Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Israel: Iran Aided Hezbollah Ship Attack
Associated Press ^ | Jul 15, 2006 | MATT MOORE

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2006israelwar; 2006meconflict; 2006mewar; antishipmissiles; c802; debka; exocet; fajarmissiles; french; frenchexocet; g79; gwot; hamas; hezbollah; imad; imadmughniyah; iran; islam; islamicthreat; israel; israelinavy; israelnavy; jerusalem; lebanon; missile; missileattack; missiledefense; missiles; missle; mughniyah; muhammadsminions; redchnathreat; saar5; silkworms; syria; terror; terrorism; terrorists; worldwariii; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-218 next last
To: petertare

The IOWAs could have been damaged IF they'd been hit. Not only can they take damage much better but they should also be able to defend themselves better. How many CIWS would fit on an Iowa? If the system is really flawed (rapid and accurate analysis is essential here!) than more wouldn't help, but if the system is just not quite as good as expected then multiple guns would provide much better odds. And their longer stand off range gives you a much longer time to react to an incoming threat. If you were willing to trade throw weight for range with the advanced munitions developed in the late 60s you could probably out range this missile with a similar payload multiplied by nine shells every couple minutes. Add modern GPS packages and fire control drones and the Iranian rocket crews are going to be volunteering for safer duty as suicide bombers.


161 posted on 07/15/2006 1:38:53 PM PDT by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: The Lion Roars

"Didn' this have the Barak anti-missile system on board??"

If you read to the continuation of the article it states that this ship had a lot of sophisticated equipment on board. They did not have the defensive stuff turned on because they did not expect anything like this. Underestimate the enemy, learn the hard way. Bet it doesn't happen again.

In a linked article, I read that the Arab League voted unanimously to have the UN get involved. One delegate also indicated it was wrong for Hezbollah to do what they did, his position was supported by Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, and get this--The Palastinian Authority. Several other interesting linked articles there.


162 posted on 07/15/2006 1:39:00 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer
The Iowas were modernized in the 1980s but their only effective AAW defense was four CIWS, Phalanxs. They carried 32 tomtohawk cruise missiles and were outfitted for helos too.

They would need escorting Burke or Ticonderoga vessels for any serious SSM threat.

163 posted on 07/15/2006 1:41:15 PM PDT by Jeff Head (God, family, country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
They would need escorting Burke or Ticonderoga vessels for any serious SSM threat.

They have no ASW (except helos) or AAW either, and the CISW's are only good for a few shots. After that they have to be reloaded, which is not exactly an efficient tactical reload. They couldn't handle even a mild saturation attack. The Iowa's are just too old and outdated. In a very few years, their 16" guns wont have any real value either, not with the super-long-range 155's coming out.

Those old girls were retired for a reason.

164 posted on 07/15/2006 1:56:33 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

"The world waits idly by while the small staate of Israel does the world's dirty work."

I hope this is not a reprise of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's, where Fascist Germany and Communist USSR tested out their weapons and tactics prior to WW II. Now we have the Israelis and Islamic jihad in a proxy war of the Islamic terrorists against the non-Islamic world. I just hope that Putin decides to be on the right side.


165 posted on 07/15/2006 1:57:49 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Let's get it on. It is about time we aid Israel and wipe Syria and Iran off the face of the earth.


166 posted on 07/15/2006 2:04:29 PM PDT by FightThePower!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

Agreed...I was just pointing out that Burkes and Ticos would have to be committed to their defense in such an environemnt precisely because thay have no strong AAW defense.


167 posted on 07/15/2006 2:05:39 PM PDT by Jeff Head (God, family, country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: george76

I read it was a C-802

Serious stuff

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/c-802.htm


168 posted on 07/15/2006 2:17:10 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Yep. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Not at all. Some folks around here are always saying "bring back the battleships", but they have no idea what is involved in supporting and/or protecting them. An ancient battleship in a war zone all by herself goes the way of the Adm Belgrano.


169 posted on 07/15/2006 2:23:37 PM PDT by wyattearp (Study! Study! Study! Or BONK, BONK, on the head!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin
Excellent, excellent point glee. I've been thinking the exact same thing.

Wise tactics for minority forces always go start small, going step by step, gradually engaging over time, but never over-reaching your capabilities or resources. First you test arms in private, then you test them sparingly in proxy engagements, working hard to mask both your involvement and actual weapon identity and remain in the distance.

170 posted on 07/15/2006 2:59:30 PM PDT by rjp2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: george76

171 posted on 07/15/2006 3:13:19 PM PDT by lizol (Liberal - a man with his mind open ... at both ends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

The arrival of the former French exocet, then Chinese, now Iranian missles should not have been a surprise for Israel.

It is very serious...on several levels.

Second, in the past 6 months, Lebanon has apparently "welcomed" over 60,000 Iranian "tourists." Hopefully, Israel somewhat knows what these Iranians brought to Lebanon.

Third, why would the captain intentionally make his ship blind ? I do not believe this; contrary to many rumors.

and it seems that the Spear should have been positioned so that their EW's could id/respond to the land threat faster.

And why be located so close to land ? Smaller, less valuable ships could have unloaded a land operation... or the Air Force could have bombed the land targets the same or better.


172 posted on 07/15/2006 3:25:42 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: george76

Can you get that video at the link to work?


173 posted on 07/15/2006 3:28:33 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY
I did get it to work, but I did not see much.

It seems to be a long range night shot with a missile flash.

I did not see much detail.

Maybe someone else has more.

I have not seen any after the action photos. There must be some on the Internet. Please post it here and ping me if you find it.
174 posted on 07/15/2006 3:35:37 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Prost1

HEAD OF ARAB LEAGUE - "PEACE PROCESS HAS FAILED" Fox News


175 posted on 07/15/2006 4:03:57 PM PDT by silentknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sender

"...and Israel is methodically doing exactly what it needs to do to accomplish its objectives..."

What objectives are those?


176 posted on 07/15/2006 4:10:01 PM PDT by forYourChildrenVote4Bush (911 Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Good afternoon.

The photos that have been posted make me think the ship had begun a hard turn to starboard just before impact.

Now we hear that defensive systems were turned off to prevent accidents. That one probably won't happen again, eh.

Michael Frazier
177 posted on 07/15/2006 4:11:48 PM PDT by brazzaville (no surrender no retreat, well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: rebel_yell2
Well said, but a better message from Israel to Iran, would be to sink a couple of tankers dockside at Bander e Mishshehr and Bander e Khomenhi or sink a tanker or two in the channel leading to those two ports. Would take months to clear the facilities and be back in the oil business. then hit them again....I'd pay an extra 30 cents a gallon for that to happen.............
178 posted on 07/15/2006 5:13:20 PM PDT by ChEng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: forYourChildrenVote4Bush
What objectives are those?

To ensure the survival and security of the Jewish state by eliminating the homicidal organizations which cannot be negotiated with. Including homicidal leaders.

I salute Israel in this pursuit. The butchers that surround them know only strength or weakness and death. They will never stop. It is time to destroy them.

179 posted on 07/15/2006 8:22:16 PM PDT by Sender (“Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham

Yes, I should think they need a combination of in field intelligence, aerial surveillance, and access to U.S. satellite reports. In the past, I believe the US has moved some of its spy satellites over hot spots, and has shared information with Israel.


180 posted on 07/15/2006 8:49:27 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-218 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson