It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military investigators: British C-130 hit by new variant of SA-18 missile

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
The RAF Hercules transport plane that crashed in Iraq killing Australian Paul Pardoel was hit by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile that insurgents obtained from Iran



Military accident investigators believe the Special Forces plane was hit when at least six heatseeking SA-18 missiles were fired at it.

The multiple firing of the one metre long missiles that travel twice the speed of sound would have confused the plane's defences.

Britain's Ministry of Defence last night was unwilling to talk about what caused the deaths of nine RAF men and a specialist army signaller when the Hercules was shot down on Sunday last week near the town of Taki, 30km northwest of Baghdad.

But first indications from investigators suggest that a new variant of the Russian-made SA-18, a shoulder-launched missile with a range of 6km, was used.




source:
herald.sun




posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Is this evidence that Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq to try to destabilize the fledgling democracy forming there? I think it's likely and more reason that Iran needs to be dealt with swiftly.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
who really knows how these missiles got in the hands of iraqi guerrilas.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
There is no other news on any other sites.

How reputable is the Australian Herald?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Of course, there is currently no proof that this is the case, just speculation about what might have been used to bring it down.
It helps to try and point the finger of guilt at Iran at a time when the US is ramping up rhetoric against them



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
What makes that launcher/missle any different than the standard? It looks like the same old grouse to me. Sa-18 is an upgrade from sa-7 and sa-14, is that what you/they mean?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
What makes that launcher/missle any different than the standard? It looks like the same old grouse to me. Sa-18 is an upgrade from sa-7 and sa-14, is that what you/they mean?

yes.
the newest upgrade in this missile class.
probably the best russian shoulder fired missile.
and if you fire six of them, at an unprotected aircraft...



The new seeker offers better protection against electro-optical jammers; the probability of kill against an unprotected fighter is estimated at 30-48%, and the use of IRCM jammers only degrades this to 24-30%.

source:
fas.org



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Isn't six SAMs a touch of overkill? From a tactical point of view how much sense would it make to the insurgents to keep that many missiles together in one place, or even distrubted over a radius of 6km?


The multiple firing of the one metre long missiles that travel twice the speed of sound would have confused the plane's defences.

From the FAS description this is a passive IR missile, IE there would be little or no indication in the cockpit that a launch was about to or had occured.


The new seeker offers better protection against electro-optical jammers; the probability of kill against an unprotected fighter is estimated at 30-48%, and the use of IRCM jammers only degrades this to 24-30%.

AFAIK the RAF C130s rely on chaff/flare Anti-missile systems, so assuming that changes the kill probability to around 50-60% to allow for the different type of aircraft that would seem to suggest that around 10-12 SAMS were actually fired for 6 to hit the target.

Does anybody know the altitude that the C130 supposed to be flying at?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Is this evidence that Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq to try to destabilize the fledgling democracy forming there? I think it's likely and more reason that Iran needs to be dealt with swiftly.


First, even if the arms came from Iran, it could be from a private source that is trafficking in weapons.

Second, Iran is quite happy with what you call "fledgling democracy" in Iraq. Which is in fact becoming Ayatollah-based Islamic republic, after the election dominated by the Shiites. Al-Sistani, the top Shiite cleric in Iraq with an enormous influence, is in fact Iranian.

The US is busy manufacturing Iran Version 2.0 in Iraq, and that's a dangerous development. Thank Bush for that.


[edit on 8-2-2005 by Aelita]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Megahurts
Isn't six SAMs a touch of overkill? From a tactical point of view how much sense would it make to the insurgents to keep that many missiles together in one place, or even distrubted over a radius of 6km?

i dont understand you.
what tactical point?
you send 10 people with a missile launcher to ambush an airplane,
that just took off from airport and is gaining altitude.
you dont have to keep them in one place,
but you need to spread them around,
so missiles get fired from diffrent directions,
at one target.


Originally posted by Megahurts
From the FAS description this is a passive IR missile, IE there would be little or no indication in the cockpit that a launch was about to or had occured.

AFAIK the RAF C130s rely on chaff/flare Anti-missile systems, so assuming that changes the kill probability to around 50-60% to allow for the different type of aircraft that would seem to suggest that around 10-12 SAMS were actually fired for 6 to hit the target.

Does anybody know the altitude that the C130 supposed to be flying at?

even if only 6 missiles were fired,
i think that the big and heavy c130 couldnt evade them all,
even if they fired flares and chaffs to escape the impact.

the plane was shot down 30km northwest of baghdad,
and if it was fully loaded with 155,000 pounds (69,750 kilograms) of cargo,
it would fly slowly, since it also just took of the airport;
about 200-250 mp/h (top speed 374 mph at 20,000 feet (6,060 meters)).
so how high would c130 be, after 10-15 minute of flight after take off?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I think all military aircraft, and even civilian flights taking off from Iraq follow a pattern (the same is used for landing). They fly a fast, tight corkscrew. It's a little nerve wracking, but it's very effective at stopping these kinds of attacks and evading small arms fire. I would assume this C-130 would do the same if it were capable, but of that I'm not sure. The maneuver requires a hard, persistent turn at speed and in a plane that loaded down, could be deadly. I think the wing joints and flaps on the Hercules can handle it, but I'm no expert.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
At this point in time we don't know what the load was, what height it was flying at and what hit it. All we have is speculation and theories.
Hell, maybe it flew into a huge flock of insurgent suicide Pigeons laden with little explosive packages taped to their legs.

Surely the only way of saying exactly what missile hit it, if any missile indeed did bring it down, would be to have the launchers in hand for identification.
I would also have though that in the event of any attack there would still have been time for a crewman to get a message out over the radio. If this didn't happen then it points to some catastrophic event in the air that prevented radio contact, perhaps an explosion on board the aircraft.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Britguy
Finding the launch tube doesn't necessarily prove anything. It could have been discarded before or after the attack, it could be unrelated or planted. The only way to know for sure what happened would have been to be there and witness it with your own eyes. Even they can't be trusted sometimes..



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
who really knows how these missiles got in the hands of iraqi guerrilas.


open weapons dumps could be the answer
tons of unacounted weapons that were dumped by the former Iraqi forces and so on


dh

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Is this evidence that Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq to try to destabilize the fledgling democracy forming there? I think it's likely and more reason that Iran needs to be dealt with swiftly.


Of course, if this was found to be the case, it would be another good reason for attacking Iran
In which case it would be reasonable to surmise a case of Special Forces firing missiles at a British airplane in order to bolster support for the wanted attack



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
open weapons dumps could be the answer
tons of unacounted weapons that were dumped by the former Iraqi forces and so on

exactly!
you can get your hands on any kind of russian missiles,
from rpg's to shoulder fired sam's,
without any problems.
easy to operate and fast to "relaod".


nice avatar by the way.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacemunkey
There is no other news on any other sites.

How reputable is the Australian Herald?


Here´s another source:
Times Online: Special forces downed by rocket ambush



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Is this evidence that Iran is supporting the insurgency in Iraq to try to destabilize the fledgling democracy forming there? I think it's likely and more reason that Iran needs to be dealt with swiftly.

Not Iran, djohnsto77. Check this out. Article from New York Times today:


New York Times: Iraqi Rebels Refine Bomb Skills, Pushing Toll of G.I.'s Higher (page two)

June 22, 2005


A Pentagon official involved in combating the devices said shaped charges seen so far appeared crude but required considerable expertise, suggesting insurgents were able to draw on well-trained bomb-makers, possibly even rocket scientists from the former government. Shaped charges and rocket engines are similar, the official said.

Click the link to read the full article (from page one)...



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
It was always thought that some kind of explosive brought this plane down. The original theory was that an Iraqi worker on the base slipped something on the plane.

Something else to remember is that the C-130s flying out there are older than the crews in many cases, so metal fatigue also plays a large part in theories about the crash. In fact not long after this one went down, the entire USAF C-130 fleet was grounded for several days due to fatigue cracks found in a wing spar.

As far as the first few missiles deflecting the planes defenses, it doesn't work that way. The USAF MC-130 is a good example. It uses ECM which puts out a blanket jamming field that would affect anything coming into range that uses radar. For heat seeking missiles, they drop magnesium flares, which again, would attract anything entering detection range of the flare. There aren't any defenses out there on a C-130 that could be "distracted" as is suggested in the article.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   
That SA-18 is cool, I hope the insurgents get more of them and bring down more coalition aircraft; the USA has no right to be oppresing that country; the more losses they take, the sooner they will be forced to leave and allow Iraq to have independence.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join