Talk:C-802

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Related task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (nations and regions): Chinese military history task force

Contents 1 When it was built 2 Source 3 Adding Hezbollah to 'Users' 4 Hezbollah as User 5 Bad photo 6 Iran & C-802 info 7 YJ-63 8 Rename

[edit] When it was built

This is a very informative article - but does anyone know roughly when this weapon was first built?- yes. The C-802 was announced in 1988, and by 1995 it was apparently being made in quantity.-New Thought 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• First built in 1989. 128.135.96.213 19:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source

"1) a lack of intelligence indicating Hezbollah possessed such a missile (which was probably supplied by Iran)" - Source?! If not, it is speculation and/or independent research.

--66.227.111.238 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Iran->Hezbollah relationship is sourced (New York Times) in the Users section. Since it is already covered there, it probably does not need to be stated again in the Combat section.--Mikebrand 18:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there is speculation by a single Israeli "military experts", that Iran supplied the weapons, but speculation does not translate into 'probably'. It is an inductive conclusion, therefore the more evidence - the more likely. One Israeli source quoted 8 times in 5 AP articles does not constitute a higher probability. I maintain my request for the statement to be stricken until further evidence is uncovered. --66.227.111.238 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article does say that Iran is "suspected" of supplying the missles. Given the the missles were sophisticated (ie, not manufactured by Hezbollah), given that Iran and China are the only know Users of the C-802, given that the NY Times is willing to print the speculation, and given that no credible news outlet has offered a more plausible source of the missles, the current wording of the article seems appropriate. By the way, I am referring to the Users section. If you are referring to the phrase in the Combat section, no one has reverted your deletion. --Mikebrand 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Hezbollah to 'Users'

The Hezbollah were provided with a few of these by Iran - I don't think they should be listed as 'users'. They're not a navy, they don't keep a stockpile of them. They used them, yes, but the combat history covers that bit. I don't think Hezbollah using a couple of these missiles ought to be placed along with large navies who actually have a stockpile of them. --Joffeloff 10:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

While the Hezbollah stocks of the c-802 are small compared to the other "users," Hezbollah is certainly a "user" of the missle. Are there other documented acts of aggression where the missle was used?--Mikebrand 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but that's where the 'combat history' section comes into the picture. 'User' in Wikipedia military articles refer to nations. I'm just following Wiki standards. Joffeloff 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

For a casual reader, such as myself, it could seem confusing that a group that is not a User could use the weapon in combat. Someone else included the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah in the Users section and I provided a NYTimes reference for it. That should make the situation clear without including a non-state as a separate entry in the User category.--Mikebrand 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Joffeloff, I see that someone has added Hezbollah to the Users list with their flag. I suspect that since most readers will not know that Users refers to nations, many readers will be inclind to add Hezbollah to the list of Users. My inclination is to move the reference I placed on the Iran-supplied-to-Hezbollah statement, and remove that phrase from the Iran entry.--Mikebrand 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think adding the Hezbollah use to Iran's section under 'Users' is a good solution. Joffeloff 12:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem to be best. I've noticed that if one person adds Hezbollah to the Users section, it is only a matter of hours before someone else removes it.--Mikebrand 15:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hezbollah as User

I think it'd be better if we say "it's suspected that Iran supplied Hezbollah with the missiles". I mean so far we've only heard Israeli accusations, and the missile type used has changed from armed UAV to pair of C-802's to C802 + C701. This is a developing situation and I don't think we should state it as a fact. For all we know tomorrow they might come back and say the missile was some other type. See this article:

http://www.defense-update.com/2006/07/ins-hanit-suffers-iranian-missile.html

INS Hanit Suffers Iranian Missile Attack

Updated: July 17, 2006:

According to Israel Defense Forces (IDF) sources, the attack was conducted by Chinese C-802. Apparently, two missiles were launched toward the Israel Navy Ship (INS) Hanit (Spear), SAAR V class corvette patrolling the Lebanese coast 16 kilometers from the shore. The attack was a coordinated, simultaneous “high/low” attack - the first “high” missile passed over the Israeli ship. Missing the target, it continued flying, hitting and sinking a civilian Egyptian ship cruising 60 kilometers from the shore. The second missile followed a sea-skimming flight profile hitting the Israeli vessel at the stern, killing four sailors and setting the flight deck on fire and crippling the propulsion systems inside the hull. Surviving the potentially devastating attack INS Hanit returned to Ashdod naval base for repairs.

The simultaneous attack was probably using two techniques as well, ensuring maximum chances of success. The Israeli Navy believes the missiles used targeing data from Lebanese coastal radars, therefore maintaining low electro-magnetic signature throughout the attack prparation phase. The first missiles was apparently used as a radar-guided “bait”. seducing the ship to deploy its defensive systems against it, focusing all the attention on the “obvious” threat while the second sea-skimming missile closing below. A supporting fact for this assumption is the fact that the first missile locked on the unfortunate Egyptian ship 44 kilometers away, as it was the next visible target in its flightpath. The second, missile could have been guided by radar or, more probably, Electro-optically. This method would require the launch of two types of missiles, a C-801/802 for the “high” profile and a C-701 TV guided missile for the “low” profile.

According to an Associated Press report, based on an interview with an unnamed IDF official, the Israeli vessel didn’t use its electronic countermeasures systems as they did not anticipate such a threat in the area. Yet, this comment is questionable, as there were repeated intelligence reports about Iranian supplies of sophisticated equipment, missiles and drones to the Hizbollah. However, the naval or coastal defense missiles were not mentioned specifically, leading the Israelis to remain unaware of the imminent threat.

C-801 radar guided anti-ship missile weighs about 750 kg, it is powered by a rocket motor and has a range of 40 km and is equipped with 100 kg warhead. The upgraded C-802 uses a rocket booster for launch, and a turbojet cruise motor, giving it a range of up to 140. The warhead uses about 180 kg of shaped charge explosives, which makes it a most capable threat to major warships including U.S. aircraft carriers. The C-701, (also known as Iranian Kosar) is deployed with Iranian forces as a truck mounted coastal defense missile, it is much smaller than the C-801/802, weighing about 100 kg, its range is about 18-20 km and the warhead has 29 kg of explosives, set with a delayed activation fuze to maximize internal damage after hull penetration. It uses an Infrared/TV seeker or active millimeter terminal guidance.

Adeptitus 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad photo

The photo of the Saar V Corvette is undamaged. The black area near waterline is not missile damage. The missile is said to have struck the rear helicopter deck and engine area. Adeptitus 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Ship is undamaged and i think that with the US AGM-84 Harpoon as among the best anti-ship missiles of its generation is POV. There are a lot of comparable weapons like Uran or Exocet.

So far the photos released only show the Sa'ar IV with a blackened diesel exhaust port. I donno why people assume it's missile damage? I'm going to remove the missile dmg reference from the photos. -- Adeptitus 00:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran & C-802 info

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/huangfeng.htm

Houdong - five to Iran in September 1994, five more in May 1995. The first batch of five was delivered in November 1994. In March 1996, Iran took delivery of last five FACs equipped with the long-range C-802 anti-ship cruise missile (120 km range with 700 kg warhead). This brings the Iranian fleet to ten Houdong FACs. Other reports claim that China sold Iran about 40 Hudong fast attack missile boats and more than 80 C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles during the mid-1990s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/c-802.htm

Following the 1991 Gulf War Iran imported the C-802 antiship cruise missile from China. China suspended exports in 1996 in response to comlaints by the the United States. In December 1996 Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashivili, warned Chinese Defense Minister General Chi Haotian that arms exports would increase destabilizing factors in the region. No international agreement bans transfers of anti-ship missiles, and the C-802 is not covered by the MTCR, which controls exports of ballistic and cruise missiles that can deliver 500 kg. warheads to 300 km. Iran expected to purchase 150 C-802 missiles from China but only received a half of them because of the arms suspension. By mid-1997 Iran reportedly possessed some 60 of the missiles deployed in coastal batteries on Qeshm Island, a strategic point on the eastern side of the Arabian peninsula. In 1997, General J.H. Binford Peay, Central Command commander, said that China transferred 20 patrol boats with 15 equipped with C-802 missiles (Washington Times, January 29, 1997). [Some reports claim that China may have transferred hundreds of C-802s, although these claims are not widely attested].

In early 2000 it was reported that North Korea and Iran were jointly developing an advanced version of the C-802 cruise missile. These missiles initially acquired by Iran were not equipped with advanced systems, and the missiles acquired by Iran were rather outdated. Iran turned to North Korea for missile system technology, and the two countries are jointly developing an upgraded version with improved accuracy. ["N. Korea, Iran Jointly Develop Missile: Report" Korea Times February 17, 2000]

Hizballah seriously damaged a Saar 5-class missile ship named the "Spear" that was helping to enforce Israel's blockade of Lebanon on 14 July 2006. One Israeli sailor was killed and three were initially missing after the attack. Israel initially believed that an aerial drone armed with explosives hit the warship, but it became clear that Hizballah had used an Iranian-made C-802 cruise missile to strike the vessel. Another Hizballah radar-guided anti-ship missile hit and sank a nearby Cambodian merchant ship around the time the Spear was struck. Twelve Egyptian sailors were pulled from the water by passing ships.

Adeptitus 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YJ-63

Do we have an existing page for YJ-63 somewhere? I'm trying to find it on Wiki but donno if it's listed under some other title, or we simply don't have a page for it? -- Adeptitus 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Since the native name is Yingji-82, I propose we move it there. Comments? Karl Dickman ^talk 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)