| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Report on C-802 attack |
| 2006-07-18 |
| From the blog In From the Cold. Interesting information unlikely to be made available elsewhere for a while. Like your humble correspondent, the Israeli source is now retired (he spent more than twenty years in the IAF), but has a large number of contacts in Israel's military and intelligence establishment. "We screwed up," is his blunt assessment of the attack on the Israeli vessel. He tells me that Hizballah operated the surveillance radar associated with the C802 for more than 24 hours before the missile was launched. The radar's signal was detected by Israeli SIGINT platforms, but somehow, the information was never relayed to the ships enforcing the blockade off the Lebanese coast. The corvette's anti-missile defenses were active as it patrolled off Beirut, but my source questioned whether the crew was fully prepared for the missile strike. "They weren't in the proper frame of mind for an attack," he complained. You can draw your own inferences about the ship's readiness posture from his statement. A retired U.S. naval intel specialist believes the corvette had "up to 15 seconds of warning" between the time the missile was fired, and the moment it impacted the ship. That may not sound like much, but in an era of automated missile defenses, the crew still had a shot. Officially, the Israelis haven't revealed if the ship launched chaff, maneuvered, or attempted to engage the missile with its CIWS. From what I'm told, the missile struck a glancing blow to the large "helicopter" barn on the ship's stern, and bounced off, detonating in water nearby. The barn area was thoroughly scorched by a subsequent fire, and this is the area of the ship where the four crew members died. As we've noted previously, the ship was lucky that it didn't take a direct hit from the C802; the missile is more than capable of sinking much larger vessels. The impact in the ship's helicopter "barn" is also signficant, since its rectangular shape provides the largest (and best) return for the missile's targeting radar. and that raises another question: did the Hizballah gunners time their launch carefully, to coincide with a turn (when the barn would be most visible), or was the ship's captain attempting to maneuver after his missile warning system sounded, and inadvertently exposed the helicopter hangar, faciliting missile lock-on. If the terrorist gunners timed their launch for a predicted turn, then the corvette was probably being too predictable in its maneuvers. Additionally, there is also the possibility that the ship's position may have masked its Close-In Weapons System (CIWS), which can engage anti-ship missiles at ranges out to one mile. One more lesson learned the hard way. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #10 From what I'm told, the missile struck a glancing blow to the large "helicopter" barn on the ship's stern, and bounced off, detonating in water nearby. The barn area was thoroughly scorched by a subsequent fire, and this is the area of the ship where the four crew members died. If true, the maneuver to present the stern appeared to have worked. The C-802 is an Exocet derivative. They don't kill a ship solely by detonation. Excess fuel is deliberately included in the missile; kinetic energy and the warhead are only part of it. The excess fuel does the rest. Guess the story will come out in the investigation. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-07-18 20:24 |
| #9 did the Hizballah gunners time their launch carefully, to coincide with a turn (when the barn would be most visible), or was the ship's captain attempting to maneuver after his missile warning system sounded, and inadvertently exposed the helicopter hangar, faciliting missile lock-on. Entire sumrise is ludicrous, tho the second is more likely (standard USN tactic is to put the ship's stern to the missile, presenting a much smaller target). Presenting the hangar isn't 'inadvertent'; the whole ship turns together. Additionally, there is also the possibility that the ship's position may have masked its Close-In Weapons System (CIWS), which can engage anti-ship missiles at ranges out to one mile. That's a problem when one mounts the CIWS forward. Masking will happen when one attempts to turn away from a missile. Sheer folly to turn into it. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-07-18 20:16 |
| #8 Did someone say "Axis of Evil"? Check out the fingerprints on the C802's in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1666159/posts |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2006-07-18 19:43 |
| #7 True, Israeli surface vessels have ESM; but the systems do little good if you ignore the signals--and it does happen. There are scores of emitters that will trigger a radar warning system; for example, some types of microwave towers emit signals that are in the same bands as certain SAM radars, and will produce the same type of RWR indication. I'm guessing the Israelis ignored the surveillance radar signal because their spooks had no indication that Hizballah had the C802 surveillance radar, and dismissed it as some sort of spurious signal--until the missile struck the corvette. Also, as you indicate, the system can work in a full automatic mode. But if the system is masked by the ship's maneuvers (or the presence of another vessel), it won't operate. As I recall, the CIWS on a Saar-5 is atop the forward superstructure; the missile impacted from dead astern, into the helo barn. With the rear superstructure between the CIWS and the missile azimuth, its possible the defensive system was obscured by the rear superstructure, and unable to engage. |
| Posted by: Spook86 2006-07-18 19:36 |
| #6 n the exocet which hit the sheffield didn't. history. look it up. |
| Posted by: pihkalbadger 2006-07-18 18:58 |
| #5 looks like it didn't detonate. The CSS-N-8 is fast and though old has anti spoofing measures the one that was fired which hit that Egyption hulk didn't explode either |
| Posted by: pihkalbadger 2006-07-18 18:55 |
| #4 "We screwed up," I already told it... "is his blunt assessment of the attack on the Israeli vessel. He tells me that Hizballah operated the surveillance radar associated with the C802 for more than 24 hours before the missile was launched. The radar's signal was detected by Israeli SIGINT platforms, but somehow, the information was never relayed to the ships enforcing the blockade off the Lebanese coast" That's crap. Any israeli combat ship has an ESM to detect radars. "The corvette's anti-missile defenses were active as it patrolled off Beirut, but my source questioned whether the crew was fully prepared for the missile strike" More crap, the system can work fully automated. Laurence. The Stark took 2 one exploded the other didnt. I think the sheffield one exploded but i am not sure. |
| Posted by: Clerert Uneamp2772 2006-07-18 18:54 |
| #3 Well, all else being equal, the entire command staff of that ship will now get to experience the awe and mystery of turkey farming, as it were. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-18 18:26 |
| #2 Lets keep the Iwo Jima out of range, I was impressed by the plan to use landing craft instead of bringing the ship in close. The boobs AKA hizballah will try and strike. We can no longer afford complacency...... |
| Posted by: Speremble Elmort8205 2006-07-18 18:04 |
| #1 the missile struck a glancing blow to the large "helicopter" barn on the ship's stern, and bounced off, detonating in water nearby Interesting... I had been thinking that C-802's missile's warhead had failed to detonate (otherwise such a small ship would have been blown out of the water). I believe the Exocet that hit the USS Stark failed to go off as well as the one that hit the UK's Sheffield in the Falkland War. (If somebody knows better feel free to correct me). |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2006-07-18 17:43 |