[spetznaz]

Personally i think this is an issue that may or may not be crucial! This is because many of the Stingers given to the Mujahadeen (when those jehadis were 'freedom fighters' not terrorists) are by now non-functional due to the effects of time, and especially lack of proper maintenance. Hence there is a likelihood the Sa-7 Streylas used ineffectively in last weeks attacks may be more capable than Stingers sold well over a decade ago to Mujahadeens in some Afghan desert dune!

However the problem arises when you consider that the Stinger system is arguably the best 'man-pad' sam system today, and if those systems are still potent then a person using a Stinger would have a much greater chance of bringing down a civilian plane than some kooks firing some streylas!

Hence it is a gambit ....a crap shoot! Are the Stingers given to the Afghans in the 80s still effective, or are have they lost their efficacy? That is the question! And a wrong choice on our part could result in a plane being brought down!

After all there is a good reason they are selling Streylas for 50 grand and selling Stingers for 200 grand! Effectiveness!

I hope the Stingers in their possession are just vestigial weapons that no longer work, because if they are not then their target will most probably come down!

[spetznaz]

Ping!

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Must be some from the batch clinton sold them. They are 7-8 yrs old, time to buy new ones.

[John Valentine]

Going WAAAY back into my memory., I think that the Stingers rely on battery power, and those highly specialized batteries are now way beyond their shelf life. BUT, they may still work.

SA-7 Strela's, if my memory serves me, have a longer shelf life and a certain ruggendness of design, because they don't have a battery per se, but an electric generating cell that is only activated just before launch when an acid vial is broken allowing an electrolyte to flow into a chamber. A the same time another vial with a volatile fluid is also broken releasing an evaporant onto the cadmium sulphide sensor, thus lowering its temperature into the operating range. Launch must immediately follw.

If I had a choice, I'd take four SA-7 over one Stinger for the same price unless I was provided with a demonstration proving that the Stinger battery was still functioning.

[Cicero]

According to news reports, the CIA has already bought back a lot of stingers in Afghanistan. Of course anything you read about the CIA may or may not be true. But when you consider the downside, it would seem worth while buying back any remaining on the market. Even if they're not worried about worried about losing an airliner, they should be worried about egg on George Tenet's face.

[1rudeboy]

when those jehadis were 'freedom fighters' not terrorists

I sense a small logical fallacy here.

[John Jorsett]

The batteries in the Stingers have to be dead or nearly so by now. They're essentially junk.

[Leisler]

Whatever battery Stingers have, it shouldn't be too difficult to patch, or remanufacture new ones.

Stingers do have a type of radar, a proximity fuse, which helps in detention near the reflecting mass of the aircraft body structure. Since aircraft don't have extra parts, even if you don't hit an engine, just punching holes through control surfaces, hydraulic lines, whatever is a good start to controlled flight termination.

[Kenton]

So where in hell does your average Afhani get $5000 to $10000 for the RPGs they all seem to carry?

[Man of the Right]

The only saving grace is that the Afghans are too dumb to point the business-end of the weapon at the sky.