Re: Interception : Was: There Are Sheeple For Every Gummint

[Andre Lieven]

My apologies re the cross-posting, it was Rauni who started it.

A bit of context: Where this came from, was a thread on soc.men,
where it was asserted by another poster ( Neither Rauni nor
myself ), that " orders were given on 9/11 to *keep US fighters
on the ground ", so that they could not intercept, in the
military sense, ie- identify, and destroy, any aircraft that
refused to veer away from suicide targets.

I disputed the claim of " orders were given ", and somewhere
in there, Rauni jumped in, to hector me about the precise
" definition " of interception, in this case, and context.

My point was that an interception mission flown on 9/11 would
necessarily have included armament on the fighter aircraft, and
that shooting down an airliner was a real possibility. Such
that the peacetime definition of " interception ", limited to
merely acquiring and identifying an aircraft, wasn't definitive
in the 9/11 context.

At this point, she can't let go of it, and makes another factual
howler, right below...

Rauni ) writes:
> On 15 Sep 2003 13:54:38 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>No problem. Look up " interceptors " in USAF procurement, and start
>>from there...
>
> ROTFLOL this is *too* funny you are taking your definition of
> interception from the *name* of a missile?

The " interceptors " in question ( F-102, F-104, F-106, etc. ) were
*manned aircraft*, not " missiles "...

HTH.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[Cub Driver]

>My point was that an interception mission flown on 9/11 would
>necessarily have included armament on the fighter aircraft, and
>that shooting down an airliner was a real possibility. Such
>that the peacetime definition of " interception ", limited to
>merely acquiring and identifying an aircraft, wasn't definitive
>in the 9/11 context.

I don't agree. Ramming was an option, and evidently one that was
seriously considered.

Those were attempted interceptions, in my book.That they failed was
good news for the intercepting pilots, bad news for the folks in the
World Trade Center towers and at the Pentagon.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Marron]

>"BF Lake" > wrote:

>You can intercept traffic in a general sense, to stop it from getting where
>it is going. Like contraband cargo in a ship trying to run a blockade.
>But first you have to do some trigonometry and figure out your course and
>speed to make the intercept of the blockade runner. ie get to the point of
>intercept along his future track that you can get to at your speed. The
>more speed you have, the less lead angle you need for your "course to
>intercept" and the sooner you can make the intercept. (generally speaking)

I don't know about ships, but in the air humans excel at judging
angles (e.g: fancy trig calculations not required).

>What about a night encounter when you have him on radar but don't know if he
>is friend or foe and the rules of engagement are that you can shoot at foes
>because it you don't , the foe will kill you first , ie as in wartime.

Again, not sure about ships but the F-101B had a 100K candlepower
spotlight installed just below the RO's cockpit, port side, for
closeup visual identification of potential intruders. Nowadays,
spotlights and/or NVG's are used for the same purpose.

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>
>Again, not sure about ships but the F-101B had a 100K candlepower
>spotlight installed just below the RO's cockpit, port side, for
>closeup visual identification of potential intruders. Nowadays,
>spotlights and/or NVG's are used for the same purpose.
>
>-Mike Marron

100K?...I suppose it's ok for that purpose though, ASW aircraft
use MUCH more powerful searchlights for spotting and ID.
--

-Gord.

[Andre Lieven]

Cub Driver ) writes:
>>My point was that an interception mission flown on 9/11 would
>>necessarily have included armament on the fighter aircraft, and
>>that shooting down an airliner was a real possibility. Such
>>that the peacetime definition of " interception ", limited to
>>merely acquiring and identifying an aircraft, wasn't definitive
>>in the 9/11 context.
>
> I don't agree. Ramming was an option, and evidently one that was
> seriously considered.

Cite ? While I don't doubt that, in such a casew, ramming an
unarmed aircraft into the hijacked kamikaze would be an option
that would be considered, nothing I have yet found suggests
that this was the case that morning.

> Those were attempted interceptions, in my book. That they failed was
> good news for the intercepting pilots, bad news for the folks in the
> World Trade Center towers and at the Pentagon.

Again, what I've read and seen spoke of armed fighters launching.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[Cub Driver]

On 17 Sep 2003 00:42:37 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

>> I don't agree. Ramming was an option, and evidently one that was
>> seriously considered.
>
>Cite ?

Well, just type September 11 and ramming into Google and see what you
get. For example:

U.S. pondered ramming airliners
'In heat of moment, all suggestions considered'

Robert Burns
Associated Press


Saturday, August 31, 2002

CP Files / National Guard F-16 patrols over New York City after the
attack.


WASHINGTON -- Moments after the Sept. 11 attacks, a U.S. air defence
commander considered sending pilots in unarmed air force fighter jets
on suicide missions to ram any other hijacked airliners.

No such missions were ordered, nor did the commander, Air Force Col.
Robert Marr, ask his superiors in the North American Aerospace Defence
Command for authority to issue such orders.

"It was a thought that went through his mind," said Marr's
spokeswoman, Lt.-Col. Kacey Blaney.

Marr said Friday the idea of ramming any additional hijacked airliners
-- beyond those that hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the
one that crashed in Pennsylvania -- came up as he and aides huddled in
their command centre to consider the crisis that was unfolding.

At that moment, it was unclear how many hijackings would occur, and
Marr knew he had only four armed fighter jets available in his area of
responsibility, called the Northeast Air Defence Sector, stretching
from Minnesota to Maine to Virginia.

"In the heat of the moment, all suggestions were considered, but no
decision was made to employ unarmed fighters" as battering rams, Marr
said in a statement provided by Blaney.

The fact that the United States had only a small number of armed
fighter jets on air defence duty on Sept. 11 reflects that in the
aftermath of the Cold War, aerial attacks were considered a minimal
threat. Also, the U.S. military never before had the mission of
defending against domestic aerial attack.

For months after Sept. 11, combat air patrols were flown continuously
over Washington and New York. Such patrols are now periodic, and
fighter jets are on short-notice alert at bases across the country.

Marr first disclosed that he had considered this last-ditch tactic in
an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., which is preparing
to air a documentary on the events of Sept. 11.

In his statement Friday, Marr said it was his responsibility to
consider even the most extreme measures.

"An airman asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of his
country is no more or less than the soldier asked to storm the beaches
at Normandy," he said.

Unsure how many attacks might follow those on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, Marr diverted unarmed Michigan Air National Guard
fighter jets that happened to be flying a training mission in northern
Michigan at the time of the first attack, but they were released after
the fourth hijacked plane went down in Pennsylvania.

"There was a push to get everything available in the air," to defend
the skies after the attacks began, said Maj. Barry Venable, spokesman
for the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the parent unit of
Marr's command.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Andre Lieven]

Cub Driver ) writes:
> On 17 Sep 2003 00:42:37 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>> I don't agree. Ramming was an option, and evidently one that was
>>> seriously considered.
>>
>>Cite ?
>
> Well, just type September 11 and ramming into Google and see what you
> get. For example:
>
> U.S. pondered ramming airliners
> 'In heat of moment, all suggestions considered'
>
> Robert Burns
> Associated Press

Yeah, pop media articles are always right... <g>

> Saturday, August 31, 2002
>
> CP Files / National Guard F-16 patrols over New York City after the
> attack.
>
> WASHINGTON -- Moments after the Sept. 11 attacks, a U.S. air defence
> commander considered sending pilots in unarmed air force fighter jets
> on suicide missions to ram any other hijacked airliners.
>
> No such missions were ordered, nor did the commander, Air Force Col.
> Robert Marr, ask his superiors in the North American Aerospace Defence
> Command for authority to issue such orders.
>
> "It was a thought that went through his mind," said Marr's
> spokeswoman, Lt.-Col. Kacey Blaney.

So, *one midranking officer* " thought " of it.

Lets not translate that to anyone's policy, from someone in a
position to *make policy*.

If another officer had " thought " about using phaser beams, would
you say that the USAF " Star Trek " Project was thus made real ?

> Marr said Friday the idea of ramming any additional hijacked airliners
> -- beyond those that hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the
> one that crashed in Pennsylvania -- came up as he and aides huddled in
> their command centre to consider the crisis that was unfolding.
>
> At that moment, it was unclear how many hijackings would occur, and
> Marr knew he had only four armed fighter jets available in his area of
> responsibility, called the Northeast Air Defence Sector, stretching
> from Minnesota to Maine to Virginia.
>
> "In the heat of the moment, all suggestions were considered, but no
> decision was made to employ unarmed fighters" as battering rams, Marr
> said in a statement provided by Blaney.

" no decision was made... " Salient point, there.

> The fact that the United States had only a small number of armed
> fighter jets on air defence duty on Sept. 11 reflects that in the
> aftermath of the Cold War, aerial attacks were considered a minimal
> threat. Also, the U.S. military never before had the mission of
> defending against domestic aerial attack.
>
> For months after Sept. 11, combat air patrols were flown continuously
> over Washington and New York. Such patrols are now periodic, and
> fighter jets are on short-notice alert at bases across the country.
>
> Marr first disclosed that he had considered this last-ditch tactic in
> an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., which is preparing
> to air a documentary on the events of Sept. 11.
>
> In his statement Friday, Marr said it was his responsibility to
> consider even the most extreme measures.
>
> "An airman asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of his
> country is no more or less than the soldier asked to storm the beaches
> at Normandy," he said.
>
> Unsure how many attacks might follow those on the World Trade Center
> and the Pentagon, Marr diverted unarmed Michigan Air National Guard
> fighter jets that happened to be flying a training mission in northern
> Michigan at the time of the first attack, but they were released after
> the fourth hijacked plane went down in Pennsylvania.
>
> "There was a push to get everything available in the air," to defend
> the skies after the attacks began, said Maj. Barry Venable, spokesman
> for the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the parent unit of
> Marr's command.

Nonetheless, none of that falls under any sort of official policy,
or anyhthing pproaching the level of, as this thread started with,
" orders given " by unnamed sources, to unnamed recipients.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[Andre Lieven]

Walt BJ ) writes:
> Y'all are arguing from ignorance about semantics.

Well, Rauni is. My original point was that, on 9/11, the concept of
" intercepting " any possibly hijacked airliners included shooting
them down ( And, articles and documentaries I have seen have included
interviews with Pres Bush and PM Chretien on both authorising armed
action, including the shooting down or airliners ), so the usual
standard of sidling up to a plane, but doing nothing more then
radioing them, went right out the window that AM.

For some reason, Rauni didn't like that point. <shrug>

> And where did you get the idea Air Defence interceptors are not armed?

An article posted over here ( On soc.men ) today specified that most
ready fighters in the eastern US, that AM, were not armed. So, I'd say
thats a starting point.

As the article went on to say, prior to 9/11, the notion of a military
need to keep many armed fighters in the CONUS wasn't on.

> In about 20 years
> of the trade I never made an intercept in an unarmed airplane and God
> knows I made a bunch of air defence intercepts on hot scrambles for ID
> purposes in aircraft from F86F, F86D, F102A, F104A and F4D and F4E.

Post the Cold War, many things eased back...

> And our 104 squadron down at Homestead was always armed - we carried
> Sidewinders with live warheads even on training missions and they were
> armed prior to takeoff to be fired if necessary. The only time we flew
> unarmed aircraft in that outfit was on test hops and cross countries.
> Oh, yes, dart tow - that needed three tanks so no missiles.
> Walt BJ

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[Cub Driver]

>So, *one midranking officer* " thought " of it.
>
>Lets not translate that to anyone's policy, from someone in a
>position to *make policy*.

Well, you're changing the terms of the thread. Nobody said it was
policy. How in the world could you have a policy for something that
had never happened before in the history of aviation? The option was
considered, and I believe more seriously than the AP story related.
The reports I read at the time (likely in October 2001) gave more
weight to the possibility.

As for "pop media", where do you get your information? From radio talk
shows?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com