This is interesting:
The 5 July attack on a munitions storage facility near Latakia in Syria was far more extensive than previously believed, suggesting it was not launched from a submarine as claimed by some sources, according to IHS Jane's satellite imagery analysis. ...One reason it is interesting is that private analysts can look at satellite photos.
It also shows that 16 bunkers at a munitions storage facility to the east of the destroyed building no longer exist, probably because they were razed by the Syrians after they were hit during the strike. If these bunkers were targeted, it would indicate that large numbers of highly accurate precision-guided munitions (PGMs) were used as they were just 8x6 m and surrounded by revetments to minimise the risk of sympathetic explosions.
The type of land-attack missiles that are carried by Israel's Dolphin-class submarines have not been revealed, but the most likely option is that they are capable of launching a GPS-guided version of the UGM-84 Harpoon from their six 533 mm torpedo tubes.
The number of PGMs that were apparently used against the Syrian munitions storage facility on 5 July consequently suggests that they were launched from aircraft, rather than a submarine.
And perhaps aircraft did do the job. But I don't know if the analysis is correct. If the analysis is saying that 16 aim points could not have been struck by a 6-tube submarine, I don't think that is an assumption that must stand.
I'll assume that Janes's knows that two submarines couldn't be involved.
I'll also have to assume that the Syrian destruction of 16 bunkers means that 16 bunkers were wrecked in the attack. But since some of Syria's missiles were reportedly moved and so escaped the Israeli attack, razing that number of bunkers might be designed to hide the facts on survivors.
But couldn't the sub fire the first 6 missiles on a slower route or program them to go out to sea and then double back as a second and third reload salvo are fired? Couldn't you time-on-target 16 missiles from 6 tubes that way?
UPDATE: Yes, the Syrian demolition was designed to hide the extent of the damage and hide surviving systems:
After the Israeli attack, the Assad government sought to hide the fact that the missiles had been missed by setting fire to launchers and vehicles at the site to create the impression of a devastating blow, according to American intelligence reports.
Which means Assad isn't interested in deterring naval operations against Syria (or thinks it is futile) as much as he wants the element of surprise to ambush naval forces off his coast.
Tip to Defense Industry Daily.
