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.
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
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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
* 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)