Posted on 07/15/2006 3:20:15 PM PDT by 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
Looks more like some kind of a sewage port than it does a missile hole, similar to the one on the starboard beam, except for the absence of discoloratioin.
In the long term, Israel needs to acquire more vessels to increase the size of their navy.
LOL
I thought about commenting on that one but decided not to.
I guess it was the ex-USAF in me that decided it was better to keep the mouth shut, as opposed to opening it and removing all doubt.
I can see it now, "Helm, emergency port, NOW!"
clunk...screech...bang.
"Uhhh..sir, the tow cable is now an integral part of the propellers."
giggle.
Picture appears to show it now being underway looks like to me. Lucky hit for the Israeli's. Anchoring ships in port in war zones or potential ones is never a good idea.
The way the damage appears to me, and based on what I can see of the possible angles, known parameters of the CIWS, and the fact that there were two missiles flying, it looks to me like the boys on that frigate, did their job. They were most likely maneuvering, to keep one or more of the missiles, just inside the enagement envelope.
I don't see a major hull penetration, just blast effects, which explains why it's still on an even keel, they didn't get holed, or didn't take a big hole at or below the waterline. Perhaps just shrapnel penetrations.
If the CIWS engaged, and detonated the missile at close range, it would account for the burned areas on deck, the crewmen blown overboard and still missing, and the fires. Hot shrapnel in an area where you have fuel lines for the engines and embarked Helo, would cause some very hot, quick spreading fires, in the very guts of the ship.
Fire suppression systems would quickly knock down the worst of the flames, but until you can ventilate, enter, and recover compartments and equipment, the ship is basically dead. Not much room for redundant systems on a ship this size.
No mention of any countermeasures being deployed, but with only about 60 seconds to deploy them, until impact, the srboc and ECM gear, were useless that close in to shore, and the missile was already in terminal homing when the blooms went out.
This old sailors opinion, they did what they could, as fast as they could. You only have to look back to the Falklands, to see what an exocet (much smaller missile) did to a FULL sized Frigate, and then do the comparisons.
I think I can see a towline fixed. Slack in one picture, but a little more taught in another.
Thanks for the ping. I was going to post on the other thread that everyone seemed to be assuming that a hit aft meant dead up the stern (where CIWS would be masked) and that that may not have be the case.
Good find on the pictures.
Please add me to your ping list.
Do you mean the hole fwd of the hit? One of two possibilities come to mind. Heat exchanger discharge for the engine as this appears the ship in post 51 is moving or Fire Main Discharge. The amount of discharge being shown I am purely guessing may be the main Diesel or an emergency generator heat exchanger.
You may be right. I googled "Saar-5" and the pics have a hole in the same spot, minus the soot.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rocn/saar-5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rocn/kuang-hua-corvette.htm&h=448&w=663&sz=49&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=TgfQ_InhfPJp6M:&tbnh=91&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522saar-5%2522%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
Who said anything about towing?
I was suggesting a self-propelled decoy, that could run parralel to the ship, landward. NOT TOWED.
If it was only 50 meters from the ship, and the missile was travelling at 500 mph, it couldn't possibly have hopped the decoy (which it wouldn't have done anyway), and still hit the ship.
You people need to put on your thinking caps.
Ping to #70 (my img src html thing isn't working for some reason). Non-missile hit Saar-5 class ships have a hole in exactly the same spot, minus the soot.
Really?
I was wondering about the second hole, midships...and seen a few posts speculating about it.
I did not know that two missles had been fired.
Or the anchor? Post 52 picture I can't see a tow line. I might be wrong but the ship especially the bow is riding high and the HIT is now above water line. That tells me it's underway either on it's own power or by a towing vessel doing a rather considerable speed. It looks that way to me but I may be wrong.
Um, and how exactly do you propose to match the IR signature of a real ship, without building what is essentially a second ship?
You need to learn about missile flight profiles.
BTW, do you have any idea what a 3" thick piece of steel, the full length of the ship, and tall enough to defeat a pop-up missile weighs? What are you going to propel it with? Who is going to drive it? What happens to it in heavy seas? High winds? What is to stop a smart-aleck from sneaking a zodiak loaded up with explosives up next to it, and then zipping around it and WHAM?
And what is to stop a missile from coming straight down, as one of these missiles did? You do realize that missiles have adjustable flight profiles, right?
It wouldn't be too hard to make a planing-hull catamaran, with a steel cutout on top that mimicked the profile of the Israeli frigate, and run it alongside the ship. Probably a couple of 600-horse diesels would do for power. Heck, it would probably even be possible to make it out of wood with a steel exoskeleton, to give a radar signature.
Four or five or six of these could surround the actual frigate, to provide cover. It would be the same defensive strategy as small fish use in schooling. Cheap, and effective.
Yup. They even look similar in diameter. I tried to enhance the pix, but it isn't high enough res to work with. I suppose it would be easy to compare it to a sister ship to see if they are configured similarly.
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.
