Stinger Missile/ SA-7 Threat - Background & Analysis

YES, "STRINGER" IS A TYPO. I know it's supposed to be "Stinger". Thought I'd clear that up in advance... anyone know how to edit or delete one's own posts here?

For a demonstration of what similar missiles can do, please refer to TWA flight 800.

To clean up or delete your post flag one of these Jim Robinson, Admin Moderator, Lead Moderator, Sidebar Moderator by placing the name in the to: header of a reply or hit abuse.

The al-Qaeda terrorists can take shoulder-fired potshots from just about anywhere in the world where U.S. commercial and military A/C land. The just have to scout a few choice locations and set-up in the path of runway approaches. The danger is more world-wide than the U.S.

That's 100% true! Hold that thought! In fact, I deal with the implications of *exactly* that fact in today's Winds of Change post about Al Qaeda's latest threats and what they may be up to.

The exact figure seems to vary but TWA 800 appears to have been above the maximum effective altitude of the SA-7 when it exploded.

The exact figure seems to vary but TWA 800 appears to have been above the maximum effective altitude of the SA-7 when it exploded.

That may possibly be because the "maximum effective altitude" of an SA-7 (or Stinger, for that matter) has to do with how high they can effectively hit the targets they were designed to hit - highly agile fighter craft. For a slow-moving, non-evading target like a 747, it may well be able to coast into a successful hit at elevations well above that.

Also note that some witnesses said the "streak" went out before the explosions started; this would be consistent not only with the burn having finished before impact, but also consistent with the obsevation that TWA 800 was above the operational ceiling of the missile, if the ceiling is defined as there being a still-burning motor such that the missile can make turns under thrust.

Flight 800 was well within the range of the FIM-92C Stinger, as well as the SA-14,-16,-18. Stinger has six pound blast fragmentation warhead. The SA-18 has a slightly larger warhead and also lights off the last of it's fuel as it impacts the target. (Sa-18 actually makes physical contact and explodes inside the target.)

Happy note, we supplied the mudjahadeen in Afghanistan with Stingers, of variants A,B,and C. Variant C having a range of 3 miles. Mudjahadeen also had access to the Soviet's own SA-7, -14, -16, -18 series. And by default, the Taliban and Al-Qeada also had the same access. China copied our Stinger by buying it off the black market that popped up during the "Liberation of Afghanistan" from the "Soviet Infidels" and reverse engineering it.

"That may possibly be because the "maximum effective altitude" of an SA-7 (or Stinger, for that matter) has to do with how high they can effectively hit the targets they were designed to hit - highly agile fighter craft. For a slow-moving, non-evading target like a 747, it may well be able to coast into a successful hit at elevations well above that."

The analysis of the MANPADS against a 747 were conducted using the most sophisticated six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) models available to the Department of Defense. These models take into consideration the maneuvers of the targets. This analyis used the actual flight path of TWA 800 taken from Air Traffic Control (ATC) radars and concluded that the Stinger was marginal at best in intercepting TWA 800. BTW, the "actual flight path" would have included any maneuvers.

"Marginal at best" does not mean it couldn't happen, only that it was stretching the capabilities of the system to the maximum. This raises the question of why a terrorist would pick a shot that was unlikely to result in a hit. One would think they would have located themselves at a point likely to result in a hit, wouldn't one? Even if the system had achieved a hit, it is highly unlikely that the Stinger warhead, approximately one KG, would result in damage so catastrophic as to kill a 747 in such a rapid manner as to preclude any indication from the crew that they had been hit.

While the 6-DOF models are classified, they are not so closely held that the results could not have been independently verified by a large number of persons. In addition, these models are used to prepare launch and intercept plots used in training the Stinger crew. IOW, if the 6-DOF results were significantly different from these plots, thousands of previously trained crews would have known but none have come forward to discredit the analysis.

Please note, I'm not saying TWA 800 was not shot down by a missile, only that it was exceeding unlikely it was shot down by a MANPADS.