Suitability of Proven Technologies for Defending Against Airborne Terrorism

"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

Chad Irby wrote in message .com...
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.

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

(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.