Title: Ship hit by Hezbollah's Drone/rockets?
Description: THIS IS A. N. N.
Description: THIS IS A. N. N.
Alepou 340MB - July 15, 2006 01:12 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Meanwhile Israeli military officials say a naval ship has been badly damaged by a Hezbollah explosive drone. If confirmed, it is thought it would be the first time Hezbollah has used such a weapon. Israel says a Hezbollah rocket aimed at one of its ships early on Saturday missed, and hit a civilian ship instead. Reported missing In his address on Hezbollah's TV channel in Lebanon, Sheikh Nasrallah referred to an Israeli warship he said had launched attacks from of the coast of Lebanon, saying: "Look at the warship that has attacked Beirut, while it burns and sinks before your very eyes." Israel later confirmed that one of its warships had been "lightly" damaged by rockets fired from the shore. But later unnamed military officials were reported as saying that the ship's steering had been damaged, that its helicopter deck had been hit and that it was still on fire hours after the attack. There were no reports on casualties, and reports on al-Jazeera TV that four seamen were missing were unverified. Sheikh Nasrallah threatened Israel, saying: "You wanted an open war and we are ready for an open war." |
| QUOTE |
| He said an Israeli navy ship was ablaze off the coast of Beirut. Lebanese security sources said two rockets had hit it. A Lebanese security source said the warship, which had bombed Lebanon earlier in the day, suffered considerable damage and Al Jazeera television reported four Israeli troops were missing at sea. The Israeli Haaretz news Website also said the ship was seriously damaged, although the army had said earlier that an attack from the shore had caused only light damage. "Look at it burn," Nasrallah declared in his address. "It will sink and along with it dozens of Zionist soldiers." Celebratory gunfire erupted in the Lebanese capital and drivers honked their horns after Nasrallah's speech. |
Alepou 340MB - July 15, 2006 01:23 AM (GMT)
This is the type I think that I saw on the TV news.
“Saar 4, 4.5 or 5” I don’t know which one for sure.
Cheers,
Alepou 340MB :sbof:
Alepou 340MB - July 15, 2006 01:30 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| The warship, which suffered heavy damage and was set on fire, was towed back to Haifa port. After hitting an Israeli warship with an unmanned aircraft rigged with explosives, Hezbollah fired a barrage of rockets at Israel's navy blockading Lebanon but missed its target and struck a civilian ship, the IDF said early Saturday. According to security officials, the ship was struck by an unmanned aerial vehicle packed with explosives, a new tactic for Hizbullah. The Hizbullah's attempt to strike an additional IDF Navy ship early Saturday appeared to hit a civilian ship. The nationality of the ship was unconfirmed, but initial reports claimed that it was Egyptian. The attack on the warship off Beirut's Mediterranean coast could indicate Hezbollah has added a new weapon to the arsenal of rockets and mortars it has used against Israel. Shortly before the strike, Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said in a telephone call to Hizbullah media outlets that Israel's ongoing operations in Lebanon were a campaign of revenge over its "defeat," as he referred to the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. |
mavrogenides - July 15, 2006 02:00 AM (GMT)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3275792,00.htm
In how many hours they will find the "IRAN-connection?
Who likes to bet.... <_<
I mean..noone of us really believes that the Hisbollah has an own R&D section ,right?
It seems a lot of trouble is coming for the middle east and not only... :bricks:
In how many hours they will find the "IRAN-connection?
Who likes to bet.... <_<
I mean..noone of us really believes that the Hisbollah has an own R&D section ,right?
It seems a lot of trouble is coming for the middle east and not only... :bricks:
orko_8 - July 15, 2006 10:37 AM (GMT)
It is reported that drone hit the ship just below the helicopter landing pad. So that's a Sa'ar 5.
Efeler - July 15, 2006 04:09 PM (GMT)
This might be diverging slightly from the topic, however the first thing that came to my mind after seeing this news was the debates regarding the usefullness in the Aegean of the Harpy drones that Turkey acquired (ironically from Israel).
An Israeli corvette with state of the art electronics, missiles and CIWS, was unable to detect and stop a small UAV from hitting it. A UAV probably less advanced then the Harpy.
Score +1 for the drones.
An Israeli corvette with state of the art electronics, missiles and CIWS, was unable to detect and stop a small UAV from hitting it. A UAV probably less advanced then the Harpy.
Score +1 for the drones.
cameleon1975 - July 15, 2006 05:02 PM (GMT)
Well,my guess is that they got the Israelis with their pants down.But I am curious and want to learn more aboout the incident.
Skywalker83 - July 15, 2006 05:36 PM (GMT)
I heard in german TV that the Israeli ship was hite't by a C-802 Anti-Ship missile who is produced in Iran under license.
ChrisCRTS - July 15, 2006 06:54 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Skywalker83 @ Jul 15 2006, 07:36 PM) |
| I heard in german TV that the Israeli ship was hite't by a C-802 Anti-Ship missile who is produced in Iran under license. |
:blink:
A licenced build of a Chinese copie of an Exocet/Harpoon?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/c-801.htm
warrior - July 15, 2006 06:57 PM (GMT)
Edit..
Alepou 340MB - July 16, 2006 12:59 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Efeler @ Jul 15 2006, 06:09 PM) |
| This might be diverging slightly from the topic, however the first thing that came to my mind after seeing this news was the debates regarding the usefullness in the Aegean of the Harpy drones that Turkey acquired (ironically from Israel). An Israeli corvette with state of the art electronics, missiles and CIWS, was unable to detect and stop a small UAV from hitting it. A UAV probably less advanced then the Harpy. Score +1 for the drones. |
From what I have seen, the Israelis thought that they were immune to any attacks at that range. Also most likely didn’t have their CIWS systems turned on!
Similar to the USS Stark incident.
An intelligence failure for the Israelis.
Cheers,
Alepou 340MB :hathello:
saladin - July 16, 2006 01:18 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Alepou 340MB @ Jul 16 2006, 02:59 AM) |
| From what I have seen, the Israelis thought that they were immune to any attacks at that range. Also most likely didn’t have their CIWS systems turned on! Similar to the USS Stark incident. An intelligence failure for the Israelis. Cheers, Alepou 340MB :hathello: |
Since we don't have enough information, it is just speculation. However, suggesting a warship during combat patrol has its CIWS down is not realistic. They should have considered black-market silkworms or Iranian support and be ready. What is the drawback of CIWS so that it was down. only the search radar cames to the mind, and I would think there is no reason for Israeli corvett to be quite (i.e., turn EM transmissions down).
Some of the stories claim that there were two missiles, one was flying high and exploded above the ship, there was one moving close to the surface. Could the high flying one was a decoy that fooled the CIWS? In the first gulf war, USS Missouri's Phalanx engaged the ship's own counter measures instead of going after the incoming Iraqi missile.
Alepou 340MB - July 16, 2006 01:28 AM (GMT)
Well, the truth can be stranger than fiction. :doubt:
Cheers,
Alepou 340MB
Cheers,
Alepou 340MB
baris75 - July 17, 2006 07:18 AM (GMT)
Lord - July 17, 2006 09:58 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| From what I have seen, the Israelis thought that they were immune to any attacks at that range. Also most likely didn’t have their CIWS systems turned on! |
Re Alepou...do you blieve such thing...? seriously? I mean comon..
if a army starts a war...than everybody is alert...can it be that this Navy sailors really were sleeping...?
German TV said ...that the boat were almost sunk from the hit...
baris75 - July 17, 2006 11:05 AM (GMT)
This sounded like the shooting of the British Navy frigate in Falklands. Their radar and CIWS was shot to allow satcom, they were communicating to HQ in England. Can't remember the name of the ship and details, I am at work now and I can't look it up in my files. Mayne someone can come up with more.
ChrisCRTS - July 17, 2006 11:32 AM (GMT)
The ship was the HMS Sheffield. They didn't had CIWS at the time.
But their radar was out.
But their radar was out.
orko_8 - July 17, 2006 11:45 AM (GMT)
The closed system was Sea Dart short range SAM, IIRC.
baris75 - July 17, 2006 11:46 AM (GMT)
Right no CIWS, sorry. They had Sea Darts as Air defence, am I correct. Asking out of curiosity.
baris75 - July 17, 2006 11:56 AM (GMT)
Orko, you are faster than the question thanks. But, as far as I remember the radar was also off. I maybe wrong tough.
orko_8 - July 17, 2006 12:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (baris75 @ Jul 17 2006, 01:56 PM) |
| Orko, you are faster than the question thanks. But, as far as I remember the radar was also off. I maybe wrong tough. |
:) Thanks mate
Quote from "Osprey's Battle for Falklands - Naval Forces", pp23:
| QUOTE |
| ..The details of this incident are, naturally enough, classified under the terms of the Official Secrets Act. There is considerable speculation about the radar systems on Sheffield, and the manner in which they were used, but without an authorative report there seems little point in repeating guesswork. The Type 965 aerial apparently continued to rotate up to the moment of impact, but the set's status at that moment is not known; SCOT communications gear was in use, and may have interfered with the EW set. The ship was not at 'full', only 'second degree' alert; thus some crew did not have anti-flash gear on. The missile was sighted from the bridge some 20 seconds before impact, and was not spotted by EW... |
baris75 - July 17, 2006 02:15 PM (GMT)
The thing that makes people beleive that the radar was off is that, they didn't notice the two incoming planes (Etendarts as far as I remember). Also there was another ship that noticed the aircrafts but failed to notify the Sheffield if my memory is not mistaken. That ill fated Isrealy ship probably had a different story as reports indicate two missile one of which explodes above the ship and the other comes just above the surface level. I am only quoting what is avaible from my internet at work. So, nothing is certain yet. There are also reports indicating a IAF F16 shot down, but, IAF has already denied the shot down.
Saturn5 - July 17, 2006 02:18 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Alepou 340MB @ Jul 16 2006, 02:59 AM) |
| From what I have seen, the Israelis thought that they were immune to any attacks at that range. Also most likely didn’t have their CIWS systems turned on! |
The Sa'ar 5 class can carry either one Phalanx or one 76mm. According to the news the ship was bombarding the airfield thus she must be carrying a 76mm. She had no CIWS other than VLS Barak missiles at the time of the incident.
Thus, Alepou, you are correct to say that the ship did not turned her CIWS on. They did not have any on board.
What happened is a classic example of an successful ambush. And anyone can fall victim to a carefully planed ambush.
Most probably the Israeli Navy did often appear, off the coast of Beirut even before this conflict has started. So the enemy had the time and opportunity to work out the routine of Israeli Navy.
When the shooting has started the enemy observed the routine of the Israeli warships again and set up its ambush accordingly.
Why the warship did not deployed her soft and hard kill measures is beyond my knowledge.
This is the second time that an Israeli warship has been ambushed. Last the destroyer Eilat was not as lucky.
Lord - July 17, 2006 04:28 PM (GMT)
Thanks for the input Saturn...this explains alot...
So Alepous ANN News were correct as ussuall...
So Alepous ANN News were correct as ussuall...
| QUOTE |
| Etendarts as far as I remember). Also there was another ship that noticed the aircrafts but failed to notify the Sheffield if my memory is not mistaken. |
Indeed Baris ...also if the Argentinos haid some more Exocet at that time...
I dont think that the British...haid any change to recover the Islands...or anyway haid much more cassualtys...
as they often stated...
They respected alot the Argentinian Airforce and there Pilots...
saladin - July 17, 2006 05:42 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Saturn5 @ Jul 17 2006, 04:18 PM) |
The Sa'ar 5 class can carry either one Phalanx or one 76mm. According to the news the ship was bombarding the airfield thus she must be carrying a 76mm. She had no CIWS other than VLS Barak missiles at the time of the incident. Thus, Alepou, you are correct to say that the ship did not turned her CIWS on. They did not have any on board. |
Saturn5,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from Orko8's picture (below) it seems to me that the white cone in the front is search & targeting radar of phalanx. Can you replace the gun barrels while keeping the radar?
Phalanx
saladin - July 17, 2006 05:48 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (saladin @ Jul 17 2006, 07:42 PM) |
Can you replace the gun barrels while keeping the radar? |
Never mind,
I guess in the picture below it is 76mm.
saladin - July 17, 2006 06:35 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (saladin @ Jul 16 2006, 03:18 AM) |
| What is the drawback of CIWS so that it was down. only the search radar cames to the mind, and I would think there is no reason for Israeli corvett to be quite (i.e., turn EM transmissions down). |
Well, somebody in Wikipedia claimed that one of the reasons to have it down was to avoid friendly fire to IAF.
| QUOTE |
| According the the Israeli Navy, the ship's sophisticated automatic missile defense system was intentionally disabled. This was done for two reasons, one, there were many Israeli Air Force aircraft conducting operations in the vicinity of the ship and it was feared that the system may accidently be triggered by a friendly aircraft, potentially shooting it down. Second, there was no intelligence pointing to the fact that such a sophisticated missile, roughly equivalent to the American Harpoon, was deployed in Lebanon by Hezbollah. |
Edit: I found the following video from
Al-Jazeera showing an Israeli ship firing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT0lhzMzCts
I don't know Arabic but I suspect it is near Beirut and I think it is a Sa'ar 4.5.
If those assumptions are correct, it is possible that the shelling of the Beirut was done by this ship and Sa'ar 5 was escorting it. If that is the case, Sa'ar 5 may not have 76 mm gun.
Alepou 340MB - July 18, 2006 12:03 AM (GMT)
Lord, I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Cheers,
Alepou 340MB :vader:
Cheers,
Alepou 340MB :vader:
baris75 - July 18, 2006 10:12 AM (GMT)
According to new reports the ship was a Sa'ar 5 and it was hit by an Iranian-made C-802 Noor (Tondar) radar-guided anti-ship missile. A second missile was also launched but hit a civillian ship.
Saturn5 - July 18, 2006 02:35 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (saladin @ Jul 17 2006, 07:48 PM) | ||
|
@saladin;
The photo of Sa'ar 5 class corvette you have posted shows a Phalanx gun.
The radar is an integrated part of the phalanx system. You cannot change the gun mount of a Phalanx system with a 76mm gun. You change the whole gun system.
Lord - July 19, 2006 07:30 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Lord, I find your lack of faith disturbing. |
I guess its my bad character... :D
But seriously ...i never chalange your input re Alepou...i know you are very carefull...with what you wrote... ;)
sory if you misunderstood me...