Question on Afghanistans AAA/SAM capabilities

[KungFuCharlie]

We're talking about helicopters flying 300' AGL.

20000' is more than likely well out of range for MANPADS.

It could also have been something like an SA-2 or 3 launched ballistically.

 

The Taliban and insurgents have done some stupid things but launching a SA2 or SA3 ballistically is probably not something they would do. They would know what a good resource that is and they wouldn't waste it needlessly. But then I could be wrong and they are that stupid. :)

[GGTharos]

I do not think this was an incident with insurgents ... it could only be an incident while those sites would have been operating.

 

The Taliban and insurgents have done some stupid things but launching a SA2 or SA3 ballistically is probably not something they would do. They would know what a good resource that is and they wouldn't waste it needlessly. But then I could be wrong and they are that stupid. :)

[AlphaOneSix]

MIRC

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, so it isnt some Intelligence dude being lazy and using MIRC to chat to his buddies :D

 

No, you were right the first time. In every staff post I've seen, there have been people chatting over mIRC, it is by far the fastest way people communicate around the globe (or so it seems to me).

 

EDIT: Sorry, didn't see KFC's post which already clarified this.

[tflash]

Before their deployment to Kandahar, the Terma AIRCM self-protection system was installed on RAF Tornado GR.4:

 

http://www.terma.com/index.dsp?page=3202

http://www.terma.com/index.dsp?page=3259

 

I guess this was a response to an existing threat, given that it was under an UOR?

[bumfire]

Gettin back on topic.

 

Check this out, its from 2007 but its about sams being fired at planes, c130 being locked up by one.

 

http://www.afghanistanwatch.org/2007/07/first-surface-t.html

 

little touch more info about the same thing.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/1558756/Taliban-in-first-heat-seeking-missile-attack.html

 

Also this from last year about the insurgents having SA14's and trying to use them.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5822094.ece

 

Suddenly the thought of me wanting to be a helo pilot for the army diminishes every single time I read about missiles being used against helos.

 

I have always dreamed about wanting to fly a helo in combat ( it would of never of happened ) but I really would hate to be in a helo at less than 500 feet and for a missile to be fired at me, even if I did have a disco ball on the helo, I wouldnt be happy unless the disco ball was pumping out staying alive by the bee gees, respect goes out to these pilots as it must be uber scary work at times.

[Groove]

Stay On-Topic.

[Heli Shed]

The DS solution

 

I have considerable experience of Afghanistan. 3 Deployments to be pre-cise. I am not a desk waller either, but a WO1 (RSM) in the British Army - Infantry.

On all three of my deployments i was a WO2 at the time (Company Sergeant Major). Ok................now thats foundation out the way, back to the original question.

 

There is NO confirmed threat (the definition of that is that of considerable A1 Intel from a FHU or an actual engagement) from any form of SAM in Afghanistan. However, remembering that the definition of a SAM is any missile that is fired from the ground with an intent to hit an air target, you may aswel say that the threat definitely does exist. Saying that however, does not alleviate from taking into consideration any form of MANPAD threat to air on operations.

 

Commerical SAM's (earlier SA-7 for example) have not been found nor used. There has been plenty of opportunity for the Taliban to use these sort of weapons and exploit the PR and media coverage they would receive as a result of a hit to FF. If they had them, they would have used them.

 

The British Media are the best in the world at speculation and conjecture. That is what they have done with regards to all the reports in the papers and tabloid press regarding commerical SAM systems. In Iraq however, (2 tours), the SAM threat (commercial) certainly did exist and shot down to C-130's around the BAGHDAD area. Not surprising considering we were fighting 46% ex republican guard who had all of the weaponry available to a conventional Army - Iraq had a mixture of Soviet and Western hardware. Their SAM response was purely soviet. However, back to Afghanistan.

 

RPG's - lots of them. Do they fire them at AH / Chinooks? absabloodylutely! i have been in a chinook when it has been engaged by an RPG. It was a miss, Thank god!

 

Small arms - Listen. Kids dont get xbox's and PS3's, neither do they play LO or DCS in Garmsir / Darvishan, but they do get an AK47 varient (usually the AKMS) for their birthday! We tried to instigate a WAC system (Weapon Authorisation Card - each family 1 AK and 10 rds) as we did with some success in Iraq, but it was impossible in Afghanistan due to the sheer amount of weapons in country. Small arms - AK47 & 74 and the PKM series are used very often against Heli's. Particulary the iCat's (romanian Mi-8's HIP), because they are unarmed, white, and fly alone with little if any mutual support from AH. This is the arrangement with the romanian government. The pilots are paid thousands of dollars each day. They take their chances and fly like madman. Main task - delivery of supplies to allevaite the weight put on an ever more bludgeoned Chinook fleet.

 

23mm - ZSU AA gun and Dsk 12mm - Confirmed sightings and usage by both. There are not 'hundreds of them' as the international press has reported, but they are 'pooled' around Taliban strongpoints. We know those strongpoints and we know everything about them. The only time the Taliban know that we know, is when we go and conduct a Hard Knock with a Bde of Troops, AH and fast air coverage - Sond Chara, Moshtarak & Tor Parang.

 

Thats about all i`m willing to say that doesn't compromise operational effectiveness or intelligence.

 

In summary - SAM threat does not exist in the sense that we understand SAM to be (commercial conventional), if it existed, it WOULD have been used by now - The Taliban need the PR and worldwide media coverage. The 'perceived' strength of oppressing forces in Afghanistan, win the people. The Taliban want to win. However, there are plenty of RPG and SA attacks on airframes - AH, Tpt and Fast air. This happens frequently.

 

Regards

 

'T'

Edited August 5, 2010 by Tyger

[Ghost]

I agree 100% with Tyger. I know the job he does and the guys that he's on the ground with and he knows what he's talking about. Unlike Tyger i have only done one tour of Afghanistan and that was in a non combat roll with the Royal Navy.

 

Rumours are always rife about what the Taliban has and has'nt and to be fair as Tyger says, if they had SAM's then they sure as hell would be going for the big prize in their eyes....on of our aircraft.

 

Saying this i saw first hand a US Blackhawk that was hit by RPG. Luckily the crew were unhurt.

[PoleCat]

Yep Tyger would know this. +1

 

Out

[IronsightSniper]

• May 30 : A US CH-47 Chinook was shot down, by a MANPADS in the upper Sangin valley, killing 5 American, one British and one Canadian soldiers. Until July 25th, 2010, officially its downing was attributed to small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire in a NATO attempt to cover up the usage of MANPADS by Afghan insurgents.[/url]"
  

A simple search of Wikipedia :D

[Heli Shed]

Ironsight.

If you have something to add that is constructive based on your own battle experience of this theatre of operations, please do so. Otherwise, resist temptation to become an 'itch' by posting crap from an editiable source by anyone.

 

Why are there so many wikipedia experts about!

[nscode]

So, you were on site on May 30, when that CH-47 was downed? And you have information that contradicts the now-official 'crap'?

[IronsightSniper]

Ironsight.

If you have something to add that is constructive based on your own battle experience of this theatre of operations, please do so. Otherwise, resist temptation to become an 'itch' by posting crap from an editiable source by anyone.

 

Why are there so many wikipedia experts about!

 

Actually, there were 3 sources cited in that statement, you can check Wikipedia and subsequently check their sources.

[Heli Shed]

By 'on site', i`m assuming you mean 'in theatre', to which the answer is 'no'. I am however, in a priveldged position out of theatre where my current rank and role, allow me access to sources of information through our own Defence Intranet.

 

If you knew how AP works, you would know that information is purchased and cascaded to different sources which does not nullify any negative initial reporting.

 

So, With that, I now pull from the thread and end this ridiculous justification of my existance. If you want to continue this discussion, join our TS or PM me.

 

Regards all, safe flying.

 

'T'

[Ghost]

So, you were on site on May 30, when that CH-47 was downed? And you have information that contradicts the now-official 'crap'?

 

 

I take it that you were out there when this happened and that you are a serving member of the coalition forces that daily put their lives in the firing line. Often only to come home in a wooden box draped in a flag.

 

No? I didnt think so!!! Its so easy, sat at home in front of a nice warm pc while drinking your favourite bear to peruse the net and pull down nothing more than rumours. Why not pull on the uniform and go out there and join the thousands of people doing just that everyday and then come back and say you know the score.

 

Here is a little bit of info found on the net about Wikipedia :-

 

A very common criticism of Wikipedia is its inconsistent and unauthoritative submission model. The encyclopedia allows anybody to edit its pages, even anonymously. To address this issue, and to ensure quality, accurate content, all submissions and edits are moderated and regulated by a staff of regular volunteers. However, all information learned from Wikipedia should be independently verified by interested parties, and citing Wikipedia as a reference work is usually frowned upon in most academic circles.

 

http://what-is-what.com/what_is/wikipedia.html

 

Bascally just because it says it, doesnt mean its true. As Tyger says, if you want to discuss it...look us up on TS.

 

This is not meant to flame anyone, i just get royally hacked off when people think they know it all when in actual fact all they know is what they read. You need to go there to understand this. I'm sure that anyone who has, will.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

S!

[IronsightSniper]

Le sigh, why must you people always attack the source but never the claims?

 

Anywho, 3 sources for that CH-47 getting downed by a Afghan insurgant-manned MANPAD.

 

http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx (page 27, it lists it as an RPG attack, however)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/world/asia/31iht-31afghan.5946623.html?_r=1

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7910482/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-used-heat-seeker-missiles-against-Nato-helicopter.html

[nscode]

I take it that you were out there when this happened and that you are a serving member of the coalition forces that daily put their lives in the firing line. Often only to come home in a wooden box draped in a flag.

 

That is my point. Unleass you are a direct whitness, it doesn't matter. You would still only be told the official version, just like the rest of us, plus maybe some hear-say.

 

 

Now, I might be in the wrong here, but the official version of this event was changed since the document leak, and it seams to me you guys just didn't catch that.

 

Now if you ask about about my experience in a theater of opperation, it is my experience that NATO likes to stick to the least painfull version of an event, until pushed by evidence to do otherwise. "Engine trouble" anyone? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orv8-siraJM