PDA

View Full Version : Shoulder-fired missiles


September 24th, 2003, 07:30 PM
More good news for terrorists; bad news for the traveling public,
whether on El Al or any "crusader" airline. (Al Quaeda has
sworn to attack not only "Zionists" but "Crusaders" = Christians,
or perhaps more generically the "infidel West".

U.S. airlines have not opted to install the Israeli-developed
Flight Guard system on their planes, citing expense.

Hmmm...what price would they put on their CEO's ***,
as opposed to Joe/Jan Pax?

Who's up for asking Homeland Security patsy -- er, sorry, chief --
Tom Ridge to ask Puppet Bush to ask his handlers why we can't use a
few bux of the Iraq bailout to protect our citizens?

And ask Congress (chuckle!) to increase funding to the Russians which
is supposed to help them protect, inter alia, nuke sites and materiel,
as well as other military hardware being sold out the back door by
hungry officers and/or Mafia dealers. Money well invested --if
Congress is capable of thinking five minutes ahead.

==

From Arutz7 Web site:

ATTACKS ON EL AL THWARTED:

Police in Thailand recently nipped in the bud an Al-Qaeda shooting
attack against El Al passengers in the Bangkok airport. The plan was
discovered three months ago when a man was found to be filming near an
El Al ticket counter in the airport. His arrest led to the finding of
preliminary plans to fire missiles on an El Al plane during take-off.
In his home were found other plans for a separate shooting attack at
El Al passengers on their way to the plane. Security arrangements in
the airport, especially in the El Al counter area, have since been
beefed up.

At least two Israeli planes have been hit or nearly hit by missiles in
the recent past. A Ukrainian ground-to-air missile accidentally
struck down an Israeli charter plane in Oct. 2001, killing all 64
passengers - mostly Israelis - as well as 12 crewmembers.

A year later, on Nov. 28, 2002, unidentified terrorists fired two or
three shoulder-launched missiles at an Israeli Arkia Airlines plane on
its way from Kenya to Israel with over 260 passengers and crew on
board. The plane had just taken off, but the missiles missed the plane
and all passengers aboard were unhurt.

This past April, it was reported that Al-Qaeda terrorists planned to
fire a Strella-2 anti-aircraft missile at an El Al airliner landing in
London's Heathrow International Airport.

El Al is planning to install an anti-missile system on its planes.
The Israeli-made system is called Flight Guard, and its manufacturer,
Elta Systems, expects orders from two other Israeli airlines as well:
Arkia and Israir. A spokesperson for Elta said that it is currently
estimated that there are "several hundred" shoulder-fired missiles in
circulation in unknown hands.

It has been reported elsewhere that international intelligence
sources estimate that 30 terrorist organizations are currently in
possession of rockets, and that they are easily obtainable at a cost
of several thousand dollars each. Twenty-seven passenger planes have
been felled by rockets in the past.

===

Following is a similar report from the Jerusalem Post today, with
additional info about Russian non-cooperation re: sales of
shoulder-fired missiles:


Bangkok police thwart plot on El Al - report
JPost.com Staff Sep. 23, 2003

Thailand's police thwarted an al-Qaida plot to attack Israeli
passengers inside Bangkok International Airport and also down an El Al
passenger plane taking off or landing from the same airport, Channel 2
news reported Tuesday evening.

Bangkok police arrested a suspicious man three months ago as he was
filming with a video camera near the El Al counter at Bangkok
International Airport.

After questioning the man, police searched his home and found detailed
plans to attack El Al passengers on their way from a plane to the
arrivals lounge in the airport, and from the departures lounge to a
plane.

According to the TV report, the attack was meant to take place in the
very near future, and the man arrested is more than likely an al-Qaida
operative.

Other detailed materials found in the house pointed to plans to attack
an El Al plane with shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles.
Since the arrest, security at Bangkok's airport has been bolstered and
passenger routines have been changed.

Security sources quoted on Channel 2 said that Bangkok is considered
"sensitive" to terrorist attacks.

On November 28, 2002, a suspected al-Qaida-related terrorist fired two
shoulder-launched SA-7 Strela anti-aircraft missiles at an Arkia jet
as it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. It narrowly missed the Boeing
757-200, which carried 261 Israeli passengers.

Israel Aircraft Industries's (IAI) first missile self-protection
system for commercial aircraft, "Flight Guard," was unveiled in June
in the hopes that aviation policymakers would approve it for
commercial use and lead to wide sales.

The defense system takes on greater significance in light of the
refusal of former Soviet republics, with stocks of surface-to-air
missiles that have been used by terrorists against commercial
aircraft, to accept a Russian proposal to tighten control over sales
of the shoulder-fired missiles.

"Flight Guard" was adapted from a successful military version that has
been on the market for 10 years. The system's radar detects
approaching heat-seeking missiles and automatically deploys tiny,
powerful flares in all directions from the plane's rear or sides to
divert the missiles.

--

Traveler

BrianM
September 25th, 2003, 12:14 AM
wrote in message
>...
>
>
>At least two Israeli planes have been hit or nearly hit by missiles in
>the recent past. A Ukrainian ground-to-air missile accidentally
>struck down an Israeli charter plane in Oct. 2001, killing all 64
>passengers - mostly Israelis - as well as 12 crewmembers.

Although many passengers were Israeli, the plane was Russian (Sibir Airlines
Tu154).
http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/011004-0.htm

Still, it reads better if the facts are ignored. And the relevance of a
military accident (not involving a MANPAD) to terrorism escapes me, but
there you are.

B.

September 25th, 2003, 06:08 AM
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:14:18 -0700, "BrianM" > wrote:

>
wrote in message
>...
>>
>>
>>At least two Israeli planes have been hit or nearly hit by missiles in
>>the recent past. A Ukrainian ground-to-air missile accidentally
>>struck down an Israeli charter plane in Oct. 2001, killing all 64
>>passengers - mostly Israelis - as well as 12 crewmembers.
>
>Although many passengers were Israeli, the plane was Russian (Sibir Airlines
>Tu154).
>http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/011004-0.htm
>
>Still, it reads better if the facts are ignored. And the relevance of a
>military accident (not involving a MANPAD) to terrorism escapes me, but
>there you are.
>
I wasn't "ignoring" facts; I reproduced a communication which also
contained much valuable info -- which seems to have eluded you.

--

Traveler

BrianM
September 25th, 2003, 03:27 PM
wrote in message
>...
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:14:18 -0700, "BrianM" > wrote:
>
>>
wrote in message
>...
>>>
>>>
>>>At least two Israeli planes have been hit or nearly hit by missiles in
>>>the recent past. A Ukrainian ground-to-air missile accidentally
>>>struck down an Israeli charter plane in Oct. 2001, killing all 64
>>>passengers - mostly Israelis - as well as 12 crewmembers.
>>
>>Although many passengers were Israeli, the plane was Russian (Sibir
Airlines
>>Tu154).
>>http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/011004-0.htm
>>
>>Still, it reads better if the facts are ignored. And the relevance of a
>>military accident (not involving a MANPAD) to terrorism escapes me, but
>>there you are.
>>
>I wasn't "ignoring" facts; I reproduced a communication which also
>contained much valuable info -- which seems to have eluded you.


And I wasn't accusing YOU of ignoring facts, which is why I included the
quote from the 'article'.
You are however correct in saying that much of the value of the hype
surrounding the MANPAD threat *does* elude me.

B.

September 26th, 2003, 02:23 AM
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:27:24 -0700, "BrianM" > wrote:

>
wrote in message
>...
>>On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:14:18 -0700, "BrianM" > wrote:
>>
>>>
wrote in message
>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At least two Israeli planes have been hit or nearly hit by missiles in
>>>>the recent past. A Ukrainian ground-to-air missile accidentally
>>>>struck down an Israeli charter plane in Oct. 2001, killing all 64
>>>>passengers - mostly Israelis - as well as 12 crewmembers.
>>>
>>>Although many passengers were Israeli, the plane was Russian (Sibir
>Airlines
>>>Tu154).
>>>http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/011004-0.htm
>>>
>>>Still, it reads better if the facts are ignored. And the relevance of a
>>>military accident (not involving a MANPAD) to terrorism escapes me, but
>>>there you are.
>>>
>>I wasn't "ignoring" facts; I reproduced a communication which also
>>contained much valuable info -- which seems to have eluded you.
>
>
>And I wasn't accusing YOU of ignoring facts, which is why I included the
>quote from the 'article'.
>You are however correct in saying that much of the value of the hype
>surrounding the MANPAD threat *does* elude me.

Particularly this item?

"U.S. airlines have not opted to install the Israeli-developed
Flight Guard system on their planes, citing expense. "

And this one:

"Who's up for asking Homeland Security patsy -- er, sorry, chief --
Tom Ridge to ask Puppet Bush to ask his handlers why we can't use a
few bux of the Iraq bailout to protect our citizens?

And ask Congress (chuckle!) to increase funding to the Russians which
is supposed to help them protect, inter alia, nuke sites and materiel,
as well as other military hardware being sold out the back door by
hungry officers and/or Mafia dealers. Money well invested --if
Congress is capable of thinking five minutes ahead."

Which might actually require some action on your part.

But maybe your luck will hold. I sure as hell hope mine does!
Meantime, I will make some noise in the proper quarters.

--

Traveler



--

Traveler

BrianM
September 26th, 2003, 04:49 PM
wrote in message ...

>>You are however correct in saying that much of the value of the hype
>>surrounding the MANPAD threat *does* elude me.
>
>Particularly this item?
>
>"U.S. airlines have not opted to install the Israeli-developed
>Flight Guard system on their planes, citing expense. "


This use (by the author) of the word 'opted' is indicative.
It suggests the airlines just go to the nearest PepBoys, pick up an
anti-missile gizmo, bolt it on and bingo !
In fact a) there is no *viable* civilian aircraft countermeasure available
yet - where viable means both effective and not exorbitantly expensive and
b) the down time needed to install such a device on each airplane means it
would take years to retrfoit the entire fleet. Unless of course you want to
shut down the entire airline industry for a month or two.
For a less emotive view try
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030411-ailine-defense01.htm

>And this one:
>
>"Who's up for asking Homeland Security patsy -- er, sorry, chief --
>Tom Ridge to ask Puppet Bush to ask his handlers why we can't use a
>few bux of the Iraq bailout to protect our citizens?


I'm not getting into the Iraq politics, but I'd certainly support diverting
some of the TSA budget :-)
If there are no active A-Q cells in the US and/or they do not have access to
missiles (if there were I would have expected them to have struck by now),
money would be better spent in port and border security.

In the end it does come down to cost-benefit analysis. To quote from the
source I gave above:

"James Loy, the head of the federal Transportation Security Administration,
recently told the House aviation subcommittee that there had been 35
attempts to shoot down civilian aircraft with such weapons since 1978. The
Kenya attack was the first outside of a war-torn area. Twenty-four of the
attacks succeeded, mostly involving propeller-driven aircraft and resulting
in more than 500 deaths. Of the six attacks on large, multiengine jets, five
caused little or no damage,"

For the vast majority of the US airline fleet, it means that *even if*
attacked by missiles the plane would likely survive. Which doesn't make for
good 'copy'.

B.

September 26th, 2003, 09:48 PM
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:49:09 -0700, "BrianM" > wrote:

>
wrote in message ...
>
>>>You are however correct in saying that much of the value of the hype
>>>surrounding the MANPAD threat *does* elude me.
>>
>>Particularly this item?
>>
>>"U.S. airlines have not opted to install the Israeli-developed
>>Flight Guard system on their planes, citing expense. "
>
>
>This use (by the author) of the word 'opted' is indicative.
>It suggests the airlines just go to the nearest PepBoys, pick up an
>anti-missile gizmo, bolt it on and bingo !
>In fact a) there is no *viable* civilian aircraft countermeasure available
>yet - where viable means both effective and not exorbitantly expensive and
>b) the down time needed to install such a device on each airplane means it
>would take years to retrfoit the entire fleet. Unless of course you want to
>shut down the entire airline industry for a month or two.
>For a less emotive view try
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030411-ailine-defense01.htm
>
>>And this one:
>>
>>"Who's up for asking Homeland Security patsy -- er, sorry, chief --
>>Tom Ridge to ask Puppet Bush to ask his handlers why we can't use a
>>few bux of the Iraq bailout to protect our citizens?
>
>
>I'm not getting into the Iraq politics, but I'd certainly support diverting
>some of the TSA budget :-)
>If there are no active A-Q cells in the US and/or they do not have access to
>missiles (if there were I would have expected them to have struck by now),

Oh? You think they're going to strike on your schedule? The beauty
of their operation is that they can choose the time and place. It was
years between WTC I and WTC II -- years spent carefully preparing
the plan -- while our "intelligence" slept.

>money would be better spent in port and border security.

No argument there! I'm not far from one of the biggest ports in the
U.S. if not the world. Looking at those ships, most from Asia,
stacked yea-high with containers - how the hell are you going
to police that?

There has been discussion -- maybe even trial installation? --
of gizmos that will track each container from start to finish,
and presumably disclose tampering. But what about corrupt
port employees who install the lethal devices before the container
leaves?
>
>In the end it does come down to cost-benefit analysis. To quote from the
>source I gave above:
>
>"James Loy, the head of the federal Transportation Security Administration,
>recently told the House aviation subcommittee that there had been 35
>attempts to shoot down civilian aircraft with such weapons since 1978. The
>Kenya attack was the first outside of a war-torn area. Twenty-four of the
>attacks succeeded, mostly involving propeller-driven aircraft and resulting
>in more than 500 deaths. Of the six attacks on large, multiengine jets, five
>caused little or no damage,"
>
>For the vast majority of the US airline fleet, it means that *even if*
>attacked by missiles the plane would likely survive.

Extrapolating from the above very old data is like any other
statistical prediction -- unreliable.

(sorry, erased something)

....doesn't make for good 'copy'.

From the terrorists' POV, if at first you don't succeed, try, try, try
again. They keep up with the latest technology. The recent failed
attempt in Kenya is a better indication of the future than the older
data above cited.

--

Traveler