Several news organizations have posted stories--apparently sourced to a
single AP report attributing the comment to an Israeli official--saying the
device that hit the Israeli ship off Lebanon was an Iranian-made C-102
missile, and that technical assistance was provided directly by Iranian
troops.

Comprehensive research (a few queries on Google) shows me no references to
any C-102 missile save in direct references to this story.

Any chance it might be a relative of the C-101 as listed at fas.org?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/c-101.htm

That was probably not the image that came to most of our minds when initial
reports spoke of an improvised UAV.

> Several news organizations have posted stories--apparently sourced to
> a single AP report attributing the comment to an Israeli
> official--saying the device that hit the Israeli ship off Lebanon was
> an Iranian-made C-102 missile, and that technical assistance was
> provided directly by Iranian troops.
>
Now I've found a Jerusalem Post article saying the missile was an Iranian
supplied C-802 (not 102 as in the AP-derived articles). The attributed
source is Israeli Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan.

The C-802 designation is listed on fas.org, and seems plausible for the
mission.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/c-802.htm

FAS states that Iran was believed to have had dozens of this type procured
from China almost a decade ago, and to have been working on an indigenous
derivative more recently.

M 0.9, 120 km range, warhead 165 kg HE

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-802

Any better references out there?

That size warhead seems formidable in attacking a missile patrol boat. I'm
just assuming the Israeli warship was of that general class, as I think
they dominate the Israeli surface naval combatants list.

It is more commonly known by its code name, Silkworm, which is a
Chineese copy of the Russian SS-N-2 Styx. Its been around for about 50
years, and was sold to nearly every Soviet client state. One of these
ushered in the ASM era when it struck the Israeli destroyer Eliat in
1967.

It shouldn't pose a threat to any modern warship that is ready for
combat.

It uses its own active radar for the entire length of the flight
(although some newer modified version use inertial guidance for the 1st
half of the flight), which should set off every piece of ESM gear on
any nearby ship.

Its quite large, and has a large radar signature. So its easy to lock
onto it and engage, it also has a pretty slow flight speed, so it
spends a lot of time within the ship's AA engagement envelope.

"Airyx" > wrote in news:1153001385.584839.25280
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> It shouldn't pose a threat to any modern warship that is ready for
> combat.
>
> It uses its own active radar for the entire length of the flight
> (although some newer modified version use inertial guidance for the 1st
> half of the flight), which should set off every piece of ESM gear on
> any nearby ship.
>
> Its quite large, and has a large radar signature. So its easy to lock
> onto it and engage, it also has a pretty slow flight speed, so it
> spends a lot of time within the ship's AA engagement envelope.

A current article on the Israeli newpaper Ha'aretz web site says that
defensive systems were turned off to avoid responding to IAF aircraft in
the area.

This article repeats the assertion that a second C-802 missile was
involved, and states it hit a Cambodian-flagged Egyptian-crewed ship 60 km
offshore (the Sa'ar 5 is described as having been much closer to shore--16
km in one account I saw).