Dry runs practiced for 9/11 2.0 type of attacks?

[Skybird]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...scare/2959197/

The described scene indeed does not sound good and is suspicious, if it indeed unfolded as described. That comparable events have been noticed on other flights as well, is not comforting either. That the source is not a government office (maybe wanting to drum public support for the war on terror or more civil rights getting limited - by fear-mongering), but a pilots association, does not make it sound any friendlier as well.

That the bad guys try to strike again, is clear, however.

[Armistead]

I don't care about losing so called rights when I fly as I don't own the plane and since I don't have to fly, don't deem it a right. It's when the govt. feels the need to track me personally that concerns me, phone records, emails, etc...

[the_tyrant]

You know what, I was reading a Tom Clancy novel a while back, and it discussed an interesting situation regarding terrorism.


What if the terrorists are standing near airports that are near cities, and use portable SAMs to attack the planes? Its not like they can't get the equipment needed:

A newly declassified RCMP report says criminals are using the Canadian postal system to transport illicit goods including guns, grenades, dangerous chemicals and, in one case, even a rocket launcher.

It really hit me when I was in Toronto, there is an airport on the island in lake Ontario, really close to the city:




What if a terrorist was on a yacht in the middle of the lake, and had a surface to air missile to shoot down a few planes?



The only thing about that is, the planes that usually fly to these airports in the middle of cities aren't usually too big. But a plane like the Bombardier Aerospace Q400 is still very nasty if it crashes into a building, and most cities nowadays are packed so tight, there is a very good chance that it will crash into a building.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...scare/2959197/

The described scene indeed does not sound good and is suspicious, if it indeed unfolded as described. That comparable events have been noticed on other flights as well, is not comforting either. That the source is not a government office (maybe wanting to drum public support for the war on terror or more civil rights getting limited - by fear-mongering), but a pilots association, does not make it sound any friendlier as well.

That the bad guys try to strike again, is clear, however.

Yes, I don't doubt they will try again, and we being an open, politically correct society, won't do enough to stop them. And now that there's a new target....



.

[Stealhead]

The idea of a MANPAD threat to civil aircraft(MAN Portable Air Defense) has been around for a long time.Even back in the early 1980's when the US gave Stingers and the UK gave Blowpipe missiles to Afghans fighting the Soviets there was concern about them falling into he wrong hands.

One "good" thing is that MANPADs have a limited storage span 5 or 6 years and once they are opened and activated the battery is drained constantly and they only last an hour or so before needing to changed.Furthermore MANPADS actually require a very skilled operator to be 100% effective.In a western military or in Russia a MANPAD operator goes through about 6 months initial training along with routine practical training.

During the Soviet Afghan War the actual effect of the MANPADS was misconceived to a lrage extent even the Mujahideen leader(and later Northern Alliance leader who was killed a few days before 9/11/2001) Ahmed Shah Massoud said that many of the missiles that his troops fired missed because they did not have a proper understanding of how to employ them.Now this does not mean that they had no effect in that war they did but not as much as has been attributed.And in modern times MANPADs even in an unskilled users hands is still very dangerous.

In Iraq in 2003 some Iraqi insurgents fired an SA-14 or possibility SA-18 at a DHL Airbus.The plane was damaged but the crew was able to land the aircraft safely (in the minefield along the base parameter). There have been several other cases of MANPADs being used to shot down(or attempt) civil aircraft in fact the first case was in 1978 in Rhodesia the first "kill" was also in Rhodesia in 1979.


Rumor has it that Quantus Airlines considered installing an automatic counter measures system on its aircraft but decided not to.There are currently three counter measures systems on the market for civil aircraft.Which makes you wonder are some airlines already mounting systems but not making it public knowledge for obvious reasons.My money is riding on airlines may already have equipped with counter measures.It would also be wise not to make this public knowledge as if you know something has a counter measure against your weapon then you will adapt accordingly to counter the counter.

One problem is that a civil aircraft can not use a system that deploys white phosphorous as they are always flying over heavily populated areas and the flares will cause property damage as well as burn anyone they touch.One system called CAMPS uses a pyrophoric substance instead of a flare.Another made by Northrop Gruman uses passive system that uses a laser that screws up the missile guidance system it is approved by the FAA surely it must be is use.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/capab...s/default.aspx not much information but someone must be buying them.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/guardian.htm

Tyrant mentioned a rocket launcher which would be far less of a threat to a flying aircraft however someone could attempt to sneak onto an airports flight line and then use a rocket to fire at an aircraft that was still stationary or one that was along the many taxiways these types of target would be very easy to hit and you could still kill perhaps a few dozen people depending on where the rocket hit and how many rockets where on hand this would only be practical with an RPG based weapon which has a reusable tube.

Still in the long run I think that for a much lower cost a terrorist is more likely to select a much softer target than an airport.For example a city street if you can get the bomb there at the right time you could kill hundreds of people and only spend a few hundred dollars and you do not have to be smart enough to operate complex weaponry.Of course such things as missiles are a threat and should not be ignored.

The idea of a MANPAD threat to civil aircraft(MAN Portable Air Defense) has been around for a long time.Even back in the early 1980's when the US gave Stingers and the UK gave Blowpipe missiles to Afghans fighting the Soviets there was concern about them falling into he wrong hands.

Its also what was behind the debacle in Benghazi, when some idiot went on TV to publicise his work with the undercover operation to recover missiles various militias had liberated from daffy.

[Jimbuna]

I can't see it not happening in the future, especially when you consider the technology improvements in each new system, even the older ones would be more than a match for most if not all civilian aircraft.

[Oberon]

Would it cost much to put automatic chaff and flare dispensers on civilian aircraft? Admittedly there's not a great deal you can do with chaff and flares versus a crazy big airliner, but it might give it a fighting chance.

Would it cost much to put automatic chaff and flare dispensers on civilian aircraft? Admittedly there's not a great deal you can do with chaff and flares versus a crazy big airliner, but it might give it a fighting chance.

El-Al does fit countermeasures, but their government picks up most of the tab.
Problems with airports having big issues over fire hazard created by flares on approach and departure has led them to shift onto infa-red coundermeasures using lasers instead of flares.
So the govt pays 120 million for protecting the 40 aircraft, which isn't that much really

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

El-Al does fit countermeasures, but their government picks up most of the tab.
Problems with airports having big issues over fire hazard created by flares on approach and departure has led them to shift onto infa-red coundermeasures using lasers instead of flares.
So the govt pays 120 million for protecting the 40 aircraft, which isn't that much really

Makes sense, pretty good price tag really too, compared to the cost of cleaning up a crash site and the knock on effect to travel that a successful attack would cause.

Makes sense, pretty good price tag really too, compared to the cost of cleaning up a crash site and the knock on effect to travel that a successful attack would cause.

Its a pretty good price tag just on the cost of an airplane.
A 737 comes in from 75-110 million, so an extra 3 million each isn't that much for extra safety.
If you add the other potential costs you mention its an absolute steal at the price.
Now it would be nicer if there wasn't the threat and some of the worlds crazies didn't have anti aircraft missiles so people wouldn't need to pay for these measures, but they do so we do.