Israel ship

One thing about the damage done to the INS Hanit, the ship was back in service three weeks later!
Janes Naval News Brief (01/06/06)

Adrian

i.e. superficial damage > above deck explosion (if any)

RE: Israel ship

One thing about the damage done to the INS Hanit, the ship was back in service three weeks later!
Janes Naval News Brief (01/06/06)

Adrian

No visible damage, no list, not down by the stern….

I was under the impression that any investigation concluded that the missile warhead did not detonate after the impact near the hangar, while the missile fuel did burn in several compartments and the hangar (causing the loss of the embarked aircraft). The image of the ship post-damage came from open source (newspaper), so should still be out there.

It is my understanding that damage was mainly to the helicopter and the flight deck due to fire (which is where a crane is located, on port not starboard side). If so, this suggests an above deck explosion, rather than an actual hit on the hull (proximity fuze?). I think fires was the main problem after the explosion (much like it was with previous AShM hits e.g. Sheffield, Coventry, Stark etc)

The official Israeli investigation says” The C-802 missile that struck the Hanit actually exploded after hitting a railing at the rear of the ship and did not penetrate the aft deck.”

There’re still differences in between Stark & Hanit cases.

According to a U.S. Navy after-action report from June 1987, the SPS-49 Air search radar on Stark was switched on only six minutes prior to the attack and did not establish a continuous, real-time track of the launching Mirage F1 aircraft until the first Exocet missile actually struck the ship. Furthermore, the Stark was sailing in the international water compared to the Hanit was operating in a water deemed to be hostile.

Doesn’t it look bizarre that every time a western navy boat was touched by an antiship missile, the electronic defenses systems were said to be switched off ? Hanit system on stand by, USS Stark same claim, Sheffield systems were supposedly shut down to prevent jamming the satellite communication 😮
Am I the only one who find that strange ? :diablo:

With Stark and Hanit, one could reasonably assume a missile attack was unanticipated. With Sheffield, one should keep in mind it was place out towards the general threat area to serve as a radar picket (and likely first target).

But generally, well, that’s the thing with a combat situation, unexpected things occur, like finding out Satcom don’t work well while heavily emitting radar waves. You can’t predicts a lot of stuff.

Its an interesting observation Torpedo….nothing more than coincidence and verification of what Unicorn says in that even the worlds finest defensive systems are prone to failure if no-one remembers to switch them on!.

Perhaps you may wish to add one more clause into the report to make it perfect, besides the usual blame of the man forgetting to switch on something. ( for me, I can’t recall when I forgot to unlock my rifle in a simulated fighting, let alone the real one of course).

The report said the SAAR V’s ADS only has 20 seconds to respond, that’s what the early warning time the air search radar can give. Maybe you also need highlight the crew forgot to switch on the VSR as well and perhaps the radar operator happened to receive a phone call and left the screen although the gun fighting cracks all around?

Another interesting observation is that no vessel, in the Falklands conflict, that commenced defensive softkill procedures was hit by an AM39. We have the anecdotal evidence therefore that 3 vessels have been hit that took no countermeasures and, at least, 2 vessels that did employ defensive measures that have defeated similar missiles. Pattern emerging perhaps?:)

That only works on condition your 3D radar finds the target 1st or it will just silently ruin the glory of one’s proud boat.

Doesn’t it look bizarre that every time a western navy boat was touched by an antiship missile, the electronic defenses systems were said to be switched off ? Hanit system on stand by, USS Stark same claim, Sheffield systems were supposedly shut down to prevent jamming the satellite communication 😮
Am I the only one who find that strange ? :diablo:

Its an interesting observation Torpedo….nothing more than coincidence and verification of what Unicorn says in that even the worlds finest defensive systems are prone to failure if no-one remembers to switch them on!.

Another interesting observation is that no vessel, in the Falklands conflict, that commenced defensive softkill procedures was hit by an AM39. We have the anecdotal evidence therefore that 3 vessels have been hit that took no countermeasures and, at least, 2 vessels that did employ defensive measures that have defeated similar missiles.

Pattern emerging perhaps?:)

Doesn’t it look bizarre that every time a western navy boat was touched by an antiship missile, the electronic defenses systems were said to be switched off ? Hanit system on stand by, USS Stark same claim, Sheffield systems were supposedly shut down to prevent jamming the satellite communication 😮
Am I the only one who find that strange ? :diablo:

ad 2) That’s a human error that could have occurred in any ship.

My point exactly, the finest military systems ever designed are subject to human error.

Unicorn

1) both the ECM and the Barak anti-missile systems were in a two-minute stand-by mode
2) the ship’s captain was not aware of that fact.

ad 1) This is not the same a switched off, it mean ‘not in full auto mode’, with a man in the loop. Much the same happened with USS Stark.

No weapons were fired in defense of Stark. The Phalanx CIWS remained in standby mode, Mark 36 SRBOC countermeasures were not armed, and the attacking Exocet missiles and launching Mirage aircraft were in a blindspot of the defensive STIR (Separate Target Illumination Radar) fire control system, preventing usage of the ship’s Standard missile defenses. The ship failed to maneuver to bring its weapons batteries to bear prior to the first missile impact.

ad 2) That’s a human error that could have occurred in any ship.

If a defensive system is switched off it has a 100% failure rate

Unicorn

“This raises questions about the efficiency of the Phalanx system and israeli electronic defense systems. They might be not as infaillible as they are often credited ”

Oh please, let’s not go there again. People who think it is necessary to debunk the infallibility of Israeli (and, for that matter, other nation’s weapons) really never got it in the first place.

Phalanx > USS Stark : nothing is infallable.

To torpedo: this remark is not directed at you personally, I think the scenario you painted poses raises interesting questions.

No offense taken, but I felt ‘compell’ to say that after reading that propaganda on the Barak system at the end of the paper you cited :diablo: . Now, do 95% success in exercises translates in 100% failure in real life situation ? 😀 To me, the passage about an officer switching the defense system off looks like an attempt to hide something and protect the reputation of the israeli electronic defense industry.

“This raises questions about the efficiency of the Phalanx system and israeli electronic defense systems. They might be not as infaillible as they are often credited “

Oh please, let’s not go there again. People who think it is necessary to debunk the infallibility of Israeli (and, for that matter, other nation’s weapons) really never got it in the first place.

Phalanx > USS Stark : nothing is infallable.

To torpedo: this remark is not directed at you personally, I think the scenario you painted poses raises interesting questions.

Nothing that shows anything worthwhile.

News of the attack was quickly disseminated by Hezbollah’s television station Al Manar, and the world was left to wonder if Israel’s vaunted military was, in fact, quite vulnerable to Iran’s increasingly sophisticated missile systems. Well, it turns out that the failure was not the ship’s, but the crew’s.

Defense News reported this week on an Israeli investigation into the attack. It seems that the Israelis can fault an “electronic warfare systems officer, who switched active defense systems into standbye mode without informing the ship’s commander.” The INS Hanit was armed with the Israeli-made Barak ship point missile defense system, seen below, which, according to DN, has “demonstrated an intercept capability of more than 95 percent in thousands of simulation and dozens of live-fire tests in Israel and abroad.”
www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/01/

Update on that.
I found at least 2 independant sources refuting that interpretation of the event. One is from the french electronic defense industry association journal (Guerrelec) and the other from defense-update, here:
http://www.defense-update.com/2006/07/ins-hanit-suffers-iranian-missile.html
Also in Jane: http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060718_1_n.shtml

Apparently 2 missiles were used, one C801/802 as an active decoy to fool the defense systems of the Hanit, and one C701 in discrete optical guidance mode at low altitude. Data from coastal radars might also have been used to detect the ship w/out warning it.
The Hanit defense system was most probably active at the time of the attack and was not able to detect and intercept the missiles.
This raises questions about the efficiency of the Phalanx system and israeli electronic defense systems. They might be not as infaillible as they are often credited :rolleyes: . On the other hand, working in the coastal environment can be really tricky and they were probably never designed to do that in the first place.

It is my understanding that damage was mainly to the helicopter and the flight deck due to fire (which is where a crane is located, on port not starboard side). If so, this suggests an above deck explosion, rather than an actual hit on the hull (proximity fuze?). I think fires was the main problem after the explosion (much like it was with previous AShM hits e.g. Sheffield, Coventry, Stark etc)

“An investigation into the incident by the Israeli Navy concluded that the missile was indeed a C-802 which hit a crane in the rear of the ship, that the ship’s radar was not fully functional at the time, that both the ECM and the Barak anti-missile systems were in a two-minute stand-by mode and that the ship’s captain was not aware of that fact.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785086.html

Very old pic of a Saar 5 corvette (before fully outfitted), note exhaust stains on hull, note location of crane.

See also location of exhaust ports on 2 of the ships while under construction at the Ingalls Shipbuilding shipyard in the US (follow link, double click the image there to get a real big blow up version of pic)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Saar_5_INS_Eilat_and_INS_LAHAV.JPEG

There were a few pics posted around at the time of the incident.

In the above pic, you can clearly see the damage just below the aft of the hanger at the waterline. Had the missile had a bigger charge or more missiles used in the attack, I doubt Hanit would be afloat today and I doubt Hezbolah would be around as a group following that.

This is what happens when you under estimate an Enemies capabilities. Israel thought that the navy would never be attacked because they are off shore. I can tell you now that they’ll never make that mistake again. As a result, the IDF/N have increased spending to cover more training and expansion of the fleet.

That picture shows the diesel exhaust. The same shots were circulated at the time of the attack and the assumption of damage corrected then. Short memories. As Wanshan indicated there have been practically no photo’s of the damaged ship. According to the IDF the reason the ships defence’s were stood down were a) the situation for the offshore was considered to be pretty benign but also b) they did not wish to interfere with the IDF/AF aircraft in the area and their EW equipment etc. Maybe thats a valid reason maybe its not but thats pretty much all we know.

Daniel

i think this is smut from a diesel exhaust and no battle damage. such smut can be found on many photos from the saar 5.

There were a few pics posted around at the time of the incident.

In the above pic, you can clearly see the damage just below the aft of the hanger at the waterline. Had the missile had a bigger charge or more missiles used in the attack, I doubt Hanit would be afloat today and I doubt Hezbolah would be around as a group following that.

This is what happens when you under estimate an Enemies capabilities. Israel thought that the navy would never be attacked because they are off shore. I can tell you now that they’ll never make that mistake again. As a result, the IDF/N have increased spending to cover more training and expansion of the fleet.

She a very impressive little ship……….:D