Surface-to-air missile retrieval

Washington Times ^ | October 12 2003 | James D. Zirin

[knighthawk]

The U.S. military in Iraq is in the market for SA-7 shoulder-mounted, heat-seeking, surface-to-air missiles. They are offering a bounty of $500 for each SA-7 that someone turns in. Cash on the barrelhead; no questions asked.

SA-7s are big trouble. They were designed by the Soviet Union in the 1970s and are capable of knocking a jumbo jet out of the sky at an altitude of 13,000 feet, from as far as five miles away, in as little as 13 seconds.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[Support Free Republic]

How we have, and can, change the world

History of Free Republic

Click The Logo To Donate

[El Gato]

Oh, goody, a "buy back" program for MANPAD SAMs. It'll be about as successful in getting them out the hand of terrorists and the various "gun buybacks" have been in gettin guns out the hands of criminals, which is to say, not at all.

James D. Zirin is a partner in the New York office of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Figures.

[scooter2]

In the 1980s, the CIA gave SA-7s to the mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

I be the CIA provided American built Stinger missles to the Afghani mujahadeen. I doubt that the CIA had much of a supply od Soviet manufactured SA-7's. The SA-7's that are in Iraq are so old that the batteries are mosly shot and the IR seekers degrade with age. Iraqii terrorists can't get the parts to keep more than a handful of these missles really operational.

[narby]

capable of knocking a jumbo jet out of the sky at an altitude of 13,000 feet, from as far as five miles away, in as little as 13 seconds.

Wasn't TWA Flt 800 just over 10k feet? And the suttlebutt back then was "it's impossible for a shoulder fired missle to have hit it, because it's over 10k feet".

[knighthawk]

Yes, you are right. It were FIM-92a Stinger's.

[RonHolzwarth]

Maybe it is time for the MAD doctrine!

Mutually Assured Destruction.

First time an airliner is proven to be shot down in this fashion, Damascus is to become a radioactive rubble heap.

Next one, Mecca.

Third one, Medina.

Fourth one, the Temple Mount is to be cleared, and construction of the Third Temple begins.

Is this a WAR??

If it is, it is time for WARTIME TACTICS!!!

Sorry civilians, if the terrorists don't care, why should we?

[RonHolzwarth]

re: "Iraqi terrorists can't get the parts to keep more than a handful of these missles really operational."

I sure hope you are right!

Seems to me, those things should have been designed to have a rather short operational life in the first place.

[StriperSniper]

Oh, goody, a "buy back" program for MANPAD SAMs. It'll be about as successful in getting them out the hand of terrorists and the various "gun buybacks" have been in gettin guns out the hands of criminals, which is to say, not at all.

No, it won't get them out of the hands of terrorists, but it may reduce the supply cashed around the countryside. Better we at least put in a bid, rather than have the terrorists the only market there for the average Iraqi who might know where there are some.

[DugwayDuke]

The 'scuttlebutt" wasn't that it was impossible, only very highly unlikely. BTW, a SA-7 might be able to hit something at 13,000 feet. It might be able to hit something at five miles. But it will not hit something at five miles that is at 13,000 feet.

Also, even if it hit, it probably wouldn't bring down a 747. The warhead is about the size of a handgrenade.

[pabianice]

We have been living on borrowed time since 9-11-01. Terrorism will be back, big time. What that will do to society is anyone's guess.

Try "Jitterbug," by Mike McQuay.

[John H K]

Also, even if it hit, it probably wouldn't bring down a 747. The warhead is about the size of a handgrenade.

Yep; over half of the Israeli A-4s hit by SA-7s(a really tiny single-engine fighter-bomber) have survived.

The SA-7 HAS shot down "airliners" but no "jumbo jets" (primarily old commuter-plane type aircraft in Africa.)

It's certainly possible for an SA-7 to shoot down a 747 or 767, etc. with a lucky hit, but it's not very likely.

Obviously, it's not a good idea to find out what would happen if one hit an airliner, but the MANPAD threat has been seriously overhyped, between the frantic articles about all the Stingers supposedly floating around that ignore the fact all of their batteries are dead, to the hyping of what is a pretty piss-poor weapon, the SA-7.

[coloradan]

The warhead that took down Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie, Scotland) was the size of a cassette tape.

[Gunrunner2]

You mean the bomb from the inside of the aircraft, in the cargo hold, at about 30,000 feet and causing rapid decompression and structural failure. (No warhead)

[coloradan]

Yes, that one. A hand grenade is several times larger than a cassette tape, and even thought the pressure differential is smaller at 13,000 feet compared to 30,000, that differential isn't nothing. And a missile helpfully inserts the warhead at a supersonic velocity, compared to the PA 103 bomb, which was located in a stationary position in the cargo hold. Furthermore, there may be more vulnerable spots for a missile to hit than the cargo hold itself represents.

[Gunrunner2]

>>nd a missile helpfully inserts the warhead at a supersonic velocity<<

One would hope so, but usually it is not a shaped warhead and is a uni-directional blast. Nasty, but not like a it was a shaped charge meant to penetrate. A lot of the missile are proximity fused, as they pass nearby and detonate when sensing a near miss. Because of that, no shaped (directional) charge. And blowing "out" is a heck of a lot worse, IMHO, that blowing "in." (No crude jokes here, this isn't the DU.)

Yes, it would be more devestating to hit the cockpit than the cargo hold. But a missile is likely not gonna do that, and a heater will zero in on a hot spot, like the engines, and not directly hit the body of the aircraft. Explosion would pepper the jet with holes, but an internal explosion (and resulting over-pressurization) would blast the heck out of the jet.

Cheers.

[El Gato]

Better we at least put in a bid, rather than have the terrorists the only market there for the average Iraqi who might know where there are some.

But for the most part, it's probably the ex Baathists and terrorists who know where they are anyway.

[El Gato]

I be the CIA provided American built Stinger missles to the Afghani mujahadeen. I doubt that the CIA had much of a supply od Soviet manufactured SA-7's.

They did give them Stingers, but earlier they had given them Chinese or other country, built SA-7s, IIRC. Probably a decent spare parts supply available "on the left" as the Russians. Russian mafia if no one else, but probably plenty from Iraqi supply depots as well. Remember that these "terrorists" in Iraq are composed of a large chunk of former Baathists, Saddam Feydeyeen (sic) and "foreign" terrorists, the latter likely depend on the Iraqies for supply of anything more sophisticated than an AK-47 clone. IR seekers themselves don't degrade particularly with age, but their cooling system might, however those can be recharged, I think. Batteries probably come sealed so they don't appreciably degrade until you put it in the launcher. Of course all that might be beyond the abilities of 90% or more of the "terrorists", but the others would be more than sufficient to serve as maintainers.

[El Gato]

Because of that, no shaped (directional) charge. And blowing "out" is a heck of a lot worse, IMHO, that blowing "in."

Most missle warheads, at least on the larger missles (but not that much larger, Sidewinder for instance) do have directional warheads. It's just not a linear direction like a shaped charge. (A shaped charge is also focused). Such warheads have a roughly planar blast pattern. With the plane being perpendicular to the missle's long axis. That way when the proximity fuse sets it off, the path of the fragments will be a cone with the open end in the direction of travel of the missle. Makes it sort of like shooting a shotgun, whose pattern is also a cone with the open end in the direction of travel of the shot column, and for the same reason.