Britain secretly buys Russian surface-to-air missiles ...

Britain has secretly bought dozens of sophisticated Russian surface-to-air missiles, some of which are believed to have fallen into terrorist hands, to develop counter measures against them.

There are significant fears that the weapon, which can be packed into a golf bag and assembled and fired very rapidly by one person with minimal training, will be targeted at civil and military aircraft. There are fears that insurgents in Iraq are armed with the missiles. Defence experts have spent the past year experimenting with the shoulder-launched missile in order to protect British aircraft and service personnel.

Britain used arms dealers experienced in the Russian market to approach a state-owned arms manufacturer to purchase the system. The missiles and launchers were imported into Britain in an estimated £2.8 million deal.

Ministry of Defence scientists and gunners from the Royal Artillery have test-fired them at UK bases. Britain is thought to be trying to buy another batch of missiles and the test results will be pooled with the Americans.

The SAM flies higher, farther and faster and homes in on images as well as heat, making it capable of taking out Cruise missiles in flight.

It is very rugged, able to survive being submerged in water for 30 minutes or dropped on to a concrete surface from six feet. It is the ideal weapon for terrorists, who "no doubt" have some in their armoury, according to defence sources.

Earlier versions of the SAM were responsible for destroying at least eight American and British aircraft in the 1991 Gulf war, an American F16 in Kosovo in 1999 and a Russian Mi-26 helicopter, killing 121 troops it was carrying in Chechnya in 2002.

Fear of flying could cripple the commercial aviation industry and paralyse the economy if an American airliner is destroyed by a shoulder-launched missile, the Rand Corporation, an independent think-tank, reported this year.

Full article >>

That's scary stuff .... but why has Britain decided to buy it ... to study ways to eascpe/evade the missiles fired from it ??

[edit on 13-12-2005 by Stealth Spy]

How is something deemed "secret" yet gets out all over the news?

Anyhow, the photo in the article is of a SA-7 Grail.
The US acquired them back in 2003, though the below lonked Washington Times article's mistakenly says otherwise:

In the 1980s, the CIA gave SA-7s to the mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

Surface-to-air missile retrieval

What the US/CIA gave the Mujahideen was the FIM-92a Stinger missiles.
Your premise, StealthSpy, may be correct, but if so, then why buy them, when they could have gotten them or information on them from the US?





seekerof

[edit on 13-12-2005 by Seekerof]

err seek methinks the grail is not what the brits bought... however in any case the CIA was known to pay for yellow rain rpg-7 rounds and other goodies during the afghani conflict... one would think the chechen Low Intensity Warfare deal and our own Iraqi conflagration would be ripe fodder for serious reverse engineering blow outs... it's only common sense.

stealthspy,

My only salient or semi nice comment is DUH ... why wouldn't they use any means necessary to acquire frontline russian milspec so as to be able to develop work arounds and definitive performance profiles? your attempts to make westerners seem inferior just further highlight your inabillity to understand the true basics of modern technological one upmanship...

Even with my admittedly scathing and derogatory opinion of my own ruling american regime I do realize that the only thing they are doing by acquiring by hook or crook frontline russian tech is deciding what to finally declassify enough to actually put on front line systems. if you don't then more power to us may you reap what your ignorance and short sighteded xenophobia sew

If they got a 9K38 (not the export 1E/A), then its worth testing. Models 9K36 and lower are not a big deal, just old news from the 70s. Still effective as hell though.

Here's a video a few years old of some Chechan mujaheddin using a Russian SAM-16 Igla MANPADS.

RUSSIAN HELICOPTER SHOOTDOWN - CHECHNYA

OOPS - This is the ATS thread I meant to link to :

Chechan rebels shoot down MIL-24 with SAM 7/14 - Video

Although eh heading says SAM-7/14 I'm pretty sure it's a SAM-16

SA-16 GIMLET (Igla-1 9K310) man-portable surface-to-air missile system, a further development from the SA-7 & SA-14 series, is an improved version of the SA-18 GROUSE, which was introduced in 1983, three years before the SA-16....
....The 9M313 missile of the SA-16 employs an IR guidance system using proportional convergence logic, and an improved two-color seeker, presumably IR and UV). The seeker is sensitive enough to home in on airframe radiation, and the two-color sensitivity is designed to minimize vulnerability to flares. The SA-16 has a maximum range of 5000 meters and a maximum altitude of 3500 meters.

www.fas.org...




[edit on 15-12-2005 by mad scientist]

Originally posted by Sugarlump
your attempts to make westerners seem inferior just further highlight your inabillity to understand the true basics of modern technological one upmanship...

Your allegatiosn are conjured up from thin air

Never has i made any attempt to imply that westerners are inferior as you so wrongly claim.

Your attempts to throw false allegations, only highlight your inability to comprehend anything

The article says one of these missles was used to down a helicopter and killing over a hundred troops inside.

Is that correct? I've never heard of a helicopter being able to carry that many people.

Just out of curiousity...

anybody ever think that they leaked that purposly?

Originally posted by Sugarlump
err seek methinks the grail is not what the brits bought... however in any case the CIA was known to pay for yellow rain rpg-7 rounds and other goodies during the afghani conflict... one would think the chechen Low Intensity Warfare deal and our own Iraqi conflagration would be ripe fodder for serious reverse engineering blow outs... it's only common sense.

stealthspy,

My only salient or semi nice comment is DUH ... why wouldn't they use any means necessary to acquire frontline russian milspec so as to be able to develop work arounds and definitive performance profiles? your attempts to make westerners seem inferior just further highlight your inabillity to understand the true basics of modern technological one upmanship...

Even with my admittedly scathing and derogatory opinion of my own ruling american regime I do realize that the only thing they are doing by acquiring by hook or crook frontline russian tech is deciding what to finally declassify enough to actually put on front line systems. if you don't then more power to us may you reap what your ignorance and short sighteded xenophobia sew

What the hec was that all about?
SS represents a point of view on ATS.If you want ATS to bring in points of view from the ALL around the world, then you treat all your grievances in proper context, and not in some intangible manner on an irrelevant thread. Other wise you condemn ATS to be the western equivalent of one of those radical closed culture oreinted fora.
I don't agree with SS on most issues but I respect his point of view, and by spending time on ATS I've come to do the same with many other members whom I don't see eye to eye with.
And just maybe, just maybe, the british are trying to improve on their their own hand held SAMs (though the driving force behind this purchase is pretty evident.)

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability
The article says one of these missles was used to down a helicopter and killing over a hundred troops inside.

Is that correct? I've never heard of a helicopter being able to carry that many people.

Just out of curiousity...

No. No helicopter can carry 100 people. The largest US helicopter is Sea Stallion with over 50 soldiers. Russians have bigger Mi-26, but it cannot carry 100 people too.

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability
The article says one of these missles was used to down a helicopter and killing over a hundred troops inside.
Is that correct? I've never heard of a helicopter being able to carry that many people.

There is footage of it here, the Mil-26 carries up to 20 tonnes of payload.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm more suprised the MOD splashed out and spent money on both the phone calls to orginise this and the actual cost to buy them, mabye next time we can buy some desert combat jackets instead?

Originally posted by mad scientist
There is footage of it here, the Mil-26 carries up to 20 tonnes of payload.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, but 20 tonnes is different then squeezing 100 troops inside.

And the link to the video in that thread doesnt work unfortunatly.

Originally posted by longbow
No. No helicopter can carry 100 people. The largest US helicopter is Sea Stallion with over 50 soldiers. Russians have bigger Mi-26, but it cannot carry 100 people too.

There are 40 fold-down seats along the cargo bay, and 60 more seats can be fitted in the center aisle of the cargo bay.

www.vectorsite.net...

This states 100 already in a sitting position. So It is already possible

But knowing the russians 100 troops is not their limit. The actual heicopter had 140 troops insdie with 115 being killed. I think the numbers actually stated are for longer missions while i think in that situation they were ferrying troops from one base to another on a short trip.

Article frm pravada

The number of lives lost in the August 19th helicopter crash in Chechnya has reached 115 as yet another crash survivor died at the hospital of the North Caucasian Military District. The helicopter, a Mi-26 troop-carrier, had been heading for the Russian military base in Khankala with 140 servicemen on board.

Pravada

Notice this is not the rumoured number its the offical number

Mi-26: Russia's airborne 'cow'

Brittain buys it because they want to know how to defeat them. Every millitairy who wants to do something does the same. Im sure Russia also bought its fair share of stingers and blowpipes.

The US Navy bought R-77 missiles to use outside US territory (due to laws in the constitution not allowing use of foreign made weapons on US soil). This was done in order to help deal with long range targets between the cancellation of the AIM-54 and the introduction of the AMRAAM-D. The R-77's long range when compared to any current US missile was cited as the reason for the purchase.

Originally posted by Senor Freebie
The US Navy bought R-77 missiles to use outside US territory (due to laws in the constitution not allowing use of foreign made weapons on US soil). This was done in order to help deal with long range targets between the cancellation of the AIM-54 and the introduction of the AMRAAM-D. The R-77's long range when compared to any current US missile was cited as the reason for the purchase.

1. Hmm for a start the US navy operates in the ocean not the mainland.
2. Where does it say in the constitution does it say that.
3. The R-77 wouldn't be very compatible with US fighter radar.
4. I have never heard of the Russian's selling the R-77 to the US and especially not in numbers to arm navy aircraft. It would have been Russia's largest sale of a2a missiles.

So in conclusion it's a load of BS.

Do your research before you come to that conclusion. Not only does the sale make sense but the article I read on it included official statements from Vympel and the US Navy.

If you still think its BS ask yourself this; how does the US Navy plan on maintaining fleet defence when its maximum missile range on aircraft went from 185km to 48km with the retirement of the AIM-54 pheonix and if this is an acceptable hole in their defence umbrella why are they developing the AMRAAM-D with a range in excess of 100km solely for use by F/A-18's?

Originally posted by Senor Freebie
Do your research before you come to that conclusion. Not only does the sale make sense but the article I read on it included official statements from Vympel and the US Navy.

You did, did you. Care to post a link, because I can find nothing to support your claim

If you still think its BS ask yourself this; how does the US Navy plan on maintaining fleet defence when its maximum missile range on aircraft went from 185km to 48km with the retirement of the AIM-54 pheonix and if this is an acceptable hole in their defence umbrella why are they developing the AMRAAM-D with a range in excess of 100km solely for use by F/A-18's?

You said they are going to use the R-77 ( AA-12 Adder ), that isn't an AMRAAM-D is it now. Besides the R-77 isn't even compatible with teh Tomcat radar.

Hey provide a link to prove me wrong if you can.

They are dumping the Tomcat that is why it isnt compatible. Stupid idiots. I wouldnt abandon the Tomcat at all. Its the best aircraft for fast interceptions with a heavy combat load after the Mig31.