Stinger and SA-7 shelf lives
Alexander George
of both the Stiner and SA-7? I don't believe they can be stored
indefinitely, without losing their effectiveness.
Mark Borgerson
trade...@verizon.net says...
> Can anyone offer an educated guess as to the useful shelf lives
> of both the Stiner and SA-7? I don't believe they can be stored
> indefinitely, without losing their effectiveness.
>
>
>
>
of about 5 years. I suppose there could be an active aftermarket
in new batteries for these systems.
Do either of these systems require cooling gas cylinders for the
detectors? That would be another system that might have
a limited shelf life.
Detioration of the propellants might be another problem. But I've
fired quite a lot of small arms ammunition more than 20 years
old without a significant failure rate.
Mark Borgerson
Dale Farmer
Alexander George wrote:
In depot storage, the are good for many years. There is a battery
that is installed when it leaves the depot. IIRC that battery is only
good for six to twelve months. Temperature extremes, and actually
packing it around the field will accelerate wear on the weapon and
age the battery. I expect storing it deep in a cave in the mountains
would be a pretty good approximation of depot storage conditions.
The thing that worried me the most is that the thing got dropped
somewhere along the way and the rocket fuel got cracked. Turns
the fuel into a low order bomb that goes off an unpredictable
amount of time after it was ignited. But I did do safety as a primary
job for a while. *shrugs*
--Dale
Alan Lothian
<Da...@cybercom.net> wrote:
> The thing that worried me the most is that the thing got dropped
> somewhere along the way and the rocket fuel got cracked. Turns
> the fuel into a low order bomb that goes off an unpredictable
> amount of time after it was ignited. But I did do safety as a primary
> job for a while. *shrugs*
>
Nice to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about. I think we
might all want to hope that most of these stray things have been
dropped, cracked, or otherwise mistreated. No?
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk
Andrew Chaplin
news:MPG.18568ae6f...@netnews.attbi.com...
> Detioration of the propellants might be another problem. But I've
> fired quite a lot of small arms ammunition more than 20 years
> old without a significant failure rate.
I have fired 40-year-old .303 Mk VII but... solid rocket propellant tends to
sag away from the upper sides of the casing, and can detonate
catastrophically on launch. Also, splits in the pellet can allow the
ignition of propellant surfaces other than those intended, and also lead to
it blowing the side out of the casing. Not good things for the ops. Usual
shelf lives run 8 to 10 years, with a depot level inspection at 5 years. We
stretched it to 12-ish with Blowpipe, with predictably horrendous results at
the end of that period.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jim Yanik
news:041220020017388832%alanl...@mac.com:
> In article <3DECF0D1...@cybercom.net>, Dale Farmer
><Da...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>
>> The thing that worried me the most is that the thing got dropped
>> somewhere along the way and the rocket fuel got cracked. Turns
>> the fuel into a low order bomb that goes off an unpredictable
>> amount of time after it was ignited. But I did do safety as a primary
>> job for a while. *shrugs*
>>
>
> Nice to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about. I think we
> might all want to hope that most of these stray things have been
> dropped, cracked, or otherwise mistreated. No?
>
I would think that portable,battlefield military munitions would be able to
handle some physical abuse,without becoming risky to use. APCP doesn't
crack that easily,either.I just don't know what these missiles use as
propellants,booster or sustainer.Anyone care to enlighten me?
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove X to contact me
John 14 15-21
>Usual
>shelf lives run 8 to 10 years, with a depot level inspection at 5 years. We
>stretched it to 12-ish with Blowpipe, with predictably horrendous results at
>the end of that period.
>--
>Andrew Chaplin
>SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
Is it possible to repack the propellent in a manpads? Or is manufactured and
sealed in such a way that it could not be done?
-----------
Remember: Jesus is Lord!
Romans 10:9-10, John 14:15-21, Acts 2:38, Eph 2:7-10, Matthew 5:3-16, 1Cor 15,
John Chapter Three, Romans Chapter Eight, The Book of First John. :)
http://www.unshackled.org/ Old Time Radio Drama / Lives Changed by Christ
K-Love : Christian Music, News and Information.
__________________________________
"Most High, glorious God, enlighten the darkness of my heart, and give me a
right faith,a sure hope, a perfect charity." ---St Francis of Assisi
-
"Reasons last step is the recognition that there is an infinite number of
things that go beyond it"---Blaise Pascal.
Dale Farmer
Jim Yanik wrote:
While I have no direct knowledge of the stinger, solid fuel rockets have been
a relatively simple matter for quite some time now. First you have to choose
your fuel. This can range from a very brittle mix like what is used in model
rocket engines, to a more rubber like material that is used in the space
shuttle. The tradeoffs you make on just how poisonous the exhaust is,
exhaust temperature, speed of burn, pounds of thrust from pounds of
fuel, long term stability, and so on.
Once you have chosen your fuel, then you need to find a thrust profile.
For a first stage or single stage motor, you need a large amount of initial
thrust to get the thing up to normal flight speed, then a sustainer section
that provides thrust for the remainder of powered flight. Given your
thrust profile, then you get some computer time and model the internal
geometry of the motor as the fuel burns away, changing the internal
shape of the fuel mass. Generally this is achieved by having it with
an externally cylindrical shape, sometimes using the external skin
of the missile as the outer mold to save weight and manufacturing
steps. The inner mold is made of various things, depending on
the internal shapes and it has to be removable after casting.
the inner shape is a hole that goes most or all the way up the
center of the cylinder of fuel. Usually a sort of asterisk shape that
presents lots of surface area ( and thus, lots of thrust ) for the initial
ignition and acceleration, then as the fingers projecting in burn away
the internal burning surface becomes more cylindrical, hopefully the
expansion of the diameter increasing the burning surface internally is
compensated by the fingers getting shorter and reducing the surface
area that is burning. This juggling act is where computer modeling
is soooo useful.
I will guess that the rocket section of a stinger or SA-7 is made
from a fairly vibration insensitive material, considering that it is
intended to be packed around by troops on the ground for an
extended period of time and still be useful. It comes in a packing
case that is padded and keeps it from getting dinged up in normal
packing around. The fuel is probably also formulated for long term
chemical stability, so it's burn rate doesn't change much as it ages.
For practical purposes, I expect that the fuel and explosive fillers
are good for ten or twenty years of storage with reasonable handling.
Generally the colder the storage, the longer the shelf life.
The battery and coolant for the seeker, if any, are the things that I
would expect to go. ISTR that the launch prep process has a step
that activates something inside the missile, that once that is done,
the missile must be used within a fairly short time. Hours or days?
I never actually handled one myself, just read some manuals on a
stinger. Been interested in model rocketry for many years now.
--Dale
Dale Farmer
Dale Farmer wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
And here is a handy web site on the weapon.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html
--Dale
Andy Dingley
<trade...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Can anyone offer an educated guess as to the useful shelf lives
>of both the Stiner and SA-7?
Why not go and read the Stinger manuals (FM 44-18-1) ?
Stinger is packaged as a missile in a one-shot launch tube (a missile
round) and a re-usable gripstock. Shelf life (of the missile) is
basically indefinite, and there's no routine maintenance to perform.
Exceeding storage temperatures could have interesting effects on most
solid rocket propellants, but a modern small-diameter motor should be
resistant to this.
What the Stinger does have though is a separate battery (BCU -
battery/coolant unit) that is inserted into the gripstock. This
contains a one-shot thermal battery, and a gas canister to cool the IR
seeker. The batteries are supplied in a pack of 3 with each missile
round. Their shelf life is stated to be 10 years, but reliable sources
(a thermal battery expert of my acquaintance) reckon on at least 20
years of probable function.
The reason for supplying 3 batteries per round is that the pre-launch
cycle requires the missile's seeker to be powered up some seconds
before launch. Once triggered, the gas cartridge is consumed and the
battery has only 45 seconds of life. After this, if unfired, the
battery (now hot enough to burn flesh !) must be replaced. A
characteristic of the Stinger is that the missile round is stored in a
hermetically sealed launch tube but, compared to earlier
shoulder-launched missiles such as Blowpipe, the case front cover
isn't ruptured until the round is actually fired. Many other missiles
open the case to expose the seeker when trying to acquire a lock, and
if subsequently "uncocked" the case is now open to the elements.
The Stinger also has an IFF system in the gripstock. The interrogator
is a separate module, although the radio section is mounted on the
gripstock. A small removable rechargeable battery pack in the IFF
interrogator, powers the IFF and is possibly needed for initial "boot
up" of the gripstock, before firing the thermal battery. Replacing
cells in these over time would be a minor matter for any technician.
The infamous Mujahedin Stingers of the '80s would surely not have had
IFF interrogators supplied with them. They _may_ also have been
non-standard models with the normal IFF antenna removed from the
gripstock (I've seen photos that support this). The IFF has a COMSEC
component that the US would have been unwilling to let into
Afghanistan, it was unnecessary for use against the Soviets, and it
certainly wouldn't have had the "codes of the day" available to it. I
don't know if such a hypothetical stripped-down Stinger launcher would
still need this battery, or if it could rely on the thermal battery
alone. It's possible that a simplified and non-sensitive IFF
interrogator could be emulated, just as a container for a battery
pack.
I don't know anything about the SA-7
Fred J. McCall
:In article <j44H9.35128$%r6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
IR detectors also have a limited life.
Fred J. McCall
:Is it possible to repack the propellent in a manpads? Or is manufactured and
:sealed in such a way that it could not be done?
solid rocket propellent is generally a single cast piece. It is not
'packed'.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Andrew Chaplin
>
> thena...@aol.comsec (John 14 15-21) wrote:
>
> :Is it possible to repack the propellent in a manpads? Or is manufactured and
> :sealed in such a way that it could not be done?
>
> solid rocket propellent is generally a single cast piece. It is not
> 'packed'.
Yes, or will be a single extruded pellet, but in either case with an
ignition inhibitor on the ends and outside, so it will burn
"progressively", i.e. its oxidizing surface area gets larger as time
progresses.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
Jim McLaughlin
APCP propellents have an indefinite shelf life.
In hobby activities I have launched APCP class M motors that are in
excess of 15 years old.
Batteries and ignitors are always an issue with respect to ignition of
APCP propellents, but I expect that it is simple to replace a battery, or
add an outside NiCd pack that can almost instantaneously dump a huge amount
of current (volts and amps) very quickly into an ignitor.
I have no knowledge of or experience with seeker heads, or active
powered fins / aerilons / canards for in flight course correction to follow
a target.
From the print reports I have read, the flight pattern description very
closely resembles passively stable (unguided) (cg two calibers ahead of CP)
rockets I have frequently observed.
If interested in the hobby aspects of composite motor powered rockets,
begin by look at:
or
More advanced data is available through the Reaction Research Society,
who's web address I do not have conveniently at hand.
"Mark Borgerson" <ma...@oes.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.18568ae6f...@netnews.attbi.com...
Jim McLaughlin
subject. Bates grain, star grain, C slot, end burn, moon burn,
regressive, progressive and at least a dozen others are available off the
shelf.
Literally hundreds of Ph D theses have been written on solid fuel core
design. With proper modeling, almost any motor performance desired can be
obtained.
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3DED81BA...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
Jim McLaughlin
Estes type compressed black powder motor, and as stated by the poster tends
to be both very brittle and subject to cracking and is also not thermally
stable. Temperature extremes will cause cracking and case debonding.
Whether due to a crack or case debonding, the added volume of a void
caused by a crack or case debonding will result in a fast burn and high
pressure spike, usually resulting in a catastrophic detonation (CATO) of
the motor.
In the hobby arena, that detonation is channeled fore and aft,
destroying the vehicle, but resulting in very little laterally distributed
shrapnel.
No idea what happens with the military motors in such a situation, but
I have an educated guess. Not good if you are in the range of the shrapnel
from the case.
With composite motors, now more common in hobby rocketry than black
powder motors, the common APCP propellant is not brittle and will not
"break" if dropped. Vacuum forming and vacuum casting is used to avoid
voids in the propellant slug. Again, with APCP, a "bubble" or void in the
slug yields an instant larger surface burn area, a pressure spike, and a
motor CATO.
In the hobby arena, that detonation is channeled fore and aft,
destroying the vehicle, but resulting in very little laterally distributed
shrapnel.
No idea what happens with the military motors in such a situation, but
I have an educated guess. Not good if you are in the range of the shrapnel
from the case.
"Dale Farmer" <Da...@cybercom.net> wrote in message
news:3DED69A6...@cybercom.net...
Peter McLelland
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bstquus9i2d6ptovr...@4ax.com...
Yes that is limited, by still quite long. Whilst I have no direct knowledge
of Stinger I would suspect that the minimum shelf life would be 10 years and
more likely 20 years, and that would apply to the thermal battery/cooling
assembly as well.
Peter
Kristan Roberge
Mark Borgerson wrote:
> In article <j44H9.35128$%r6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> trade...@verizon.net says...
> > Can anyone offer an educated guess as to the useful shelf lives
> > of both the Stiner and SA-7? I don't believe they can be stored
> > indefinitely, without losing their effectiveness.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Both require batteries---which generally have a shelf life
> of about 5 years. I suppose there could be an active aftermarket
> in new batteries for these systems.
I gather yer wondering how two SA-7's missed that airliner eh? Consider
the fact there are TWO versions of the SA-7, the -7a model which has an
effective range of 3500 meters and an altitude limit of 1,500 meters and
the -7b
with an effective range of 5600 meters and an altitude limit of 4,300
meters. Both
are fast enough to stern chase an airliner (Mach 1.5 and 1.95
respectively) but what
altitude and range the airliner was at when the missiles were fired,
plus the fact they both
adopt a tail-chase flight profile when tracking the target can have a
large effect on whether
they hit the plane or not. Furthermore the SA-7's use a HE-Fragmentation
warhead with a
CONTACT fuse, not a proximity fuse like Stinger's have. So you actually
have to HIT
the plane for them to shoot it down.
Andrew Chaplin
>
> Not necessarily. Depends upon the core geometry. An extremely complex
> subject. Bates grain, star grain, C slot, end burn, moon burn,
> regressive, progressive and at least a dozen others are available off the
> shelf.
Is there a shoulder-launched AD missile that uses something other than
a progressive régime?
Fred J. McCall
thread.]
"Jim McLaughlin" <jimmcl...@attbi.com> wrote:
:"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
:news:3DED81BA...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
:> "Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> >
:> > thena...@aol.comsec (John 14 15-21) wrote:
:> >
:> > :Is it possible to repack the propellent in a manpads? Or is
:manufactured and
:> > :sealed in such a way that it could not be done?
:> >
:> > solid rocket propellent is generally a single cast piece. It is not
:> > 'packed'.
:>
:> Yes, or will be a single extruded pellet, but in either case with an
:> ignition inhibitor on the ends and outside, so it will burn
:> "progressively", i.e. its oxidizing surface area gets larger as time
:> progresses.
:
:Not necessarily. Depends upon the core geometry. An extremely complex
:subject. Bates grain, star grain, C slot, end burn, moon burn,
:regressive, progressive and at least a dozen others are available off the
:shelf.
:
: Literally hundreds of Ph D theses have been written on solid fuel core
:design. With proper modeling, almost any motor performance desired can be
:obtained.
In point of fact, the STS solids 'throttle down' part way through the
flight to get the Shuttle through max-Q without ripping it apart.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:bstquus9i2d6ptovr...@4ax.com...
:> Mark Borgerson <ma...@oes.to> wrote:
:>
:> :In article <j44H9.35128$%r6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
:> :trade...@verizon.net says...
:> :> Can anyone offer an educated guess as to the useful shelf lives
:> :> of both the Stiner and SA-7? I don't believe they can be stored
:> :> indefinitely, without losing their effectiveness.
:> :
:> :Both require batteries---which generally have a shelf life
:> :of about 5 years. I suppose there could be an active aftermarket
:> :in new batteries for these systems.
:> :
:> :Do either of these systems require cooling gas cylinders for the
:> :detectors? That would be another system that might have
:> :a limited shelf life.
:> :
:> :Detioration of the propellants might be another problem. But I've
:> :fired quite a lot of small arms ammunition more than 20 years
:> :old without a significant failure rate.
:>
:> IR detectors also have a limited life.
:>
:Many suppliers today are prepared to sign up to a 15 to 20 year shelf life,
Replace "prepared to" with "required to". Note that this is not a
'good as when manufactured' guarantee.
:Yes that is limited, by still quite long. Whilst I have no direct knowledge
:of Stinger I would suspect that the minimum shelf life would be 10 years and
:more likely 20 years, and that would apply to the thermal battery/cooling
:assembly as well.
Batteries are easily replaced. Cooling assemblies could presumably be
recharged with commercial equipment. Motor and seeker head
degradation due to improper handling/storage are quite another thing,
and not going to be 'fixed' very easily.
Given proper storage and a lack of handling, I don't doubt that US
articles will have at least a 10 year shelf life, and twice that would
not surprise me. I'm unconvinced ex-Soviet articles will do as well.
I'm also unconvinced that weapons that have been in al Qaeda hands for
a dozen years have received proper storage and handling.
Also note that cooled FPAs will not degrade as quickly as the uncooled
variety. Nature of physics, and all that.
Peter McLelland
> "Peter McLelland" <peter.m...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :news:bstquus9i2d6ptovr...@4ax.com...
> :> Mark Borgerson <ma...@oes.to> wrote:
> :>
> :> :In article <j44H9.35128$%r6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> :> :trade...@verizon.net says...
> :> :> Can anyone offer an educated guess as to the useful shelf lives
> :> :> of both the Stiner and SA-7? I don't believe they can be stored
> :> :> indefinitely, without losing their effectiveness.
> :> :
> :> :Both require batteries---which generally have a shelf life
> :> :of about 5 years. I suppose there could be an active aftermarket
> :> :in new batteries for these systems.
> :> :
> :> :Do either of these systems require cooling gas cylinders for the
> :> :detectors? That would be another system that might have
> :> :a limited shelf life.
> :> :
> :> :Detioration of the propellants might be another problem. But I've
> :> :fired quite a lot of small arms ammunition more than 20 years
> :> :old without a significant failure rate.
> :>
> :> IR detectors also have a limited life.
> :>
> :Many suppliers today are prepared to sign up to a 15 to 20 year shelf
life,
>
> Replace "prepared to" with "required to". Note that this is not a
> 'good as when manufactured' guarantee.
I think it is a bit of both, the good suppliers will understand the
customers need and try to meet it. As to the 'not as good as manufactured' I
think any one in the business both customer and supplier does understand
aging, and a reduction in the AQL percentage with life would be normal.
>
> :Yes that is limited, by still quite long. Whilst I have no direct
knowledge
> :of Stinger I would suspect that the minimum shelf life would be 10 years
and
> :more likely 20 years, and that would apply to the thermal battery/cooling
> :assembly as well.
>
> Batteries are easily replaced. Cooling assemblies could presumably be
> recharged with commercial equipment. Motor and seeker head
> degradation due to improper handling/storage are quite another thing,
> and not going to be 'fixed' very easily.
As I understand it Thermal batteries are use on these and many other 'long
life' applications because there is little deterioration during storage as
the power is produced through a chemical reacion. Several suppliers are once
again prepared to offer long life one shot gas bottles.
>
> Given proper storage and a lack of handling, I don't doubt that US
> articles will have at least a 10 year shelf life, and twice that would
> not surprise me.
I would agree that proper storage and handling are important, but are you
prepared to gamble that the stinger/SA7 pointing at you is one of the 75%
which will not function due to age, hanling and storage conditions.
> I'm unconvinced ex-Soviet articles will do as well.
> I'm also unconvinced that weapons that have been in al Qaeda hands for
> a dozen years have received proper storage and handling.
Much Ex Soviet equipment has a reputation for ruggednes and an ability for
long life in the feild, again I would not bet on the 75% as above.
>
> Also note that cooled FPAs will not degrade as quickly as the uncooled
> variety. Nature of physics, and all that.
>
Whilst I would agree to an extent you have to compare the widely differing
technologies in both the cooled, uncooled, (which often actual means
slightly cooled) and the in betweenies.
IR FPA technology is a fascinating area.
Peter
Jack Linthicum
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:28:15 GMT, "Alexander George"
> <trade...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Can anyone offer an educated guess as to the useful shelf lives
> >of both the Stiner and SA-7?
>
>
only? Remembering that feature of the RPG-7, ie left side exhaust
vent.
R ESTEY
> Can anyone offer an educated guess as to the useful shelf lives
> of both the Stiner and SA-7? I don't believe they can be stored
> indefinitely, without losing their effectiveness.
Depends on storage conditions - ie. temperature - freezing (and thawing),
elevated (excess of 100 F (40C)), moisture all have effect on life time. Over
time propellant grain tends to crack causing erratic (even disasterous)
burning of rocket. Thermal battery have expected life of few years (battery
is activated at time of launch and good for few seconds of juice). Electronic
components may fail - corrosion of components or damage from rough handling.
SA7B uses uncooled infa red seeker - it was easy to decoy with flares (later
mods had filters to screen out decoy flares), if launched in same quandrant
as sun would fly off toward sun. Also could be confused by heat radiating
off ground if launched at low angle. Missile had arming range of 1200m and
seeker has small (2 degree) field of view. SA7B is tail chase only - launched
from rear aspect of target with no deflection capability.
user
period of time has passed. Would it be possible to engineer a "use by
date" in the electronics of a Stinger type round (perhaps by querying a
GPS or something similar) and, if older than x years, have the battery
fry the electronics when it was fired? Might simplify giving advanced
weapons to 8th century tribesmen.
Fred J. McCall
:The Navy has the Captor mine which IIRC will disarm itself after a set
Anything is possible.
You have two choices. The stuff you issue to your own troops also
does this (and every unit costs a little bit more and doesn't last as
long) or you build 'export' models, in which case everybody pays
somewhat more per copy.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Jim Yanik
I have several APCP model rocket motors and reloads;the fuel is like an
abrasive eraser,rubber-like. You might be thinking of the lower impulse
black powder motors.
Well,the pix I've seen of Stinger launches show a small cylinder being left
behind the missile after it leaves the launch tube. I believe that is the
ejection motor,prior to the sustainer ignition,which would harm the
operator if ignited close to them.
MR has been a hobby of mine,too.Another model rocket hobbyist said that
some military motors use smokeless propellant,to not leave a visible smoke
trail that could be used for evading the missile.
Jim Yanik
A 'progressive' burn would mean increased thrust over time. I believe that
a more desirable thrust curve is initially high to accellerate quickly,then
reduced to sustain powered flight over a longer time. A dual-thrust
motor,not including the ejection motor
Jim Yanik
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html
Mentions a dual thrust motor,initial high thrust,then lower sustaining
thrust.(Stinger missile)
Andrew Chaplin
> A 'progressive' burn would mean increased thrust over time. I believe that
> a more desirable thrust curve is initially high to accellerate quickly,then
> reduced to sustain powered flight over a longer time. A dual-thrust
> motor,not including the ejection motor
As I understand internal ballistics, a progressive burn increases
thrust over time, because the oxidizing area gets larger over time.
Andrew Chaplin
> http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html
>
> Mentions a dual thrust motor,initial high thrust,then lower sustaining
> thrust.(Stinger missile)
That suggests to me a rocket motor pellet cast in the form of a
cylinder, partially drilled-out on its longitudinal axis from the
efflux end, and initiated somewhere inside the drilled out portion
rather like this (I am drawing this in Courier New, so it may look
cack-handed on your equipment.
______________________________
.................|
:................. efflux
______________________________|
Any one out there actually seen the guts of one?
Andrew Chaplin
> Well,the pix I've seen of Stinger launches show a small cylinder being left
> behind the missile after it leaves the launch tube. I believe that is the
> ejection motor,prior to the sustainer ignition,which would harm the
> operator if ignited close to them.
>
> MR has been a hobby of mine,too.Another model rocket hobbyist said that
> some military motors use smokeless propellant,to not leave a visible smoke
> trail that could be used for evading the missile.
Some use straight cordite for a first stage or ejection motor. In the
K40 series missile built by Shorts (32 "flats" of cordite that look
pieces of Wrigley's Gum pinned apart so to allow them to burn on the
largest sides) it's to provide a margin of safety because the main
motors do not always work right and produce toxic gases.
Keith Willshaw
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3DEF42B7...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html
> >
> > Mentions a dual thrust motor,initial high thrust,then lower sustaining
> > thrust.(Stinger missile)
>
> That suggests to me a rocket motor pellet cast in the form of a
> cylinder, partially drilled-out on its longitudinal axis from the
> efflux end, and initiated somewhere inside the drilled out portion
> rather like this (I am drawing this in Courier New, so it may look
> cack-handed on your equipment.
> ______________________________
> .................|
> :................. efflux
> ______________________________|
>
Cant speak to the Stinger motor but I recall reading an article
on the shuttle solid fuel boosters with a similar requirement.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html
<Quote>
The propellant is an 11-point star- shaped perforation in the forward motor
segment and a double- truncated- cone perforation in each of the aft
segments and aft closure. This configuration provides high thrust at
ignition and then reduces the thrust by approximately a third 50 seconds
after lift-off to prevent overstressing the vehicle during maximum dynamic
pressure.
</Quote>
Keith
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Alan Lothian
<abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > A 'progressive' burn would mean increased thrust over time. I believe that
> > a more desirable thrust curve is initially high to accellerate quickly,then
> > reduced to sustain powered flight over a longer time. A dual-thrust
> > motor,not including the ejection motor
>
> As I understand internal ballistics, a progressive burn increases
> thrust over time, because the oxidizing area gets larger over time.
Not to mention the combination of diminishing mass and even a constant
thrust, which I would imagine (I pretend no expertise) to be more
fundamental, and to cause many headaches to those who design solid fuel
motors.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk
Jack Linthicum
rugged is a relative term. The RPG-7 is rugged but there is an
admonition to protect the fuze end from hitting tree limbs or even
being struck by raindrops. (SE Asia)
Peter McLelland
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7164002b.02120...@posting.google.com...
Although I would not claim to be an expert on the RPG7, it was the SA7 we
were talking about, I would suspect that the Soviets did provide a suitable
protective cover, the cheap and simple solution to the problem.
Peter
Jim Yanik
Yes,but that burn profile is not desirable for a MANPADS SAM. You want a
initial high thrust to rapidly accellerate the missile and get air flowing
over the control surfaces,then reduce to a sustaining lower thrust for the
chase.
SplashPattern.Com - Dave
> Propellant deterioration is probably not an issue.
> APCP propellents have an indefinite shelf life.
Not necessarily....
....The life of an APCP motor, while long, is largely dependent upon how it
is stored. If it is stored in a nice temperature/humidity controlled
environement with intact weather seals, then yeah, it has an indefinate
life. But if you just throw it in a warehouse where it gets blazing hot in
the summber and freezing cold in the winter and crack the weather seal, all
bets are off.
I have personally witnessed composite motors experience case failures that
were obviously due to old age (the motors in question were about 25 years
old and had been stored in a hostile environment....we *knew* they were
going to blow - you could see the cracks and debonds).
Within the contect of a MANPADs aging debate, one must stop to consider
whether the missiles in question have been treated well (crated in a
heated/cooled warehouse) or not (thrown over the back of some camel) over
the years.
> Batteries and ignitors are always an issue with respect to ignition of
> APCP propellents, but I expect that it is simple to replace a battery, or
> add an outside NiCd pack that can almost instantaneously dump a huge
amount
> of current (volts and amps) very quickly into an ignitor.
Only really true in the hobby world. The military world uses much more
effective and better designed igniters that easily ignite large quantities
of propellant and bring the motor up to pressure VERY quickly. This just
isn't seen in your hobby world of HPR.
> From the print reports I have read, the flight pattern description
very
> closely resembles passively stable (unguided) (cg two calibers ahead of
CP)
> rockets I have frequently observed.
Anti-aircraft missiles tend to have a smaller static margin. Depending upon
the speed of the control system, you'll see anything from neutrally stable
(CG *on* the CP) to maybe one caliber.
--
Dave Hall
http://www1.iwvisp.com/thehalls
http://splashpattern.com
SplashPattern.Com - Dave
> Whether due to a crack or case debonding, the added volume of a void
> caused by a crack or case debonding will result in a fast burn and high
> pressure spike, usually resulting in a catastrophic detonation (CATO) of
> the motor.
Nitpick: You're discussing a case failure. In a case failure there is
rarely (if ever) a true detonation involved.
> No idea what happens with the military motors in such a situation,
but
> I have an educated guess. Not good if you are in the range of the
shrapnel
> from the case.
Pretty much the same thing as happens in the civilian world. You blow the
end closures, the case splits up the middle, and the whole mess just sits
there and burns. Been there. Done that.
Jim Yanik
news:uuv4joq...@corp.supernews.com:
> Jim McLaughlin <jimmcl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:NygH9.232349
>
>> From the print reports I have read, the flight pattern
>> description
> very
>> closely resembles passively stable (unguided) (cg two calibers ahead
>> of
> CP)
>> rockets I have frequently observed.
>
> Anti-aircraft missiles tend to have a smaller static margin.
> Depending upon the speed of the control system, you'll see anything
> from neutrally stable (CG *on* the CP) to maybe one caliber.
>
> --
> Dave Hall
> http://www1.iwvisp.com/thehalls
> http://splashpattern.com
>
>
>
>
Yes,the closer to neutral stability,the more maneuverable the missile. The
same principle is used in modern fighter aircraft,even to the point of
being unstable without computer control of the flight surfaces.
Jonathan Stone
Andrew Chaplin <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> A 'progressive' burn would mean increased thrust over time. I believe that
>> a more desirable thrust curve is initially high to accellerate quickly,then
>> reduced to sustain powered flight over a longer time. A dual-thrust
>> motor,not including the ejection motor
>
>As I understand internal ballistics, a progressive burn increases
>thrust over time, because the oxidizing area gets larger over time.
Which is why the Shuttle/STS SRBs have a passage through the casting
which is more-or-less star-shaped. The initial cross-section at SRB
ignition is more than a cylindrical surface, but as combustion progresses,
the star flattens itself out.
If memory serves, the star-segment is initially deeper in the top
segment, to limit thrust the max-Q [dynamic pressure] period.
But don't quote me on it. check sci.space.shuttle for details.
Andrew Chaplin
> Yes,but that burn profile is not desirable for a MANPADS SAM. You want a
> initial high thrust to rapidly accellerate the missile and get air flowing
> over the control surfaces,then reduce to a sustaining lower thrust for the
> chase.
It depends on the guidance strategy chosen, I suppose (I haven't done
any work on this since 1988, and I had to turn in my gunnery staff
notes as classified material when I left the school). If you have a
missile that works in a forward aspect, you can get by with the
simpler single-perforated grain with an inhibitor on the outside - O.
to Mach 1.4 in 0.6 s -- works for Shorts' Blowpipe and Javelin.
SplashPattern.Com - Dave
> > Yes,but that burn profile is not desirable for a MANPADS SAM. You want a
> It depends on the guidance strategy chosen, I suppose (I haven't done
No, it doesn't. It depends on the kinematic envelope and time of flight.
> any work on this since 1988, and I had to turn in my gunnery staff
> notes as classified material when I left the school).
> If you have a
> missile that works in a forward aspect, you can get by with the
> simpler single-perforated grain with an inhibitor on the outside - O.
> to Mach 1.4 in 0.6 s -- works for Shorts' Blowpipe and Javelin.
A motor that only burns 0.6 s is an all-boost motor. The fact that it's
grain my be slightly progressive/regressive/etc. is of little significance
given it's short action time. Further, such a burn is only optimal for
missiles of extremely short range....Blowpipe and Javelin, for example. But
anything that approximates a modern MANPADs must be effective over much
longer ranges. Suddenly an all boost burn profile is FAR from optimum. In
fact, to get similar performance from an all boost motor you're going to
find your system needs to be significantly larger than it would if it uses a
dual thrust motor.
Quilly Mammoth
| "Mark Borgerson" <ma...@oes.to> wrote in message
| news:MPG.18568ae6f...@netnews.attbi.com...
|
| > Detioration of the propellants might be another problem. But I've
| > fired quite a lot of small arms ammunition more than 20 years
| > old without a significant failure rate.
|
to
| sag away from the upper sides of the casing, and can detonate
| catastrophically on launch. Also, splits in the pellet can allow the
| ignition of propellant surfaces other than those intended, and also lead
to
| it blowing the side out of the casing. Not good things for the ops. Usual
| shelf lives run 8 to 10 years, with a depot level inspection at 5 years.
We
| stretched it to 12-ish with Blowpipe, with predictably horrendous results
at
| the end of that period.
| --
| Andrew Chaplin
| SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
| (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Not so anymore. The largest part of any nation's research into solid
propellants has been to alleviate this problem. Witness TOWI to TOWII. The
major problem remains the effectiveness of the sensor over long periods of
time.
Much of that propellant improvement has to do with material technology.
Many lower ISP propellants tend to "sag". Many higher ISP propellant's do
not*, but they require stronger chambers. IIRC, the Peacekeeper had a 20
year shelf life.
QM
While dealing with brittleness at the same time;)
Quilly Mammoth
news:3DF01880...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
There is little guidance strategy to the Stinger or Blowpipe. Short thrust,
limited range weapons are "revenge" weapons. Axis of Evil jet flies over
your position and waxes your buds. You, the anti-air guy, is positioned
some 1000 meters away from the FEBA, and _you_ shoot the bastard down before
he harms _another_ unit.
Javelin, iirc, is a high thrust, longer burn round. It wants to fly fast to
the point of forward intercept. Which is why it is looked at for other uses.
QM
Quilly Mammoth
news:3dee1277$1...@baen1673807.greenlnk.net...
|
You have missed the point. Yes, battery and coolant recharges might be
done, but it is the depot level maintenance that _so_ many miss. MANPADS
such as the Stinger are designed to blow _in_ the engine. They do not
possess enough explosive to be effective in an explosion that is outside.
They might damage, but they need to enter the engine to do their work.
A 5% variance in efficiency swings this! It is ever so easy for the Left,
and their in-house news organs, to trumpet America's failures...but does
anyone _really_ think we would give the Afghanis a long term shoot-down
option?
QM
Quilly Mammoth
| Jim McLaughlin <jimmcl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:NygH9.232349
|
| > Propellant deterioration is probably not an issue.
| > APCP propellents have an indefinite shelf life.
|
| Not necessarily....
|
| ....The life of an APCP motor, while long, is largely dependent upon how
it
| is stored. If it is stored in a nice temperature/humidity controlled
| environement with intact weather seals, then yeah, it has an indefinate
| life. But if you just throw it in a warehouse where it gets blazing hot
in
| the summber and freezing cold in the winter and crack the weather seal,
all
| bets are off.
|
| I have personally witnessed composite motors experience case failures that
| were obviously due to old age (the motors in question were about 25 years
| old and had been stored in a hostile environment....we *knew* they were
| going to blow - you could see the cracks and debonds).
|
| Within the contect of a MANPADs aging debate, one must stop to consider
| whether the missiles in question have been treated well (crated in a
| heated/cooled warehouse) or not (thrown over the back of some camel) over
| the years.
True to a large degree, Dave. However, most of what you speak of is averted
by weatherproof seals and the interior of the grain being filled with inert
gas. That is one of the checks. The killer is the sensor suite.
QM
Quilly Mammoth
news:r7rquugmpuic1rmke...@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 15:28:15 GMT, "Alexander George"
| <trade...@verizon.net> wrote:
|
| >of both the Stiner and SA-7?
|
|
| Stinger is packaged as a missile in a one-shot launch tube (a missile
| round) and a re-usable gripstock. Shelf life (of the missile) is
| basically indefinite, and there's no routine maintenance to perform.
| Exceeding storage temperatures could have interesting effects on most
| solid rocket propellants, but a modern small-diameter motor should be
| resistant to this.
|
| What the Stinger does have though is a separate battery (BCU -
| battery/coolant unit) that is inserted into the gripstock. This
| contains a one-shot thermal battery, and a gas canister to cool the IR
| seeker. The batteries are supplied in a pack of 3 with each missile
| round. Their shelf life is stated to be 10 years, but reliable sources
| (a thermal battery expert of my acquaintance) reckon on at least 20
| years of probable function.
|
Try the -20 manuals. The coolant has a lowered life expectancy. The
purpose of the coolant is multi-functional, not only to cool the battery.
The missile requires the juice from the "hand-grip" to get the gyro to spin
up as well as to activate other functions..
As for routine maintenance...There is no _operator_ PMCS. There is a rehab
cycle that the missiles go through which is depot level. Not something our
Al_Quida friends have.
QM
QM
Peter McLelland
"Quilly Mammoth" <kali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KQWH9.1771$kV3...@www.newsranger.com...
SA 7, and for the sake of completeness you can probably add SA14 as well as
I am sure that even if they were not given to any undesirables that enough
have leaked to ensure that there are mare than a few in the hands of people
you would rather did not have these things.
Also terrorist organisations do actually look after weapons like this quite
well. They are perfect tools for 'spectaculars', and are thus very valuable.
Something else worth considering before you write off the possibility of
terrorists having access to these weapons in good working order, just look
at the list of countries who have the weapons, and that includes stinger, in
service with the Pakistan army.
Peter
Peter McLelland
Quaeda recruit from.
Never underestimate the enemy, if you do you will get quite a shock.
Peter
Richard Revis
news:Xns92DB91BD4CD...@204.117.192.21...
> Yes,the closer to neutral stability,the more maneuverable the missile. The
> same principle is used in modern fighter aircraft,even to the point of
> being unstable without computer control of the flight surfaces.
PDR is going to crucify you, I hope you realise that.
I have his explanation of trim drag here if you like, which is why they make
supersonic aircraft unstable when subsonic, but it is in hard copy. It has
nothing to do with responsiveness.
Andy Dingley
<kali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Try the -20 manuals.
Haven't seen those - Thanks for the suggestion
>The coolant has a lowered life expectancy. The
>purpose of the coolant is multi-functional, not only to cool the battery.
Does it cool the battery at all ? (puzzled)
>The missile requires the juice from the "hand-grip" to get the gyro to spin
>up as well as to activate other functions..
How is the gyro spun on a Stinger ? Just electrically, or does it also
use the exhaust from the J-T (expanding gas) cooler on the sensor ?
Can Stinger be used without the IFF interrogator ? (i.e. on the BCU
battery alone)
Fred J. McCall
:MANPADS
:such as the Stinger are designed to blow _in_ the engine. They do not
:possess enough explosive to be effective in an explosion that is outside.
:They might damage, but they need to enter the engine to do their work.
Uh, no. If this were so, we wouldn't have spent all that money
building one that could detect and engage from the front and side.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Nicholas Smid
> user <an...@america.edu> wrote:
>
> :The Navy has the Captor mine which IIRC will disarm itself after a set
> :period of time has passed. Would it be possible to engineer a "use by
> :date" in the electronics of a Stinger type round (perhaps by querying a
> :GPS or something similar) and, if older than x years, have the battery
> :fry the electronics when it was fired? Might simplify giving advanced
> :weapons to 8th century tribesmen.
>
> Anything is possible.
>
> You have two choices. The stuff you issue to your own troops also
> does this (and every unit costs a little bit more and doesn't last as
> long) or you build 'export' models, in which case everybody pays
> somewhat more per copy.
>
My understanding was the Stinger already has something like a built in shalf
life, its thermal batteries have a limited storage live, years but not
forever, and they are none standard so the US army is the only supplier of
new ones. Don't know the life but I seem to recall back in the mid 90's when
the CIA was trying to buy them back in Afganistan it was understood most of
them were already dead, though they could be brought back to life with the
right parts and tech support. Looks like the SA-7's used in Kenya were also
well past there use by date. I mean its hardly the best weapon anymore but
missing a low and slow airliner takes some doing.
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:95htuucgcq286ja4m...@4ax.com...
:> user <an...@america.edu> wrote:
:>
:> :The Navy has the Captor mine which IIRC will disarm itself after a set
:> :period of time has passed. Would it be possible to engineer a "use by
:> :date" in the electronics of a Stinger type round (perhaps by querying a
:> :GPS or something similar) and, if older than x years, have the battery
:> :fry the electronics when it was fired? Might simplify giving advanced
:> :weapons to 8th century tribesmen.
:>
:> Anything is possible.
:>
:> You have two choices. The stuff you issue to your own troops also
:> does this (and every unit costs a little bit more and doesn't last as
:> long) or you build 'export' models, in which case everybody pays
:> somewhat more per copy.
:
:My understanding was the Stinger already has something like a built in shalf
:life,
Everything degrades over time. There is a big difference between this
and what was proposed.
:its thermal batteries have a limited storage live, years but not
:forever, and they are none standard so the US army is the only supplier of
:new ones.
Anything that puts the right amount of power in there can be used in a
pinch. And the US Army has no manufacturing capacity to speak of, for
most things.
:Don't know the life but I seem to recall back in the mid 90's when
:the CIA was trying to buy them back in Afganistan it was understood most of
:them were already dead, though they could be brought back to life with the
:right parts and tech support.
They last fairly well, given even minimal care with storage.
:Looks like the SA-7's used in Kenya were also
:well past there use by date.
Impossible to tell, but certainly a possibility. There are lots of
others.
:I mean its hardly the best weapon anymore but
:missing a low and slow airliner takes some doing.
Not really. Ever fire one? They train operators for these things for
a reason. Without training (which a terrorist today probably would
not have had), it's not as easy as most people think. It's not like
the movies, where you just read the directions and then never miss
with the thing.
--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Dale Farmer
Quilly Mammoth wrote:
The newer versions of Stinger are all aspect missiles with much longer range.
There is also a bit more brain in them and a visual light seeker in addition to
the IR seeker, so they hit the aircraft, not the tailpipe.
THe older versions of Stinger were ass aspect short range only missile.
Back up-thread I posted a link to an info page on the thing.
--Dale
Jim McLaughlin
See,
Streaming here:
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/STINGER.html
Per Mr.. Hilty:
"I absolutely *love* the Redstone Arsenal's history section. They've
done an _excellent_ job converting lots 'o those Army promo movies to
streaming format."
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@kua.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92D9CA7445B...@204.117.192.21...
> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in
> news:041220020017388832%alanl...@mac.com:
>
> > In article <3DECF0D1...@cybercom.net>, Dale Farmer
> ><Da...@cybercom.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The thing that worried me the most is that the thing got dropped
> >> somewhere along the way and the rocket fuel got cracked. Turns
> >> the fuel into a low order bomb that goes off an unpredictable
> >> amount of time after it was ignited. But I did do safety as a primary
> >> job for a while. *shrugs*
> >>
> >
> > Nice to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about. I think we
> > might all want to hope that most of these stray things have been
> > dropped, cracked, or otherwise mistreated. No?
> >
>
> I would think that portable,battlefield military munitions would be able
to
> handle some physical abuse,without becoming risky to use. APCP doesn't
> crack that easily,either.I just don't know what these missiles use as
> propellants,booster or sustainer.Anyone care to enlighten me?
Jim Yanik
> "Quilly Mammoth" <kali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>:MANPADS
>:such as the Stinger are designed to blow _in_ the engine. They do not
>:possess enough explosive to be effective in an explosion that is outside.
>:They might damage, but they need to enter the engine to do their work.
>
> Uh, no. If this were so, we wouldn't have spent all that money
> building one that could detect and engage from the front and side.
>
Early MANPADS were tail aspect only.Newer Stinger's ARE designed to strike
or explode near the center of the aircraft.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-92.html
Andrew Chaplin
> There is little guidance strategy to the Stinger or Blowpipe. Short
thrust,
> limited range weapons are "revenge" weapons. Axis of Evil jet flies over
> your position and waxes your buds. You, the anti-air guy, is positioned
> some 1000 meters away from the FEBA, and _you_ shoot the bastard down
before
> he harms _another_ unit.
I think you misunderstand Blowpipe, it was a ACLOS in the gathering phase,
followed by MCLOS in the rest of the engagement. It was never a "revenge"
weapon the way Redeye was.
> Javelin, iirc, is a high thrust, longer burn round. It wants to fly fast
to
> the point of forward intercept. Which is why it is looked at for other
uses.
There is little difference in the design of the Javelin motor from that of
the Blowpipe; both had the same or similar grain, both had similar
performance (Mach 1.35-1.4, 3 Km against fast movers --always in the forward
aspect -- 4.5 Km against slow movers).
Andrew Chaplin
news:20021203195950...@mb-cn.aol.com...
> Is it possible to repack the propellent in a manpads? Or is manufactured
and
> sealed in such a way that it could not be done?
It depends on the system, I suspect. On Shorts ManPADS missiles, it would
require return to the manufacturer and rebuild, since the loaded canister is
a sealed unit, and the missile is sealed in that again. Frankly, new wine in
old skins. I think only desiccant and humidity indicators were changed after
delivery to the customer.
Jim
ignor'nt question here, but I'se a-wonderin'...
There's much talk in the media about fitting US commercial airliners
with flare dispensers similar to those in use on ground attack aircraft
as a defense against these various missiles.
If this is done, what will trigger the launch of the flares? Pilot or
other crew member, on seeing a launch (seems unlikely, given the lack or
rearward vision, & high existing workload during takeoff)? Some
on-board automatic radar or IR based system (complex, possibly failure
prone, considering low head-on RCS or thermal sig of missile against
ground clutter)? Some kind of radio link from the ground, after visual
or electronic spotting a missile signature heading for the plane?
Other?
Or will they just start dumping flares during all takeoffs? This should
work wonders for urban renewal & forest clearance programs near
airports, and it will eventually make it harder for the bad guys to hide
before firing...8)
As a follow-on, how hard is it going to be program the guidance system
to ignore a free-falling heat source in the next generation of missiles?
I know I'm not the only one to think of this.
Jim, "But other than that, Mrs. Hitler, how was the honeymoon?"
The above address is invalid; send email to fesser at same domain name.
http://community.webtv.net/IronDuff/SpringBreak
http://community.webtv.net/a968/ContinentalDivide
http://community.webtv.net/a968/TennentMountain
Fred J. McCall
:There's much talk in the media about fitting US commercial airliners
:with flare dispensers similar to those in use on ground attack aircraft
:as a defense against these various missiles.
:
:If this is done, what will trigger the launch of the flares? Pilot or
:other crew member, on seeing a launch (seems unlikely, given the lack or
:rearward vision, & high existing workload during takeoff)?
Presumably it would be triggered from the cockpit. Workload isn't
THAT high during takeoff. Modern airliners can pretty much fly
themselves (so can modern combat aircraft, by the way).
:Some
:on-board automatic radar or IR based system (complex, possibly failure
:prone, considering low head-on RCS or thermal sig of missile against
:ground clutter)? Some kind of radio link from the ground, after visual
:or electronic spotting a missile signature heading for the plane?
:Other?
We'll probably just buy it from the Israelis and use whatever their
airliners are using.
:As a follow-on, how hard is it going to be program the guidance system
:to ignore a free-falling heat source in the next generation of missiles?
:I know I'm not the only one to think of this.
The amount of discrimination and the size of the brain you can ram
into a missile is fairly limited, particularly something as small as a
MANPADS. These things only have a two-colour IR discriminator.
Missiles like this generally fly pursuit curve. They aren't that
smart, and a flare will overload the sensor until it falls out of the
FOV, even if it doesn't decoy the missile.
[Flares are retarded, by the way. That's retarded as in "not free
falling", not retarded as in "stupid idea".]
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
Brian
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fhf2vughoukd4ctbm...@4ax.com...
> The amount of discrimination and the size of the brain you can ram
> into a missile is fairly limited, particularly something as small as a
> MANPADS. These things only have a two-colour IR discriminator.
> Missiles like this generally fly pursuit curve. They aren't that
> smart, and a flare will overload the sensor until it falls out of the
> FOV, even if it doesn't decoy the missile.
I suggest you take a look at the Igla's and Stingers. If you aim them
correctly and within the envelope, they are deadly. Flares work against old
stuff like the Strela's but the newer Russian SAM's are deadly.
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I suggest you consider who I work for when you start handing out
advice to "take a look at" something. We BUILD Stinger.[1]
[1] Which is why I make it a point to never say anything that hasn't
appeared in open literature. I might say it even if it's wrong, if
it's been in the open literature. As a gentle clue, nothing is 100%
deadly, particularly when poorly maintained and handled by untrained
shooters. You can ALWAYS overload the sensor by handing it a strong
enough signal, for any given sensor (basic physics).
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
John 14 15-21
>If this is done, what will trigger the launch of the flares? Pilot or
>other crew member, on seeing a launch (seems unlikely, given the lack or
>rearward vision, & high existing workload during takeoff)? Some
>on-board automatic radar or IR based system (complex, possibly failure
>prone, considering low head-on RCS or thermal sig of missile against
>ground clutter)? Some kind of radio link from the ground, after visual
>or electronic spotting a missile signature heading for the plane?
>Other?
>
The system would have to be automatic. You're talking Mach 1 + for a short
range weapon. There would be no time to react in
a large airliner at take off.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=677
"Shoulder-fired Manpads “can go anywhere [and] cannot be seen,” Welch said
during a briefing to reporters last June.
He estimated that there are more than 500,000 Manpads worldwide. They range in
cost from $20,000 to $70,000 per system. " ......................
"An effective IR countermeasure system requires a missile warning mechanism
that detects where the threat is coming from, and can direct IR energy
precisely in its path, to jam the missile, Welch explained. “As the threat
evolved, it became necessary to take the available energy that comes out of the
jammers and focus the energy to a very narrow beam and point it directly at the
threat.”
When a missile is fired, he said, “a missile-warning system tells us where
it’s fired from.” Typically, there would be four to five DIRCM units around
a large airplane. The threat location information is processed by a computer,
which tells one of the transmitter units to slew over to where the threat is
coming from, tracks the threat and jams it with infrared energy. “Then, the
threat goes off into a different direction,” Welch said.
This whole process takes a few seconds. “The pilot doesn’t have to do
anything,” he said. “There is a cockpit indicator unit that will tell the
pilot that a missile has been approaching and it’s been jammed.”
-----------
Remember: Jesus is Lord!
Romans 10:9-10, John 14:15-21, Acts 2:38, Eph 2:7-10, Matthew 5:3-16, 1Cor 15,
John Chapter Three, Romans Chapter Eight, The Book of First John. :)
http://www.unshackled.org/ Old Time Radio Drama / Lives Changed by Christ
K-Love : Christian Music, News and Information.
__________________________________
"Most High, glorious God, enlighten the darkness of my heart, and give me a
right faith, a sure hope, a perfect charity." ---St Francis of Assisi
-
"Reasons last step is the recognition that there is an infinite number of
things that go beyond it"---Blaise Pascal.
Quilly Mammoth
"Dale Farmer" <Da...@cybercom.net> wrote in message
news:3DF0FBE9...@cybercom.net...
|
|
| Quilly Mammoth wrote:
| > There is little guidance strategy to the Stinger or Blowpipe. Short
thrust,
| > limited range weapons are "revenge" weapons. Axis of Evil jet flies
over
| > your position and waxes your buds. You, the anti-air guy, is positioned
| > some 1000 meters away from the FEBA, and _you_ shoot the bastard down
before
| > he harms _another_ unit.
| >
| > Javelin, iirc, is a high thrust, longer burn round. It wants to fly fast
to
| > the point of forward intercept. Which is why it is looked at for other
uses.
| >
| > QM
|
| The newer versions of Stinger are all aspect missiles with much longer
range.
| There is also a bit more brain in them and a visual light seeker in
addition to
| the IR seeker, so they hit the aircraft, not the tailpipe.
| THe older versions of Stinger were ass aspect short range only missile.
| Back up-thread I posted a link to an info page on the thing.
|
| --Dale
Yes, the RMP has merit. Most of all it is reprogramable, though most R&D
programs have sought to reduce the frontal IR and UV sig of an aircraft..
That being said, tactical employment still makes it a revenge weapon. It is
still a penetration killer.
Quilly Mammoth
| "Quilly Mammoth" <kali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:dGWH9.1770$kV3...@www.newsranger.com...
|
| > There is little guidance strategy to the Stinger or Blowpipe. Short
| thrust,
| > limited range weapons are "revenge" weapons. Axis of Evil jet flies
over
| > your position and waxes your buds. You, the anti-air guy, is positioned
| > some 1000 meters away from the FEBA, and _you_ shoot the bastard down
| before
| > he harms _another_ unit.
|
| I think you misunderstand Blowpipe, it was a ACLOS in the gathering phase,
| followed by MCLOS in the rest of the engagement. It was never a "revenge"
| weapon the way Redeye was.
Tactical environment is the key. The Blowpipe was optically guided, the
closure speed was great on a frontal engagement and increased the likelyhood
of a miss. Javelin attempted to circumvent that by higher speed. The
British still approach that aspect of AD by the new Starstreak. An even
higher speed missile with three, irrc, darts.
Tactically, the Blowpipe was more effective as a revenge weapon in that the
tail closing option allowed less chance of missing due to greater time to
target by the operator.
QM
Quilly Mammoth
| I think you miss the point. Firstly we were talking about both stinger and
| SA 7, and for the sake of completeness you can probably add SA14 as well
as
| I am sure that even if they were not given to any undesirables that enough
| have leaked to ensure that there are mare than a few in the hands of
people
| you would rather did not have these things.
|
| Also terrorist organisations do actually look after weapons like this
quite
| well. They are perfect tools for 'spectaculars', and are thus very
valuable.
|
| Something else worth considering before you write off the possibility of
| terrorists having access to these weapons in good working order, just look
| at the list of countries who have the weapons, and that includes stinger,
in
| service with the Pakistan army.
|
| Peter
By far the most unaccounted for numbers of export variety Stingers was to
Afghanistan. Can you tell me how many were used to shoot down American...or
our allies...planes or helicopters?
AFAIK, there were three launches. None of which impacted the aircraft.
Degredation of the sensor element is most likely the reason none hit.
QM
Quilly Mammoth
Hi Fred,
I know that you felt smug and self satisfied with that comment...a testament
to your superiority. It is, however, a wholly undeserved feeling.
Actually...you are wrong, the correct answer is YES. The warhead, even on
the most modern version (RMP), is a penetration warhead. The detection and
ability to engage from the side as well as the front has nothing to do with
the intended point of impact of the round. You seem to think that the
ability to engage from the side means that the round will hit the side
of the aircraft and destroy it; that is a scenario only available to
Hollywood for a man portable round.
"All three use the rolling airframe concept, proportional navigation,
passive homing, separate launch motor, dual-thrust flight motor, penetrating
hit-to-kill warhead, reusable launcher/ gripstock, and belt-pack
Identification, friend or foe (IFF) transceiver"
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/STINGER.html
That being said, most non-engine events will not kill a plane engaged in a
CAS role. The primary programming on the RMP is _still_ an engine kill; the
purpose of the generation was to allow engagement from all aspects,
avoidance of decoys, and the ability to detect a close proximity in which to
detonate the ordinance. Furthermore, the ability to change the programming
to meet new countermeasures is a great benefit, and it was the other main
goal of the generation.
(The RMP has not been given to the AFGHANIS SINCE IT DIDN'T EXIST AT THE
TIME! Which, of course, is the reason for the question concerning the shelf
life of the round.)
The proximity detonation of the round was added so that even a "miss" might
incur damage on the enemy aircraft. However, the warhead remains a
penetration weapon. Designed now, as then, for optimum effectiveness to be
detonated within the confines of the engine.
In the future, please endevour to not show your uninformed and misplaced
arrogance by _not_ using "uh" at the start of the sentence. Unless it is
followed by "duh", which no doubt is a fair approximation of your speech
pattern.
Thank you,
QM
And yes, I gather who you work for....and based on your posts on this
subject it scares me.
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. -- Blair Houghton. 1988
Nigel Gale
Jim wrote:
> [...] If this is done, what will trigger the launch of the flares? Pilot
> or
> other crew member, on seeing a launch (seems unlikely, given the lack or
> rearward vision, & high existing workload during takeoff)? Some
> on-board automatic radar or IR based system (complex, possibly failure
> prone, considering low head-on RCS or thermal sig of missile against
> ground clutter)? Some kind of radio link from the ground, after visual
> or electronic spotting a missile signature heading for the plane?
> Other?
I believe missile warners are mostly either pulse-doppler radar (looking for
very fast-moving objects) and/or UV (looking for very hot exhaust plumes).
The idea of having the radar warner fixed at the airport, which then radios
the warning to the aircraft automatically is interesting, but I suspect that
it would be cheaper and simpler for airliners to adopt [a modified version
of] self-protect warners already in use in the military.
N.
Peter McLelland
over recent years.
Peter
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:v591vukoj7flkdhcm...@4ax.com...
:| "Quilly Mammoth" <kali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|
:| :MANPADS
:| :such as the Stinger are designed to blow _in_ the engine. They do not
:| :possess enough explosive to be effective in an explosion that is outside.
:| :They might damage, but they need to enter the engine to do their work.
:|
:| Uh, no. If this were so, we wouldn't have spent all that money
:| building one that could detect and engage from the front and side.
:|
:| --
:| "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
:| live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
:
:Hi Fred,
:I know that you felt smug and self satisfied with that comment...a testament
:to your superiority. It is, however, a wholly undeserved feeling.
:
:Actually...you are wrong, the correct answer is YES.
Well, no. If you were correct (which, given your tone, would surprise
the hell out of me in any case, troll boy), then the WSL is wasting a
hell of a lot of money blowing up planes to test lethality from
different angles with differing impact points on the aircraft.
:The warhead, even on
:the most modern version (RMP), is a penetration warhead.
So is a 20mm round. So what? Note that the word is "penetration",
not "fly into the already existing hole at the back of the airplane".
:The detection and
:ability to engage from the side as well as the front has nothing to do with
:the intended point of impact of the round. You seem to think that the
:ability to engage from the side means that the round will hit the side
:of the aircraft and destroy it; that is a scenario only available to
:Hollywood for a man portable round.
You seem to think that the missile will be programmed to miss the
target, turn in the air 180 degrees, and fly up the tailpipe. In
terms of energy maneuverability alone that seems pretty silly.
:"All three use the rolling airframe concept, proportional navigation,
:passive homing, separate launch motor, dual-thrust flight motor, penetrating
:hit-to-kill warhead, reusable launcher/ gripstock, and belt-pack
:Identification, friend or foe (IFF) transceiver"
:http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/STINGER.html
How nice. How irrelevant to your claims.
:That being said, most non-engine events will not kill a plane engaged in a
:CAS role. The primary programming on the RMP is _still_ an engine kill; the
:purpose of the generation was to allow engagement from all aspects,
:avoidance of decoys, and the ability to detect a close proximity in which to
:detonate the ordinance. Furthermore, the ability to change the programming
:to meet new countermeasures is a great benefit, and it was the other main
:goal of the generation.
See, for example, http://www.twa800.com/pages/shoemaker-7-19-00.htm.
Yes, it shows an 'engine hit', but on a non-running engine in an
airframe with no fuel or ordnance aboard. Note the size of the
explosion in the second photo. You're going to tell me that an
explosion that size on (or in, given that it's a penetration warhead)
a wet wing, an air intake, or the cockpit is a 'non-event', right?
The warhead is built to penetrate aircraft structure. See, for
example, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm and look
under 'fuzing' for the word "Penetration"
:(The RMP has not been given to the AFGHANIS SINCE IT DIDN'T EXIST AT THE
:TIME! Which, of course, is the reason for the question concerning the shelf
:life of the round.)
:
: The proximity detonation of the round was added so that even a "miss" might
:incur damage on the enemy aircraft. However, the warhead remains a
:penetration weapon. Designed now, as then, for optimum effectiveness to be
:detonated within the confines of the engine.
Any enclosed explosion is more effective than any non-enclosed
explosion. DOH! This has nothing to do with the actual question.
:In the future, please endevour to not show your uninformed and misplaced
:arrogance by _not_ using "uh" at the start of the sentence. Unless it is
:followed by "duh", which no doubt is a fair approximation of your speech
:pattern.
In the future, please endevour[sic] to not show your uninformed and
misplaced arrogance by NOT mouthing off to your betters.
:Thank you,
:QM
:
:And yes, I gather who you work for....and based on your posts on this
:subject it scares me.
I suspect many things scare you. You demonstrate clearly that you are
not, however, worth wasting additional time on.
Goodbye, fuckwits.
<plonk>
Brian Sharrock
> Iron...@webtv.net (Jim) wrote:
>
> :There's much talk in the media about fitting US commercial airliners
> :with flare dispensers similar to those in use on ground attack aircraft
> :as a defense against these various missiles.
> :
> :If this is done, what will trigger the launch of the flares? Pilot or
> :other crew member, on seeing a launch (seems unlikely, given the lack or
> :rearward vision, & high existing workload during takeoff)?
>
> Presumably it would be triggered from the cockpit. Workload isn't
> THAT high during takeoff. Modern airliners can pretty much fly
> themselves (so can modern combat aircraft, by the way).
>
Cards) to cater for this task ... just where in the sequence do
you place the new task(s)? Between "V1" and "V2"? Before or after
"Rotate!" ? Is it a Pilot or Co-Pilot task? Does it belong to
the Pilot who's segment it is? Does the Captain have responsibility
for avoiding starboard-to missiles? Is the Co-Pilot absolved of
blame for weapons approaching from Port? Enquiring minds want to know.
While holding the heading straight and allowing for cross-winds
which pilot needs the Messerschmitt twitch? Should we all invest
in silk scarf manufacturers? Will these essential pilot ancillaries
blend with the uniform or are white scarves more indicative of a
'we won't be beat by terrorists - not even those the INS allowed in -'
gung-ho attitude?
--
Brian
--
Brian
Andrew Chaplin
> Tactically, the Blowpipe was more effective as a revenge weapon in that
the
> tail closing option allowed less chance of missing due to greater time to
> target by the operator.
Actually, no, Blowpipe's SSKP in a tail shot was lower. As its speed
dropped, it started to wallow and lose both lift and the ability to respond
to guidance commands. We never trained for tail shots -- the trainer did not
simulate them.
There is only .05 Mach difference between Blowpipe and Javelin S-15 using
the same two-stage, boost-and-coast régime; Javelin GL was essentially the
same missile, except it had a blast-fragmentation warhead instead of a
shaped charge.
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:fhf2vughoukd4ctbm...@4ax.com...
:> Iron...@webtv.net (Jim) wrote:
:>
:> :There's much talk in the media about fitting US commercial airliners
:> :with flare dispensers similar to those in use on ground attack aircraft
:> :as a defense against these various missiles.
:> :
:> :If this is done, what will trigger the launch of the flares? Pilot or
:> :other crew member, on seeing a launch (seems unlikely, given the lack or
:> :rearward vision, & high existing workload during takeoff)?
:>
:> Presumably it would be triggered from the cockpit. Workload isn't
:> THAT high during takeoff. Modern airliners can pretty much fly
:> themselves (so can modern combat aircraft, by the way).
:
:OK, Fred; When you're re-writing the cockpit FRC (Flight Reference
:Cards) to cater for this task ... just where in the sequence do
:you place the new task(s)? Between "V1" and "V2"? Before or after
:"Rotate!" ? Is it a Pilot or Co-Pilot task? Does it belong to
:the Pilot who's segment it is? Does the Captain have responsibility
:for avoiding starboard-to missiles? Is the Co-Pilot absolved of
:blame for weapons approaching from Port? Enquiring minds want to know.
Gee, combat aircraft which are a hell of a lot busier than civilian
airliners during a nominal take-off seem to manage it. Must be MUCH
too hard for a highly paid commercial pilot, then, right?
:While holding the heading straight and allowing for cross-winds
:which pilot needs the Messerschmitt twitch? Should we all invest
:in silk scarf manufacturers? Will these essential pilot ancillaries
:blend with the uniform or are white scarves more indicative of a
:'we won't be beat by terrorists - not even those the INS allowed in -'
:gung-ho attitude?
They put windows on airplanes for a reason. Looking out them is NOT a
massive additional workload, one would hope.
One of your more pathetic trolls, Mr Sharrock. Work on it.
Peter McLelland
Peter
Mark Borgerson
peter.m...@baesystems.com says...
be equipped with active countermeasures. IIRC, the effective use
of active IR jammers requires quite a bit of intelligence about
such things as seeker scan rates. Will the military be willing
to release this technology to civilian airlines and risk the
embodied intel falling into the wrong hands?
Mark Borgerson
Andy Dingley
<kali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Designed now, as then, for optimum effectiveness to be
>detonated within the confines of the engine.
Lets not forget that a turbine disk letting loose will then do more
airframe damage than a shoulder-launched warhead itself.
Peter McLelland
"Mark Borgerson" <ma...@oes.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.185e575f5...@netnews.attbi.com...
Peter
TMOliver
>
> AFAIK, there were three launches. None of which impacted
> the aircraft. Degredation of the sensor element is most
> likely the reason none hit.
>
A close friend, not long retired from the development, design
and production of similar solid fuel missiles cites both sensor
degradation/"shelf life" of internal battery and in his eyes the
equally likely and perhaps even more performance altering
deterioration of solid propellant, which he claims is highly
sensitive to temperature (especially rapid changes), humidity,
and vibration/contact damage., all more and more likely as shelf
life is extended.
His major point....even damage to a small portion of the
propellant will make the performance of the missile
unpredictable, just a little moisture in one end enough to screw
up the deal.
He claims that in other than a bunker exercise, he would be
unwilling to fire a Stinger more than 5 years old or with any
evidence of damge/deterioration.
TMO
Jim Yanik
news:Xns92DF7639871A...@216.166.71.233:
Could you ask your friend just what kind of propellant is used? I'm
curious.
Kerryn Offord
Just the other day (8 dec) a turbine disk let loose in an Air NZ
B767.... the engine cowling come off and fragments tore off part of the
wing leading edge. No other damage(??)...
So, how much damage will a manpads do???
Coridon Henshaw <(chenshaw<RE<MOVE>@(T
@netnews.attbi.com:
> IIRC, the effective use
> of active IR jammers requires quite a bit of intelligence about
> such things as seeker scan rates. Will the military be willing
> to release this technology to civilian airlines and risk the
> embodied intel falling into the wrong hands?
Perhaps this would make for a good incentive to boost R&D efforts aimed at
creating semi-hard kill devices designed to terminally overheat the seeker
head with an IR laser.
--
"We're Americans. Fuck you." -- Paraphrase of contemporary US foreign
policy. / Patriotism means no questions. Freedom is slavery. Arbeit
macht frei. // Coridon Henshaw / http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/csbh
Mark Borgerson
@student.canterbury.ac.nz says...
IIRC, the primary compressor disk on some of the newer engines has a
kevlar shroud inside the housing primarily to minimize damage in
events like this.
> So, how much damage will a manpads do???
>
Perhaps more. If the primary compressor disk lets go inside
it's shroud, the damage may be contained. Fragments
further aft may be more likely to cause a fire and
damage to the airframe and fuel system.
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
peter.m...@baesystems.com says...
I suppose that's possible as a general-purpose IR jammer, designed
to handle 10-year-old MANPADS systems, may not need as much
specific countermeasure data. It's not likely a terrorist is
going to do many field mods to his missile systems to counter
the defenses.
Mark Borgerson
Keith Willshaw
"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3DF52376...@student.canterbury.ac.nz...
On the other hand the turbine disk on the UA DC-10 that crashed
at Sioux City knocked out all the controls.
Another incident on a 727 killed a number of passenges IRC
and the burner can explosion on a 737 at manchester airport
caused a fire that killed a large number of people
Luck plays a large part in these incidents.
Keith
Mark Borgerson
<(chenshaw<RE<MOVE>@(T<H+ESE)sympatico.ca)> says...
> Mark Borgerson <ma...@oes.to> wrote in news:MPG.185e575f5bc26491989813
> @netnews.attbi.com:
>
> > IIRC, the effective use
> > of active IR jammers requires quite a bit of intelligence about
> > such things as seeker scan rates. Will the military be willing
> > to release this technology to civilian airlines and risk the
> > embodied intel falling into the wrong hands?
>
> Perhaps this would make for a good incentive to boost R&D efforts aimed at
> creating semi-hard kill devices designed to terminally overheat the seeker
> head with an IR laser.
>
>
>
SAM will be unlikely to show up in civilian airliners.
I don't know that you have to overheat the detector---just
put in enough IR energy to saturate the electronics.
Still, you need a pretty bright pulsing omnidirectional source
to provide enough off-axis signal to decoy missiles.
One such system is described at:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-144.htm
Anyone want to get the simulation at:
http://www.tti.on.ca/samir.html
and try it out?
Mark Borgerson
Guy Alcala
Without wishing to intrude on the name calling, I'd just like to mention that
during my perusal of the AIAA book "Tactical Missile Warheads" (ed. Joseph
Carleone, 1993) a month or so ago, it's stated that most early MANPADS (and some
AA missiles with small warheads, like the early IR Falcons) had blast-only
warheads with contact (actually slight delay) fuses, because they were too small
to be useful with prox. fuses and thus were only effective when detonated inside
the target. Judging by the description of the Stinger warhead as blast-frag, its
size, cooled seeker, prox. fusing and all-aspect capability, this reasoning
doesn't apply to it.
Oh, getting back to the original question, AvLeak has a couple of articles on
IRCM, MAWS etc. on airliners. See
for the story "Israel to Protect Airliners: U.S. on Fence" as well as another
related one.
Guy
Peter McLelland
"Mark Borgerson" <ma...@oes.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.185ece73c...@netnews.attbi.com...
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/siircm.htm.
This is not the only equipment of this type available either.
Peter
Nicholas Smid
wings from the cockpit, leaves a huge arc aft that totaly blind and sadly
thats where the missiles are going to come from. So you'd need to fit a tail
warning system, calebrated so as not to trigger on the flight rolling down
the runway behind you, or on sunglint off car windows. It also has to have
plenty of range since, oh range isn't relavent since a passenger aircraft is
only at hazard close to an airport, where an aircraft taking sudden evasive
action is at high risk of a mid air, best make shore that tail warning
system is seriously reliable as fulse positives are likely to cause more mid
air colision loses than any terrorist orginisation could manage with
missiles.
Mark Borgerson
peter.m...@baesystems.com says...
IIRC, the up-to-date solution will be about $1.5million per aircraft--
about 3 times the cost of the older jammers. So how many do
you think United will buy in the next year? ;-)
Mark Borgerson
Brian Sharrock
>
> They put windows on airplanes for a reason.
'They' also put Pilots' Field of view diagrams, for these
'windows', in aircraft specifications (in mercator projection)
overprinted with madatory FAA, JAA requirements for viewing
angles. [An aircraft that doesn't have view panels for the
minimum vewing angles will not receive a certificate of
airworthiness.]
I suggest that you obtain such a specification and study it.
> .... Looking out them is NOT a
> massive additional workload, one would hope.
>
One may hope as long as one may. It's not a great basis for factual
regulations or flight-deck procedures.
> One of your more pathetic trolls, Mr Sharrock. Work on it.
>
And you haven't addressed any of the points ... :);
but there again, what's new?
--
Brian
Andy Dingley
<ka...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>> Lets not forget that a turbine disk letting loose will then do more
>> airframe damage than a shoulder-launched warhead itself.
>
>Just the other day (8 dec) a turbine disk let loose in an Air NZ
>B767.... the engine cowling come off and fragments tore off part of the
>wing leading edge. No other damage(??)...
Civil aircraft have serious fragment catching jackets around their
fans. Military engines (single engines anyway) don't.
As an example of the damage that can be caused, look at the accident
to a fully fuelled 737 (?) on the tarmac at Manchester, some years
ago. Massive fire and many fatalities.
Peter McLelland
it is cheap compared to the cost of taking a hit.
On that basis even United might consider it.
Peter
Mark Borgerson
a large percentage of their routes inside the US, the bean
counters might take a different view if the cost/benefit
ratio.
I'm surprised that terrorist groups haven't seen any value in
harassment with plain old unguided rockets. A visible smoke
trail coming at you would be unnerving to most airliner pilots.
As someone else pointed out, the evasive maneuvers might be almost
as dangerous as a real missile in unskilled hands.
The problems are a bit different than dummy missiles in a
combat environment, though. First, you have to make sure
that the rocket can be seen with the limited viewing angles
in an airliner cockpit. Second, at takeoff, the pilots
may be able to see the ground only through the side
windows due to the pitch angles. Of course in a
combat environment, a smoke trail is like a big sign
saying "bomb and strafe here!" Third, civil airliners
taking off with noise-avoidance profiles are probably a
bit nearer the edge of the flight envelope than a
fighter jet. Breaking left and kicking in the afterburners
is not an option on a loaded 747.
Mark Borgerson
Jack Love
>fighter jet. Breaking left and kicking in the afterburners
>is not an option on a loaded 747.
Though, there was an article on strategypage, IIRC, which indicated
that modern airliners are relatively difficult targets, the high
velocity, high by-pass ratio engines tend to be very cool relative to
typical military targets. And, the cooled cone of air tends to
channelize the exhaust plume fairly far back.
Also there has been some discussion that hitting one engine (clearly
independent of secondary damage, which is debatable) is not enough to
take out the typical jumbo. Now, would I like to be on a DC-9 that
got shot at? Nooooo.
>Mark Borgerson
>
Dale Farmer
Jack Love wrote:
Any FAA certified passenger jet is able to fly with one engine
knocked
out. With the debris containment shrouds that are pretty much standard
for the engines nowadays. A small missile like a stinger hitting an
engine
is by no means a kill of the aircraft. Luck would have an enormous
amount
to do with it. If it were to start a fire in a wet wing, then that may
kill the
aircraft before it manages to make an emergency landing.
But since the aircraft is basically only vulnerable during takeoff
and
landing, it only has to stay under control for a minute or two needful
for an
emergency landing at the airport it just left. *shrugs* Hopefully we
will
not find out for real what happens.
--Dale
Mark Borgerson
Good points. I'll bet the 'one engine out on takeoff' scenario is
getting a lot of time on the simulators now. But then it probably
alway has!
I wonder if increasing the safety margin for such scenarios will be
taken by the airlines as an excuse to modify some of the more
extreme noise-avoidance takeoff profiles. OTOH, municipalities
may take the threat as an excuse to "get that flying fuel tank
out of my airspace ASAP" Maybe Denver was smart to put their
new airport way out in the boonies!
Mark Borgerson
Paul J. Adam
Borgerson <ma...@oes.to> writes
>Good points. I'll bet the 'one engine out on takeoff' scenario is
>getting a lot of time on the simulators now. But then it probably
>alway has!
AIUI, it's one of the cast-iron bastards about getting multi-engine
certified. If the fan stops on a single during takeoff, you've at least
got a clumsy glider: if one engine goes out on a twin, not only are you
now underpowered while low, slow and draggy but you've got major yaw
issues to amuse you as well.
Pilots have to train for an engine quitting at worst-possible-moment,
normally expecting mechanical failure but a MANPADS will do as well.
>I wonder if increasing the safety margin for such scenarios will be
>taken by the airlines as an excuse to modify some of the more
>extreme noise-avoidance takeoff profiles. OTOH, municipalities
>may take the threat as an excuse to "get that flying fuel tank
>out of my airspace ASAP"
Everyone wants airports, nobody wants to live near one.
>Maybe Denver was smart to put their
>new airport way out in the boonies!
Bet it's surrounded by housing within ten years.
>
>Mark Borgerson
--
Paul J. Adam
Mark E. Anderson
> In message <MPG.1862588d9...@netnews.attbi.com>, Mark
> Borgerson <ma...@oes.to> writes
>>Good points. I'll bet the 'one engine out on takeoff' scenario is
>>getting a lot of time on the simulators now. But then it probably
>>alway has!
> AIUI, it's one of the cast-iron bastards about getting multi-engine
> certified. If the fan stops on a single during takeoff, you've at least
> got a clumsy glider: if one engine goes out on a twin, not only are you
> now underpowered while low, slow and draggy but you've got major yaw
> issues to amuse you as well.
IIUC, a commercial jet, as opposed to a GA (general av) twin piston,
is in much better shape. they've got much more power in that one engine.
std. aphorisms talk of the twin w/one engine out having just enough power
to get you to the crash while the big iron is supposed be able to actually
fly on one engine. the yaw problem is prob not as bad in the jet since
the prop can have more annoying characteristics, depending upon which
engine fails - hence the counter-rotating props of the P-38, engine failure
of either has the same sorts of behaviors. i've just enough 2nd hand
info to be hazardous on these phenomena, as i've only my single-engine private
rating, and enough of a head cold right now to not want to test my thinking
too heavily.
<snip>
>>
>>Mark Borgerson
> --
> Paul J. Adam
--
mark anderson "I had a little bird. Its name was "Enza".
wombats.near.nmrfam.wisc.edu Opened up the window, in flew Enza."
http://www.nmrfam.wisc.edu childrens' rhyme, 1918
email: at, near, same thing, right?