It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chinese/Iranian anti-ship missiles defeat Phalanx CIWS!!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Reports coming out of the Israeli military suggest that last Friday's missile attack by hezbollah on an IDF "Saar-5" stealth corvette involved a Chinese designed, Iranian produced C-802 anti-ship missile which was NOT DETECTED by either the Saar-5's counter-measures/warning system or the ship's Phalanx CIWS - the same as fitted to US ships.

This follows on from this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... but I thought the new info was weighty enough that it deserves its own thread.

The C-802 (YJ-82) is a turbojet powered anti-ship missile which hit the target at abou mach 0.9 and has a 110km range - it is not as advanced or long ranged as the mainstay Chinese navy anti-ship missiles (YJ-83) carried by most Chinese vessels.

The range of this engagement is now consistantaly quoted as 17km so quite close.

A very constructive debate about the incident on another forum (note particularly post 109): www.sinodefenceforum.com...

The Saar-5's Israeli made Barak point air defence missile system is reported to have been turned off at the time.

But the inferances are clear:

1) That the C-802 (and by implication more recent Chinese anti-ship missiles) can lock onto "stealth" warships
2) That they have some means of not being detected by the targets radars/warning sensors
3) That the mainstay Phalanx CIWS was at least in this case unable to engage it effectively

This does not bode well for the USN in any Iran scenario, or worse still China-Taiwan situation. North Korea is also reported to have some C-802 missiles although this is somewhat sketchy.






[edit on 18-7-2006 by planeman]



GSA

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
You got a way above top secret award vote from me.


That is bad news for all fleets that will / may face this weapons type. And if it cannot defeat these, what about newer versions and / or upgrades?

just how did it go undetected? A missile should of been seen at that range...The falklands war exocet was seen at a dozen miles out... Does this imply that this missile is low observable!!??!!

Kudos for flagging this up plane man.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Did the ships have CIWS fore and aft like US ships?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Depends on the radar. Don't the US fleets rely on Aegis equipped ships to detect, and then the phalanx goes from there?



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Phalanx has a self contained radar system.


Phalanx is a point-defense, total-weapon system consisting of two 20mm gun mounts that provide a terminal defense against incoming air targets. CIWS, without assistance from other shipboard systems, will automatically engage incoming anti-ship missiles and high-speed, low-level aircraft that have penetrated the ship primary defense envelope. As a unitized system, CIWS automatically performs search, detecting, tracking, threat evaluation, firing, and kill assessments of targets while providing for manual override. Each gun mount houses a fire control assembly and a gun subsystem. The fire control assembly is composed of a search radar for surveillance and detection of hostile targets and a track radar for aiming the gun while tracking a target. The unique closed-loop fire control system that tracks both the incoming target and the stream of outgoing projectiles gives CIWS the capability to correct its aim to hit fast-moving targets, including ASMs.

www.fas.org...

This is the same thing that happened with the USS Stark. The only way they knew that the Exocets had been fired was because the AWACS saw the flight profile of the attacking plane. Their CIWS was turned off at the time too. They never saw the missiles until the lookout saw it visually.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Turns out, the systems work fine, it was the rules of engagement that were broken.

Israel didn't expect anti-ship missiles, so the systems were offline.

The New York Times reports on it in tomorrows paper.

Also, there are some interesting theories out there. Those familiar with open source military information are probably familiar with defense-update.com, the #1 source for information on the IDF which is pretty secretive.

They posted an interesting theory on their blog.

I think the theory is possible, although 2 C-802s is just as possible. Defense-Update.com has hundreds of years of IDF service and Mossad service between the staff, so I tend to give them more credibility than the MSM, although they might be assuming too much too.

As Mehran could verify if he shows up, Iran produces the C-701R now, which is radar guided and has solid tail fins, where the older C-701s bought from the Chinese are optically guided and have pop-out fins. Since Iran has been replacing older C-701s since 2004, it is possible they gave several of their older C-701s to Hezbollah and some C-802s as well.

BTW, compare pictures of the Chinese C-701s and Iranian C-701s if you don't believe me. My source on this is pretty solid, and I think we discussed it on this forum back in April as well.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I'd say that 701 is a probably the weapon that hit the target, because at the instant i read planemans post and the range 17km i tought it had to be optically guided to avoid israelis detecting the radar signature from the launch...

Points go to Hezbollah, nice tactic and a legitimate target for a change



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman

But the inferances are clear:

1) That the C-802 (and by implication more recent Chinese anti-ship missiles) can lock onto "stealth" warships

2) That they have some means of not being detected by the targets radars/warning sensors

3) That the mainstay Phalanx CIWS was at least in this case unable to engage it effectively

[edit on 18-7-2006 by planeman]



Some questions:

At 17 km I think a 80+metre warship kind of loses its 'signature reduction' capabilities doesn't it?


What is the heat signature of a AShCM launch? Can shipborne early warning pick it up at 17km?


The Phalanx was on? Why did it fail? Is it (on paper at least) supposed to take care of AShCMs of the C-802 variety?


Was that ship(crew included) even partly aware of ANY possibility of an attack of this type? As far as I know the Israeli Navy has nothing to fear in terms of AShCMS from ANY mediterrenean foes. Or do Syria (& Egypt?) pose that threat?


I'm all confused..



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
The Phalanx system was NOT activated at the time of impact. That's why it didn't see the missile coming in at the ship.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Ok so neither the Phalanx nor the Barak Point Defence guided by the Elta radars were active...
hmmm..
I also tend to agree with the C-701 theory because the platform would have to be at a height of approx 20 meters to get a visual of the ship at 17 km.

horizon in km = 3.84 X SQRT(height in meters)



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   
If I remember right Sheffield got hit with the Exocet because the radar interfered with satilite communications and had been (temporarily) shut off. Another case of good technology beng caught off-guard...

Two things I've been curious about with Phalanx (somewhat related):

* Sa'ar class boats mount a single CIWS on the bow. With the missile approaching the stern (it hit the helo deck) would the gun mount ever get a clear shot? It sounds like you can evade Phalanx by circling around to an arc that can't be protected (superstructure gets in the way) while staying outside the effective range of the guns (500m IIRC).

* With Phalanx off, you're left unprotected, but with the system on won't the search/targeting radars give away your position?

EDIT: According to Israel/Wikipedia the defense systems were online because Israeli jets were opperating in the area and they were more concerned about friendly fire than cruise missiles (which they didn't expect to encounter)...

[edit on 19-7-2006 by RedMatt]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
It wouldn’t be the first time a ship has been caught with its air defense systems off. Also, at about ten miles out the ship would be visible(?) so if it was an optically guided missile stealth wont really do you any good in that situation, not to mention that at ten miles out ever radar could pick out a stealth ship. For me this just highlights the need for an LCS type of platform, putting a bigger ship that close to shore where anyone can take potshots at it is stupid.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Turns out, the systems work fine, it was the rules of engagement that were broken.

Israel didn't expect anti-ship missiles, so the systems were offline.


That's a type of ridiculous statement PR people make when things don't work.

All Navy ships are on FULL alert in ANY military operations, and that off course includes ALL defense systems.

The fact that Phalanx failed is not big news. If failed before, it failed on tests, and its been openly said for years.

Again, the idea that the Phalanx was not activated because it must have some sort of a "flip" switch that turns it on and off can only be expressed by complete dilettantes.

As soon as the crew goes into battle stations and engages in combat, ALL defense systems are activated by PROCEDURE.

That even includes look outs, that scan the horizon for "unconventional" targets.

Procedure people, and if for some absurd reason the Captain ORDERS to break procedure and DISENGAGE defense systems while on full battle stations status which resulted in a sucsesfull enemy attack on the ship, he should be tried for TREASON and executed.

The system failed AGAIN, that's the fact of the matter, and that's exactly what really gets to me. When I post on this weapons forum a number of members immediately try to accuse me of my bias against Western hardware.

All I do is point out that while basic propaganda keeps brain washing us into believing that our tax dollars are spent on the most advanced and the most capable military gear in the world, time after time it simply fails, because out taxes are being squandered on "private" buddy-buddy good old boys club contracts, and in the end nothing worth while gets done.

It is unbelievable how the never ending pattern of complete failure en up being turned into a concept of invincibility, thus proving that propaganda, or creation of an illusion, is the deadliest weapon, and not some nuclear apocalypse.

The very reason of us not having invaded Iran by now, is the fact that they are armed to the teeth with anti-ship weapons of all kinds, and out government knows for a fact that if a carrier group attempts to attack Iran, NAVY will take casualties which will be politically devastating.

This incident is only a side note which proves that to be simply so.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
btw planeman, I'm voting for you to, you have consistently brought logic and common sense to this forum. Good going.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

That's a type of ridiculous statement PR people make when things don't work.

All Navy ships are on FULL alert in ANY military operations, and that off course includes ALL defense systems.

The fact that Phalanx failed is not big news. If failed before, it failed on tests, and its been openly said for years.

Again, the idea that the Phalanx was not activated because it must have some sort of a "flip" switch that turns it on and off can only be expressed by complete dilettantes.


Phalanx has been turned off before by crews that were in a known hot zone. It's turned off anytime there is a chance of a friendly fire incident, or is something is coming by that they DON'T want to shoot at. Phalanx is indiscriminate and shoots at anything that crosses into radar.

It's not an "off" switch, it's a manual override that shuts down the radar.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

It's turned off anytime there is a chance of a friendly fire incident, or is something is coming by that they DON'T want to shoot at. Phalanx is indiscriminate and shoots at anything that crosses into radar.


Hezbollah is sponsored by Iran. Iran has all kinds of anti-ship missiles. Israeli incursion into Lebanon is to destroy Hezbollah which is funded and armed by Iran.

So if Hezbollah is armed by Iran which has vehicle mounted/fired anti-ship missiles, do you LOGICALLY think that turning of defense systems is a good idea when shelling Lebanon?

How does that formula work out in any rationally thinking head?

Phalanx friendly fire issue is relevant only to air traffic, and even then, IFF logs targets ID so the system will release fire on friendly ID target only by manual override, not the other way around.

Switching of defense systems while waging war on the enemy armed with weapons that clearly endanger your assets only happen either do to criminal negligence or treason.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
During initial testing, a Phalanx put four 20mm rounds into an incoming 5 inch naval shell.

If it can manage that, a MiG 15 sized subsonic cruise missile wouldn't present much of a challenge, UNLESS:

a) There were several of them
b) The missiles approached the ship in a CIWS blind spot (I believe the Sa'ar 5 was hit in the hangar deck - the CIWS is mounted ahead of the bridge)
c) It's turned off (duh)

Also, stealth does not equal invisibility. It reduces your detection range, it doesn't (yet) eliminate it.

My understanding was that the Israelis were operating a lot of aircraft in the area and had shut down their defensive weapon systems believing the risk to be negligible.

Intelligence was the only thing that failed here.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I don't think that ANY of the reports we are getting from any side are 100% reliable.

I personally still suspect that it was an optically guided C-701 missile but reports coming out of the IDF, including the one apparently published on Janes (I'm not a member so I cannot see it), consistantly cite the C-802 not C-701.

I do NOT believe the Phalanax was turned off because:
If it was, why exactly was the Saar-5 there? Other FACs were using their 76mm main guns to shell the Lebonese coast - the Saar-5 lacks this gun (in typical fit) so there is no purpose for it to be there except as air-defense.

I can half believe that the Barak was deactivated although that too seems odd - again with the Barak offline the Saar-5 is no better defended than the Saar-4/4.5s which also have Phalanx.

If the Saar-5 was being used for its superior sensors and/or as a handy helicopter pad, there is no need for it to be so close to the coast.



Re missile approach angle, we don't know whether the anti-ship missile approached from the rear or from the side. But if it did approach from the rear you'd expect it to go quite deep into the ship and cause MAXIMUM damage much like the "raking" broadside of Nelson's time.

But the relatively few casualties suggests to me that the missile came in from the side - in full view of the Phalanx - and went through a corner of the stern.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Let's take this one apart.


During initial testing, a Phalanx put four 20mm rounds into an incoming 5 inch naval shell.


Not familiar with that test, but I'm guessing your talking about The 5"/54 MK 45 LWGM.

Shell weight - 70 lb, muzzle velocity at full service charge is 2650 feet per second.

Phalanx - fires 3.5 oz shell at +/- 3,380 ft/s muzzle velocity with 4,500 per minute rof.

I would LOVE to know the conditions of that test, because anybody with BASIC ballistics knowledge will question such results, and even if the 5" shell is fired INTO the stream of 20mm rounds, 4 strike still aint happening.


If it can manage that, a MiG 15 sized subsonic cruise missile wouldn't present much of a challenge, UNLESS:


Beg you pardon, MiG15 sized missile? Have you been keeping up on these event or just jumping right in with "of the hip" opinions?


My understanding was that the Israelis were operating a lot of aircraft in the area and had shut down their defensive weapon systems believing the risk to be negligible.


And how do you understand that? Any actual knowledge of combat zone procedures?


Intelligence was the only thing that failed here.


Are you kidding me? More "guesstimating"? Israeli military intelligence is considered to be some one the best in the world, and it is such intelligence that enables them to execute precision surgical air strikes on human targets, giving them the capability to put a missile literally in the window of a building with out causing collateral damage.

Not to mention that since the beginning of the conflict freaking CNN ran interviews in which varies Israeli officials clearly stated that Hezbollah is armed by Syria and Iran. It's not hard to look up Syrian/Iranian anti-ship arsenal, it's a non issue.

The system failed, again, simple as that.

Name ONE successful anti-ship missile intercept made by Phalanx in combat, there isn't one, and this is not the first time that it FAILED, it has done so REPEATEDLY.

Phalanx combat record = total failure.

M163 VADS combat record = do to repeatedly failed tests, used as a fire support system, and replaced with M1097 Avenger and M6 Linebacker.

Unfortunately until a ship sinks from an anti-ship missile attack, the Phalanx will still remain the "best terminal defense" system in US NAVY.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Planeman,
as I got it because Phalax and all other defence measures on this ship don't recognise they own forces and were placed just 16 km from Beirut all counter-measures were turned off so not to shot down they own planes if they were on attacking vector...The israelis just didn't know about such a rocket in the hands of Hizballah...
What I think is amazing is that this 1200 ton ship survived direct hit and was able to move on it's own...

[edit on 19-7-2006 by ZMax]

[edit on 19-7-2006 by ZMax]

[edit on 19-7-2006 by ZMax]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join