Stingers Against Bombs

M

major_sam47

Active member
Ground Based Stinger Missiles against Incoming Bombs Dropped from High Altitude, and Missile Separated Warheads

I am seeking the opinion of experienced military personnel on some questions I had regarding a hypothetical method to intercept incoming bombs dropped from high altitude, and high altitude missile separated warheads. I’d greatly appreciate any time you could spare to respond.
  1. How many stingers would be necessary to take out one or several of the largest bomb types currently available, in terms of their destructive power, that descend onto a target from a high altitude, solely under the influence of gravity ? Would it be possible to use stingers ? If not, is there a viable alternative ?
  2. What could be the range in terms of size and surface geometry of such bombs that could be successfully intercepted by such stingers ? What could be the range in terms of size and surface geometry of each separated warhead that could be successfully intercepted by the stingers ?
  3. What area of the bomb would the stingers have to strike in order to successfully destroy it while it is descending - center of geometry, center of gravity, mid-section, head-on ? Similarly for separated warhead.
  4. Could such high altitude objects – bombs and separated warheads - be detected by a high altitude loitering UAV equipped with suitable stand alone radar sensors, with the latter transmitting the incoming object’s trajectory information to a stinger system on the ground, to enable successful intercept and destruction of the object at a low altitude point ? If this is viable, how high would the UAV have to fly ? Would it be viable to arm the UAV with air to air stingers as well ?
  5. What simulation and CAD programs, by name, could be used to adequately test and develop the concept ? What software programs could be used to develop a prototype of the UAV ?
  6. Could it be possible to develop a man-portable version of the UAV and the ground mounted stinger system ? – that is, weight and size effective enough for transport by infantry, without the aid of a vehicle.
Thank you for your time.
 
No you're correct. No IR source(heat) = nothing for the Stinger to track. There may be a possiblity of using a Radar guided system against a gravity bomb but those bombs are usually very numerous (especially cluster minutions) and the missiles are too few to catch them all. I don't believe a system exists that could be effectively deployed in the manner you suggest. That is not to say that an effective system couldn't be developed but it would have to be something other than a system that uses IR detection, that's certain. Whether it could be made cost effective will be another big concern, I would think.
 
Wouldnt the friction from the speed of the missle generate enough heat for targeting?

However if your talking about an ICBM, theres just no way it would be moveing way toooo fast.
 
Last edited:
Dear Members,

Hitting the arrow in flight is always the worst option. Getting the archer is always preferred if possible. But that is not always possible.

Back in the 1980s General Dynamics offered a land version of the US Navy's Phalanx 20mm CIWS for defense of important items -- ie command centers, Patriot radar units, etc. It would basically destroy incomign missiles and bombs. The US Army is now looking at it again because of the fact that the Russians are offering ultra-high speed Krypton anti-radar missiles for export.

Finally, the first known interception in combat of a bomb by a missile was during the Falklands War in 1982 when an Argentine Roland battery got a lock on a Sear Harrier and transfered it to a bomb that Sea Harrier had released in a loft release.

Jack E. Hammond
 
jackehammond said:
Dear Members,

Hitting the arrow in flight is always the worst option. Getting the archer is always preferred if possible. But that is not always possible.

Back in the 1980s General Dynamics offered a land version of the US Navy's Phalanx 20mm CIWS for defense of important items -- ie command centers, Patriot radar units, etc. It would basically destroy incomign missiles and bombs. The US Army is now looking at it again because of the fact that the Russians are offering ultra-high speed Krypton anti-radar missiles for export.

Finally, the first known interception in combat of a bomb by a missile was during the Falklands War in 1982 when an Argentine Roland battery got a lock on a Sear Harrier and transfered it to a bomb that Sea Harrier had released in a loft release.

Jack E. Hammond
Click to expand...

Sounds liek the M167A2 PIVADS.
 
What about digital recognition of the incoming missile warhead or bomb, could that not be a workable strategy in such a scenario ?
Stingers are supposed to about US 40,000 per piece, so would not having greater numbers deployed per target be feasible ?
 
Consider the technology used in Patriot missiles vs shorter ranged balistic missiles (which would possibly be going about as fast). You didn't try to hit the Scud, you just needed to explode the Patriot as close as possible. My point is, stuff that drops from way way up in the sky is incredibly difficult to hit. So difficult that the Patriot entirely gives up on hoping for a direct hit. A bomb dropped from ... oh, lets say 60,000 feet, just to be extreme. The bomb would have accellerated to such speeds that even something as forgiving as a Patriot is going to have a helluva time hitting it. Welcome to the headache that US R&D is currently undergoing, trying to develop an effective anti-ICBM system.

The Stinger wasn't designed for knocking down bombs and missiles. If you redesigned the Stinger to the point that it becomes effective for that purpose, it ain't a Stinger no more.
 
You have a valid point. Many militias modify their RPGs with timed detonators to cripple aircraft. That way, you don't need a direct hit.

Oh, and godofthunder, while we're at it, what about the Air Force's useless work on lenticular missiles? :)
 
The saucer shaped things or something else? Don't know much about it anytime recently. Forced me to run a search on it and it seems to associate with the XB-70 Valkyrie, so very very ancient history.
 
Last edited:
godofthunder9010 said:
Consider the technology used in Patriot missiles vs shorter ranged balistic missiles (which would possibly be going about as fast). You didn't try to hit the Scud, you just needed to explode the Patriot as close as possible. My point is, stuff that drops from way way up in the sky is incredibly difficult to hit. So difficult that the Patriot entirely gives up on hoping for a direct hit. A bomb dropped from ... oh, lets say 60,000 feet, just to be extreme. The bomb would have accellerated to such speeds that even something as forgiving as a Patriot is going to have a helluva time hitting it. Welcome to the headache that US R&D is currently undergoing, trying to develop an effective anti-ICBM system.

The Stinger wasn't designed for knocking down bombs and missiles. If you redesigned the Stinger to the point that it becomes effective for that purpose, it ain't a Stinger no more.
Click to expand...

Exactly why U.S. carpet bombing has been so effective, bomb by radar.
 
The idea of the MDS is to acquire the ICBM in launch stage before it goes exoatmospheric and hit it at the comparatively slower speed. Otherwise, it's shooting a bullet at another bullet. That's why there are so many early warning information gathering radar systems being deployed around the globe.
 
1. How many stingers would be necessary to take out one or several of the largest bomb types currently available, in terms of their destructive power, that descend onto a target from a high altitude, solely under the influence of gravity ? Would it be possible to use stingers ? If not, is there a viable alternative ?
2. What could be the range in terms of size and surface geometry of such bombs that could be successfully intercepted by such stingers ? What could be the range in terms of size and surface geometry of each separated warhead that could be successfully intercepted by the stingers ?
3. What area of the bomb would the stingers have to strike in order to successfully destroy it while it is descending - center of geometry, center of gravity, mid-section, head-on ? Similarly for separated warhead.
4. Could such high altitude objects – bombs and separated warheads - be detected by a high altitude loitering UAV equipped with suitable stand alone radar sensors, with the latter transmitting the incoming object’s trajectory information to a stinger system on the ground, to enable successful intercept and destruction of the object at a low altitude point ? If this is viable, how high would the UAV have to fly ? Would it be viable to arm the UAV with air to air stingers as well ?
5. What simulation and CAD programs, by name, could be used to adequately test and develop the concept ? What software programs could be used to develop a prototype of the UAV ?
6. Could it be possible to develop a man-portable version of the UAV and the ground mounted stinger system ? – that is, weight and size effective enough for transport by infantry, without the aid of a vehicle.
Stinger
The launcher assembly consists of a glass fiber launch tube with frangible end covers, a sight, desiccant, coolant line, gyro-boresight coil and a carrying sling. A detachable grip-stock which has a receptacle for the BCU is fitted with an IFF connector. The grip-stock is also fitted with an impulse generator (BCU energized), a seeker head uncage bar, a weapon launch trigger, an AN/PPX-1 IFF interrogator switch and a foldable antenna and control electronics for the missile gyro.
The missile has a two-stage, three-phase rocket motor. A separable launch motor ejects the missile followed by an advanced `boost-sustain' motor which provides high supersonic speed and agility out to maximum range. In its FIM-92A version it is fitted with a second-generation cooled passive IR conical scan reticle seeker head with discrete electronic components to provide signal processing. They process the IR energy received from the target in the 4.1 to 4.4 µm wavelength region to determine its relative angle and then, by using a proportional navigation guidance technique, continually predict an intercept point.
In the FIM-92B version the reticle seeker unit is replaced by one that uses an optical processing system. This has two detector materials, one sensitive to IR (in the waveband region 3.5 to 5.0 µm) and the other responsive to UV energy (in the waveband region 0.3 to 0.4 µm), together with two microprocessors which are integrated into microelectronic circuitry for the signal processing phase. The latest Stinger-RMP takes this one stage further by introducing a microprocessor reprogramming facility into the circuitry to allow for new threat characteristics and guidance tailoring. The logic allows for recognition of countermeasures and their filtering out from the seeker's guidance picture.
In all cases the seeker output is sent as steering data to the guidance assembly which converts it into guidance signal format for the control electronics. This module then commands the two movable (of four) forward control surfaces to maneuver the weapon on to the required intercept course. The control concept used is known as the single channel rolling airframe type and, as such, considerably reduces both the missile weight and manufacturing costs. As the weapon nears its target, the seeker head activates its Target Adaptive Guidance (TAG) circuit within one second of impact to modify its trajectory away from the exhaust plume towards the critical area of the IR target itself. The fuzing system allows for both contact activation as well as missile self-destruction after 20 seconds of flight time following the launch. The Picatinny Arsenal warhead carried has a smooth fragmentation casing to ensure that the desired blast/fragmentation effect is achieved.
Click to expand...
Note: These are my own personal opinions, on a hypothetical situation.

1. I'd say One, per Bomb, if it hit the Bomb in the fuze, as the Burster is in the same A.O.

Would it be possible to use stingers?

If the Bomb is a Guided Bomb (Smart Bomb) I don't see why the Stinger could not be reconfigured to seek the guidance section of the Bomb, but why?
Bombs use Nose Fuzes and Tail Fuzes, With Guided Bomb Units the Nose is taken up with the Seeker for the Bomb, so if the Missile was going after the Guidance Package then one could merely knock out Guidance and perhaps knock the bomb off course, Bomb Bodies are rather thick, unlike an Airframe. To be safe the Weapon would need to go past the Guidance Package, and the Tail Fuze is inside the Tail Section.

2. To go after the Guidance Section, I'd say no larger than your fist and forearm, but that is not what you would be after, you need the Fuze, which is about the size of your fist.

3. The Stinger uses a 1 kg HE Blast Smooth-Case Fragmentation Warhead, so, as I have said, best to go after the Fuze and the Burster, just to be on the safe side. Otherwise one could end up with a low order detonation, and a very heavy peace of steel, perhaps still with explosives, and a burster would be falling towards the earth very fast.
Even with a high order detonation there would still be frag (and a lot of it) falling towards the earth, troops (or civilians) exposed would be adversely affected.

4. I would think any loitering Aircraft would be engaged by the OPFOR Aircraft before the Bomb Run.

5. Got me, but what looks good on paper does not always translate into a usable system, if it did US Troops would all carry Ray Guns.

Live Fire Tests (and a lot of them) would need to be done.

6. You envision a Ground Crew, on foot, hauling, and launching, what in essence is a reconnaissance aircraft, data linked to a fire control, and target tracking system?... and Intercept Missiles?

Why? Why not just use the Missile to down the OPFOR Aircraft? Air Defense Systems are set up so as OPFOR Aircraft are engaged, in layers, hopefully before they get directly over Military Targets.
The United States Military is spending a lot of money to try and come up with a way to knock out a Reentry Vehicle in its terminal phase, and that is not going all that well, from what I understand, and even once we get it down pat other nations will add a zig and a zag into the mix to try and make their weapons more effective against our defenses, as I believe the Russians are doing with their RV's.

Even with Stealth Aircraft they are not invisible to the human eye, so Troops with Stingers would still be going after OPFOR Aircraft.

I like the idea of the Phalanx put forth by Jack E. Hammond, as a last line of defense. It’s cheap, it’s a proven system, and all that is needed is to get a Round through the Bomb Body and detonate the main Explosive Charge, which is not as sensitive as the Burster Charge.
 
"Anyone seen one of these before?"(Holds up stinger)
"Yes I fiered one once."
"Ah, at a training range?"
"No, I shot down an Argentine jet with it."

I would have wanted to be a fly on the wall for that conversation..
 
If this stinger worked, then why does the U.S. not have directed energy weapons online yet? Better yet, on ships and aircraft too. And why does missle threats posed by Sunburn missles, and other supersonic threats to say, a fleet, still have not been countered on paper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top