Israeli warship 'badly damaged' by 'explosive drone'

Interesting and I’d imagine quite worrying for the Israeli Navy. Thanks for the post

Sorry to revive a necro thread but I think this article on China Defense Blog pretty much confirms to my mind that INS Hanit was hit by a C701 variant:

http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/03/chinese-designed-c704-on-displayfor-all.html

Its the longer ranged C704 but you get a good idea of how portable and hideable the system is. Along with the launch containers one small control console and a Kelvin Hughes navigation type radar.

What type of radar is on the aft mast?

While searching for more info on Saar 5 found that class carries different radars than usually described. In most sources are mentioned 3 types
1. 1x Elta EL/M-2218S 3D air search radar on the aft mast
2. 1x AN/SPS-55 surface seach/naviation radar on the main mast
3. 2-3x EL/M-2221GM fire control radar for Barak SAMs and guns on both masts

But in reality there is a bit different set.

1. First on all pics I wasnt able to found EL/M-2218S. This type of radar is clearly visible here on Saar 4,5 class:

and its clearly different from radar on Saar 5 aft mast:

What type of radar is it? On http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/mideast/israel.htm is mentioned AN/TPS-44, but its land based radar. :confused:

2. 1x SPS-55 is correct,
3. also EL/M-2221GM with exception that on most photos there is none or max 1 radar installed

There is also one additional radar visible on newer photos – 1x EL/M-2228S on the fore mast. This type brings me to search what is on the aft mast, becouse according to Janes these radars seems to have the same mission and 2228S is more advanced than 2218S.

Anybody have a clue?

I don’t know how Jane’s got its source but it did say the C802 didn’t detonate.

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jni/jni060728_1_n.shtml

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.

204 of 819 words

Can anyone speculate what kind of damage an AS-16 would do to a ship like this?

Well dual seekers are complimentary whereas a contact/delayed fuse and a proximity fuse would tend to oppose each other. How would you have the proximity fuse work in such a way that it was not triggered by proximity to the surface or waves? Like I said I’m sure the problems are not insurmountable but it does seem to add a significant new level of complexity for capability that is of dubious tactical utility.

Daniel

A proximity fuze (also called a VT fuze, for “variable time”) is a fuze that is designed to detonate an explosive automatically when the distance to target becomes smaller than a predetermined value or when the target passes through a given plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuse

So, you could program a missile flight path that does not bring the missile down to less than, say, 5 meters above the water and program the proximity fuze to respond when targets pass within 1 meter?

Proximity fuzes are intended to detonate missiles automatically upon approach to a target and at such a position along the flight path of the missile as to inflict maximum damage to the target…. Following initial exploratory investigations, two types of fuzes, optical (photoelectric) and radio, were selected for intensive development.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm

Comparable to fuses used in certain top attack anti tank weapons, which have to determine when they are over the target to fire (e.g. BILL)?

The warhead contains both an optical and a magnetic sensor. The optical (laser) sensor functions as a rangefinder, measuring the height of the target beneath the missile and profiling the target simultaneously. The magnetic sensor measures metallic signatures and algorithms recognise the turret or centre of the target and determine the optimum position for the warheads to detonate. The missile has an inertial impact fuze for direct attack as well as a proximity fuze

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bofors/bofors4.html

However despite all that its seems I am quite wrong.

Otomat ASM

YJ-83

So its quite possible that perhaps the missile was decoyed off target or the proximity fuse activated prematurely it exploded such that a fragment caused the damage concealed by the DC mat.

Daniel

The Otomat has a very special flight profil. The timer/altimeter for the fuze can set, when it pops-up to dive-down on the target.

Nick, which cases are you talking about? Have they ever been used in combat? Or do you mean during exercises?

However despite all that its seems I am quite wrong.

Otomat ASM

YJ-83

So its quite possible that perhaps the missile was decoyed off target or the proximity fuse activated prematurely it exploded such that a fragment caused the damage concealed by the DC mat.

Daniel

Yup, like I noted previously, some Chinese designed products have had spotty records of warheads/ fusing not working..could have been a case here..who knows..

The same thing can happened just as easily to modern ships with watertight compartments if enough compartments were breached. Why do you think ships still sink these days even when they have watertight compartments? No ships are unsinkable, you just need a big enough hole, as the Titanic again examplifies.

I’ll tell you, because they tend to break… Most ships that sank lately have just been breached, large holds being filled with water, in addition to their often already heavy cargo, causes the hold to just collapse and break off. There have been quite some cases of that, along with a lot of RoRo victims as they do not have these truly watertight comparments and often they just let the doors open in those bulkheads! 90% of all ship accidents are caused by human error. The other 10% is mostly structural failure which is what I have mentioned above.

The bulkheads of Titanic indeed extended above the waterline, but a certain trim caused them to get below it, and so the water could get further in the next compartments, causing more water to enter, more weight, more ship below the water and hence the water ran ahead again. And then it broke 🙂 Now those were the good old days, no SOLAS to take care of no ISM, no computers, design was still fun back then I guess.

However despite all that its seems I am quite wrong.

Otomat ASM

The ship’s long-range sea-skimming missile system is the Otomat Mark 2/Teseo by MBDA (formerly Alenia and Matra BAe Dynamics). Six Otomat Teseo Mark 2 missile launchers, three pointing to port and three pointing starboard, are installed on the stern deck. The missiles are armed with a 210kg high-explosive warhead, fitted with impact and proximity fuses. The speed of the missile is Mach 0.9 and the range is 120km.

YJ-83

The ship’s surface-to-surface missile system is the indigenous YJ-83. The missile system has right box launchers (in two groups, each with 4 launchers). The missile uses active radar homing and is powered by a turbojet (with a solid rocket booster). The anti-ship missile has a range of 120km and approaches the target in sea skimming mode at a speed of 0.9 Mach. The 165kg shaped charge warhead has time delayed impact proximity fuses.

So its quite possible that perhaps the missile was decoyed off target or the proximity fuse activated prematurely it exploded such that a fragment caused the damage concealed by the DC mat.

Daniel

Agree in KISS. But still, there’s missiles with dual seekers (radar and IR) so why not dual fuses?

Well dual seekers are complimentary whereas a contact/delayed fuse and a proximity fuse would tend to oppose each other. How would you have the proximity fuse work in such a way that it was not triggered by proximity to the surface or waves? Like I said I’m sure the problems are not insurmountable but it does seem to add a significant new level of complexity for capability that is of dubious tactical utility.

Daniel

hizbollah should be made to apologize to israel for damaging her state of the art ship with the lastest defence gadgets.
Before the serbs knocked out of the sky,American fighter plane, they were not supposed to see and now this? where will this rudish behaviour end. Clearly this trend is getting out of hand.

There was talk of the missile exploding above the heli deck. So, looking to see if that would be possible.

Definately possible, but doesn’t seem to fit with the damaged on the ship. However, we really need a better angled shot to be able to tell for sure.

PLAWolf,
funny you mention Titanic as she is exactly THE example of what it is to have NO watertight bulkheads. She didn’t have compartments, the bulkheads didn’t go all the way up to the maindeck. Which actually meant that when the first compartment flooded, the water just rose up, and then got into the next compartment over the bulkhead. Titanic was therefore the example that actually caused the obligation to put watertight bulkheads in a ship, so even a small hole would have actually sank her.

Thats not what I have read. The bulkheads might not have been water-tight, but the designer was not stupid enough to design a ship that might sink from the slightest puncture. The bulkheads extended way above the waterline, and that was though to be sufficient to contain any flooding. What was not anticipated was the number of compartments breached, and the weight of the water tilted the ship to such a degree where the level of the top of the bulkheads sank below the waterline and once that happened there was no saving the ship.

The same thing can happened just as easily to modern ships with watertight compartments if enough compartments were breached. Why do you think ships still sink these days even when they have watertight compartments? No ships are unsinkable, you just need a big enough hole, as the Titanic again examplifies.

Some ASMs can reattack a target. Have a proximity fuse means your missile is just as likely to detonate before hitting the target as after passing beyond. I imagine the idea is not impossible but it does seem to add an extra level of complexity, and new potentional failure points. Whatever happened to KISS.

Daniel

Agree in KISS. But still, there’s missiles with dual seekers (radar and IR) so why not dual fuses?

I’m struggling to think of purpose for a proximity fuse on an ASM.

Daniel

If oriented sideways rather than forward, it could allow warhead detonation in case of a near miss. But this would clash with any re-attack capability.

So I have heard, but what are you suggesting?

There was talk of the missile exploding above the heli deck. So, looking to see if that would be possible.

PLAWolf,
funny you mention Titanic as she is exactly THE example of what it is to have NO watertight bulkheads. She didn’t have compartments, the bulkheads didn’t go all the way up to the maindeck. Which actually meant that when the first compartment flooded, the water just rose up, and then got into the next compartment over the bulkhead. Titanic was therefore the example that actually caused the obligation to put watertight bulkheads in a ship, so even a small hole would have actually sank her.
It is predomitaly the free flooding surfaces that are dangerous in a ship, but due to the compartmentalisation of these already small craft, this is probably not such a big problem on these vessels either. However the steering gear room is most likely a pretty large space compared to the other spaces in the ship, so it could have been a slight problem for this already unstable design.
We would need a real stern shot to see what really happened I guess. If this is indeed where she was hit, then it does show that they were not doing evasive manoeuvres, maybe relying on the Phalanx to take it out?

Yep and thats all good. Nothing to do with proximity fuses though.

Daniel

I know, but an ASM has to hit close to the water-line at first. Proximity fuses are tricky, because you do not know when triggered by what and what will be hit by that. Proximity fuses are controlled by timers. In the open seas, when no other than the hostile target is around it may works, otherwise it can “hit” everything and triggered by a cloud of chaff at all.
When the ASM has a passive radar-seeker, it can be diverted by a active radar-signal, when fired in time.
But the pic from Ashod do not show related damages to that, except some coverage in the hull close to the aft-section so far. So we have to wait for further details.