Live fire assymetrical tactic (hits Israeli navy)

[aka_tom_w]

BEIRUT (AP) — Hezbollah rammed an Israeli warship with an unmanned aircraft rigged with explosives Friday, setting it ablaze after Israeli warplanes smashed Lebanon's links to the world one by one and destroyed the headquarters of the Islamic guerrilla group's leader.

The attack on the warship off Beirut's Mediterranean coast was the most dramatic incident on a violent day in the conflict that erupted suddenly Wednesday and appeared to be careening out of control despite pleas from world leaders for restraint on both sides.

Ok then I guess somebody knows what they are doing over there...

I would not like to comment on the "politics" of the current situation but this is clearly an expample of assymetrical warfare that has proven effective today.

Are we seeing any tactics in this conflict that might show up in the CMSF game? (wondering)

Your comments?

-tom w

[Beastttt]

any word on what kind of plane?

seems littoral ships are going to need more AA guns(.50-40mm)using manned mounts

or did they get ahold of a silkworm

[akd]

By The Associated Press Fri Jul 14, 6:34 PM ET

Hezbollah's remote-controlled attack on a warship Friday marked a first in the militant group's use of "air power" against its powerful enemy, the technologically advanced Israeli military.

The Lebanese militia had launched similar unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, against Israel at least twice before, in November 2004 and April 2005, when they crossed over Israel's northern border on apparent reconnaissance flights, lasting just minutes before they returned to Lebanese territory.

On Friday, however, a Hezbollah drone loaded with explosives slammed into an Israeli navy vessel off Lebanon, causing severe damage and leaving it burning as it turned and cruised homeward, Israeli officials reported. The Arab television channel al-Jazeera said four sailors were missing after the attack.

After Hezbollah's first use of a drone in 2004, its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, warned that the pilotless aircraft were capable of carrying explosives and striking deep into Israel. On Friday, Nasrallah went on the air again, telling listeners the damaged ship could be seen off Beirut. "Look at it burning," he said.

Israel claimed in 2004 that the drone, dubbed by Hezbollah the "Mirsad 1," or "observation post" in Arabic, was Iranian-made. On Friday, however, Israeli officials suggested it had been developed by the Lebanese Shiite Muslim group, as Hezbollah itself has claimed in the past.

Defense analyst John Pike of the Washington-based firm Global Security doubted that claim.

"I think Hezbollah has people capable of rigging explosives to a drone, but I don't think they could develop a UAV on their own," he said. Global Security's website notes that a leading Arab newspaper, London-based Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat, once reported that Iran sold eight Mohajer-4 drones to Hezbollah.

Iran fields several types of UAVs, including one, called the Ababil, with a 9-foot-long body, capable of flying for 90 minutes, and able to carry a 90-pound payload. Nasrallah was quoted in 2004 as saying Hezbollah's drones could carry 40 kilograms — 90 pounds — of explosives.

The drone's TV camera makes it relatively easy to mount such an attack, Pike said.

"It's not bigtime rocket science to put explosives on the thing and then use the TV camera to home in on the ship," he said.

[aka_tom_w]

thanks for the news update

very interesting:

"The drone's TV camera makes it relatively easy to mount such an attack, Pike said.

"It's not bigtime rocket science to put explosives on the thing and then use the TV camera to home in on the ship," he said."

[Michael Emrys]

One thing though: I don't think I would call this assymetrical warfare. If anything, Hezbollah seems to have moved slightly closer to where the Israelis are at, tactically and technologically.

Michael

[akd]

Now they are saying it was a Iranian SSM.

A senior IDF officer said the ship was struck by an Iranian-made C802 missile, but he refused to say whether or not Iranian activists were behind the launching itself.

The army said two C802 missiles were fired at the vessel; the first missed the ship and struck an Egyptian boat some 60 kilometers (37 miles) off the Lebanon coast.

The stern of the ship was hit shortly after 8:30 p.m. Friday night and a conflagration ignited on the helicopter landing pad. The hit also damaged the ship’s internal operating systems.

[ July 15, 2006, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: akd ]

[John Kettler]

I think we're seeing spin at work. As I see it, the sequence went something like Israeli Saar? class

patrol boat is hit by Hezbollah drone, an event which may or may not have been followed by a second strike which mistakenly hit the wrong (civilian) marine target. On the news here, it sounded like the impression Israel was trying to sell was that the report of an attack on one of its naval vessels was wrong and that Hezbollah had hit civilians instead. Further digging indicated one badly hit Israeli warship under tow following fires. Now, we are being told Silkworm. A Silkworm is essentially an SS-N-2 Styx, and one such hit would thoroughly destroy a Saar or anything like it, let alone two. And don't forget what happens when all that unexpended rocket fuel gets added in! Recall that it was the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat by two Styx in the 1967 War which caused a convulsion in the world's navies when they realized how deadly cruise missiles could be.

I strongly suspect it's both easier and less embarrassing to blame a big nasty cruise missile or two, with attendant opportunities for major finger pointing, than it is to admit that a terrorist group, armed with a fairly low tech weapon, put major hurt on an Israeli warship. Israel has long had jamming and hard kill measures in place to deal with the Styx and similar, but I can easily see how a small, slow drone, even if detected, might not be recognized as a threat, and therefore wouldn't be engaged. I say these things as someone who was once directly involved in fleet air defense studies against cruise missile attack

from underwater, surface, and aerial platforms.

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

John,

Agreed. As a totally uninformed observer, the change in weapon status is quite interesting. There is a huge difference in an anti-ship surface-to-surface missile (whether skimming, cruising or following any other course), and a slow moving, propeller powered drone.

Other than the obvious questions regarding the veracity of the reports, I would be curious as to the Israeli rules of engagement. Seeing a Mach 2 missile at 3 meters over the water coming at you would seem to offer ironclad assurance that you're under attack. Seeing a drone buzzing around could cause some confusion: is it Israeli? Is is a 3rd nation? Could it be rented by one of the media (who assume they're above being targeted whilst they collect intel)? Etc.

Regards,

Ken

[akd]

Israel made semi-official statements as to the attack being carried out with a UAV (Hezbollah is known to have these), then changed claim to Iranian C-802, so I don't see how they would be "denying" that the attack was carried out by a UAV. Also, C-802 is not a Silkworm-type missile.

I think this is more a case of Israel being caught off guard by Hezbollah's capabilities. They clearly didn't expect this threat. There are reports that the ships air-defense system was not fully active due to the presence of friendly aircraft in the area (although that seems odd when you are sitting of the coast bombarding anyone, no matter how low you estimate their capabilities).

There is also the possibility of the new Iranian "Kowsar" system.

General description of the attack was two launches of the same system, one with a dive attack profile and the other surface skimming. The dive attack missile apparently struck a (Egyptian?) merchant, reportedly destroying or crippling the vessel. The surface-skimming missile hit the Israeli warship.

The Hezbollah/Lebanese claimed video of the attack clearly shows a missile/rocket launch. I believe Hezbollah has also said it was a "rocket" (perhaps read "missile" there) attack.

[ July 15, 2006, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[John Kettler]

c3k,

I consider it highly likely that the UAV velocity was so low it didn't trigger the Phalanx acquisition

radar velocity gates, if it was even running at the time. It's also possible that if the Phalanx was up, the RCS was too small to excite the radar. ROE could well be a problem in an ambiguous tactical situation.

akd,

Though I could've sworn I saw Silkworm mentioned somewhere, I see that from this that the C-802 is more like a Harpoon, albeit with a somewhat lighter warhead.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/c-802.htm

If we hearken back to the Falklands/Malvinas War, we find that HMS Sheffield, which was hit by an Exocet, burned for hours and sank, was compromised on the ESM intercept receiver front because it was using the satcom at the time. Apparently, both functions couldn't occur simultaneously, thus the destroyer was blind to the telltale radar seeker emissions.

Have never heard of the other missile you mention.

If Hezbollah is actually showing missile launch footage, and we're not seeing, say, a JATO or RATO launch for the UAV, then I may have it wrong. I would certainly agree that the two profiles you describe are classic ones for antiship missiles.

Guess we'll just have to stay tuned!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Nidan1]

I don't think theC-802 falls under the category of a true "Cruise Missle"

The Styx certainly does not.

Check out the definition and capabilitie of true "Cruise Missles" i.e the Tomahawk or the French Exocet.

[Peter Cairns]

John,

This is more your department than mine, but how is the Phalanx radar for background clutter. That wouldn't be a problem for a frigate out at sea, where even a sea skimmer would effectively be against a blank sky.

But if you were only a couple of miles off the coast and your radar was covering something like beruit then it might be getting a lot of echo back.

Could it be that a system designed for air defence at sea, struggles in coastal waters against a small target with a cluttered background.

Iran also makes these.

Abibil

Mohajer

Mohajer

Peter.

[John Kettler]

Peter Cairns,

It's been a long time since I had to seriously think

about the the Phalanx, technically known as the CIWS (Close-In Weapons System). As I recall, the Phalanx tracking radar

radar runs at around 35 GHz, permitting very fine tracking resolution, but I don't know much about backscatter at that frequency, nor do I have Skolnik's RADAR HANDBOOK handy. I do know, though, that X-band fire control radar has very real limits when operating down near the water, thanks to multipath issues, precisely why seaskimmers fly where they do, and the choppier the water, the worse the problem becomes.

There definitely were tracking problems back during Phalanx development, one of which was that the system tracked an island thinking it was a target. I think that the system was designed for an open ocean scenario, so it's entirely possible that being close inshore and looking toward Beirut, say, with all those buildings reflecting back radar returns might very well cause processing problems. Here's some info on the various CIWS Marks and Mods.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm

The Abibil's design reminds me of plastic gliders I used to launch with a kind of one armed slingshot as a kid.

Regards,

John Kettler

[akd]

Inquiry: Navy was unaware of missile threat

Initial probe into attack on missile boat Friday reveals Navy had no intelligence of possible missile threat in area where boat was operating; missile, aircraft interception system was turned off due to presence of IDF planes in sector

By Hanan Greenberg

The actions taken by crewmembers of the IDF missile boat that sustained a direct Hizbullah missile hit Friday, prevented a great disaster that could have resulted in numerous casualties, an initial inquiry into the incident reveals.

Full Story

Brigadier-General Noam Page of the Navy said in a press conference Saturday that the Navy was unaware that a missile threat existed in the sector, and that the boat's crew had acted accordingly.

Missile boats are equipped with a missile interception system capable of automatically intercepting any missile or aircraft approaching it. However, as the boat was operating in an area where a large number of IDF planes were present, the Navy had refrained from activating the system.

Navy sources said that had they known the Hizbullah was in possession of missiles of the type used against the boat Saturday, the missile interception system would have been turned on.

‘We’ve been hit’

The initial investigation revealed that at 8:45 p.m. crewmembers on board the vessel were preparing for Shabbat dinner when a loud blat was heard. One of the ship’s commanders has informed the Navy’s control command: “We’ve been hit.”

In the first few minutes after the strike, it was unclear what hit the boat, and the sailors concentrated on extinguishing the fire that broke out at the landing pad after 50 kilograms of explosives penetrated the vessel’s body.

Large Navy and Air Force units were dispatched to the place and began assisting the forces on board the boat.

Simultaneously, the crew conducted a damage control routine aimed at establishing what systems sustained damages in the attack. At the first stage it was decided to pull the boat away from its position using another boat, and at the same time to surround it with additional crafts in order to protect it from being hit again.

A senior Navy official said Saturday that the fire on board has repeatedly erupted after being extinguished as a result of the heat absorbed by metal objects on the boat. Only after the crew managed to contain the fire and tend to the damages it was discovered that four sailors were missing.

Purported images of missile launch:

That looks like a guided missile to me.

[John Kettler]

This officially says it was a missile.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Israel_Attacked_Ship.html

Here is a nice piece (many pics) of the Saar V class

multimission corvette (so much more than a mere missile boat). Would also add that on the CBS News tonight I saw what was supposedly

the vessel struck under way on its own steam. The clip wasn't long, and I saw no major damage. OTOH, the hit was way back on the fantail.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/Saar5.html

Some good data here, too. Ship names are listed, but I don't know their English translations. The one hit was given in the above newspaper article as "Spear."

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/mideast/israel.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[akd]

The ship struck was the INS Hanit. The reported information still seems to fit more with a hit by a "Kowsar" (C-701), but I guess we'll see.

Footage of the damaged ship's port side was prohibited. I doubt we'll see any pics of the raw damage.

Video of the launch of second missile can be found here (incorrectly labed "Navy vessel ablaze"). Tape appears to roll after the launch of the first missile, but you can see it arcing high and then diving rapidly towards surface.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3275923,00.html

[Beastttt]

I don't see it as spin since the news networks had only seen a drone as a the only guided system that the terrorist had shown to date

the news went with what they knew(seems they always jump the gun and get weapon systems wrong)

can't tell you how many times I've seen the LA times call an F-16 picture an F-15 and other such mistakes

also if it was a tv directed drone you would think Hesbolla could tell the difference between a freighter and a warship

since the driver of the drone can see and identife his target

a radar guided missle might be able to discriminate if the hardware and software are smart enough to do the job which the styx can't do

I think now the Isralies will have their anti missle systems manned at all time s now and maybe mount a few 20mm-40mm manned weapons

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I think we're seeing spin at work. As I see it, the sequence went something like Israeli Saar? class

patrol boat is hit by Hezbollah drone, an event which may or may not have been followed by a second strike which mistakenly hit the wrong (civilian) marine target. On the news here, it sounded like the impression Israel was trying to sell was that the report of an attack on one of its naval vessels was wrong and that Hezbollah had hit civilians instead. Further digging indicated one badly hit Israeli warship under tow following fires. Now, we are being told Silkworm. A Silkworm is essentially an SS-N-2 Styx, and one such hit would thoroughly destroy a Saar or anything like it, let alone two. And don't forget what happens when all that unexpended rocket fuel gets added in! Recall that it was the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat by two Styx in the 1967 War which caused a convulsion in the world's navies when they realized how deadly cruise missiles could be.

I strongly suspect it's both easier and less embarrassing to blame a big nasty cruise missile or two, with attendant opportunities for major finger pointing, than it is to admit that a terrorist group, armed with a fairly low tech weapon, put major hurt on an Israeli warship. Israel has long had jamming and hard kill measures in place to deal with the Styx and similar, but I can easily see how a small, slow drone, even if detected, might not be recognized as a threat, and therefore wouldn't be engaged. I say these things as someone who was once directly involved in fleet air defense studies against cruise missile attack

from underwater, surface, and aerial platforms.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ July 16, 2006, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Beastttt ]

[wade_Angler]

Originally posted by Beastttt:

I don't see it as spin since the news networks had only seen a drone as a the only guided system that the terrorist had shown to date

the news went with what they knew(seems they always jump the gun and get weapon systems wrong)

Who’s a terrorist, your niece is a terrorist. This valiant group infiltrated a supposedly fortressed mini superpower, whacked 8 Israeli soldiers and imprisoned two others from underneath that huge, hooked nose of your friend. When an Arab kills occupying Israeli soldiers it’s terrorism, when Israelis kill 100 impoverished civilians and destroy an entire country for that soldier it’s self defense; some logic Dumbo.

you would think Hesbolla could tell the difference between a freighter and a warship

since the driver of the drone can see and identife his target

a radar guided missle might be able to discriminate if the hardware and software are smart enough to do the job which the styx can't do

I think now the Isralies will have their anti missle systems manned at all time s now and maybe mount a few 20mm-40mm manned weapon

You would think the stupidity of the Israelis would be tempered. That’s some naval tactic, sit like a duck some 15 miles from shore, and assume like Jim Neighbors you can launch farts and gas children with impunity.

You would think the Israelis with all their might and technology could locate Hezbollah’s missile launchers and neutralize them, instead they’re prolific at neutralizing public transportation mini vans full of school kids.

It’ll probably suffocate and castrate you to admit some militia group possesses missile capability to paralyze and take out naval vessels commandeered by tard captains.

In the Northern Ireland conflict, the Brits never incinerated Belfast when a dozen of their soldiers were taken out. Why? Because they’re not wacko savages, they understood retaliatory proportionality and the concept of urban, non combatant dwellers. _ Perhaps an esoteric concept foreign to Beasttty boy, ey there champ?

[ July 16, 2006, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: wade_Angler ]

[PseudoSimonds]

First post and already with the insults. Maybe you need to get back to your <strike>trolling</strike> fishing.

[wade_Angler]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

First post and already with the insults. Maybe you need to get back to your <strike>trolling</strike> fishing.

I certainly do understand the thrust of your reprimand. Nevertheless, seniority can be of roses and then again of dog****. I liken your kinda seniority to that of Kenneth Lay, and look at him now.

Let board members, old and new, speak their war and peace minds (within the thread’s scope), no need for a senior hall monitor now. Perhaps you should get back to your masturbation séance.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by wade_Angler:

Let board members, old and new, speak their war and peace minds (within the thread’s scope), no need for a senior hall monitor now.

How about doing it without insulting people? I'm sure someone with your awesome intellect can manage it.

[Kwazydog]

Angler and others, keep the politics out of it and keep your language to an appropiate level for this forum. This forum is for discussion of CMSF and related military topics. We have asked members to take political discussion to an off site forum linked too in our general forum area, as we dont have the time available to moderate these often heated debates. Please comply with the forum rules.

Dan

[ July 16, 2006, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[C'Rogers]

Alright I will try and go back to the original topics.

Are we seeing any tactics in this conflict that might show up in the CMSF game? (wondering)

I don't think by asymetrical warfare battlefront will be doing small scale guerilla tactics. For the main reason they wouldn't be very fun or playable.

Assault this guard post and pull out in under five minutes or move into position fire a few mortars and get out really aren't playable.

To look at the current example. The UN player has to just sit and wait for the Syrian player to do something. The Syrian players waits for the best oppurtunity to fire a rocket at a warship. Suddenly the UN player gains control, tells all the ships there is danger, and maybe launches a quick counter strike against the area the rocket came from.

I think what they mean by asymetric victory conditions is that the two sides will have different objectives. For example as the UN force moves on a town they may have the objective of A) capture the town but do not sugger a more than 5% casulty ratio or C) cause X amount of damage. While the Syrians may only have to protect the town as a minor objective with the major goal to be capture an American soldier or destroy a piece of heavy armor, with the casulties there side suffers having only a minor affect on score.

I don't think there will be any radical change to the combat mission formula (two company size forces meeting in battle), just the ability to change what each side is fighting for.

[aka_tom_w]

Well

I opened the thread because the game CMSF is Syria Vs US right?

So we are seeing some tactics (maybe) in the current conflict between Israel and their enemies, that might not be dissimiliar to what might happen if the US invaded Syria.

Here's the main point. After an the regular military is destroyed by or surrenders to the invading force what's left? Insurgency and terrorism (terrorist tactics). They have said that they aren't interested in modeling anything like thar part of the invasion or the occupartion period of the "war" once the insurgency begins. OK....

But about this:

So the US invades Syria and all of the Syrian regular army "declokes" (or more accurately clokes), all of them take of their uniforms and they ALL enmasse become insurgents. Then what? I am loath to look back at Vietman but that is sort of what war as become now a days. The enemy does not wear a uniform and is VERY hard to identify unless they are shooting at you.

One minute that "military aged man" is a non combatant "citizen" but the minute you turn your back on him he picks up a weapons and shoots at you? This concept does NOT bode well for wargames because thats not really fun to play, and Steve says that HARDEST thing to do is model into the game civilians and non combatants that turn into enemy combatants when you are not looking.

I guess I am just rambling on here..

carry on... sans the politics (Thanks KwazyDog!)

-tom w

[ July 16, 2006, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Beastttt]

what did I say to piss you off marvin

was it the crack on the news coverage

I was just responding to what I see in the news in wanting to have the story out first

and of course they got it wrong again and it this case it was some writer making an asummtion on only the data he had in his data base