Tuesday MANPAD Blogging

Zack Phillips, author of the article on MANPAD countermeasures I blogged about over the weekend emails to note that the State Department does have an initiative geared to locating and destroying MANPADs in the field. Apparently this has been a pretty modest program ($7 million in FY '07) but there's a request out for a big increase to $41 million for FY '08.

Obviously, the devil's in the details here -- does the State Department's program work? -- but on the face of things this is a much smarter area in which to invest money than on R&D for $1 million a pop plane-based countermeasures.

Comments

MANPADS sound so sexy. Yumm. And good for sucking on.

Posted by Chughu | June 19, 2007 12:05 PM

I suspect that these anti-MANPAD efforts by the State Dept will be marginally productive at best so long as the US, Russians & Chinese continue to manufacture them.

It would be more interesting to know if they've been discontinued by any/all of these countries - once they're in production, they'll find a way into inappropriate hands.

Posted by Rob | June 19, 2007 12:24 PM

Also, to your point about the technological countermeasures solution, I vaguely recall that the Afghans were able to mitigate Soviet countermeasures at least somewhat.

IIRC, they would activate the radar/heat-seeker at the last possible moment so that there was virtually no time for the target (typically low flying Mi-24s) to recognize the threat prior to impact. I don't know that there's any way around this - especially with commercial jets at low takeoff & landing speeds.

Posted by Rob | June 19, 2007 12:30 PM

MANPADS sounds like a masculine hygiene product. Hygiene products are not sexy.

It would probably be smart to install countermeasures on planes that fly into and out of dodgy countries. Putting them on all domestic flights would be an appalling waste of taxpayer dollars. Naturally, this is precisely why the idea has attracted the support of defense lobbyists and the journalists who love them-- they're in the business of wasting taxpayer dollars in appalling ways.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 19, 2007 12:31 PM

1. You could at least make the effort to give us MANPAD macros.

2. If MANPADs are outlawed only outlaws will have MANPADs!

3. Actually, there's sort of a point to item 2. MANPADs are just one more way pissed off non-state groups can - theoretically at least - kill a lot of people. MANPAD interdiction is not quite like treating scarlet fever with blemish creme, but it's *sort of* like that.

Posted by Jim Henley | June 19, 2007 12:56 PM

From the article: "Named Project Chloe, after DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff's favorite character on the television show 24..."

Is anyone else really disturbed by the idea that the Secretary of DHS watches "24"?

Posted by Eric | June 19, 2007 1:28 PM

so when are going to get around to correcting your erroneous statement that "zero civilian aircraft" have been shot down by MANPADs? the FAS, the RAND, the CDI all have info easily demonstrating that's false.

Posted by Nathan | June 19, 2007 2:03 PM

Having been a Stinger missile gunner (and its predecessor the Redeye) when I was in the Army, I know it is very difficult to avoid these.

The Russian variant was far less accurate than the Redeye, however I would find it hard to believe that technology hasn't been significantly improved.

The problem is that a low and slow aircraft, such as a passenger airliner just presents too fat a target. Multiple engines, mounted on either the wings or fuselage only compound the problem.

The A-10 Warthog was able to mitigate some of that by mounting the engines high on the tail section, so that if it took a hit, the engine would break loose, rather than bring the whole plane down.

The MI-24 Hind took a different approach. It directed the exhaust downward, and towards the most heavily armored part of the helicopter. The additional armor was sufficient enough to deflect the blast from a Stinger such that the helicopter could limp home. The Afghani's who were able to successfully bring the Hinds down, were largely able to get above the helicopter, and fire down on it from hilltops hitting the vulnerable rotor assemblies.

The challenge to building an effective countermeasure for the low and slow civilian passenger planes, is having a system (usually some incendiary material, like magnesium which generates a heat signature bigger than that of the jet engines to confuse the seeker head), that fires when needed, without generating significant false activations.

The system cannot rely on the pilots detecting the launch, because the speed at which the projectile flies, is faster than most pilots could react, even in a highly maneuverable fighter jet.

The challenges aren't insurmountable by any means. However with the paltry investment to date, the remaining challenges are significant.

The one thing to remember, when talking about finding and destroying MANPADS sites, is there is no such thing as a "site".

MANPADS stands for Manned Portable Air Defense System.

They are shoulder fired, weigh only 60 pounds, and require only a single operator.

Posted by David (Austin Tx) | June 19, 2007 2:53 PM

Could someone tell me why a single tracer bullet through the wing of a passenger airplane wouldn't cause a catastrophic failure?

Posted by Ugh | June 19, 2007 3:07 PM

ugh:

that's easy. modern jetliners are actually pretty robust. redundant hydraulic systems, control surfaces, etc. etc. etc. post the Sioux City crash-landing they even reworked autopilots to control planes solely with differential thrust. you'd have to create some sort of fuel explosion....

Posted by Nathan | June 19, 2007 3:19 PM

Re: "The one thing to remember, when talking about finding and destroying MANPADS sites, is there is no such thing as a "site".

MANPADS stands for Manned Portable Air Defense System.

They are shoulder fired, weigh only 60 pounds, and require only a single operator."

----------------------

Presumably, these things produce a bright signature when fired? So, would it be possible to have sensors around major airports that detect these things, so that a response team could pursue the person who fired it? Maybe getting the bad guy after the missile is fired is the best we can hope for in this case.

Posted by Jim W | June 19, 2007 3:21 PM

Maybe getting the bad guy after the missile is fired is the best we can hope for in this case.

---

Oh yes. there is a smoke trail that leads right back to the person who fired it.

I was stationed in Korea, and my team chief and I would plan our egress from the site.

It usually involved him sitting in the drivers seat of our vehicle, with me near the passenger side.

After firing, my object was to throw the spent missile tube into the back of the vehicle, and jump in so that we could get the hell out of dodge, before the wingman could turn around and sight his weapons in on our position.

the problem with detecting and converging on a firing location, is whether or not the individual who fired the missile had to hoof it out on foot, or if he had a vehicle to carry him out.

Posted by David (Austin Tx) | June 19, 2007 3:30 PM

One thing that I have never understood, and never been in a position to ask anyone who might be in a position to answer:
Anyone with a three-digit IQ knows that, once devices like these leave the control of their makers, it is not only possible but probable (given a long enough time-line) that some of them will be used against the interests of the makers / suppliers.
This being the case, why is it that EVERY damn weapon or weapons system, of any kind or magnitude, that the big powers provide their allies / castpaws, doesn't have a concealed, radio-controlled "kill" switch -- or better yet, a "self-destruct" mechanism?
This is sufficently obvious an idea that IIRC there was a TV movie (or maybe it was direct-to-video) about it -- Kevin Pollak played the President.
Anyone know?

Posted by smartalek | June 19, 2007 3:51 PM

Nathan - thanks, but I was thinking that a tracer bullet would cause such an explosion.

Posted by Ugh | June 19, 2007 4:08 PM

David:

How much training is required for operating one of these MANPADS? Is it user-friendly or is it relatively difficult to use correctly/accurately?

Posted by Klug | June 19, 2007 5:24 PM

How much training is required for operating one of these MANPADS? Is it user-friendly or is it relatively difficult to use correctly/accurately?

------

The great advantage that the portable air defense systems had (Stinger, Redeye, Soviet SA-7, and descendants) was they are simple to use, ruggedized, and very accurate.

Posted by David (Austin Tx) | June 19, 2007 5:34 PM

smartalek:

well, actually, that was addressed to some extent...and in a way that considered that you might want to give them to people for short-term use that you wouldn't necessarily want to have them in the long term. the answer....the batteries. make those complex, steadily degradable and difficult to purchase.

remember all the news stories about the thousands of unaccounted for Stingers in Afghanistan during 2001? only a couple of those accounts bothered to talk to someone who knew enough to tell them that the batteries would have long since gone. which is exactly what happened.

Posted by Nathan | June 19, 2007 6:12 PM

Ugh: I was thinking that a tracer bullet would cause such an explosion.

Possible but unlikely. Here's why:

Jet fuel - kerosene - is not in fact very dangerous, compared to, say, gasoline. Take a bucket of jet fuel and drop a lighted match in, and the match will go out. (Yes, I know that's not what happens in the movies. Bear with me.) In order to burn, the fuel has to be volatilized - either heated until it forms a vapor, or sprayed into the air in a mist. This tends not to happen in aircraft tanks. The fuel isn't hot enough to form vapor, and there's no mechanism for forming a mist.

The exception is in cases like TWA 800. In this accident, the center wing fuel tank, which was mostly empty, was heated by the aircraft's air conditioning packs as it sat on the runway. Over 35 degrees (about 96F) jet fuel forms a vapor. The explosive air/vapor mixture was then ignited by a spark from a faulty sensor.

It's unlikely that the tanks would get that hot during flight. The air's pretty cold at altitude.

But: if, somehow, the wing tank became hot enough for vapor to form; and if it was mainly empty, allowing a large volume of air/vapor mixture to collect in the head space; and if a tracer round not only hit the wing but lodged in it (rather than passing straight through, as it would normally do); then, yes, you might get an explosion.
But it's unlikely.

Posted by ajay | June 20, 2007 4:40 AM

ajay - thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.

Posted by Ugh | June 20, 2007 9:47 AM