I don't think a *shoulder-fired* missile took out the C-130

[jmowreader]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=1&u=/ap/20050131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_plane_crash

This piece discusses a finger pressing a button on a "white box with wires" and two missiles heading skyward.

That's not SA-7, it's SA-9. Which Iraq is known to have had.



The SA-9 "Gaskin" SAM has longer range and a larger warhead. It's fired off an armored vehicle...and, most importantly, it's always fired in pairs.

Please keep in mind that the Iraqi "insurgency" is really the old Iraqi Army, so it would make sense that they'd have this system.

[paineinthearse]

1. white box voting???

:nuke:

[Ian David]

2. I remember hearing somewhere that a shoulder-fired missile isn't big enoug

I forget where I heard it, but I believe a shoulder-fired missile isn't large enough to take down a typical commercial passenger plane, let alone a C-130.

The issue is, that a Stinger can only home-in on one engine. And simply destroying ONE engine would not bring down a 747 or such.

That's why when terrorists targeted that plane in Africa (I forget where) they had TWO people launch TWO missiles at the plane-- because they needed to get TWO engines or else they'd just waste a perfectly good missile.

Besides, according to our latest government VaporScare, what we REALLY have to worry about is children with laser pointers.

[DistantWind88]

3. A C-130 is much smaller than most typical

commercial jets (say a 757 or 767) and a SA-7 (depending on where it hit) could certainly take down a C-130.

[ashmanonar]

4. it's not the size

but the constitution of a c130. it's designed to take a beating and keep flying.

[DistantWind88]

5. True dat

depending on the model, but it depends WHERE the missile struck.

[ashmanonar]

10. right.

i just mean that they're not sending a commercial 747 over there to fly, these aircraft were designed and built for millions of dollars to be able to fly in a warzone.

[DistantWind88]

11. If a SAM takes out on of your props

in an explosion, there's not telling what could happen when those prop parts go slicing through the wings, fuselage, and fuel lines.

[ashmanonar]

19. yea.

'course a jet engine isn't any better, one gets hit it's more than likely to just blow up, throwing titanium turbine blades EVERYWHERE and blowing up the fuel.

how about pulling out of iraq? that'd solve everyone's problems. :o then we wouldn't HAVE to worry about the survivability of our warplanes!

[Mabus]

6. I watched/listened to the video

and they said "an anti-tank" missle was used.

I don't watch the History channel or the Military channel enough to know the difference between an "anti-tank" and what you're talking about. Or are the missiles basically the same thing depending on what it is used launch it?

[DistantWind88]

7. No

An anti-tank missile is a totally different type of weapon-system. That doesn't mean to say that an anti-tank weapon could not be used against a low flying aircraft.

[Mabus]

8. Just asked some one

he said the biggest difference might be the casing.

Also, thinking about box with button... I know some terrorists/insurgents were using homemade mortar launchers. Maybe the box with button launching system is also homemade.

Just trying to think outside the box.

:shrug:

[DistantWind88]

9. You never know

Any anti-tank missile fired at an aircraft becomes a de facto SAM.

[Mabus]

12. Yep

I was just wondering what the difference was in impact/damage. Is an anti-tank SAM more likely to cause the scattered wreckage that has been reported/mentioned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3035051#3035061

[DistantWind88]

13. Too many variables

to speculate.

[Mabus]

14. Found the "Javelin"

http://federalvoice.dscc.dla.mil/federalvoice/040728/weapon.html





Weapon system profile - Javelin antitank missile


Editor's note: Each month, the Voice will profile a U.S. military weapon system to which the Defense Supply Center Columbus provides substantial support in the form of parts and item management.

The Javelin is a manportable, fire-and-forget antitank missile employed by dismounted infantry to defeat current and future threat armored combat vehicles. Its range of about 1.5 miles is more than twice that of its predecessor, the Dragon.

The Javelin has secondary capabilities against helicopters and ground-fighting positions. It is equipped with an imaging infrared system and a fire-and-forget guided missile. The Javelin's normal engagement mode is top-attack to penetrate the tank's most vulnerable armor. It also has a direct-attack capability to engage targets with overhead cover or in bunkers. Its "soft launch" allows employment from within buildings and enclosed fighting positions. The soft launch signature limits the gunner's exposure to the enemy, thus increasing survivability.

[DistantWind88]

15. That would be one of ours...

[Mabus]

16. I know but the concept is basically the same

I was just seeking validation that anti-tank missiles were used for firing on aircraft. That's what made me think of the homemade mortar launchers and that lead to my thinking that the white box with wires might be hooked up to some homemade launching device for anti-tank missiles. I had imagined that there might be problems with range and accuracy. Then I was trying to figure out the differences (if any) of the damage that each time of artillary would/could cause.

I mean, what would McGyver do? No big deal. I realize I'm acting like the MSM, i.e., engaging in unwarranted speculation. I'll keep reading and someday we might find out what actually took it down.

[DistantWind88]

17. The Iraqi's

DID try to use SSMs as SAMs. You're on the right track.

[jmowreader]

18. Difference between an antitank missile and an antiaircraft missile

A lot of it is in the warhead, baby.

The warhead being the thing that goes boom, one needs to design the WAY it goes boom so that it will destroy the thing you're shooting it at.

An antitank round contains a "shaped charge." When the AT round hits the vehicle, the explosive charge creates a pencil-thin jet of superheated gas (or "plasma") that cuts through the tank's steel plating. Most of the great advances in tank armor that have been developed over the years have been created to defeat this threat. And it doesn't take much to defeat this--just creating something that will cause the round to go off before it contacts the tank's armor plating will defeat these things. Look at the Stryker--every one of 'em is covered in chain-link fencing that's held three or four inches away from the hull. The round hits the chain-link, the plasma jet fans out before it has a chance to cut into the hull, and the vehicle commander writes "vehicle needs spot painting" on his 2404.

Antiaircraft rounds are fragmentation devices--you want to cut up the plane good so you shred as many critical components as you can, and most airplanes are not heavily armored (A-10s and Apaches two notable exceptions).

The guidance systems on the two kinds of missiles are different. Antitank missiles are all wire-guided except for the Hellfire missile, which is laser-guided. (This is opposed to antitank rockets like the AT-4, the old Bazooka and the RPG-7, none of which have guidance systems at all.) The operator steers the missile into the tank. Antiaircraft missiles can be infrared homers, radar-guided missiles, television-guided missiles...whatever it takes.

Also consider that antiaircraft rockets fly much faster than antitank rockets because airplanes go faster than tanks do, many antiaircraft rockets are radar-guided and no antitank rocket is...yes you can shoot down a C-130 with an antitank missile, but you wouldn't choose to if you could get antiaircraft missiles instead.

[Mabus]

20. Thanks!

As I was reading your post it made a lot of sense, i.e. "shaped charge" and "fragmentation devices." Now I get a visual of holes in planes in old movies versus the explosions of tanks. Not sure why that visual didn't come to me earlier.

yes you can shoot down a C-130 with an antitank missile, but you wouldn't choose to if you could get antiaircraft missiles instead. (from your post), LOL, hence my McGyver comparision.

on edit: If Arlen Spector can have his conspiracy theories, I can have mine.
:party:

[karlrschneider]

21. Do we know enough details? How high was it when "hit" for example...

..