Air Force One hit by missile November 2003

burmafrd

Banned
You can HIT the 747 but knocking it down is another story. As I pointed out, that is a very big and well built aircraft hit by weapon meant to take down a much smaller and more lightly built aircraft.
 
Flying Heavy

Unlike every other aircraft that lands light, that is relatively low on fuel, AFOne lands heavy, that is with relatively full fuel tanks so that if something happens when they're landing, they can power up and get out of there without having to wait for fuel.
 
Discussion of whether a Jumbo could survive a SAM hit due to its size reminds me of El Al flight 1862 which crashed in the Netherlands in 1992 after losing (i.e. it fell off) an engine.

This is what the official report had to say:
The no. 3 pylon and engine [were caused] to separate from the wing in such a way that the no. 4 pylon and engine were torn off, part of the leading edge of the wing was damaged and the use of several systems was lost or limited. This subsequently left the flight crew with very limited control of the airplane. Because of the marginal controllability a safe landing became highly improbable, if not virtually impossible.

In the unlikely event a missile did hit Air Force One a similar (or possibly worse) level of damage would ensue IMO. The problem wouldn't be the amount of power left or the damage to the body of the plane, but the lack of lift and controllability on the damaged wing, and so the plane would probably crash.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Once again I have to point out the extremely small size of the warhead of the stinger and the very heavily built engine and support structure of thee 747. If it did manage to avoid the ECM and automatic flares put out by the defensive system the missile would home in on the nearest heat source which is the outboard engine. There have been numerous examples over the years of a engine falling off and the plane flying on normally; more examples of a blown engine and no problems. The missile would enter either at the rear or front of the engine and its explosive force would be channels by the design of the engine to a certain degree as well.

There is a less then 5% chance of the missile hitting the plane and less then a 1% chance of it doing critical damage.
 
Once again I have to point out the extremely small size of the warhead of the stinger and the very heavily built engine and support structure of thee 747. If it did manage to avoid the ECM and automatic flares put out by the defensive system the missile would home in on the nearest heat source which is the outboard engine. There have been numerous examples over the years of a engine falling off and the plane flying on normally; more examples of a blown engine and no problems. The missile would enter either at the rear or front of the engine and its explosive force would be channels by the design of the engine to a certain degree as well.

There is a less then 5% chance of the missile hitting the plane and less then a 1% chance of it doing critical damage.

OK, but you saying it doesn't make it so. Do you have any evidence?

I don't think there's any dispute that ECM/flares would make the chance of a hit low (depending on the generation of missile used from a SA-7 having no chance to a latest model SA-18 or Stinger-B having some chance).

However, there does seem to be evidence that the loss of an engine + lift and control surfaces on one wing is a potentially fatal threat to an aircraft, even a big one, particularly just after takeoff.

This article for example claims that the SA-18 has a 25% chance of killing a target using both flares and ECM, not 1% as you state, so I'm wondering where you got that figure from?

In favour of the idea that big aircraft can survive attacks however is the outcome of the 2003 baghdad attack which didn't succeed in destroying its target.

Also, possibly a Command Line of Sight missile such as the British Javellin or a laser guided missile such as the Starstreak would be more effective than an IR homer.
 
Top