[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Al Qaeda has SAMs (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/23/2011 4:15:44 AM EDT
|
Heard this on WTOP News yesterday. Since the beginning of the Libyan uprising, AQ has been busy looting the armories in all the towns that have been seized by the rebels. Hundreds of "antiaircraft missiles" and other assorted military goodies have gone missing. This is NOW a major concern of European security orgs. They say that within months these will start showing up.
Didn't the White House insist that AQ was NOT present in Libya? Also, anyone catch the rebel with the Walther 2000 on NBC??? Damn, that's a cool looking rifle! I also noticed an FN grenade launcher...where do they get these wonderful toys??? |
|
Quoted:
Nice... http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2011/03/14/1300161050_5335/539w.jpg SAM-7s aren't such a problem but I'm wondering if Kaddafi was able to buy more sophisticated systems, maybe through the Italians? |
|
Quoted: Oh, I expect most of them will get shot in chad or some other "local" area but they (Or the fear of them) COULD cause some extra bullshit for EuropeanQuoted: Nice... http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2011/03/14/1300161050_5335/539w.jpg SAM-7s aren't such a problem but I'm wondering if Kaddafi was able to buy more sophisticated systems, maybe through the Italians? airports and such. |
|
Quoted:
Don't these things have a shelf-life? The missiles last a looong time. The issue is usually the batteries and the cooling apparatus in the case of the SA14 and later. The SA7 has an uncooled seeker head and very simple batteries, so it it likely to be around and operable in large quantities. That being said, the SA7 is horribly inaccurate and extremely susceptible to IR countermeasures. SA14 and later missiles have more sophisticated and expensive batteries and also require a cooling supply (pressurized nitrogen bottle) that is easily damaged, lost, or expended in training. These types of supplies do not generally last long in an unstructured para-military environment. Bottom line, the raiding of Libyan arsenals by AQ guys is a threat but it's not as big as you may think. |
|
|
Quoted:
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't these things have a shelf-life? The missiles last a looong time. The issue is usually the batteries and the cooling apparatus in the case of the SA14 and later. The SA7 has an uncooled seeker head and very simple batteries, so it it likely to be around and operable in large quantities. That being said, the SA7 is horribly inaccurate and extremely susceptible to IR countermeasures. SA14 and later missiles have more sophisticated and expensive batteries and also require a cooling supply (pressurized nitrogen bottle) that is easily damaged, lost, or expended in training. These types of supplies do not generally last long in an unstructured para-military environment. Bottom line, the raiding of Libyan arsenals by AQ guys is a threat but it's not as big as you may think. An SA-7 or two against an airliner with lots if heat signature and no countermeasures constitute a pretty big threat to me... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't these things have a shelf-life? The missiles last a looong time. The issue is usually the batteries and the cooling apparatus in the case of the SA14 and later. The SA7 has an uncooled seeker head and very simple batteries, so it it likely to be around and operable in large quantities. That being said, the SA7 is horribly inaccurate and extremely susceptible to IR countermeasures. SA14 and later missiles have more sophisticated and expensive batteries and also require a cooling supply (pressurized nitrogen bottle) that is easily damaged, lost, or expended in training. These types of supplies do not generally last long in an unstructured para-military environment. Bottom line, the raiding of Libyan arsenals by AQ guys is a threat but it's not as big as you may think. An SA-7 or two against an airliner with lots if heat signature and no countermeasures constitute a pretty big threat to me... There were literally thousands of SA7s available in Iraq and the only hits (Airbus 300 and C17) they registered on large aircraft came from SA14s that came from Iran. Both aircraft were landed safely. SA7s would require someone to be nearly on the runway or standing under the marker lights for final approach to tag an airliner. In the event of a hit on a large airliner, a catastrophic kill is very unlikey due to the size of the warhead and likely location of hit (engine on pylon). If an airliner gets tagged on short final and loses an engine it is very bad but not an instant death sentence. In order to hit an airliner during it's initial climb, an SA7 gunner would have to be very close to the airport perimeter or more likely inside it. SA7s have been in the wild for a long time and have proven ineffective. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't these things have a shelf-life? The missiles last a looong time. The issue is usually the batteries and the cooling apparatus in the case of the SA14 and later. The SA7 has an uncooled seeker head and very simple batteries, so it it likely to be around and operable in large quantities. That being said, the SA7 is horribly inaccurate and extremely susceptible to IR countermeasures. SA14 and later missiles have more sophisticated and expensive batteries and also require a cooling supply (pressurized nitrogen bottle) that is easily damaged, lost, or expended in training. These types of supplies do not generally last long in an unstructured para-military environment. Bottom line, the raiding of Libyan arsenals by AQ guys is a threat but it's not as big as you may think. An SA-7 or two against an airliner with lots if heat signature and no countermeasures constitute a pretty big threat to me... Um, yea, that's what I was thinking. They hit two or three airliners....and this country comes to a screeching halt....and shortly thereafter our economy goes bye, bye....maybe forever this time. |
|
***MANPADS are a generic term for all shoulder launched SAMs***
Libya's WMD Stockpiles Are Secure: Pentagon By Agence France-Presse August 24, 2011 The United States said Wednesday that Libya's stockpile of missiles and chemical weapons are "secure" but that an arsenal of thousands of shoulder-launched missiles remained cause for concern. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said US officials have been "monitoring known missile and chemical agent storage facilities since the start of this conflict" in February. "We believe that these known missile and chemical agent storage facilities remain secure, and we've not seen any activity, based on our national technical means, to give us concern that they have been compromised," she told reporters. "But that monitoring will continue," Nuland said. Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan meanwhile replied "yes" when asked if sites containing chemical weapons, including over 10 tons of mustard gas, were safe. But he declined to offer more details, only saying that "clearly those are dangerous agents and weapons... we continue to monitor that." As rebel forces declared they had defeated Moamer Kadhafi's regime and were now trying to secure the whole of Tripoli, Lapan told reporters there were no plans to send US troops in to secure the chemical weapons' sites. Although Kadhafi's regime retained the mustard gas, it lacked the military means to launch an attack with the chemical, according to arms control experts. Kadhafi joined the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2004 after renouncing weapons of mass destruction in December 2003, but still had to eliminate 11.25 tons of mustard gas when the uprising to remove him from power began in February. All 3,563 munitions –– such as bombs, shells and missiles –– that could serve as a delivery vehicle for mustard gas have been destroyed, according to the OPCW. Lapan said the United States was also concerned about a plethora of conventional arms and ammunition, including shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles. The shoulder-launched missiles in particular posed a potential danger, he said. "They remain a concern, because of their portability." General Carter Ham, head of US Africa Command, told lawmakers in April that there were an estimated 20,000 shoulder-launched missiles in Libya. Members of Congress have voiced worries that some of the portable missiles could fall into the hands of Islamist extremists with ties to the Al-Qaeda network. Amid speculation about Kadhafi's whereabouts, Lapan reiterated that the Pentagon believed he was still in the country. Nuland said the US has given $3 million to two non-government organizations to help the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) secure conventional weapons stockpiles as well as dispose of landmines and unexploded munitions. She said the organizations, MAG International and the Swiss Foundation for Demining, have been working with the NTC in areas under the council's control to secure such weapons, including the shoulder-launched missiles. Nuland said she was unable to offer details on the scope of the problem of missiles known as MANPADs (Man-Portable Air Defense Systems). But she said two teams of US government experts have visited countries in the region to make sure the shoulder-launched missiles are not being smuggled outside of Libya. "I think the concern is not only about remaining MANPADS in Libya but also about their proliferation, which is why we're working with all of the neighbors," Nuland said. "This is something that we have been working on and that we will continue to work on as the (NTC) takes control of Libya. And they want to continue to work on it with us and with the international community," she said. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't these things have a shelf-life? The missiles last a looong time. The issue is usually the batteries and the cooling apparatus in the case of the SA14 and later. The SA7 has an uncooled seeker head and very simple batteries, so it it likely to be around and operable in large quantities. That being said, the SA7 is horribly inaccurate and extremely susceptible to IR countermeasures. SA14 and later missiles have more sophisticated and expensive batteries and also require a cooling supply (pressurized nitrogen bottle) that is easily damaged, lost, or expended in training. These types of supplies do not generally last long in an unstructured para-military environment. Bottom line, the raiding of Libyan arsenals by AQ guys is a threat but it's not as big as you may think. An SA-7 or two against an airliner with lots if heat signature and no countermeasures constitute a pretty big threat to me... Pop an SA-7 against a domestic passenger jet and the the result will be a security zone erected around every airport and potential launch site within the envelop of the missile. The TSA will be expanded massively. Aircraft will be fit will costly countermeasures. This is what we get for not Islamic jihad as an ideology. |
|
That there is funny ! 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Nice... http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2011/03/14/1300161050_5335/539w.jpg SAM-7s aren't such a problem but I'm wondering if Kaddafi was able to buy more sophisticated systems, maybe through the Italians? There pretty rough on airliners, fighters, not so much |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't these things have a shelf-life? The missiles last a looong time. The issue is usually the batteries and the cooling apparatus in the case of the SA14 and later. The SA7 has an uncooled seeker head and very simple batteries, so it it likely to be around and operable in large quantities. That being said, the SA7 is horribly inaccurate and extremely susceptible to IR countermeasures. SA14 and later missiles have more sophisticated and expensive batteries and also require a cooling supply (pressurized nitrogen bottle) that is easily damaged, lost, or expended in training. These types of supplies do not generally last long in an unstructured para-military environment. Bottom line, the raiding of Libyan arsenals by AQ guys is a threat but it's not as big as you may think. I still wouldn't want to be in an airliner targeted by an SA-7, or even a military aircraft or helicopter. Even aircraft fitted with countermeasures might be caught by surprise. I know the SA-14 and later versions have cooled seekers, but I bet that against an airliner on final you'd be able to get it to launch and perhaps even track without cooling the warhead...I wouldn't want to be in the test-target! |
|
Quoted: What about helicopters?Quoted: Quoted: Nice... http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2011/03/14/1300161050_5335/539w.jpg SAM-7s aren't such a problem but I'm wondering if Kaddafi was able to buy more sophisticated systems, maybe through the Italians? There pretty rough on airliners, fighters, not so much |
|
|
|
Quoted:
 
|
|
Quoted:
Um, yea, that's what I was thinking. They hit two or three airliners....and this country comes to a screeching halt....and shortly thereafter our economy goes bye, bye....maybe forever this time. Maybe this would be a good reason to invest in rail infrastructure? 
|
|
Quoted:
Didn't the White House insist that AQ was NOT present in Libya? Also, anyone catch the rebel with the Walther 2000 on NBC??? Damn, that's a cool looking rifle! I also noticed an FN grenade launcher...where do they get these wonderful toys??? Of course the WH knew AQ was there, just like they were in other countries going through the whole "Arab Spring" bullshit, this is what Obama wants, it's by design. As far as the weaponary you're seeing, several countries including the UK and France have SF on the ground assisting "rebels" logistically, and otherwise. |
|
You bastard...
My replacement keyboard sucks! |
military aircraft are designed to deal with them. You can count how many times with your fingers over a 10 year span that our aircraft was hit by a SA-7, let alone actually being shot down by one.  The main concern is they'll use them on civilian aircraft. That's what the DoD is worried about. |
|
Boefore there were hundreds of them out there and they were pretty rare. There are now thousands of them in the wild, straight out of a nationstate's armories where they were receiving at least some form of maintenance to be as effective as they were when the rebels got ahold of them. Couple that with the fact that one of the leaders of the Libyan rebels used to recruit people to fight US forces in Iraq, the sudden resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and confirmation of AQ agents on the ground in Libya snatching up as much hardware aas they can and you have a pretty worrisome situation.
An SA-7 may not be much threat to an airliner or a military aircraft with IR countermeasures, but how about 5-10 of them launched all at once several directions. Volly fire worked for archers in ancient times, no reason it cannot work with SA-7's, hell the Russians called them strelas (arrow) afterall. |
|
Quoted:
military aircraft are designed to deal with them. You can count how many times with your fingers over a 10 year span that our aircraft was hit by a SA-7, let alone actually being shot down by one.
The main concern is they'll use them on civilian aircraft. That's what the DoD is worried about. I'm more worried about helicopters than commercial jets. Helicopters don't like SA-7s. TR85. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: military aircraft are designed to deal with them. You can count how many times with your fingers over a 10 year span that our aircraft was hit by a SA-7, let alone actually being shot down by one. The main concern is they'll use them on civilian aircraft. That's what the DoD is worried about. I'm more worried about helicopters than commercial jets. Helicopters don't like SA-7s. TR85. There have been just a couple that we believe may have been shot down in Iraq by SA-7s and Iraq had a much larger inventory of weapon systems than a really small populated country like Libya. Unless you mean commercial helicopters? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
|
|
Quoted:
Well, no shit. Could have told you that in July 1996.... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/SCSO_-_TWA_800.png [facepalm] ETA: I'm going to regret asking this, but who do you think fired the missile, and what kind of missile was it? |
|
Quoted:
Nice...  Looks like a Russian (or Chinese copy of) a KBM Kolomna 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO designation SA-7 - CHinese version is named the HN-5) minus the (rather important) launch and guidance unit. 
Even though it is an obsolete (1960s and 70s) design; it is still deadly if used properly... Remember that DHL Airbus that got hit in Iraq back in 2003? 
That plane is still at BIAP (damage too severe for recover - plane already old) Also Air Rhodesia Flight 827 (first ever shootdown of a civilian airliner using MANPADS, notable a Strela 2), |
|
Quoted:
Boefore there were hundreds of them out there and they were pretty rare. There are now thousands of them in the wild, straight out of a nationstate's armories where they were receiving at least some form of maintenance to be as effective as they were when the rebels got ahold of them. Couple that with the fact that one of the leaders of the Libyan rebels used to recruit people to fight US forces in Iraq, the sudden resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and confirmation of AQ agents on the ground in Libya snatching up as much hardware aas they can and you have a pretty worrisome situation. An SA-7 may not be much threat to an airliner or a military aircraft with IR countermeasures, but how about 5-10 of them launched all at once several directions. Volly fire worked for archers in ancient times, no reason it cannot work with SA-7's, hell the Russians called them strelas (arrow) afterall. I think Al Quaida tried to use one against an Israeli civilian jet liner leaving a resort in Africa popular with Israelis. It did not hit its mark for some reason, though I do not know why. The launcher was recovered outside the airport IIRC. This was a few years ago. |
|
What is with the googles? Are they included??!?
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nice... http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2011/03/14/1300161050_5335/539w.jpg Looks like a Russian (or Chinese copy of) a KBM Kolomna 9K32 Strela-2 (NATO designation SA-7 - CHinese version is named the HN-5) minus the (rather important) launch and guidance unit. http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6cd63820da49.jpg Even though it is an obsolete (1960s and 70s) design; it is still deadly if used properly... Remember that DHL Airbus that got hit in Iraq back in 2003? http://www.dougronan.com/ontario/images/Interestingplane/LH_WING3.JPG That plane is still at BIAP (damage too severe for recover - plane already old) Also Air Rhodesia Flight 827 (first ever shootdown of a civilian airliner using MANPADS, notable a Strela 2), |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Well, no shit. Could have told you that in July 1996.... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/SCSO_-_TWA_800.png [facepalm] ETA: I'm going to regret asking this, but who do you think fired the missile, and what kind of missile was it? Ah ha! The people on the airplane knew "too much", and so Uncle Sam had to cut the loose ends! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't these things have a shelf-life? The missiles last a looong time. The issue is usually the batteries and the cooling apparatus in the case of the SA14 and later. The SA7 has an uncooled seeker head and very simple batteries, so it it likely to be around and operable in large quantities. That being said, the SA7 is horribly inaccurate and extremely susceptible to IR countermeasures. SA14 and later missiles have more sophisticated and expensive batteries and also require a cooling supply (pressurized nitrogen bottle) that is easily damaged, lost, or expended in training. These types of supplies do not generally last long in an unstructured para-military environment. Bottom line, the raiding of Libyan arsenals by AQ guys is a threat but it's not as big as you may think. I am sure an SA-7 won't have much of a hard time hitting a civilian 737 or other plane. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Didn't the White House insist that AQ was NOT present in Libya? Also, anyone catch the rebel with the Walther 2000 on NBC??? Damn, that's a cool looking rifle! I also noticed an FN grenade launcher...where do they get these wonderful toys??? Of course the WH knew AQ was there, just like they were in other countries going through the whole "Arab Spring" bullshit, this is what Obama wants, it's by design. As far as the weaponary you're seeing, several countries including the UK and France have SF on the ground assisting "rebels" logistically, and otherwise. BINGO! You sir have identified the 800 pound gorilla in the corner. Yes, we've spent billions running airstrikes, providing support for other NATO countries running airstrikes, put SF units on the ground to direct-organize a rebel force whose core fighters and leadership were previously killing Americans in Iraq and A'stan. Also the International banks make off with 70+ billion of the Libyan peoples money (gee, how wonderful) that Qaddafi invested in the last decade outside his country. Al Qaeda oh I'm mean freedom fighters, get the 140+ tons of gold bullion in Libyan banks, the largest developed fresh water aquifer in North Africa, the most easily accessible oil reserve in Africa and we get...... A great base for a new American hating regime that will try to attack us in some form. Helpful timeline: 1980's - Al Qaeda good 1990's - Al Qaeda not so good 2000's - Al Qaeda bad, very bad 2011 - Al Qaeda good Fuck BHO |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Didn't the White House insist that AQ was NOT present in Libya? Also, anyone catch the rebel with the Walther 2000 on NBC??? Damn, that's a cool looking rifle! I also noticed an FN grenade launcher...where do they get these wonderful toys??? Of course the WH knew AQ was there, just like they were in other countries going through the whole "Arab Spring" bullshit, this is what Obama wants, it's by design. As far as the weaponary you're seeing, several countries including the UK and France have SF on the ground assisting "rebels" logistically, and otherwise. BINGO! You sir have identified the 800 pound gorilla in the corner. Yes, we've spent billions running airstrikes, providing support for other NATO countries running airstrikes, put SF units on the ground to direct-organize a rebel force whose core fighters and leadership were previously killing Americans in Iraq and A'stan. Also the International banks make off with 70+ billion of the Libyan peoples money (gee, how wonderful) that Qaddafi invested in the last decade outside his country. Al Qaeda oh I'm mean freedom fighters, get the 140+ tons of gold bullion in Libyan banks, the largest developed fresh water aquifer in North Africa, the most easily accessible oil reserve in Africa and we get...... A great base for a new American hating regime that will try to attack us in some form. Helpful timeline: 1980's - Al Qaeda good 1990's - Al Qaeda not so good 2000's - Al Qaeda bad, very bad 2011 - Al Qaeda good Fuck BHO [long pause] Why did we kill Osama Bin Laden? Why do we continue to go after and kill members of Al-Qaeda? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Boefore there were hundreds of them out there and they were pretty rare. There are now thousands of them in the wild, straight out of a nationstate's armories where they were receiving at least some form of maintenance to be as effective as they were when the rebels got ahold of them. Couple that with the fact that one of the leaders of the Libyan rebels used to recruit people to fight US forces in Iraq, the sudden resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and confirmation of AQ agents on the ground in Libya snatching up as much hardware aas they can and you have a pretty worrisome situation. An SA-7 may not be much threat to an airliner or a military aircraft with IR countermeasures, but how about 5-10 of them launched all at once several directions. Volly fire worked for archers in ancient times, no reason it cannot work with SA-7's, hell the Russians called them strelas (arrow) afterall. I think Al Quaida tried to use one against an Israeli civilian jet liner leaving a resort in Africa popular with Israelis. It did not hit its mark for some reason, though I do not know why. The launcher was recovered outside the airport IIRC. This was a few years ago. It didn't hit because Israeli planes have countermeasures and the pilot was a badass! |