Isreal spreaded the fake news

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

YelliChink RE:Isreal spreaded the fake news 7/18/2006 12:23:00 AM

I remember reading and seeing PLAN equipt C701s on their new attackers. PLAAF also have H-6 modified to equipt multiple C701s. C701 is not very much different from AGM-65 in both function and capability. If C701 is not a LOS weapon, and has radar altimeter and INS/GPS guidance system, that will be very interesting.

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:High-low theory from Defense-update Galrahn 7/18/2006 12:23:12 AM

Please don't feed the yakeepi! First, who says the C-802 was of Iranian manufacture. The Iranians bought quite a few of them from China which were sea skimmers. Please give me a link that provides details on the Iranian version and a link that says it was an Iranian built missile. (links to blogs are not serious) Galrahn, I have a lot of respect for you, but I made my living for 2 years defending against soviet missiles in the North Atlantic. This is a field that even though my knowledge is very out of date, the game does not change. It was the Eliat that in the end got me my postion as an EW. Was the youngest and most junior person to attend "Electronic Warfare Officers" school in Newport. I also had the most ELINT intercepts when ASW group 4 went to Murmansk (Barents Sea) in 73. I actually beat the carrier guys, even though their antenna was much higher than ours. Why do I say all this. It's not about brag. It's about understanding what EW is all about and how wrong many posts have been (not suggesting yours).

Quote Reply

yakeepi RE:Isreal spreaded the fake news 7/18/2006 6:33:52 AM

>>The seeker radar is a signal that there is a missile. Inertial guidance is generally used for most of the flight on long range flights. The seeker head is used for occasional in-flight checks and terminal guidance. ..... But, to clarify my original request, please show how this situation would have given the Israelis 30 seconds of warning.<< I rarely see the people stupid like this, and you have to explain again and again, honestly this is the failure of western education. No wonder their universities don't have many local students pursing high level studies. A radar guided missile almostly has its seeker on all the time. Inertial guidance or GPS are used but seeker is still on, since the ship is moving. Also terminal stage starts usually long before the missile is within 10km of the target, otherwise it may not have the time to search and lock the target. So 10km lock time is probably the miniumal and it translates into about 30 sec.

Quote Reply

Galrahn RE:Isreal spreaded the fake news -EW3 7/18/2006 12:00:49 PM

I think the defense-update.com source is a better source than any MSM source, only because they have been the defacto #1 IDF site for years and have a reputation on the line (they also have hundreds of combined years experience in the IDF and Mossad between the staff), where the MSM reputation on accurate IDF military tech or tactics is questionable at best. I'll wait for a photo of the damaged ship though. If it was a warhead detonation or not, the impact point will be able to tell us. How extensive the fire is would also be a good indicator. We do know a C-802 of some type hit the Egyptian ship, we know the IDN put out the SSM advisory which indicated they tracked the hit on the Egyptian ship 66km from shore, which would be impressive if the missile is skimming the surface of the sea, and we know the IDF destroyed all coastal radars after the attack. From that point on everything is assumption. I'll wait for a photo of the damaged ship before I draw any more conclusions. As far as my sources for Iranian military tech. If you ever look around the seemingly knowledgable Iranian miltiary forums you will notice there are two posters who constantly seem ahead of the game. They are both programmers, and very good programmers btw. One of the guys has a flickr site that has all the originals of several of the Iranian military weapons MSM TV shows. When it comes to domestically produced Iranian weapons, they seem very knowledgable, and I tend to go with their statements since they never quote the base Iranian news line like most Iranian internet users. They belong to an email list I am in, and have been doing most of the talking about the anti-ship missiles. They claim Iran is produces the C-701R in Iran with Chinese help. The C-701R is different from the older C-701 which has electro-optical guidence, replacing it with an advanced radar guided unit and solid fins instead of the pop-outs of the older Chinese C-701s Iran purchased back in the day. The C-701s Iran has purchased in the past from China are for ships like the China Cats, which would need pop-outs unless Iran is also producing new launchers. Look at the pictures of Irans version of the C-701, which looks like the C-701R to me. The truck launched system has solid fins. The pictures tend to support their claims. link Also on display here: link As you may or may not know, I do data mining among other things for a living. My digging around came up with more information about the C-701R, which was put out in english language broucher at the 2004 China World Air Show 2004. It is available online here: link I'm not going to claim to know what happened, or that I am right, but I do give credibility to the defense-update site because I have found at least 1 other source that has a similar theory. If we assume the video is right, then a closer look at the comments sid makes at Eagle1's blog gives some indication where the launch would be. link And given the locations around where the ships were hit, the C-701 theory is as good as any at this point. Photos will tell us more.

Quote Reply

Arbalest RE:Isreal spreaded the fake news 7/18/2006 1:19:31 PM

EW3: Please don't feed the yakeepi! Sorry, it?s just that this source of intentional BS needs to be exposed, and hosed off a bit. Y: I rarely see the people stupid like this, and you have to explain again and again, honestly this is the failure of western education. Read your postings on this thread for textbook examples. Any western 6th grader can understand and provide a direct answer, with no evasiveness or BS, to my questions (after some research, of course). You seem unable to understand the questions posed to you. This indicates a failure of an educational system, but not a western one. Let?s try again. Previously: . . . Because the earth is not flat and missile flies low, so 10km is probably a reasonable distance the ship is locked by missile's radar. It will give you about 30 sec warning time, if the ship can detect the radar signal. and most recently: So 10km lock time is probably the miniumal and it translates into about 30 sec. The problem is that the RH missile did not lock on to the Israeli ship. It locked on to an Egyptian ship ~40km beyond the Israeli ship. 1. Since the Israeli ship was not the target of a lock, please explain how the Israeli ship?s sensors should be expected to give 30 seconds of warning. 2. While you?re at it, please also include a second explanation for how the Israeli ship?s sensors should give 30 seconds of warning about an incoming TV/IR guided missile (as previously described and requested). Possible answers to #1 include: a) The Israeli systems were off (a very poor choice). No 30sec warning. b) The seeker head was off until it was too close to the Israeli ship. When it turned on, the Israeli ship was out of its field of view, and it saw the Egyptian ship. No 30sec warning. c) There were other radars on in the area (other ships, etc.), none of which registered on the Israeli sensors as a threat. The RH missile, which failed to lock, was simply included as one of them. No 30sec warning. d) Your answer, Y. Possible answers to #2 include: a) The current Israeli optical sensors consist of a guy with binoculars. Perhaps now it consists of two guys. b) The current Israeli optical sensors detect laser designators. As this missile did not have one, the sensors could not detect it. No 30sec warning. c) The hot exhaust was mostly hidden by the missile body, and the TV link was highly directional. The background, of potentially burning Hizbollah targets, provided additional noise and camouflage. No 30sec warning. d) Your answer, Y.

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:Galrahn 7/18/2006 2:49:25 PM

Sorry for my late night rant.... Was into my cups and am very tense about the situation in the ME.

Quote Reply

Mechanic Sidenotes 7/19/2006 2:55:26 PM

I found an article from Jane's where Chinese claimed C-701 to be capable of attacking an AEGIS ship (and that it was designed for that). This is accomplisehd by sea skimming and passive seeker, to give as little warning as possible. Propably Chinese made it also otherwise stealthy as it was designed to engage AEGIS ships. Another article on JDW claimed that the hit was by C-802 and the helicopter deck did collapse to the lower deck. The damage sounds about right to me if 30 kg of HE expolded inside the hull or 150kg of HE that exploded before penetrating or before complete penetration of the hull. Or in some semi-open place like a hangar with doors open. Some of you surely have been in a real combat duty or at least praticing one in a combat vessel or in similar enviroment. If you expect no response from the enemy, how long does it take to make a decision after a warning sounds and light flashes? ROE doesn't allow full auto operation of missile defence systems because friendlies are in the area. ALARM! 3s "What the heck is that?" 2s "Could it really be that?" 3s "What are the conditions that trigger this alarm. Did I order a test?" 1s "Oh sh1t, it really is coming right for us!" 2s "Launch chaff and flares!" 1s *Whereisthatguywhatwastherightcommand?* 10s *communicating and forming SA. "Do we have visual or radar lock?" "No, sir" "Are there friendlies nearby?" "On patrol is at the same direction, 20NM out 20kft" "If I turn self defence to full auto, how many own or neutral target will be shot down? Could this be false alarm? How much time I have left?" 2s *making decision* 2s *Turn missile defence system to full auto!* 2s *receiver understanding* 2s *receiver taking the required action to turn the defence system on* 30s passed, missile hits I remember reading that Falkland War British ESM systems didn't recognize Exocets as a threat as is was categorized as friendly missile. This may be a legend but it made me think could the C-802 FCR be modified so that it would look like a "frindly" missile type? Of course ships ESM should also react "friendly" radars' locking pattern as well as hostile ones. If I was in ship, any incoming Anti-Ship missile would look very hostile, even if it was painted on my national colours. But it may have reducted the reaction time that corvette got, right?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12