I haven’t read the link on Nemesis, but I think I remember the system in question. The reason that it wouldn’t be practical in a ground based role is that the seeker field of view is only a few degrees. IIRC, Nemesis type systems “zap” seeker heads on missiles from the plane and screw them up. If you had an IR overload from a ground station, you couldn’t possibly hit the IR seeker - you’d “light up” the side of the missile. The only thing that could “zap” the seeker would be something within a few degrees of the target.
The Nemesis link is very vague and mentions that it “defeats” the threat. It gives the impression that a laser based system destroys the incoming missile, but that’s extremely unlikely. This, and similar systems, I believe, work by basically targetting a high power infrared laser directly at the seeker head of the incoming missile, either disabling it, or making it “red out” and not be able to see any specific targets because it’s entire field of view is covered with a heat source.
Nope. Not even close. You are getting way too technical for the problem. The reason a ground based system won’t work is also one of the reasons an exclusion zone won’t work.
Son of a bitch. Anybody know how to pray? That’s about about all I can come up with - and I really don’t believe there’s anybody up there listening.
I’m not sure what you’re implying, but you seem to be saying that the limitation I mentioned isn’t somehow valid.
Even if there’s something even more obvious at play, what I mentioned is still a valid limitation as to why you can’t put such a system on the ground.
And I’m not sure why you’re not flat out stating what the issue is, unless you also don’t want to get reported to the CIA. 
You’ve mentioned a valid limitation. It just isn’t the limitation.
Broomstick and I are both rather coy about coming right out and saying 3what it is because of the some of the same concerns (at least in my case) that partly_warmer has been voicing. The fuckers have probably thought of it already - but on the off chance that they haven’t, I’m keeping my trap shut.
No. I’m not especially concerned about the CIA. Considering where I am, the BKA would be the more logical target of my paranoia;). No, I’m just hoping that the asshats haven’t thought up this particular nastiness yet.
Damn it. I’m bitter that I can’t think of the obvious limitation, unless you simply mean the seeker won’t see ground sources. Maybe it’s something so obvious that I didn’t even think of it specifically as a limitation. 
Yes, I do.
Checklists are updated whenever necessary - not a huge deal. Likewise, recurrent training is required of all pilots, so it would be a matter of incorporating the new system into training. Probably no more of a difficulty than a new GPS or com system (possibly even less of a difficulty). Even on my level - that of a private pilot - there are minimal recurrency requirements, and flight instructors routinely introduce updates and new material into these sessions. For instance, the past couple of years there’s been an emphasis on all levels of proper ground procedures at airports in order to reduce runway incursions. (Also an upgrading of airport signage in many places as well). So the mechanisms to handle the additional training burdens (if any) are already in place and in use.
In an emergency a pilot has an enormous amount of discretion. I’d say having a missile fired at you qualifies as an emergency.
If there is sufficient altitude, evasive manuvers might be appropriate (there’s already been talk of “extreme” manuvers as a tool for disabling hijackers). If it’s during take-off… well, at a certain point you have to take off, it would be more dangerous to stop for reasons I covered pretty thoroughly in another recent thread. On landing… pilot’s discretion. A lot of this would depend on the particular circumstances. However, IF there is an emergency, it is the pilot who is in charge and ATC’s role is to accomodate the pilot in whatever manner required to get the maximum number of people onto the ground safely. In fact, a controller will never tell a pilot to land - or take-off. A controller will say “cleared for take-off” or “cleared for landing”, but the final decision to do so depends on the pilot, and the pilot is expected to continue the manuver only when safe to do so (usually, it is safe - that’s the whole reason for having air traffic control in the first place, to assist the pilots in maintaining safe spacing of planes and keep emergencies from occuring in the first place). If I’m coming in for a landing and, for instance, a deer runs out onto the runway (which does happen) I may well pull up and abort the landing without asking permission first - the tower will figure out what I’m doing, and when I’m done having the emergency I’ll contact them for another landing clearance.
(Which is not to say pilots don’t obey controllers - on 9/11, when the controllers said “National emergency, everybody land NOW!” compliance was rapid and total, with very little backtalk anywhere.)
Mmm. I believe the “Nemesis” comes with its own detector(s). I’m not clear on the details (which is OK - I really don’t need to know all about missile defense systems, and not all information should be easily accessible) but I think it has more than one sort of detector, and more than just flares - maybe chaff for disrupting radar, and some sort of laser?
And parachutes don’t always open and car airbags occassionally kill people… every safety system has a downside. Since this is not totally new technology, let’s assume the worst glitches are worked out of the system.
I don’t know. Doesn’t a missle being fired at you sort of define a “combat condition”?
I wouldn’t make that assumption. It depends on what you’re installing. Instrument landing systems, for instance, require some precision adjustment and analysis of the surrounding terrain and obstacles - you don’t just hammer some lightpoles into the ground and hope for the best. Freshining up the painted lines on the pavement - not much of a problem, that, the main aggravation is closing the airport until the paint dries. Some ground systems are just as sophisticated as anything aboard an airplane, and require simillar maintenance schedules.
True. But if they can’t get the 747’s, they’ll go after the business jets and large charters…
True. Which is why this is such a good terrorist tactic.
Yes, I do believe you have it. (pssst - just a word to the wise - swearing is usually reserved for the Pit, although I do confess my own verbal reaction was simillar)
Yes, it really is THAT obvious. When you figure it out, you’ll slap your forehead and exclaim “Ooooooh! I am soooooo stuuuuuupid! That is SO OBVIOUS!” But, as Mort Furd said, we’re keeping mum because just maybe these guys HAVEN’T thought of it yet. If they ever do try it, you’ll go “Oooooh! THAT’s what they meant!”
It’s old technology. It’s cheap. It’s available worldwide. Several million people have all the skills they need to pull it off, they just don’t know it (I hope). And that’s ALL I’m going to say.
If you do figure it out - keep it to yourself. Because ideas talked about drift around, and we wouldn’t want to give anyone any BAD ideas.
On the upside - I can tell you for sure that if a couple of nasties were trying to pull the Unspoken Tactic off at MY airport someone would almost certainly notice and call in the calvary. No one has more interest in keeping the skies safe than pilots, because we spend more time there than anyone else. The airports ARE being watched. Security IS improved, even at the small airports, even when it’s not obvious to the casual observer. (And, sometimes, the best security is the security you don’t see, as opposed to the flashy stuff up front)
So now we require all GA craft to be tied down outside? You never know what goes on inside a T-hanger, do you?
If the big secret you’re trying to keep is what I think it is, don’t you think 9/11 showed that the bad guys have figured out that technology?
You want I should post the vehicle gate code for SQL? Everybody and his uncle knows it, and the shiney new 4’ chain-link fails to impress me, especially since there are office buildings which front the airport.
and don’t forget about the uncontrolled strips, the private, used-when-the-owner-flies-in-for-two-weeks fields, and choppers.
And should I mention the security threat of the Velocity kit? Radar-absorbing coating would do wonders for that puppy.
And, all this has been discussed on avweb, eaa, probably flying - it’s not a secret.
sheesh…
Just to clarify this for some of the non-aviation folk, CBS did a report on the Velocity, insinuating that it was some kind of stealth aircraft that you could build in your garage. It isn’t, of course, but I’m sure plenty of people believed it.
The Velocity is no more of a stealth airplane than any other composite or wooden aircraft.
I have no doubt that it would have occurred to Mr. Atta - but then, he’s no longer a threat to anyone, is he? Yeah, it wouldn’t surprise me if Al-Quaeda had thought of it, and they certainly have the means, but there are more fruit loops than just that crowd. Who cares if it’s been talked about elsewhere. I don’t need to point the way for some random idiot who otherwise wouldn’t have thought of it.
If this method had actually been used I’d be willing to talk about it at length - but it hasn’t been used, thank God. So no, I won’t discuss details.
Hey, if you really want to slow down aircraft theft, pull the spark plugs and lock 'em in a safe before you close for the night - that would probably slow down a Bad Guy better than a chain-link fence.
And if everybody knows the gate code - change it. That’s what they did at my airport. And when some wise-guy busted the new code they changed it again.
By your argument, I shouldn’t bother to lock my car or apartment, because a knowledgable and determined theif can defeat or bypass the lock. But I still use locks. No, I can’t stop someone who really wants to get my stuff, but I can discourage the casual bad guy, and make my stuff harder to steal than the other guy’s. We can’t make it impossible for terrorism to happen, but we can make it more difficult
No, but not everyone knows it, either. Like I said, it’s obvious to some of us, but no need to point it out.
People need to get past the idea that there is such a thing as a safe neighborhood - because there isn’t. And they need to get past the idea that technology can make them completely safe - because it can’t. Terrorism is no longer something that happens “over there”.
Yep - I’ve been dealing with security issues off and on for 20+ years - nothing can make you “secure” - the best you can do is raise the difficulty level.
Anyone with the money to do so could rob Fort Knox - but the cost would be higher than the value of the gains, so nobody does it.
Kid Queda has demonstrated a determination to inflict damage, and the willingness to pay the requisite cost.
So - deploy whatever technology you wish - anyone with the money can defeat it. Remember that the F-117A was once invincible - how long did that last?
I can sit here and tell you how to defeat any airborne system you care to deploy - just outgun the defense’s power supply.
Opps!
now the NSA’s gonna be after me…
But the Velocity has a useful load of 1000 lbs - drug runner’s dream come true…
Note to non-av folks - drug runners steal small planes, and use them to smuggle dope - they have much smaller radar signatures than big planes. DEA has been playing cat-and-mouse with small planes for a couple of decades now.
The 20 mile radius idea is not so far fetched. Many of our SAC bases have just such an area around them, and in event of a defcon 3 situation, these airports are patrolled around the clock by some of the best trained men and women in the air force. Even in peace time situations defcon 5 or 6 (I forget which) these airports have combat air patrols, AWACs and a tremendous amount of surveillance going on around them. So, while it would be impossible to clear a 20 mile radius, in the center of a metropolitan area, it would not be impossible to patrol, and/or monitor the area using other means.
I am getting sleepy now, and I open the door to remarks about my puctuation, or spelling to whomever wished to do so, but whoever suggested this idea is not completley out of thier mind, it would be possible to do.
I thought for a while there that I’d killed this thread.
Good points, Broomstick - and thanks for the reminder. I do usually try to keep the curse words down in the Pit, but sometimes nothing else will do.
After I thought about it for a while (after the cursing post,) I realized it isn’t just a nasty thing that could be done. There is a whole group of related nastinesses that make most defenses pretty useless. Once you figure out the common reason why a ground based defense and an exclusion zone are both useless, you can come up with a lot of really terrible ideas.
True, there is a great deal of nastiness out there.
Heck, you don’t even need a coat of “stealth paint” to defeat ATC radar. Which is why, after 9/11, military radar was set up at strategic locations around the country to close that security hole.
We could, undoubtably, come up with many ways to cause mischief with bicycles, can openers… or box cutters.
And, I’m not particularly worried about NSA, CIA, or whatever other alphabet organatization our tax dollars are funding. As I said, I worry about the fruit loops and deviants out there who might not otherwise come up with a particular scenario. Just because a determined theif can obtain a gun and bullets is no excuse to leave loaded guns lying around at random. Don’t make it easy for the Bad Guys.
A twenty mile, or even an eight mile, exclusion zone around major airports is simply not doable. A twenty mile zone would require the evacuation of the entire city of Memphis, and eight mile zone would ONLY require the evacuation of about half a million people here.
It wouldn’t help,anyway. Nothing on the ground is going to be able to help you in the case that Broomstick and I are thinking about.
Well, it would help while you’re in proximity to the ground defenses…but airplanes are intended to go places, not turn circles above an airport. If you armor one vulnerability they’ll attack another.
And I’m pretty sure HappyHeathen has a clue about the Unspoken Tactic, too.
And exclusion zones just don’t work. They’ve had exclusion zones for over a year now, “Temporary Flight Restrictions” they call 'em (although some are looking less and less “temporary” by the day) and people STILL bust 'em, and the airforce can’t get there in time to do anything meaningful. Why? Even a slow airplane is pretty fast. 120mph is a common “slow” cruising speed, and that’s 2 miles a minute. You do the math. Remember, there’s lots out there even faster.
I must admit that I am very curious as to what eventuality Broomstick and Mort Furd are contmplating. I respect their descicion to remain quiet about it.
Whatever it is though, there are probably things that can be done to prevent it from occurring, or to make it so difficult to do, that it would force terrorist to look elsewhere to make their point.
With this thread, we were talking about the possibility of more missle attacks on commercial airplanes. If we want to open the doors to more varied methods of attacks, then we probably ought to pose a new question.
Exclusion zones would not have to evacuate anyone, especially around commercial airports, all that has to be done is to monitor closely the 20 mile zone around the airport. If missles are detected, automated defense systems like the flares, and chaff, or jamming can be deployed; there is also a ship-mounted missle defense system that actually destroyes the missle in flight. Once detected, security teams can be vectored in, and Combat Air Patrol craft can be mobilized for other threats.
Its kinda like what happyheathen said, there is no one way of making something totally secure. You can only make it more difficult for the perpetrators.
Oh for crying out loud -
those who still haven’t guessed the “unspoken trick” - just watch a few James Bond, Bruce Willis, or other action-genre films - its been done to death as a way of introducing bad guys.
think Pussy Galore…