So the Taliban have 100-200 Stinger Missiles, according to CNN. Does anyone know how many of them, after 12-20 years of low to zero maintenance, are likely to acquire their target, launch from their tube, strike their target, and detonate on their target?
I heard they have more like 50. And assuming they’ve all provided the bombings, I think that (and this is a hypothesis) our planes are probably non in danger due to stealth technology, the altitude they fly at and other such factors.
Oops that should say “survived” not provided. And “not in danger.”
Well, I would certainly question the condition of the batteries that are in those missles.
I would not at all be surprised that a great number of them would still be functional with fresh batteries.
The military does like using batteries with very long shelf life though. I have no idea what batteries are in the missles or their specs.
-
-
- I have no cite, but I have read that ordinary Stinger missiles have a very short shelf-life; a component involved in igniting the engine is designed to fail to function after only 4-6 months, and has to be replaced on the battlefield. I don’t know how difficult getting around this problem is, or if this was instituted before or after the Afgans were supplied. - MC
-
They might be buying new stuff from the defunct USSR.
I’m more worried about helicopters landing or extracting troops that airplanes. You could probabl hit one with an RPG.
Stinger missiles have a shelf life: “7 years” has been the number I’ve seen quoted most often, and we’re well past that point. Most likley, if they fire at all, the missiles will go ballistic, becoming nothing more than a big RPG.
And yes, Helicopters and other similar aircraft, when moving slowly, are vulnerable to RPGs, of which the Taliban has sufficient. I’m not too worried about that, as any US-style extraction mission goes in with much support from things like Cobra or Apache gunships, fixed-wing support, and so-on. One or two rocketeers might pop their heads up, but not for long.
Like in Somalia?
Yup, even though in Somalia it was an urban enviroment, unlike most of what our troops will be dealing with in Afganistan. We suffered 18 kia. The Somallis suffered in excess of 300. I’ve no idea on the total number of casualties including wounded, but you can bet it was far higher than that.
Doctirine wasn’t followed in Somlia. If you want a better idea of how a US-style extraction is done, look at Viet Nam, or Capt. Scott O’Grady’s extraction from Bosnia.
the problem is if RPGs are fired they are fired optically
and unless the airplane has some fancy incomming missile warning equipment which detects the heat from the rocket on an intercept course it won’t know a rpg is comming for them , an RPG-7 could probably take down one of those A-130
gunship down as they fly low and relatively slow , And hey there is nothing to stop stingers being backwards engineered
and copied ,
but Mujahideen was supplied with the stingers , the Mujahideen is now the northern Alliance or part of it , Taliban came after
Thanks, it gives me great pleasure to be wrong in this case.
I had the pleasure to be an Air Defense Officer in the Marines, and was in a Stinger Missile Battalion for a few years. I will try to keep this briefing unclassified. The Battery Coolant Unit (BCU) contains Argon gas and a battery cell, the gas to supercool the seeker head, and the battery to power up the weapons system. Each Stinger comes with three BCUs, which may only last 60-90 seconds. The 1980’s variant they have there have been superceded a few times in the US inventory. These versions CAN be confused by flares or IR “flashers”, while the newer ones cannot.
Stingers are very sensitive to humidity, and have humidity indicators, which say whether or not it has been exposed to more than the recommended amount of moisture.
BCU’s leak Argon over time. Seeker head wouldn’t work. Soviet batteries do not work.
Rough handling can break the wiring that ignites the launch motor.
The difficulty in maintaining training to properly use the system is a big issue, they were using it wrong with American advisors next to them.
On Somalia, I JUST finished Blackhawk Down, a great book, and those helos were not on an extraction mission, they had inserted the force and were in a “hover/cover” mode (my term) when they we hit by RPGs. Not that they hovered, but they had an area to stay in. The force was to be extracted by a convoy.
As for the AC-130 vulnerability, when the news says “low and slow” they ain’t talking about 100 feet above the deck and 80 knots, a la loitering helos. More like (my guess) way over 500 feet and at least 250 knots. These gunships need forward speed to stay in the air, and the altitiude to do their circles. The guy who hit one of those puppies had better buy a lottery ticket.
FYI: The newest AC-130U “Spooky” flies at about 10,000 feet. Earlier models (“Spectre”), a bit lower (less sophisticated fire control systems, unpressurized).
No joke. A good shot with the typical RPG is hitting a stationary target at 400 meters. Hitting anything fixed-wing is inconceivable.
If you mean they could be buying missles, think again. The Russians hate Afghanistan more than we do. They lost a war to them. Possibly, arms dealers could sell anti-aircraft missles. But the Russian government would hunt them down in conjunction with us.
I thought there were some Russian Organized Crime types selling military stuff.
Except the size and sophisication of the industrial/research base necessary to do it. The Stinger is at the higher end of weaponry, and has some really nifty components that you can’t study, much less reproduce, outside of a large military-industral complex. Nobody I can think of has both the capacity and the desire to aid the Taliban on this.
As for Russian black market, I’m willing to bet most weapons dealers there have Russian/Soviet military backgrounds, and as such would be pretty pissy about selling to the Afgans, except maybe the Northern alliance, which has official Russian supppot.
Tamerlane, are you out there? Have you some thoughts on this?