- 1 Rotation of missile
- 2 Cost
- 3 Foreign manufacture
- 4 Comments
- 5 non-NPOV
- 6 Afghanistan
- 7 What is that thing?
- 8 Confusing picture coment
- 9 Info on Swiss-licensed Stinger.
- 10 Buyback
- 11 Iranian Manufacture
- 12 Pronounciation
- 13 Albania
- 14 Feed system
- 15 Croatia
- 16 Additional radar
- 17 Afghanistan PK
- 18 Chad
- 19 A to I Variants
- 20 Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Rotation of missile
Someone providing the source for that flyaway cost would be a smart idea. -- Penta 18:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I've added some more data for the costings from Janes, also I've adjusted the Lith. costings to assume 1/3rd of the money went on missiles. I guess if you only order 69 missiles, you don't get the same kind of volume discount you get when ordering 2,500. Megapixie 16:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
A Dutch soldier told me (at the Landmachtdagen 2006) that a Stinger missile costs about a ton (in euro's), which, in Dutch, is 100.000. They only get to practice-fire once, and that's against radio-controlled model-planes. The same Dutch soldier also said that the range for a Stinger is about 4-6 kilometers far (could be more), and 3 kilometers high. Also, modern Stingers used by the Netherlands also used ultraviolet detection (on top of ultra-red), to which aircraft appear as blind spots. He later demonstrated this by aiming his Stinger (a trainer version, weight: 12 kilo's, I recall) at overflying F-16's. The Afghans used a version without the ultra-violet detection. Also, the missile is single-fire, but the 'aim/trigger' part can be re-used (this is actually the most valuable part). (The modern stinger also has a smaller, round battery)
Kyrandos 05:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Said dutch soldier talks too much, especially in regards to the max range... I know in at least one certain country those numbers are classified. Further, he's yanking your chain. "They only get to practice-fire once, and that's against radio-controlled model-planes."
Yeah right. How the hell is a model airplane going to give off an IR signature for the missile to lock onto? He was messing with you.
The Stinger missile was also produced and serviced abroad, e.g. in Germany by Bodenseewerk Gerätetechnik (BGT). Production included the seeker heads. As far as I know the Swiss bought the licence to built them themselves too.
MY MOS WAS 14S IN THE US ARMY AND YES THEY DO TRAIN WITH RC PLANES THAT ARE MODIFIED TO GIVE OFF AND IR SIGNITURE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
EADS is a German/European company, so all participating countries would buy from them, not from Raytheon... No??? Spain, UK, France, Italy & Germany are part of EADS... 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I strongly believe all information as to supposed prices of the missile should be removed, as they are WIDELY inaccurate. Not only is the information strongly biased to what year the missiles were manufactured, theres other factors involved, such as was it sold as a missile or ready round? Were RPU's included? Was training equipment included in cost? An accurate gauging of todays real world pricing for these missiles shouldn't even be attempted unless someone can directly get this information from the manufacturer (which I very much do not think you will).
Further, I basically gaurantee what few stingers exist in non-scrupulous hands do not work these days. The BCU (batteries) have a nasty habit of getting destroyed / going bad very easily, and considering what tremendously poor conditions these missiles would be subjected to, I couldn't possibly imagine a single one of them working to this day. It's important to understand that the batteries are not at all 'normal' batteries that could be quickly jury-rigged. There is indeed a thermal battery which I suppose could conceivably be replaced, but the BCU's also provide a pressurized stream of argon gas to cool the IR seeker while obtaining and tracking a target.
The stinger is a rather effective weapon for all intents and purposes, however is very prone to the rigors of maltreatment. In short, there is very little to worry about for any rogue stingers out there. - Kyrandos
- Nice to see a contributor with some first hand knowledge of the subject :) Regarding the prices - the Lith. prices are somewhat speculative - but the other prices are all from Janes (i.e. a somewhat reputable source) - and the article clearly indicates when the contracts were signed. I don't understand what the rationale for removing the information is.
- Regarding the rogue stingers - I agree - the problem isn't so much the original missiles, but Chinese, Pakistani or North Korean copies that have been made from the "lost" missiles. Megapixie 05:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I removed the information originally because I would basically put down every penny I own to say that the any price someone might slap down there is pretty wildly off. Janes, while being a pretty good source, is not the same as holding a recent invoice listing purchase price. As I said before, there are just so many factors involved, such as how close to new technology we are getting (USA is getting ready to replace with SLAMRAM in the next 5 years or so), new innovations in the design or programming of the RCU's, purchased batch size, etc etc etc. A missile like a patriot is easy to put a price on - to say 'oh, a PAC 3 costs about 3 million or so" is accurate enough to satisfy. Stingers, however, are just a different beast entirely. Regardless, people who are looking for a value would probably be more happy with an educated, but inaccurate guess than nothing at all. In that light, I will not edit any pricing. - Kyrandos
"The very first Stinger fired in anger shot down an Argentine Pucara ground attack aircraft."
"The very first Stinger fired in combat shot down an Argentine Pucara ground attack aircraft."
Please revert my change if I'm wrong. 22.214.171.124 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- "fired in anger" is a term of art (albeit somewhat old fashioned), not a non-neutral term. It means "with an intent to cause harm" or "in combat"--as opposed to training, accidents, etc. It does not mean that the UK soldier who shot at the Pucara literally was angry at the time. (Nervous was probably more like it.) Epstein's Mother 05:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote that section. I chose "fired in anger" as shorthand for "fired in the course of hostile military operations between two aggressors rather than on exercise or during a test". It is a neutral term that does not literally imply that the soldier was angry. From what I have read, he was in fact curious and then thrilled and then frustrated in that order. NB Wikipedia is available in languages other than English; your own localised version would benefit from your participation. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
What about shipments of stingers to Mujahideens during Soviet war in Afghanistan ?
- WHat about them? 90% chance not a single one of them works anymore. Without the BCU's, the missile is next to useless, and they only last
for so long and are easily broken. -This is speculation of course, but I very much doubt there are many mission capable stingers floating around over there... if any.
What is that thing?
I've tried and tried, but I cant figure it out. What's that basket-like frame on the righthand side of the launcher for? A cage for batteries? Auxilliary computer equipment? A fix point for use on vehicles? A rack for girlie mags? I mean, to make a few guesses... --Oceanhahn 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
This "basket-like frame" is the IFF atenna (Indentification Friend Foe). It picks up a coded signal from the planes. If they have this equipment and it is switched on. A cable pluged in the pistol grip conect it with a decoder. This one tells by sound if the signal matches or not. Since it only works if the plane is in certain angle to the antena and all the things told above it is considered as quite useless. At least by the Stinger operaters in Swiss Air Force. The eyes are a much more reliable tool. --CHmale81 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Oceanhahn 01:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the post before me! What & how it works i only found in here! And why does it have to be attached even though, for example in Afghanistan, it's not used since all Planes in the 80s in Afghanistan were Soviet...??? Seams silly and on top unnecessary weight to carry around...! And yes, this information needs to be included in the main article! Best is to explain what the various parts are, not just the basket!!! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Confusing picture coment
The second picture's coment is somwhat inacurate. Current version: "A Stinger system: Launcher, Missile and Battery" But what we can see are in fact the launcher, the missile and the IFF decoder. Anyway, in the case of the Stinger system one should speak about a BCU and not battery. See also the describtion.--CHmale81 16:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
There is the IFF. The basket you are talking about which is known as Identification Friend or Foe. Each and every airplane is constantly sending a signal which which changes daily, the IFF picks up signal and alerts the gunner giving him advance information on the aircraft POSSIBLY giving him a better time frame in which to detrimine if in fact it is friend or foe.
Now, however, "Rules of Engagement" specically require the senior man (which is not the gunner)in the two man crew to visually identify the aircraft and alert the gunner to fire or not.
Info on Swiss-licensed Stinger.
The page mentions that the US attempted to buy missiles back form someone; however, it does not mention from whom. Without knowing who was in possession, the sentence is largely useless.
This article mentioned that the Iranians have copied the Stinger missile. However, the links provided (to articles from 1987) only mention that the Iranians *claim* to have copied it or only just used the specimens they acquired on patrol boats. I would think that after 20 years we would have slightly more information. I've never heard of such an Iranian-manufactured copy or seen a designation.
- I would think after 20 years they'd be able to pull it off. Hell, after 20 years, even a moron such as yourself could make a copy. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, the Iranians use a copy of the Chinese QW-1 MANPAD called the Misagh-1. That system "incorporates features" attributed to the Stinger missile, but is by no means a direct copy. (Darthveda (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC))
This may not be that relevant, but I have consistently come across people overseas who pronounce the name of the weapon as "StinJer", that is, with a J instead of G. -Todd 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No any Stingers in Albanian inventory. Megalomaniacs or maybe paranoids has posted that Albania has SA-5, 500 SA-16, MIM-23, FIM-92 and i dont still know what else. Millions of people get wrong information, everybody can write down whatever noncence he likes or imagine. The situation with all these SAM Albanian systems is very unhappy. I wonder if Albania has any B-2 bombers or any F-117 planes. Especcially in armed forces etc articles everyboby can make the inventory of his country armed forces as he likes or wishes. At BMP-3 IFV for example i removed many times the vehicle from people adding it to their army inventory or at the BMP-3 article. False countries were Serbia, Bulgaria, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Syria, etc. People from many countries write everything they want. The system of acces must change to avoid to every idiot to write down whatever he like and to give to million of readers wrong informations. John, Athens 12 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The electronic component can be removed and attached to a new rocket and tube. A rocket itself cannot be reloaded into the tube.
Prior to Yugoslav Wars a fair amount of these were smuggled into Yugoslav republic of Croatia by the separatist government and secret services of several NATO and NATO-friendly countries, to be used against the federal JNA air force. They were indeed used with some success along the somewhat less efficient Strela 2s provided by Croatian soldiers and officers deserting the JNA and those captured in the Battle of the Barracks.
Back in the mid-80s, the Army was experimenting with an additional manned radar, to be positioned some distance from the Stinger gunner and to provide early warning of and relative bearing to target. Can't recall the designation: TRIM?-, TRAP?-something. Anyone know about this? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just found an allusion to this elsewhere: it was a variation on the Army's AN/MPQ-49 Forward Area Alerting Radar (FAAR); to be used to alert Stinger gunners to incoming aircraft. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The argument about the Stinger is not so clear: basically, the Pk probability is said to be from 25 to 80%, and more than this, there are numbers like 270-300 kills, that basically seems to be around almost the totality of soviet losses, a bit not so credible imho, after all Stingers came only from 1986. I think about that numbers, they are overrated a bit.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Russian helicopters used in the Afghan War were not properly equipped with countermeasures and missile warning devices. Armored attack choppers that were once considered protected against small arms fire, had become extremely vulnerable to goat herders with modern SAMs. Later on in the war flares, ECM systems, missile warning systems, and modifications were made to the aircraft and tactics to try to counter the new threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
A to I Variants
What would be different from variants of the Stinger e.g. FIM-92A, FIM-92B, FIM-92C ..... FIM-92I. Would it be the missile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- Triggered by
\bairforce-technology\.com\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.