Air liner (air freight) hit by MANPAD

"Token" wrote in message
newsLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/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!

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

"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.

"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

"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.

"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 he
http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/ab...181/181-11.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!

In article ,
"The Enlightenment" writes:

"Token" wrote in message
newsLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/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

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
"The Enlightenment" writes:

"Token" wrote in message
newsLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/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.

"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.)