses and maximized the C-802 capability.

They were too close to respond effectively or in enough time.

Israel needs longer ranged shore bombarment capability to avoid putting it's modern, sophisticated AAW vessels at such risk, and to give them more time to resspond to a modern SSM threat.

India and the US and other nations will learn from this...so too will the Iranians and Chinese.