Air liner (air freight) hit by MANPAD

[Token]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html

This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today.

If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine how
much better something designed in the last quarter century might do?

A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and high
bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio engines
to me.

Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a MANPAD to
take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor statistics so I
am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got wacked on
climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

T!

[Peter Gottlieb]

It was reported to have hit the engine but pictures I saw showed the wing on
fire outboard of the engine.


"Token" > wrote in message
news:oLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html
>
> Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a MANPAD to
> take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor statistics so I
> am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got wacked on
> climb-out, and managed to go around and land.
>

[BUFDRVR]

>but here is one that got wacked on
>climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

And if I understand the story correctly, the DHL crew had no idea what
happened, just that a portion of their wing had caught fire. It wasn't until
after they landed that reports of missiles trails were received by authorities.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[The Enlightenment]

"Token" > wrote in message
news:oLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html
>
> This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today.
>
> If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine
how
> much better something designed in the last quarter century might do?

Horrifying for us all.

>
> A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and
high
> bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio
engines
> to me.
>

I only saw a glimpse but it looked like an A310 with GE CF6 engines.

The RB211 engine might have a reasonable chance of obscuring the hot
exhaust nozzle as the shorter length of the Rolls Royce engines' 3
spool shaft allows the fan cowling to extend back beyond the exhaust
nozzle thus covering up hot metal completely. (RR use this technique
to reduce noise however)


> Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a
MANPAD to
> take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor
statistics so I
> am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got
wacked on
> climb-out, and managed to go around and land.
>
> T!
>
>

[Mycroft]

If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the wingtip
not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?

Myc

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mycroft" <david > wrote in message
...
> If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the
wingtip
> not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?


It missed the engine, either way.

[Pete]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mycroft" <david > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the
> wingtip
> > not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?
>
>
> It missed the engine, either way.

Either way, it scrubbed the mission.

Pete

[Andrew Chaplin]

Token wrote:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html
>
> This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today.
>
> If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine how
> much better something designed in the last quarter century might do?
>
> A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and high
> bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio engines
> to me.
>
> Several times threads have erupted here about the ability of a MANPAD to
> take down an airliner on take-off. One data point is poor statistics so I
> am not commenting one way or the other, but here is one that got wacked on
> climb-out, and managed to go around and land.

We can be thankful they do not seem to have ManPADS with a forward
aspect engagement capability. Those tend to be directed at the centre
of mass rather than heat sources. Something like Blowpipe, although
obsolete, has a 3.5 lb. warhead.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[[email protected]]

"Pete" > wrote:

>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Mycroft" <david > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the
>> wingtip
>> > not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?
>>
>>
>> It missed the engine, either way.
>
>Either way, it scrubbed the mission.
>
>Pete
>
Probably not the only items that needed scrubbing I'll wager...
--

-Gord.

[Token]

"Mycroft" <david > wrote in message
...
> If you look at the picture the damage is to the wing mid-way to the
wingtip
> not the engine maybr do due to a proximity detonation?
>
> Myc

I would suspect that if the missile did indeed hit the engine at all that
fragments of either the weapon or the motor could have hit the wing. More
likely the weapon missed the engine proper and impacted someplace near on
the wing, or came in at an angle, clipped the engine, and impacted the wing.
I believe that this is quite common from the pictures of missile hits during
Desert Storm.

Example here:
http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/abdr-A10/0181/181-11.jpg

The news reports on this incident I have seen so far all are saying it was
an SA-7. But if it was anything later than that (SA-14 or newer) it would
be a plume tracker anyway. A plume tracker must "push ahead" before impact
or it will pass harmlessly behind the engine and through the plume. I would
think the push ahead would result in many hits on parts of the aircraft
other than the engine itself.

As far as the possibility of proximity fuzing, according to most web sources
the SA-7 is contact fused only. Here is an example link:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-7.htm

That site also claims that the Stinger, the SA-14 and the SA-16 have the
same type of contact fusing, it does not specify for the SA-18.

T!

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"The Enlightenment" > writes:
>
> "Token" > wrote in message
> news:oLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
>> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html
>>
>> This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today.
>>
>> If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine
> how
>> much better something designed in the last quarter century might do?
>
> Horrifying for us all.

In this case, I don't think so. The warheads on the newer MANPADS
aren't any bigger, or, on the whole, much more differntly designed
than the ones you'll find on the SA-7/Redeye/Blowpipe. Where they're
more sopisticated is getting that warhead into proximity fuze range,
so that it goes off. In this case, the warhead went off. (There was
a case last summer involving an El Al jet where they didn't.)
Terminal effects are going to be the same.
The better ECCM adn guidance laws built into an SA-14, say, aren't
going to improve your Pk against a slow, unagile, and unaware target
like the DHL Airbus. You don't need that extra 10% for that kind of
target.

>>
>> A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and
> high
>> bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio
> engines
>> to me.
>>
>
> I only saw a glimpse but it looked like an A310 with GE CF6 engines.
>
> The RB211 engine might have a reasonable chance of obscuring the hot
> exhaust nozzle as the shorter length of the Rolls Royce engines' 3
> spool shaft allows the fan cowling to extend back beyond the exhaust
> nozzle thus covering up hot metal completely. (RR use this technique
> to reduce noise however)

And since the missile is more likely to be homing on the hot spot of
the exhaust plume, which is a bit behind the nozzle, I'd rather boupt
that wheterh it was a CF6 or an RB.211 would make any difference. A
direct hit on an engine isn't necessary - getting the warhead close
enough to fuze means that the fragments are going into the aircraft
right where all that side's fuel, hydraulics, electrical lines,
control rums, and, if appropriate, hot air bleeds are routed.
Anywhere on a large jet near the engines is a mighty tender spot.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[The Enlightenment]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "The Enlightenment" > writes:
> >
> > "Token" > wrote in message
> > news:oLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html
> >>
> >> This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today.
> >>
> >> If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine
> how
> >> much better something designed in the last quarter century might do?
> >
> > Horrifying for us all.
>
> In this case, I don't think so. The warheads on the newer MANPADS
> aren't any bigger, or, on the whole, much more differntly designed
> than the ones you'll find on the SA-7/Redeye/Blowpipe. Where they're
> more sopisticated is getting that warhead into proximity fuze range,
> so that it goes off. In this case, the warhead went off. (There was
> a case last summer involving an El Al jet where they didn't.)
> Terminal effects are going to be the same.
> The better ECCM and guidance laws built into an SA-14, say, aren't
> going to improve your Pk against a slow, unagile, and unaware target
> like the DHL Airbus. You don't need that extra 10% for that kind of
> target.

That is a little reassuring.

I believe one counter measure the Israelis had against SA7's was to
strengthen the exhuast pipe on their A4 Skyhawks. The weapon simply
lacked the punch to bring down an aircraft in many cases and the IAF
strenthened the the odds.

The latter weapans have much higher engagement altitudes; around
25,000 ft for an SA18. Given the orbital bombardment model I can see
someone putting up an 40,000 ft engagement envelope on a MANPADs to
cope with a Lawn dart or Buff.

Some kind of solid fuel gasifier ramjet motor maybe.



> >> A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and
> >> high bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio
> >> engines to me.
> >
> > I only saw a glimpse but it looked like an A310 with GE CF6 engines.
> >
> > The RB211 engine might have a reasonable chance of obscuring the hot
> > exhaust nozzle as the shorter length of the Rolls Royce engines' 3
> > spool shaft allows the fan cowling to extend back beyond the exhaust
> > nozzle thus covering up hot metal completely. (RR use this technique
> > to reduce noise however)
>
> And since the missile is more likely to be homing on the hot spot of
> the exhaust plume, which is a bit behind the nozzle, I'd rather doubt
> that whether it was a CF6 or an RB.211 would make any difference.

Interesting. More exhaust gas mixing maybe? Isn't that a requirement
of both noise reduction and infra-red signature reduction?


> A direct hit on an engine isn't necessary - getting the warhead close
> enough to fuze means that the fragments are going into the aircraft
> right where all that side's fuel, hydraulics, electrical lines,
> control rums, and, if appropriate, hot air bleeds are routed.
> Anywhere on a large jet near the engines is a mighty tender spot.

A lot of these systems aren't proximity fused are they? Airliner
metal is pretty thick. A B29 was supposedly 5mm so an A310 must be
around 1cm.

Beam riders like the RBS70/90 series or the most impressive British
Starstreak are more of a concern if they got in to the wrong hands.

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/starstreak.html
Recently trials have been conducted using this missile against ground
targets. The results were surprising and impressive. In brief, the
Starstreak darts can each penetrate over a metre of RHA at a range of
6000m-nearly twice the range of a TOW. While TOW takes 21 seconds to
reach 3,750m Starstreak takes less than 5 seconds to reach 6000m.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> In this case, I don't think so. The warheads on the newer MANPADS
> aren't any bigger, or, on the whole, much more differntly designed
> than the ones you'll find on the SA-7/Redeye/Blowpipe. Where they're
> more sopisticated is getting that warhead into proximity fuze range,
> so that it goes off. In this case, the warhead went off. (There was
> a case last summer involving an El Al jet where they didn't.)
> Terminal effects are going to be the same.
> The better ECCM adn guidance laws built into an SA-14, say, aren't
> going to improve your Pk against a slow, unagile, and unaware target
> like the DHL Airbus. You don't need that extra 10% for that kind of
> target.

The Shorts ManPADS family that started with Blowpipe is one where there
was significant improvement in the warhead. The Blowpipe had a
combination blast and shaped charge warhead so that it also had a ground
target capability for self defence. With Javelin GL and S-15 (Starburst),
the change was made to a blast warhead without the compromise of a shaped
charge. The latest, Starstreak, actually has three kinetic energy
projectiles that are launched from the main stage and which fly in
formation.

That said, I think Shorts missiles could be voted among the least likely
to find their way into terrorist hands, even if they are the ManPADS
systems most capable of bringing down large airliners (well, RBS-70 is,
but it's an even greater pain in the arse to lug about); the training
bill is just too high.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Alan Minyard]

On 23 Nov 2003 15:06:20 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>but here is one that got wacked on
>>climb-out, and managed to go around and land.
>
>And if I understand the story correctly, the DHL crew had no idea what
>happened, just that a portion of their wing had caught fire. It wasn't until
>after they landed that reports of missiles trails were received by authorities.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact
on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact
> on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

It could have missed. That happens, even with guided missiles.

A change in aspect might have fooled the missile into "thinking" that
the plane was moving away, so it would have gone off early.

The flight path of the missile might have been from the left and above
(plane in a slight bank, missile coming in fairly horizontal). I'm not
too sure about this one, since I haven't seen any photos of the wing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Jim Yanik]

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:



> I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the
> impact on the wing, well outboard of the engine?
>
> Al Minyard

IIRC,the warhead could be the type that detonates when the seeker head
slews past some setpoint,indicating closest approach but not a direct hit.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

[John R Weiss]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote...
> On 23 Nov 2003 15:06:20 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact
> on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

All we can tell from that picture is that at least ONE fragment impact was on
the outboard wing. There may have been any number of additional impacts
elsewhere on the wing, engine, or fuselage, that did not result in residual
fires.

The frag pattern would depend on the trajectory of the missile relative to the
airplane, the frag pattern of the particular warhead, and the time & place at
detonation. The missile could well have been tracking the tailpipe, but the
combination of fuzing and frag pattern caused the most significant hit on the
outboard wing.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> Alan Minyard > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
> > I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the
> > impact on the wing, well outboard of the engine?

High bypass engines.

> IIRC,the warhead could be the type that detonates when the seeker head
> slews past some setpoint,indicating closest approach but not a direct hit.

Luck.

[s.p.i.]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message >...
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote...
> > On 23 Nov 2003 15:06:20 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
> >
> > I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact
> > on the wing, well outboard of the engine?
>
> All we can tell from that picture is that at least ONE fragment impact was on
> the outboard wing. There may have been any number of additional impacts
> elsewhere on the wing, engine, or fuselage, that did not result in residual
> fires.
>
> The frag pattern would depend on the trajectory of the missile relative to the
> airplane, the frag pattern of the particular warhead, and the time & place at
> detonation. The missile could well have been tracking the tailpipe, but the
> combination of fuzing and frag pattern caused the most significant hit on the
> outboard wing.

Check these out...

http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?location=Baghdad%20Int'l%20-%20ORBS

[John R Weiss]

"s.p.i." > wrote...
>
> Check these out...
>
> http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?location=Baghdad%20Int'l%20-%20ORBS

VERY interesting! A lot more damage than was apparent in the long-distance
photo, but all concentrated on the outboard wing. However, there were no good
shots of the rest of the underside of the airplane.

[Chad Irby]

In article <ReKyb.274644$ao4.944301@attbi_s51>,
"John R Weiss" > wrote:

> "s.p.i." > wrote...
> >
> > Check these out...
> >
> > http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?location=Baghdad%20Int'l%20-%20ORBS
>
> VERY interesting! A lot more damage than was apparent in the long-distance
> photo, but all concentrated on the outboard wing. However, there were no good
> shots of the rest of the underside of the airplane.

I think it *did* hit from above the wing. WIth the flight path we saw
in the videos, it probably came in from the side, aiming at that
outboard engine, and the tip of the wing got in the way.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John R Weiss]

"Chad Irby" > wrote...
>
> I think it *did* hit from above the wing. WIth the flight path we saw
> in the videos, it probably came in from the side, aiming at that
> outboard engine, and the tip of the wing got in the way.

I didn't see the videos. Your scenario is plausible in a couple variations.

However, it is also possible that the missile came from low and to the left
(more likely from a close-range shot), tracking on the engine plume, and fuzed
on the wing. The frag pattern could have been radial from the missile
trajectory, missing everything on the airplane except the aft portion of the
wing (though I would also expect some hits on the belly or horizontal stab,
which I could not see in any of the pix). The remains of the missile body could
have missed the airplane completely.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:tgMyb.379099$HS4.3124969@attbi_s01...
> "Chad Irby" > wrote...
> >
> > I think it *did* hit from above the wing. WIth the flight path we saw
> > in the videos, it probably came in from the side, aiming at that
> > outboard engine, and the tip of the wing got in the way.
>
> I didn't see the videos. Your scenario is plausible in a couple
variations.
>
> However, it is also possible that the missile came from low and to the
left
> (more likely from a close-range shot), tracking on the engine plume, and
fuzed
> on the wing. The frag pattern could have been radial from the missile
> trajectory, missing everything on the airplane except the aft portion of
the
> wing (though I would also expect some hits on the belly or horizontal
stab,
> which I could not see in any of the pix). The remains of the missile body
could
> have missed the airplane completely.

Is the SA-7 an extended rod warhead?

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> Is the SA-7 an extended rod warhead?

Don't recall. Also, don't know what kind of missile hit the DHL airplane...

[Andrew Chaplin]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> Is the SA-7 an extended rod warhead?

I've never seen anything that didn't claim it was HE blast-frag.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)