Stinger Forensics

[TraderAl]

I am asking a very technical question which actually is hard to answer after much research. Do not assume this is leading to "conspiracy" theories, as actually I am trying to become informed so I can discard the possibility of a SAM strike in 587. I do find that when one mentions the word "stinger", objective analysis goes out the window and supposition comes in.

While I have heard many emphatic statements that it was not a stinger hit, I have heard no proof as to why it was not. "Facts" offered as to why it was not do not fit what little facts I do know about a Stinger but rather fit the person's Hollywood image of what a stinger hit is like.

The question:
What are the signs and forensics of A/C failure following a Stinger hit?

I am seeking expert miliary knowledge, not surmise.

What little I do know is that a stinger leaves little if any discernible missile trail as it travels at Mach 4. It has no "fireball" but a small contained photoflash like charge that is white, easily missed in bright daylight. It has no shrapnel as it depends on a shock wave to damage. It is small and contained blast, relatively speaking. It is heat seeking but proximity triggering, usually triggered as the missile discerns that is is starting to move away from the heat source, so in a strike aimed at a A/C flying directly overhead it will trigger aft and above the heat source. That in the majority of stinger hits there is usually no explosion but rather key parts of the A/C fall off and then a sharp vertical descent follows. Fire may break out but not always.

Can any military experts provide these forensics?

Is it appropriate to ask such a question in the context of the times?

Should such a question be asked and, perhaps more importantly, answered so as to avoid the long drawn out circus resulting from TWA 800. :confused:

[Al Weaver]

TraderAL

You seem to be shopping answers.

How will you know when you get the right answer. Will it be the one that matches your preconceived ideas?

[Evo7]

TraderAL

I can't match your research, but a couple of minutes searching on Jane's suggests that Stinger uses a fragmentation warhead. Specifically


Warhead: 1 kg HE blast smooth-case fragmentation with time-delay contact fuze


More can be found at:
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jlad/jlad001013_2_n.shtml

and by searching www.janes.com (http://www.janes.com)

They also quote a maximum velocity of


Max speed: M2.2


rather than the Mach 4 you quote.

As regards the area of impact, the text says that



As the weapon nears its target, the seeker head activates its Target Adaptive Guidance (TAG) circuit within one second of impact to modify its trajectory away from the exhaust plume towards the critical area of the IR target itself. The fuzing system allows for both contact activation as well as missile self-destruction after 20 seconds of flight time following the launch. The Picatinny Arsenal warhead carried has a smooth fragmentation casing to ensure that the desired blast/fragmentation effect is achieved.



This seems to clearly state that the missile would not necessarily hit an engine, but I would expect that damage from warhead fragments would be seen. I'm not claiming to be an expert - far from it - but I believe that the effects of a fragmentation warhead are obvious in a crash investigation. The recent (alleged) shooting down of a Russian airliner by a Ukranian missile would seem to support this.

HTH

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: Evo7 ]

[TraderAl]

Really, honest questions.

My information comes from a recently retired US Ranger in charge of deploying Stinger squads. That is where I got Mach 4 and also the absence of fragmentation. The triggering I got from spiels on TWA 800 which all seem to use the China Lake experiments. Seeing as the warhead is "only" 2 pounds of explosive and seeing as the weight of the stinger is obviously small - I do not think the fragmentation is correct. The recent hit by a Ukraine airline was a large AAM.

What I did note is that at the China Lake use of stinger on a Tomcat, a large FBI contingent was present to develop forensic evidence. The FBI budget for winter 2000 had $1mm plus earmarked for such forensic capability. If it is so cut and dried and considering the present context, why havent this capability "reported" and definitively show it was not a MANPAD? Surely this would be cut and dried. Instead the NTSB claims it was not terrorists as there is no sound fo their voices as they tried to enter the cockpit nor the sound of an on board bomb. I am very curious why they even bother to say there is no sound of forced entry into the cockpit. That seems to be smoke.

Anyone else have some direct experience? Is the fragmentation large? What exactly remains after a stinger triggers? Is there anyone with exact infoin the trade who can squash like a bug any concerns that a MANPAD was responsibel for the large lateral sheering forces?

The "fishing" is not data mining to fit a already developed conclusion but to find a force that can sheer a tail and also two engines.

It seems after the material failure of the tail we still have to figure out the engines.

Or, if there is not material failure, we have to find a rather massive force that tears a tail fin off and two engines.

Outside of a stinger, the only other spiel which makes sense was the theorey of the whole aircraft going into a "flutter" throughout the whole A/C.

[Wino]

Its a shame you didn't bother to actually read the rest of the posts here on the subject.

Slinging engines off of an aircraft is actually relatively easy to do. All you need is a sufficient side slip to do it. In the days before simulators training was done in the real aircraft. One of the manuevoers that was practiced was a yaw dampaner failure which results in dutch roll. Once the aircraft starts dutch rolling (nose goes one way, wings turn the other way, big sideslips result) it was common for the 707/DC-8s of the time to sling engines off.

If you lose the vertical tail (all of it) you will almost instantly develope more than enough sideslip to peel both engines right off the aircraft.

With the failure of the tail, there are no qualified jet pilots that have any trouble imagining the failure of the pylons shedding the engines. And the debris field bares this out perfectly. There is not a mark on the tail, as the Continuous Rod warhead of a stinger missle would have left.

Furthermore, once the pristine tail left the A300 there were no hydraulics left to activate any remaining control surfaces and the unfortunate crew was now a passenger as well. It would be similar to running down the highway, having the throttle stick wide open, the brakes fail and the steering wheel come off in your hand. Its only a matter of time till the impact.

But keep going with your conspiracy theories if they make you feel better. Unfortunately, all you will do is upset people who don't know any better.

Cheers
Wino

[Cyclic Hotline]

My sincere sympathies to everyone impacted by this terrible accident.

Trader Al,
Why are you so insistent upon asking the same question and ignoring the facts and information from a variety of legitimate sources that post here independently on PPRuNe?

If the NTSB were investigating a missile caused accident, then there are a multitude of experts who would appear to analyse the photographs that have been published quite freely. I don't see the experts and conspiracy theorist's out there shouting this conclusion - with the exception of one person - yourself, (despite your claims).

Accident investigation centre's upon deriving the sequence of events that determine the probable cause. If it were to proceed in the manner that you propose, determining and stating everything that didn't happen, then I do not believe that it would be possible to conclude any investigation, ever. An investigation proceeds in a logical and definitive manner, determining what did happen, and eliminating what did not happen. It is systematic and thorough, subject to intensive review by interested parties (who are party to the investigation at every level), and even if you want - subject to judicial appeal!

Your earlier statements regarding composite materials and failures are a little concerning. Any material has a finite failure point. I would be very careful regarding any statement that includes the word NEVER, as it has been the downfall of so many and so much, in every possible manner!

If you can demonstrate to me a composite bike or boat, that endures the same type of design and manufacturing review and control, cyclic loading and temperature changes that an aircraft endures in it's daily life, then the comparison might bear some consideration!

Materials, applications, designs, flaws, damage, etc, can alter the ability of a product to maintain it's structural integrity. The challenge is to determine and identify the course of failure and provide the mechanism to intercept it in future applications.

[TraderAl]

Wino, you are a rude son of a gun and I am not up to any conspiracy.

Maybe if you notice a drop of 20% in your passenger biz and you get laid off you might not feel so condescending, or leap to conclusions about another's motives despite what that person claims.

But still, thanks for your answer. As I was said I am seeking such answers and I read quite a bit of this board but didn't encounter the information you relayed.

What is a "continuous rod"? Are you knowledgeable regarding the forensics of a stinger strike? My understanding is a stinger strikes in proximity not by hitting so there would be no "continuous rod" - but I do not even know what that is..

Another responder (again with the same ire that you expressed, which seeing as two planes have driven into the WTC I find misplaced - in other words there is no conspiracy to dream up only the identification of actuality) mentioned that there is fragmentation with a stinger. A person I know who deployed them as a pro said there is very little if any, just a sharp flash and a hell of shock wave.

You seem to answer my concern about how engines can detach as well. Do other readers share this? It seems eyewitnesses did not report a large side slip nor did the flight recorder - did the engines come off after the flight recorder stopped or before, or is this something that cannot be discerned from the ground?

Wino, please be patient with your lesser mortals, your customers, your passengers.

But, you might give pause to take sincerely the claim that I am not launching or promoting a conspiracy theory and find that a bit mean spirited and rude on your part. IN fact I am trying in a small way to prevent one. Those in the industry better get serious and answer my questions for if the failed composite material thesis ends in unclear debate, this is where your passengers/public is headed. TWA 800 times magnitudes.

You infer that I am trying to cause disruption and a sense of conspiracy, sir, wrongly. Or you insult me by not taking my sincerity at face value.

So, your explanation, delivered with vitriol rather than calm logic only casts discredit on what is likely an informed stance.

Trust me all who have specific knowledge, I am trying to lay to rest any concerns that this was a MANPADS, not promote such an idea.

The side slip seems to explain the engines - does it to other knowledgeable folks minds? Does anyone have explicit knowledge as to why this could not be a stinger strike beyond inference as to "pristine tails" - Methinks a sharp blast would leave a pristibe tail, but about 50 yards from the craft it was attached to previously.

[jetfour]

TraderAl - a short aside. I have lived in Northern Ireland for 50 years. 'People' who fire anything at anything have to brag about it. They can't help it. Part of their tiny minds demands it. I hear a thundering silence from any terrorist about the JKF departure. Good luck with your research, but may they all RIP and may their God Bless the families.

[honchun]

TraderAI-Don't you think Mach 4 is a bit too fast for a short-range missile like the stinger? Basically all the info available on the internet points the speed of the stinger at 2,523 km/h, which is around Mach 2. :confused:

[Evo7]

Should this recently retired US Ranger be telling you this information - which seems to differ from everything else that is publicly available - and if so, should you be telling us...?

[Mycroft]

1 kg of HE with no fragmentation is not a very big bang, it would certainly make a hole in a structure if in contact, but as a proximity warhead for a missile it would be useless, with a damage limited to a few metres.