Thales UK secures Indian partner for selling its Starstreak air-defense missile January 14 A Starstreak high velocity missile (HVM) system is manned by members of the British Royal Artillery during a media demonstration at Blackheath in southeast London in 2012. India s Bharat Dynamics Ltd is set to sell the weapon in India under a cooperation with Thales UK. (Carl Court /AFP/GettyImages) LONDON – The Northern Ireland arm of Thales UK has struck a partnering arrangement with Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL) as part of its effort to secure a deal with the Indian military to purchase the British-developed Starstreak man-portable, air-defense system. In a statement the two companies said the tie-up will see BDL become a “part of the Starstreak global supply chain, providing the opportunity for export of Indian-manufactured components to existing and future Starstreak air defense customers, including the UK armed forces.”
what happened, is what kind of weapon shot this plane down. was it a shoulder launched anti-aircraft rocket? or was it gun fire from the ground? if it was a shoulder launched anti-aircraft rocket, a so-called man pad which stands for man portable air defense system that would certainly be quite concerning for many people if that was in the hands of some of the militant groups. so that s one of the things that everybody s trying to get to terms with at this point in time. and then, of course, for the russians, there s also the aftermath. trying to get the body of this pilot back. they re obviously trying to see how something like this could have happened, whether that area they re operating in right now, how dangerous it actually is there for their planes to be flying around. so big setback for the russians. of course, also big national tragedy for the russians, as well. and also another sign, quite frankly, george, that the war in syria is far from over. and is still very, very dangero
traveling above 31,000 feet? the first one we look at is man pads, manned portable air defense systems, shoulder-launched missiles that use i.r. sensors, infrared sensors, and those missiles go after the hottest part of the jet. so that is what the capability that isis, if they had one, would use. they can t go above 20,000 feet. so it s pretty clear that it wouldn t be a man pad that brought down that, just as man pads were used by the mujahadin against the soviets in afghanistan and actually helped to turn the war. what else is there? if we look at the mh-17 disaster it was a buck missile system. this is radar guided. this goes after the radar cross-section of the aircraft. and that was proximity fuse. when you look at the debris scatter of mh-17 that was over 50 kilometers. that was an explosion that happened at 31,000 feet to an aircraft traveling at 400 to 500 miles an hour which is seven to eight miles a minute spread over 50 kilometers. pan-am 103, 130 kilometers debris field.
to me the only threat that possibly would have been out there on a departure situation or an arrival with a man pad. because that was the mentality shortly after september 11th. none of us conceived that there would have been a missile that made it into the 70s in altitude. both mary and les are strengthening my argument. because les says the dispatcher would have to have that government. therefore, it s the government. mary says the regulations have to be the floor, the minimum. mary, if the floor says it s safe, yes, certain airline can choose to say we re going to have an abundance of safety. but you have to rely on that floor that s going to hold you up. interesting point. but the floor was, the floor was 32,000 feet. and malaysia originally asked for 35, they got 33. they could have chosen something else. the floor doesn t guarantee you
hours. what was your immediate reaction? and you re an expert. i found it to be completely understandable. there you have an active war going on. you ve got an international airport where planes are coming in to land and take off. as we just saw, you don t need more than 10,000 or 12,000 feet for a man pad to be very effective. i think it was the right thing to do. the insurance liability of flying in there over this ban is simply too great. tom fuentes, what did you think? i think the same as peter. what tom foreman just said i don t think has gotten enough attention. these shoulder-held weapons can be taken anywhere. you can put them in the back of a station wagon or a minivan and drive them wherever you want. hamas could go through one of their tunnels, carry one of these in, get in a station wagon