MANPADS. Why?
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? |
Because groundforces with no effective air defense capabilty are vulnerable to attack aircraft.
Hope this helps. |
And, when AQ decides to buy a Cessna, it might be useful to hit it before it does something suicidal.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by ShotOne
why are we still making them?
I read the other day, the 3 most lucrative industries in world are 3). Automobiles 2). Cocaine 1). Arms dealing. |
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.
|
we can hardly expect others to restrict them if we won't. |
On reflection withdrawn my last remark here and apologise if I offended anyone.
|
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. |
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...
|
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!
|
We handed stingers to folk we now consider terrorists |
We handed stingers to folk we now consider terrorists. |
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. |
Roland,
Well put! Nutloose, Wishful thinking I fear - hence why the CIA sponsored the Stinger 'buy back' programme. 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 on the A4 to attempt to detonate the (relatively) small warhead away from vital systems and hope the A4 would survive. |
Yes, I thought Stingers had a battery time life |
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.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 8256246)
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. |
.... like cluster bombs and land mines?
You're completely correct. You can't uninvent things. Regards, Vernon |
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. |
You might find a dodgy golfer from Kent who can see you right for a set of batteries.
|
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? |
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? 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....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...y_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/sr...s/censored.gif |
:cool:
|
Trust me - old MANPADs still work.
:ok: |
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. |
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 |
There's always this one :-
|
"In 2015 our pensions will be slashed" :confused:
|
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.