Israeli Military Says Missile Struck Warship Instead of Drone
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
so what was that UAV thing then? A news duck? speculation....
But one migth assumpt that missile of C-802 calibre can do lot worse damage of so small ship.....but then again Eilat needed several Styx impacts before sinking it back in 67'. And whats important, it disabled the ship and managed to hit toward it, making this a valuable moment in this particular missiles life....it broke its virginity
if so to say....we can only ecpect the future PLAN vs. IN penis contest between some kids that how Barak fitted Indian ddgs cannot prevent chinese c-802 salvoes
But one migth assumpt that missile of C-802 calibre can do lot worse damage of so small ship.....but then again Eilat needed several Styx impacts before sinking it back in 67'. And whats important, it disabled the ship and managed to hit toward it, making this a valuable moment in this particular missiles life....it broke its virginity
if so to say....we can only ecpect the future PLAN vs. IN penis contest between some kids that how Barak fitted Indian ddgs cannot prevent chinese c-802 salvoes
Either...both. Fog of war.Gollevainen said:
Agreed. Perhaps chaff caused a near miss, or perhaps the warhead malfunctioned and the impact and fuel alone caused the damage. Will have to wait and see a pic of the damage to make a better assessment on that score.Gollevainen said:
As I mentionned before, I'm guessing it will be more between PN vs IN, since China doesn't even equip C-802.Gollevainen said:so what was that UAV thing then? A news duck? speculation....
But one migth assumpt that missile of C-802 calibre can do lot worse damage of so small ship.....but then again Eilat needed several Styx impacts before sinking it back in 67'. And whats important, it disabled the ship and managed to hit toward it, making this a valuable moment in this particular missiles life....it broke its virginity
What makes me wonder is why the other C-802 was targetted on an Egyptian merchant ship.
Sounds almost like the targeting was autonomous, line of site launch, with the seeker head coming on and picking the best target. Mabe the second missile picked the wrong one. Hard to tell at this point, and depends on when the second missile was launched. Was it fired at the same time? Or was it fired aftwerwards in an attempt to finish the Saar 5 off?tphuang said:
Just not enough info now to make a good determination on this.
OK, I just saw a very quick picture of the Israeli warship after the attack. It is a Saar 5 and the hit was right at the water line with the ship listing a little. the Hit was a very "focused" HEAT round type of damage with a very small hole and blast mark. Looks like it was hit with a realy big anti tank heat round if that helps out in describing it.
Can you post a pic? Where did you see it? Sounds like the missile's warhead did not function properly or the 165kg HE would have done a LOT more damage that what you describe. Sounds like the missile itself and its fuel, may have caused the damage.utelore said:
Popeye, I saw it on CNN about 30min ago. It was a amature video. This is driving me nuts because I cant find a picture on the internet. The shaped charge really directed all the molten Jet into the ship and I can see why there is still a internal fire.
Last edited:
Thats pretty much rules out the UAV theory...
Well Chinese version being bit better so the situation is even worst
Well Chinese version being bit better so the situation is even worst