Israeli Military Says Missile Struck Warship Instead of Drone

well, I just found that the Egyptian media is blaming Israeli for the sinking of their ship rather than a missile. Previously, I downplayed C-701, because I didn't think a C-701 can sink a merchant ship with one hit. But now, C-701 seems more likely.

I look at it this way the C-802 can be comparable to the French Exocet...
Look what the Exocet did to the USS Stark and HMS Sheffield



I would have to say that rather the C-802 didn't explode or the IDF needs to go see an optometrist..

Hmm...I'm just wondering how big the merchant ship was that got hit. Also, most media outlets have reported that the ship was severely damaged so the damage is probably internal. Maybe those three other sailors must have been incinerated due to the heat.

bd popeye said:

Honestly guys I was expecting more damage. A lot more. I mean a 165kg(363lb) warhead should do much more damage to the surface.

Click to expand...

Me too Popeye and the more I look at those pics, the more I wonder if they are indeed pics of the ship after it was hit or not.

Notice the marks next to the small hole just forwad of the helo deck. That hole looks exactly the same size as the discharge hole forward of it at the water-line, making me think maybe that is a discharge hole with some staining, and not a damage hole at all.

Now, maybe the staining came from internal fires and maybe, in the first pic there is evidence of a hit on the helo deck. But not much, and it just makes me wonder if those pics are indeed strike pics or not. I guess we shall see.

Even if just the missile hit, there should be more evident damage. And, if was a near miss and still mission killed the ship and killed four sailors, I would still expect to see more damage.

Jeff Head said:

Me too Popeye and the more I look at those pics, the more I wonder if they are indeed pics of the ship after it was hit or not.

Notice the marks next to the small hole just forwad of the helo deck. That hole looks exactly the same size as the discharge hole forward of it at the water-line, making me think maybe that is a discharge hole with some staining, and not a damage hole at all.

Now, maybe the staining came from internal fires and maybe, in the first pic there is evidence of a hit on the helo deck. But not much, and it just makes me wonder if those pics are indeed strike pics or not. I guess we shall see.

Even if just the missile hit, there should be more evident damage. And, if was a near miss and still mission killed the ship and killed four sailors, I would still expect to see more damage.

Click to expand...

one of the poster on AFM commented that the "small hole" is present on every SAAR 5, so it didn't get hit there or at least that does not proof the missile hit it there. Also, I find it interesting that the system was turned off at the time of the missile strike. What in the world was SAAR 5 doing there if it was just going to turn off its AD functions anyhow?

Are you guys sure those pics are accurate? What I've been reading is the ship limped into Haifa still smoldering from within. Since those pics show it out at sea and not burning, I question if they're accurate.

You guys obviously know a lot. I don't know the ins and outs, so I have to make my conclusions based on what's out there. Personally I find anti-missile systems highly questionable based on real events. Someone earlier pointed out two incidents of Chinese-based anti-ship missiles penetrating Western defense systems. This incident and Iran firing across the Persian Gulf hitting an Iraqi tanker during the Iran-Iraq war. There's also the Seeksucker that hit Kuwait City without being seen by a triad of Patriot, Aegis, and AWAC sensors. Since the Seersucker is said to be an obsolete missile, there has to be some major infomation not being told to the public either missile defense has some major flaws and/or Chinese military technology is more capable than people want to believe.

tphuang said:

What in the world was SAAR 5 doing there if it was just going to turn off its AD functions anyhow?

Click to expand...

Excellent questions. I have heard and read the same thing. The ship was designed for this type of engagement. It was placed off the coast to protect other IDF ships from air attack. The IDF's principal enemy, Iran, has had C-802 and other SSMs for a long time. To not have your systems activated in such an environment seems to me to be derelect in duty.

AssassinsMace said:

Are you guys sure those pics are accurate? What I've been reading is the ship limped into Haifa still smoldering from within. Since those pics show it out at sea and not burning, I question if they're accurate.

Click to expand...

See my post 57. I am raising the same question. I seriously question and doubt if they are strike pictures at this point. Not nearly enough damage given what we have heard about what happened to the ship.

tphuang said:

one of the poster on AFM commented that the "small hole" is present on every SAAR 5, so it didn't get hit there

Click to expand...

Here are some more pics that confirm this IMHO. These are normal pics of Saar 5s, not associated with yesterdays attack.

Oh Brother, and the mystery continues. When will we be able to see a true picture of the ship before they cover and patch. I wonder if we ever will??

The shipe had to be towed back to base. The pictures the Israelis released shows that the ship is perfectly fine. I can't beleive the media is falling for it though...I think out of pure embarassment the Israelis aren't going to release those photos.

Jeff Head said:

Here are some more pics that confirm this IMHO. These are normal pics of Saar 5s, not associated with yesterdays attack.

[qimg]http://www.gilanet.com/wallace/cut1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/saar5_2b.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

By looking at these pictures, i have to say a hand grenade would have done more damage to the ship than the size of the missile dat alleged to hit it.

and i am talking from an experience of seeing grenade goin off.