For some quick background, during the first several years of my military career, I was a LAAD officer; an officer in a unit that employed both MANPADs and pedestal-mounted Stingers (Avengers). I’m also familiar with the now decommissioned MIM-23 Hawk system which is a much more capable, robust SAM system. And during the course of my initial schooling and continued training, I’ve seen most of our SAM systems operate. I wouldn’t go as far as to say I’m an ‘expert’ in air defense missile systems as i was only in that job for a few years, but I probably know more than most.
Could a MANPAD (Stinger) have caused the catastrophic damage that TWA experienced? Almost certainly not. First, given its position essentially in the middle of the Long Island Sound, TWA 800 was very likely out of range for any MANPAD platforms that existed back then. More importantly though, MANPADs use a surprisingly small warhead that is designed to home in on the strongest IR signature, which on an airplane is going to be turbine exhaust. Even in an aircraft with an inboard engine(s) like a fighter - 747s have outboard engines mounted on nacelles - these aircraft experience engine failure that results in a catastrophic fuselage disintegration very rarely; it’s not like the movies where the missile hits the fighter and it blows up into a millions pieces. In fact, the ‘explosion’ is surprisingly muted, just a big puff of smoke really.
An aircraft with an outboard-mounted engine would be that much less likely to experience catastrophic fuselage failure. For example, how many 747s, or other passenger aircraft have seen total fuselage failure due to a bird strike on an outboard engine? None....by design. The same design elements that keep the fuselage secure in a engine/bird strike are the same elements that would keep it secure during MANPAD impact on an engine. There have been a number of incidents where multi-engine passenger/cargo planes have been struck by a MANPAD and continued to operate and eventually land safely.
If not a MANPAD, then what? A SAM from a surface ship or submarine ‘accidentally’ took out TWA 800? In a word, that is INSANE. The pre-launch procedures of a SAM aboard a ship are significant. It’s not like a person can accidentally lean on the ‘launch’ button and then, oopsie, missile away. Accidental launches are, by design, impossible. But, let’s arguendo say that it still happened. What are you going to do with the ship/sub full of sailors who, while sailing in the Long Island Sound, listened as their vessel ‘accidentally’ launched a missile to then find out minutes, hours or day later that at that very moment, a passenger plane fell out of the sky in one of the most notable airline accidents in aviation history? And Pro/Tip: A missile launch aboard a ship is not something that happens without being noticed. Everyone - literally everyone on the ship - can hear a missile launch. And yet, no one has said a word?
I honestly can’t believe 25-years later, there are people who still cling to this ABSURD conspiracy theory.
Great points. What about a onboard bomb? I have always been skeptical of the “exploding gas tank” explanation given no other instances of this occurring
Thanks for the detailed explanation of the MANPADS. But I may be of service here. I was in the navy at the time and a submarine sailor aboard a Los Angeles class fast attack boat.
We don't have anti-aircraft missiles aboard fast attack submarines. Plus would be pretty hard to track an airliner with sonar.
So you can scratch submarine off the list too.