Talk:INS Hanit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ship was not towed[edit]

Untitled[edit]

TV footage showed it returning to the military port in Ashdod, Israel on its own

  • Ship was first towed. It only made its way to the port on its own when it reached Israel's coast. The missile severely damaged the ship's steering mechanism, and barely missed the engines. But it was definitely towed from Lebanon coast back to Israel. Do a Google news search.

Lebanon Army involvement[edit]

The article contains a claim that Lebanon army radars couldn't have been involved since the missile uses an internal guidance system. The wikipedia article about the C-802 though does contain information that the said missile can be guided using external data-link, therefore I think the said claim should be re-evaluated ( and deleted if appropriate)

Hezbollah attack[edit]

None of the newsreports cited in this article support that it was the Hanit that was hit. Anybody have any real evidence for this? --Martin Wisse 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, although it seems to be accepted in the 'blogosphere' now, and I've seen nothing to refute it. The only direct refs I could find were [1] and [2]. The first source I have no knowledge as to its reliability and the second let us say is not the most reliable IMHO. Riddley 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication[edit]

There is some duplication of info on this page and Sa'ar 5-class missile boat which probably needs sorting out. Riddley 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of the pic ?[edit]

I have externally linked the photo showing the damage to the INS Hanit. but I don't have a clue on the copyright status, and to be safe I have put it as ext.link, but was by a fellow of a Military/Naval Newsgroup whose now is offline and I can't get now his source. any suggestion/proposal/critics of my action ? dott.Piergiorgio 15:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That photo does not show a damaged ship. Adeptitus 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The scorched area under the aft superstructure is not damage, it is due to exhaust of some kind. Every picture of the Sa'ar V class will show this.

Kh-35?[edit]

Can anyone cite references that suggest the missile might've been a Kh-35? -- Adeptitus 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Drone or Missile[edit]

At the risk of being seen to be attempting to turn all previous discussion on this 'on its head', is there any evidence apart from the statements made by the Israeli's that this was a missile rather than a drone as first claimed by Hezbollah. I'm particularly thinking that Hezbollah haven't retracted the claim that it was a drone.

I suspect you might immediately ask me why Israel would conceal or 'fudge' the facts on this. Well firstly 'distorting the truth' is a perfectly legitimate tactic in war (and I don't dispute this) if it delivers some advantage. In this case I am not suggesting the advantage that the Israeli's might have been seeking was to 'pin the blame on Iran' because Hezbollah's Drones (pilotless aircraft) come from Iran as well, and it could equally have been claimed that they may have had Iranians directing them (it is not an untogether unskilled task). Indeed, the advantage to the Israeli's saying that it was a missile rather than a Drone may have been two-fold. Firstly it is embarrasing to admit that something as small and slow as a drone got through the ships defences. The public perception of drones is similar to 'toy' aircraft - despite the fact that they are rapidly becoming very sophisticated and the Hezbollah models can carry up to 90kg of high explosive. It will always be tempting to call a Drone strike a missile strike because (conversely) the public perception of missiles are that they are terribly fast and hard to avoid. The second motive for Israel in suppressing talk of Drones is that their public is currently coming to grip with the effect of unguided rockets. To have become public knowledge that Hezbollah has Drones that can be targetted with pinpoint accuracy (just as the Israeli ones are) would send shockwaves through Israel. Interestingly - and this prompted me to post - Israel has, since they downed a Hezbollah drone off the coast near Haifa, started to talk about Drones and their capabilities. BUT THEY HAVE ALSO in the meantime put up what I understand to be constant aerial cover over Israeli cities, and now have confidence they can intercept and shoot these Drones out of the sky. What I am suggesting is that it may have been prudence on the part of Israel to keep information relating to the Drone threat from their public until they had developed (and felt confident they had developed) the capacity to defeat the threat.

I might add that this has no bearing on the fact that it is likely that Hezbollah has access to anti-ship missiles, but just an interesting observation on how - in this case - truth might again be the first and the ongoing casualty in this as in other wars. Oh, and just to be controversial, what do we think of the possibility that the Cambodian ship was sunk by fire from the Israeli ship, thinking that the Cambodian one was the source of a 'whatever' hit the Israeli ship. In the confusion of the initial strike the Israeli's may have imagined (perfectly naturally) it was a shell or a torpedo, or a drone or a missile launched from a ship nearby rather than the shore. There seems been a profound 'silence' on the fate of the Cambodian ship, as if everyone has agreed not to talk about it. Tban 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read about the Hezb's drones, they are not very sophisticated. Indeed more like "toy planes". Being able to carry 90 kilos of high-X does require nothing more than a strong engine. Were they able to hit with "pinpoint" accuracy (something that not even GPS-guided "smart bombs" find that easy to achieve), I think I would have heard more of 'em by now. Or at least come across unexplained incidents which reek of professional UAV involvement (not reporting on an incident in detail makes the incident not go away. There is just as much to be gleaned from what is not reported in wartime as from what is.) Dysmorodrepanis 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type of Missile[edit]

The ship was hit by a missile, a C-802. This is a Chinese-designed missile either supplied to or license produced in Iran. It don't believe it is a Kh-35 copy, as it more resembles the exocet. Check out www.sinodefence.com for more info.

Here is the exact page for the C-80X (C-801/-802/-803) series nmissile:

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/yj8.asp

Wouldn't a C-802 have blown apart such a tiny ship? Surely it's something less powerful that hit the Hanit. 71.203.209.0 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen a pic of the INS Hanit post strike. Have you? Riddley 23:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not blown apart. But a Harpoon missile hit (which is somewhat more powerful than the C-802) is known to cripple, possibly beyond repair, a corvette. Though one cannot be sure given the more modern (and hence, damage-resistant) Sa'ar 5, and gioven that the state of readiness of damage control is unknown. Here are some thoughts on the issue. But here, a figure of 50 kg explosive weight is given, which would tie in with a C-802. On the other hand, the "50 kg" figure, judging from the way it is presented, may just as well be based on the assumption that a C-802 was used rather than the other way around (i.e. estimating the amount of explosives and then looking up what missiles fit the bill).
In any case, no, there are no post-attack photos of Hanit I have been able to find. But given that the C-802 clocks in nicely with the Exocet and is about 2/3 as powerful as the Harpoon, consider this page showing Exocet and Harpoon damage photos. See also USS Stark and here. Directly comparing the Hanit and Stark cases, one would find that the Hanit would be expected to have suffered somewhat heavier (pitting displacement vs warhead weight) to about the same amount of damage (considering that the OHP frigates - IIRC - were of somewhat less robust construction thatn the Sa'ar 5 are) as the Stark did. The published reports suggest that the damage suffered by the Hanit was considerably lighter. Dysmorodrepanis 14:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Published images of the damage on the ship can be seen here. Comparing these with a picture of C-802 damage and images of other ASM hit damages clearly indicates that the missile was certainly not C-802, it was either a C-701 or an Anti-tank missile fired from a speedboat. Badkhan (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All reports state it was C-802. I'm not satisfied with this amateurish comparison of images. Flayer (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All those reports originated from Israeli sources and majority of the information that came through Israeli sources was biased. If you think that comparing two factual photos showing the direct hit damage of the same missile containing the same amount of warhead is 'amateurish' than i am not sure what further evidence can satisfy you. Keep watching Fox news and dream on! Badkhan (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodgian ship sunk ??? Egyptian ship sans doute ?[edit]

Excuse me my poor english, i am French ;)

The civilian ship sunk is Egyptian ou Cambodgian ?

I think Cambodian-registered with an Egyptian crew. Needs to be checked though. Dysmorodrepanis 14:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place of impact[edit]

Okay, where does it say that missile hit the ship near waterline? As I recall, it was reported that missile exploded over the helipad - dark spot one can see in the photos is NOT battle damage, but merely an exhaust mark - you can see it in pre-war photoes. --Mikoyan21 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: the early damage reports sucked. Explosion on/over the helipad does not tie in with the damage pattern as eventually reported (steering shredded, engineering somewhat damaged but makeshift repairs could be conducted at sea, helipad collapsed secondarily due to the (accumulating due to wave action?) structural damage. All this points to a hit near the waterline, under the helipad, and fairly far aft. Dysmorodrepanis 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli news piece said that missile hit a crane at aft deck, not hull. See [3]. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a minute, Egyptiam ship or Cambodian ship?[edit]

In your other articles, from the anti-sip missile page of the C802, it reports that the other ship hit by the second chinese missle was a Egyptian merchant ship. In this article, it states that it was a Cambodian merchant ship that was the second ship hit by the missile. Could someone clarify that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.19.182.54 (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/saar5/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extricated itself ?[edit]

What does "extricated itself" mean in the context? The ship was underway at sea, and continued underway. There was no "extrication"Royalcourtier (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on INS Hanit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on INS Hanit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions about response to warning[edit]

It is stated as a fact that if a warning had been given to "take into account the possibility of a C-802 missile being fired on [sic] them" "Israeli ships would have moved further away from the shore and activated their anti-missile systems". That is entirely unfounded. Firstly a warning was given - that was the briefing by naval intelligence. Secondly the briefing was the same day as the attack - possibly even after it had occurred, though no times are given for either the briefing or the attack. Thirdly it cannot be assumed what the response would have been. However the activation of anti-missile systems would appear to have been expected anyway, during a war and when stationed off a hostile coast. As for moving further from the coast, that is an assumption.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:INS_Hanit&oldid=1213129929"