Yes, and the IN can count itself very lucky it only has a damaged ship, rather than a sunk one.

Poor intelligence has lost more battles than any other reason.

I am sure there is a large amount of that new Olympic sport, Synchronised Butt Kicking, going on in the corridors and offices of Israeli Military Intelligence.

Unicorn

Very true.

They lost some people, and the ship will require repairs, but the ship will fight again and the entire complement was not lost.

The survivors of this attack will pass on what they have learned (including what they did wrong) to the rest of the IN (and in due course to the USN who will distribute the info to allied navies)

The IN will have learned a valuable lesson, and while the loss of life and damage to the ship is obviously not what the IN sought, they will console themselves with the thought that it could have been a lot worse.

All in all while its a coup for Hezbollah, its not the amazing defeat for Israel that some of the pro-Hezbollah spokespeople are claiming.

Unicorn

On another board a guy has been recounting some of the exploits of the RAN Oberon SSK boats which were incredible exploits, now who would honestly claim the O & P boats were anything special?

Hmmmm

Do I know you? 😉

Unicorn

I believe that given the size of the ship, even a lightweight ASM would have sunk it, rather than start a fire and still allow it to reach port.

Some of the footage being shown of the Israeli naval vessels (mostly not SAAR V’s but earlier versions such as the SAAR III and IV) bombarding targets in Lebanon have shown them only a kilometer or two offshore, well within range of an anti-tank guided missile.

Most of them only have a 76mm gun, which has a range of only 8 or so KM at surface targets, if you want to hit targets inland you need to get closer to the beach, and that may be whats happened.

As pointed out a C802 would have blown it to pieces.

Unicorn

Sounds good in theory, but she was so worn out that it would have cost more then the price of a new carrier to upgrade her.

Also, the rising size of aircraft would have meant that she would have ended up as a Sea Harrier platform by default.

Definitely too small for the F/A-18 that the RAAF was getting in the same time frame, and the Department of Defence would have wanted to run the same aircraft type.

Unicorn

Vague similarities only.

Australia has a much more interventionary military policy, particularly in its area of responsibility, which is the South Pacific and parts of southern South East Asia.

Also Australia requires a mix of both patrol boats for EEZ patrol and front line warships for operations in high threat environments, hence the continual upgrading of the Anzac frigates (from an admittedly poor baseline) and the upgrading of the last four FFG-7 class.

Australia has also commenced delivery of or signed up for; the JSF, M1A1, new specialist air-capable amphibious ships, new troop carrying helicopters, new 155mm artillery, new Armidale class patrol boats, Tiger attack helicopters, new anti-air warfare destroyers (most likely modified Arleigh Buke class) and is designing a new series of replenishment ships.

Canada generally seems to try and do Defence on the cheap, the politicians doing the service men and women a grave disservice.

At least the government in Australia understands that Defence costs and you have to fund the services if you want to be able to call upon them when needed.

Unicorn

That Harpoon hit in the bow of Buchanon may well have ignited the forward 5 inch magazine in an operational warship.

That said there is a world of difference between a hit-to-sink and a hit-to-mission kill.

Unicorn