• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can stinger missiles be fired at ground targets?

W

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Does anyone know: if a stinger missile got an infrared lock on a target on the ground, could it be fired at it, or does it have a minimum altitude requirement?

Debate with a friend.

 
I would assume that it would have some sort of level meter which reduces the risk of self killing.

Although I am not an expert on surface to air missles. 😉
 
It doesn't have a minimum altitude requirement AFAIK but it does need to get rid of the launch motor before it hits flight stage = need some distance between you and the target.
 
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
It doesn't have a minimum altitude requirement AFAIK but it does need to get rid of the launch motor before it hits flight stage = need some distance between you and the target.
Click to expand...

yeah, it might be dangerous, as the initial thrust may not be powerful enough to keep it off the ground....
 
Originally posted by: Newbian
So what are you looking at to blow up?
Click to expand...

Nothing. A friend was saying how they should just fire stinger missiles at the Somalian pirates. I mentioned that stinger missiles are surface to air. He said they'd still work. I thought they'd have an altitude requirement (the same way torpedoes don't arm until they're far enough away from a sub)... and here we are.

It's not even that the stinger missile isn't the right weapon they'd use, now it's just: would it actually work?
 
The missile itself weighs 10.1 kg, while the missile with launcher weighs approximately 15.2 kg (33.5 pounds). The Stinger is launched by a small ejection motor that pushes it a safe distance from the operator before engaging the main solid-fuel two-stage motor which accelerates it to a maximum speed of Mach 2.2 (750 m/s).
Click to expand...

i think if you try to use this surface-to-surface, the gravity will make the missile blow up in front of you.

a real surface-to-surface missle usually have specific fins and/or wings for lift and stability, so you want an RPG-7 or LAW rockets.
 
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: Newbian
So what are you looking at to blow up?
Click to expand...

Nothing. A friend was saying how they should just fire stinger missiles at the Somalian pirates. I mentioned that stinger missiles are surface to air. He said they'd still work. I thought they'd have an altitude requirement (the same way torpedoes don't arm until they're far enough away from a sub)... and here we are.

It's not even that the stinger missile isn't the right weapon they'd use, now it's just: would it actually work?
Click to expand...

It would work but, is overkill. Why they don't send the seals is anyone's guess. As far as missiles go, a laws missile would do the trick and be a whole lot cheaper.
 
Early ones were thrown off by the heat/light reflecting off the ground. Plus like said earlier, it's not stabilized for that.
 
What really needs to be done is re-write the Geneva conventions so cruise ships and merchantmen are permitted to be armed so when they meet these pieces of shit, they kill them, none of this fun n games shit, none of this "weee spray you down with a water cannon," no.

A nice 7.62mm round to the face from an M14 battle rifle.
 
Originally posted by: TehMac
What really needs to be done is re-write the Geneva conventions so cruise ships and merchantmen are permitted to be armed so when they meet these pieces of shit, they kill them, none of this fun n games shit, none of this "weee spray you down with a water cannon," no.

A nice 7.62mm round to the face from an M14 battle rifle.
Click to expand...

While it's a nice thought, do you realize how expensive it would be to arm every merchant ship out there? The current losses from piracy would be a drop in the bucket compared to that, which, incidentally, is exactly why we're in the position that we're currently in.
 
Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: Newbian
So what are you looking at to blow up?
Click to expand...

Nothing. A friend was saying how they should just fire stinger missiles at the Somalian pirates. I mentioned that stinger missiles are surface to air. He said they'd still work. I thought they'd have an altitude requirement (the same way torpedoes don't arm until they're far enough away from a sub)... and here we are.

It's not even that the stinger missile isn't the right weapon they'd use, now it's just: would it actually work?
Click to expand...

It would work but, is overkill. Why they don't send the seals is anyone's guess. As far as missiles go, a laws missile would do the trick and be a whole lot cheaper.
Click to expand...

I would say send in the SEALS, then a pack of Ninjas for back up. you know, in case the SEALS fail. Of course, the problem would be that the SEALS and the ninjas would invariably end up fighting each other once everyone else is wiped out, and we'd have a real calamity on hour hands.

A pretty damn kick-ass calamity, though.
 
I would guess it should be able to hit low flying helicopters a few feet of the ground, or the ground, or any object that it can lock onto the heat source.
 
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Originally posted by: TehMac
What really needs to be done is re-write the Geneva conventions so cruise ships and merchantmen are permitted to be armed so when they meet these pieces of shit, they kill them, none of this fun n games shit, none of this "weee spray you down with a water cannon," no.

A nice 7.62mm round to the face from an M14 battle rifle.
Click to expand...

While it's a nice thought, do you realize how expensive it would be to arm every merchant ship out there? The current losses from piracy would be a drop in the bucket compared to that, which, incidentally, is exactly why we're in the position that we're currently in.
Click to expand...

err doubt it would cost that much to train one member to man a remote deck gun or some such weapon during their vulnerable period going past pirate areas. not all ships would need it either, just ones going past the area
 
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
While it's a nice thought, do you realize how expensive it would be to arm every merchant ship out there? The current losses from piracy would be a drop in the bucket compared to that, which, incidentally, is exactly why we're in the position that we're currently in.
Click to expand...


From what I understand, M14s are relatively cheap, I imagine they would be in a whole batch, and its a lot better than just arming the captain with a shotgun.

Plus, the merchantmen wouldn't need the government to do it, just have the government fuck off for once (Oh no, the government is here to save us!!!!) and let the private sector hire some body guards with some M14s or w/e else the company deems useful for fending off the attack.

If cruise ships could arm themselves, they would, especially going past that area where those shit heads live.
 
Originally posted by: TehMac
From what I understand, M14s are relatively cheap, I imagine they would be in a whole batch, and its a lot better than just arming the captain with a shotgun.

Plus, the merchantmen wouldn't need the government to do it, just have the government fuck off for once (Oh no, the government is here to save us!!!!) and let the private sector hire some body guards with some M14s or w/e else the company deems useful for fending off the attack.

If cruise ships could arm themselves, they would, especially going past that area where those shit heads live.
Click to expand...

Wow, random anti-government rant there, Tehmac. It's really International Maritime Law that prevents them from carrying weapons. I think the idea is that no one wants armed foreigners docking at their ports, just as we wouldn't like it if a Syrian tanker had guys with machine guns docking at the Port of Long Beach or Baltimore or New Jersey.

One could argue that overall, it's better to protect against international incidents. Imagine some over-zealous contractors (like some of the ones Blackwater had in Iraq) get itchy trigger fingers in the Sea of China, shoot up a Chinese Navy vessel and the next thing you know we're in World War III with China.


Anyway... it still seems like there's no consensus on the Stinger (as idiotic an idea as it is). Some think it's too heavy, some think as long as it could get a lock it would work.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top