Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
On Olympic security, can anyone explain why surface to air missiles on flats round the Olympic park are actually needed?
I would have thought that any air threat, real, perceived or whatever, would be dealt with before it gets within coo-ee of London. If any plane changes course without air traffic control authority, or fails to respond, the RAF will be scrambled, surely?
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Is anyone giving odds on Parliament being recalled during the Summer recess?
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 27757 Location: In rocket surgery
Chris28 wrote:On Olympic security, can anyone explain why surface to air missiles on flats round the Olympic park are actually needed?
I would have thought that any air threat, real, perceived or whatever, would be dealt with before it gets within coo-ee of London. If any plane changes course without air traffic control authority, or fails to respond, the RAF will be scrambled, surely?
What about London City airport? Too close to be intercepted by planes.
Joined: Aug 14 2005 Posts: 14302 Location: On the Death Star Awaiting Luke.
Newsnight made me laugh last night. Quote of the day (paraphrase but near enough) 'We telephoned G4S and the goverment, No one was available......We then asked if there was a soldier we could speak too and they hung up'
Chris28 wrote:On Olympic security, can anyone explain why surface to air missiles on flats round the Olympic park are actually needed?
I would have thought that any air threat, real, perceived or whatever, would be dealt with before it gets within coo-ee of London. If any plane changes course without air traffic control authority, or fails to respond, the RAF will be scrambled, surely?
Its probably still on iPlayer or C4OD (can't remember which) but I watched a documentary last week about the American Air Defence tapes for 9/11 which have just been released into the public domain.
Basically, despite being on high alert that day because they were running an East Coast training exercise in case of invasion by Russian bombers, they were unable to get any Air Force jets in the air before each of the four AA aircraft had destroyed themselves into public buildings - and the only time they came close was when they identified jet number three heading for the Pentagon and scrambled two F14's from a base not really very close to Washington at all which then proceeded to head 60 miles out to sea as thats what their procedures said they had to do in such an event (assuming they were being attacked by a conventional enemy approaching with bombers).
The ground control staff, who had to keep asking if this was the exercise or "real world" had to just sit there and wait for Fox News to tell them where the next attack had been.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
Chris28 wrote:On Olympic security, can anyone explain why surface to air missiles on flats round the Olympic park are actually needed?
I would have thought that any air threat, real, perceived or whatever, would be dealt with before it gets within coo-ee of London. If any plane changes course without air traffic control authority, or fails to respond, the RAF will be scrambled, surely?
Think about the speeds involved. A B737 cruises up to 485mph, A B747 up to 570mph. The restricted areas have a radius of roughly 30 miles, with Stratford at the centre. That means an aircraft could, in theory, reach Stratford in around 4 minutes. In that time an threat has to be identified, that information needs to be communicated up the chain of command and a decision made (presumably at the very top), then that order needs to be passed back.
The RAF will presumably have 24-hour patrols, however 4 minutes is an incredibly short time to respond to the threat, go through the chain of command and position a fighter where it can target the aircraft. Missiles have the range to cover the restricted area and travel at up to Mach 3.5 - they're designed to intercept fighters, so a relatively slow moving passenger airliner is well within their capabilities.
As abhorrent as the thought is, if a hijacked aircraft is heading towards to Olympic area, it's better to destroy it in the air than allow it to crash, possibly into a packed stadium. Airliners are (obviously) mostly hollow and made of light materials wherever possible, so with the exception of some heavy machinery in the engines, landing gear, wheels and some others, ground damage should be limited.
This pdf gives a good idea of the massive detail and restrictions involved in securing the airspace across much of the South-East.
The whole scenario is extremely unlikely, but better to have air-to-air missiles and not need them, than to need them and not have them.
Chris28 wrote:On Olympic security, can anyone explain why surface to air missiles on flats round the Olympic park are actually needed?
I would have thought that any air threat, real, perceived or whatever, would be dealt with before it gets within coo-ee of London. If any plane changes course without air traffic control authority, or fails to respond, the RAF will be scrambled, surely?
Think about the speeds involved. A B737 cruises up to 485mph, A B747 up to 570mph. The restricted areas have a radius of roughly 30 miles, with Stratford at the centre. That means an aircraft could, in theory, reach Stratford in around 4 minutes. In that time an threat has to be identified, that information needs to be communicated up the chain of command and a decision made (presumably at the very top), then that order needs to be passed back.
The RAF will presumably have 24-hour patrols, however 4 minutes is an incredibly short time to respond to the threat, go through the chain of command and position a fighter where it can target the aircraft. Missiles have the range to cover the restricted area and travel at up to Mach 3.5 - they're designed to intercept fighters, so a relatively slow moving passenger airliner is well within their capabilities.
As abhorrent as the thought is, if a hijacked aircraft is heading towards to Olympic area, it's better to destroy it in the air than allow it to crash, possibly into a packed stadium. Airliners are (obviously) mostly hollow and made of light materials wherever possible, so with the exception of some heavy machinery in the engines, landing gear, wheels and some others, ground damage should be limited.
This pdf gives a good idea of the massive detail and restrictions involved in securing the airspace across much of the South-East.
The whole scenario is extremely unlikely, but better to have air-to-air missiles and not need them, than to need them and not have them.
Cronus wrote: As abhorrent as the thought is, if a hijacked aircraft is heading towards to Olympic area, it's better to destroy it in the air than allow it to crash, possibly into a packed stadium. Airliners are (obviously) mostly hollow and made of light materials wherever possible, so with the exception of some heavy machinery in the engines, landing gear, wheels and some others, ground damage should be limited.
I'm sure that Mintball's fears of a 747 falling in flaming pieces onto her house will be soothed by the idea that they will only be light pieces and that damage should be limited to a mere rattle on her roof tiles.
It is an abhorrent thought but an aircraft heading for a relatively open site like the Olympic Park, and presumably they'll be heading for a stadium and not the accomodation blocks (unless they can pick out which rooms the Isreali's have), might actually cause less damage than bringing it down in a thousand flaming pieces all over Central London ?
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 73 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
