[Closed] No, seriously?

Now that's sorted, can we discuss the danger to civilians when the terrorists decide to knock the soldiers off the water tower before ploughing a jumbo into the stadium?

I do not need a military career to see the bollox that this is - just a bit of clear logical thinking.

Mogrim - the thing is if they shoot an airliner down over a city massive loss of life is certain and on a judgement call - if they don't the massive loss of life is not certain .

Not really, a hijacked airline flying through a no-fly zone during the Olympic Games is a pretty sure-fire bet for a massive loss of life whatever you do, which means that, politically, shooting it down isn't that hard a decision to take.

The other situation is with smaller ("light") aircraft, that's even less of a complicated decision - shoot one of those down and the chances of death on the ground are considerably less.

No - they are no detternt. these missle batteries are right next to the possible targets,

You do realise they don't just shoot straight up, right?

I do not need a military career to see the bollox that this is - just a bit of clear logical thinking.

and a healthy dose of uneducated statements from a background of neither experience or knowledge on defence matters

As I said earlier and as mogrim has said above: no one is talking about shooting down a jumbo with a bloody great SAM over central London with the devastation and loss of life that would cause.

You have layers of protection. A no fly zone, air defence so that a hijacked airliner could never even get close to London.

But suppose someone took off in a microlight packed with explosives from a field in Hertfordshire? Or got a big radio controlled plane or a small drone. Easy to sneak through at rooftop height. That's what you'd use a small missile against.

It will almost certainly not happen. But if it (or something similar) does happen, won't you be glad that someone, somewhere had thought of that and prepared against it?

And yes, at the same time, I've got no doubt that it's being stirred up out of all proportion by a) the Government and b) a very bored media. The more the media trump on about it, the more the Goverment can do. Just look at Iraq, the media hyped that one to hell and back with The Sun screaming that Saddam could launch WMD in 45 minutes - the media basically did the Government's work for them in setting the stage for [s]an invasion[/s] liberation.

As I said earlier and as mogrim has said above: no one is talking about shooting down a jumbo with a bloody great SAM over central London with the devastation and loss of life that would cause.

No, I said they [b]could[/b] do that. With a massive loss of life.

I agree there's a certain amount of theatre to the whole thing - the publicity, etc. - but at the same time I certainly expect a government (of whatever hue) to take this kind of measure.

Seriosuly not one of yo has given any credible scenario where it would be politically possible to do so

Militarily it might well be the right decision but politically it would always be impossible

Ah sorry Mogrim, was so busy baiting TJ I didn't read your post properly. 😉

TJ: I have given a plausible scenario, read my post at the bottom of page 4.

and a healthy dose of uneducated statements from a background of neither experience or knowledge on defence matters

Like all the rest of the commentators on here. How many have experience in air defence against terrorist attack in a european major city.

its like the tanks at the airports pure theatre

At least I have the clarity of thought to understand the politics of this - that it is politically impossible to shoot a plane down over a city and that its pure political theatre.

Seriosuly not one of yo has given any credible scenario where it would be politically possible to do so

Seriosuly not one of yo has given any credible scenario where it would be politically possible to do so

Yes I have, but you don't agree with me. Why don't you think the PM would agree to shooting down a plane violating a no-fly zone over London, heading towards one of the Olympic venues? Given the plane could be a Cessna, doesn't have to be a Jumbo?

But suppose someone took off in a microlight packed with explosives from a field in Hertfordshire? Or got a big radio controlled plane or a small drone. Easy to sneak through at rooftop height. That's what you'd use a small missile against.

Still not plausible the missiles could be used - same issue - shoot it down loss of life is certain, don't shoot it down loss of life is not certain. You would never be certain it was a flying bomb not a publicity stunt or unarmed aircraft flown by a nutter.

Militarily it might be the right thing to shoot it down, politically it never could be.

At least I have the clarity of thought to understand the politics of this - that it is politically impossible to shoot a plane down over a city and that its pure political theatre.

At the risk of Godwin's law, I should point out that the RAF shot down loads in 1940, given the right situation it's no great problem.

Still not plausible the missiles could be used - same issue - shoot it down loss of life is certain, don't shoot it down loss of life is not certain. You would never be certain it was a flying bomb not a publicity stunt or unarmed aircraft flown by a nutter.

Militarily it might be the right thing to shoot it down, politically it never could be.

What? Shoot down a microlight over London, loss of life - 1? 2? Who cares if it's a publicity stunt, that's hardly a political problem!

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

You would never be certain it was a flying bomb not a publicity stunt or unarmed aircraft flown by a nutter.

Look at what one nutter did to the boat race. If the boat race had put out loads of info saying that anything on the river in the way of the race was going to be shot by snipers, you can bet that the guy would almost certainly have stayed on shore.

Same here. The possibility that you *might* be shot down should theoretically deter the vast majority of nutters and publicity stunters.

Of course it's publicity, a bit of political theatre and sabre rattling. But it may just stop some nutter causing massive embarrassment and untold disruption live on international TV.

I assume this rule applies to you then?

Aye right so you know nothing, he knows nothing but its all his fault and he is wrong...got you, ta
[Dont worry I have another night of bike fettling ahead enjoy ]

Aye right so you know nothing, he knows nothing but its all his fault and he is wrong...got you, ta

I am one of the uninformed..

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

Equally the militar, generally, are uninformed. The higher ranks mingle and decide with politicians variuos scenarios. The front line guys follow orders, thats how it works and always has. Your average squaddy follows orderd and generally does not need to understand the politics.

As for shooting down an airliner I am prett sure there are now protocls in place for just such an event after 9/11. Do we need to worry. Probably not as if there is an incident then it will be just as big a shock as 9/11 and 7/11.

Atttacking Iran, what are we now all Yanks. Thats what they do. Dont let anyone have a similar military capability to themselves and control the oil. Bigger issues in Africa but no oil therefore no "peace" keeping farce.

USA insisting on SAMs, maybe we definitly need to grow a pair at the higher levels.

Shooting down an aircraft of letting it crash into a stadium, wetehr its Olympics, football or other building. The aircraft will be shot down without a doubt. Without even doing the casualty count the government would love it as it shows they aare in control and we are safe. Let it crash then it looks like they failed no matter what they say.

Are there SAMs in London already. Allegedly. They are not very big and its rumoured that they are already there. All eyes will be on London and there are still very soft targets, another tube outrage. Choose another city. Security at the games it preety tight but it only takes one incident for the terrorists to claim success.

Look at what one nutter did to the boat race. If the boat race had put out loads of info saying that anything on the river in the way of the race was going to be shot by snipers, you can bet that the guy would almost certainly have stayed on shore.

Yeah I wish more people's behaviour was managed through fear of being shot by snipers. We could stop littering at a stroke.

How many have experience in air defence against terrorist attack in a european major city.

If I put my hand up, will you STFU?

I am one of the uninformed..

Yes. Yes you are. Most of what you have written is guff. Just to reassure you that you are right in your first line anyway. 😀

air defence against terrorist attack in a european major city.

Really tootall?

🙄

I expect BAOR had them permanently set up over Berlin, for example. Prolly before tt's time, though.

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.