Suitability of Proven Technologies for Defending Against Airborne Terrorism

[Yossarian]

I'm curious why barrage balloon techniques aren't being utilized to
protect against terror attacks from the air. A well-engineered
network of modern balloons should improve the likelihood of diverting
all but the largest commercial aircraft from U.S. point targets vice
an Avenger salvo, and balloons have many advantages. Large caliber,
rapid-firing artillery such as an upgraded Skysweeper could further
contribute. Views?

Pondering,
Yossarian

[David Bromage]

Yossarian wrote:
> I'm curious why barrage balloon techniques aren't being utilized to
> protect against terror attacks from the air. A well-engineered
> network of modern balloons should improve the likelihood of diverting
> all but the largest commercial aircraft from U.S. point targets vice
> an Avenger salvo, and balloons have many advantages.

And you could sell advertising space on them.

Cheers
David

[Cub Driver]

> balloons should improve the likelihood of diverting
>all but the largest commercial aircraft from U.S. point targets vice
>an Avenger salvo, and balloons have many advantages.

The image of a nation under siege would be a real boost for Osama.

Large caliber,
>rapid-firing artillery such as an upgraded Skysweeper could further
>contribute.

To hear the U.S. tell it, most of those civilian casualties in Baghdad
were caused by Iraqi flak falling to the ground.

Dunno. I rather prefer the notion of F-15/16s sprinting to the site.
Heck, they didn't do too shabbily on 9/11, from a cold start.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Keith Willshaw]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm curious why barrage balloon techniques aren't being utilized to
> protect against terror attacks from the air. A well-engineered
> network of modern balloons should improve the likelihood of diverting
> all but the largest commercial aircraft from U.S. point targets vice
> an Avenger salvo, and balloons have many advantages. Large caliber,
> rapid-firing artillery such as an upgraded Skysweeper could further
> contribute. Views?
>

You've finally gotten nutty enough to get
that psychiatric discharge

Keith

[tim gueguen]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm curious why barrage balloon techniques aren't being utilized to
> protect against terror attacks from the air. A well-engineered
> network of modern balloons should improve the likelihood of diverting
> all but the largest commercial aircraft from U.S. point targets vice
> an Avenger salvo, and balloons have many advantages. Large caliber,
> rapid-firing artillery such as an upgraded Skysweeper could further
> contribute. Views?
>
There's the annoying little problem of said efforts causing a hostile
aircraft to land on populated areas when employed in a large city. Not much
point in say stopping a jetliner from hitting the Empire State building if
it falls into the streets of New York and kills thousands of people on the
ground.

tim gueguen 101867

[William Wright]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > balloons should improve the likelihood of diverting
> >all but the largest commercial aircraft from U.S. point targets vice
> >an Avenger salvo, and balloons have many advantages.
>
> The image of a nation under siege would be a real boost for Osama.
>
> Large caliber,
> >rapid-firing artillery such as an upgraded Skysweeper could further
> >contribute.
>
> To hear the U.S. tell it, most of those civilian casualties in Baghdad
> were caused by Iraqi flak falling to the ground.

Civilian casualties at Pearl Harbor also (USN flak of course not Iraqi).

>
> Dunno. I rather prefer the notion of F-15/16s sprinting to the site.
> Heck, they didn't do too shabbily on 9/11, from a cold start.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Alan Minyard]

On 5 Jan 2004 22:26:08 -0800, (Yossarian) wrote:

>I'm curious why barrage balloon techniques aren't being utilized to
>protect against terror attacks from the air. A well-engineered
>network of modern balloons should improve the likelihood of diverting
>all but the largest commercial aircraft from U.S. point targets vice
>an Avenger salvo, and balloons have many advantages. Large caliber,
>rapid-firing artillery such as an upgraded Skysweeper could further
>contribute. Views?
>
>Pondering,
>Yossarian

They were going to try that, but there was some sort of SNAFU
in the admin sector, Catch-22, or something like that.

Al Minyard

[Yossarian]

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> You've finally gotten nutty enough to get
> that psychiatric discharge
>
> Keith

Of course, which means I must continue to fly the missions.

> To hear the U.S. tell it, most of those civilian casualties in Baghdad
were caused by Iraqi flak falling to the ground.

Easily addressed by self-destruction algorithms, proven technology
since before my time and running past the introduction of CBUs, inter
alia.

> Dunno. I rather prefer the notion of F-15/16s sprinting to the site.
Heck, they didn't do too shabbily on 9/11, from a cold start.

News flash: the fighters didn't arrive in time! Balloons and
artillery have amazing loiter times where they are needed most.
Substantive responses appreciated.

Pondering,
Yossarian

[Pete]

"Yossarian" > wrote

> > Dunno. I rather prefer the notion of F-15/16s sprinting to the site.
> Heck, they didn't do too shabbily on 9/11, from a cold start.
>
> News flash: the fighters didn't arrive in time! Balloons and
> artillery have amazing loiter times where they are needed most.
> Substantive responses appreciated.

Given the alert status of 9 AM, Sep 11, 2001, the balloons would have been
deflated and folded in a hangar somwhere. How long does it take to inflate
and loft a balloon?

What SAM or AAA was in place and ready to shoot down a civilian airliner on
that morning?

Pete

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Yossarian) wrote:

> Balloons and artillery have amazing loiter times where they are
> needed most. Substantive responses appreciated.

To cover downtown Washington alone (let's say a six mile radius) with
barrage balloons, spaced 200 feet apart (closely enough to prevent 747s
from getting in unscathed), you'd need about 500 balloons. And you'd
still have a decent chance they balloon wouldn't take the plane down
quickly enough. You'd also need *large* balloons, with extremely heavy
cables, to even damage a modern jet, much less stop one.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > You've finally gotten nutty enough to get
> > that psychiatric discharge
> >
> > Keith
>
> Of course, which means I must continue to fly the missions.
>
> > To hear the U.S. tell it, most of those civilian casualties in Baghdad
> were caused by Iraqi flak falling to the ground.
>
> Easily addressed by self-destruction algorithms, proven technology
> since before my time and running past the introduction of CBUs, inter
> alia.
>
> > Dunno. I rather prefer the notion of F-15/16s sprinting to the site.
> Heck, they didn't do too shabbily on 9/11, from a cold start.
>
> News flash: the fighters didn't arrive in time! Balloons and
> artillery have amazing loiter times where they are needed most.
> Substantive responses appreciated.
>

Balloons are frigging useless, even by WW2 most bombers
and fighters could survive an inpact with a balloon cable
and the number of flak guns needed to cover likley targets
would required the reintroduction of the draft to no good
purpose.

Keith

[Jeb Hoge]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Yossarian) wrote:
>
> > Balloons and artillery have amazing loiter times where they are
> > needed most. Substantive responses appreciated.
>
> To cover downtown Washington alone (let's say a six mile radius) with
> barrage balloons, spaced 200 feet apart (closely enough to prevent 747s
> from getting in unscathed), you'd need about 500 balloons. And you'd
> still have a decent chance they balloon wouldn't take the plane down
> quickly enough. You'd also need *large* balloons, with extremely heavy
> cables, to even damage a modern jet, much less stop one.

And it'd look absolutely absurd. I'd rather see a pair of Arleigh
Burke destroyers moored in the Potomac offshore from National than a
sky that looked like the balloonists' convention had just flown in.

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> (Yossarian) wrote:
>
>> Balloons and artillery have amazing loiter times where they are
>> needed most. Substantive responses appreciated.
>
>To cover downtown Washington alone (let's say a six mile radius) with
>barrage balloons, spaced 200 feet apart (closely enough to prevent 747s
>from getting in unscathed), you'd need about 500 balloons.

And to deter a steeply turning aircraft you'd have to space the balloons
a lot closer.

> And you'd
>still have a decent chance they balloon wouldn't take the plane down
>quickly enough. You'd also need *large* balloons, with extremely heavy
>cables, to even damage a modern jet, much less stop one.
>
But in any case, a balloon barrage is ultimately ineffective against an
aircraft entering a near vertical dive from above the balloon flying
height as it would avoid all those cables. And I assume the perp would
not be worried about over-stressing the airframe during his final
'approach and landing', would he?

(That notwithstanding, has anyone seen a Martin-Baker leading-edge cable
cutting device on Ebay recently? Note name of winning bidder...)

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Chad Irby]

(Jeb Hoge) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> > To cover downtown Washington alone (let's say a six mile radius) with
> > barrage balloons, spaced 200 feet apart (closely enough to prevent 747s
> > from getting in unscathed), you'd need about 500 balloons.
>
> And it'd look absolutely absurd.

Okay - so it has *one* really good point.

Maybe we could sell ad space on them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.