Israeli Military Says Missile Struck Warship Instead of Drone

crazyinsane105 said:

This here will surely answer your question:

On July 14 at about 8pm local time, about 16km off the coast of Lebanon, the Israeli SAAR-5 class corvette Hanit suffered considerable damage and the loss of four crew members after being attacked by what Israeli sources identified as a C-802 anti-ship cruise missile (ASM), apparently fired by Hezbollah forces. It appears that Israeli intelligence was not aware that Hezbollah had such missiles.[5] As the Hanit’s crew was not expecting such an attack, major defensive systems like its Barak-1 and Phalanx anti-missile systems were not active, and the crew reportedly only had 20 seconds warning to realize and then respond to the missile.[6] The C-802 apparently did not strike the Hanit, but exploded above it with enough force to create a hole in the stern helicopter flight deck, damaging the underlying ship control systems.[7] This would appear to confirm earlier Chinese illustrations that the 165kg warhead of this missile consists of many shaped-charges designed to project explosive energy through a greater proportion of a ship’s structure. Had the missile scored a direct hit there would have been far greater damage and loss of life on the Hanit. In addition, a second C-802 was launched but did not strike the Israeli ship, instead finding a Cambodian-registered freighter and killing 11 Egyptian crewmen.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Great info! Thanks. I will visit the site and read more. From this report, it would clearly have a intelligent or proximity fuse of some sort. As I have said all along, the idea that the Saar 5 had its primary defensive systems off is inexcusable. It is what the vessel was built for. And the idea that Hezbullah hit the Saar 5, the most advanced combat ship in the IDF inventory, regardless of circumstances, is clearly an huge coup for Hezbullah, Iran, and China.

How do they prevent the proximity fuse being triggered by waves???? Proximity fuses and anti-ship missiles just don't make sense to me.

planeman said:

How do they prevent the proximity fuse being triggered by waves???? Proximity fuses and anti-ship missiles just don't make sense to me.

Click to expand...

If it is terminal radar or infrared guided, and with signal and micro-processing, it could easily be programmed to distinguish between a wave, or other non-target related object and the vessel.

Jeff Head said:

If it is terminal radar or infrared guided, and with signal and micro-processing, it could easily be programmed to distinguish between a wave, or other non-target related object and the vessel.

Click to expand...

but why would you want a proximity fuse for your anti ship missile instead of an impact fuse?

Dear TP;

I believe that a proximity fuse would be there sort of as a last resort - that in the event of a near miss the missile would be able to detonate the warhead to cause some sort of damage to the target ship. Typically the radar or perhaps a laser range-finder would constantly measure the distance to the target and if the guidance computer detected imminent separation of the two trajectories - indicating a miss - then the proximity fusing system would come into play.

That being said, it is far more preferable to detonate the warhead after penetration (delayed action rather than contact fusing - in the artillery we had basically two classes of fuses PD (point detonating) and PIBD (point-initiating/base detonating)) of the target as all of the warheads' energy as well as the remaining chemical and kinetic energy of the missile would then be expended in the ships' interior, maximising the damage caused.

Early versions of Harpoon performed a "pop-up" manuever where at a certain distance from the target ship the missile would suddenly climb vertically and then dive nearly vertically onto the target. I personally prefer the waterline strike as:

i) it doesn't waste the missiles' kinetic energy

ii) even if the ship's anti-missile systems damage the missile the trajectory still carries it into the target with all that entails for damage - a succesful hit on a pop-up missile may cause it to miss the ship entirely

iii) the missile strikes the target at one of its most vunerable points as a hit there immediately affects the ships' bouyancy and watertight integrity

iv) the ship even if not sunk or critically damaged is frequently "mobility killed" as any rapid or violent manuevers will most certainly aggravate the consequences of the hit

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

thanks dusky

Janes on this matter.

Intelligence failure led to strike on Hanit

By Alon Ben-David and Richard Scott

A preliminary Israel Navy investigation into the circumstances surrounding the missile strike suffered by the Sa'ar 5 Eilat-class missile corvette IN Hanit has acknowledged that the incident was largely the result of an intelligence failure that led to operational gaps.

Early indications are that the warhead of the Iranian-supplied Noor anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) that hit Hanit off Lebanon on 14 July did not detonate. Even so, the missile - fired by Hizbullah forces - killed four crew and inflicted severe damage to the ship's flight deck and steering systems.

According to Major General Gadi Eisenkott, the Israel Defence Force (IDF) Chief of Operations, Hizbullah operatives received targeting information from the Lebanese Navy's radar station in Beirut. "That is why we destroyed all the radar stations along the Lebanese shore immediately after the attack," he said.

Israel has accused Iran of deploying military advisers alongside Hizbullah to enable the deployment and operation of the Noor system - a clone of the Chinese C-802/YJ-2 'Saccade' radar-guided ASCM.

"From now on we have to assume that every weapon that exists in Iran has also been supplied to Hizbullah in Lebanon," a senior IDF source told Jane's. "We are prepared for more surprises," said Maj Gen Eisenkot.

Click to expand...

I found this Al Jazeera video showing the damaged Israeli ship that was hit a few weeks ago. There's some smoke, and they show what is suppose to be an explosion at night.

As previously stated in post #30 I know some one that "anyalizes data" from events like this and missile firings etc. His command is now back on a regular schedule for about a week now.. He won't tell me a thing..Classified... Humm..I understand. Personally I think the Israeli SAAR5 was on and whomever was on duty in CIC on that ship was not performing his duty. If the system was off...the CO of that operation and the ship should be relieved of command. Some "defense experts" feel the ship may have been to close to shore for the system to be effective. I ain't buyin' that either....

I wish,as a reader of Defense issues, I knew the full story. And I wish the IDF would release some pictures of the damage.

bd popeye said:

As previously stated in post #30 I know some one that "anyalizes data" from events like this and missile firings etc. His command is now back on a regular schedule for about a week now.. He won't tell me a thing..Classified... Humm..I understand. Personally I think the Israeli SAAR5 was on and whomever was on duty in CIC on that ship was not performing his duty. If the system was off...the CO of that operation and the ship should be relieved of command. Some "defense experts" feel the ship may have been to close to shore for the system to be effective. I ain't buyin' that either....

I wish,as a reader of Defense issues, I knew the full story. And I wish the IDF would release some pictures of the damage.

Click to expand...

I think they are trying to get you more curious, so you will enlist in the service again. :roll: :rofl:

bd popeye said:

Personally I think the Israeli SAAR5 was on and whomever was on duty in CIC on that ship was not performing his duty.

Click to expand...

So you don't buy the idea that the system just failed to engage the missile successfully? Is there any particular reason why?

Personally I wouldn't have been too surprised if Phalanx didn't work, but it had Barak as a primary defence too.