[Closed] No, seriously?

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