[Robert A Cook PE]

"They" (the media) are calling this a drone, not a missile. Active control then, from some remote site, with a person (not an automatic sensor terminal guidance radar or an "designed-in-place" anti-ship capability like Exocet or Harpoon or Styx missile. Simple binoculars amybe?

Remote control helps of course, but it implies that there (most likely) was no active emissions or terminal guidance (other than remotely from the person a the screen, or from a nearby small craft.) So Israelie warning would be reduced.

Drone also implies that the "missile" was a make-shift, put-together assault using some smaller, lower=speed missile. Our military drones, for example, carry much less payload than our attack missiles. More important when thinking about damage, the drones fly very, very slow compared to attack missiles. And speed and leftover fuel (at impact) destroys ships, as much, if not more than, warhead capability. .

We don't know more. Yet.

[patton]

keep pinging me.

[Doohickey]

I doubt there are any UAVs in Lebanon. ASMs like C-802, or Harpoon, aren't supersonic and don't allow for in-flight course corrections.

I believe it was a missile, and that Hizbullah got lucky. The nearby Egyptians were equally unlucky.

[Jeff Head]

At this point, I am convinced that it was a Iranian C-802 or C-701 guided missile that hit the IDF Saar 5.

I am also just about convinced from the reports and statements, that the IDF felt it was not in danger of SSM attack and therefore did not have the defensive systems that would have protected them and the other vessels from such attack activated...which, if so, I find rediculous, inexcusable and derelect in the threat environment they faced with Hezbollah receiving such open support from Iran.

But that's just my opinion.