Libya: 20,000 Heat-Seeking Missiles Reportedly Missing

[BrooklynRedLeg]

20,000 Heat-Seeking Missiles Reportedly Feared Missing From Libyan Warehouse
Published September 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com

A recent secret White House meeting revealed that an estimated 20,000 portable, heat-seeking missiles appear to have vanished from an Army warehouse in Libya, ABCNews.com reported.

The new revelations stoke ongoing fears that such weapons, which are light, relatively easy to use and have the capacity to take down a commercial airplane, could end up in the wrong hands as the Libyan war that ousted Muammar Qaddafi winds down.

“Matching up a terrorist with a shoulder-fired missile, that's our worst nightmare,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told ABCNews.com.

Earlier this month, a senior U.S. official told the Associated Press that weapon proliferation was the “key concern” for the U.S. as Libya emerges from six months of civil war. To be sure, Libya has been struggling to secure many weapon caches.

The U.S. has individuals working with Libya’s new rulers to help stanch the possible proliferation of a wide range of weaponry. Jeffery Feltman warned reporters of the potential proliferation of shoulder-fired missiles and mustard gas.

"This is certainly an issue we are concerned with, the Libyan officials are concerned with, because it poses potential risks not only to Libyans, but to the region as a whole," said Feltman earlier this month.

Last week, the U.N. chief weapons watchdog said Libya's remaining chemical weapon stockpiles are believed to be secure.

Meanwhile, Libya's transitional government delivered 20 million dinars ($16 million) Tuesday to Sabha, a remote southern city beset by fighters loyal to Qaddafi, hoping to bolster support for revolutionary forces. On the other side, Qaddafi's son was seen in a video for the first time since Tripoli fell, trying to rally the remnants of his father's regime.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/27 ... z1ZFGuS7ou

Well, this certainly does not bode well if its true, though it does not specifically state if they are shoulder-fired weapons. As it stands, I cannot imagine I'm that surprised given how much of a clusterfuck the Libyan campaign turned into (which was predictable).

[weemadando]

The fact that they state "portable" would imply MANPADS.

NYT says that they're mostly SA-7s.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

The fact that they state "portable" would imply MANPADS.

So, outdated (60s technology?) but still dangerous as hell.

[Zaune]

The fact that they state "portable" would imply MANPADS.

So, outdated (60s technology?) but still dangerous as hell.

Outdated 60s technology that's probably passed through several previous owners before reaching the Libyan army, who I very much doubt have stuck very strictly to best practice for their storage and upkeep maintenance; the batteries have likely had even if everything else is intact. I wouldn't get too worried just yet if I were you.

[K. A. Pital]

Considering islamists and Al-Quaeda militants are among the rebels and roam across the country unchecked and free, I can't say I'm surprised some people are taking a shit.

And man, Khamis Gaddafi's still kicking. There's been like six reports of this "death", all of which turned out to be rather premature.

[Julhelm]

The fact that they state "portable" would imply MANPADS.

So, outdated (60s technology?) but still dangerous as hell.

Outdated 60s technology that's probably passed through several previous owners before reaching the Libyan army, who I very much doubt have stuck very strictly to best practice for their storage and upkeep maintenance; the batteries have likely had even if everything else is intact. I wouldn't get too worried just yet if I were you.

Outdated against military aircraft. Dangerous as hell against commercial aircraft. Early heat seekers are quite simple weapons and can be easily maintained and repaired by anyone with decent equipment to fabricate the required parts. I'd be very worried.

[Crateria]

Didn't the CIA try to buy back much of the Stingers they had given to the Mujahideen in the 1990s? I wonder if they'll try again in Libya, they'll have any success. (I suspect not, due to lack of connections with the rebels, possible turmoil and other factors)

[Sea Skimmer]

Outdated 60s technology that's probably passed through several previous owners before reaching the Libyan army, who I very much doubt have stuck very strictly to best practice for their storage and upkeep maintenance; the batteries have likely had even if everything else is intact. I wouldn't get too worried just yet if I were you.

Please buy a clue, or just use Google; Libya has Igla-S which is the most modern MANPADS in the world right now as well as thousands of Strela-3 which is a 1970s weapon, but capable of all aspect attacks.Sure, some of the weapons they have are old, obsolete and may not work, but the desert is kind of ideal for storing weapons, no water you know, and we certainly know some of the damn things work because the rebels shot down aircraft with them in the war.

Didn't the CIA try to buy back much of the Stingers they had given to the Mujahideen in the 1990s? I wonder if they'll try again in Libya, they'll have any success. (I suspect not, due to lack of connections with the rebels, possible turmoil and other factors)

The CIA did, but the number of missiles left after the war was fairly low.

[ComradeClaus]

A manpad is also a very severe threat to helicopters. An airliner can survive a manpad hit, a heli far less likely.

btw, how the Hell did libya get so many? How many manpads have been produced anyway? millions?

[Starglider]

If a MANPADS hits an engine on an airliner, does it just destroy the engine, render the aircraft uncontrollable due to flap/alieron damage, or cause the wing to disintigrate completely? Presumably this depends on the size of the airliner; also I read that the SA-7 has an underpowered warhead, but I don't know if this is fixed in older versions?

[Sea Skimmer]

First of all, while MANPADS are almost all IR guided, except the dumb as hell laser guided Starstreak and one or two others, its not a given that the missile will hit an engine, all the more so when attacking a large aircraft. Missiles like this snake across the sky as they attack and the proximity fuse may detonate the warhead before it reaches an engine. The A300 hit at Baghdad for example had the missile detonate near the starboard wing end. This is all the more so the case with all aspect MANPADS which are under no obligation to track on the engine exhaust in the first place.

A big aircraft is unlikely to crash merely from loosing an engine, or having holes shot into control surfaces, but a whole lot of other damage takes place. An engine hit on a commercial aircraft, or most any other except stuff with armor or extended tail pipes is going to destroy the engine, and run a high chance of setting the engine on fire. Damage to the wing and flight controls is extremely likely. Perforation of the fuel tanks is possible, and may result in a fire or explosion inside the wing. Depending on aircraft design its possible a wing will come off from damage to the wing structure, the C-130 has proven highly vulnerable to this in combat. Damage to aircraft hydraulics is also highly likely, and while commercial aircraft have redundant hydraulic systems, they are much less likely then military aircraft to run the actual pipes on different paths to reduce the risk of damage to all circuits. The DHL plane lost all hydraulic but still landed using engine thrust, nobody had ever done that before in a large aircraft, it was very lucky and it also meant landing with no breaks.

As for production, over 1 million built, 700-500,000 estimated to remain in world arsenals. The Libyan supply is nothing unusual all the more so when 'estimates' are going to be based purely on deliveries, I am sure nobody has any clue how many might have been fired in training, destroyed or passed to third parties. Plus Libya being nothing but wide open desert makes air defense even more important then normal. Against military aircraft hit rates from MANPADS are just not that high, one in ten would be good with older designs, so they are more like guided cannon shells in effectiveness then a super death missile.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

A big aircraft is unlikely to crash merely from loosing an engine, or having holes shot into control surfaces, but a whole lot of other damage takes place. An engine hit on a commercial aircraft, or most any other except stuff with armor or extended tail pipes is going to destroy the engine, and run a high chance of setting the engine on fire. Damage to the wing and flight controls is extremely likely. Perforation of the fuel tanks is possible, and may result in a fire or explosion inside the wing. Depending on aircraft design its possible a wing will come off from damage to the wing structure, the C-130 has proven highly vulnerable to this in combat. Damage to aircraft hydraulics is also highly likely, and while commercial aircraft have redundant hydraulic systems, they are much less likely then military aircraft to run the actual pipes on different paths to reduce the risk of damage to all circuits. The DHL plane lost all hydraulic but still landed using engine thrust, nobody had ever done that before in a large aircraft, it was very lucky and it also meant landing with no breaks.

That doesn't even get into the fact that passengers may be wounded and/or killed from high velocity shrapnel perforating the skin of the airplane. It may not bring down a jumbo jet, but it could kill a few people aboard and that would be bad enough.