cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-12-2006, 06:41 AM   #31
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Here is a comment by a guy following an incident in DC in 2005 where some bozo in a cessan wandered too close to the White house and was diverted by F-16s. The emphasis is mine, not his.

Quote:
Drawing on my own dated experience as a WSO in USAF F-4Es some twenty years ago, my opinion of this incident is not so rosy as the rest.

I'm not so sure that the F-16 could have downed the Cessna with a missile because there's not much metal there to reflect radar energy to guide a radar missile and not much exhaust to guide an infrared missile. I had trouble picking up light aircraft on my radar, though perhaps the radars are better now.

I distinctly recall an F-4 alert bird at Homestead AFB, near Miami, rooting around the clouds off the coast for a lost and clueless rich guy and his family returning from the Bahamas without a flight plan back in the early 1980s. The radar return on their twin engine aircraft was so weak that the F-4 lost it and ended up putting its wing through their cabin. The family wondered why there wasn't much of search for survivors but the unpublicized answer was that some of their scalps were caught in the leading edge slats of the intercepting F-4. Light airplanes are a challenge to see on radar.

The seeker head on a heater is tuned to the infrared wavelength of burning jet fuel and the best Pk shot is up the wazoo where the seeker has a good view of the burning fuel. That's not true on the lowly Cessna which is burning the wrong kind of fuel, not much of it to make a lot of infrared light, and no open exhaust. It's hard for the heater to see it.

Even shooting it down with the gun could be problematic. There was a weather balloon adrift over the Keys when I was training at Homestead. A crew from my squadron was sent to bring it down. It had no heat, so an IR missile wouldn't work. They tried shooting it but it kept on flying even when holed. They got a very weak radar return on it and finally popped it with a radar missile. But it was close.

My point is that F-16s and such are optimized to shoot down fast moving fighters and large aircraft. Paradoxically, they are not all that good at shooting down light aircraft. My recommendation would be to do a close fly-by of the Cessna and bring him down with the wake turbulence from the wingtips.

I have a more sobering observation. These two clueless numbskulls were able to fly to within three miles of the White House without really trying. Three miles in the air is arm's length. It's no distance at all. If you get that far, you can go all the way. A determined crew flying at low altitude with a deadly payload, like nerve agent, could succeed in hitting the White House.

The dirty little secret of this event is that there is no reliable way of defending the White House from the air.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 06:57 AM   #32
myboynoah
Senior Member
 
myboynoah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Memphis freakin' Tennessee!!!!!
Posts: 4,530
myboynoah is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
I also found it quaint that you apparently beleived that NORAD has some sort of central database that keeps track of every flight's flight plan (although you now have been informed that many flights don't even file flight plans) and keeps tabs on all flights so that if they vary from these flight plans they can be shot down or intercepted by fighters. IF we scrambled fighters every time some yahoo in a cessna varies from his flight plan (assuming he filed one) our air force fighters would probabyl spend most of their time on this activity.
Great point. The costs of trying to take on this impossible task would be astronomical.

Why do people get so upset when policymakers get information on breaking news stories from CNN et al? News stations are set up to do just that and serve as a great intelligence resource. Every USG ops center, even those at CIA and the Pentagon, have live feeds from all the major news stations on 24/7 because they serve an important purpose. Why should the government establish a redundant system?
__________________
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

Religion rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins. Of all religions that I know, the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Joseph Smith.
myboynoah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 02:21 PM   #33
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
Here is a comment by a guy following an incident in DC in 2005 where some bozo in a cessan wandered too close to the White house and was diverted by F-16s. The emphasis is mine, not his.
I'm not sure this goes to what I was addressing. The plane he was referring to was detected. NORAD knew the plane was out there (even if they lost it temporarily) and they diverted fighter jets to intercept it (which is exactly what I said happens). Contrast that with the NYC incident where they didn't even know it was out there, despite the fact that it had also issued a distress signal.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 02:29 PM   #34
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
No its not being done, not like you are asserting. In DC they have huge no fly zones. They eliminated all private traffic from National/Reagan airport. Even so, if you were determined, it would be almost impossible to stop you in a small plane from flying towards and into one of the symbolic buildings in DC. Why do you think the secret service has AA guns on the roof of the whitehouse? It isn't to try to shoot down a 747.

TO adopt similar measures in other cities, especailly somewhere like the metropolitan NYC area, would be very damaging to the livelihoods of many, as well as to the convenience of many others. It simply can't be done in any reasonable way. Planes fly up and down the east river all the time, as do helicopters. In order to allow NORAD enough time to recognize a risk to any building in manhattan and have enough time to do anything about it (remember, unlike the whitehouse there are no AA guns on top of most buildigns in NYC) the no-fly zone would probably have to stretch from massachusetts to Philadelphia, and even then it might not be enough.

I also found it quaint that you apparently beleived that NORAD has some sort of central database that keeps track of every flight's flight plan (although you now have been informed that many flights don't even file flight plans) and keeps tabs on all flights so that if they vary from these flight plans they can be shot down or intercepted by fighters. IF we scrambled fighters every time some yahoo in a cessna varies from his flight plan (assuming he filed one) our air force fighters would probabyl spend most of their time on this activity.

Now if we could spend enough on 'star wars' systems so we could zap these guys from space, it might be possible.
You are making things up that I didn't say just so you can dismiss them as "quaint." Let's be a bit more honest in this discussion please. I didn't ever say NORAD has a "central database that keeps track of every flight's flight plan." You did. There are mutliple agencies that track flights of planes. For those that divert from flight plans and pose a threat, I expect NORAD is notified (I don't know how this tranlsates into keeping a central database).


I also don't suggest scrambling fighters for every flight diversion. I do expect that planes flying over NYC at less than 500 feet trigger some alarms because they clearly pose a threat (intentional or otherwise).
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 02:44 PM   #35
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug View Post
I'm not sure this goes to what I was addressing. The plane he was referring to was detected. NORAD knew the plane was out there (even if they lost it temporarily) and they diverted fighter jets to intercept it (which is exactly what I said happens). Contrast that with the NYC incident where they didn't even know it was out there, despite the fact that it had also issued a distress signal.
Perhaps you missd the point of the guy's comments. THe plane was within three miles of the white house beofre it was intercepted but the pilot was NOT TRYING to fly to the white house. THe plane was detected as it menadered around the DC area and was eventually intercpeted as it was on a course heading near the whitehouse. But if the pilot had intended to go to the white house he would have been able to make it. I actually thought this point was made pretty clearly in the comment but you seemed to have let it slip by.

Furthermore, we do not have fighters or interceptors constantly in the sky that can simply be 'diverted' to intercept every aircraft that may stray from a lfight plan or which may appear to be going too close to a building. Typically they need to be scrambled, which is expensive and takes time. We can perhaps have them placed and prepared to protect a few targets, such as the capitol and whitehouse (although 'protect is overstating it) but it is too expensive and virtually impossible to protect all urban areas in a reasonable and timely way.

I also don't understand the signifigance you seem to be placing in the fact that this plane issued a distress signal. Are you suggesting that a terrorist intent on ramming a building would ususlaly issue such a signal? THat seems rather silly. So if a plane does issue a signal then wouldn't you expect it NOT to be a terrorist, meaning the need for interception is lessened?

Finally, nothing in the commnets I posted said that NORAD had found the -plane in question. THe comments about finding and then losing a plane were referring to a separate incident off of the Bahamas where an F-4 ended up casuing the subhject of a search to crash as a result of being unable to lock onto the small plane with its own on-board radar system. An on-board radar contact is NOT the same thing as NORAD. These small planes are hard to see on radar, even if you are in a plane nearby and are tracking them specifically, they are hard to bring down realiably (forgetting for a mmoment about the potential for collateral damage when an F-16 starts shooting AIM-9 missiles at cessna's over NYC) and becasue of the speed and distances invovled it is virtually impsosible to ensure the safety of almost anything from a determined attack with a small plane without simply banning private aviation. As archaea said, air space security is a myth.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 02:47 PM   #36
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug View Post
You are making things up that I didn't say just so you can dismiss them as "quaint." Let's be a bit more honest in this discussion please. I didn't ever say NORAD has a "central database that keeps track of every flight's flight plan." You did. There are mutliple agencies that track flights of planes. For those that divert from flight plans and pose a threat, I expect NORAD is notified (I don't know how this tranlsates into keeping a central database).


I also don't suggest scrambling fighters for every flight diversion. I do expect that planes flying over NYC at less than 500 feet trigger some alarms because they clearly pose a threat (intentional or otherwise).
Well then you tell me how it is you assume NORAD should know if a plane diverts from its flight plan without haviong all flight plans in some sort of database? WHat agancy should tell NORAD and how can they do it in a way that makes the notice meaningful? Short of a database it would be a symbolic but pointless exercise. You see, even small planes move pretty fast, so without no=fly zones over the enitre eastern seaboard and other urban areas, it is impossible to provide notive in a menaingful time frame.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 02:59 PM   #37
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

This discussion is informative.

Hoya is an intelligent, educated lad and shows us what people who are otherwise technologically uninformed expect of our government.

Hoya doesn't understand the chain of command, the technology required to provide information and security he expects.

The first question: how many flights per day occur over Manhattan?

The second question: how many airfields exist in or near Manhattan?

How many private flights?

What is the chain of command? How much verification does it require before it goes up the chain of command? Thie expectation of hoya show naivete in his understanding of this process.

Air security is a myth. We are not secure against low technology flight. 24 cessnas, some air balloons and other stuff and you could have a heyday in any city.

No it is not reasonable that the head of NORAD should know about it before immediate ground observers should know.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 03:57 PM   #38
RockyBalboa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 7,297
RockyBalboa is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via MSN to RockyBalboa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug View Post
I am frequently out of my league. But perhaps we have identified yet another area of Archaea's expertise? I can't keep track of them all.

I have been to Manhattan countless times. I have yet to see an airplane flying at 500 feet over the city. I am unaware of any airport on Manhattan itself that a small plane would take off from, leading me to conclude it took off from outside of Manhattan and then flew over the city. This happens dozens of times a week in DC. Whenever it does happen, they first attempt radio contact, then respond with fighter jets. On occasion, the plane gets close to important areas in DC and evacuation procedures take place at those venues. This is extremely rare, though, because the communication and fighter jets usually produces the retreat of the aircraft. Most of those planes are small planes like this one in NYC. Why could DC track them and not NYC?
Yes..of all the countless times in Manhattan I'm sure you've spent so much of it in maybe the loudest city in the world staring at the sky looking for airplanes.....
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'.
RockyBalboa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 04:30 PM   #39
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Straying from the path of honest discussion once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
Perhaps you missd the point of the guy's comments. THe plane was within three miles of the white house beofre it was intercepted but the pilot was NOT TRYING to fly to the white house. THe plane was detected as it menadered around the DC area and was eventually intercpeted as it was on a course heading near the whitehouse. But if the pilot had intended to go to the white house he would have been able to make it. I actually thought this point was made pretty clearly in the comment but you seemed to have let it slip by.
That wasn't "the" point of his comments. It was "a" point of his comments. It was also built on pure speculation that he "would have" made it to the White House. I do know since the plane that hit the White House lawn in Clinton's presidency that there are several additional layers of security designed precisely to prevent small aircraft from reaching the White House. To say that the plane "would have" made it today is a baseless assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
Furthermore, we do not have fighters or interceptors constantly in the sky that can simply be 'diverted' to intercept every aircraft that may stray from a lfight plan or which may appear to be going too close to a building. Typically they need to be scrambled, which is expensive and takes time. We can perhaps have them placed and prepared to protect a few targets, such as the capitol and whitehouse (although 'protect is overstating it) but it is too expensive and virtually impossible to protect all urban areas in a reasonable and timely way.
Who said we did have fighters or interceptors constantly in the sky? Only you have. Sure, scrambling fighters is expensive, but what layer of protection isn't? Who argued we should have the same layer of security for "all urban areas?" Again, only you. You appear to be intentionally misconstruing my arguments. Come out of lawyer mode and approach this more honestly. I have noted the exceptional importance of NYC. The situation would be more explainable in Omaha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
I also don't understand the signifigance you seem to be placing in the fact that this plane issued a distress signal. Are you suggesting that a terrorist intent on ramming a building would ususlaly issue such a signal? THat seems rather silly. So if a plane does issue a signal then wouldn't you expect it NOT to be a terrorist, meaning the need for interception is lessened?
What is hard to understand? And when did I argue that terrorists would use a distress signal? Once again... it is something only you have articulated. I argued that the distress signal was issued, which should have brought attention to the aircraft before it crashed into a building. This is not to say that all aircraft that crash into buildings will issue such a signal. It is to say that, given the particular circumstances of this case, it is hard to understand how the plane went unnoticed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
Finally, nothing in the commnets I posted said that NORAD had found the -plane in question. THe comments about finding and then losing a plane were referring to a separate incident off of the Bahamas where an F-4 ended up casuing the subhject of a search to crash as a result of being unable to lock onto the small plane with its own on-board radar system. An on-board radar contact is NOT the same thing as NORAD. These small planes are hard to see on radar, even if you are in a plane nearby and are tracking them specifically, they are hard to bring down realiably (forgetting for a mmoment about the potential for collateral damage when an F-16 starts shooting AIM-9 missiles at cessna's over NYC) and becasue of the speed and distances invovled it is virtually impsosible to ensure the safety of almost anything from a determined attack with a small plane without simply banning private aviation. As archaea said, air space security is a myth.

You are right. The comment did not expressly say NORAD found that plane.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 04:48 PM   #40
RockyBalboa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 7,297
RockyBalboa is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via MSN to RockyBalboa
Default

Hoya...you're getting your ass kicked here.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'.
RockyBalboa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.