Commercial aviation under threat from man-portable air defense systems

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
A lot of shoulder-launched missiles and portable ground-to-air missile systems are now in the hands of extremists. If you think last week's downing of a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. The cost of even one shot-down passenger jet is estimated at as high as $16 billion (yes, BILLION) when you factor in the extended reduction in demand for air travel. Pretty scary stuff, as reported in the Washington Post.

Civil Commercial aviation under significant threat from man-launched missiles

In an unstable world, sophisticated weapons once only wielded by nation-states are increasingly falling into the hands of extremists, rebels, and other non-state actors. Just this week, Hamas has fired long-range missiles from Gaza into Israel cities, well-armed Islamic extremists in northern Iraq are pushing back the army, and a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was shot down over Ukraine. In fact, commercial airliners—long targeted by militants—may be the most vulnerable marks out there. As these arms proliferate, it’s fortunate that more of them haven’t been shot down.

U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that the Malaysian flight was bought down in an area of Eastern Ukraine controlled by pro-Russian separatists, quite possibly by a long-range, BUK surface-to-air missile battery. These self-propelled air defense platforms boast their own radars and have an operational range of roughly 72,000 feet. Journalists recently reported seeing a BUK battery in the rebel-controlled region of the crash.

Because the Malaysian airliner was flying at roughly 33,000 feet and in excess of 600 miles-an-hour, the Boeing 777 was well out of the range of the shoulder-fired, man-portable air defense systems that the Ukrainian rebels also wield. But Ukrainian officials have confirmed that one of their military jets was hit by a rebel-fired MANPAD, though the pilot was able to land the damaged plane. In two earlier attacks in the recent months, rebels downed two military helicopters with missiles, killing 23 soldiers including a Ukrainian general.

Stinger man-portable missiles may also threaten the U.S. Army crews of Apache helicopter gunships recently dispatched to Baghdad to secure the airport and defend the U.S. embassy. Intelligence reports say that the Islamic State organization, also known as ISIS, has likely captured U.S.-made Stingers. In seizing major cities such as Mosul and Tikrit, and overrunning four Iraqi army divisions, Islamic State fighters have reportedly taken control of two major weapons depots, where Stingers were likely stored along with other sophisticated U.S.-manufactured armaments.

American officials know how much havoc their missiles can wreak in the wrong hands. After the fall of Moammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011, his arsenals were looted of as many as 15,000 portable surface-to-air missiles, most of them Russian-made SA-7s. U.S. officials found the prospect so alarming that they mounted a $40 million “buy back” program for the missing Libyan MANPADS, much as the CIA had purchased back Stingers given to the Afghan mujahedeen in their fight against the Soviets during the 1980s. The Stingers ultimately destroyed more than 250 Soviet military aircraft in Afghanistan and turned the tide of the war, but as recently as 2005, the CIA was still trying to buy back Stingers missing from the conflict.

Despite the U.S. buy-back program, Gaddafi’s SA-7 MANPADS were later discovered by both Algerian and Egyptian authorities. In January, Islamist militants in the Sinai Peninsula shot down an Egyptian military helicopter with one of the missiles, killing five soldiers. Hamas also claims that it also possesses MANPADS.

The threat that these missiles pose to civil aviation is not hypothetical. In 2002, al-Qaeda-linked terrorists in Mombasa, Kenya targeted an Israeli charter flight with 261 people onboard, narrowly missing the aircraft with SA-7 missiles. That attack and the proliferation of the weapons prompted the Israelis to develop the “SkyShield” defense system for commercial airliners. It protects aircraft against shoulder-launched missiles, especially during takeoffs and landings, when the aircraft are vulnerable to short-range missiles. Earlier this year, Israeli officials said SkyShield was finally ready to deploy.

A report by the Arms Control Association estimates that 47 non-state groups worldwide now possess MANPADS, which have already been used in 50 attacks against civilian aircraft that have killed nearly 1,000 civilians. In 1994, a MANPADS attack downed an aircraft carrying the leaders of Rwanda and Burundi, sparking a genocide that killed more than 800,000 Rwandans. A 2005 report by the RAND Corporation estimated that the direct costs of a single successful missile attack on a commercial airliner could approach $1 billion, and ultimately climb higher to as much as $16 billion if it depressed demand among the flying public for an extended period.

“The proliferation of MANPADS has been a major concern for a long time, but as the custody of large stockpiles of these weapons comes into question the threat to civil aviation definitely increases,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “The Malaysian airliner suggests that along with the MANPADS threat we now have seen a much more sophisticated surface-to-air missile used to attack a civilian airliner, and that system is in the arsenal of both Russia and Ukraine,” he added. The one that hit the cruising-altitude Malaysia flight was a military grade weapon, but shoulder-mounted versions now controlled by militants around the world mean that any low-flying jet in the wrong airspace could add to the death toll.
 
May 11, 2008
19,644
1,199
126
I never understood suppling temporary "allies" with weapons that can create such havoc. Especially militant groups.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Derringers are responsible.


More seriously it's the first world's fault because we use extremists for our agendas and there is no possible recall of weapons. The only solution is to cut off the supply.
 
May 11, 2008
19,644
1,199
126
Derringers are responsible.


More seriously it's the first world's fault because we use extremists for our agendas and there is no possible recall of weapons. The only solution is to cut off the supply.

This. I agree with this fully. Letting extremists fight your battles and then expecting they won't push their extremist views on you is also very naive.
If i remember correclty, Hitlers NSDAP prior to WW2 had a special fighting group to do their physical bidding for their political views. Only later they killed that group off because they knew that that group would revolt against them in time.
 
Last edited:

Zstream

Diamond Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,396
277
136
Derringers are responsible.


More seriously it's the first world's fault because we use extremists for our agendas and there is no possible recall of weapons. The only solution is to cut off the supply.



Yep, the one issue is that there are countries who would supply any group, regardless of background I.e., Russia, China, Iran
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
This is really nothing new, shoulder fired missiles have been running amok a long time now, for awhile a lot of them were stingers like in afghanistan but I think a lot of those are out of date now even from the Soviet invasion days there.
 

jruchko

Member
May 5, 2010
184
0
76
This is really nothing new, shoulder fired missiles have been running amok a long time now, for awhile a lot of them were stingers like in afghanistan but I think a lot of those are out of date now even from the Soviet invasion days there.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "out of date" but most of the stingers in use were made back during Vietnam. The stingers we gave to fighters in the Middle East however were severely dumbed down from what we use in the US military. The dumbed down stingers would pretty much only be good against helicopters, and even then only if they are moving slowly or going in a straight line towards or away from the person firing the missile.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,446
7,508
136
In an unstable world, sophisticated weapons once only wielded by nation-states are increasingly falling into the hands of extremists, rebels, and other non-state actors.
You think a few rockets / missiles are bad, wait until nuclear proliferation comes back to bite us. Enough unstable countries with weapons, and eventually those weapons fall into the hands of extremists, rebels and non-state actors.

The only real security with MAD has been large, rationale actors with too much to lose. Ergo, the loss of a city to such a weapon is only a matter of time.


As for this aviation threat, I doubt they intended the provoke the world by shooting down a civilian aircraft. Unfortunately no one seemed to be paying attention to the WAR going on, and the repeated downing of Ukrainian military aircraft. This particular situation was easy to avoid by recognizing the threat to the airspace.

The proliferation of smaller AA weapons... well, I guess we've been lucky so far. US probably does it best to hunt people down who might be carrying them, seeing as civilian aircraft are sitting ducks.

Do you picture a world that's too dangerous to fly?
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,550
4
81
One US commercial airliner shot down by a MANPADS and I don't think the economy would recover for decades. It would put an end to air travel in the US. No vacation spots, shipping, etc.

Even if it's still safer than any other travel, there wouldn't be enough people willing to fly to keep the airlines in business.

And my concern would be one slipping through the border.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
OddsOfDying_zps43ad9694.png

I'm much more concerned about the TSA than I am about terrorists.

Unlike the TSA at Ft Lauderdale Airport, no terrorist ever touched my junk.

Unlike the TSA in Maui, no terrorist ever confiscated my sun tan lotion.

Odds of dying in a terrorist attack, 1 in 20 million. I can deal with that...

Just don't care to deal with the TSA and their Security Theater.

Uno
 
Last edited:

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
One US commercial airliner shot down by a MANPADS and I don't think the economy would recover for decades. It would put an end to air travel in the US. No vacation spots, shipping, etc.

Even if it's still safer than any other travel, there wouldn't be enough people willing to fly to keep the airlines in business.

And my concern would be one slipping through the border.

4 were lost in one day and air travel seems to be doing fine. Bad things happen but the desire to get out and travel is greater than the remote fear that something would happen.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,066
33,120
136
I don't know exactly what you mean by "out of date" but most of the stingers in use were made back during Vietnam. The stingers we gave to fighters in the Middle East however were severely dumbed down from what we use in the US military. The dumbed down stingers would pretty much only be good against helicopters, and even then only if they are moving slowly or going in a straight line towards or away from the person firing the missile.

Solid rocket motors have a limited shelf life, especially if not stored and handled carefully. Not to mention I bet it's hard to come by fresh Stinger batteries and coolant in BFE.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Unfortunately that entire stat sheet is a pile of horsesh1t. A 1 in 340 chance of dying by "Assault by firearm"?

Given that there are ~11,000 firearms homicides per year, and ~320,000,000 people in the US, it's many many many orders of magnitude lower than 1 in 340.

National "Saftey" Council = some dipsh1t in his bedroom who can't even use spell check, let alone work a calculator.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Unfortunately that entire stat sheet is a pile of horsesh1t. A 1 in 340 chance of dying by "Assault by firearm"?

Given that there are ~11,000 firearms homicides per year, and ~320,000,000 people in the US, it's many many many orders of magnitude lower than 1 in 340.

National "Saftey" Council = some dipsh1t in his bedroom who can't even use spell check, let alone work a calculator.

Not everyone in the US dies every year.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
Unfortunately that entire stat sheet is a pile of horsesh1t. A 1 in 340 chance of dying by "Assault by firearm"?

Given that there are ~11,000 firearms homicides per year, and ~320,000,000 people in the US, it's many many many orders of magnitude lower than 1 in 340.

National "Saftey" Council = some dipsh1t in his bedroom who can't even use spell check, let alone work a calculator.

Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.

You are welcome to worry about what you want.

Me, I'm not worried about dying in a terrorism event.

Uno
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Unfortunately that entire stat sheet is a pile of horsesh1t. A 1 in 340 chance of dying by "Assault by firearm"?

Given that there are ~11,000 firearms homicides per year, and ~320,000,000 people in the US, it's many many many orders of magnitude lower than 1 in 340.

National "Saftey" Council = some dipsh1t in his bedroom who can't even use spell check, let alone work a calculator.

First of all using your numbers it would be 2 orders of magnitude, not many many many.

Secondly in 2009 there was 2.4 million deaths in the US last year, 11,000/2.4 million would be 1 in 218, so they are counting less than 11,000 firearm homicides in 2009.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
I never understood suppling temporary "allies" with weapons that can create such havoc. Especially militant groups.
The idea is that the other party will be in office when something goes wrong, so the disaster can be used for political gain at a later time. For example, even the fed admits Greenspan destroyed the country, and his retarded monetary policy fueled the largest stock bubble in American history. The stock bubble popped under Bush's watch, so dems were able to blame the early 2000s severe recession on Bush even though it was really the fault of Greenspan. Not to be outdone, Bush obviously hates America more than Clinton, so his bubble will be even bigger and even more destructive! Him and Bernanke created the housing and stock market bubble. The plan would have worked if they could prevent the bubble from popping for just a few more months. Now Obama is doing the same thing. Work with the fed to create the largest bubble in history, encompassing every asset class imaginable, then try to time it so the economy implodes just after he leaves office.

This strategy seems largely effective. Sometimes the same party can use the blowback for political gain. Republicans are the ones who trained and funded the mujahadin, but republicans also took credit for wiping out the taliban, which are the same people. Bush's approval rating actually went up after 9/11, once again proving that creating a problem now and dealing with it later is an excellent political strategy.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
First of all using your numbers it would be 2 orders of magnitude, not many many many.

Secondly in 2009 there was 2.4 million deaths in the US last year, 11,000/2.4 million would be 1 in 218, so they are counting less than 11,000 firearm homicides in 2009.

Um, you're misreading that chart. Your calculation (11,000 / 2.4 million = 1 in 218) is the fraction total deaths attributable to firearms assaults. The chart is listing the [claimed] probabilities of dying in a given year due to particular causes.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
OddsOfDying_zps43ad9694.png

I'm much more concerned about the TSA than I am about terrorists.

Unlike the TSA at Ft Lauderdale Airport, no terrorist ever touched my junk.

Unlike the TSA in Maui, no terrorist ever confiscated my sun tan lotion.

Odds of dying in a terrorist attack, 1 in 20 million. I can deal with that...

Just don't care to deal with the TSA and their Security Theater.

Uno
The point of the story is that with advanced weapons increasingly in the hands of terrorists, it will become much easier for them to take down commercial airliners. Blow up 20 300-passenger American commercial airliners with ground-to-air missiles and the odds of being killed by terrorists in a given year increases from one in tens of millions to one in tens of thousands. Not to mention that the airline industry would be driven into bankruptcy.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
The point of the story is that with advanced weapons increasingly in the hands of terrorists, it will become much easier for them to take down commercial airliners. Blow up 20 300-passenger American commercial airliners with ground-to-air missiles and the odds of being killed by terrorists in a given year increases from one in tens of millions to one in tens of thousands. Not to mention that the airline industry would be driven into bankruptcy.
SHertrich_Risk_02.jpg

Risk Perception and Actual Hazards reveals the discrepancy between the scenarios that we fear and those that are seriously harmful to us. The chart is based on the risk formula by risk researcher Dr. Peter M. Sandman.
Terrorists are scary because they attack arbitrarily, and from nowhere. Commercial airplanes are perceived as riskier than automobiles, because the controls are in someone else’s hands -- even though they’re much safer per passenger mile. Similarly, people overestimate even more those risks that they can’t control but think they, or someone, should. People worry about airplane crashes not because we can’t stop them, but because we think as a society we should be capable of stopping them (even if that is not really the case).
Schneier is correct, of course, terrorist are scary.

But with odds of 20 million to one of dying in a terrorism incident, I'm not worried about that... Nor am I worried about hypothetical constructs that may, or may not, come into existence during some vague dystopian future.

If your opinion is different, I'm okay with that...

Uno
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Um, you're misreading that chart. Your calculation (11,000 / 2.4 million = 1 in 218) is the fraction total deaths attributable to firearms assaults. The chart is listing the [claimed] probabilities of dying in a given year due to particular causes.

No it's not, you are misreading the chart.

All the stats are based on Death_by_cause_in_year_X/total_deaths_in_year_X. They are aggregate chances of death by a given cause.

That's how all these stats are calculated, it's stupidly obvious. If you think all 300 million people have a 1 in 7 chance of dying from a heart attack or cancer every single year then you need a lesson in common sense.

Perhaps what further clarify this is a link to the full chart that shows the total probability for all causes is 1 in 1. Unless you want to argue with me that we all have a 100% chance of dying from something every single year. http://www.nsc.org/nsc_library/Documents/Odds of Dying From Graphic 2013 ed.pdf
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Um, you're misreading that chart. Your calculation (11,000 / 2.4 million = 1 in 218) is the fraction total deaths attributable to firearms assaults. The chart is listing the [claimed] probabilities of dying in a given year due to particular causes.

Even this exaggerates and skews the true odds. If you're an white or Asian suburbanite, your risk of death by firearm assault is probably 1/100,000 if not more. If you're a black male between ages 13-35 and live in the inner city your odds are likely 1/10.