Israeli Navy capability against coastal targets

[kams]

Depends on the explosives. C4 is not that heavy and has enough power to cause some damage and if you are lucky something begins to burn.
And why shouldn't you be able to guide the plane with a camera into your target? Every engineering student should be able to build such a thing.

Sorry I meant by naked eye, (if the UAV did not have TV guidence)..my apologies for not being clearer. In any case now they are talking about guided missile!!! This means Hezbollah has some serious capability and is a serious threat.

 

[Waylander]

I would not be surprised if this happened because the crew never expected some real anti ship missiles in this conflict and so was a little bit lazy.

 

[sidishus]

I don't think China ever exported C-802 to Lebanon, but maybe Iran sold some copies of its C802 to Lebanon. The more likely scenario is that Iran was the party that fired off the missile.

Your first point is correct. And if...if...the Iranians were directly involved in launching whatever it those two weapons were...and if...if...more are incountry, then this has become a dangerous crisis indeed.

Conceivably such a weapon could be launched, and guided against specific targets against the interior of Israel. How long do you think the Israelis will live with that threat?

 

[Red aRRow]

Your first point is correct. And if...if...the Iranians were directly involved in launching whatever it those two weapons were...and if...if...more are incountry, then this has become a dangerous crisis indeed.

Conceivably such a weapon could be launched, and guided against specific targets against the interior of Israel. How long do you think the Israelis will live with that threat?

What will/can Israel do about it other than what it already is doing? In fact a balance of armament might just force the more powerful Israel into not bombing civilians anymore. I would definitely welcome such a development considering that Israel is already armed with nuclear weapons and other sophisticated weaponry.

 

[sidishus]

I would not be surprised if this happened because the crew never expected some real anti ship missiles in this conflict and so was a little bit lazy.

You bring up an excellent point. I was kind of surprised by some of the video that was taken aboard the Saar 4.5s shelling the area south of Beirut...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060714/481/98da55238a9d42e1ae2517db19af87c2


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060714/481/8208cd6bb6254ca29b82fe64b53cfd6e

The officers were not in battle gear on at least one of the ships and it appeared there was an atmosphere of "exercise" rather than actual combat conditions aboard.

That said, the sucessful missile hit underscores that littoral ops are dangerous. Dangerous Indeed. What is worrisome is this is a lesson the USN has yet to take to heart in regards to its LCS.
Kinda reminds me of when the Eilat got blown away 40 years ago...

 

[webmaster]

Sidishus, could you please use the attachment feature to attach the picture. The link above is dead.

 

[contedicavour]

I'm extremely astonished that one of the 3 main ships in the IDF inventory was put in danger for a basic shelling mission when the Saar 4.5s would have perfectly done the job...
I'm also astonished the Mossad didn't get a hint that Silkworm missiles were being installed in Beyrouth...
Last but not least, Barak SAM may not have been fully ready because no SSM was expected inbound, but at least the Phalanx should have been, with the huge risk of Pasdaran-type small attack boats attacking (for example, an Attacker FAC of the Lebanese Navy filled with explosives).
Quite a psychological defeat for the IDF, although the Saar V corvette will most likely be back in service in a few months.

 

[sidishus]

Sidishus, could you please use the attachment feature to attach the picture. The link above is dead.

Sorry,couldn't get it to work (decidedly tube technolgy era here). Hopefully those Yahoo News links will suffice...

 

[tphuang]

I'm extremely astonished that one of the 3 main ships in the IDF inventory was put in danger for a basic shelling mission when the Saar 4.5s would have perfectly done the job...
I'm also astonished the Mossad didn't get a hint that Silkworm missiles were being installed in Beyrouth...
Last but not least, Barak SAM may not have been fully ready because no SSM was expected inbound, but at least the Phalanx should have been, with the huge risk of Pasdaran-type small attack boats attacking (for example, an Attacker FAC of the Lebanese Navy filled with explosives).
Quite a psychological defeat for the IDF, although the Saar V corvette will most likely be back in service in a few months.

There is a huge difference between C-802 and Silkworm missiles. C-802 has the capability to go over 200 km at lo-lo profile (including about 7m above sea level in terminal stage) at mach 0.9 with active radar seeker. The radar are also fitted with frequency agile radar seeker, which gives them good performance against jamming.

Also, we have an interesting discussion on this in SDF. Basically, it's hard to believe that SAAR 5's AD system wasn't fully up and running when it's specific job there is to protect the gunboats against air threat. The reason they were there was to protect against anti-ship missiles. Not only did they not do their job, but they were the one that got hit.

 

[contedicavour]

There is a huge difference between C-802 and Silkworm missiles. C-802 has the capability to go over 200 km at lo-lo profile (including about 7m above sea level in terminal stage) at mach 0.9 with active radar seeker. The radar are also fitted with frequency agile radar seeker, which gives them good performance against jamming.

Also, we have an interesting discussion on this in SDF. Basically, it's hard to believe that SAAR 5's AD system wasn't fully up and running when it's specific job there is to protect the gunboats against air threat. The reason they were there was to protect against anti-ship missiles. Not only did they not do their job, but they were the one that got hit.

Do we know if the missile was a Silkworm or a C802 ? After all most Iranian coastal defence forces operate Silkworms and it wouldn't be surprising some ended up in the hands of the Hezbollah...
If it was indeed a C802, much more sophisticated and allocated only to the Iranian Navy... well then we have a major and serious incident... it means it is Iranian personnel who's shooting at Israeli ships !
Israeli U214 SSKs could be on their way towards Iran to send them a thank you note :shudder

 

[tphuang]

posted by Bd popeye on SDF
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle/ShowFull

Excerpt from the story;
""An IDF investigation into the attack showed that Hizbullah had fired an Iranian-made C-802 missile at the vessel from the shores of Lebanon, said Brig.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan. The IDF responded by destroying all Lebanese radar stations along the coast.

A senior IDF intelligence official says that Iran has approximately 100 soldiers in Lebanon and that they helped Hizbullah hit an Israel Navy ship with an anti-ship missile.

"We can confirm that it was hit by an Iranian-made missile launched by Hizbullah. We see this as very profound fingerprint of Iranian involvement in Hizbullah," Nehushtan said in an interview with The Associated Press.""


There could be some serious consequences against Iran here.

 

[contedicavour]

posted by Bd popeye on SDF
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle/ShowFull

Excerpt from the story;
""An IDF investigation into the attack showed that Hizbullah had fired an Iranian-made C-802 missile at the vessel from the shores of Lebanon, said Brig.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan. The IDF responded by destroying all Lebanese radar stations along the coast.

A senior IDF intelligence official says that Iran has approximately 100 soldiers in Lebanon and that they helped Hizbullah hit an Israel Navy ship with an anti-ship missile.

"We can confirm that it was hit by an Iranian-made missile launched by Hizbullah. We see this as very profound fingerprint of Iranian involvement in Hizbullah," Nehushtan said in an interview with The Associated Press.""


There could be some serious consequences against Iran here.

Thks for the article !
Israel could be tempted to answer back by attacking Iranian vessels in the Persian Gulf with one of their U214, or even launching missiles against Bandar Abbas.
Very very dangerous situation.

 

[Red aRRow]

Israeli spin doctors at work trying to draw in Iran and Syria into this one so Uncle Sam can have his little wars there (Bush has been rearing to have a go at Syrian and Iran despite being bogged down in Iraq) and eliminate all states which might pose a threat to Israel.
Israel should think twice before involving Iran into this one as the Shahab series BMs put all of Israel within Iran's range. Both sides will end up with more than a bloody nose.

Sorry for going little offtopic but as far as I know the Iraeli navy isn't really a blue water navy. I mean come on their top most ship is now out of commission in Haifa port. lol.

 

[sidishus]

I'm extremely astonished that one of the 3 main ships in the IDF inventory was put in danger for a basic shelling mission when the Saar 4.5s would have perfectly done the job...
I'm also astonished the Mossad didn't get a hint that Silkworm missiles were being installed in Beyrouth...

Ships are meant to go into Harm's Way. In the Littorals that means you can expect losses.

West Beirut is the western terminus of a smuggling highway that has existed for centuries and spans all the way back to China. Drugs, women (moving east mostly), surface-to-surface missles...Not a whole lot of difference to that crowd.

There is a huge difference between C-802 and Silkworm missiles. C-802 has the capability to go over 200 km at lo-lo profile (including about 7m above sea level in terminal stage) at mach 0.9 with active radar seeker. The radar are also fitted with frequency agile radar seeker, which gives them good performance against jamming.

Whatever was launched against the Hanit was certainly guided and was certainly a missile (the video of the two launches settless that issue), and pretty hefty to cause the damage it apparently did.
It of course is impossible at this point to say from gleaning public sources to say whether it was a C802, C201 (explains the "C-102" in press reports), C701, or some indigenous-ingenious-contrivance.

The point is that Hizbollah has:

A. Seriously threatened and -drawn blood against-the Israeli navy for the first time...
(You can see the Israelis are not taking the threat lightly):
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060715/ids_photos_wl/r2356560841.jpg

B. Possesses a guided missile capability, that if used strategically used against the interior of Israel, threatens the country more seriously than any time since the Yom Kippur war in 1973...


This latter helps explain why the Israelis have deployed their Patriots (yes, I know that its not the system best suited for low flyers-but you gotta go with what you got...):

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2006/07/16/top11.htm


This may also explain the apparent expanded Israeli ROE which now includes civilian vehicles that could be cover for a missile carrier/launcher:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060715/ids_photos_india_wl/ra2812026481.jpg

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060715/481/f286186109bd43c588d136fe0341411e

...World opinion be damned

 

[contedicavour]

Israeli spin doctors at work trying to draw in Iran and Syria into this one so Uncle Sam can have his little wars there (Bush has been rearing to have a go at Syrian and Iran despite being bogged down in Iraq) and eliminate all states which might pose a threat to Israel.
Israel should think twice before involving Iran into this one as the Shahab series BMs put all of Israel within Iran's range. Both sides will end up with more than a bloody nose.

Sorry for going little offtopic but as far as I know the Iraeli navy isn't really a blue water navy. I mean come on their top most ship is now out of commission in Haifa port. lol.

It would obviously be good news if the vicious circle of retaliation ended here without causing any more casualties and damage.
Just be sure the US and NATO have more interesting things than kicking reason into some dictators' heads :gun
There will be more than some explaining to do here since guerrilla fighters clearly haven't learned how to launch sophisticated SSMs by reading books.

 

[sidishus]

Also, we have an interesting discussion on this in SDF. Basically, it's hard to believe that SAAR 5's AD system wasn't fully up and running when it's specific job there is to protect the gunboats against air threat. The reason they were there was to protect against anti-ship missiles. Not only did they not do their job, but they were the one that got hit.

How well could those missiles be seen against the backdrop of the city?
From having been there and done just exactly this job long ago in exactly the same spot...
http://www.fdevault.net/images/Mil/Ships/Med01h.JPG
...I can tell you that is no easy feat.

They probably acquired the missile(s) visually. Was the ship in a position with her batteries unmasked to the threat? Was there time to react and then maneuver? What kind of ROE (Rules Of Engagement) were they operating under?

Point is that an ambush in the Littorals is the most lethal of attacks.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/1997/autumn/s&d1-a97.htm
The Hanit suffered the grave misfortune of being on watch for the first one in this scrap

 

[contedicavour]

How well could those missiles be seen against the backdrop of the city?
From having been there and done just exactly this job long ago in exactly the same spot...
http://www.fdevault.net/images/Mil/Ships/Med01h.JPG
...I can tell you that is no easy feat.

They probably acquired the missile(s) visually. Was the ship in a position with her batteries unmasked to the threat? Was there time to react and then maneuver? What kind of ROE (Rules Of Engagement) were they operating under?

Point is that an ambush in the Littorals is the most lethal of attacks.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/1997/autumn/s&d1-a97.htm
The Hinit[/i} suffered the grave misfortune of being on watch for the first one in this scrap

I read the story of the Eilat destroyer. Sad destiny for the Israeli Navy to be always in the first row when it comes to new use of weapons by enemy forces.
Regarding reaction timings, the C802 flies at Mach 0.9, the ship was anchored 5 km from the shore. It thus had approx 18 seconds to react. Not too long, not too short either when it comes to Phalanx !

 

[Lucasnz]

How well could those missiles be seen against the backdrop of the city?
From having been there and done just exactly this job long ago in exactly the same spot...
http://www.fdevault.net/images/Mil/Ships/Med01h.JPG
...I can tell you that is no easy feat.

They probably acquired the missile(s) visually. Was the ship in a position with her batteries unmasked to the threat? Was there time to react and then maneuver? What kind of ROE (Rules Of Engagement) were they operating under?

Point is that an ambush in the Littorals is the most lethal of attacks.
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/1997/autumn/s&d1-a97.htm
The Hinit[/i} suffered the grave misfortune of being on watch for the first one in this scrap

The C-802 as a 165kg warhead according to Global Security. The SAAR 5 has a displacement of 1227 metric tonnes. If the damage was in the region of the Flight deck, a direct hit would have sunk the SAAR 5, due to flooding. The freeboard on these ships in rather small, so that what I basing my assessment on - I've estimated between 9-12 feet.

I'm of the veiw that the ship suffered damage from the missile been destroyed by CIWS at close range.

 

[sidishus]

Not too long, not too short either when it comes to Phalanx !

Was the ship stern to the threat? Remember, she took the hit in the flight deck according to reports. If so, she would have to maneuver to unmask the CIWS. What mode was it in I wonder?

 

[contedicavour]

The C-802 as a 165kg warhead according to Global Security. The SAAR 5 has a displacement of 1227 metric tonnes. If the damage was in the region of the Flight deck, a direct hit would have sunk the SAAR 5, due to flooding. The freeboard on these ships in rather small, so that what I basing my assessment on - I've estimated between 9-12 feet.

I'm of the veiw that the ship suffered damage from the missile been destroyed by CIWS at close range.

Ah-ha plausible hypothesis after all !
Or even chaff & flare for that matter...
Though a destruction at close range would have sent fragments all around the ship and apparently damage is limited to the flight deck area ?