Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Full details of the Hezbullah INS Hanit kill
Herc the Merc    2/7/2007 5:38:03 PM
defensenews.com/story.php?F=2461626&C=mideast Israel Navy Faults Humans, Not Technology, for Ship Attack By BARBARA OPALL-ROME, TEL AVIV Nearly six months after a Hizbollah-launched missile struck Israel?s premier warship off Lebanon?s coast, an inquiry has validated Navy and industrial contentions that technology was not to blame for arguably the most embarrassing failure of the Summer 2006 war. Findings from an exhaustive post-war probe into the C-802 attack on the INS Hanit determined that operational readiness deficiencies ? rather than technology failings ? led to the death of four sailors aboard the Sa?ar 5 corvette. Despite initial suspicions that a radar malfunction contributed to the July 14 attack, experts here said the glitch in the Elta Pulse Doppler surveillance system affected only detection range, not accuracy. And because the INS Hanit was sailing less than 10 miles from the Lebanese shore, the range-degraded radar would have detected the incoming threat had it been operated properly at the time of the attack. Moreover, the locally made Barak ship defense system was in optimum condition to track, identify and intercept the Chinese-origin missile, had it not been deactivated prior to the attack. Similarly, other ship defenses, such as the U.S.-produced Phalanx and the Elbit Deseaver decoy control and launching system, were fully functional but languishing in standby mode the night of the attack. As for other onboard systems, investigators confirmed that locally produced electro-optical surveillance sensors, communications and combat management systems were in prime condition and fully operational, but that the integrated naval electronic warfare suite designed to track incoming missiles was in standby mode. ?We found no technical errors in the Barak system,? said Nir Maor, a rear admiral in the Israel Navy reserves who led the after-action investigation. Maor on Jan. 3 declined to discuss specifics from his voluminous findings, yet acknowledged that technical issues were negligible compared to conceptual, operational and command deficiencies surrounding the July 14 event. ?Within the first 10 hours after the [Friday night] attack, even before the INS Hanit returned to port, we had a very high level of confidence that technology and engineering were not the problem,? said Rear Adm. Omri Dagul, head of the Israel Navy?s Materiel Command. ?By Monday morning, after running full-up analyses on each individual system and validating the interoperability of all systems, we concluded there were no technical errors that would have been relevant to the July 14 attack,? said Dagul. ?Even after the attack, and all the damage sustained to the ship, all systems operated. We found no need to replace technology or order corrective fixes.? Navy officials said the service operated at readiness rates of more than 90 percent, despite the 8,000 hours of continuous maritime operations in Lebanese waters. The Barak missile is also used by the Indian Navy, which used it to bring down an incoming missile in a Jan. 4 test. According to the after-action account, Iranian-assisted Hizbollah fighters launched three Iranian versions of the Chinese radar-guided cruise missiles. One hit the Hanit, another overshot its target and sunk a Cambodian-flagged merchant ship some 60 kilometers away, and another apparently exploded upon launch. The missile that struck the Hanit actually exploded after hitting a railing at the rear of the ship and did not penetrate the aft deck. According to naval officials here, the impact destroyed the aft electrical switchboard and caused extensive fire damage, but the fully redundant, highly shock-resistant, compartmentalized Sa?ar-5 used its forward electrical power source to return to port. After 10 days of extensive repairs, the Hanit returned to full operational deployment through Sept. 8, when Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon. Operational Deficiencies Maor?s postwar probe revealed wholesale deficiencies in the way the Navy assessed, understood and responded to the operational environment that prevailed following Hizbollah?s July 12 cross-border raid that triggered the summertime war. From the Navy?s failure to anticipate the Hizbollah missile threat to improper deployment of the premier warship so perilously close to the Lebanese shore, investigators found that service leaders did not appreciate the fact that the nation was at war. At the time of the attack, most of the ship?s 80-plus crew members were in the mess room enjoying a Sabbath-eve dinner, an error of complacency that ? ironically, in retrospect ? ended up saving lives, sources here said. The report faulted the service?s nonchalant disregard of warnings ? however general and inexplicit ? issued by Israel Defense Force (IDF) military intelligence to assume that Iranian anti-ship missiles could have found their way into Hizbollah?s arsenal. The report also faulted Navy commanders for not elev
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
battar    Toast   2/8/2007 3:49:17 PM
Active EW and radar systems use a lot of power. If you keep them running at full throttle continuosly,  you will reduce the operational life of the high power, high frequency, high price components, and you will have a system - a very complex system - with a MBTF (mean time between failures) of 3-4 weeks.
This doesn't excuse the failures on board the INS Hanit, but it does go to explain why it is not taken for granted that a naval ship should be at full operational readiness at all times.
 
It is my personal opinion that if the missile had hit the hull and not the railing on the rear deck the ship might have been lost.
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       2/16/2007 6:16:19 PM
Asleep at the switch. I predict a lot of battle drills as well as a lot of chipping and painting in the upcoming Israeli Navy work schedule. ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       2/16/2007 6:31:59 PM

Active EW and radar systems use a lot of power. If you keep them running at full throttle continuosly,  you will reduce the operational life of the high power, high frequency, high price components, and you will have a system - a very complex system - with a MBTF (mean time between failures) of 3-4 weeks.

This doesn't excuse the failures on board the INS Hanit, but it does go to explain why it is not taken for granted that a naval ship should be at full operational readiness at all times.

 

It is my personal opinion that if the missile had hit the hull and not the railing on the rear deck the ship might have been lost.

Plan for it. Use a passive launch detector and offship sensors  and have the ship's active systems auto-slaved to go active the moment that a threat registers in the battlespace surveilled.

This is the normal practice.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Follow up. INS Hanit "kill"?    2/16/2007 6:44:10 PM
Its the usual overeager malarkey interpretation posted by the usual troll.

Ten days after being towed into port after being hit/grazed by a Chinese C-801 ASM says volumes about how TOUGH the US builds ships, even corvettes built by Northrop Ingalls for Israel.

It also speaks volumes about how crappy Chinese ASMs really are. One blew up on launch, one missed, and one pre-detonated . Want to bet that a current model Exocet , Gabriel, NASM, or Harpoon would turn in such a crummy performance?

Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       3/2/2007 1:58:44 AM

Its the usual overeager malarkey interpretation posted by the usual troll. Ten days after being towed into port after being hit/grazed by a Chinese C-801 ASM says volumes about how TOUGH the US builds ships, even corvettes built by Northrop Ingalls for Israel. It also speaks volumes about how crappy Chinese ASMs really are. One blew up on launch, one missed, and one pre-detonated . Want to bet that a current model Exocet , Gabriel, NASM, or Harpoon would turn in such a crummy performance?

Herald

 


Good points. That ship is tiny and that cruise missile should've demolished it. Hey now, that missile was assembled in Iran from chinese parts! There's a reason why it's cheap enough for Turd World countries to deploy.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       3/3/2007 1:05:10 PM
Pity, what would have been the best selling op for the barak system was turned into a ........

Wikipedia states that the C-802 as one of the best air launched anti ship missiles, with 98 percent hit probability as well as being very difficult to jam. It would have been geat if this missile had been shot down. My initial reaction to the news of the Hanit was that it was hit by a sunburn missile that was partially or somewhat disabled by the onboard countermeasures.

If it is crew failure to switch on, then that would indeed be strange. Or a very very very bad oversight when your vessel comes close into shore within shore battery range, one would suppose the defence of the ship woul be top priority. I hope it is not like the situation in the HMS Sheffield when 2 Argentinian sky hawks that appeared like one bogey on the radar, caused the whole system to crash when it turns out that the single blip became 2 targets, its best they truely solve the glitch if there is any.

A bunch of these anti ship missiles, espeacially the  air  launched ones do not have really big warheads that could sink ships, some like the sea skua are meant to disable. And if the C-802 is a pirated version of the French exocet missile, it is no supprise that the warhead does not detonate and the damadge is done by the propellent fuel., it performs very much like the exocet. Oh yes, to the dismay of  some of the navies in  the  Far  East that use the Exocet,  they  also  found out that the Exocet sometimes hit their targets and at other times tend to miss their targets completely as well.

But it would be something to see the German Kommorant hit an enemy vessel, with its 20 over shaped charges in its warhead that are meant to detonate seperately as it bores through the ship. That vessel would more likely sink.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/11/2007 5:54:02 PM
 
Photo of INS Hanit after the missile hit.
 
It was C802 for sure.
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush       10/12/2007 4:47:47 AM
Mmmmh...
There's still no explanation what the f. the Khanit was doing so close inshore. It certainly isn't designed as a shore bombardment platform, since it has no guns, and although MLRS-things aboard are a possibility, they remain to be seen on that sort of vessel. Since the main radar was experiencing some kind of fault and the ECM systems were turned off, it probably wasn't doing the ELINT/SIGINT or C4 part either.

Also, the name of the Celestial Being who, with a sweep of His wing, lopped off the C-802's warhead has not been disclosed. It will, of course, forever be argued that the observance of the holy Shabbat was what saved the crew...

 
Quote    Reply

battar    Chinese food   10/12/2007 8:02:43 AM
Shirrush,
                Chinese missiles come under the jurisdiction of Chinese gods.
No, it wasn't the Chinese year of the donkey which saved Mr Peretz from further embarresment, nor the Chinese year of the rat which saved Olmert. It was actually the year of the dog. Interpret that as you wish.
I understand that the new commander of the Israel navy had a Chinese (or Hong-Kong) grandmother.  His service nickname is "Chinee" and he looks the part.
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush       10/12/2007 8:51:24 AM

Shirrush,

                Chinese missiles come under the jurisdiction of Chinese gods.

No, it wasn't the Chinese year of the donkey which saved Mr Peretz from further embarresment, nor the Chinese year of the rat which saved Olmert. It was actually the year of the dog. Interpret that as you wish.

I understand that the new commander of the Israel navy had a Chinese (or Hong-Kong) grandmother.  His service nickname is "Chinee" and he looks the part.

Battar, to the best of my understanding, Chinese gods hold no sway over Eastern Mediterranean waters.
Phoenician gods, having not received any human sacrifices in a long time, are likely out of the game as well. That leaves us with old Qadosh Baruch'hu and his celestial legions, and the eeevil, bloodthirsty moongod of the Ishmaelites only. I don't think Poseidon, who used to rule Charybdes and Scyllla, is still around, or that Yemanja has taken any significant role in our area, but hey, what do I know, I'm only a neighborhood prophet!

Your repeated bashing of Amir Peretz at every possible occasion is beginning to verge on the pathological, and Olmert shows no sign of removing his disgrace from our leadership. Furthermore, my religion, as well as your own inflexible atheistic dogma, forbid us from delving in astrology and even more from believing in it, be it Chinese or otherwise.

I hope the new IN commander, who was naval attaché at the Israeli embassy in Singapore and is thus rather innocent of the series of blunders, oversights, and sheer negligence that led to the loss of four of our sailors on the Khanit, will be up to the job of restoring our confidence in our Yiddishe Navy, whatever his tribal affiliation may be. His knowledge of the Asian naval scene certainly won't hurt.

Since you're the only poster here who's supposed to have served in the Navy, and to understand a little bit about how it operates, you should be the one to answer my question: wtf was the gunless, radarless Khanit doing 16 km off Beyrouth on that night? Sightseeing?

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics