Where are the MANPADs?

[Flagrum]

In a full scale, symetrically war all sorts of SAMs are probably the biggest theat to any kind of air asset. Ground units operate under a more or less dense umbrella of SAMs and a high number of losses is probable.

 

Now the current wars are "low intensity conflicts" where one side usually has air superiority - basically solely because to the lack of appropriate assets on the other side. While I can understand that the "typical insurgent" has no access to - and if, lacks the training to operate - modern SAM systems.

 

But what about the MANPADS? Why don't we see i.e. the Taliban using Stingers? Are they really so hard to come by? I read somewhere, that the Stingers the CIA delivered to Afghanistan, back then in the 1980's, nowadays are probably not usable anymore because the batteries / cooling modules are too old and not functioning anymore. But still, generally spoken, how hard can it be to get access to components or complete systems - be it Stingers or Iglas? Or what other reasons might exist that those are not employed? I can only barely imagine how much the ability to provide CAS would suffer if a real threat of being fired at by MANPADS at every engagement would exist. Maybe only 10 existing and working Stingers would probably change the whole situation in, i.e. Afghanistan, wouldn't it?

[xaoslaad]

Maybe it is a combination of scarcity and aircraft operating at high enough altitude to avoid them where possible? With hogs going back we could see more pictures of hogs surviving damage from missiles, AAA, whatever. But think about it, attack and bombers dropping LGB's from 15000 feet have little to fear from MANPADS...

[cichlidfan]

Considering your hypothetical ten stingers, their potential value as a terrorist tool against civilian aircraft might outweigh their value on the battlefield.

[HiJack]

I believe there were a couple of hits taken from manpads in Syrian conflict? Some liveleak videos exists I think. But let's hope manpads don't exist in a great number among the T's.

[Flagrum]

Maybe it is a combination of scarcity and aircraft operating at high enough altitude to avoid them where possible? With hogs going back we could see more pictures of hogs surviving damage from missiles, AAA, whatever. But think about it, attack and bombers dropping LGB's from 15000 feet have little to fear from MANPADS...

Yeah, but the Apaches would have it a bit tougher...

 

Considering your hypothetical ten stingers, their potential value as a terrorist tool against civilian aircraft might outweigh their value on the battlefield.

Yes, perhaps. But even those 10 Stingers ... it would probably suffice to use a couple of them to simply prove that they exist. Alone a reasonable possibility of their existence would probably be a "game changer".

[vicx]

Don't have a Stinger in front of me but if I was making a missile of convenience like the Stinger, I might add some sensors and some code to my benefit. Tell me the last time a US aircraft was shot down by a Stinger. I think never.

 

As for other manpads, I read that the US has operated a buyback scheme for manpads in active theaters. According to that text (some US newspaper) the buybacks have been quite successful. So then what do you do with a bunch of untraceable manpads.

 

Who says the US DOD isn't interested in the environment, they probably recycled them

[Flagrum]

Don't have a Stinger in front of me but if I was making a missile of convenience like the Stinger, I might add some sensors and some code to my benefit. Tell me the last time a US aircraft was shot down by a Stinger. I think never.

 

As for other manpads, I read that the US has operated a buyback scheme for manpads in active theaters. According to that text (some US newspaper) the buybacks have been quite successful. So thden what do you do with a bunch of untraceable manpads.

 

Who says the US DOD isn't interested in the environment, they probably recycled them

I think it was in Ed Macy's "Apache" or "Hellfire" where there was a case where they feared, that the Taliban could have a Stinger in the area. Somehow they figgured out eventually that it was not the case (Special Forces or some kind of three-letter-service). So I guess, they can't always rule out this posibillity in general.

 

I find it ... dunno ... interesting? disturbing? that a small and cheap weapon system exists that could be used by almost everyone and that can bring down my own, huge and expensive weapon systems that costs millions to be trained on. It is just a odd relation. And having to rely on the military intelligence and their, uhm, "people skills" to protect my war machines against it ... I would find that unsatisfactory in some way.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Flagrum

[Schnittertm]

I find it ... dunno ... interesting? disturbing? that a small and cheap weapon system exists that could be used by almost everyone and that can bring down my own, huge and expensive weapon systems that costs millions to be trained on. It is just a odd relation. And having to rely on the military intelligence and their, uhm, "people skills" to protect my war machines against it ... I would find that unsatisfactory in some way.

 

Yet it is that ease of use and the low cost that actually led to the creation of weapon systems like the Stinger/IGLA, as it is also beneficial to your own military, which would also employ them.

 

As a soldier, no matter the intelligence level of the individual soldier, you'd want a system that is as easy and as fast as possible to deploy in a combat situation, a system that, at its peak requires little or no thought, increasing reaction time to and survivability of a threat (in this case from the air).

 

As a nation, you'd want the system as cheap as possible, as you would either be able to buy more, put funds towards other equipment or, if that is your fancy, save the taxpayer some money, though most politicians are a bit stingy in that respect.

 

The problem arises, when those weapons are exported and sold to other parties which later are then considered undesireables at the least and enemies of the nation at the worst. Then, suddenly, your own, expensive, equipment is under threat from your own weapons. Then you do need intelligence services to find out where those weapons went. If they weren't sold illegally, tracking those weapons should at least be reasonably easy, as you at least know the amount and general area where they were last. With weapons sold illegally or a track to them that has grown cold, you only know a probable amount of those weapons existing somewhere and you'd know how long they'd hold out with factory equipped parts, but that is it. You will have to use other means to find out their whereabouts, some of them highly undemocratic and certainly questionable, as some intelligence services are known for operating outside the boundaries of certain laws. If their actions are justified is a debate that can easily drift into the political, so I will keep shut about my thoughts on that matter.

 

The only defense against these weapon systems, other than finding them and taking them out of action (through destruction or buying them back), as I see it, is proper training of the pilots/aircraft crews and installation of early warning and defense equipment, as is done on modern aircraft (e.g. MWS, Flares). Still, manpads will be a threat for low flying aircraft and despite all the training and equipment meant to defeat them, they might claim multi-million dollar equipment for a the exchange of a small, disposable launcher. It might be unsatisfactory to know this, but if there were such a thing as the perfect defense, then no one would use or even produce manpads.

[Flagrum]

Syria was mentioned already - I doubt that the number of such weapon in hands of ISIS is even remotely known. And given the immense threat that these weapons pose, even a very small number in the wrong hands could be devastating. And any sort of intervention by other means (1st: finding them, 2nd: buying them back) seems also a bit ineffective ... given that that has to be done most likely in enemy controlled territory, directly face to face with the people who probably rather want to kill you than to barter with you.

 

But I guess, that is exactly what "asymmetrical war" stands for, right? In some way, it goes for both sides ...

[Flagrum]

And one other thought ...

 

Probably one has to see the whole picture. The US prefer to use their air assets before going in with ground troops - if not more effective, then at least less risky. And if there is a real chance that MANPADs are in the area, then they will stay up high. That means, less effective CAS - and therefore the decision to put boots on the ground might likely be not happen if at all avoidable.

 

It would only get ugly if you have ground troops already in the area and suddenly such weapons appear out of nowhere. This has to be prevented up front - better than having to deal with it when it already has happened.

 

So, yes, perhaps you are right, dealing with MANPADs is probably more a strategic thing than a tactical one...

[HuggyBear]

Don't have a Stinger in front of me but if I was making a missile of convenience like the Stinger, I might add some sensors and some code to my benefit. Tell me the last time a US aircraft was shot down by a Stinger. I think never.

 

CH-47D Flipper 75, 30 May 07, Helmand Province.

 

Initially classified as a Stinger, later changed to unknown.

 

MANPADS aren't cheap and they have great value as a status symbol to insurgents.

 

With a lack of training and practice ammunition, it's usually a better idea to throw bullets and RPGs at aircraft.

 

- Bear

[tarracta]

Most MANPADS which are owned by terrorists may be too antiquated so they can't be a risk for modern fighters.

 

Even in lower flight altitudes, without a perfect reconnaissance you just don't get the weapon loaded and armed until a jet with military speed is not far over visibility and weapon range. Even the A-10 may often be too fast and too agile. Would be the same trying to stop a tank with a pistol.

 

It's a threat for helicopters and cargo planes and these are deployed only very carefully due to this reasons. In the final approach even an AK-47 may be a threat for airplanes.

Edited December 20, 2014 by tarracta

[Jona33]

CH-47D Flipper 75, 30 May 07, Helmand Province.

 

Initially classified as a Stinger, later changed to unknown.

 

MANPADS aren't cheap and they have great value as a status symbol to insurgents.

 

With a lack of training and practice ammunition, it's usually a better idea to throw bullets and RPGs at aircraft.

 

- Bear

 

Referred to as an RPG fired from pretty much directly below the flight path in Mark Hammond's Book "Immediate response", that might just be speculation though. (If I'm thinking of the right incident).

[maturin]

Most MANPADS which are owned by terrorists may be too antiquated so they can't be a risk for modern fighters.

 

Even in lower flight altitudes, without a perfect reconnaissance you just don't get the weapon loaded and armed until a jet with military speed is not far over visibility and weapon range. Even the A-10 may often be too fast and too agile. Would be the same trying to stop a tank with a pistol.

 

It's a threat for helicopters and cargo planes and these are deployed only very carefully due to this reasons. In the final approach even an AK-47 may be a threat for airplanes.

An A-10 too fast and agile for a Stinger or Strela?

 

Do you imagine that MANPADS in the '70s were a slingshot-based technology?

 

Underestimating outdated weapon systems is a cardinal sin of warfare.

[QuiGon]

There actually are MANPADS present in all those conflicts (Ukraine, Syra, Afghanistan) and they did manage to bring down quite some aircraft in all those conflicts.

 

For the ukrainian conflict there is a nice list on wiki about downed aircraft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_aircraft_losses_during_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine

It's not complete though and for many aircraft is just says "shot down" without specifying the weapon that downed them.

 

I haven't found such a list for Syria, but there have been a couple of reports and videos of Syrian Air Force aircraft beeing shot down by MANPADs (and gunfire).

 

I too always wondered about the MANPADs in afghanistan: Do they still exist and are they beeing used? But then I read a book about british Apaches operating in Afghanistan and from the book it became clear that MANPADs actually are a threat in afghanistan and have been used there as well. It's just that ISAF and NATO are pretty reluctant with information about MANPAD usage in afghanistan.

 

Edit: I just noticed HuggyBears last comment and that's exactly what I meant when I said ISAF and NATO are pretty reluctant with informations about the MANPAD usage in afghanistan.

Edited December 20, 2014 by QuiGon

[HuggyBear]

Referred to as an RPG fired from pretty much directly below the flight path in Mark Hammond's Book "Immediate response", that might just be speculation though. (If I'm thinking of the right incident).

 

It was both.

 

Either the RPG to the front or MANPAD to the rear would have brought Flipper 75 down.

 

Both happened at/near the same time.

 

- Bear