It can’t come as a big surprise to find that multiple Libyan munitions stockpiles have been looted, and shoulder fired heat seeking missiles, such as the SA-7b Grail, are unaccounted for. While one concern would be that bad-guy-in-hiding, Gaddafi, may have absconded a few for personal revenge, analysts tend to think the weaponry is not in the hands of Gaddafi or his loyalists.
Western governments and nongovernment organizations have repeatedly asked and prodded the rebel government, the Transitional National Council, to take steps to secure the vast stockpiles of arms that it has inherited, apparently to little avail.
“Claims that depots holding Manpads and other dangerous weapons are still not being properly secured are very worrisome and should be thoroughly investigated,” Mr. Schroeder said. “In cases where stockpile security is found to be lacking, immediate steps should be taken to correct any deficiencies.”
In Washington, President Obama’s top counterterrorism official, John O. Brennan, said that the spread of shoulder-fired missiles and other weapons from Libya’s arsenal posed “a lot of concerns,” and that the United States had pressed the rebel government to secure weapons stockpiles. “Obviously, there are a lot of parts of that country right now that are ungoverned,” he said at a security conference.
A senior American military officer who follows Libya closely said it was puzzling that there had been so few documented instances in which Libyan loyalist troops launched shoulder-fired missiles at NATO aircraft. “I’m not sure what that means,” the officer said. “Fewer systems than we thought? Systems are inoperable? Few in Libya know how to operate them?”
Instead, military analysts are assuming they are in the hands of AQ or other extremist groups… either directly looted, or perhaps sold by rogue rebels.
Twenty crates from Russia were also found, with one of the crates labeled as containing “9M342,” the Russian designation for the SA-24 heat-seeking missile…. a powerful weapon that Venezuela has also been busy acquiring.
The Igla-S (SA-24) is Russia’s most advanced MANPADS and considered one of the most lethal portable air defense systems ever made. Starting in 2005 the US Government raised its concerns with the Government of Russia (GOR) about the Government of Venezuela’s (GOV) possible acquisition of MANPADS and other conventional weapons. In particular, the US highlighted the risk these could be diverted to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) or other regional terrorists and non-state actors.
UPDATE from CS Monitor, who notes that 482 SA-24s were shipped to Libya in 2004, and none can be found. Let me repeat that number to let it sink in… 482 unaccounted for SA-24s.< END UPDATE
SA-24s were spotted by NATO as far back as March. While Libya is in possession of two-missile Strelets system (designed for mounting on platforms like armored vehicles, helicopters and ships, the missiles themselves cannot be used as MANPADS, according to an Aviation Week defense blog. The company who admitted selling the truck mounted SA-24 Grinch to both Libya and Syria stated the weapons required separate trigger mechanisms for use as MANPADS, and these were not supplied to Libya.
But if these missiles, which only went missing in the recent days, are out there, exactly who has them, and how difficult would it be to obtain the necessary trigger mechanisms on the black market. One thing we do know… Gaddafi loyalists were not using these weapons to any degree against NATO aircraft, whether by restraint or destruction of any armored tanks with the mounting. Nor is it likely that the rebels, attempting to seize absolute rule, are removing only these from the munitions stockpiles for good intents.
One thing is certain… NATO and the rebels’ NTA have been derelict in securing these weapons, and apparently there are all too many in their midst with an entirely different agenda. And it’s most likely the targets will be western military powers or, worse yet… another passenger jetliner.
This probably ties in with the fact that Niger is claiming it cannot close its border to Libyans like Gaddafi and his loyalists.
Will this be the ”Arab Spring’s” version of Gunrunner?
Are there ways to forensically prove that a future American was shot down using these specific missiles?
Libyans near one part of the Niger border say they had seen convoys of trucks carrying gold, jewels and money headed into Niger.
(No mention of these weapons.)
Niger has still not promised to either refuse Gaddafi entry OR hand him over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) – if he did attempt to enter Niger.
Not enough gold, jewels and cash….yet?
More here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14825541
Is this “smart diplomacy” or the “right war”?
I get confused over Obama policies.
SA-7s are **not** that dangerous, as far as MANPADS are concerned. I think most commercial planes have defenses for them. Not that they talk much about that stuff.
Still, best they don’t have them.
Maybe if you read more than the first paragraph, Ivan, you’ll get to the SA-24′s that are missing…..
Ivan probably read that news report years ago when Gaza was pounding Israel with Kassam rockets daily.
What’s the problem? Hamas asked.
They are just like fireworks.
No danger at all.
Right.
Then aim them at your own elementary schools and streets.
On a scale that includes nukes, I guess they are ”not that dangerous.”
So, I guess teeny, tiny guns & therefore gun control is off the table, too, right?/
@MataHarley:
Ivan is steadily dragging “dumb as a bag of hammers” down to a whole new level.
@Ivan:
Um…not so much:
Another stellar example of weapons grade stoopid from the California tutor.
So, Obama is “concerned” about the unaccounted of shoulder-fired missles. Not as concerned, I would wager, as passengers on a commercial aircraft that has been hit.
Very good post, MataHarley.
Glad you actually found the subject of interest enough to read, Warren. I knew when I posted it that it wasn’t the sexy, big hits, news of the day… what with all the American political campaign bits going on. But I’m quite uneasy about this whole Arab Spring bit – most especially with Libya… where we don’t know who will be in control, who they will befriend, and where those weapons are. And, of course, Pakistan, now that our relationship with them has been severely damaged by a “cowboy type” POTUS, invading their sovereignty. That would be the same nation that arrested and handed us the true architect of 9/11, KSM. I suspect future cooperation will be considerably less forthcoming.
Those weapons will eventually show up. The point is, where? The target? We can guarantee it won’t be aimed against anyone but the evil West.
But how convenient that this stuff easily gets sweep under the rug from headlines, as we are distracted with other things.
@MataHarley:
My you are a vituperative cuss. I was limiting my remarks to the antiques of MANPADs.
Duh about the 24s. I didn’t think it needed to be mentioned as it is evident that those are very deadly.
Happy now, ibtch?
@Aye:
Happy now, Vas Deferens?
@Aye:
Hey cheese dick, care to relate to me a time when an SA-7 took down a commercial jet in the last 10 years?
Come on, I’m waiting.
You really live on the edge all the time, don’t you, Ivan. Must be very unpleasant to live inside your body, stockpiled with some much omni-directional anger. The simplest statement to continue reading just pushes your buttons, and you can’t resist letting your ugly inner self leap out to dance again.
Most of the time, I let your comments stand as a reflection of what a pathetic little man you are.
As my last paragraph in the original post states:
That refers to both the SA-24 and the SA-7s that we know are missing. Why you wish to confine the focus to just a commercial airliner – which Aye has pointed out has no defense against either of these missiles – seems bizarre. It was you, yourself, who brought up commercial aircraft and SA-7s specifically. Not me. Not Aye.
In your effort to distort and maneuver so you have something else to whine about, you’ve totally morphed the conversation away from the entire point…. that whether it’s the SA-7s, or the SA-24s… they are dangerous in the hands of terrorists bent on assaulting the West and their allies. You also miss the point that it was the “rebels”.. you know, those freedom fighters everyone reveres?… that looted these weapons. That should give any one with sane mind to give pause for cause as to who’s going to be running Libya, and where their alliances lie.
As to the SA-7s specifically, I will take issue with your comment:
I suppose that may be a matter of perspective. Nov 2nd, 2003 an SA-7 took down a CH-47D Chinook near Fallujah, and killed 16 US soldiers, wounding 26, who were members of the 106th Aviation Brigade.
October that same year, an SA-7 took out a UH-60L Black Hawk near Tikrit. Luckier for the US warriors there, as only one was injured.
More during 2006 and 2007 were also attributed to the SA-7s.
But the SA-7s are not limited to choppers. Earlier variants were used in 1973, shooting down a total of three Portuguese Air Force Fiat G.91s , and a Dornier Do 27. The Palestinians have used them on Israel fighter jets, but they can’t hit shit… AQ has an hour long training video on using SA-7s.
If an SA-7 can take down a Portuguese fighter jet, I’d say it’s more than adequate for taking down a commercial jetliner, if that’s what the user intends.
But using your method of classification, the latest Chinook downing in Afghanistan, that killed 38, including the 30 SEALs, should have you saying the same about RPGs being “not so dangerous” weapon too… After all, those grenades aren’t as lethal as the heat seeking SA-7.
It’s obvious that you, in your cushy armchair general position, find these SA-7s “not so dangerous”. But I suspect US warriors and their families may take issue with you making light of their effect. But we’re all happy to hear you think “it’s best” they don’t have them…. duh. ya think?
Then, of course, there’s the SA-24…. the newest and deadliest variation of the Igla SAMs from Russia. In August 2003, Hemant Lakhani was caught in a sting operation, and subsequently prosecuted by then, US Atty in NJ, Chris Christie, for providing support and and attempting to supply Igla SAMs, among other things, to terrorists. He had brought an older generation Igla into the US, intended for either Air Force One or a commercial jetliner. It was thought he was attempting to purchase 50 more.
But we’ve found out where some of these SA-7s have gone… they’ve been making there way into the hands of Palestinians in Gaza.
No surprise, eh?
This is much worse than originally suspected, and I’ve updated the OP above.
UPDATE from CS Monitor, who notes that 482 SA-24s were shipped to Libya in 2004, and none can be found.
Let me repeat that number to let it sink in… 482 unaccounted for SA-24s.
@MataHarley:
Am I wrong when I said the SA-7 was the least effective of MANPADS?????
DUH!!!! I didn’t say they weren’t effective AT ALL, just that they were the least effective.
What is it about you and Aye?? Why so argumentative??? Nothing I said in my original post was combative or invective-just that the SA-7 wasn’t the most fearsome of MANPADS. DOESN’T THAT MEAN THERE ARE MORE EFFECTIVE ONES???????????
What is so debatable about what I said?
You and AYE are the most insecure of posters on this site it’s incredible.
Is your keyboard “?” key stuck, Ivan? Or slipping off the deep edge yet again?
But to answer your hysterical question, what was “debatable” was your casual suggestion that SA-7s were “not that dangerous”. I think there are ample enough grieving families and troops, and destroyed aircraft and vehicles, to suggest your uninformed observation was not only careless and inaccurate, but thoughtless.
And of course, when it comes to “insecure”, it was you who came back with personal profanities over the simple suggestion I made that you keep reading. But I just love watching you come apart at the seams.
@MataHarley:
Typical liberal response. You left something of my quote, didn’t you. Here…let me fill in the rest of the story…
You see, you argue just like a liberal. You misquote, or delete important fragments and take things-like this quote-out of contex.
Any military expert would agree with me that the SA-7 is the LEAST powerful of all MANPADs. Yet somehow, you Mata, found error in my comment.
And you use it to bring the rancor of flopping aces to a new low. You and AYE never miss an opportunity to engage in invective and disharmony.
You couldn’t just let it pass, could you?
Why the hell Curt has you here is beyond me. I make a simple observation about the system and lo’ and behold you and Aye can twist it into some massive flame war.
Happy Mata? HAPPY????
@MataHarley:
Oh poor baby, you realize you blew something out of context by misquoting me and now you attempt to misdirect and confuse the subject at hand.
You’re the one, hausfrau, who is coming apart at the seams.
You, just like Aye, can’t admit you’re wrong.
Well we’ll go round and round about this. I’m sure you’ve made Curt happy beyond belief.
Got to go back to 1973? Yeah, the SA-7 was potent some 40 years ago, but as I stated, technology has dramatically lessened their effectiveness.
Go back and address “in the last ten years” comment.
Shit happens in war, btw, in case you didn’t know. Choppers go down all the time in war.
@MataHarley:
as far as MANPADS are concerned
as far as MANPADS are concerned
as far as MANPADS are concerned
as far as MANPADS are concerned
as far as MANPADS are concerned
as far as MANPADS are concerned
as far as MANPADS are concerned
as far as MANPADS are concerned
as far as MANPADS are concerned
Here, just to remind you and everyone how you left out that little part of my quote.
Typical liberal. Taking quotes out of context.
@Ivan:
It’s really a shame you’re not smart enough to know the answers prior to raising your issues or asking your questions.
Now, as to your question regarding SA-7′s being used within the last 10 years to bring down a commercial jet, it happened on 11/22/03.
Prior to that, there was an attempt in Mombasa, Kenya on 11/28/02:
Fortunately for the 271 vacationers plus the flight crew on board, the attack failed; not because of a defect in the missiles but operator error.
Now, I know that you very carefully couched the question in order to attempt to salvage your argument that SA-7′s are “not that dangerous” and that’s cool. You’re losing your argument once again and, in one last, desperate grasp at hope, you attempted to reframe the debate in a way that would benefit you. Too bad that didn’t work out.
Just for the fun of it I did a little research to see just how dangerous SA-7′s are in comparison to other types of MANPADS when it comes to threats to civilian aviation, specifically large civilian turbojets.
Turns out that “SA-7s are **not** that dangerous, as far as MANPADS are concerned” unless you were one of the 38 who died Sept 3, 1978 when your Air Rhodesia plane was shot down with an SA-7.
“SA-7s are **not** that dangerous, as far as MANPADS are concerned” unless you were on the Air Rhodesia flight shot down with an SA-7 on Feb 12, 1979 killing all 48 aboard.
The 130 souls on the Boeing 737 over Angola on Feb 9, 1984 probably thought that “SA-7s [were very] dangerous, as far as MANPADS are concerned” especially after their plane was struck.
Finally, the 41 people who died in Kindu, Congo in Oct 1998 found out the hard way that “SA-7s are [ ] dangerous, as far as MANPADS are concerned”
You claim that SA-7s “aren’t that dangerous” in relation to other MANPADS. That’s easily proven false simply by looking at the historical record.
Since 1977, six of the seven shootdown incidents perpetrated against large civilian turbojets were carried out with SA-7′s with the seventh being undetermined. Six out of seven. That’s a pretty high percentage for something that you deem to be “**not** that dangerous, as far as MANPADS are concerned.”
@Ivan:
What technology would that be? We’ve already shot your missile defense theory full of holes. So, what technology has “dramatically lessened their effectiveness?” Show me.
@Ivan:
Oh, you mean like when you were trying to convince us that Bush reclassified fast food jobs…by selectively not quoting the line from your own source which said the opposite? Is that what you mean?
@Ivan:
You know, a man who is constantly obsessing over another man’s private parts on the Interwebz is really in no position to be lecturing others about being insecure.
How is it you put it, Aye? oh yeah…
….that’s gonna leave a scar!
@MataHarley:
Yeah…too bad Mr. Tutor didn’t have the courage to stick around for the skooling, eh?
One more followup thing to give you a horrible sinking feeling about this whole issue: