If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"The Enlightenment" writes: "Token" wrote in message newsLTvb.81844$Dw6.391288@attbi_s02... http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html This story is claiming that a MANPAD hit a courier aircraft today. If the story is correct it was an SA-7, I would think a 7b. Imagine how much better something designed in the last quarter century might do? Horrifying for us all. In this case, I don't think so. The warheads on the newer MANPADS aren't any bigger, or, on the whole, much more differntly designed than the ones you'll find on the SA-7/Redeye/Blowpipe. Where they're more sopisticated is getting that warhead into proximity fuze range, so that it goes off. In this case, the warhead went off. (There was a case last summer involving an El Al jet where they didn't.) Terminal effects are going to be the same. The better ECCM adn guidance laws built into an SA-14, say, aren't going to improve your Pk against a slow, unagile, and unaware target like the DHL Airbus. You don't need that extra 10% for that kind of target. A few months ago there was a thread in here about heat seekers and high bypass ratio engines. Those certainly look like high bypass ratio engines to me. I only saw a glimpse but it looked like an A310 with GE CF6 engines. The RB211 engine might have a reasonable chance of obscuring the hot exhaust nozzle as the shorter length of the Rolls Royce engines' 3 spool shaft allows the fan cowling to extend back beyond the exhaust nozzle thus covering up hot metal completely. (RR use this technique to reduce noise however) And since the missile is more likely to be homing on the hot spot of the exhaust plume, which is a bit behind the nozzle, I'd rather boupt that wheterh it was a CF6 or an RB.211 would make any difference. A direct hit on an engine isn't necessary - getting the warhead close enough to fuze means that the fragments are going into the aircraft right where all that side's fuel, hydraulics, electrical lines, control rums, and, if appropriate, hot air bleeds are routed. Anywhere on a large jet near the engines is a mighty tender spot. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
... In article , In this case, I don't think so. The warheads on the newer MANPADS aren't any bigger, or, on the whole, much more differntly designed than the ones you'll find on the SA-7/Redeye/Blowpipe. Where they're more sopisticated is getting that warhead into proximity fuze range, so that it goes off. In this case, the warhead went off. (There was a case last summer involving an El Al jet where they didn't.) Terminal effects are going to be the same. The better ECCM adn guidance laws built into an SA-14, say, aren't going to improve your Pk against a slow, unagile, and unaware target like the DHL Airbus. You don't need that extra 10% for that kind of target. The Shorts ManPADS family that started with Blowpipe is one where there was significant improvement in the warhead. The Blowpipe had a combination blast and shaped charge warhead so that it also had a ground target capability for self defence. With Javelin GL and S-15 (Starburst), the change was made to a blast warhead without the compromise of a shaped charge. The latest, Starstreak, actually has three kinetic energy projectiles that are launched from the main stage and which fly in formation. That said, I think Shorts missiles could be voted among the least likely to find their way into terrorist hands, even if they are the ManPADS systems most capable of bringing down large airliners (well, RBS-70 is, but it's an even greater pain in the arse to lug about); the training bill is just too high. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote: I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact on the wing, well outboard of the engine? It could have missed. That happens, even with guided missiles. A change in aspect might have fooled the missile into "thinking" that the plane was moving away, so it would have gone off early. The flight path of the missile might have been from the left and above (plane in a slight bank, missile coming in fairly horizontal). I'm not too sure about this one, since I haven't seen any photos of the wing. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in
: I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact on the wing, well outboard of the engine? Al Minyard IIRC,the warhead could be the type that detonates when the seeker head slews past some setpoint,indicating closest approach but not a direct hit. -- Jim Yanik,NRA member jyanik-at-kua.net |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote...
On 23 Nov 2003 15:06:20 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote: I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact on the wing, well outboard of the engine? All we can tell from that picture is that at least ONE fragment impact was on the outboard wing. There may have been any number of additional impacts elsewhere on the wing, engine, or fuselage, that did not result in residual fires. The frag pattern would depend on the trajectory of the missile relative to the airplane, the frag pattern of the particular warhead, and the time & place at detonation. The missile could well have been tracking the tailpipe, but the combination of fuzing and frag pattern caused the most significant hit on the outboard wing. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . Alan Minyard wrote in : I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact on the wing, well outboard of the engine? High bypass engines. IIRC,the warhead could be the type that detonates when the seeker head slews past some setpoint,indicating closest approach but not a direct hit. Luck. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message ...
"Alan Minyard" wrote... On 23 Nov 2003 15:06:20 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote: I am curious about one thing, if this was an IR manpad, why was the impact on the wing, well outboard of the engine? All we can tell from that picture is that at least ONE fragment impact was on the outboard wing. There may have been any number of additional impacts elsewhere on the wing, engine, or fuselage, that did not result in residual fires. The frag pattern would depend on the trajectory of the missile relative to the airplane, the frag pattern of the particular warhead, and the time & place at detonation. The missile could well have been tracking the tailpipe, but the combination of fuzing and frag pattern caused the most significant hit on the outboard wing. Check these out... http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?location=Baghdad%20Int'l%20-%20ORBS |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"s.p.i." wrote...
Check these out... http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?location=Baghdad%20Int'l%20-%20ORBS VERY interesting! A lot more damage than was apparent in the long-distance photo, but all concentrated on the outboard wing. However, there were no good shots of the rest of the underside of the airplane. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LA Times : Freight Dogs | G Farris | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | January 13th 05 12:02 PM |
Dillsburg freight rates to Europe | Tom | Home Built | 0 | May 31st 04 11:55 AM |
Been ripped by AS&S deceptive freight pricing??? | Kenny Danielson | Home Built | 43 | August 30th 03 07:31 PM |