Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

9/11 Us Fighters To Ram 4Th Plane As Not Armed?

Recommended Posts

What it tells me is that there are two hot-cocked planes. So all you need to do it is to organise 3+ planes.

And they originally took 4.

Sounds a bit weak for such a strong nation...

But funnily enough, in these days of asymmetric warfare an F16 seems a bit over the top - they'd probably be better off with more of a modern equivalent of a spitfire (£1m each in modern money)...

But, anyway, is this where the current threat lies? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"She was a rookie in the autumn of 2001, the first female F-16 pilot they'd ever had at the 121st Fighter Squadron of the D.C. Air National Guard."


LOL, so they told her to go crash the plane into another one?

Perhaps whilst parallel parking it.

Oh wait, I'm going to get locked up for being a misogynist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound quite right. Even in the UK we have a standby Typhoon Squadron which can be launched armed as interceptors to query potential hostile aircraft.

Ok the US is a lot larger so I would guess they would need 4 - 6 airfields to offer all round coverage but it would be pretty surprising if they didn't have such protection in standby....

This is a good read.....

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/were-the-only-plane-in-the-sky-214230

Potted history of the days events about Air Force One. At one point when Bush touched down at a base in Omaha some Colonel implied to him that were a squadron of nuclear armed bombers tolled up on the runway ready to go and asked him to give the order and where too.

I am sure it takes far less time to 'bomb up' a F18....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In April 2001, NORAD considered an exercise in which an aircraft of foreign origin was hijacked by terrorists and flown into the Pentagon, like a missile, but rejected the scenario as implausible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks#Background

The US's first line of defence, post-1945, has always been other countries such as Western Europe, Canada in the North and Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. The policy has been one of defending America by fighting future wars on and over other countries.

This is partly because the US is so vast and hence so difficult to defend. The US would need vastly higher numbers of fighters to be able to reach every major US city quickly on either coast or on the Canadian border.

For years the main fighter defence for US soil would be in Alaska where armed fighters would regularly intercept Soviet bombers - at the time of 911 I think the Russians had long ceased those missions due to the cost. Elsewhere in the US there would be enough time to arm and prepare fighters if enemy bombers were seen heading towards the US.

But nothing is perfect. Back in the 50s and 60s the US put a line of radar stations in Northern Canada to create a radar shield that would spot incoming bombers and missiles. But it proved a failure when US aircraft flew repeatedly over the radar stations without being spotted - the crews inside the stations having basically become bored staring at radar screens for hours, days, weeks, months and years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   61 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.