We do not have any direct evidence that insurgents in Iraq are using advanced surface-to-air missiles (sometimes called MANPADS from MAN-portable Air Defense System); just best guesses, for now. But with the loss of five (and maybe even six or seven) helicopters in quick succession — and an insurgent video apparently showing the latest loss to be a missile casualty — the possibility needs to be considered.
Early MANPADS like the Russian SA-7 are fairly primitive, homing in on exhaust heat. As they steer towards the hottest object in their field of view, they can easily be lured away by decoy flares (or even the sun).
With more advanced missiles, it becomes a game of cat and mouse between the electronics in the missile seeker head and the countermeasures seeking to confuse it. Advanced seekers can not only discriminate flares from engines, but they can be smart enough to home in on the source of the flares. Advanced laser-based countermeasures like CLIRCM do not blind or dazzle seekers as is sometime supposed, but produce a signal which generates false targets and sends the missile off course.
Some missile makers claim that their seekers can beat all known countermeasures; some countermeasures manufacturers claim to be able to defeat all known missiles.
Certainly better missiles need better countermeasures. It’s interesting that the proposed defenses for civilian airliners against terrorist MANPADS only goes up to the level of Stinger Basic, a technology now 20 years old.
Earlier missiles were intended to get close enough to have some chance of damaging an aircraft with shrapnel; modern warheads are contact fuzed, indicating that they are expected to actually hit the target. And hit in a specific place: the missile can discriminate between single-engine, multi-engine aircraft and helicopters and select the optimum point of vulnerability. The recent models are designed to send a dense pattern of high-speed fragments through the target for maximum damage, and the explosion may be enhanced by fuzing which detonates any unused fuel. Their destructive power is formidable.
This leads to last-ditch defenses like aim-point biasing, relatively cheap countermeasures (compared to the multi-million dollar laser jammers) to get the warhead to strike the less flight-critical parts of a helicopter and make the difference between a hit that results in a hard landing and one that destroys the helicopter completely.
Another way of dealing with the threat is to gets the MANPADS first. While Rules of Engagement are unlikely to be changed to alow helicopters to open fire at will, the AirCrcaft CounterMeasures (ACCM) laser provides one option. This is a laser dazzler fitted to helicopters to illuminate potential threats on the ground. The laser makes it much harder to target a helicopter, but more significantly the reaction of the person targeted gives a clue as to whether they are an insurgent getting ready to fire or an innocent civilian.
Another new approach, Ares notes, is DARPA’s Battlefield Helicopter Emulator, an expendable decoy drone which produces the same noise and heat signature as a real helicopter. It may seem like an expensive option — but losing helicopters is a far more costly prospect.
Helicopters operate at low speed and low altitude, making them especially vulnerable to MANPADS. Heavy armor is not an option except for attack choppers like the AH-64 Apache; transport, utility and scout craft carry much lighter protection. And in Afghanistan, even the Soviets’ armored Mil-24 Hind gunships proved vulnerable to Stinger MANPADS.
The situation in Iraq has its parallels with the conflict then. The main importance of new missiles would not be in shooting down helicopters, but on the morale of both sides. The Mujahideen took new heart that the previously invincible Devils Chariot could be defeated. Soviet helicopter crews found themselves facing an opponent who could shoot back, and were forced to adopt more evasive tactics which limited their effectiveness.
A similar decrease in effectiveness could happen in Baghdad.
“Based on what we have seen, we’re already making adjustments in our tactics and techniques and procedures as to how we employ our helicopters,” Maj. Gen. William Caldwell was reported as saying earlier.
Previously, US helicopter cover has prevented insurgents from operating from rooftops. If exposing helicopters becomes too risky, then that cover will be more limited. In this way, just a handful of MANPADS could have a significant impact on the ground battles. Which makes the timing of these latest helicopter losses — just before the surge of US troops arrives for a make-or-break operation in Baghdad – highly significant.
(My thanks to Jim O’Halloran, editor of the authoritative Janes Land Based Air Defence for providing an insider view on this topic.)
– David Hambling
|
Copters’ Missile Threat (and How to Stop it)Leave a Reply |
|
Your attention is respectfully requested to
http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/death-of-a-sea-knight...
Camp:
Every single one of Iraq’s neighbors, plus Israel, has their fingers in one or more of the major armed groups in Iraq to some extent.
Far more Americans are being killed by Saudi money financing Sunni insurgents than by Iranian support to Shi’a militias. In fact, it’s likely that Saudi money is *buying* Iranian weapons via cutouts in Syria or Lebanon, and then sending them to Iraq to use against the US and the same Shi’a that the Iranians are supporting. Iran will sell small arms to basically anyone, it keeps people working.
As far as trying to figure a way out of this that doesn’t strengthen Iran, give up, that happened basically the second the administration decided to invade. It’s like Cheney’s *working* for the freaking Iranians.
If i was some country like Iran (that’s probably using Irak as a sort of proxy war), i would flood the battlespace with cheap, man-portable weapons and equipment. Stuff like old landmines, batches of surplus explosives, old missile systems (like SA-7), spare AK’s and ammo, and all kinds of random crap that is reaching it’s shelf-life anyway.
Just dump it in Irak and let the insurgents see what to do with it. No need to train people or research new weapons, but simply massive amounts of old weaponary.
Since the war against US is for some ‘greater good’ it doesnt really matter that half of the (untrained) operators will get killed. It’s all about attrition: keep on attacking ‘random’ targets and the public will wear out (as is happening now).
On a side note: why isnt Irak flooded with cheap landmines? I mean, there should be thousands and thousands of those lying around in storage around the region. And in Irak all the secondary roads are basically dirt-tracks. So give every angry boy two landmines and a shovel, and it will be a total madhouse.
My gut feeling is Iran is behind these shoot-downs, along with the increased casualties in Iraq.
good enough evidence for me. bombs away! (and thanks to the house of saud for all their ‘help.’ heh-heh)
bunch of saudi tools. like dear leader, but smaller.
general pace calls BS!
Top American General Disputes US Military Claim on Iran
“The top American military officer, General Peter Pace, declined Monday to endorse the conclusions of U.S. military officers in Baghdad, who told reporters on Sunday that the Iranian government is providing high-powered roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq. ”
pace thing,voice of america:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007–02-12-voa20.cfm
Good Morning David,
You might check out over on Defense Update and there article on the Russian made SA-18 lgla MANPOD.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Y’all,
Regarding the Iranian connection here:
Just like America, Iran is composed of many competing interests. Bureaucracy creates its own constituencies, and there are several factions in Iran doing their own “diplomacy”.
For starters, there is the Qods Force, which is a paramilitary organization directly answering to the Ayatollah. The Bush presentation points to them for most of the assistance.
There is also the Revolutionary Guards, a parallel armed force to the Iranian Armed Forces.
And of course there is the foreign ministry.
Many Iranians do not want full chaos in Iraq, because it could very well spill over. Already, the Iranian Arabs on the border provinces are making noise about more autonomy. Iran is composed of many ethnicities just like Iraq, with the ethnic Persians only a plurality. A full-blown failed Iraq could very well unravel the Iranian empire before the empire gets off the ground.
benjoya,
.
’BS’? How do you get ‘BS’, from the following?:
.
“We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se [specifically], knows about this,” he said. “It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.“
.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007–02-12-voa20.cfm
.
The only thing he’s NOT SURE OF is IF the Iranian government is ‘complicit’, in the making of bombs in Iran. And he didn’t get the same briefing, so he couldn’t ‘repeat the assertion’.
.
Back to work…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohV6q5wE1hE
camp, isn’t the connection to the iranian government the most important link? otherwise how can we even pretend to justify the next war? and pace is chair of JCS — he hasn’t been briefed on this, given our position vis a vis iran? please, i was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.
lets face it they dont like us
Heya benjoya,
.
Truth be told. No, it’s not the most important link.
.
If actions are taken from within the borders of a nation that negatively impact it’s neighbors (such as bombings), and due diligence is NOT pursued to halt or negate the activity. Then one can reasonably assume that said actions have become the ‘de facto’ foreign policy of the nation itself, even if it is not the originator of the event in question.
.
An example might be. If crack house A shoots at crack house B. Then the occupants of crack house B have the God given right to defend their lives and return fire. Even though not all members of congress had full knowledge of the actions taken by the occupants crack house A… okay that last line was just silly.
.
Regarding the briefings… He’s human, not God. I sure as hell don’t know everything about my job, but I know more than others. Not to mention, maybe he’s just not aware of what exactly is or isn’t classified about the subject & doesn’t want to risk saying too much. Watching people trying to discuss classified, is like watching somebody else stepping in pooh… nobody wants to be the first, but everyone is waiting for somebody to do it.
.
Yar!! Hug a puppy…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uhi5x7V3WXE
.
I’m out…
“Then one can reasonably assume that said actions have become the ‘de facto’ foreign policy of the nation itself, even if it is not the originator of the event in question.“
so in anbar, where the vast majority of attacks against americans have occured, the saudi government should be held responsible for jihadis that cross their northern border into iraq, as well as the funding and weapons supplied, correct? don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
this iran thing is a diversion. bush wants to blame the iraq catastrophuck on someone without pissing off his sunni owners. pathetic the way this country is in thrall to monarchy.
benjoya,
Bud, you really have to look at the entirety of a concept/statement, and not just the bits & pieces you can use. I’m afraid people might get the notion, you’re a bit biased… and I don’t want to see that.
.
For example, I think you missed the first sentence in my response:
.
“If actions are taken from within the borders of a nation that negatively impact it’s neighbors (such as bombings), and due diligence is NOT pursued to halt or negate the activity.“
.
If you now take the above sentence into account with your example of Anbar. Then the Saudis COULD be taken to account IF “…due diligence is NOT pursued to halt or negate the activity”. This is where diplomacy & international relations begin to take place. And also keep in mind that nations always act with their own best interest in mind, first & foremost. While one may hope for a peaceful resolution to said crisis, do recall:
.
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.“
– Karl Von Clausewitz
.
Some may not agree with Clausewitz, but I find his perspective still relevant at times.
.
Actually, if you want to understand International relations, I suggest learning Child Psychology as well. It’s more applicable & Poli Sci peeps can take themselves way to serious.
.
Food for the mind…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Z5Sll7uow
“And also keep in mind that nations always act with their own best interest in mind, first & foremost“
except for iran, who can’t be contained with threats of counter attacks, cause they’re CRAYZEEEE, right?
and i might have a bias against saudi arabia, yes, for some reason i think saudis might not want the best for the united states. where did i ever get that idea? maybe because they’re a medieaval theocracy/autocracy. maybe cause they are helping the sunnis in iraq, who are responsible for the vast majority of american deaths. maybe cause we’re one by one eliminating their rivals for them, at our expense in blood and money.. or something else i can’t remember…
meanwhile, nk is giving up its nukes. and we didn’t even bomb them. otoh, kim is a uniquely rational actor, right? we certainly wouldn’t want to talk to iran, cause it would give them a PR victory. christ, talk about child psychology.
benjoya,
Your rationale is most interesting. Don’t forget that while “nations always act with their own best interest in mind, first & foremost”, they may also act in coordination & with cooperation to meet the same goals/objectives.
.
.
And while North Korea & Iran have similar threads, it does not mean they are of the same fabric.
.
Vacation Time…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=flVfMvM_W5g
i never claimed iran and nk have a common agenda. just that if we can talk to nk, how come we can’t talk to iran? the answer that “iran wants nothing in iraq other than to give us a black eye” is overlooking our common allies (hakim, maliki), and is a symptom of an all-too-common narcissism (“it’s all about us”).
>“War is the continuation of politics by other means.” — Karl Von Clausewitz
>
>Some may not agree with Clausewitz, but I find his perspective still relevant at times.
Camp, Clausewitz point was that a government should keep a tight reign on the military and keep the overall situation in mind.
Wars have a tendency to spin out of control with both sides going for total victory. Clausewitz argued that a government shouldn’t let patriotism influence policy but instead it should continuously evaluate if and how the war still served/could serve the policies and interests of the country.
Therefore the problem with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and half a dozen other countries as well as the factions in Iraq is that the US has to
(a) find a way to make a continued war in Iraq unattractive for those countries (bombing Iran and Syria could achieve that but it’s certainly not an option with the others)
and (b) has to keep them from going total war on us. i.e. good version: Iran supports the chaos in Iraq; you punish them with bombs; they see that it isn’t worth the trouble and back off. But just for a second imagine this was some other country using that logic on the US. Would the US back off? No. Even with all the violence in Iraq it’ll be half a decade at least before a US retreat, you can’t expect the Iranians to fold in less time. Especially as they’ll see it as an unjustified attack on their homes instead of a largely pointless police action based on false evidence half way around the world.
Iran has repeatedly made clear in the aftermath of 9/11 and the Afghanistan war that it would be ready to come to some kind of agreement with the US. But for some reason the US can’t look at Cuba and Iran rationally. The US has made deals with Kim Jong-Il (as crazy as they come) and the Uzbekistan guy (forgot his name, but he loves watching people being boiled to death). Despite the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, the Iranian leadership generally is quite sane.
Carrot and stick could be effective in influencing Iran although the US’s stick has become a lot less intimidating in the last 2 or 3 years so it would probably take a lot more carrots than it would have in early 2002.
let’s remember that iran was helpful to us in afghanistan. they somehow saw past the anti-americanism (that some would define as their raison d’etre) because they were enemies of the taliban. (actually, only three countries ever recognized the taliban as legit — pakistan, UAE, SA)
and bombing iran would cause them to back off in iraq? huh? bombing iran would solidify ahmadinejad’s support, which seems to be fraying of late.
when they made an offer to us in 2003 (under the last president), why did we dismiss it out of hand? i turn to that old commie eisenhower’s answer: the military-industrial-complex.
It is interesting how much Iraq 2007 is starting to look like Afghanistan in the early 80’s. We appeared to be wining now comes a new threat to our aircraft. Much like what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan.How or which country is responsible for the MANPADS, and more importantly which company shall ‘burst’ on the seen with new technology to defeat this new threat? hmm.
Am I to understand that the “RULES OF ENGAGEMENT” preclude firing unless your fired on? I remember that one well — translated, “if he kills you I’ll shoot back.” Definate CRACKPOT INCHAGE rule… If it looks threatening guys, take it out and sort out the bodies latter. It someone complains or thretens to report you for saving your life and his show him the door right then and there, I’m sure he’ll change his mind on the way down. You DO have a right to come home alive and this is like someone giving you an order to shoot yourself in the head — you are not required to fallow that command either.
EVER WONDER WHAT YOU WOULD DO if you heard the Emergancy Broadcast System
air on radio warning that a foreign nuclear missile was headed your way? You turn on the
television, and a special news bulletin is already advising the public to evacuate the city
and get “as far away as possible and as quickly as possibly if you still can”. In a hurry,
you gather your family, everyone gets into the car, leaving everything behind. You notice
your neighbors speeding away in their cars at speeds up to 85 mph in a 35 mph zone,
running down everyone and everything that gets in their way, and some of them ramming
past other cars in a mad rush to get ahead of one another. You didn’t take notice when
they began, but off from the direction of downtown you hear air raid sirens blareing
away. As you speed out of your driveway, one of your friends from down the street comes
speeding on his way to leave town in his SUV at 75 mph and rams your mid size car out of
his way. Your family is now injured and your car disabled, and your use to be friend
continues speeding on his way in his damaged SUV, trying to save his own family and self.
And no one else will stop to offer you any help. They just keep speeding by, and would run
you over as an obstacle in their way if you tried to waive somebody down. After a while, you
notice far off in the western sky, the appearance of something re-entering the earth’s
atmosphere. You and your family were left behind in what rocket scientists call the
“KILL-ZONE”. MOST LIKELY, THAT SCINARIO WILL NEVER HAPPEN. In the event of a
nuclear attack, your government will not panic it’s people who they cannot save anyway.
THERE WILL BE NO WARNING. Hence if you are not a spiritually born again christian, you
will not have warning that you better make that last minute repentence. The flash will hit.
You’re suddenly in Hell. You don’t know what happened. You just know it’s to late to accept
Christ as your saviour by then. Meanwhile the thurmosphere explosion is scortching away
the ground where your hometown was only seconds before. If you are a christian, your next
concious thought will be you in Heaven. The enimy who fired that missile will have done
themselves more harm than they’ll ever do to you. But if you are NOT a christian, that
enimy will do more harm to you than they’ll do to themselves. That is because as long as
they are still in this life, they still have a chance to accept God’s free gift of salvation
through the blood of Jesus…That is if their heart isn’t to hardened to do so. The nonbeliever
who dies in a nuclear strike (or of anything for that matter) has his chance of being saved
from Hell taken from him for ever. Think of what it would be like to spend eternity in Hell
with the dictator of a country who sent a nuclear strike against your people and killed you.
Here’s even a worse irony…After you died in a nuclear attack as a nonbeliever, The dictator
of the country who sent that nuclear strike, by some unlikely miracle, realizes where he
stands spiritually, his heart is not quite to hardened, and accepts Christ and becomes a
christian. On Judgement Day, you will watch that former dictator be welcomed into Heaven
while you are being bound up to be cast into the Lake of Fire. SOUNDS UNFAIR???
ACTUALLY, IT IS FAIR AND JUST. That lost soul in Hell has had every opportunity to turn
to Jesus Christ and have his or her sins forgiven as anyone else had. One’s own self
rightousness will not make it into Heaven. Someone depending on self will not make it into
Heaven either. Only the rightousness given by Jesus Christ can get you into Heaven. The
invitation is open to everybody. There is nothing unfair about it. The only thing that will make
the difference between Heaven and Hell is if you were a born again christian before you left
this life. If you go to Hell some day, you will remember every time someone spoke to you
about your spiritual condition…including your memory of this comment.