Civil overflights Afghanistan... Risk?

[Cougar]

Or lose a donk or two, plus get into severe icing

[Feather #3]

Ahh....we've been overflying Afghanistan for the odd decade or two and every now and then someone has a "Damascus Road" revelation that the bad guys have SAM's.

Maybe the Mods could put a reference to earlier discussion and close this?

G'day

[RatherBeFlying]

An anti-tank missile can make a nasty hole in an airplane. I believe one was used to hit the DHL in Baghdad.

Lots of ATMs around but you have to be down low before you have to worry.

The muj used Stingers to serious effect against Soviet Hind attack helicopters and likely helos remain a high priority target for them.

I'm sure they'd like to take out the drones, but they're too high to see or likely even hear

If drones start going down in significant numbers, then it would not be a good airspace for civil overflights.

[The SSK]

I'm pretty sure that Europe-Far East services were rerouted to avoid Afghan airspace during the Russian campaign circa 1980.

[grizzled]

Civilian fixed wing and rotary wing flights operate within Afghanistan every day, all day long. To and from Kabul, Jalalabad, Kandahar, Kunduz, Herat, Maz, Bamiyan, etc etc. They carry people (and cargo of course) from the UN, NGO's, govt's, contractors, and even NATO personnel. If the Taliban decided that civil flights were a priority target we would know very very quickly. There are many strategic reasons, as well as logistical, that civilian aircraft are not high on the target list.

grizz

[Smoketrails]

At a risk of getting myself shot on this thread..

Aren't Stingers more unreliable at higher altitudes? Something the Mujahideen found out trying to down Hinds!? Resulting in them having to climb higher into the mountains to get closer to the MIL-24's? The Ruskies then started flying higher up, so the US had to redesign the Stinger so they wouldn't go twirling back down into neighboring mountains!? Something like that anyway..

I'll grab my coat then

[nicolai]

Originally Posted by The SSK

I'm pretty sure that Europe-Far East services were rerouted to avoid Afghan airspace during the Russian campaign circa 1980.

The Soviets (of the time) had serious SAMs, not MANPADS, that can kill over the entire flight envelope of a civilian airliner. They also had fighter aircraft to do the same. The various flavours of armed Afghan local are not thought to have either, then or now.

[Daysleeper]

An anti-tank missile can make a nasty hole in an airplane. I believe one was used to hit the DHL in Baghdad.

The "shoot-down" was a proper MANPAD SAM.

[SNS3Guppy]

I operate regularly in Afghanistan; not merely overflights, but takeoffs and landings, as well. Surface to air missile threats are the least of my concerns.

If you're worried about MANPADS or other weapons fire, worry about takeoff and landing.

I wouldn't worry in the least about overflights. Particularly not at higher cruise altitudes.

Opposition on the ground employs a variety of weapons in a variety of lethal techniques. Is getting shot by ground fire, to include a missile, a possibility? Yes, it is. The country lies in a combat zone. People die there, violently, on a regular basis. Will you be among them? That is in part, up to you. The likelihood of that happening at cruise while transitioning Afghani airspace, as a result of surface fire, is extremely low. The threat is not non-existent, but it's nothing with which you should concern yourself.

[GlueBall]

The Taliban is a rag tag army of flint stones; they excel in making crude IEDs and in the recruitment of illiterate suicide bombers. It's a serious matter of concern for people on the ground. But when overflying Afghanistan en route Europe-Asia or westbound , of greater concern would be UAVs buzzing the skies, rather than being targeted by an obsolete missile.

[englishal]

I'd be more worried about friendly fire from the more powerful side......