• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stinger history

fortune

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
772
Reaction score
253
Location
earth
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
how many iterations have their been?
I recall the movie Charlie Wilson's war where he got stingers into the hands of the Bin Laden types and they shot down a lot of Russian helicopters and then I read that when we went into Afghanistan we were told the Taliban had many left overbut not to worry becasue they won't work after such an age and now I see some kinda stingers being used "still" to shoot down Russian Helicopters today in ukraine.

I just have to assume a stinger missile to day is not the same kinda stinger Tom Hanks was peddling.
 
how many iterations have their been?
I recall the movie Charlie Wilson's war where he got stingers into the hands of the Bin Laden types and they shot down a lot of Russian helicopters and then I read that when we went into Afghanistan we were told the Taliban had many left overbut not to worry becasue they won't work after such an age and now I see some kinda stingers being used "still" to shoot down Russian Helicopters today in ukraine.

I just have to assume a stinger missile to day is not the same kinda stinger Tom Hanks was peddling.
The stingers used in afghanistan are a far cry from today, the ones we gave the rebels in afghanistan were the first gen stingers, which were upon release decades behind soviet tech as the strela from the early 60's had matched it in tech and the just released igla was leaps and bounds ahead.

In around 86 or 87 pretty much around the time we handed the afghan rebels stingers, the second gen of stingers had came out, which was only slightly behind the igla and igla s instead of decades behind.

Currently the stinger is slightly better than the igla-s, however much like the stinger the igla has been in continuous upgrades, a stinger of today is not the same from a decade ago, or from 4 decades ago.
 
I have a strong background in applied physics but am not familiar first-hand with these devices. That being said, a week ago when the news was percolating, I spent a few hours trying to read as much as I could about these munitions that I’d heard about since childhood but knew little about.

I was struck by a few things:
- how old Stingers are despite their propulsion system not having changed much at all
- the fact that their tracking unit at the head has evolved over time but the rest of system has not
- the interesting engineering challenges with needing to cool the head just before firing to effective track IR signatures e.g “cooling battery”
- the fact that the head unit electronics have not evolved in quite some time and from a target tracking perspective, the Stinger appears to be decidedly “last gen” versus what Japan, China and other nations have

I found myself wondering if powers-that-be want to use these up to add ammo to the business case for a next gen replacement. A little negative a thought, sure, but it had me wondering…
 
I have a strong background in applied physics but am not familiar first-hand with these devices. That being said, a week ago when the news was percolating, I spent a few hours trying to read as much as I could about these munitions that I’d heard about since childhood but knew little about.

I was struck by a few things:
- how old Stingers are despite their propulsion system not having changed much at all
- the fact that their tracking unit at the head has evolved over time but the rest of system has not
- the interesting engineering challenges with needing to cool the head just before firing to effective track IR signatures e.g “cooling battery”
- the fact that the head unit electronics have not evolved in quite some time and from a target tracking perspective, the Stinger appears to be decidedly “last gen” versus what Japan, China and other nations have

I found myself wondering if powers-that-be want to use these up to add ammo to the business case for a next gen replacement. A little negative a thought, sure, but it had me wondering…
Ok.. i tried on a different post to express something strange I saw on a video.
So there was this Russian tank or armorered gizmo on a street in a town and the video was from above.
There were all kinds of explosions and blowing up of those things on the street below.
One part showed a rocket trail "beginning" at 270 degrees from a tank about 100 yards away and showed its trail going directly at the tank but did not explode until it was directly over the tank.
I understand that we have missiles we can shoot at a tank that will launch into the air and come straight down on the TOP of a tank.
This not possible from only 100 yards away
I mean
W
T
F
was it?
 
Ok.. i tried on a different post to express something strange I saw on a video.
So there was this Russian tank or armorered gizmo on a street in a town and the video was from above.
There were all kinds of explosions and blowing up of those things on the street below.
One part showed a rocket trail "beginning" at 270 degrees from a tank about 100 yards away and showed its trail going directly at the tank but did not explode until it was directly over the tank.
I understand that we have missiles we can shoot at a tank that will launch into the air and come straight down on the TOP of a tank.
This not possible from only 100 yards away
I mean
W
T
F
was it?

Why is this impossible?
 
Ok.. i tried on a different post to express something strange I saw on a video.
So there was this Russian tank or armorered gizmo on a street in a town and the video was from above.
There were all kinds of explosions and blowing up of those things on the street below.
One part showed a rocket trail "beginning" at 270 degrees from a tank about 100 yards away and showed its trail going directly at the tank but did not explode until it was directly over the tank.
I understand that we have missiles we can shoot at a tank that will launch into the air and come straight down on the TOP of a tank.
This not possible from only 100 yards away
I mean
W
T
F
was it?
If you could link the video that would help tremendously.
 
I have a strong background in applied physics but am not familiar first-hand with these devices. That being said, a week ago when the news was percolating, I spent a few hours trying to read as much as I could about these munitions that I’d heard about since childhood but knew little about.

I was struck by a few things:
- how old Stingers are despite their propulsion system not having changed much at all
- the fact that their tracking unit at the head has evolved over time but the rest of system has not
- the interesting engineering challenges with needing to cool the head just before firing to effective track IR signatures e.g “cooling battery”
- the fact that the head unit electronics have not evolved in quite some time and from a target tracking perspective, the Stinger appears to be decidedly “last gen” versus what Japan, China and other nations have

I found myself wondering if powers-that-be want to use these up to add ammo to the business case for a next gen replacement. A little negative a thought, sure, but it had me wondering…

What's the shelf life of a Stinger - 20 years ?

It makes sense to supply the oldest ones first.
 
how many iterations have their been?
I recall the movie Charlie Wilson's war where he got stingers into the hands of the Bin Laden types and they shot down a lot of Russian helicopters and then I read that when we went into Afghanistan we were told the Taliban had many left overbut not to worry becasue they won't work after such an age and now I see some kinda stingers being used "still" to shoot down Russian Helicopters today in ukraine.

I just have to assume a stinger missile to day is not the same kinda stinger Tom Hanks was peddling.

They did not give them to "bin laden types". Such supplies went to the Afghan fighters, especially those secular ones like Ahmad Shah Massoud. The secular fighters, not the religious fanatics that went there from other countries to fight in some "holy war".

And for the first half of the war, they did not get the FIM-92 STINGER.

fim-92-stinger-rocket-launcher-260nw-1906486339.jpg


What they actually got was the FIM-43 REDEYE.

FIM-43_Redeye_%28Robot_69%29_001.jpg


But no, none of those sent during the Soviet-Afghan War would still be operational. They actually have a shelf life of around 5-10 years at best. The round item forward of the hand grip is actually the BCU (Battery Coolant Unit). Both the battery it uses to function, as well as the pressurized coolant needed to supercool the seeker head so it can locate and track a target. And the BCU can only be stored for a few years. No BCU, and all you have is a very expensive club.

What is being used in Ukraine are likely VERBA or IGLA missiles, a Russian made MANPAD.

1322907.jpg
 
In around 86 or 87 pretty much around the time we handed the afghan rebels stingers, the second gen of stingers had came out

Actually, although many called them STINGERS, they were actually REDEYE.

And for helicopters, the REDEYE was perfectly fine. They were already being pulled from US units, as they were not as good against jets as the newer STINGER was. But against slow moving helicopters they were perfect. And the two are almost the same as far as training and use.

Scan the sky with the BCU in hand, then when you acquire a target hold the BCU near where it goes, then put it in and turn it as you wait for the seeker head to give you a tone showing that it has a positive lock on the target. REDEYE, STINGER, it is the exact same process.

These were sent to the Mujahideen fighters in early 1984, they did not start sending STINGER until late 1986. By 1986 most of the REDEYES had been expended, so they started sending first generation STINGER missiles instead.
 
Actually, although many called them STINGERS, they were actually REDEYE.

And for helicopters, the REDEYE was perfectly fine. They were already being pulled from US units, as they were not as good against jets as the newer STINGER was. But against slow moving helicopters they were perfect. And the two are almost the same as far as training and use.

Scan the sky with the BCU in hand, then when you acquire a target hold the BCU near where it goes, then put it in and turn it as you wait for the seeker head to give you a tone showing that it has a positive lock on the target. REDEYE, STINGER, it is the exact same process.

These were sent to the Mujahideen fighters in early 1984, they did not start sending STINGER until late 1986. By 1986 most of the REDEYES had been expended, so they started sending first generation STINGER missiles instead.
The stinger came into service in 1982, it was originally called the redeye 2, however it later was called stinger. It proved to be far behind soviet tech at launch just like the redeye, and by the late 80's it's next big upgrade brought it from way behind the strela and igla to near peer tech, and a few upgrades later put it slightly better than the igla.

Either way the redeye and the stinger at first were far behind, the biggest issue was the look behind tech, where the thermal could only shoot down an aircraft moving away from you because the thermal was too weak to hit aircraft with it;s engines exhaust facing away. By the second iteration of stinger they gained the ability to differentiate decoys, and also hit aircraft from the front instead of just from behind, tech the strela 3 and igla already long had.
 
The stinger came into service in 1982, it was originally called the redeye 2

Yep. Which allowed the DoD to release the older stockpiles of REDEYE for use elsewhere.

The US almost never offers its first tier weapons, unless it is to a close ally (like the UK). To others, it offers older generations of equipment, that are largely surplus at that time.

Like Iran-Contra. Where the US shipped TOW missiles to Iran. However, the TOW was already obsolete by that time, and was being replaced with the TOW II in US inventories. That meant there was a surplus of the old missiles, so that was a good way to get rid of them. Or the AVG, which got old P-40 aircraft, as the newer P-40B and other models were being shipped to allies by then.
 
Back
Top Bottom