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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Actually let me add to that in case there's any more wishful thinking on Phalanx performance.

The only times it connected its rounds it was friendly fire.

Just from Wiki, in 1991 USS Jarrett fired its Phalanx on a Silkworm. Naturally it missed but did manage to plow exactly FOUR rounds into USS Missouri.

Must of been looking for that 5" shell.

In the end Silkworm was intercepted by the Sea Dart missile launched from the British Royal Navy warship HMS Gloucester.

Here's more;


In 1996, a Japanese Phalanx accidentally shot down a US A-6 Intruder. The US plane was towing a radar target during gunnery exercises. A Phalanx aboard the destroyer Yuugiri locked onto the Intruder instead of the target. Both pilots ejected safely. The incident was blamed on tactical error


en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Planeman,

I also noticed the lack of a proper gun on the Sa'ar. Unless they were shelling the coastline with 20mm gunfire (unlikely) the initial claim that the boat was attacking the coastline seems... unlikely.

And shutting down Phalanx due to friendly fire also doesn't make sense. The gun is fairly short ranged, and unless Israeli jets were routinely buzzing ships ,this wouldn't seem like an issue. If anything, I'd want jets at high altitude - short-range MANPADS are probably the only AA Hezbollah has availible, if they have anything at all...

I think this suggests to two possible explanations:

A) The defences were on, but were unable to shoot the missile down. Claiming it was innactive is an effort to keep Hezbolla from declaring "open season" on all (now apparently defenseless) Isreali ships.

B) Isreal was "up to something," which required placing a stealth ship close to shore with its defense down (military radar is, I understand, fairly distinctive and easy to track). Either sneaking troops in or out, or listening in on something "they weren't supposed to hear." If thats the case, they probably don't want to say what they were really doing...

If "B" is true though, you'd have to wonder why they didn't use one of their subs. Unless those were busy elsewhere...



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Live fire towed target training is the most dangerous mission around. I can't tell you the number of times that the plane towing the target has been shot down by accident. That doesn't prove anything except the Phalanx locked onto a target, and that target was the wrong one. If it was in manual mode, then how is that the fault of the Phalanx? And you don't SERIOUSLY think they're going to have a system that will target anything in the radar on automatic mode.

As far as the Hezbollah/Iran antiship missile connection, until now Hezbollah has NEVER demonstrated ANY antiship capability, so why would Israel assume they had it? Yes, in hindsight, from way back here it makes sense to assume it, but that's AFTER the fact.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Actually let me add to that in case there's any more wishful thinking on Phalanx performance.

The only times it connected its rounds it was friendly fire.

Just from Wiki, in 1991 USS Jarrett fired its Phalanx on a Silkworm. Naturally it missed but did manage to plow exactly FOUR rounds into USS Missouri.

Must of been looking for that 5" shell.

In the end Silkworm was intercepted by the Sea Dart missile launched from the British Royal Navy warship HMS Gloucester.

Here's more;


In 1996, a Japanese Phalanx accidentally shot down a US A-6 Intruder. The US plane was towing a radar target during gunnery exercises. A Phalanx aboard the destroyer Yuugiri locked onto the Intruder instead of the target. Both pilots ejected safely. The incident was blamed on tactical error


en.wikipedia.org...


Let's see here 17 km from shore, engaging a low flying, optically guided missile coming from shore. Can anyone say lost in backscatter from the shore? If the Phalanx radar was even turned on.

Phalanx has its problems I'll admit, but these anti-ship missiles are far from superweapons. I've seen Phalanx shoot several times and the best example of its capability I've seen was actually a screw-up. In 1985 the Forrestal was testing its Phalanx and Sea Sparrow systems. On the Port Quarter of the Forrestal there was a Phalanx unit sitting on a platform above the Sea Sparrow mount. The Phalanx had already smoked the F-102 drone that was it's target and the Sea Sparrow was getting ready to shoot four missiles at it's drone. When the drone came into range the Sea Sparrow missile left its launcher went out about 200 yards and exploded. The next missile did the same and so did the third. What had happened was that the Phalanx was left on and WAS SHOOTING DOWN THE SEA SPARROWS like it was a skeet shoot. I never trusted the Sea Sparrow system for other reasons, but I had confidence in the Phalanx



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

I can't tell you the number of times that the plane towing the target has been shot down by accident.


Tell me.


That doesn't prove anything except the Phalanx locked onto a target, and that target was the wrong one.


LOL! Are you kidding me? So your definition of friendly fire is that as long as it's a hit it's all good, right? Sorry there bud, I shot you by mistake there, but it was a hell of a shot though, wasn't it? Jesus.


If it was in manual mode, then how is that the fault of the Phalanx?


Manual mode on a towed target? Are you out your mind?


And you don't SERIOUSLY think they're going to have a system that will target anything in the radar on automatic mode.


And what does that have to do with me? I can turn right back with something like "And you seriously think that vampires don't use sunblock?"

I never said anything regarding manual/auto mode, you're making that up.

I did point out the IFF system which obviously didn't work in the case of A-6. It was towing a "radar target", and system failed to discriminate a friendly from a target, thus rendering the system USELESS.


As far as the Hezbollah/Iran anti-ship missile connection, until now Hezbollah has NEVER demonstrated ANY anti-ship capability, so why would Israel assume they had it? Yes, in hindsight, from way back here it makes sense to assume it, but that's AFTER the fact.


Do you have a TV? Have you been watching it? Israelis have been talking about Syrian/Iranian made missile being use by Hezbollah from VERY BEGINNING!

Stop spreading nonsense.


Let's see here 17 km from shore, engaging a low flying, optically guided missile coming from shore. Can anyone say lost in backscatter from the shore? If the Phalanx radar was even turned on.


And we know that it was optically guided how? Sure, let's believe that Israelis are so incompetent that they do not engage defense systems when in combat, because the "assume" that Hezbollah does not have anti-ship capability even though that from very beginning it was stated that Iran/Syria supply arms to them.


Phalanx has its problems I'll admit, but these anti-ship missiles are far from superweapons.


Sure, they are far from being super weapons, yet Phalanx failed to intercept them every time they were fired.


I've seen Phalanx shoot several times and the best example of its capability I've seen was actually a screw-up.


Apparently it's a clear pattern.


When the drone came into range the Sea Sparrow missile left its launcher went out about 200 yards and exploded. The next missile did the same and so did the third. What had happened was that the Phalanx was left on and WAS SHOOTING DOWN THE SEA SPARROWS like it was a skeet shoot. I never trusted the Sea Sparrow system for other reasons, but I had confidence in the Phalanx.


I wonder how much "confidence" in Phalanx the families of those dead sailors have.

I take it that the outbound RIM-7 intercept is a personal account? MK29 RIM-7 is a sea based AIM-7, so lets take it step by step.

During testing some one was so negligent that they by "mistake" activated point defense systems. You said that the system was not shut down, yet it's the other way around.

Phalanx intercepted Sparrows at 200 yards out? What was the aspect? Three Mk-29s and three Mk-15s, which MK29 was launching and which Mk-15 was intercepting?

You said it was 1985, so it was 3000 rof, not the later 4500rof pneumatic drive.

200 yards you say? Outbound, interesting...

RIM-7 is powered by Hercules MK-58 motor, propelling it to 4,280km/h, or 1299 yards per second.

Even accounting for acceleration time, Phalanx reaction time to a Mach 2 target out 1500 meters is five and a half seconds, with final intercept distance of about 300 meters, so please excuse my IMMENSE skepticism of your 200 yard intercept of an outbound RIM-7.

Phalanx would half to acquire, traverse, fire and intercept in what, under a second? I don't think so.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Re the Sparrow intercepts Jim mentioned. The Sparrow reaches its maximum speed during its 10km (or so) range. Its starting speed is obviously 0. So at 200m it's hardly going Mach 3.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Way to pick and choose, misquote, and take what I said out of context. Good job.

1. I know of AT LEAST 3 planes towing targets that were shot down in less than 10 years. Those are ones that I heard of from someone I was talking to, without even searching for them. 3 in 10 years isn't a sterling safety record. (No it's not "a lot" but I'm not going to go digging to find you exact numbers. If you want to find out you can research it.)

2. Where did I even imply that as long as it hits the target it's all good. I said that your example shows that the Phalanx locked onto the wrong target out of the two it was presented with. That doesn't show that it always fails or doesn't work.

3. Which makes more sense? Having it in manual mode when a plane is towing a target near by, and letting the operator choose the target, or having it in automatic mode and letting the system choose. Because we all know there are no such things as IFF failures, or the system misidentifying targets.

4. Where did I say that Hezbollah wasn't using missiles? NOWHERE. I said Hezbollah, UNTIL NOW, had not ever used ANTI-SHIP missiles. COMPLETELY different. Way to totally misquote me there.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

2. Where did I even imply that as long as it hits the target it's all good. I said that your example shows that the Phalanx locked onto the wrong target out of the two it was presented with. That doesn't show that it always fails or doesn't work.


I see. Successful intercepts - 0. Failed intercepts - at least 5.

Naturally it "doesn't show that it always fails or doesn't work", right?

Are you serious?


4. Where did I say that Hezbollah wasn't using missiles? NOWHERE. I said Hezbollah, UNTIL NOW, had not ever used ANTI-SHIP missiles. COMPLETELY different. Way to totally misquote me there.


I totally miss your logic there. So in your understanding, because the enemy did not yet use a weapon it clearly has access to, no defensive measures are necessary?

Considering that Israel is in the state of war all of the time, it's simply not possible.

planeman, I know that at 200 yards Sparrow will not be at Mach 3, that is why I specifically said "Even accounting for acceleration time".

I don't know about you, but other then a number of obvious variables preventing such scenario from happening, for me It's rather hard to image that a point defense system does not have an outbound tracking/engagement fail safe. Allowing for such a margin of human error simply endangers the ship.

btw, "SAM sites: World tour" post is still dry, any more coords for S300s in Crimea region?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZMax
What I think is amazing is that this 1200 ton ship survived direct hit and was able to move on it's own...


I believe it had to be towed, anyone can confirm that? I'll also look into it, but I believe it would be foolish that Phalanx could not tell apart friendly from hostile, since for it to work, all nearby friendly craft would have to be grounded, hence not much use for a carrier or a naval force which uses aircraft...right? My guess until now is that it "should" have an IFF computer or something, again, I'll look into it



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Ok, here is what I found, though the site makes no mention to a missile, but to an iranian UAV:

Title: Hezbollah Debuts Its Armed UAV Capability
Source: Belmont Club
URL Source: fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com...
Published: Jul 14, 2006
Author: Wretchard
Post Date: 2006-07-14 22:35:20 by GO65


An explosives-laden drone, apparently launched by Hezbollah, hit an Israel Navy warship off the coast of Beirut, causing serious damage to its steering capability, Israel Defense Forces confirmed Friday night. The incident occurred at around 8:30 P.M., as the ship was some 16 kilometers from the Lebanese coast. The blast caused a fire close to the helicopter landing pad onboard. The ship's steering mechanism also sustained some damage. Several hours after the vessel was hit, an Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman said the damage was worse than originally thought. She added that the ship, still burning, was being towed back to Israel. There were some 80 people on board the ship when it was hit.


Oops, looks like I'll have to correct myself, Phalanx indeed does NOT have an IFF system, here's the data:


CIWS Contact Target Identification:
The CIWS does not recognize Identification friend or foe, also known as IFF. The CIWS has only the data it collects in real time from the radars to decide if the target is a threat and to engage it. A contact has to meet multiple criteria for it to be considered a target; some of the criteria are listed below.

1) Is the range of the target increasing or decreasing in relation to the ship? The CIWS search radar will see contacts that are out-bound and not pay attention to them. The CIWS will only engage a target if it's approaching the ship.

2) Is the target capable of making a maneuver to hit the ship? If a target is not heading directly at the ship, the CIWS looks at its heading in relation to the ship and its velocity. It then decides if the target can perform a maneuver to still hit the ship.

3) Is the target going between the minimum and maximum speeds? The CIWS has the ability to engage targets that travel in a wide range of speeds; however it's not an infinitely wide range. The system has a target maximum velocity limit; if a target exceeds this velocity, the CIWS will not engage it. It also has a minimum target velocity, meaning any target going below that velocity will not be engaged by the CIWS. The operator also has the option to adjust the minimum and maximum limits within the limits of the system. The actual limits are classified.


Well, I hope these information helps a bit, it does arise some interesting questions, how slow would an Uav would have to fly? This would make vulnerable as well to slow flying uavs, wouldn't it?



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The reason why these weapons are described as 'systems', is acknowlegement that weapons are not just shot kill. Detection, target aquistion , affordablity and reliblity etc all can play decisive roles in the effectiveness of the overall system. Saying such weapon is ok cause it was turned off during battle is a shocking admission that the system is a failure. Why bother to buy install and train for a expensive system you don' t intend to use in its primary intended role.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   


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.



You took the words right out of my mouth and expressed them very eloquently too


This was a total failure of the system from soup to nuts and they are just saving face by saying it wasn't turned on. On the very SLIM chance that it wasn't turned on, then i hope they execute the captain of that ship for dereliction of duty.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Re the Sparrow intercepts Jim mentioned. The Sparrow reaches its maximum speed during its 10km (or so) range. Its starting speed is obviously 0. So at 200m it's hardly going Mach 3.


Phalanx will track anything over 200 mph. It's doing about Mach in 200 yards. Sea Sparrow has an initial booster that the air to air Sparrow doesn't. I'm not sure how RAM works.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Escrotumus


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.



You took the words right out of my mouth and expressed them very eloquently too


This was a total failure of the system from soup to nuts and they are just saving face by saying it wasn't turned on. On the very SLIM chance that it wasn't turned on, then i hope they execute the captain of that ship for dereliction of duty.


How in the world do you have any clue, more or less than anyone on this board unless you were either:

a: The person who fired the missile or

b: a crewman on the ship.

Dont pretend to tell us all that you know EXACTLY what happened.

Some of us here who have backgrounds and expertise in the military try to take the event as given to us and decern why a system so advanced as the phalanx failed to shoot down the missile, and from an educated standpoint, its fair to say that the system was turned off and not simply failed like some have tried to claim.

That previous claim from iskander is as close to an outright lie as ive ever seen. Phalanx turned on every second of the day, please, go do some research before making a claim like that.

Train



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
The problem with the "turned off" theory is that, whilst it is possible, it leaves no logical reason for the Saar-5 to be deployed there.

Possible roles:

* Air defense of Saar-4/4.5s that were shelling coast - ??? then Barak wouldn't have been turned off nor would Phalanx

* Enforcing blockade - why this close in?

* Emergency heli-pad for IDF helicopters operating over Lebonon - why this close in?



BTW, Syria (plus Egypt, Libya, Alegia etc) has anti-ship missiles which Israel should have factored in to the threat picture (a Syrian intervention was and is a possibility) so Isreali vessels should have been aware of a potential anti-ship missile threat. Additionally both Lebanon and Syria both have a number of large calibre (155mm or like) artillery pieces, some of which are ROUTINELY deployed as shore batteries - the range of which is easily greater than 17km - so another reason for the Saar-5 to have had its defenses on. A credible Israeli source estimates that the Lebanese aermy has 173 artillery pieces though the same source does not list anti-ship missiles as among Hezbollah's weapons.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain

How in the world do you have any clue, more or less than anyone on this board unless you were either:

a: The person who fired the missile or

b: a crewman on the ship.

Dont pretend to tell us all that you know EXACTLY what happened.

Some of us here who have backgrounds and expertise in the military try to take the event as given to us and decern why a system so advanced as the phalanx failed to shoot down the missile, and from an educated standpoint, its fair to say that the system was turned off and not simply failed like some have tried to claim.

That previous claim from iskander is as close to an outright lie as ive ever seen. Phalanx turned on every second of the day, please, go do some research before making a claim like that.

Train


Well I guess the claim from Iskander could come that the Israeli vessel was in fact in a combat zone, and since they have Mossad, regarded by many "experts" (we cannot possibly know, to be honest, how good are them since we cannot measure them) to be one of the best agencies in the world, and also the fact that Israel claims that Syria and Iran both are arming Hezbollah, it would make sense to expect some kind of attack to a vessel so near the coast (17 km by no means is a great distance when we are speaking of navies, do you agree?)

So if you know your enemy has weapons, hates your guts, and will go great lengths to harm any asset of yours, even a small hit like that is a huge victory for Hezbollah, we are all using common sense here, since nobody here was at Lebanon to actually see what happened, but the question is, you would have your defense systems on, wouldn't you?

Yet I also understand your point, and since Phalanx has no IFF whatsoever (proof of that I posted before) my personal guess is that they would be expecting an helicopter, or having helicopter sorties (awfully close to the coast, but that's just me, maybe that's Israeli standard) reason to Phalanx to be offline, if any reason, for Phalanx only engages objects faster than 200 mph, yet this doesn't explain why the Barak system wasn't active, since it does have IFF, and even when Phalanx could present a danger to IDF aircraft, Barak wouldn't, and has no excuse for not being online.

Digging on Barak i found this:


15.48 IST 26th Nov 2003
India and Israel are poised to sign a 100 million dollar deal for the supply of Barak anti-ship missiles for Indian warships despite its recent unsuccessful test launch.

During a recent test by the Indian Navy veered off course and fell into the sea. It attributed the failure during the launch to problem in communication frequencies between the missile and the warship.

Another possible reason for the failure was a problem in the missile's control and guiding system that stopped the missile's flight, the daily reported.


So it could be in fact the faulty system was Barak and not quite Phalanx, what do you think about this possiblity?

And planeman about:

* Air defense of Saar-4/4.5s that were shelling coast - ??? then Barak wouldn't have been turned off nor would Phalanx

Well since Saar 5 has no means to shell anything (no gun, besides Phalanx) your assumption could be right, yet we have to agree it failed just doing that, the AA ship getting hit...



* Enforcing blockade - why this close in?

Maybe hunting speedboats or some means for Hezbollah out of the country by water, though it wouldn't have to be that close, and Air would be most effective patroling, specially helos, so it's a longshot, I don't think Hezbollah would try going off country by sea anyway...Best guess is that it was for the psychological factor, backfired a bit though...

* Emergency heli-pad for IDF helicopters operating over Lebonon - why this close in?

As far as I've investigated, the choppers it carries are mainly ASW, no reason t be over Lib



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Ioseb_Jugashvili has it right;


1) Is the range of the target increasing or decreasing in relation to the ship? The CIWS search radar will see contacts that are out-bound and not pay attention to them. The CIWS will only engage a target if it's approaching the ship.


How did that skeet shot scenario with RIM-7 go again?

Escrotumus damn right as well. When Captain whose ship is engaged in combat does not properly asses threat level while having intel in hand, and the resulting attack on his ship takes it out of action and results in deaths of his crew, he is to be court marshaled, and I GUARANTEE that it will not happen in this case.


Phalanx will track anything over 200 mph. It's doing about Mach in 200 yards. Sea Sparrow has an initial booster that the air to air Sparrow doesn't. I'm not sure how RAM works.


"The CIWS search radar will see contacts that are out-bound and not pay attention to them" - that was JUST posted above, what are you thinking?

See my previous statement - "I don't know about you, but other then a number of obvious variables preventing such scenario from happening, for me It's rather hard to image that a point defense system does not have an outbound tracking/engagement fail safe. Allowing for such a margin of human error simply endangers the ship."


That previous claim from iskander is as close to an outright lie as ive ever seen. Phalanx turned on every second of the day, please, go do some research before making a claim like that.


BigTrain derails. Where exactly have I stated that Phalanx is turned on "every second of the day"? Does "battle stations" mean anything to "Some of us here who have backgrounds and expertise in the military"?

planeman, Escrotumus, psteel, as usual I'd very glad to see common sense and logic prevail. Great to see you here.

planeman, my apologies for bugging you, but I'm VERY anxious to know if you can share Crimean SAM sites coords with me. Let me know please.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Escrotumus damn right as well. When Captain whose ship is engaged in combat does not properly asses threat level while having intel in hand, and the resulting attack on his ship takes it out of action and results in deaths of his crew, he is to be court marshaled, and I GUARANTEE that it will not happen in this case.


Well on that my friend we can only but speculate, intelligence could have been faulty, and hence saving the captain from all guilt, and Phalanx could be turned off, as I stated before, if they were expecting a helo (not flying over Lebanon, all I've found is that Saar 5 have ASW helos) for I believe helos can go over that speed (the Dauphin can at least) or planes where doing flybys or missions of sorts nearby.

The one I find strange was Barak, for it DOES have iff, yet it was inactive or failed to intercept the missile (which I believe is older than newer russian and chinese models), so anyway, it could have been one, two, or all of them, Faulty intelligence, with inop Terminal Def system, which inop/offline Barak system = Hezbollah victory (you will have to acknowledge, that for a bunch of folks with no hopes whatsoever to beat a modern military, it is a victory to achieve a mission kill, and even more of the newest toy of the Israelis)



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Another good point from Ioseb_Jugashvili;


Yet I also understand your point, and since Phalanx has no IFF whatsoever (proof of that I posted before) my personal guess is that they would be expecting an helicopter, or having helicopter sorties (awfully close to the coast, but that's just me, maybe that's Israeli standard) reason to Phalanx to be offline, if any reason, for Phalanx only engages objects faster than 200 mph, yet this doesn't explain why the Barak system wasn't active, since it does have IFF, and even when Phalanx could present a danger to IDF aircraft, Barak wouldn't, and has no excuse for not being online.


An inbound helo would have been a ligit situation, yet Israelis naturally deploy AWACS support, and since aircraft take off and landing leave ships at their most vulnerable, AWACS would have been paying real close attention to the coast.

Just missed it when I was typing;


The officer revealed that IAF fighter jets, helicopters, and AWACs had participated in hundreds of airborne operations over Lebanon since two soldiers were kidnapped and eight others killed in a Hizbullah attack along the northern border on Wednesday.


www.jpost.com...


Let's see here 17 km from shore, engaging a low flying, optically guided missile coming from shore. Can anyone say lost in backscatter from the shore? If the Phalanx radar was even turned on.


What I see, is a ship in the striking range of known enemy weapon, and is naturally provided with AWACS support just in case that happens, support which is there specifically do to shore back scatter.

The question here is was it a "brace for impact" type of situation.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Well on that my friend we can only but speculate, intelligence could have been faulty, and hence saving the captain from all guilt, and Phalanx could be turned off, as I stated before, if they were expecting a helo (not flying over Lebanon, all I've found is that Saar 5 have ASW helos) for I believe helos can go over that speed (the Dauphin can at least) or planes where doing flybys or missions of sorts nearby.


I just posted on the helo situation, but defense systems being turned of simply can't happen. Even before the attack, CNN was reporting that Hezbollah was firing UNGUIDED Katusha rockets at Israeli ships.

Nice high ballistic trajectory, making them perfect targets, so turned off defense systems scenario just doesn't fly.


it could have been one, two, or all of them, Faulty intelligence, with inop Terminal Def system, which inop/offline Barak system = Hezbollah victory (you will have to acknowledge, that for a bunch of folks with no hopes whatsoever to beat a modern military, it is a victory to achieve a mission kill, and even more of the newest toy of the Israelis)


Which is even more troubling, because now everybody will be buying double the missiles they did before, and the ones that already have them (Syria/Iran) will be even boulder, allowing them greater political leverage.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join