Al-Qaeda May Have Just Gained The Ultimate Feared Weapon - The Grail - Polidicks

So now a Middle-Eastern group can blow up an airliner? My God, it's like the plot of Alpha Protocol is unfolding before our eyes.

I thought the 'feared ultimate weapon' was a nuclear device.

[QUOTE=laserguided;41003503]And sarin isn't feared?[/QUOTE] what does mass effect have to do with this?

I'm not sure if a MANPAD can shoot down a airliner unless it's landing or taking off.

[QUOTE=ironman17;41000790]Judging by the title, I thought this was talking about Al-Qaeda finding an antique Middle Eastern drinking vessel when they attacked an archaeological dig, but plans for surface-to-air missiles intended to take down commercial airliners is far more shocking a discovery. My guess is that either don't fly over contested areas, or equip commercial airliners with some sort of missile defence system, like having an airlock for a trained security guard to safely stand in the doorway (with a harness) and shoot down the missile, with some sort of high calibre rifle that shoots some sort of anti-missile cartridge designed to penetrate the casing and blow up the missile's fuel tank or warhead midflight. It'd be damn expensive, though one would probably need to weigh the cost of extra fuel burned from flying around dangerous airspace against the cost of having a trained sniper flying on dangerous flights with the job of shooting down SAMs and outfitting a commercial aircraft to have airlocks to prevent de-pressurisation. Not to mention the guy would need to be a pretty good sniper to shoot down a missile, even with a gun that is capable of detonating a SAM prematurely.[/QUOTE] MANPADs move fast and are kind of small. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of shooting a bullet with another bullet, only the bullet you're trying to shoot curves in its flight trajectory as its target moves and shoots flame out of its back. You'd need like the modern equivalent of Robin Hood combined with the Avatar of Luck to have even a slight chance of pulling that off.

[QUOTE=ironman17;41000790]Judging by the title, I thought this was talking about Al-Qaeda finding an antique Middle Eastern drinking vessel when they attacked an archaeological dig, but plans for surface-to-air missiles intended to take down commercial airliners is far more shocking a discovery. My guess is that either don't fly over contested areas, or equip commercial airliners with some sort of missile defence system, like having an airlock for a trained security guard to safely stand in the doorway (with a harness) and shoot down the missile, with some sort of high calibre rifle that shoots some sort of anti-missile cartridge designed to penetrate the casing and blow up the missile's fuel tank or warhead midflight. It'd be damn expensive, though one would probably need to weigh the cost of extra fuel burned from flying around dangerous airspace against the cost of having a trained sniper flying on dangerous flights with the job of shooting down SAMs and outfitting a commercial aircraft to have airlocks to prevent de-pressurisation. Not to mention the guy would need to be a pretty good sniper to shoot down a missile, even with a gun that is capable of detonating a SAM prematurely.[/QUOTE][I]-sooo uh, what do you do for a living? -i'm a [B]goddamn A380 door gunner[/B][/I]

Strela-2's are not a threat at all. Everything is equipped with modern missile warning and defense systems that can easily defeat it, not to mention that the max range for the missile is roughly 4000 meters. There is no cause for concern here, we have been able to defeat strela-2's for decades.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;41003758]MANPADs move fast and are kind of small. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of shooting a bullet with another bullet, only the bullet you're trying to shoot curves in its flight trajectory as its target moves and shoots flame out of its back. You'd need like the modern equivalent of Robin Hood combined with the Avatar of Luck to have even a slight chance of pulling that off.[/QUOTE] I think that some sort of automatic CIWS would be more realistic - a low calibre chaingun on the belly of the plane with some advanced optics and trajectory processing computer. While it's probably technically feasible, it's nearly impossible due to economical and political concerns as well.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41004154]I think that some sort of automatic CIWS would be more realistic - a low calibre chaingun on the belly of the plane with some advanced optics and trajectory processing computer. While it's probably technically feasible, it's nearly impossible due to economical and political concerns as well.[/QUOTE] That's why we did the smart thing and outfitted everything that flies over there with flares that can easily defeat this missile.

[QUOTE=ironman17;41000790]Judging by the title, I thought this was talking about Al-Qaeda finding an antique Middle Eastern drinking vessel when they attacked an archaeological dig, but plans for surface-to-air missiles intended to take down commercial airliners is far more shocking a discovery. My guess is that either don't fly over contested areas, or equip commercial airliners with some sort of missile defence system, like having an airlock for a trained security guard to safely stand in the doorway (with a harness) and shoot down the missile, with some sort of high calibre rifle that shoots some sort of anti-missile cartridge designed to penetrate the casing and blow up the missile's fuel tank or warhead midflight. It'd be damn expensive, though one would probably need to weigh the cost of extra fuel burned from flying around dangerous airspace against the cost of having a trained sniper flying on dangerous flights with the job of shooting down SAMs and outfitting a commercial aircraft to have airlocks to prevent de-pressurisation. Not to mention the guy would need to be a pretty good sniper to shoot down a missile, even with a gun that is capable of detonating a SAM prematurely.[/QUOTE] The Strela 2 fires a missile that travels half a kilometer a second (1800 kph or 1118 mph) and is the size of an arm. Shooting it from a completely stationary platform would be approaching impossible. Successfully landing a shot from an aircraft would be ridiculously unlikely. Keeping in mind that the US has RADAR directed 20mm chainguns mounted on warships for engaging anti ship missiles. They fire 4500 rounds per minute. That is 75 rounds per second. They shoot at anti ship missiles, which are by necessity very large for air to surface missiles, and still do not have anything approaching 100% success. The US networks several of them firing at once via a defensive network in order to actually make them effective (AEGIS). So one guy shooting at a much smaller missile with a semi automatic rifle is going to really have no chance if a computer controlled chaingun has difficulty engaging much larger missiles from a much more stable platform. All that said, the Strela is for shooting down helicopters and prop aircraft. It can't engage targets above about 7 thousand feet. Really they aren't even very good at shooting down helicopters.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;41004169]That's why we did the smart thing and outfitted everything that flies over there with flares that can easily defeat this missile.[/QUOTE] Of course, I know that's a far more feasible solution for this particular case, I am just speaking "shooting the rocket down form the plane"

Strela's are low-altitude anti-air weapons made in the 60's. They are meant to shoot down aircraft flying low to avoid radar or making strafing runs

Syrian rebel groups have had ex-soviet bloc strela's, manpaad's for awhile too, they could have came from any shit hole at this point. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6DauuyVOJM[/media]

Everyone with just a bit of money bought decent weapons in the Summer-Sale that was Libya so I don't see why I should be more scared now.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;41002276]Those stingers would be rather old and probably not in good enough condition to be used; not to mention they were fairly ineffective in the 80s for the Afghans, they'll probably be utterly useless by today's standards.[/QUOTE]Wasn't there something about the batteries for them being basically dead now (some sort of fancy cooling system), if some terrorist group got ahold of the old Stinger batches sent to the Mujahideen? Pakistan makes their own copy, though. [QUOTE=asteroidrules;41000632]SA-7 Grail, also known as the Strela 2, hasn't Al Qaeda's Afghanistan branch had these things for a long time now?[/QUOTE]One would think so, it was made in the 60's after all. Plenty of time to acquire them. Won't do them much good against remotely modern military aircraft, though; and definitely not airliners at cruising altitude. It also really tests the limit of the "man-portable" part of MANPADS, so it's not like they can hide in a bush at Heathrow with it.

[QUOTE=ironman17;41000915]Eh, yeah flares would work too if the missile was simply a heat-seeker, though if it was the kind of missile that homed in on radio signals then flares wouldn't work out so well; communications blackout might work but that's also pretty dangerous. Then again, are there even missiles that home in on radio signals from enemy aircraft? If so, I dunno if Al-Qaeda has that kinda tech; hell they'd probably just have them be remote-controlled at best. I dunno, it's like 2am, not a time when my thinking is perfect.[/QUOTE] the Strela-2 is a hella old heatseeker I'd be more worried if they got iglas or stingers

[QUOTE=SKEEA;41004126]Strela-2's are not a threat at all. Everything is equipped with modern missile warning and defense systems that can easily defeat it, not to mention that the max range for the missile is roughly 4000 meters. There is no cause for concern here, we have been able to defeat strela-2's for decades.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the threat is against commercial airliners, which (unless they are el al planes) don't have any of those things. [editline]12th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;41006233]Wasn't there something about the batteries for them being basically dead now (some sort of fancy cooling system), if some terrorist group got ahold of the old Stinger batches sent to the Mujahideen? Pakistan makes their own copy, though.[/QUOTE] The "battery" is actually just a container of argon that gets shot at the seeker head to cool it down to make it able to track. I am not sure why but apparently the US are like 99% sure it wouldn't work now. Perhaps it slowly leaks over time or something.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;41004126]Strela-2's are not a threat at all. Everything is equipped with modern missile warning and defense systems that can easily defeat it, not to mention that the max range for the missile is roughly 4000 meters. There is no cause for concern here, we have been able to defeat strela-2's for decades.[/QUOTE] Do you have a source on everything is equipped with MAWS?

[QUOTE=laserguided;41007765]Do you have a source on everything is equipped with MAWS?[/QUOTE] I only have what I have seen, walking around flight lines at Bagram Air Field. They put a CMWS or equivalent system on pretty much everything, from the little puddle jumpers, to 747's. It's pretty funny to see all of this buzz about strela-2's coming from this article, they really haven't been using MANPADS at all because whatever they have can be easily defeated with countermeasures, are relatively difficult to obtain, and are much more expensive than other avenues of fighting that they employ.

HOW the fuck is this news. It's a fucking Sa 7. The Strela 2 had been around for 40 to 50 years. It's just a fucking MANPAD. [editline]12th June 2013[/editline] A candle dropped out the side of a Blackhawk could work as a counter measure for these pieces of shit.

MANPADS is the least threatening, most hilarious name ever

[QUOTE=SKEEA;41004126]Strela-2's are not a threat at all. Everything is equipped with modern missile warning and defense systems that can easily defeat it, not to mention that the max range for the missile is roughly 4000 meters. There is no cause for concern here, we have been able to defeat strela-2's for decades.[/QUOTE] Civilian airliners are generally not equipped with flares and missile defense systems, hence the supposed concern. Military fixed-wing aircraft have little or nothing to fear from them, and current US military helicopters are probably at risk only at close range with little to no warning.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41008361]Civilian airliners are generally not equipped with flares and missile defense systems, hence the supposed concern. Military fixed-wing aircraft have little or nothing to fear from them, and current US military helicopters are probably at risk only at close range with little to no warning.[/QUOTE] The civilian planes I saw at Bagram had warning systems at the very least. Also, about the helicopters, as soon as the missile is uncaged and starts tracking, the CMWS on the helicopter picks it up instantly so the pilot can take evasive maneuvers to lose the track, or if the missile is launched, to deploy flares. The heat signatures of current helicopters are hard for older missiles to track regardless. The last time any aircraft got any kind of missile warning was about two years ago, and no missile was fired. Aircraft are pretty safe over there.

Can't engage above roughly seven thousand feet. Commercial airliners are unlikely to drop below 10 thousand for anything other than landing and takeoff. During which they could be engaged by any number of objects. A simple 60mm mortar could fuck up an airliner on the runway.

I think the "ultimate feared weapon" is a nuclear bomb.

SA-7s really aren't that good. flares counter them, and they will have a hard time shooting anything down other than helicopters.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;41008553]The civilian planes I saw at Bagram had warning systems at the very least. Also, about the helicopters, as soon as the missile is uncaged and starts tracking, the CMWS on the helicopter picks it up instantly so the pilot can take evasive maneuvers to lose the track, or if the missile is launched, to deploy flares. The heat signatures of current helicopters are hard for older missiles to track regardless. The last time any aircraft got any kind of missile warning was about two years ago, and no missile was fired. Aircraft are pretty safe over there.[/QUOTE] OPSEC bro...

[QUOTE=ironman17;41000915]Eh, yeah flares would work too if the missile was simply a heat-seeker, though if it was the kind of missile that homed in on radio signals then flares wouldn't work out so well; communications blackout might work but that's also pretty dangerous. Then again, are there even missiles that home in on radio signals from enemy aircraft? If so, I dunno if Al-Qaeda has that kinda tech; hell they'd probably just have them be remote-controlled at best. I dunno, it's like 2am, not a time when my thinking is perfect.[/QUOTE] I don't think you get how radio frequency missiles work. Radio frequency missiles are radar-guided missiles - They lock onto an aircraft's radar signature. They can be spoofed by chaff - That's essentially a cloud of small radar-reflective filaments that appears as a large aircraft to the tracking missile. There is no such thing as a missile defense system comprised of a machine gun, especially not one that's manned by a human being :P

[QUOTE=Str4fe;41014001]I think the "ultimate feared weapon" is a nuclear bomb.[/QUOTE] Nukes are bad, but some of those fucking nasty biological weapons are the fuel of nightmares.

[QUOTE=Str4fe;41014001]I think the "ultimate feared weapon" is a nuclear bomb.[/QUOTE] Dirty bombs are much worse. With your standard nuke you can return to the area in which was bombed after a few weeks to a few months and just suffer a little bit of increased cancer rates. Dirty bombs though? Entire areas need to be scrubbed, and even then the area can be contaminated and locked for at most two decades. Not to mention if anything gets picked up in say something like a hurricane, your in for a very fun time regarding decontamination and aftershock casualties.