Land-launched Chinese anti-shipping missile, C-802
Posted on 07/15/2006 11:01:02 AM PDT by Jeff Head
On July 14th the IDF's best anti-air defense vessel was mission killed by a strike from shore off the Beruit, Lebannon coast. It appears that the vessel was hit by a guided missile, launched either by Iranian trained Hezbollah, or by Iranian Guards themselves operating out of Lebannon.
Land-launched Chinese anti-shipping missile, C-802
The missile was apparently a Chinese-made C-802 which is a sub sonic surface to surface anti-shipping missile. The Iranians have purchased a lot of these from China, and is working with N. Korea to improve the design. The missile is capable of a sea-skimming approach, and reportedly outfitted to engage in a high electronic counterm measrue (ECM) environment. On July 14th, it proved, to the advantage of Hezbollah, Iran, China, and N. Korea, that it was capable of doing so in certain engagement envelopes against some of the best western technology available.
The Saar 5 is thought to be the best AAW, Corvette-sized class in the world, rivaling the firepower and capabilities of many nations much larger guided missile destroyers. With two 32 cell Barak anti-missile launchers, and with a 20mm Phalanx CIWS, and outfitted with high tech ECM instrumentation, high tech radars, guidance, fire control, and data link capabilities, it was specifcally designed to protect itself and other vessels against just this type of attack.
IDF Saar 5 Anti-air missile Corvette.
It was there on July 14th to protect the IDF gunboats that were bombarding the Lebannon shore. It was there to protect them and itself precisely form this type of attack.
So why did it fail and get mission killed itself with an attack of two missiles, one of which targeted an Egyptian merchant vessel and the other the IDF ship?
Here's my initial, thought-out assessment:
The IDF had their high value AAW, Saar 5, vessel there to protect its gun boats which were shelling the Lebannon shore. Those gun boat's main batteries have a short range which means the Saar 5 had to be close in to shore to protect them. That allowed it to be targeted in an evironment which minimized it's own defenses and maximized the C-802 capability.
They were too close to respond effectively or in enough time. At ten miles (16 km) off-shore, they had perhaps sixty seconds total to defend themselves, but really only the time between detection and impact. Since the C-802 comes in low, and since it would be hard to detect by airborne AWACS, if they were even watching over this part of the battlefield and if they were data linked to the Saar 5, the threat came upon them quickly and they probably had only their own radar event horizon to respond in. This means they had maybe seconds. Either they were not adequately prepared (which is hard to imagine for the IDF), or they were simply too close and did not have enough time.
In this environment, the Israelis needs longer ranged shore bombarment capability to avoid putting it's modern, sophisticated AAW vessels at such risk, and to give them more time to resspond to a modern SSM threat.
All nations with naval power, the ability to defend it, and the desire to defeat5 it, will study this engagement to the max. My onw opinion is that with mnore time, and in an environment where the Saar 5 systems were maximized, or at least tilted more in their favor, the chances of a successful intercept would have gone up exponentially.
But that environemtn was not the environemnt the Saar 5 found itself in on July 14th, 2006.
As to the threat to USN vessels. It is the same threat, in confied waters like the Straits of Hormuz, that the USN will have to be prepared to defend against...or perahps in the Western Pacific one day.
In order to do so, data linking, longer range, AWACS, opther vessels, will all give the more advanced AEGIS system more time to react. My guess is the USN will conduct heavy air attack suppression of the coastal areas in order to negate as many launchers as possible before attempting to force such waters.
If, like the IDF, this luxury is not available or is constrained by political or other necessities, then the threat will be proportionally higher.
These threats are discussed at length in my Dragon's Fury Series of novels about a full-blown, third world war that arises from events in the mid-East very similar to what we are witnessing, and then spreads to the Korean penninsula with similar events to those occurring today. In the novels, once both of those get very involved, the Chinese move on Taiwan.
Clearly, today, the Iranians, the N. Koreans, and the Chinese are working together against our best interestes in the current real conflict.
FYI...my thoughts and assessment. This was a huge development in modern sea warfare.
That's what I thought.
Yep. Very signficant development...as some say around here on FR, it was hugh, simply hugh.
some history:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1666159/posts?page=12
C802 missile supplied to Iran by China and upgraded by North Korea
The Iran Brief ^ | 1/12/2000 | none cited
Posted on 07/15/2006 8:20:25 AM EDT by Soliton
12 January 2000 According to the Times (London), North Korea agrees to supply technology and equipment to aid Iran in upgrading the C802 anti-shipping and cruise missiles it purchased from China in the early 1990s and deployed on French and Chinese-built missile boats in the Persian Gulf and in coastal batteries. China has promised the United States several times to stop deliveries of the C802 to Iran, but U.S. intelligence reports last year documented deliveries by China far in excess of what has publicly been reported. The C802s were assembled in Iran under a co-producing agreement signed with Communist China, and use a sophisticated motor supplied by a French manufacturer. The French government denies any knowledge of the sale, and the company, Microturbo, denies any wrongdoing. The latest reports indicate that North Korea is working on an "over-the-horizon" designation system for Iran's arsenal of hundreds of C802s, to increase the chances of a successful hit. —"North Korea upgrades Iranian C802," The Iran Brief, 12 January 2000, in Lexis-Nexis, .
12 January 2000 Iran and China work together to improve the accuracy of a version of the Chinese C802 cruise missile that has a 30-mile range. In the 1990s, Iran ordered 150, 80-mile-range C802s, but the order was frozen under U.S. pressure in 1997; 75 of the C802s were shipped to Iran. —Michael Evans, "Tehran Upgrades Chinese Missile," IAEA Daily Press Review, 12 January 2000; "Iranian-North Korean Cooperation to Develop a Chinese Rocket," Al-Zaman (London), 18 February 2000, p. 3.
Great Post! Thanks.
Yep...China and N. Korea and Iran are all in very deep on this. No doubt the Iranians provided the missile to Hezbollah, and very possibly had technicains fire it too.
Figured they were too close myself, but surprised an asset like that would be risked unless the threat exceeded the risk. What order of threat would that be? And is that one of those super gatling guns (blanking the name) on deck? This is troubling.
You are both welcome. Thanks for reading it.
Yes, it is a phalanx on the bow end. In order to protect the gun-boats, whose main battery has a relatively short range, they had to be in close. My guess is they underestimated the SSM threat and were looking more to attacking aircraft.
I am sure Iran is emboldened by their attack on the IDF Saar 5. From March of this year:
Iran's Revolutionary Guards are making preparations for a massive assault on U.S. naval forces and international shipping in the Persian Gulf, according to a former Iranian intelligence officer who defected to the West in 2001.
The plans, which include the use of bottom-tethered mines potentially capable of destroying U.S. aircraft carriers, were designed to counter a U.S. land invasion and to close the Strait of Hormuz, the defector said in a phone interview from his home in Europe.
They would also be triggered if the United States or Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran to knock out nuclear and missile facilities.
"The plan is to stop trade," the source said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587645/posts
The IDF had their high value AAW, Saar 5, vessel there to protect its gun boats which were shelling the Lebannon shore. Those gun boat's main batteries have a short range which means the Saar 5 had to be close in to shore to protect them. That allowed it to be targeted in an evironment which minimized it's own defenses and maximized the C-802 capability.
My guess is they underestimated the SSM threat, thinking the principle threat might be Syrian jest, and paid for it.
yah... syria/ iran tactically preparing the battlefield by hitting key units before a attack?
Naw. Just a lucky shot. My guess is they are not about to get another.
Could well happen...I will pick a time for NK to move: 0700 hrs on a Sunday morning....soon
Thanks, echoing others, great post.
Can Silkworms be programmed for land targets?
Sixty seconds is more than enough time to engage a target like this, if you're watching for it. The most likely explanation is that they didn't expect the opposition capable of a missile attack of this sophistication, and they got caught with their pants down. That's a poor attitude to have in a combat zone.
ATTENTION, WALMART SHOPPERS!
....the C802 anti-shipping and cruise missiles are now available in the 3rd lane, next to the Nuclear processing equipment...get 'em while they last...cheap!
Absolutely. I'm certain that Israel can and will correct whatever the problem(s) was (were).
The ship was designed for this type of engagement. If they were not on their toes, then that is their own fault and they paid a price. I cannot believe in a combat situation, against the puppets (Hezbollah) of a regime (Iran) that possess this very capability, that they would not be prepared. I believe that the main fault was their positioning...mixed with the probable thought that it was more likely that they would be attacked by jet aircraft. IOW, some of both.
This was not a Silk Worm. The C-802 is much more advanced, and smaller. It is a anti-shipping missile, but could probably be modified to be land-attack.
My guess is the USN will conduct heavy air attack suppression of the coastal areas in order to negate as many launchers as possible before attempting to force such waters.
aka carpet bomb the coast - - let's get it on
Actually the boat has it's butt to the shore, the phalanx defense system was on the bow, therefore it had no chance to detect and take out the missle, had the boat been facing forward or sideways to the shore most likely the system would have worked. This is also something they will have to consider from now on. Obviously they were not expecting this type of missle attack and were not on guard.
From now on any naval force in the littoral must have awacs, hawkeye support. Limited war is a b1tch.
Thanks, Jeff- it is very interesting.
That's what 16" main guns on battleships are for. Coastal bombardment from 40-45km off.
Bring Back the U.S.S. New Jersey!
Does the Israeli Army control and command their ships in situations like this?
I get the feeling that the order placing the ship where it was and in that position, came from an Army General, and the captain followed that order and placed his ship in harm's way.
Similiar to our Navy Seals in a certain dustup in the Carib. being placed in harms way by a General in Florida.
Is this story confirmed?? A C-802 warhead would shatter a corvette size vessel (which is smaller than a destroyer and frigate). Report does not match damage and casualty reports. Steel warships or large warships could take a C-801 hit provided her crew is well trained in damage control. The Saar 5 is a 1,500 ton ship, made with light aluminum/alloys so they can pack tons of electronics and weapons aboard plus support for a helicopter in its small size. A British Sea Skua missile (smaller than C-802 and launched from helicopters) can destroy an ocean minesweeper size ship and severely damage a corvette size ship. C-802 is much larger and can only be launched from shore or large aircraft would do much more damage or sink a corvette size ship. That is why I am asking if there is official confirmation on the incident?
So would the ship be pointed in the wrong direction for the Phalanx system to detect the missle, or fire on the missle, or both? Wondering if depending on the target heading vs. the ship superstructure, there is a certain "no fire" quadrant, to avoid shooting itself in the bridge.
Sixty seconds only if they detected it upon launch. Otherwise they only had the 4 miles when the missile came over their own radar event horizon at low level and that measn a lot less time, maybe 20 seconds.
Ageed. If the aft end was directed at shore, that was a very poor choice of positioning if they considered the principle threat axis to be from the shore.
This also gives us some real-world damage capability assessments of the C-802. I remember being told that they were even more dangerous than this, and that one or two could sink a certain big-deck amphib....
Yep. Should have had it here anyway. If they thought enough of the threat to put the Saar 5 there, that close in, they hould have covered it with more assets.
Is it possible that they did hit the missile but did it too close to the ship, causing less damage than a direct hit but still significant damage? Or it was a near miss that still damaged the ship?
Or, with the newer 5" and 155 mm guns coming online with precision munitions, rocket assisted, from 100 miles out.
Yeah. Exact opposite of the USS Starke, Phalanx on the back, missile attack on the front.
Looks that way. Won't be that way from now on.
HAve to wait and see what type of impact it suffered. I am hoping and waiting to see pics of the vessel itself.
We'll all have to wait and see what the facts really are. Where the missile hit and whether the warhead functioned properly are major factors. Many Exocets (from which the 801/2 warhead was derived) have had less than stellar results with their warheads.
Could be any of the above. I would think a direct hit with 165Kg of HE would maybe do more damage and blow the aft end off this small a vessel, but you never know. Too many factors and not enough info yet.
Still more than enough time for the CIWS to engage and fire, if they had the weapon powered up and ready to go. The CIWS is designed exactly for situations like this and missiles like the C-802. I'd be mildly surprised if the Saar was even at the Israeli equivilent of general quarters when this all happened.
Can you imagine the conflagration if one of these missiles penetrated a supertanker?
Count $ per pound of explosive delivered. For the cost of one rocket assisted 6" round [100 lbs payload] one could place 3 16" dumb rounds [5000 lbs payload]. Nukes are still cheaper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.