Stop Panicking About the Stingers

The WikiLeaks war logs only confirmed what we already know: The Taliban simply doesn't have the firepower to wreak havoc on Afghanistan's skies.

BY MATTHEW SCHROEDER | JULY 28, 2010

Of all the stories being plucked from WikiLeaks' classified Afghanistan war logs, many analysts have picked out the Taliban's use of heat-seeking missiles as the most troubling. Remembering how the mujahideen used missiles to drive Soviet aircraft from the skies, pundits worried that the Taliban would inflict a similar pain upon American planes and helicopters in Afghanistan. But for those of us who follow the illicit arms trade, the documents simply underscore what we already knew: The Taliban has failed to reproduce the devastatingly effective anti-aircraft campaign that brought the Red Army to its knees in the mid-1980s.  

Afghanistan's storied history of anti-aircraft weapons (known as Man-portable Air Defense Systems -- MANPADS) centers around the American Stinger missile, which played a decisive role in the U.S.-funded insurgency that ended nine brutal years of Soviet occupation in the 1980s. Prior to the arrival of the Stinger, none of the weapons procured and distributed to the Afghan rebels by their three main benefactors -- the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia -- had proven effective against Soviet aircraft, which bombed villages, attacked rebel strongholds, and strafed supply caravans with impunity.

That all changed in September 1986, when a newly trained mujahideen missile team fired its first Stingers at three Soviet Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunships attempting to land at Jalalabad airfield. Locked onto the infra-red signatures of their targets, the five-foot-long, 35-pound missiles raced after the ill-fated helicopters at speeds of over 1,500 mph, smashing into them with "the kinetic force of a mid-sized car traveling at sixty miles per hour," according to a 1987 article in the Arizona Republic. The stricken helicopters fell to the ground and burst into flames, marking the advent of a new chapter in the war.

Over the next three years, the mujahideen, who received Stingers from Washington and extensive training on their use in Pakistan, staged dozens of attacks that brought down nearly 270 aircraft, contributing in no small part to the Soviet Union's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989. While no single factor can be credited for the triumph of a rag-tag militia over the formidable Soviet military, the Stinger missile was a game-changer, destroying hundreds of multi-million-dollar Soviet aircraft, killing dozens of highly trained pilots, and disrupting and degrading Soviet counter insurgency operations throughout the country. So pervasive was the Stinger's influence on events in Afghanistan that analysts coined a term around it: "the Stinger effect."

After the Soviet withdrawal, the U.S. government scrambled to collect the remaining Stinger missiles, fearing they could end up in the hands of terrorists. A top-secret CIA program dubbed "Operation Missing in Action Stinger" was established to buy back the missiles. Details on the classified program remain scant, but the information that is available suggests that, despite rewards of $100,000 or more for each device, the CIA failed to recover many if not most of the loose Stingers. Government officials interviewed by author Steve Coll for his book Ghost Wars claim that an estimated 600 of the Afghan Stingers were still missing as of 1996. Some of the missing missiles ended up in the hands of terrorists, insurgents, and hostile governments as far away as North Korea and Sri Lanka, but many remained squirreled away in rebel arms caches. As recently as 2005, Stingers were seized from a cache near the Pakistan border, and incidents of trafficking in Stinger components have been reported as recently as 2006.  

AFP/Getty Images

 

Matthew Schroeder is manager of the arms sales monitoring project at the Federation of American Scientists.

LOLCAT

7:24 PM ET

July 28, 2010

A Cause For Alarm

Considering the number of "stingers" that were not recovered in Afghanistan.I think there's every reason to worry.

Because I have reasons to believe that the called "leaked" war report may have been doctored to take away attention from what is really happening.
===================================
Are you tired of not having your fax machine with you when you are on the move?Its time you switch to efax

 

TOOLBAG

7:59 PM ET

July 28, 2010

Uh WHat

Then why haven't they used them yet? The launchers aren't what is important its the missile. They used most of thoose up during the Soviet war. As for your conspracy theory about the "leak". There isn't that much contained in SECRET documents. It is what it is. Alot of intel is conjecture, speculation and theory.

 

NORBOOSE

9:15 AM ET

July 29, 2010

Also

25 year old stingers that havent been taken care of probably fail, they have a lot of intricate parts. Secondly, the stingers of the 80's are nowhere near "cutting edge," since military aircraft have drastically improved countermeasures against missles. Back in the 80's, the only thing a pilot could do would be to try to dodge it, now aircraft are improved and have flares and foil and stuff like that.

 

DEPETRIS@WORDPRESS.COM

7:59 PM ET

July 28, 2010

Plus, drones should calm the worry

The U.S. Military also possesses a tool that would quickly put arguments over anti-aircraft Taliban attacks to rest: drone aircraft. Over the past nine years, the United States has vastly produced and deployed thousands of unmanned ariel vehicles that are patrolled by joystick from Langley. Drones can snap photos and gather valuable intelligence from the skies, do reconnaissance in remote areas like the tribal regions of Pakistan, and fire missiles on chosen targets in areas that are extremely difficult to navigate my foot or tank.

Even the downside is not that bad. While the downing of a drone aircraft may be looked at as a waste of a few million dollars (which is peanuts to the U.S. Government, even in an economic recession), the country doesn't have to worry about their pilots either getting killed in the crash or captured.

So even if the Taliban did manage to possess advanced heat-seaking anti-aircraft missiles and were able to use them effectively, the damage wouldn't be so great. The intelligence that insurgents would pick up would be shallow at best. But more importantly, the U.S. wouldn't have to make the difficult decision of placing men and women in harms way.

This is why drones are so important to U.S. military operations and so vital to U.S. national security. They not only navigating harsh terrain, but do so without risking American lives.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

 

NORBOOSE

9:19 AM ET

July 29, 2010

Good Point

Even if the Taliban use a stinger to bring down a Predator, we come out ahead. Predators cost thousands to make, not millions. If you compare the US military budget with the Taliban's and compare how much it costs them to acquire stingers and us to acquire Predators, Im pretty sure we come out ahead if they ever use a stinger on a drone.

 

HABANERO

8:08 PM ET

July 28, 2010

Not to worried here...

Apparently the stingers have a shelf life of around a decade... age degredation of the batteries and the solid propellants can and probably do render these 30-year old weapons useless. The US's air campaign has of course devastated the Taliban and one would think there would be many more aircraft brought down by now if they were still operational.

 

TOOFY MCJACK

2:28 AM ET

July 29, 2010

The Stingers were most likely

The Stingers were most likely outfitted with batteries designed to die within a year or two anyway. The remaining missiles, although unaccounted for, have probably been inactive and unusable for 30 years or so.

 

ZORRO

3:53 AM ET

July 29, 2010

The Taliban are Still Winning

Isn't debating Stingers a bit beside the point? With or without them the Taliban are still winning. To what do we attribute this - "The Incompetence Effect"?

 

AEHSAN

10:43 AM ET

July 29, 2010

The nightmare scenario

its still an issue - what if they train these on civilian aircraft? The military risk may be low but the potential for terrorism is huge no?

 

AEHSAN

4:27 AM ET

July 30, 2010

Playing Tom Clancy

What if they smuggle them out? I presume in bits and parts couldnt they get them to bigger airline centers. Imagine a 9/11 style incident where simulataneously 4-5 aircraft come down with threats for more (Even if true or not). That'd cripple the airline industry like the ash cloud fiasco for a while. I dont understand how we can be so cavalier about MANPADs.

 

BRET

12:39 PM ET

July 29, 2010

Respectfully Disagree

Yes, the quality of the MANPADs that the Taliban possesses (which tend to not be "Stingers", but other 1st and 2nd gen missiles) is pretty bad. In some cases, the parts are defunct and not functioning properly. However, the black market price for stingers is surprisingly inexpensive for groups like the Taliban. Plus, replacement parts such as batteries can easily be found.

The author established that there are countermeasures against MANPADs. High speed aircraft (jets) should not have a problem with countering MANPADs. Not only can they release flares and chaff which obstruct or alter the missile's path, they also have the aerodynamic abilities to "lose" the missile. Helicopters are not as fortunate. They don't have the aerodynamic capabilities (some exceptions may be made for the Apache), and they only have the ability to release flares. Flares won't stop the missile, they'll just decrease the chances of it striking. Plus, if the flare is to close to the chopper, the explosion from the missile will be powerful enough to damage the chopper. Lastly, some of the ANA's Mi-17s don't have the ability to release flares.

MANPADs aren't a terrifying threat that's going to completely turn the tide. Rather, they are a tool that will make the resupply operations and air assaults much more complicated. Flying in Afghanistan without encountering enemy fire is hard enough (the air isn't dense and the terrain is difficult), so flying with heat seeking missiles on your tale isn't going to help the situation.

 

HABANERO

1:20 PM ET

July 29, 2010

The topic was stingers.

IF there is a SINGLE refererence/ attribution/ proof of a stinger missle being sucessfully used to down an aircraft in the 8 years since the invasion I cannot find it.

So as I stated before, not too worried about stingers.

 

WILDTHING

1:27 PM ET

July 29, 2010

But....

Brzezinski likes to brag how we funded an insurgency to lure the Soviets to occupy Afghanistan to begin with... so the 9yr brutal occupation of the Afghan people was due to us...and now we are the ones occupying, funny thing and the freedom fighters without the Texas millionairess inspired stingers are now a thorn in our side.... the stingers cost alot but they weren't exactly necesssary as we are finding out... it was the same in Vietnam wasn't it massive power didn't quite do the trick in proping up up the old french colonialist system.. but now high tech hijinks is just the ticket...

 

SUNWUKONG8

4:36 PM ET

July 29, 2010

What about Iran

Funny you mention North Korea but not Iran. They actually have and produce relatively advanced missiles. You can say all you want about counter measures and the technology gap, but 10 Misagh-2 fired at a Chinook will produce a downed Chinook and if they're lucky, up to 40 dead Americans. The good thing is that Iran and the Taliban are not traditional allies. That would all change, however, if the US or Israel decides to bomb Iranian nuclear plants.

 

TAKENITORA

9:29 AM ET

July 30, 2010

I don't follow your conclusion

"Securing MANPADS and other advanced conventional weapons will require vigilance, focus, and sustained commitment -- not exactly something that the current panic over the WikiLeaks documents is likely to foster."

Why would increased visibility not foster more monitoring of the spread of these weapons? I understand this statement if you mean that the WikiLeaks documents are not enough in and of themselves to prod increased attention to the spread of arms.