PDA

View Full Version : MANPADS. Why?


ShotOne
9th Jan 2014, 18:04
I can appreciate that MANPADS would have been very useful in the Cold War context of a massive conventional war. But surely there comes a point at which their military usefulness is outweighed by the immense coup that just one missile could deliver to a terrorist, rogue state or criminal group.

Around forty civilian aircraft have been hit over the last few decades. In some cases with dreadful loss of life, in others this was narrowly averted by exceptional airmanship. Admittedly most of these involved former Soviet or Chinese made missiles but why are we still making them?

A Squared
9th Jan 2014, 18:25
Because groundforces with no effective air defense capabilty are vulnerable to attack aircraft.

Hope this helps.

MPN11
9th Jan 2014, 18:28
And, when AQ decides to buy a Cessna, it might be useful to hit it before it does something suicidal.

NutLoose
9th Jan 2014, 18:37
Also stopping production wouldn't do anything in the short term, it's a bit like locking the gate after the horse has bolted. They are already out there.

gr4techie
9th Jan 2014, 18:43
why are we still making them?

Answer = $ $ $ $ $

I read the other day, the 3 most lucrative industries in world are
3). Automobiles
2). Cocaine
1). Arms dealing.

ShotOne
9th Jan 2014, 19:16
I don't dispute they have a use, A squared the question is whether they're potential more useful to our enemies. Nutloose that's a valid point; there must have been hundreds "liberated" in Libya alone. But it's also a cop out in that they do have a shelf-life and we can hardly expect others to restrict them if we won't.

Roland Pulfrew
9th Jan 2014, 19:46
we can hardly expect others to restrict them if we won't.

Nope, we can expect them to move in and clean up on the lucrative sales we have just declined!

Hangarshuffle
9th Jan 2014, 19:58
On reflection withdrawn my last remark here and apologise if I offended anyone.

SASless
10th Jan 2014, 00:33
Gosh but I love these kinds of discussions.

The "We" thing is superfluous.

It is "They" that matter.

"They" will build them...."They" will give them to Terrorists. Then They will use them against Civilian Airliners.

What "We" do re building the things has f@ck all to do with what "They" do.

If one believes those who wish to lead us to believe Tens of Thousands of the things went missing as a result of the West's tumbling of Qadaffi....then perhaps that should be the focus of the OP's concerns and not the MANPAD's we build, store, safeguard and control.

It is those we don't store, safeguard, and control that are the threat.

Load Toad
10th Jan 2014, 02:49
They seem to be finding valuable use in the civil war in Syria - so however wrong that war is - the MANPADS appear to be doing a job...

ShotOne
10th Jan 2014, 07:06
SAS, agreed, up to a point but "we" lose stuff too; a pallet of TOW missiles got left on a beach never to be seen again. A pile of star streak missiles was pictured lying unattended in a car park during Olympics. We handed stingers to folk we now consider terrorists. Many British Army weapons found their way into IRA hands during the troubles and the Syrian ones being put to "valuable use" may yet bite us hard!

NutLoose
10th Jan 2014, 08:49
We handed stingers to folk we now consider terrorists

I thought they had a set use by time limit built into them, so they wouldn't be of use to anyone else. A sort of fire or forget it.

Roland Pulfrew
10th Jan 2014, 08:56
We handed stingers to folk we now consider terrorists.

Is that strictly true? We handed weapons mainly to the Mujahideen; they are/were very different to the Taliban. A large element of the Mujahideen that fought the Soviets became the Northern Alliance and they were the people who ousted the Taliban from Kabul. Similar people, different nuance perhaps?

500N
10th Jan 2014, 09:11
Yes, I thought Stingers had a battery time life and as much
as the US wants to recover unused one's, they are worried
about them being used.

Evalu8ter
10th Jan 2014, 09:12
Roland,
Well put!

Nutloose,
Wishful thinking I fear - hence why the CIA sponsored the Stinger 'buy back' programme. (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1057196.html)

MANPADs have proven relatively robust, and can last for years in poor conditions.

Back to the original question - have a look at Israeli A4 losses in the Yom Kippur War (over 50...) and several were attributed to the layered Soviet style embedded AD systems moving with Arab armoured formations - SA6, ZSU23/4 and SA7. The latter was such an issue the Israelis extended the jet pipe (http://a4skyhawk.org/2e/israel/israeli-skyhawk-combat.htm) on the A4 to attempt to detonate the (relatively) small warhead away from vital systems and hope the A4 would survive.

teeteringhead
10th Jan 2014, 09:20
Yes, I thought Stingers had a battery time life Strela (SAM-7) too IIRC.

Just This Once...
10th Jan 2014, 09:24
They last a very long time and still work just fine. In the case of the SA-7 and its copies you only need a voltage source, nothing more.

Evalu8ter
10th Jan 2014, 13:52
There may be some confusion when you say 'battery life'. Once activated, the battery only provides electrical power for spool up and cooling for a relatively short period - and it's a one use only; if you lose the tgt you need a new battery before attempting to engage again. Battery 'shelf life' is actually pretty good, dependant on how they're stored.

glad rag
10th Jan 2014, 15:30
Gosh but I love these kinds of discussions.

The "We" thing is superfluous.

It is "They" that matter.

"They" will build them...."They" will give them to Terrorists. Then They will use them against Civilian Airliners.

What "We" do re building the things has f@ck all to do with what "They" do.

If one believes those who wish to lead us to believe Tens of Thousands of the things went missing as a result of the West's tumbling of Qadaffi....then perhaps that should be the focus of the OP's concerns and not the MANPAD's we build, store, safeguard and control.

It is those we don't store, safeguard, and control that are the threat.

So were back to the old invade invade bit again are we?:(

Heathrow Harry
10th Jan 2014, 15:42
The Poor Bloody Infantry around the world want something they can fire against aircraft - they just don't believe that their airforce will be there 100% of the time and be 100% effective

If they don't get it they'll blaze away with whatever guns they have anyway

MANPADS are a cheap method of making life more uncertain to ground-attack aircraft and so they do have an effect

Trying to uninvent them is just impossible

Pontius Navigator
10th Jan 2014, 17:06
Don't forget that 'use by' 'best before' etc are either salesmen's talk or assurance dates for first echelon forces.

If you have no direct factory supply and replenishment then you will try what you have until one works.

NutLoose
10th Jan 2014, 18:29
That CIA scheme to buy them back was 2005, one would have thought even the best batteries in the world would be struggling by now..

The term manpad though sounds like some male incontinence sanitary product. Mind you if you had one winding up towards you, you might need the latter.

big v
10th Jan 2014, 18:58
.... like cluster bombs and land mines?

You're completely correct. You can't uninvent things.

Regards,

Vernon

Laarbruch72
10th Jan 2014, 20:17
If you have no direct factory supply and replenishment then you will try what you have until one works.


Assuming you have several to start with of course, the majority across North Africa, the Levant and the Middle East are single units owned by individuals or smaller groups. Quite a lot of these units floating around those regions are prized personal posessions and status symbols. Most are late 60s or early 70s vintage and haven't been capable of being fired since I joined up over 2 decades ago.

The newer models knocking about in Syria are a whole other matter, and it's why Syrian airspace doesn't see many western airliners anymore, no matter what altitude.

awblain
10th Jan 2014, 20:19
You might find a dodgy golfer from Kent who can see you right for a set of batteries.

Pontius Navigator
10th Jan 2014, 20:32
War stock is lifed and batch tested. As long as the test samples exhibit the same success rate as the initial proofing tests then they remain good to go.

As failure rates pick up and maintenance becomes uneconomic then they will be withdrawn from service.

In the case of your individual with his prize possession then you are right, possession is worth far more than its use - until the moment went use overcomes possession.

OK, it's out of date. Are you going to fly by and be the test target?

Your 9mm Pakistani bullets sometimes failed to reach the target 15 m away. Would you stand happily at 30 m and assume it was impossible to hit you?

Laarbruch72
10th Jan 2014, 20:40
Dead batteries aren't your only problem when looking to get something like an SA-6 airborne. Corroded firing switches, corroded connections, degraded propellant, rusted tubes, stuck fins, these things weren't designed to be buried or left in the loft for a decade and they don't age too well. Current generation SAMS are scary kit and thankfully rare, but a lot of older models are mere trophies.


OK, it's out of date. Are you going to fly by and be the test target?

Your 9mm Pakistani bullets sometimes failed to reach the target 15 m away. Would you stand happily at 30 m and assume it was impossible to hit you?


Sorry PN, we replied at the same time.

No, of course I wouldn't want to test it to that extent, that's why airlines avoid flying over certain parts of the world where intelligence tells us that newer models lurk. I'm just saying that where a very low capability exists, with extremely low relaibility, with no groups present who intend targeting civil aviation, it's a lower risk.

And yes those Pakistani 9mm rounds were bad. Only time I saw sparks come out of the muzzle of that weapon!

tdracer
11th Jan 2014, 01:01
I'm an amateur rocketeer. It isn't just the electrical components that go bad. Rocket motors do not like being carelessly stored (especially temperature extremes) - it tends to create cracks in the propellant grain. Cracks result in unplanned burn paths which cause excessive internal chamber pressures. Hence the result of launching a rocket motor with cracks in the propellant is typically what we refer to as a "CATO" (lots of debate about the origin of the term - short for Catastrophe At TakeOff, short for Catastrophic, etc.), but what it means is the rocket motor explodes....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif


Someone launching a 30+ year old shoulder fired weapon is probably a bigger threat to themselves then they are to the target http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

NutLoose
11th Jan 2014, 13:33
:cool:

Rocket Launcher failure - YouTube

Just This Once...
11th Jan 2014, 13:34
Trust me - old MANPADs still work.

:ok:

mad_jock
11th Jan 2014, 15:13
Infantry love manpads and anti armour guided weapons.

How many fired in anger at aircraft probably very few to be honest compared to the total number fired. Same with anti tank weapons that they have.

They just want something they can steer into heavy weapon positions and sangers etc and deliver some hurt, enough that they can move forward and neutralise it.

They really don't care that it was bought for taking aircraft out they just want a warhead where they want it. And if it will do it, that's what they will use it for.

gr4techie
11th Jan 2014, 16:39
That CIA scheme to buy them back was 2005,

Sad times when we can only fight wars by paying the enemy not to fight back.
In 2015 our pensions will be slashed, I wonder how many Taliban warlords have been bribed to go into retirement? Cue photo of C-130 with a pallet stacked with dollars. How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1)

The Oberon
12th Jan 2014, 06:27
There's always this one :-

Marines balloon rocket launcher LOL - YouTube

glad rag
12th Jan 2014, 10:03
"In 2015 our pensions will be slashed" :confused:

gr4techie
12th Jan 2014, 17:50
"In 2015 our pensions will be slashed"

Sorry. I mean if you are still serving now.

The pension you will finally receive will be less. As they change the goal posts in 2015. Also anyone joining after 2015 will be a lot worse off than someone who served a full career on AFPS75.