First pictures of stricken IDF Navy, Saar 5 vessel, hit by Iranian missile

photobucket.com ^ | July 15, 2006 | Jeff Head

[Jeff Head]

Here are the first pictures I am aware of of the damaghed IDF Naval vessel, the Saar 5. Fron these pictures, it is clear that the ship was hit at an angle that would have allowed the CIWS to engage if it was active. I am now leaning towards the systems not being engaged at the time of attack.

IMHO, if true, as some reports have indicated today (buit that I did not want to believe), it would be a fatal and inexcusable mistake in the environment the vessel found itself in...defending other IDF gunboats against air attack during shore bombardment.

Please see the following FR thread for much more discussion and assessment:

Initial assessment of C-802 missile engagment against IDF Saar 5

[hershey]

Heard late last night (CNN or Fox) that their CWIS wasn't on because they didn't believe Hezbollah had long range rockets.

[Jeff Head]

Heard the same...if true, if not active at all, even in manual mode, it is inexcusable, IMHO. Heard that the other systems were also not active.

[Jeff Head]

When you get the chance, read this story, it has one of the better narratives on what happened that I have read, including ISrael's response.

Israel: Iran Aided Hezbollah Ship Attack

Still waiting for verifiable pics of the damage.

[Army Air Corps]

From the article:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Israel's military offensive in Lebanon, saying "the Zionist regime behaves like Hitler," Iranian state television reported."

Okay, I am confused, Mahmoud denies the holocaust but accuses of Israel of behaving like the perpetrator of what he denies occurred. Also, considering how the Jew-hating Islamofacists adore Adolph, is this a compliment?

[Jeff Head]

Exactly...the guy is himself more like Hitler than anyone else (out siode of N., Korea perhaps) leading a nation.

I will ping you to another great thread and article I found out of Israel this morning. They have found all four sailors now, and that article goes into greater detail on the attack and the damage.

[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.

[JasonC]

No, they really didn't have actual armor. Cruisers did, not DDs. The Fletcher class involved at Sumar had half an inch right around a few vital systems (bridge, magazines) but no belt or deck armor beyond the structural hull. As for what they were hit by, 14 inch shells carried around 500 lbs of explosive, less than a high capacity modern missile but more than e.g. an exocet. They also hit with a kinetic energy of over 200 million joules, because the round itself was 3/4 of a ton and they went over twice the speed of sound. And plain DDs took 3 of them and a dozen smaller hits and kept fighting.

[patton]

keep pinging me.

[Robert A Cook PE]

How come someone hasn't invented the force field bubble yet?

They tried that. They haven't figured out how to get the force field to stop forming at the water line. Force field surrounds ship, force field repels water around ship, ship drops to the bottom. Sad, really. Problem is, what they really need is a force field half-bubble. :-)

No, no.

You read the unclassified version of that story.

What really happened was that the force field bubble was formed all the way around the ship, but the ship floated up out of the water.

But they couldn't shoot missiles, torpedoes, or launch helicopters (to get off the "floating" ship and load supplies.

But when they turned off the force field, the bubble collapsed (naturally), and the ship came crashing down back down into the water from 150 feet up. This sunk a very expensive ship.

[patton]

a la Cities in Flight...LOL

[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.

[Doohickey]

Loose lips sink...uh...ships!

[Robert A Cook PE]

Oh I don't know, several brave "tin cans" took multiple 14 inch shells apiece off Samar and still made 15 knots, and smoke. One of them cut a cruiser in half with its torpedos and got dozens of superstructure hits on BBs and CAs, while taking 3 14 inch and about a dozen 6 and 8 inch hits.

This idea that any ship hit is "done for" does not withstand historical scrutiny.

179 posted on 07/15/2006 11:52:07 PM EDT by JasonC

The tin cans of that era are a far cry from their modern descendants. They had actual armor, where a modern DD generally doesn't.

Also, most of the weight of a shell is the shell, not the warhead/payload. The Silkworm actually carries more explosive than a 14" shell. (Replies Nbr 180 and 179)

...

No, they really didn't have actual armor. Cruisers did, not DDs. The Fletcher class involved at Sumar had half an inch right around a few vital systems (bridge, magazines) but no belt or deck armor beyond the structural hull. As for what they were hit by, 14 inch shells carried around 500 lbs of explosive, less than a high capacity modern missile but more than e.g. an exocet. They also hit with a kinetic energy of over 200 million joules, because the round itself was 3/4 of a ton and they went over twice the speed of sound. And plain DDs took 3 of them and a dozen smaller hits and kept fighting.

---
Careful, careful.

You're mixing three (or more!) things here - so ALL your statements, while true (in a stand-alone basis!) CANNOT be used together to make a correct conclusion.

"Armor" is hardened, very thick, layered steel formed to deflect or breakup an incoming shell, and to prevent and HE blast from coming through. Structural steel - which in a very few places may have been 1/2 thick on some destroyers, was not hardened like battleship, aircraft carrier decks, or cruisers. (I don't know of any destroyer armor itself other than gun turrets, but I'll accept your statement.)

What ahappened off Samar wasthat very thin-plated destroyers (a few times) got a lucky hit from AP battleship shells that simply went THROUGH the strucutral steel and did not explode. This happened a few otehr times during the war. All of the potential (explosive) and kinetic energy (mass of shell x v^2) mentioned WOULD have been forced onto the target IF the shell hit a cruiser or battleship armor or strucutre.

More important, these were "simple" WWII destroyers with (simple) WWII analog computers and gunsites, manual loading and hoists, and elementary radar and gun-training controls.

Damage in one area of the ship DID NOT mean the rest of the ship was disabled. SO, many WWII destroyers DID survive multiple gun hits and kamikaze hits, and COULD continue fighting after the impact.

Now? It is a completely different story. In every case I've studied of some 80 post-WWII destroyer, frigate, and cruiser-sized ships that ahve actually been struck by a missile, mine, un-armed missile, dud, shell, or bomb, unexploded bomb, torpedo, waterborne explosive or anything else, EVERY ship was knocked out of effective combat IMMEDIATELY.

(This means that the target - for at lest a quarter hour, sometime permanently!) had lost power, propulsion, counter-missile ability, CIC, or weapons. If you cannot flee, fight, or detect, you are vulnerable to a second weapon.)

The ONLY ship that came closest to retaining combat ability was HMS Glamorgan off Falklands: that ship had a helo deck bomb hit, glance off the deck, and bounce through without exploding. Only power was off for a short time, but radar, CIC, and electronics came back up very quickly.

---

So, modern destroyers are very, very vulnerable after a hit. You CANNOT compare their ability (after a hit) to ANYTHING a floating during WWII.

[JasonC]

Wrong, they were not "through and throughs" by AP, they got hit full by explosive rounds that smashed their bridges, cut their speed in half, knocked out 3 out of 5 gun turrets, started fires, etc, etc. And they fought on anyway on one engine making 17 knots firing from 2 remaining 5 inch turrets without central fire control.

The reason modern ships stop fighting when they get hit is they typically have the luxury of doing so, letting the rest of the task force carry on, treating the hit ship as a victim and a disaster zone and doing everything possible to limit losses to the crew etc. In WW II, in harm's way continually, they fought on like hellcats because the enemy was still right there, 10000 yards off, and stopping fighting was not an option, it was suicide.

On the Johnston, the captain had lost 2 finger, had broken bones, shrapnel wounds to the head back and face, standing on a smashed bridge with his ship on fire, and in the words of a crewmember "continued to fight the ship as no ship has ever been fought". He previously took his DD - alone and before any orders to do so - head on against 6 heavy cruisers in a run that brought the closing speed to 60 knots. Successfully - he crippled one CA with torpedos at 10000 yards and turned away clean into his own smoke.

It was just plain "balls of brass"...

[Robert A Cook PE]

True, true.

But they could keep fighting at least. Lower effectiveness of course, but the "classic" WWII destroyers could keep fighting when they had to.

Today? The ship can't fight after a hit: To survive, every hit must be prevented absolutely.

No power = no hydraulics + no control + no CIC + radar + no reload nor aim nor shooting from the main battery (guns) or missile launcher.

No propulsion? Can't move, leave, or control the ship's heading to bring a CIWS or guns into play to defend (or attack.)

No CIC (or electronics room or radar cooling water supply or waveguide vacuum/gas system or 400 Hz system or main power or ....)? Doesn't matter how brave or well-trained you are, you can't fight the next missile.

Mine or torpedo break the back of the ship in half? Only a few may be injured, but the ship is breaking apart, and it HAS to be treated (as you pointed out) with tender-loving care and a well-placed nearby drydock.

Silicon weapons in glass ships are more vulnerable than iron men in steel ships.

[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.

[betty boop]

Thanks for the ping Jeff!

[Doohickey]

We should really start referring to modern combatants as "ships of the line" again. Cruisers were traditionally the smallest warship capable of independent steaming, whereas destroyers required tenders or other support to operate away from their homeport.

Really, the only difference between a cruiser and a destroyer today is mission. Destoryers have an ASW/ASUW mission and cruisers have a fleet defense/AAW mission.

It doesn't make sense to compare Burke class destroyers to Fletchers.

By the way, I think decomissioning the Spruance class was a mistake we will come to regret.

[Jeff Head]

By the way, I think decomissioning the Spruance class was a mistake we will come to regret.

I agree completely and have said so on many occassions. Excellent ASW platforms with a lot of service life left in them

Todays DDG displace as much as WWII Cruisers. The Burkes are reall multi-mission vessels with AsuW, ASW, and fleet defense roles capably executed.

[Jeff Head]

You are welcome. More info HERE