Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

20,000 missiles dissapear

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 September 2011 at 9:22am
The SA-14 missile system itself weighs in at approx 10.3 kg, 22lbs. So 20,000 X22lbs =44,000lbs or 22 tons. Or 1 53foot semi trailer full, not as much weight or volumn as many expect.

I do not expect that Joe Weapons seller will keep the protective cases on all, as the pic shows a 'pile' of missiles will be the easiest and smallest volumn transport.

The SA-7 and or 14 are battlefield missiles, and as stated useless against targets flying high, max distance flown is 6000m, and only real effective in tail chase mode where IR seeker can lock on engine exhaust.
Basically a 10,000 ft ceiling and 3 mile range.
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 September 2011 at 9:23am
OS beat me to it.

Edited by Kayback - 28 September 2011 at 9:26am
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 September 2011 at 10:18am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

The SA-14 missile system itself weighs in at approx 10.3 kg, 22lbs. So 20,000 X22lbs =44,000lbs or 22 tons. Or 1 53foot semi trailer full, not as much weight or volumn as many expect.

Thanks! 

The word "missile" conjures up mental images of big things strapped to Wiley E. Coyote's back. I didn't realize these things could probably all fit in one tractor trailer. 


"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4886
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 September 2011 at 3:19pm
Is Vin Diesel or that little skinny dude strong enough to pick those up?
Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
deadeye007 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: Your Face
Status: Offline
Points: 1250
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadeye007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 September 2011 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

This is not how one looks after SA-7's or SA-14's.

Most modern ones can climb away on a single engine.

KBK


Yeah, but wouldn't it destroy a large section of the wing that the engine is attached to?
Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 September 2011 at 8:44pm
No, only a 1kg warhead, designed to detonate at a short range 3-5m, not contact, warhead is lined with steel rods that spin out when warhead detonates, designed to shread turbine blades, will not do much airframne damage, shread a hydrolic line or two, but will not do any critical structure damage to a large airfoil like on an airliner.
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10950
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 September 2011 at 9:11pm
Dammit, OS keeps beating the rest of us to it!

But yeah. Think of the scene in "Behind Enemy Lines" when the SAM that hits Mr. Wilson's F/A 18 Hornet, minus the fuel catching fire, fuselage exploding, and cockpit breaking loose "artistic licensing" of course.


Skip to 2:20

Anyway, kinda like that. Given that airliners are much, much bigger than the average fighter airframe, that they fly really really high, and that they have redundancies built in for system failures, I don't think these would be an issue for attacks on civilian targets. More than likely, they're going to be sold to certain African nations currently under arms embargoes. For one, it's easier to move them through the semi-porous interior than out through the Med where there's a big risk of being caught at Gibraltar or the Suez. I'm thinking certain factions in countries with names that rhyme with "Harfleur" and... well... nothing really rhymes with "Somalia"... will wind up getting their hands on these for domestic use.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 September 2011 at 10:42pm
This is what an SA-14 does to an airliner:



MANPADs aren't a serious threat to airliners unless launched in salvoes, and they're only a threat on landing and takeoff.  All airliners can fly OEI (one engine inoperative), although losing an engine in some specific portions of flight could potentially knock down an aircraft (specifically landing).

I'd still be much more worried about a bomb on my plane then getting shot at by a MANPAD.  Heck, someone with a .50 machinegun would be a much more worrying threat to an aircraft that's taking off, assuming they're sitting at the end of the runway.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2011 at 1:26am
Pretty much what Pariel said. There have been a couple of MANPAD strikes against civilian aircraft, the most well known being the DHL in Africa, so far one has not been brought down.

The very size of them and their spread out nature means doing enough damage to one isn't likely.

Obviously the Golden BB theory still works and you might take out the pilot, or hit a really lucky spot.

More worrying are anti bomber or strike craft SAM's. Big enough to destroy an airframe, able to reach 70 000`. A MANPAD strike on short final may result in an uncontrolled landing that might lead to a hull loss. Break a jet liner up at 30 000 and you will kill everyone on board. Fortunately a little harder to steal and use covertly.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2011 at 11:52am
There's a different between an engine going inoperable, and a missile hitting one. With a MANPAD you're looking at blast and fragmentation damage as well, which risks the hydraulics, fuel lines, etc, as well as the actual structural integrity of the wing.

The sensible attack method would be to fire three or four at the same aircraft on takeoff- that would guarantee a high probability of shoot down.

Also, as a weird coincidence, Tom Clancy's latest book features a simultaneous MANPAD attack on six different airliners taking off from U.S. airports.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2011 at 12:30pm
A volley of missiles would increase the chances of hitting all engines yes, but that does not mean the missiles will destroy the plane. While not quite the same thing the Hudson River landing proved quite well jets can do ok with no engines. That British Airways 777 that crashed short of Heathrow also illustrates what happens when you go dead stick.

Not all engine failures are simply an engine turning off. High bypass turbines are meant to contain the turbine if it disintegrates but they also design the aircraft for un contained failures. Having a fan disk let lose isn't much less energy than 1.5kg's of HE.

APU and RAM turbines keep critical systems running in emergencies.

We had a 737-200 Advanced lose an engine on departure a couple years ago. By "lose" I mean the entire engine fell off the airplane, ripping the engine mount and a substantial amount of wing with it. That hull was a write off, but the pilot got it back safely in stormy weather at night.

Modern jets are fairly tough.

I'm not saying we'll never lose a jet to a MANPAD, or that we should just totally disregard the threat but I honestly don't think the fearmongerer's have it right.

More passenger liners have been lost to weather than enemy action.

Edited by Kayback - 29 September 2011 at 12:40pm
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2011 at 12:36pm
Those are some excellent points Kayback.  Those are probably the two best examples from recent years.

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

There's a different between an engine going inoperable, and a missile hitting one. With a MANPAD you're looking at blast and fragmentation damage as well, which risks the hydraulics, fuel lines, etc, as well as the actual structural integrity of the wing.


Absolutely, but MANPAD fragmentation is relatively small.  The Airbus picture above shows what can happen at essentially the worst time to lose thrust and control surfaces (the aircraft also lost all hydraulic power with the engine).  Granted, these pilots knew people were shooting missiles off at planes, so I'm sure they'd planned it out before, while commercial pilots in most countries have not.  A single MANPAD is not an effective strategy to take down an airplane, although it might be an effective scare tactic.

Quote The sensible attack method would be to fire three or four at the same aircraft on takeoff- that would guarantee a high probability of shoot down.

Also, as a weird coincidence, Tom Clancy's latest book features a simultaneous MANPAD attack on six different airliners taking off from U.S. airports.


I think that's really the only method with any likelihood of success. 

I would be very surprised if Western governments didn't buy a whole lot of these missiles, honestly.  Maybe not a majority, but a significant fraction.  We were paying $600,000 for 20-year old Stingers stored in caves in Afghanistan, I'd bet the CIA had (or has) a similar thing going on in Libya.


Edited by ParielIsBack - 29 September 2011 at 12:37pm
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1651
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 September 2011 at 6:40pm
Regardless if they took a plane down or not. If a civilian jet liner got nailed with one. I'm sure it would create enough havoc, and fear.

Terrorist would like a high body count. But if they accomplish instilling more fear in America. There mission was accomplished.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.