Shooting down a jetliner isn't what Hollywood would have you believe. You don't have to shove a missle in the ass of the jet to stop it or force it to the ground. Put some 20mm bullet holes it the tailfin would be a good incentive to force it to land. Shooting the wing is too risky as it COULD ignite the jet fuel. Although, a couple shots to the engine would likely just malfunction the engine and force them to land aswell. If that were to fail, I have enough confidence in our piolts to put rounds into the cockpit as a final resort. All but the engine and cockpit shot would deter any civilian piolt to continue on course. If it were hijackers hell bent on destruction, only the last two options would deter them. Otherwise you have no choice but to send rockets down range.
Of course this is just my brainstorming. I've studied aviation most of my life and these seem to be the only forceful viable options that don't involve inevitable death and destruction unless need be.
not that exactly, but i remember a lot of similar shootings in fast food restaurants in the 1980s. mostly in mcdonalds. i still hate eating in them with the children, to tell you the truth. iirc they were all, to an incident, perpetrated by US citizens. they were not intended as organized acts of terrorism, but as individual acts of mayhem and mass murder. we didn't stop them, they simply went out of fashion, it seems. unfortunately what came into fashion in their place is school shootings.... The easy attack that we have not experienced in mass is the lone gunman/bomber who walks into a chucky cheese and takes out a birthday party. ...
to sum up, my point is that my husband is right.
That is a whole lot harder than you seem to think it is. It's far more difficult than the "shoot to wound" idea that routinely gets a drubbing when suggested.
My good upbringing taught me, "Never argue with another mans VERY loyal and loving wife"
I am NO fool.
You may argue with mine all you want.
Trust me, I understand that. But I have seen what Air Force Piolts are capable of (NOT movie piolts either) and I fully believe it would bepretty easy to do.
With the avionics they had in the mid nineties these types of shot were possible. They could target certain parts of the plane. These were in response to the threat of Soviet bombers and other threats such as ICBMs. While the jet couldn't fly behind to catch the ICBM, they had a one-shot chance to target the small, fast moving missle and shoot it. It wasn't reliable but I'm sure strides have been taken since then.
While they can't practice IRL, simulators have gone leaps and bounds. When I was 15 ('96-97)I got to sit in Flight sim from the Air Force. The graphics and technolody they used then were at least 5-6 years ahead of what WE had. Microsofts flight sim looked like a regular Atari video game after that.
I'm just saying with skilled piolts and the technology they MUST have now it's more than just a possible plan.
Heaven Forbid it ever has to be done. Losing any lives is bad, but I would rather 100-200 go than a few thousand or more.
As for ICBM's, that's utter nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you're misremembering (at best) what you read about that. For one thing, even if you had a plane in the air, by the time you could get to cannon range of the missile it would all be over.
Too many of your examples are apples and oranges. For one thing, the cannon on those aircraft equipped for them fire 3000 rounds per minute for a reason: the hopes that a few of the rounds will hit the target.
I'd really like to know where you heard this "targeting different parts of a plane" idea. I mean, heat seeking missiles will target the engines, but that's because they're the hottest part of the plane. Aside from that, this is not something I've seen in any of the industry sources I've read.
As for ICBM's, that's utter nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you're misremembering (at best) what you read about that. For one thing, even if you had a plane in the air, by the time you could get to cannon range of the missile it would all be over.
There's only a very narrow window in the amount and type of damage between "able to complete the mission" (given a 9/11 type mission) and "plane is coming down with all aboard it." Hitting that window is somewhere between winning the Powerball and parting the Red Sea on the "miracle" scale.
I'd rather not discuss that. Believe me or don't.
Yea, if your coming at it from the side. If you have a good front angle on it, it IS possible to stop it with cannon.
They have had in development Air-to-Air missles that are kinetic energy missiles for the sole purpose of stopping other types of missles. That's a whole nuther thing in itself. We are so off topic here.
Ah, back on topic. Had they actually been sharing information and heeded the warnings as laid out in the 9/11 CR, there would have been no need for any of this. They could have caught one of them or all of them and stopped the attacks in the first place. Had they still gotten in the air, and piolts would have been scrambled as planned, they COULD have brought the planes down in time. I would rather them shoot them down over NYC than let the plane slam full force into a building.
Well, I'm glad to know you have great confidence in our military pilots!
As far as the kinetic missile. That was about missile to missile convo to supplement the rest of that talk. Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you.
And since you're the expert here, are we doomed to another attack or can it be stopped?
.......... By completely tossing out the constitution for illegal torture at guantanamo? ........
On that, the United States Constitution applies to United States citizens - period.
What is illegal torture?
yeah u got me.What is illegal torture?