[Closed] No, seriously?

I am surprised that you lot are surprised by having SAM during such big event ... 🙄

But you have no authority or experience to make any judgements either, your opinion has no value, it means nothing and only a fool would think otherwise.

So much faith in our politicians eh ?

I see no evidence that the military are in a better position to evaluate the terrorist threat than politicians. In fact if anything, I would expect politicians to be much better informed as they have unrestricted access to both national intelligence and that available from close allies, plus they have constant feedback from political sources throughout the world, both indigenous and Foreign Office sourced.

This decision will have been a political one. According to the link the HVM system is "designed to counter threats from very high performance, low-flying aircraft". There is not a single country in the world which would want to launch an attack against the Olympic Stadium on London - to so would indisputably be an act of war. I know of no country anywhere which is itching to go to war with the UK. And if they were, they wouldn't go for a sports stadium as a first target.

The only non-governmental organisation anywhere in the world which has drones is Hezbollah. But Hezbollah has neither the need, desire, or even the vaguest capability, to launch a drone attack on a target in East London. If there was any evidence they, or any other non-governmental organisation, had, then you can be sure that threat would have been widely publicised.

This exercise is political posturing and grandstanding to impress and for propaganda purposes.

reading threads like this takes away a little piece of my soul

Right, dog walked, MM fed, time to pop back in.....

TJ - i'm going to venture to suggest that a decision of that magnitude goes beyond political, way beyond political.... it's about growing a pair and making a decision, based on the available information, knowing you'll take a lot of flack, whether you call it right or don't call it at all...

as for credible scenario's - 9/11, you'll agree is evidence of the will, creativity and ability of the terrorists to play the long game, and play it well?

Couple of options to kick around then, both of which would perhaps require the 'shoot them down' decision to be made, or not.

1. Recruit your 'suicide pilots' - train said pilots through traditional channels, Qatar for example is a muslin state with it's own airline, who's gonna blink at a Muslim training up then taking on a role as a pilot?
2. Set up a business that regularly books charter flights - pay on time, be good, who takes note you even exist?
3. Arrange charter flight from any location that requires transit around the no fly zone over London (gotta suggest there'll be one) to reach it's listed destination - suicide pilot is at the controls = no call that there's highjack....
Improbable - yep, impossible - no

Option 2 - similar to above - pilots are trained, a couple of Learjets (or similar) are purchased and set up as a business. Said business 'wins a contract' to regularly ferry the 'executives' of a phantom company back and to to the continent. Lets say those flights go in and out of London Luton and Stanstead. Flights are regular enough that no-one bats an eyelid when they lift off as usual but they are what, 10 mins from London? Head in fast and low and TBH, I doubt anyone would have time to think about making the call.....
Again, Improbable - yep, impossible - no....

Option 3.
The least plausible - some bloke abseils down the roof and simply drops roof tiles on the hapless spectators below... 😉

Really TooTall so what is your qualification.

And really do you think that the army/government would hesitate to shoot down a plane over a lightly populated area rather than have it reach its assumed target and then not claim their unparalled success in protecting us all!

There are too many paople on this site that think they know it all however DO NOT back it up. You state that all I wrote is guff. Well Ive read your posts what qualifies you?

Equally as its all guff are you therefore stating that the average squaddie has a deep understanding of the political situation in Iraq, Afgan Sudan etc or as I stated just following orders.

The only non-governmental organisation anywhere in the world which has drones is Hezbollah.

Beware the Ernie, for he has his eyes and ears everywhere. How on earth can you possibly quantify that statement?

Drone - [i]A powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.[/i]

First flown 5 years ago as someones hobby - makes you think:

Equally as its all guff are you therefore stating that the average squaddie has a deep understanding of the political situation in Iraq, Afgan Sudan etc or as I stated just following orders.

The ones I have spoken to, and continue to speak to, are all far more aware than you appear to be.

marsdenman

Those scearios are possible - however it still remains a political impossibility to order the plane to be shot down over a city under those circumstances. the PM could never be certain especially in the time scale.

Shoot it down -massive loss of live is certain. don't shoot it down then the loss of life is not certain as it could be innocent, the terrist could bottle it etc etc

thats why politically it could never be done.

If it was a military decison it could and would be - put a politician doing it - impossible ( unless they are isreali maybe 😆 )

Well TooTall you obviously are not speaking to the average squadie! Its a case of following orders. But do note that I did say "does not need to understand politics". They may indeed know what they are told, that is the reasons they may be there however they are scarcly more informed than the average Joe. So if you want to quote me make it accurate rather than a sweeping statment that I am talking Guff

Again I ask what makes you so qualified?

Also you say "First flown 5 years ago as someones hobby - makes you think:" is that suggesting drones have only been around for 5 years?

Thats a query to qualify your statement, or can we expect more pretty and meaningless videos or mdel aircraft as you seem to have them confused with drones. By your definition the video is irrelevant as the "model aircraft" is not carrying a lethal or non lethal payload. Whereas the dedfinition of a drone in the OED does not necessitate the carrying of a payload.

Tootall even if you disagree with me at least lets have a level playing field as I am sure as I have said above not everything you say is right and equally I did not claim everything I said is right but if you start italicising things as definitive please ensure that they are correct and not your vision of the world.

Drone - A powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.

For the obtuse, it was just an easy example of how something as innocent as a model aircraft could be adapted to carry a payload sufficient to achieve an effect.

Also you say "First flown 5 years ago as someones hobby - makes you think:" is that suggesting drones have only been around for 5 years?

For the obtuse,

Well said Junkyard

TJ I would assume protocols are in place for shooting down aircraft these days and would not necessitate getting the PM out of bed. If such a tragedy were to occur I would assume those decisions could be made at a more operational level, indeed assuming the worst it would also be prudent to give the authority at an operational level for the games rather than bothering the PM with it. Equally it removes the level of dithering as they would rely on the advice of the military anyway.

Conversly the Bollickticians may be involved to assertain the collatoral damage. Either way its not a decision I would want to have to make. Especially if you get it wrong.

Tootall how was it an example of how a model aircraft can be adapted as I did not see it being modified or indeed deploying a payload.

Or was it an exercise in the pathetic trying to rationalise their argument and ultimately looking foolish!

TJ -
Lets agree to disagree -
Given the time to make a decision...

A military person would, i'm guessing, make a judgement call based on info to hand and their reading of the potential consequences - loss of life.

quote]political impossibility
lets say it does sit with Mr Cameron, I stand by what I said above - to my mind the decision transcends his role as PM - it goes to the very heart of man.... I would hope he is man enough to put political thoughts aside - grow a pair and make a call - whatever the call, whatever the political persuasions, it really does not matter - nothing will stop it being assessed and judged through the annals of eternity...

Don I agree a quick Google and drones were being used in WW1. Its usually those that are obtuse that start throwing that metaphorical stone within the glass house.

First flown 5 years ago as someones hobby - [b]makes you think[/b]:

[img] [/img]

Again I ask what makes you so qualified?

You don't appear to be qualifying your guff, so what makes you an authority?

There was an assertation that only certain people had drones. I was demonstrating, to those capable of a little lateral thought, that the leap from model aircraft to drone would not be all that difficult.

[img] [/img]
Proper drone.

Beware the Ernie, for he has his eyes and ears everywhere. How on earth can you possibly quantify that statement?

Pay attention TooTall - I have already 'quantified' that statement. Let's do it again shall we ?

[i]"If there was any evidence they, or any other non-governmental organisation, had, then you can be sure that threat would have been widely publicised."[/i]

I supposed you will now suggest there is evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons but that our government doesn't want to tell us ?

Everyone knows that almost certainly Hezbollah has drones, and for that reason if any other non-governmental organisation had them we would also know.

Kimbers, don't worry, we're also deploying Hugh Jackman.

Tootall I clearly stated I am not an authority therefore everything I have said is my opinion, however if you insist on calling it guff I will qualify what I have said, which I have done. So as you have made a sweeping statement that everything in my original post was guff I asked you what qualifies you to pull me apart or is it just that you deem me worthy of your bullying and belittling today after all that is what you are trying to do.

The leap from model aircraft to drone is a quantum leap. Power to weight ratio, purposing the aircraft, range.

For the obtuse,

it was just an easy example of how something as innocent as a model aircraft could be adapted to carry a payload sufficient to achieve an effect.

Well this thread's really going rather well isn't it?

I supposed you will now suggest there is evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons

No - but they claim to be reverse engineering the 'captured' drone they have and building their own.

Everyone knows that almost certainly

We'll leave that statement there then shall we? That is a gem 😀

Grum, simply assemble the usual bighitterbores and watch it roll on......

I watched it all and disappointingly they did not adapt it into anything.

Well TooTall has shifted his position somewhat ...... earlier the threat came from a reversed engineered drone from the Middle East, now it's an adapted model aircraft, if you hang around I'm sure it will become clearer what the threat actually is.

TooTall - Member

Anything from a remote drone (just like the one being 'reverse engineered' in a certain Middle East country) to a hijacked aircraft of any size.

I asked you what qualifies you to pull me apart or is it just that you deem me worthy of your bullying and belittling today after all that is what you are trying to do.

Tootall rather that reverse engineer the captured drone maybe they should employ you to demonstrate how simple it is to adapt an RC aircraft to a drone? Wasnt that what you said. Surely someone in Iran must be as clever as you or do Argos not deliver to Iran?

TooTall - Member

No - but they claim to be reverse engineering the 'captured' drone they have and building their own.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did they not back these claims up with very fake pictures of said drone?

We'll leave that statement there then shall we?

Are you disputing the possibility that Hezbollah has had drones ? Well I think you're out on a limb on that one mate.

And Hezbollah almost certainly still has them.

Plus I haven't seen a shred of evidence that any other non-government organisation has any. Provide me with me some.

[img] [/img]

I think it is a very good picture!

Is that the one which Iran is going to use to attack London TooTall ?

Just read this

"The defence system consists of a missile launcher, radar sensor and tracker and will be guarded by unarmed military police"

here

http://blackheathbugle.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/the-missiles-will-be-armed-but-the-guards-wont/

How cool is that, unarmed guards, so any fool with a gun or guns could literally almost walk up and get a SAM system. Our government at its best!

Why don't they just print invitations!

Cant be Ernie its not been "adapted", it actually looks like they are thinking how it could be "adapted" though.

I'm not sure I can believe that blog. What are the credentials of the authors? It looks like a group of politicians, and only a group of councillors at that, Lib Dems too, to me and we all know that we can't trust them, don't we?

I agree Don, don't believe everything I read and I would assume that the weapons would be guarded by persons capable of defending them with enough force in relation to their value, in this case deadly force. Just throwing it out there that you can't rely on the written word.

Don't see the point of this either, Rapiers are to short range to defend London against loss of life. By the time the missiles were in range the plane would be over london, they only have a 5 mile range.

Aircraft don't just magically disintegrate when hit by a missile, they often just lose a stabilizer, engine or whatever and go careering into the ground. So at best, rapiers will only stop a learjet crashing into what the hijackers wanted it to and instead into a bus stop full of old grannies.

Tootall rather that reverse engineer the captured drone maybe they should employ you to demonstrate how simple it is to adapt an RC aircraft to a drone? Wasnt that what you said. Surely someone in Iran must be as clever as you or do Argos not deliver to Iran?

It ain't difficult.
[url] http://diydrones.com/ [/url]

Junky, you need to chill a bit mate.

How cool is that, unarmed guards, so any fool with a gun or guns could literally almost walk up and get a SAM system. Our government at its best!

I shall save my disagreements with you to actual stuff you say and leave the playground stuff to you

Also I will add Rapiers will be next to useless against anyone with any flying skills flying a microlight or light plane in an urban situation. Anyone attempting to do anything naughty would fly them below house level (down below houses in the street, or just skimming them)....there would be to much clutter to engage with any certainty. Missiles are not that intelligent, you've got a good chance it will just career into a building instead. The rapier is particularly poor for this kind of role as it's a semi-active missile relying on optical and radar guidance, the aircraft has to be within the line of sight/radar of the launcher...unlike an active missile.

Remember the bloke who flew and landed a Cessna from Germany in the worlds most heavily defended airspace (Moscow during the cold war)?

In 1987? Technology has moved on a bit since then. 😀

Launching a Rapier missile at a low flying weaving target in a built up urban environment is still not a great idea even with 21st century technology simon.

Rapier is pretty crap to be honest, a small battery of those things is nothing compared to the dozens of radar sites, S-200's, Ilgas etc that the Russians had around Moscow during that era.

It's all been done for show.

However I do not believe that a microlight would have a big enough heat signature for a SAM to hit, I may be wrong.

Starstreak (the missile in question) isn't IR guided. It's a laser beam rider. IIRC the 1st stage burns out in the tube and pops the missile out fast, 2nd stage then ignites a safe distance away, before firing off 3 tungsten submutions (look like darts) that (ideally) tw4t into the target. All this time the dude at the launcher is keeping a cross hairs on the target which projects a laser mark on it. The three submutions then follow the laser.

What's really clever is the way the steer. The front bit of each submution spins round whilst the back of it doesnt, to turn the front bits spin is slowed down which then brings the back end round. Or something like that anyway. I just remember reading about it and thinking 'that's clever'.

In 1987? Technology has moved on a bit since then

Starstreak was developed in the 80s.

Obviously security theatre though - any terrorist that actually wants to cause some damage will just target a queue outside of the main olympic site.

I think the idea is that this is a last resort and a rather determined/clever/brave/stupid terrorist will get into its sights. And this is the 200 on the ground or 50,000 in the stadium point, innocent people will die if its fired. I think those that have positioned it on the roof of a private recidence in a residential area know this.
Use a weapon as a deterrent, but don't take it unless you're prepared to use it either.

Starstreak was developed in the 80s.

I don't even think it has the range to do that, if 50,000 people are in peril then we are talking about an airliner. So Rapier, with a range of 5 miles is going to stop an airliner doing 500mph careering into a stadium?

Reaction time + flight time of missile + size/mass of airliner + speed of airliner + relatively small warhead size = airliner crashing in roughly the same spot as before.

****ing stupid idea, again it's for TV and making the yanks feel safer. Parking a T45 off the Thames might of actually been some use, but they decided against that.

And the circle is complete, that's already been discussed bwaarp, no disrespect.

Well I just pretty much poured water on the other reason you guys were coming up with for having a Rapier site in London....the "it's for microlights".

Well I just pretty much poured water on the other reason you guys were coming up with for having a Rapier site in London....the "it's for microlights".

leave the playground stuff to you

Like I said. Whatever.

Using an aerial mode of attack makes a lot a sense as it will bypass ground based security measures, potentially make iconic images and pay homage to the 9/11 attacks.  5 years of planning could produce some workable tactics - light aircraft, helicopter, micro lights, RC drones are all potential threats which can't be discounted.  The presence of HVM near potential targets would at least give commanders another option and potentially deter attackers.  Without HVM,  even a hot air ballon could float over the stadium or other venues unchallenged.  

I sincerely hope that there is no threat, but we'd be foolish to leave the door wide open and encourage some lunatic(s) to take a chance.  

Kevevs - Member

and all the people who happily/not happily struggle with live in this area have how much say in this? well **** their thoughts I suppose.

Nah, **** 'em ......it's a private gated community. Posh gits.

I don't even think it has the range to do that, if 50,000 people are in peril then we are talking about an airliner. So Rapier, with a range of 5 miles is going to stop an airliner doing 500mph careering into a stadium?

I haven't read the rest of the thread so maybe missing something pertinent, but they don't appear to be proposing to use Rapier.

I sincerely hope that there is no threat, but we'd be foolish to leave the door wide open and encourage some lunatic(s) to take a chance.

Perfectly good air defense are in place I believe - but the idea of shooting down a plane over the city using SAM is simply a non starter IMO for multiple reasons as explained

This missile battery is simply not able to do anything bar the theatrical

Perfectly good air defense are in place I believe

I haven't read the rest of the thread so maybe missing something pertinent, but they don't appear to be proposing to use Rapier.

Well in that case they will be using the line of sight operated Starstrek missile which is even shorter ranged and shitter, another MOD cockup in which they decided to purchase a 21st century version of the incredibly shit Blowpipe missile who's claim to fame was probably having a lower kill ratio than gun based systems during the Falklands war. Once described as like "trying to shoot pheasants with a drainpipe."

If they were serious about giving London air defence cover, then they would have used a T45 Destroyer.

And not modified since?

Wouldn't have thought so, at least not significantly. The laser beam riding principle is pretty much impossible to jam. Lots of weapons developed in the 80s (or 70s) are still used unchanged. LAW80 springs to mind, dumb bombs, gazelle helicopters, etc etc

then they would have used a T45 Destroyer.

Not exactly designed or equipped for urban warfare is it? Tends to work better at sea, not in the middle of a built up city.

Wow! 😯 That's, that's not encouraging.
TJ... Fact on this air defence, please?

Tends to work better at sea, not in the middle of a built up city.

Wouldn't have thought so, at least not significantly. The laser beam riding principle is pretty much impossible to jam. Lots of weapons developed in the

Except if you are painted with one, it will trigger a warning receiver in 4th gen aircraft allowing the pilot to either run, dive below cover or enter clouds.

The really nasty SAM's are the newer gen fire and forget thermal ones that can differentiate between counter measures and aircraft.

Not exactly designed or equipped for urban warfare is it? Tends to work better at sea, not in the middle of a built up city.

At least it has the range and radar capacity to knock small light aircraft down down before they get near the city.

Medical professional in knowing everything about counter-terrorism shockah! 😉

CFH - no - just able to think logically and clearly and thus see why SAM batteries in a city are a theatrical gesture not a practical or plausible counter terrorism weapon.

Its not rocket science you know

Apart from all those black spots from all of those buildings around it along the river, and the complaints from their occupants when that hefty radar plays merry hell with their computers and other electronic devices.

I only went into medicine because the RAF told me I didn't have the eyesight to be a pilot.

That has all changed. So I'll be applying this summer.

A lot of guys over at Arrse/Pprune don't think much of this decision either.

Perfectly good air defense are in place

I only went into medicine because the RAF told me I didn't have the eyesight to be a pilot.

Bwaarp, not directed at you, old chap, but at our resident omniscient.

Apart from all those black spots from all of those buildings around it along the river, and the complaints from their occupants when that hefty radar plays merry hell with their computers and other electronic devices.

Good point, I'm guessing they would switch it on once ground observers or air control had spotted a target. The missiles I think can be data linked to target aircraft located by other radar units.

Still not convinced, I still reckon it's mostly for show.

I still reckon it's mostly for show.

As a resident, I'd be incredibly hacked off about all this.
TJ, where are the air defence facts to prove that they even exist??

Rapier malfunction

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=593_1255018191

Not as much of a problem if it is just a couple of squaddies up a tower with a shoulder launched Starstreak system though.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

Medical professional in knowing everything about counter-terrorism shockah!

And Flashheart lacking the confidence to ever express an opinion, or make any carefully thought out comment, on any subject, shockah

Even lacking the confidence to reveal what he does, if anything, for a living, lest anyone should take the piss shockah

I thnk I know why he does that ernie

Perfectly good air defense are in place

piffle

Now it may be that is easier to do it from the air because we have weak air defences that dont protect us. However it appears we dont get attacked by air [ perhaps this is due to adequate air defence?] and it is not the chosen method for terrorist attackers.

if you think it is poor perhaps you could explain why?

if you think it is poor perhaps you could explain why?

Don - I ain't responding to your trolling any more - just pointless.

Ummm

TJ, not sure how to say this but ummm, it is rocket science! We are talking aboout missiles aka rockets!

TJ, all I have had done is use your strategy against you, and you don't like it, do you?
The only thing you haven't done is insult people... 😀

❓

God he really has got under your skin hasn't he ...i think you should chill,get out more , get over this and move on

Except if you are painted with one, it will trigger a warning receiver in 4th gen aircraft allowing the pilot to either run, dive below cover or enter clouds.

If the plane is able to enter clouds it'd be too high to be in range anyway. Starstreak is a low level point defence / anti helicopter missile. Max range is 7k, so you've got less than 7 seconds to do something about it - at min range you'd have less than a second.

All largely irrelevent anyway as the 'terrorists' aren't going to be riding around in 4th gen fighters. And neither, for that matter, is anyone we're likely to have a war with.

The really nasty SAM's are the newer gen fire and forget thermal ones that can differentiate between counter measures and aircraft.

Pretty much every sam since the 2nd gen has been able to do that. All that happens is counter measures get better, and then the missiles get better, and repeat. The beauty of the laser system is there isn't any countermeasure (at low level with no clouds). Obviously not fire and forget tho so there is always the problem that someone might 'distract' you whilst you're trying to kill them (much like the problems Milan anti tank people would have faced in the fulda gap in the 80s).