Israel: Iran aided Hezbollah ship attack

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Termagant
Again I ask, how will Israel strike targets in Iran, especially eastern Iran?

The F-15Is at the end of their legs, just able to reach Tehran, overflying Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Jordan just to get there?

Or will they be refueled over Iraq?

Or maybe lob 24 Popeye Turbos from the 3 Dolphin submarines?

Really going to blow a huge country into the stone age.....

Or are people advocating nukes again?

They will refuel in Iraq obviously.

Which would directly inplicate us in the attack.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Termagant
Again I ask, how will Israel strike targets in Iran, especially eastern Iran?

The F-15Is at the end of their legs, just able to reach Tehran, overflying Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Jordan just to get there?

Or will they be refueled over Iraq?

Or maybe lob 24 Popeye Turbos from the 3 Dolphin submarines?

Really going to blow a huge country into the stone age.....

Or are people advocating nukes again?

They will refuel in Iraq obviously.

Which would directly inplicate us in the attack.

So what will the "sovereign" state of Iraq say about this?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Termagant
Again I ask, how will Israel strike targets in Iran, especially eastern Iran?

The F-15Is at the end of their legs, just able to reach Tehran, overflying Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Jordan just to get there?

Or will they be refueled over Iraq?

Or maybe lob 24 Popeye Turbos from the 3 Dolphin submarines?

Really going to blow a huge country into the stone age.....

Or are people advocating nukes again?

They will refuel in Iraq obviously.

Which would directly inplicate us in the attack.

If it got to the point of Israel/Iran fighting I would think that Iran would attack US forces in Iraq already.

I think to the Arab would, the US support of Israel and vetoing a cease fire already implicated us in the attack.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Termagant

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Termagant
Again I ask, how will Israel strike targets in Iran, especially eastern Iran?

The F-15Is at the end of their legs, just able to reach Tehran, overflying Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Jordan just to get there?

Or will they be refueled over Iraq?

Or maybe lob 24 Popeye Turbos from the 3 Dolphin submarines?

Really going to blow a huge country into the stone age.....

Or are people advocating nukes again?

They will refuel in Iraq obviously.

Which would directly inplicate us in the attack.

So what will the "sovereign" state of Iraq say about this?

You can expect the Shia Population to rise up against the US forces if we allowed this to happen.

 

[maluckey]

Again I ask, how will Israel strike targets in Iran, especially eastern Iran?

Tehran is the largest (by far) industrialized area in Iran. No need to go farther east. Tehran is well within within range of F-15's without the need to refuel over Iraq. They can refuel after takeoff (in Israel) and still have 10-15 minutes residencce time over target. Normal residence time is measured in seconds after a ground attack, not minutes.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: maluckey
smack Down (and others)

Look, you CAN destroy a country by air to the point where they no longer have a method or will to retaliate. Israel is completely capable of defeating the air forces of Syria and Iran at the same time.

You cannot hide in bunkers (proven in Iraq). You cannot hide in tunnels for long (they show by satellite). You can't even move under cover of darkness (As proven in Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama etc). You can defeat armored vehicles (Iraq, Afghanistan), and you can remove the ability to manufacture weapons of any sort more complex than a club (Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia). You can inhibit movement of troops to the point where they are ineffective (Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama). All this can be done without hitting individuals or cities as entities. Only the infrastructure itself needs to be hit.

Vietnam, as others are babbling about, had preselected targeting lists, made months earlier, and aproved by a congressional committee. Of course the enemy also knew this after a short while, so kept a fluid battle line. There were NO TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY allowed, and changes to the list required months, by which time the enemy was no longer there.

Umm did you just cite Iraq and afghanistan as success of air power eleminating their ablity to wage war? If you have not notice fighting is still on going in both.

 

[0roo0roo]

irans just having a laugh riot over this. turn the world into sh* and buy themselves time for more nuke building. woohoo!

 

[maluckey]

Umm did you just cite Iraq and afghanistan as success of air power eleminating their ablity to wage war? If you have not notice fighting is still on going in both.

There was fighting before, during and will be after the United States leaves. What's your point?? They cannot wage war. They can cause disruptions and that is the extent that is left to them. They could not stop elections, rebuilding or re-arming. They could not stopt the occupation or anything else. That is not war....that is defeat. They are defeated.

 

[fornax]

I looked up the specs of C-802 and have hard time believing that it was used. Those have warhead with 300kg-500kg TNT equivalent. There would be nothing left of the corvette if it were hit by a C-802.

A possible culrpit is this missile. It is much less powerful (30kg), and I can more easily imagine Hizbollah having those than the C-802 that requires pretty sophisticated operators. I think they just got lucky, because any semi-decent air defense should be able to shoot them down easily. Was the anti-missile defense operational on the ship? Or were they thinking that nothing could possibly threaten them from a backward country like Lebanon?

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: fornax
I looked up the specs of C-802 and have hard time believing that it was used. Those have warhead with 300kg-500kg TNT equivalent. There would be nothing left of the corvette if it were hit by a C-802.

A possible culrpit is this missile. It is much less powerful (30kg), and I can more easily imagine Hizbollah having those than the C-802 that requires pretty sophisticated operators. I think they just got lucky, because any semi-decent air defense should be able to shoot them down easily. Was the anti-missile defense operational on the ship? Or were they thinking that nothing could possibly threaten them from a backward country like Lebanon?

They had turned the missle defence system off because they thought this coulfd never have happened. Shades of the USS Stark.

 

[Termagant]

First of all, the C-802 has a 165kg warhead. The warhead is semi-armor piercing, and basically the speed of the missile is needed to punch through the hull of the ship. The missile dives to hit the ship at the waterline which is consistent with the available pictures. The warhead could have not detonated: in the Falklands for instance the Exocet which hit the Atlantic Conveyor did not detonate, and remaining rocket fuel started a fire which engulfed equipment on the ship's deck. One of the two Exocets which struck the USS Stark failed to detonate as well.

The picture you linked to is the C-701, at television guided missile with a range of 15 km. I am not sure the INS Hanit was within this range of the coast line. Also, IIRC the Egyptian ship struck was even farther down range. The Egyptian ship being hit is consistent with the C-802. The missile is given a heading to fly on, and the terminal radar seeker is set to activate after a certain distance, and scan for targets within radar range and field of view. Any target which appears in this targeting envelop is engaged. Therefore, errors with the preflight targeting or the missiles inertial flight mode can result in the missile going active and finding an unintended target. This is what happened with the Exocet which struck the USS Stark.

With the C-701's TV guidance, I am not sure if targeting errors can occur like that.

Alleged video of the missiles launching

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: maluckey
smack Down (and others)

Look, you CAN destroy a country by air to the point where they no longer have a method or will to retaliate. Israel is completely capable of defeating the air forces of Syria and Iran at the same time.

You cannot hide in bunkers (proven in Iraq). You cannot hide in tunnels for long (they show by satellite). You can't even move under cover of darkness (As proven in Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama etc). You can defeat armored vehicles (Iraq, Afghanistan), and you can remove the ability to manufacture weapons of any sort more complex than a club (Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia). You can inhibit movement of troops to the point where they are ineffective (Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama). All this can be done without hitting individuals or cities as entities. Only the infrastructure itself needs to be hit.

Vietnam, as others are babbling about, had preselected targeting lists, made months earlier, and aproved by a congressional committee. Of course the enemy also knew this after a short while, so kept a fluid battle line. There were NO TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY allowed, and changes to the list required months, by which time the enemy was no longer there.

Umm did you just cite Iraq and afghanistan as success of air power eleminating their ablity to wage war? If you have not notice fighting is still on going in both.

Afghanistan and Iraq now have a pathetic capability for waging war on other countries. To hell with trying to police em, it's easy to leave a country to ruins. Our failures have been in clean up, not of blowing it up.

Why do you keep arguing that it?s not possible?

 

[MadRat]

Iran doesn't have special forces that smuggle in and setup to fire large chinese-made missiles like that. More likely the technicians training Hezbollah were from farther east than Iran.

The real question is why the missile hit without any countermeasures deployed. Isreal must not of been on a state of alert that warranted looking out for anti-shipping missiles. Vivid images of the USS Stark incident come to mind.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Iran doesn't have special forces that smuggle in and setup to fire large chinese-made missiles like that. More likely the technicians training Hezbollah were from farther east than Iran.

The real question is why the missile hit without any countermeasures deployed. Isreal must not of been on a state of alert that warranted looking out for anti-shipping missiles. Vivid images of the USS Stark incident come to mind.

Could it be possible that the anti-ship missile is 2 levels above the threat level that were previously known by Hezbollah.
Iran had boasted about the high speed torpedeo and was known to have Silkworms deployed on the Persian Gulf.

It was not known that such missiles had been send to Lebanon.
Of course those that say that the load of missle and arms intended for Gaza that were intercepted a few years ago hidden on a ship were for legitimate self defense.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: smack Down
Iran can have all the fun it wants piss of israel because israel doesn't have the troops to occupy Iran and we a stuck in Iraq.

thats what I like about you dude!! Your name is Smackdown yet not once have you proven you havew a grasp on any of this.

Can we all say-- Bomb them back into the stoneage??

WE who???? Do you have a rat in your back pocket that is making you brave? When do you enlist, after this weeks clan war? Zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Iran doesn't have special forces that smuggle in and setup to fire large chinese-made missiles like that. More likely the technicians training Hezbollah were from farther east than Iran.

The real question is why the missile hit without any countermeasures deployed. Isreal must not of been on a state of alert that warranted looking out for anti-shipping missiles. Vivid images of the USS Stark incident come to mind.

What makes you think the technicians are not from Iran? Iran has been manufacturing the C-801 for over a decade, and has possessed the C-802 since 1996 apparently.

Israel has already stated they did not expect missiles like this and the ships defenses were off. There were a lot of Israeli aircraft overhead and they wanted to avoid friendly fire problems.

 

[Aimster]

Iranian special forces are inside Lebanon.

The missile fired at the Israel ship was not as powerful as the newer Iranian missiles. The new Iranian missiles would have taken the ship out.
Does this mean that it was not Iranian made? No. It was most likely Iranian made.

It is easy to find out if Iran has been supplying Hezbollah with their most advanced weapons. So far the signs are that Iran has not given Hezbollah their best weapons. If Hezbollah does fire any missile/rocket deep into Israel (70 miles) then it more than likely came from Iran. Iran has hundreds if not thousands of missiles that can go 100-300 miles.

Also helicopters are flying over Lebanon. Iran has some pretty good weapons in taking out helicopters yet no Israeli helicopter has been taken out (maybe they were flying at night?).

It appears Iran has only suppied Hezbollah with basic weapons intended for an invasion force (tanks and troops). Israel is not invading so Hezbollah is really not trained to fight Israel while they attack on the other side of the border.

Iraq couldn't build their own weapons and Iraq was a very advanced country in the late 80s and early 90s. What makes people think Hezbollah could actually build these weapons when Iraq couldn't? They are Iranian - Syrian made. At least the know-how came from those two countries.

 

[mboy]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
I tend to agree that bombs alone won't win a war. Just look at Iraq. We have bombed the crap out of them and still there is chaos over there. I don't know much about the history of the middle east, but they have been fighting over there for a long time. I feel sorry for the innocent civillians of the countries over there. They are the victims of whatever the governements do. It would be nice if there were peace over there, but I doubt that it would happen anytime soon. I think it also shows that religious fundamentalism is wrong no matter who is practicing it.

We did not bomb the crap out of them. We didn't use enough bombs and our ROE are preventing us from decisively winning.
Let's hope Israel have no ROE.

Rememeber people, the scumbags they are fighting are the SAME PEOPLE DIRECTLY responsible for killing hundreds of Americans via sucide bombers.

 

[mboy]

Originally posted by: Termagant
Again I ask, how will Israel strike targets in Iran, especially eastern Iran?

The F-15Is at the end of their legs, just able to reach Tehran, overflying Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Jordan just to get there?

Or will they be refueled over Iraq?

Or maybe lob 24 Popeye Turbos from the 3 Dolphin submarines?

Really going to blow a huge country into the stone age.....

Or are people advocating nukes again?

Never hear dof refueling?

You don't think the US 9who controls Iraq airspace) would not let them refuel?

 

[mboy]

How we ferget that

A) Iranians are not Arab
B) You really think egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc want iran to get nukes and be the only ones over there besides Isarel with them?
C) Think Iraq has ANY love for Iran what so ever? We control Iraqi airspace, we can do what we please with it and they will pretty much have to take it.

 

[mboy]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Iran doesn't have special forces that smuggle in and setup to fire large chinese-made missiles like that. More likely the technicians training Hezbollah were from farther east than Iran.

The real question is why the missile hit without any countermeasures deployed. Isreal must not of been on a state of alert that warranted looking out for anti-shipping missiles. Vivid images of the USS Stark incident come to mind.

Are you im[plying China was repsonsible?

I believe China has a MUCh better realtionship with Israel then they do with iran.
China and Israel are pretty friendly.
To the extent that Israel sold them military technology that te US did not want them to and was not soo thruilled about.

 

[Aimster]

Iran can turn Iraq into a disaster for U.S troops.

If we weren't inside Iraq, Iran would have probably already been hit. The U.S (troops) is now striking distance from Iranian artillery and weapons.

It also has to do with the supply of oil. Iran can damage world oil prices and send prices so high that economies will start to collapse. Iran if left with no other choice would start attacking oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. The U.S cannot guarantee the safety of that area. The ships if they enter that body of water are easy targets for Iranian missiles. Open water the U.S navy can own the world. When the ships are so close to land anything can happen.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Termagant
First of all, the C-802 has a 165kg warhead. The warhead is semi-armor piercing, and basically the speed of the missile is needed to punch through the hull of the ship. The missile dives to hit the ship at the waterline which is consistent with the available pictures. The warhead could have not detonated: in the Falklands for instance the Exocet which hit the Atlantic Conveyor did not detonate, and remaining rocket fuel started a fire which engulfed equipment on the ship's deck. One of the two Exocets which struck the USS Stark failed to detonate as well.

The picture you linked to is the C-701, at television guided missile with a range of 15 km. I am not sure the INS Hanit was within this range of the coast line. Also, IIRC the Egyptian ship struck was even farther down range. The Egyptian ship being hit is consistent with the C-802. The missile is given a heading to fly on, and the terminal radar seeker is set to activate after a certain distance, and scan for targets within radar range and field of view. Any target which appears in this targeting envelop is engaged. Therefore, errors with the preflight targeting or the missiles inertial flight mode can result in the missile going active and finding an unintended target. This is what happened with the Exocet which struck the USS Stark.

With the C-701's TV guidance, I am not sure if targeting errors can occur like that.

Alleged video of the missiles launching

Yes, you're right. The C-802 has a 165-kg warhead, the Silkworm is the one with the bigger warhead. Still, a 165-kg warhead would have blown this ship to pieces (if it exploded). It's the same size as an Exoset missile, and we know they can do serious damage (Stark, Sheffield, etc.) I still think that Hizbollah used a C-701 or similar. If you look at the photos of the damaged corvette, you'll see some damage near the waterline, and that's it (I have no idea how authentic those photos are, though). Just the impact of a C-802 would blow a bigger hole and cause more damage.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: Termagant
First of all, the C-802 has a 165kg warhead. The warhead is semi-armor piercing, and basically the speed of the missile is needed to punch through the hull of the ship. The missile dives to hit the ship at the waterline which is consistent with the available pictures. The warhead could have not detonated: in the Falklands for instance the Exocet which hit the Atlantic Conveyor did not detonate, and remaining rocket fuel started a fire which engulfed equipment on the ship's deck. One of the two Exocets which struck the USS Stark failed to detonate as well.

The picture you linked to is the C-701, at television guided missile with a range of 15 km. I am not sure the INS Hanit was within this range of the coast line. Also, IIRC the Egyptian ship struck was even farther down range. The Egyptian ship being hit is consistent with the C-802. The missile is given a heading to fly on, and the terminal radar seeker is set to activate after a certain distance, and scan for targets within radar range and field of view. Any target which appears in this targeting envelop is engaged. Therefore, errors with the preflight targeting or the missiles inertial flight mode can result in the missile going active and finding an unintended target. This is what happened with the Exocet which struck the USS Stark.

With the C-701's TV guidance, I am not sure if targeting errors can occur like that.

Alleged video of the missiles launching

Yes, you're right. The C-802 has a 165-kg warhead, the Silkworm is the one with the bigger warhead. Still, a 165-kg warhead would have blown this ship to pieces (if it exploded). It's the same size as an Exoset missile, and we know they can do serious damage (Stark, Sheffield, etc.) I still think that Hizbollah used a C-701 or similar. If you look at the photos of the damaged corvette, you'll see some damage near the waterline, and that's it (I have no idea how authentic those photos are, though). Just the impact of a C-802 would blow a bigger hole and cause more damage.

I've been reading that that dark area near the waterline is actually an exhaust port and is supposed to look like that. (???) The reports were that the stern/helicopter deck area was ablaze so maybe the missile struck that part. Those pictures of the ship with the helicopter sitting on the pad may be just file images released by the Israelis.

One thing is for sure and its that weapons do not always work as advertised.

 

[filetitan]

I smell world war 3 =/ i knew it was a good idea to extend my russian passport