Tweet
Oil Price
July 23 2014
Are Civilian Flights Over War Zones Safe?
By Claude Salhani | Wed, 23 July 2014 21:39
Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities
before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even
exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this
and much more. Click here to find out more.
In the aftermath of the shoot-down over Ukraine of Malaysian Airways
Flight 17 last week, and the deaths of its 298 passengers and crew,
the question that many travelers are asking is: just how safe is
international air travel these days?
It's a reasonable question given that 41 wars or armed conflicts are
currently going on across the world at the moment.
Most people would be hard pressed to name more than the major
conflicts, the ones making headlines on CNN, Al-Jazeera and the BBC:
Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sad to say, but there are many more: Somalia; Nigeria (where an
Islamist insurgency has killed at least 10,700 people since 1999);
Pakistan's Northwest Province (at least 52,000 killed since 2004);
Nagorno-Karabakh, where since 1988 more than 30,000 have been killed
in fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan; in Darfur, some 462,000
people have died; the insurgency in Yemen has claimed 25,000 lives.
And the list goes on.
If the pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine were able to procure
anti-aircraft missiles capable of reaching an airliner flying at
35,000 feet, can't others do the same?
Related Article: The Islamic State: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
And if they can, does this mean that civilian aircrafts will have to
avoid the skies of every conflict-ridden country? With dozens of
countries in a state of belligerency at any given moment, that kind of
restriction would make flights to many countries much more time
consuming not to mention expensive; more flying time means more fuel,
which means pricier tickets.
The airline industry will generate about $24 billion in profit for oil
producers this year, spending an estimated $212 billion on jet fuel -
or almost 30 percent of their total operating costs, according to the
International Air Transport Association.
The good news to the above questions are yes, for the most part,
international air travel over warring regions is safe; and no, most
rebel groups around the world are unable to obtain similar weapons for
a wide range of reasons.
The first is that this is very expensive equipment; a set of four
missiles costs anywhere from $30 million to $120 million. And the
countries that manufacture them aren't in the business of selling them
cheaply or handing them over to any group with a grudge.
Second, these are large weapons, usually requiring two or three
vehicles to move them. These are not shoulder-held rockets that
someone can literally hide under their bed.
Third, the weapons systems require specialized training. Not every
rebel group can recruit such talent.
Fourth, it's highly unlikely that rebel groups believe shooting
international civilian plans out of the sky is part of a winning
strategy. Most observers believe the Malaysian flight was shot down
accidentally.
The type of weapon used to shoot down Malaysian Flight 17 crash is
still being investigated, but evidence so far points to the use of
either the SA-11 (NATO codenamed Gadfly 1979) or SA-17 "Buk Mk. 2"
anti-aircraft missile (NATO designation Grizzly 2007).
That assumes that the weapon was Russian-made. The Ukrainian
government said it doesn't have a weapon capable of bringing down a
commercial airliner. The missile was fired from pro-Moscow
separatist-held territory.
The Russians also have the more sophisticated SA-20, (S0-300) though
it would be highly unlikely that they would have given those to the
Ukrainian rebels, U.S. experts say.
The SA-20 are extremely sophisticated and need to be operated by
experienced crews with excellent ability to characterize flight paths
and read out IIF (Identification friend or foe) and transponder data.
Human error from a SA-20 unit is possible, but very unlikely, says
Anthony H. Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
"There have been no suggestions that these are in rebel hands or they
could use them," Cordesman wrote in a special report on the downing of
the Malaysian plane.
We know that at the altitude the plane was flying - 32,000 feet -- it
is impossible that it was hit by a portable, shoulder-launched
heat-seeking missile of the sort the CIA handed out to Afghan rebels
during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Cordesman confirms that
those are unable to reach civilian airliners at cruising altitude.
Variants of the SA-11 and SA-12 easily can.
General Philip Breedlove, NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe,
warned in June that the Russian government had been training
pro-Russian separatists inside Russia to have an "anti-aircraft
capability," Cordesman noted.
By Claude Salhani of Oilprice.com
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Are-Civilian-Flights-Over-War-Zones-Safe.html
July 23 2014
Are Civilian Flights Over War Zones Safe?
By Claude Salhani | Wed, 23 July 2014 21:39
Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities
before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even
exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this
and much more. Click here to find out more.
In the aftermath of the shoot-down over Ukraine of Malaysian Airways
Flight 17 last week, and the deaths of its 298 passengers and crew,
the question that many travelers are asking is: just how safe is
international air travel these days?
It's a reasonable question given that 41 wars or armed conflicts are
currently going on across the world at the moment.
Most people would be hard pressed to name more than the major
conflicts, the ones making headlines on CNN, Al-Jazeera and the BBC:
Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sad to say, but there are many more: Somalia; Nigeria (where an
Islamist insurgency has killed at least 10,700 people since 1999);
Pakistan's Northwest Province (at least 52,000 killed since 2004);
Nagorno-Karabakh, where since 1988 more than 30,000 have been killed
in fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan; in Darfur, some 462,000
people have died; the insurgency in Yemen has claimed 25,000 lives.
And the list goes on.
If the pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine were able to procure
anti-aircraft missiles capable of reaching an airliner flying at
35,000 feet, can't others do the same?
Related Article: The Islamic State: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
And if they can, does this mean that civilian aircrafts will have to
avoid the skies of every conflict-ridden country? With dozens of
countries in a state of belligerency at any given moment, that kind of
restriction would make flights to many countries much more time
consuming not to mention expensive; more flying time means more fuel,
which means pricier tickets.
The airline industry will generate about $24 billion in profit for oil
producers this year, spending an estimated $212 billion on jet fuel -
or almost 30 percent of their total operating costs, according to the
International Air Transport Association.
The good news to the above questions are yes, for the most part,
international air travel over warring regions is safe; and no, most
rebel groups around the world are unable to obtain similar weapons for
a wide range of reasons.
The first is that this is very expensive equipment; a set of four
missiles costs anywhere from $30 million to $120 million. And the
countries that manufacture them aren't in the business of selling them
cheaply or handing them over to any group with a grudge.
Second, these are large weapons, usually requiring two or three
vehicles to move them. These are not shoulder-held rockets that
someone can literally hide under their bed.
Third, the weapons systems require specialized training. Not every
rebel group can recruit such talent.
Fourth, it's highly unlikely that rebel groups believe shooting
international civilian plans out of the sky is part of a winning
strategy. Most observers believe the Malaysian flight was shot down
accidentally.
The type of weapon used to shoot down Malaysian Flight 17 crash is
still being investigated, but evidence so far points to the use of
either the SA-11 (NATO codenamed Gadfly 1979) or SA-17 "Buk Mk. 2"
anti-aircraft missile (NATO designation Grizzly 2007).
That assumes that the weapon was Russian-made. The Ukrainian
government said it doesn't have a weapon capable of bringing down a
commercial airliner. The missile was fired from pro-Moscow
separatist-held territory.
The Russians also have the more sophisticated SA-20, (S0-300) though
it would be highly unlikely that they would have given those to the
Ukrainian rebels, U.S. experts say.
The SA-20 are extremely sophisticated and need to be operated by
experienced crews with excellent ability to characterize flight paths
and read out IIF (Identification friend or foe) and transponder data.
Human error from a SA-20 unit is possible, but very unlikely, says
Anthony H. Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
"There have been no suggestions that these are in rebel hands or they
could use them," Cordesman wrote in a special report on the downing of
the Malaysian plane.
We know that at the altitude the plane was flying - 32,000 feet -- it
is impossible that it was hit by a portable, shoulder-launched
heat-seeking missile of the sort the CIA handed out to Afghan rebels
during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Cordesman confirms that
those are unable to reach civilian airliners at cruising altitude.
Variants of the SA-11 and SA-12 easily can.
General Philip Breedlove, NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe,
warned in June that the Russian government had been training
pro-Russian separatists inside Russia to have an "anti-aircraft
capability," Cordesman noted.
By Claude Salhani of Oilprice.com
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Are-Civilian-Flights-Over-War-Zones-Safe.html