Planes and the Olympics

[englisharcher]

I have just been reading that surface to air missiles are to be sited around the area of the Olympics.

If this is true, and if the worst happened, where exactly is the shot down aircraft supposed to land?

I really don't see how this would work without huge loss of life on the ground.

Am I missing something?

[fadeaway]

englisharcher said:

I have just been reading that surface to air missiles are to be sited around the area of the Olympics.

If this is true, and if the worst happened, where exactly is the shot down aircraft supposed to land?

I really don't see how this would work without huge loss of life on the ground.

Am I missing something?

1). Deterrent. Do you really want the terrorist types to think that we've got no defence against a 9/11 style or other airborne attack?

2). Doesn't necessarily have to be a big airliner. Eg small private plane packed with explosives, so the wreckage doesn't have to cause a lot of damage on the ground.

3). You obviously don't want to bring a plane down. But it's probably better to do so then let them crash/explode it into the target they've specifically chosen for maximum damage.


Of course the whole problem with this is the call to open fire over a heavily populated area. Making that call with limited intelligence, in a very short window would take very large balls indeed.

[Eric Mc]

Dozens of anti-aircraft guns were sited in central London during World War 2 as well as hundreds of barrage balloons. Plenty of aircraft were brought down over central London.

This would be on a far smaller scale.

[englisharcher]

fadeaway said:

Of course the whole problem with this is the call to open fire over a heavily populated area. Making that call with limited intelligence, in a very short window would take very large balls indeed.

Who would have to make that decision? That's not a decision I would like to have to make.

[AlexiusG55]

Given that it was on a "what would you do" type TV show it may well be rubbish, but I've heard that there's a "no-fire zone" over Central London where even if they knew that a plane was for example going to be flown into Parliament they wouldn't be allowed to shoot it down as it would land in a highly-populated area. Effectively it's the trolley problem- shooting down a plane over central London would be killing the people it would land on to save the MPs or whoever else its targets might be.

[bigbubba]

If you consider that the Olympic stadium can hold 90,000 people, it would be better to potentially kill a couple of hundred people from smaller parts of a shot down airliner than it would to let said airliner go into the stadium.

It would be a bit of a stter if you were sat in your back garden having a rest to find a RR Trent landing on your lap though!

[SirBlade]

englisharcher said:

I have just been reading that surface to air missiles are to be sited around the area of the Olympics.

If this is true, and if the worst happened, where exactly is the shot down aircraft supposed to land?

I really don't see how this would work without huge loss of life on the ground.

Am I missing something?

Shot down
by missile
then land


lol

missiles don't work like that,
and planes don't work very well after meeting said missiles

[Starfighter]

Radio discussion indicated that this is likely to be Stinger sized light weight missiles normally user for helicopter / light aircraft. I would imagine the missile needed to actually shoot down an airliner would be more the size of a Bloodhound.

[mrloudly]

Another prime reason to be well away from the place...

[Eric Mc]

Starfighter said:

Radio discussion indicated that this is likely to be Stinger sized light weight missiles normally user for helicopter / light aircraft. I would imagine the missile needed to actually shoot down an airliner would be more the size of a Bloodhound.

The only Bloodhounds around are in museums. I think Rapier is the standard air defence missile these days.

Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 29th April 15:33

[englisharcher]

SirBlade said:

Shot down
by missile
then land


lol

The wreckage has to land somewhere.

Just becouse I said land, I wasn't implying that the aircraft would be in any usable state, or even is less than a few thousand pieces.

[Simpo Two]

I didn't think terrorists were likely to be deterred by a possible missile standing between them and Paradise. They're going to die whatever happens.

[Ian Lancs]

Starfighter said:

Radio discussion indicated that this is likely to be Stinger sized light weight missiles normally user for helicopter / light aircraft. I would imagine the missile needed to actually shoot down an airliner would be more the size of a Bloodhound.

If the explosion happens in the right place pretty much any size missile (including a stinger) could bring down a passenger sized aircraft

[mattviatura]

bigbubba said:

It would be a bit of a stter if you were sat in your back garden having a rest to find a RR Trent landing on your lap though!

Quite.

[anonymous-user]

englisharcher said:

I have just been reading that surface to air missiles are to be sited around the area of the Olympics.

If this is true, and if the worst happened, where exactly is the shot down aircraft supposed to land?

I really don't see how this would work without huge loss of life on the ground.

Am I missing something?

Some cheery sort has obviously decided that 300 dead people on an aircraft and 50 dead where the debris 'lands' is better than a few thousand in a packed stadium.

Isn't this simply about telling the terrorists that if you try anything at London 2012 you're going to get shot down.

When you read about the long multi stage decision process to get an RAF aircraft in a position (and have approval) to shoot down a commercial aircraft in the UK I'd be surprised if there would be enough time.

These missiles will have to be quicker if they're going to hit someone diverging from the approach into LHR.

What will stop this is passengers overpowering terrorists on the aircraft. After 9-11 any have-a-go hijacker is going to be subdued well before they can breach the locked flight deck.

As said the much bigger threat must be from some nutter in a light aircraft or a van or with a big rucksack.

Edited by el stovey on Sunday 29th April 16:07

[eharding]

el stovey said:

As said the much bigger threat must be from some nutter in a light aircraft or a van or with a big rucksack.

Light aircraft? - as we have seen over the past few years, flying a spamcan into a building invariably results in 100% damage to the spamcan and the occupant, and some slightly scorched paintwork on the building.

Last year we saw a Mustang flown into a crowd at 500mph - whilst tragic, the actual loss of life was minimal.

The sort of folk who worry about a light aircraft 'packed with explosives' don't tend to appreciate that the only damage that is likely to occur will be inflicted on the hedge at the end of the runway as the grossly overloaded spamcan fails to get airborne.

[Eric Mc]

I remember a few years ago a single engine Cessna flew into a high rise in (I think) Florida. The result was Cessna and pilot no more, high rise hardly damaged.

Found a wiki link -



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_plane_cras...

Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 29th April 16:54

[mrloudly]

Wasn't there a baseball (Rounders) player that hit a building as well?

[mattdaniels]

englisharcher said:

If this is true, and if the worst happened, where exactly is the shot down aircraft supposed to land?

All over Essex.

[Hooli]

mattdaniels said:

englisharcher said:

If this is true, and if the worst happened, where exactly is the shot down aircraft supposed to land?

All over Essex.