Posted on 07/15/2006 8:15:40 AM PDT by george76
A missile fired by Hezbollah, not an unmanned drone laden with explosives, damaged an Israeli warship off Lebanon, the army said Saturday.
Elite Iranian troops helped fire the missile...
One sailor was killed and three were missing.
The intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information, said about 100 Iranian soldiers are in Lebanon and helped fire the Iranian-made, radar-guided C-102 at the ship late Friday.
The official added that the troops involved in firing the missile are from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite corps of more than 200,000 fighters that is independent of the regular armed forces and controlled directly by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Initial information indicated the guerrillas had used a drone for the first time to attack Israeli forces.
But the army's investigation showed that Hezbollah had fired an Iranian-made missile at the vessel from the shores of Lebanon, said Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan.
"We can confirm that it was hit by an Iranian-made missile launched by Hezbollah. We see this as very profound fingerprint of Iranian involvement in Hezbollah,"...
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.ask.com ...
Israel Military Industries (IMI) has received the first orders for its Red Sky-2 integrated very short-range air defence (VSHORAD) system, a modular, integrated scheme that...
http://jmr.janes.com/public/jmr/index.shtml
After working 23 years in the EW field I can. The countermeasures and detection equipment need to have that system programmed into the libraries, and more importantly the operators need to know it dead to rights. Since the missile only has a 160 mile range and was not known to be operational in the little corner of the Med, I doubt they were up to speed on it.
That damage doesn't look like it was caused by an anti-ship missile. This story still reeks to me.
Are you ex Navy or a defense lobbiest?
The one CIWS is similar to our FFGs, which also only have one. The diea is for the missiles to engage first and give time for the vessel to position itself to use the CIWS. If the missile is fired form too close...or if it comes in too low without adequate warning from other assets (AEW, AWACS, other vessels, etc.) then they do not have time to do either. That looks to be what happened here.
Given the short range of the IDF gunboats batteries, the vessel had to be fairly close in to protect them...it appears it was too close. This is a huge naval event with far reaching ramifications. Both sides wiull be studying and learning from it. Our forces will be learning from it and improving our own systems (which AEGIS system is better than the Saar 5 defenses).
Unfortunately, the Hezbollah, the Iranians, and the Chinese got a big coup from this.
China has long employed cruise missiles for naval attack missions, building three families of anti-ship missiles.
These include two series of anti-ship missiles which derive from the early pioneering Soviet P-21 STYX anti-ship missile...
A third family is based on technology obtained from French Exocet anti-ship missiles and include ship, submarine and air launched versions of the rocket-powered 40km range YJ-81 (C-801) and the 120km range turbojet-powered YJ-82 (C-802).
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.71/pub_detail.asp
Thanks for the information!
There was either a gross failure of command, or the Isreali's have just been made aware of a glaring weakness in what is supposed to be the cream of thier naval crop. Either way, someone's head is going to roll -- either the person who approved a design with no rear protection, or a ships captain who did not have his crew properly trained or prepared for any or all contingency.
Rule #1 of ANY military unit is "Situational awareness" -- you plan for whatever is the absolute worst case scenario no matter how unlikely.
Yes the IOWA class would have been damaged. They would have likely remained mission capable. Analysis done years ago suggested multiple hits would be required to defeat a large ship with defensive armament. Iowa class were very vulnerable to breaking the keel type detonations and deck strikes.
The real question is why did not CIWS not defeat this rather ordinary threat?
The French get us again.
Their Exocet technology is sold to Communist China which shows up here.
The IDF had their high value AAW vessel there to protect its gun boats who were shelling the Lebannon shore. Those gun boats 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 ressponmd to a modern SSM threat.
The army said two C802 missiles were fired at the vessel; the first missed the ship and struck an Egyptian boat some 60 kilometers (37 miles) off the Lebanon coast.
Navy vessel ablaze (Video: Al-Manar)...
The ship is currently being towed back to Israeli territorial waters.
A senior IDF officer said the ship was struck by an Iranian-made C802 missile...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3275923,00.html
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was a close-aboard detonation, which would indicate that the CWIS actually did it's job (and illustrates why you don't want to rely on it).
Silkwork has a delay fuse, like Harpoon. If it had penetrated, at best this ship would have been abandoned.
One cannot help but wonder if Loral's guidance technology, which was sold to the Chicoms by Clinton, has played any role in imropving the accuracy of these missiles.
The IDF will snag an Iranian before too long then Iran will want him back and then .......
They travel about 600 MPH, and the ship was ten miles off shore. Should hav had about one minute to acquire, track, engage and destroy. But if it came in low, they had less time.
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 boats 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.
Like those "elite" Republican Guard troops of Saddam's that surrendered so quickly??
Actually, if memory serves, they ran away and hid, didn't they?
They will pull the ships back and go with their air force (as is now happening).
Can these missiles be launched from mobile vehicles? If so, to destroy them would require in-field intel, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.