Navy was unaware of missile threat

ynetnews.com ^ | 7/15/2006 | Hanan Greenberg

[Woodstock]

Initial probe into attack on missile boat Friday reveals Navy had no intelligence of possible missile threat in area where boat was operating; missile, aircraft interception system has been turned off due to presence of IDF planes in sector

The actions taken by crewmembers of the IDF missile boat that sustained a direct Hizbullah missile hit Friday, prevented a great disaster that could have resulted in numerous casualties, an initial inquiry into the incident reveals.

Boat Attacked

Sailor killed at sea / Tova Dadon

Shortly after deadly attack on Navy ship operating off Beirut shores, Amgar family of Ashdod informed their son is okay; next phone call bears different news: Soldier, who was so fond of sea, is missing. His body recovered Saturday

Brigadier-General Noam Page of the Navy said in a press conference Saturday that the Navy was unaware that a missile threat existed in the sector, and that the boat's crew had acted accordingly.

Missile boats are equipped with a missile interception system capable of automatically intercepting any missile or aircraft approaching it. However, as the boat was operating in an area where a large number of IDF planes were present, the Navy had refrained from activating the system.

Navy sources said that had they known the Hizbullah was in possession of missiles of the type used against the boat Saturday, the missile interception system would have been turned on.

‘We’ve been hit’

The initial investigation revealed that at 8:45 p.m. crewmembers on board the vessel were preparing for Shabbat dinner when a loud blat was heard. One of the ship’s commanders has informed the Navy’s control command: “We’ve been hit.” In the first few minutes after the strike, it was unclear what hit the boat, and the sailors concentrated on extinguishing the fire that broke out at the landing pad after 50 kilograms of explosives penetrated the vessel’s body.

Large Navy and Air Force units were dispatched to the place and began assisting the forces on board the boat.

Simultaneously, the crew conducted a damage control routine aimed at establishing what systems sustained damages in the attack. At the first stage it was decided to pull the boat away from its position using another boat, and at the same time to surround it with additional crafts in order to protect it from being hit again.

A senior Navy official said Saturday that the fire on board has repeatedly erupted after being extinguished as a result of the heat absorbed by metal objects on the boat. Only after the crew managed to contain the fire and tend to the damages it was discovered that four sailors were missing.

[Tinian]

The other excuse I have seen...was that they did not want to shoot down friendlies.

Like they can not id the bad guy !

The problem is they can't always ID the good guys:

CENTCOM SAYS F-18 DOWNED BY PATRIOT

British: Two Killed as U.S. Patriot Shot Down Fighter Jet

No system is perfect. Nobody wants to kill allied pilots and blow multi-million dollar planes out of the sky. And nobody wants to see one of their multi-million dollar warships disabled or sunk.

It looks like this was a judgement call -- with plenty of monday morning quarterbacking.

[wyattearp]

nexcusable IMHO...tends to confirm that their missile detection and wanring systems were not on.

I've been digging around for a few hours, and I can't find anything other than what was reported before about their "detection and deflection" gear being deliberately turned off. I still don't know if that meant EW gear, or some part of the weapons system.

What I am trying to find out is if they are talking about passive (EW) detection gear, or active (radar) detection gear. Since they used the phrase "detection and deflection" instead of "detection and destruction", that seems to indicate that they are talking about a combination of passive receivers and active jammers, rather than active radars and missile systems.

If it was the EW gear that was turned off, somebody needs to hang for it.

[LasVegasMac]

I do not buy this...and of they did not prepare for potential missile engagement while in combat off the Lebannon coast against Hezbollah, it was a critical and fatal mistake.

You said earlier that this boat was only 10 miles off the shore - too little time to react, right?

These types of ships are built to operate in open water, not for close in-shore ops, right?

Sounds to me like this ship was not the best choice to perform the task at hand, especially if they knew the anti-missle systems would interfere with friendly air assets and could not be turned on.

My experience with defensive on-board Naval systems?

Zip.

But I did sleep somewhere last night.

I do, though, have first hand experience working on the late, great F-4/G. I'm sure you know what platform was designed to do.

Even during a routine training flight, that crew had to be mindful of what system they turned on when.

I don't believe, for one second, that this ship would have been where it was, if they had even a whiff of an anti-ship missle threat. Or they could have coordinated / cleared out the air assets so they could operate.....or they....etc.

Still, like you said, it does not make sense.

Sadly, warfare is repleat with many examples of situations like this.

This could have been a lot worse.

[Jeff Head]

I just pinded you to a thread where I have pics posted. Tell me what you think.

[wyattearp]

Nobody wants to kill allied pilots and blow multi-million dollar planes out of the sky.

I was in a Navy exercise with multiple opposing task forces, and when the "smoke" cleared, 30% of the planes that were "shot down" were friendlies. (There were some really pissed-off pilots, BTW). Granted, that was over 20 years ago, and we are better than that now. The Israelis may not be.

Still, I'm still waiting to find out what exactly it was that they turned off. I can (almost) understand them turning off their automated response systems, but I do NOT understand them turning off their detection systems. An earlier article said that was what they did. It doesn't make any sense.

[Mashood]

Kind of expensive assets to use as bait for some cheap C-802s. No?

[LasVegasMac]

the stark was a guided missile frigate whose phalanx system was not operating properly. iirc

They were in port when they were hit.

Technology is not the "end all".

Sometimes, eyeballs and eyeball enhancement devices are the obvious choice of protection.

I think their "rubber raft" detection system failed.

IIRC.

[michaelt]

I think Hezbullah will fire their missiles anyway if they have the chance.

[11th_VA]

Note to self - Destroy radiating emitters ..

[george76]

I think that I remember that the Iranian were trying to buy a sub from Russia, but never read what finally happened.

But my memory is going, so who knows what actually happened ?

[george76]

Thanks.

I forgot about those friendly shoot downs.

[george76]

Did you see this ?

A Russian submarine has sunk off the shores of Russia’s Far Eastern Kamchatka peninsula...

The written-off vessel was being towed to China where it would be cut for metal scrap. Passing the Kuriles, the sub gave a lurch and started to sink. The crew decided to return to the port of Petropavlovsk, but could not lead the sub to the shore. The vessel sank with no people aboard.

The sub, which was the property of a private company, had been dismantled several years ago.

Three years ago, nine of ten crew aboard died when a Russian nuclear sub sank in the Barents Sea during towing.

27.06.2006

[Tinian]

Here's a link to the "original" Chicom Silkworm that's been confused with the Chicom missile that hit the Israeli ship.

It's a Google cache so I can't guarantee it will work!

Scroll about halfway down the page for your edjumcation.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

Report now has those missiles had been bought by Iran. The original seller was the Chinese, but Iran now has the capability to build these missiles themsevles.

So if Iran isn't helping Hezbollah, how come missiles bought by Iran are being fired by Hezbollah at Israeli ships.

http://www.wpeu.net/www1/wallpaper/photo/china/china_missile/dd/missile_7.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/c-802_1.jpg

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nL15606870

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/4/16/153834.shtml

[UCANSEE2]

"Iranians do not have a sub now, "

I am sorry, but I totally disagree. Especially after seeing pictures of the president of Iran standing on it.

[Wristpin]

Wrong incident..... The Stark was hit by an Iraqi Exocet back in the 80's.

[LasVegasMac]

Wristpin, many thanks for the correction.

Pipecorp, many groveling type apologies.

Cole - Stark.

I blame it on the heat here today.

Again, Pipecorp, sorry about that.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Any contest between high tech navies and air forces will be a blood bath.

Any contest between high tech countries will go nuclear almost immediately, so no one will notice the naval losses.

[razorback-bert]

If they weren't in combat mode, what were they doing in a combat area?

Parading like the French?