Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Francoflier wrote:I doubt this production issue poses a short term problem for Ukraine. They have already gotten or have been promised thousands of Stingers or similar missiles by allies which will come from their existing stocks.
The US alone is sitting on a huge stockpile that was getting old and obsolete and was about to be phased out.
Ukraine should have enough to last for a while.
This is more of an issue for the nations providing them which had no plan to replace them this early and might have to precipitate things a bit more than they had planned.
This temporary shortfall shouldn't be a major problem since none of them are currently involved in military ops that require their use.
texl1649 wrote:Good way to use an expiring stockpile though!
ThePointblank wrote:The US was looking for a Stinger replacement, so this war might just accelerate that decision.
Vintage wrote:ThePointblank wrote:The US was looking for a Stinger replacement, so this war might just accelerate that decision.
Something that is Humvee mounted and interfaces with longer range radar (even AWACs or F-35s?). Something that could also be an absolute point defense against cruise missiles
ThePointblank wrote:The RFI as posted indicates that they want something that is man-portable, and is can be integrated with the Stinger Vehicle Universal Launcher.
Vintage wrote:I think someone on here awhile back mentioned that there wasn't as much need because the USAF would have air superiority, if not supremacy.I think that our military has a strong aversion to fielding an effective anti-air capability. They just don't seem to want anything that's effective.
johns624 wrote:Vintage wrote:I think someone on here awhile back mentioned that there wasn't as much need because the USAF would have air superiority, if not supremacy.I think that our military has a strong aversion to fielding an effective anti-air capability. They just don't seem to want anything that's effective.
trex8 wrote:So it does seem the last batch of Stingers in production were destined for Taiwan. If as Raytheon says the customer (Taiwan) are providing components Raytheon can no longer source themselves and US are possibly delaying deliveries, maybe Raytheon needs to find another source ASAP or Pentagon needs to sweeten the deal to make it worth Taipei waiting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-05-03/
OT but in similar vein Javelin supply issues and empty cupboards potentially
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... id=1156110
ThePointblank wrote:Likely, the parts are obsolescent, and no longer made by the OEM; Taiwan was probably providing a close equivalent thanks to their extensive semiconductor industry that works.
trex8 wrote:Seems instead of potentially spending lots of $$ and lots of time (with all the usual delays in any new program) that the Stinger replacement should be more a Stinger update to 21st century tech.
ThePointblank wrote:trex8 wrote:Seems instead of potentially spending lots of $$ and lots of time (with all the usual delays in any new program) that the Stinger replacement should be more a Stinger update to 21st century tech.
Or, they can go Mil-COTS, and buy an existing weapons system already in production.
Remember, they intend on a competitive shoot off sometime this year, with a contract award sometime next year. Based upon that timeline, it would have to be something already in production for that to happen.
GDB wrote:ThePointblank wrote:trex8 wrote:Seems instead of potentially spending lots of $$ and lots of time (with all the usual delays in any new program) that the Stinger replacement should be more a Stinger update to 21st century tech.
Or, they can go Mil-COTS, and buy an existing weapons system already in production.
Remember, they intend on a competitive shoot off sometime this year, with a contract award sometime next year. Based upon that timeline, it would have to be something already in production for that to happen.
Such as the being proven in combat Starstreak/Marlet system, available in MANPAD, triple launcher and vehicle integrated configurations. MDBA should team up with a US partner.
Ironically it’s nearly 40 years since the first Stinger kill, just prior to Afghanistan, the SAS shot down a Pucara in the Falklands, along with some sat and secure comms gear their commander had been with Delta Force in the US, also bringing some early production Stingers.
Spacepope wrote:GDB wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Or, they can go Mil-COTS, and buy an existing weapons system already in production.
Remember, they intend on a competitive shoot off sometime this year, with a contract award sometime next year. Based upon that timeline, it would have to be something already in production for that to happen.
Such as the being proven in combat Starstreak/Marlet system, available in MANPAD, triple launcher and vehicle integrated configurations. MDBA should team up with a US partner.
Ironically it’s nearly 40 years since the first Stinger kill, just prior to Afghanistan, the SAS shot down a Pucara in the Falklands, along with some sat and secure comms gear their commander had been with Delta Force in the US, also bringing some early production Stingers.
Stinger is just basically Redeye NG. Swapping out electronics with modern ones and a newer seeker would be incremental in improvements. There’s a good chance to leapfrog ahead 2 generations here easily.
GDB wrote:Spacepope wrote:GDB wrote:
Such as the being proven in combat Starstreak/Marlet system, available in MANPAD, triple launcher and vehicle integrated configurations. MDBA should team up with a US partner.
Ironically it’s nearly 40 years since the first Stinger kill, just prior to Afghanistan, the SAS shot down a Pucara in the Falklands, along with some sat and secure comms gear their commander had been with Delta Force in the US, also bringing some early production Stingers.
Stinger is just basically Redeye NG. Swapping out electronics with modern ones and a newer seeker would be incremental in improvements. There’s a good chance to leapfrog ahead 2 generations here easily.
Would it have, in the case of Starstreak, a speed of Mach 3-4, Marlet Mach 1.5? Starstreak range of up to 7km?
The fact that Stinger is out of production and it is, if we are being honest a not very high priority for the US in their air defence doctrine which is more based around assumed air dominance and with SAMs like Patriots.
So why spend money a new system when there is one which already in performance terms a leapfrog?
Spacepope wrote:GDB wrote:Spacepope wrote:
Stinger is just basically Redeye NG. Swapping out electronics with modern ones and a newer seeker would be incremental in improvements. There’s a good chance to leapfrog ahead 2 generations here easily.
Would it have, in the case of Starstreak, a speed of Mach 3-4, Marlet Mach 1.5? Starstreak range of up to 7km?
The fact that Stinger is out of production and it is, if we are being honest a not very high priority for the US in their air defence doctrine which is more based around assumed air dominance and with SAMs like Patriots.
So why spend money a new system when there is one which already in performance terms a leapfrog?
Starstreak is itself an early 90s design with systems firmed some 30 years ago. A clean sheet design now would still be quite a leapfrog in capabilities. I'm sure the US is getting good feedback on these MANPADS in UKR service, even though apparently all that's been leaked are Martlets are good at plinking low value drones, and lips have been tight on Stinger use. I've not heard a peep on whether Starstreak has even been employed yet.
trex8 wrote:Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch
While it’s speed and novel warhead and difficulty to be jammed has its advantages so does the ability with Stinger and most infra red systems to allow the operator to move away after launch.
GDB wrote:trex8 wrote:Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch
While it’s speed and novel warhead and difficulty to be jammed has its advantages so does the ability with Stinger and most infra red systems to allow the operator to move away after launch.
That’s why it’s a HVM, at normal combat ranges time to firing and impact is very brief.
Most cases, they don’t see it coming.
trex8 wrote:Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch
BaconButty wrote:trex8 wrote:Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch
It was originally. Later platforms have ATT (automatic tracking something). So you only have to keep the target in the field of view, but can switch to SACLOS if needed. It may or may not be on the equipment supplied to Ukraine. There’s a lot of variations in these systems, three missiles, various platforms, they added thermal imaging at one point to give day night capability, ATT, ADAD.
Not saying Starstreak or martlet are the answer mind, definitely not for Ukraine because of the paltry number of missiles and platforms that can be supplied in the near term. But the poor performance of heat seeking Manpads suggests to me they are approaching obsolescence against any decent countermeasures system.
ThePointblank wrote:BaconButty wrote:trex8 wrote:Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch
It was originally. Later platforms have ATT (automatic tracking something). So you only have to keep the target in the field of view, but can switch to SACLOS if needed. It may or may not be on the equipment supplied to Ukraine. There’s a lot of variations in these systems, three missiles, various platforms, they added thermal imaging at one point to give day night capability, ATT, ADAD.
Not saying Starstreak or martlet are the answer mind, definitely not for Ukraine because of the paltry number of missiles and platforms that can be supplied in the near term. But the poor performance of heat seeking Manpads suggests to me they are approaching obsolescence against any decent countermeasures system.
A variety of reasons why heat seeking missiles might be struggling.
1. They might be of an older type that is more prone to countermeasures because of their age;
2. The missiles might have been employed outside of their engagement profile and thus already had a low chance to begin with;
3. and Operator error
Spacepope wrote:Don’t forget that there are no claims about IR MANPADS performing poorly beyond the above claim too. I don’t think we will know the entire story for quite a while
BaconButty wrote:Still far more than the thing it's aimed at, but it makes you think.
BaconButty wrote:Spacepope wrote:Don’t forget that there are no claims about IR MANPADS performing poorly beyond the above claim too. I don’t think we will know the entire story for quite a while
It's not a claim as such - it's based on the Oryx data (which has been shown to be around 80% accurate and I'd expect it to be higher for helicopters for the obvious reasons) and my expectations. I had a look at the helicopter losses around 6 weeks ago, there were 32 in total, but only 13 could be potentially MANPADS. Since then there have been a further 10 recorded. I haven't looked at them, but I know one will be destroyed on the ground on Snake Island by a TB-2, another a remarkable second hit for a STUGNA atgm. So for the whole war, 21 potential kills. BUT they need to be shared between other types of manpads and SAMS, mechanical failures or even CFIT, the various 23mm AA systems, small arms fire, atgm/rpg fire and helicopters destroyed on the ground by UAV's or artillery. And that's in a war where we've had a large airmobile assault (on Hostemel).
My expectations were substantially higher than that, YMMV. Personally, given the intensity and breadth of the conflict, I feel IR manpads have performed worse than Blowpipe did in '82, and that's saying something. But the original question of the thread, about the effect of the Stinger production issues on the war in Ukraine, it strikes me that you wouldn't bother doing anything. @texl1649 had it right, run down the stockpile. And evaluate how you want short range air defence to look like in the future. The Russians, after their issues in Syria, have equipped their helicopters with missile warning detectors, dircm etc, and in any case there are tasks that would have been performed by helicopters are now being done by low cost UAV's, Orla-10's typically. It's a war that, in this phase, is about massed artillery and cheap UAV's. Are $100k missiles the right tool for the job? Today I saw my 4th and 5th videos of a martlet shooting down an Orla-10. They're "only" $30K a pop. Still far more than the thing it's aimed at, but it makes you think.
muralir wrote:I know the headline numbers about how much money countries are spending to support Ukraine run into the billions, but it seems that most of the equipment being sent (such as the stingers and javelins) were systems close to expiring and being decommissioned anyway. I'm curious how much of America's $40bil commitment is actually essentially free because it's old / expiring systems we were going to basically throw out anyway...
muralir wrote:I'm curious how much of America's $40bil commitment is actually essentially free because it's old / expiring systems we were going to basically throw out anyway...
bikerthai wrote:Another question about the $40 bil would be does it include cost of training? Or does that cost also get absorbed somewhere else.
And then there is the invaluable assets of the spy planes, AWACS and satelites. My guess is use of those services are free.
JayinKitsap wrote:The Stinger is at the end of its life. For now, ensure other anti-air and anti-tank missiles still in production get their production kicked up to build inventory in NATO.
bikerthai wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:The Stinger is at the end of its life. For now, ensure other anti-air and anti-tank missiles still in production get their production kicked up to build inventory in NATO.
Anyone keeping an eye on Stingers for Taiwan? Taiwan has secured enough components for their production order, but with the war, is there any rumors of how they are going to proceed with the contract?
bt
bikerthai wrote:What they need is to develop cheap small anti-drone mini missiles.
ThePointblank wrote:Easier and cheaper per shot to deploy a counter-UAV AAA system; the US Army has trialled a version of the Stryker armed with a 30mm auto cannon, coupled to a radar, an EO/IR suite, and radio jammers.