MANPADS. Why?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
If you have no direct factory supply and replenishment then you will try what you have until one works.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
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.
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.
If you have no direct factory supply and replenishment then you will try what you have until one works.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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As failure rates pick up and maintenance becomes uneconomic then they will be withdrawn from service.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OK, it's out of date.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?
As failure rates pick up and maintenance becomes uneconomic then they will be withdrawn from service.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OK, it's out of date.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?
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.
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!
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?
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?
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!
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....
Someone launching a 30+ year old shoulder fired weapon is probably a bigger threat to themselves then they are to the target
Someone launching a 30+ year old shoulder fired weapon is probably a bigger threat to themselves then they are to the target
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nutloose
That CIA scheme to buy them back was 2005,
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
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Glad Rag
"In 2015 our pensions will be slashed"
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.
