Anti-Tank Missiles

[RatherBeFlying]

Up to now I've kept my yap firmly shut on this possibility.

Sadly the cat is now out of the bag

So anyway, why continue the bother with IR countermeasures on commercial a/c as that's but one of a number of missile threats?

[Koyo]

Are you referring to the C-130 incident in Iraq? Anyway I think most handheld anti-armor missiles are way bulkier than your standard Russian made IR handheld SAM. If my knowledge is serving me correctly, most of those anti-armor missiles are wire guided and doesn't have the range of any AA missiles. Basically, if they're good against parked aircrafts.

[Speedtape]

A/T missles can be of the TV optical Guidance, Laser Guidance, Wire Guidance, IR Guidance or just plain point and shoot types. As they tend to carry a heavier, more destructive pay load, their use against aircraft would be limited by effective range so medium to high altitude aircraft or fast moving low level aircraft would be relatively safe from them.

[JJflyer]

Man portable Anti-tank weapons

112mm (4.3kg warhead) APILAS single shot antitank weapon could potentially be used against a low/slow aircraft as could the 66mm LAW and different bodels of Soviet/Russian RPG. These are all fired with no guidance system and are as accurate as conditions allow largely depending on the experience and accuracy of the shooter.

TOW and other guided system ATW's are very bulky compared to say the Stinger or Soviet/Russian IGLA systems, however could be potentially be used agains aicraft even though not being designed to perform that task. To be effective an aircraft would have to be relatively large fly slow and low (Landing /Take-off) to make a good target for systems not designed to the air defense role.

JJ

[The Otter's Pocket]

Don't talk nonsense.
Just try firing a Gimpy on a larch pole at a target aircraft and I can also guarentee that you will miss, as for firing a LAW or 66 or anything else AT that is guided or otherwise at an aircraft, well you've just got your head in the clouds.

[16 blades]

The Otters Pocket is, in my (informed) opinion, correct.

Lack of range and guidance issues aside, the warhead of almost all anti-tank weapons are of the shaped-charge variety, designed to 'burn' a small hole in thick armour plate and inject a liquefied slug into the vehicle. They are also usually contact-fused, ie it has to hit the vehicle to detonate (or else the shaped-charge would be nigh-on useless) Anti-aircraft weapons (man-portable ones at least) almost invariably have blast-fragmentation warheads, and are proximity fused.

To use an AT weapon against an aircraft effectively, you would have to be:

A) Very close
B) a bloody good shot, or VERY lucky to hit it, and
C) VERY, VERY lucky to hit it in a vital place to cause enough damage (given the nature of the warhead).

I'm not saying it's impossible, just very improbable.

I personally think the video doing the rounds and the claims associated with it are bollocks, but I may be wrong. We will have to wait for the outcome of the investigation before we find out what actually happened.

In the meantime, God rest my friends.

16B

[ShotOne]

The video probably is bolx -it's certainly inconclusive, but haven't they shot down a number of US helicopters with RPG's? Low tech maybe but they've got plenty of them and while the warhead isn't designed for the purpose, surely it would manage to knock out a tail rotor

[16 blades]

Yes, a lucky shot with an RPG can be devastating, but Helos offer a slow (often hovering), small and much more mechanically complicated target.

16B

[fat albert]

The video certainly looks bolx - bits of cobbled together stuff.

You can't just dismiss the possibility of an AT round being a threat though.....look at something like the AT16. That's a beam riding weapon with interchangeable warheads and a specfic anti aircraft one. It can supposedly engage at converging speeds of some 500 odd knots. It is, I believe, a fairly new weapon and suspect it would be difficult for such a thing to get into the hands of a terrorist though. Older things like the Spiral (AT9) may do though and whilst they don't have an AA specific warhead, they could well pose a credible threat being SACLOS guided.


Please note I'm in no way commenting on recent events, just on the posts above.

[Pilot Pete]

Otters

Tried it and yeah, missed (I nearly said by a mile, but of course I couldn't be sure!)

Mind you, a Gimpy from the hip at Thetford, now that's a different kettle of fish. Only missed by................... yards! Having said that, fired prone I couldn't miss And as for in the SF role, well.............I wouldn't like to be in the beaten zone..............awesome (as our US buddies would say) As for anti-aircraft with the Gimpy or a LAW, it takes a lot of combined firepower or a pretty lucky shot..............

PP

Now retired and far too fat for any of that kind of mularky.....oh where did my PTI body go?!?

[ExGrunt]

Never underestimate low tech

I was in NI in Feb 1985 when the IRA wiped out the canteen at Newry police station with a mortar bomb made from a steel tube filled with gunpowder. Home made weapons can be very effective.

In the context of this thread, a single AT weapon is extremely unlikely to down an aircraft. The two shot setup in the video must be treated with some scepticism.

With regards to the US Blackhawks in Mogadishu, there is an interesting commentary on the DVD made by the participants in the action. They report that the bad guys had modified the RPG from a contact fuse to a timed one and in the course of the initial action several hundred rounds were fired at the US helicopters, achieving a success rate of less than 1% by downing the two Blackhawks. Outcome political disaster for the US.

For those of you still serving - watch your backs.

EG

[CiPher]

I don't pretend to know much about missiles etc, but from a more basic viewpoint aren't the majority of Anti-Armour weapons based around a shaped charge/narrow blast of hot gas on the target principle or a kinetic energy penetration principle in order to defeat thick armour, whereas most AA missiles explode before making contact with the target in order to throw as much cfr*p as possible at a wider area creating wider area of damage.

I wonder how effective that type of weapong would be against a soft skinned target like an aircraft,? I'm guessing not very as I would of throught that the area of damage would be small.


CiPher

[Daysleeper]

The video released looks much more like a pair of katyusha small artillary rockets being launched.
Probably just "file" footage they had around.

[The Otter's Pocket]

Look lets put it a little simply - forget warheads etc,
The aircraft was at approx 15,000ft.
Lets imagine that its a slow mover from right to left directly above the launch site.
That is one big mother that can launch a big rocket at an aircraft and even get in the same volume grid square.
Even wire guided AT weapons range is 1850m before the wire cuts or you disappear down the range at a 350m per second being towed by the rocket.
As for trying to put an unguided projectile in the path of an aircraft then try getting a platoon of blokes to hit a stationary tank at 250m with a LAW, 50% will miss even after firing their spotting rounds.
Again that is no small missile, and it wouldn't be made to just hit targets at just 15,000ft it would be designed for use in a bracket.
My thoughts are with you all.