Dangerous Toys

Discuss issues and news related to PIA, Pakistani airlines and Pakistan's civil & military aviation.
smhusain_1
Registered Member
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada

Dangerous Toys

Post by smhusain_1 »

Known Airliner Shoot downs & Attempts 1970-present
* 21/02/1973, Libyan Arab Airlines 727, Sinai Peninsula, Fighter gunfire, Destroyed, 108 fatalities,intruded in Israel airspace
* 20/04/1978, Korean Airlines 707, Murmansk, USSR, Air-to-air missile, Damaged, 2 fatalities, 107 survived Mistaken for reconnaissance aircraft
* 03/09/1978, Air Rhodesia Viscount, Karoi, Rhodesia, Manpads, Destroyed, 48 fatalities, 8 survived
* 12/02/1979, Air Rhodesia Viscount, Lake Kariba, Rhodesia, Manpads, Destroyed, 59 fatalities
* 27/06/1980, Aerolinee Itavia DC -9, near Ustica, Italy, Air-to-air missile, Destroyed, 81 fatalities Not confirmed, but possible accident
* 01/09/1983, Korean Air Lines 747, Sea of Japan, Air-to-air missile, Destroyed, 269 fatalities
* 08/11/1983, Angola Airlines 737, Lubango, Angola, Manpads, Destroyed, 130 fatalities, Not confirmed, claimed by Unita
* 09/02/1984 Angola Airlines 737, Huambo, Angola, Manpads, Total loss, no fatalities. Not confirmed, claimed by Unita
* 21/09/1984, Afghan Airlines, DC 10, Manpads, Damaged, no fatalities. Some sources attribute to AAA
* 06/11/1987, Air Malawi, Skyvan, Ulongwe, Mozambique, Manpads, Destroyed, 10 fatalities
* 03/07/1988, Iran Air A300, Persian Gulf, Surface-to-air missile, Destroyed, 290 fatalities, Shot down by USS Vincennes
* 21/09/1993, Transair Tu-134, Sukhumi, Georgia, Manpads Destroyed, 27 fatalities
* 22/09/1993, Transair, Tu-154, Sukhumi, Georgia, Manpads, Destroyed, 108 fatalities, 24 survived
* 10/10/1998, Congo Airlines 727, Kindu, Congo, Surface-to-air missile, Destroyed, 41 fatalities
* 4/10/2001, Siberia Airlines, Tu-154, Black Sea, urface-to-air missile, Destroyed, 78 fatalities Accidental hit by Ukrainian S-200
* 28/11/2003, Arkia 757, Mombasa, Kenya, Manpads, Two shots missed
* 22/11/2003, DHL A300, Baghdad, Manpads, Total loss, no fatalities
* 17/7/2014, Malaysia Airlines 777, Ukraine, Surface-to-air missile, Destroyed, 298 fatalities

With mounting evidence that MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian separatist rebels who believed that they were engaging a military aircraft, attention is focusing on the Russian-built Almaz-Antey Buk-M1 ground-based air defense system (Gbads) that destroyed the airliner. The Buk-M1 (SA-II Gadfly to NATO) can be used by minimally trained operators to deliver a lethal attack, without the safeguards built into other comparable Gbads. It is also one of the two Gbads both of Soviet origin hat are widely distributed in conflict zones with the potential for large-scale cross-border or civil violence.

At the same time, the fact that the first shootdown of a modern-technology airliner in 25 years is attributed to a medium-range Gbads rather than a man-portable air defense system (Manpads) points directly to the limitations of Manpads and the possibility that the threat from small missiles has been oversold by contractors marketing counter-Manpad systems for commercial use.

The feature that makes the Buk-series weapons uniquely dangerous is that they can launch and guide missiles without access to procedures and technologies that can discriminate among hostile, friendly and commercial traffic. There is no sign of an IFF interrogator on the Buk Telar's Fire Dome radar or elsewhere on the vehicle. In normal operation, this would not be a limitation since the target's identity would be verified (according to the prevailing rules of engagement) before the target data were passed to the Telar. Other Gbads also leave identification to the main search radar and the command and control centre; however, the launch units cannot engage and fire without central guidance. The Buk's combination of lethality and lack of IFF/NCTR is unique.

Buk systems have been deployed in 14 nations, and are operational in other areas subject to internal conflict. The shootdown of MH17 is the fourth time a large commercial aircraft has been destroyed by a missile in flight. A Korean Airlines Boeing 747 (KAL 007) was shot down on Sept 1, 1983 by a Soviet air force Sukhoi Su-15 fighter over the Sea of Japan, and the U.S. Navy cruiser Vincennes shot down an Iran Air Airbus A300 over the Persian Gulf on July 3, 1988 using Standard missiles. On Oct 2001, a long-range S-200 missile fired during an exercise by the Ukrainian armed forces destroyed a Siberian Tupolev Tu-154 over the Black Sea. On the other hand, not one modern airliner has been confirmed shot down by Manpads, despite the widespread use of such weapons and a long campaign by the defense industry to install defensive systems on commercial aircraft. After the unsuccessful Manpads attack on an Arkia Airlines Boeing 757 as it departed Mombasa, Kenya, on Nov 28, 2002, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to research the feasibility of adding defensive systems to the U.S. airline fleet. Some warned that a Manpads shootdown of an airliner was only a matter of time. The Rand Corporation, in a 2005 paper, estimated that the loss of a commercial aircraft to Manpads would cost the U.S. alone $15 billion as passengers deserted the airlines, jobs were lost and the economy suffered.

In the 12 years since Mombasa, the world's airlines have flown unprotected. Two large commercial aircraft by Manpads, an Afghan Airlines DC-10 in September 1984 and a DHL A300 in November 2003. Both attacks were in war zones (where the attackers were free to operate near the airport and most commercial flights had been suspended) and neither aircraft was shot down, although the DHL aircraft narrowly escaped, but sustained heavy damage and was written off. There have been no confirmed Manpads attacks on a commercial aircraft in a decade. Some smaller and older aircraft were shot down earlier: All of these, including two Boeing 737-200s, a Boeing 727 and Tupolev designs, had engines (the most likely impact point) mounted directly to the wing or rear fuselage, where the warhead blast is closer to structure and other systems.

An Aviation Week study of airliner shootdowns and attempts show 14 Manpads attacks in the past 40 years, of which more than half occurred more than 20 years ago. However, counter-Manpads systems are widely used on military transports and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, which routinely fly into combat zones, and on head-of-state aircraft that are high-value targets. The threatened surge in the Manpads threat following the Libyan revolution in 2011 when a rumoured 20,000 systems went missing has not resulted in more attacks on airliners.

Dangerous Toys by Bill Sweetman,
Courtesy: AWST July 28, 2014
Last edited by smhusain_1 on Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
H Khan
Registered Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:06 am

Re: Dangerous Toys

Post by H Khan »

I have done some research on this MANPAD vs Commercial airline risks and consequences. It was more or less theoretically determined that most the of the MANPADS in possesses with non-state actors are of maximum 2nd generations, there might be some 3rd generation available since the collapse of the Libyan and Iraq govt recently.

The issue here is that these MANPAD I&II are IR based and are depended on Heat-seaking sensors, therefore, they normally would seek towards exhaust of the engine. As one can see from the above data provided by Captain SM Hussian, both the Ariana DC-10 and DHL A-300 were hit by MANPAD but since their warhead was small 3kg or less there was no catastrophic damage to the engine and most of the time the commercial airliner survives this type of attack. There is another aspect of the data is that these MANPAD I&II loose a lot of speed and impact power when they seek towards a big commercial airliner exhaust. This is basic physics because there is more power coming out of the exhaust of the engine then the rocket motor of the MANPAD which causes it to slow down or just fall out of the sky after its runs out its rocket solid fuel.


Most of MANPAD I&II use impact warhead rather then proximity warhead.
smhusain_1
Registered Member
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada

Re: Dangerous Toys

Post by smhusain_1 »

"At the same time, the fact that the first shootdown of a modern-technology airliner in 25 years is attributed to a medium-range Gbads (Ground Based Air Defense System) rather than a Manpads (Man-Portable Air Defense System) points directly to the limitations of Manpads and the possibility that the threat from small missiles has been oversold by contractors marketing counter--Manpad systems for commercial use."

Manpads would have limited altitude range but as you can see MH 17 was brought down from 33000 feet by BuK (Gbads). This is a more superior weapon mounted on the mobile launcher platform but does not differentiate between friend and foe, is radar guided. An attempt was made with a Manpads system on General Zia's Falcon Jet at Islamabad when it was taking off from Runway 30 but the pilot was alert enough for evasive action / the weapon was fired in haste.


H Khan wrote:I have done some research on this MANPAD vs Commercial airline risks and consequences. It was more or less theoretically determined that most the of the MANPADS in possesses with non-state actors are of maximum 2nd generations, there might be some 3rd generation available since the collapse of the Libyan and Iraq govt recently.

The issue here is that these MANPAD I&II are IR based and are depended on Heat-seaking sensors, therefore, they normally would seek towards exhaust of the engine. As one can see from the above data provided by Captain SM Hussian, both the Ariana DC-10 and DHL A-300 were hit by MANPAD but since their warhead was small 3kg or less there was no catastrophic damage to the engine and most of the time the commercial airliner survives this type of attack. There is another aspect of the data is that these MANPAD I&II loose a lot of speed and impact power when they seek towards a big commercial airliner exhaust. This is basic physics because there is more power coming out of the exhaust of the engine then the rocket motor of the MANPAD which causes it to slow down or just fall out of the sky after its runs out its rocket solid fuel.


Most of MANPAD I&II use impact warhead rather then proximity warhead.