UPDATED: Shoulder fired heat seeking missiles missing from multiple Libyan stockpiles

Spread the love

Loading

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
23 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

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:

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.

Um…not so much:

This threat became distinct in 2002 when Al Qaeda operatives unsuccessfully fired at an Israeli jetliner taking off from Mombasa, Kenya. Later that year, the Bush administration and Congress tasked several agencies to come up with solutions to counter shoulder-fired missiles, called man-portable air-defense systems, or MANPADS. Eight years and $276 million later, no commercial aircraft have been equipped with the systems. And in 2010, for the first time since the incident in Kenya, Congress and the White House quietly stopped funding civilian MANPADS defenses.

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.

@MataHarley:

Maybe if you read more than the first paragraph, Ivan, you’ll get to the SA-24′s that are missing…..

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:

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, Vas Deferens?

@Aye:

Another stellar example of weapons grade stoopid from the California tutor.

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.

@MataHarley:

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.

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.

@MataHarley:

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.

Typical liberal response. You left something of my quote, didn’t you. Here…let me fill in the rest of the story…

SA-7s are **not** that dangerous, as far as MANPADS are concerned

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

But to answer your hysterical question, what was “debatable” was your casual suggestion that SA-7s were “not that dangerous”.

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:

Hey cheese dick, care to relate to me a time when an SA-7 took down a commercial jet in the last 10 years?

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:

A Boeing 767 operated by the Israeli Arkia airline came under fire from a brace of Strela SA-7 missiles as the plane took off from Mombasa airport in November 2002, highlighting the threat from these weapons. On that occasion the missiles missed, but a similar portable missile struck the left engine of an Airbus A300 operated by DHL, the express courier company, at Baghdad airport in November 2003. The pilot landed the plane safely despite the engine fire.

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:

Yeah, the SA-7 was potent some 40 years ago, but as I stated, technology has dramatically lessened their effectiveness.

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:

You see, you argue just like a liberal. You misquote, or delete important fragments and take things-like this quote-out of contex.

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 and AYE are the most insecure of posters on this site it’s incredible.

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.

@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:

Russia sold the SA-24s to Libya, and did so without having to tell other countries a word about it, thanks to the vague wording of international treaties. “The reporting requirements for the [United Nations Register of Conventional Arms] exempt that system because it’s not man-portable and it does not have a range beyond 25 kilometers,” Schroeder says. “So the Russians did not violate the rules of the register by not reporting those… I’d close that loophole.” Aviation Week’s Maxim Pyadushkin confirmed with Russian arms exporters that the SA-24s were not delivered with grips that enable them to be shoulder-fired—thus, they were exempt from reporting, so there’s no way to know how many were in Libya before the conflict began.