NYPD: We could take down a plane if we wanted to

[MicroBalrog]

Let us suppose, for a moment, NYPD has Stingers.

Just how are they going to use them to oppress the citizenry? Knock doors down with them? It seems battering rams in the hands of police are more concerning.

But taking down a plane can be taken as "shoot it down, whether safetly or not." This can be done with an M2HB (depending on the plane and conditions). I expect any modern police agency of big enough size has an M2HB or similar gun anyway.

[birdman]

Let us suppose, for a moment, NYPD has Stingers.

Kind of unfunny, but a fair assumption... I mean given how many MANPADS Libya is apparently missing, doesn't everyone and their brother have a stinger, or lower performing Russian equivalent now?

[MicroBalrog]

Kind of unfunny, but a fair assumption... I mean given how many MANPADS Libya is apparently missing, doesn't everyone and their brother have a stinger, or lower performing Russian equivalent now?

I think the latter-gen Strelas can probably compete with Stingers in performance and evne outperform them in several key specs if the information there is true.

[MicroBalrog]

The actual answer is hilarious.

[TommyGunn]

 

Yeah .... there is a reason with the advent of the jet age, the U.S. Air Force stopped using .50 caliber and started putting Vulcan 20mm. cannons in jets like the F-4 Phantom, the F-104 Starfighter, and so forth.

[MicroBalrog]

Yeah .... there is a reason with the advent of the jet age, the U.S. Air Force stopped using .50 caliber and started putting Vulcan 20mm. cannons in jets like the F-4 Phantom, the F-104 Starfighter, and so forth.

A .50 cal machinegun can be used to shoot down an aircraft. If it's say a light, slow-moving thing. But a rifle? That's bordering on the impossible (there are recorded, though very rare, incidents where anti-tank rifles took down combat aircraft in WW2).

[TommyGunn]

Too many incidents during the Korean war when the F-86 went up against the MiG 15 and failed to shoot it down caused the USAF to uprate to 20 MIKE-MIKE.   It was just taking too much .50 caliber and that made it a bit hard to keep the sights on the MiG that long.

[Regolith]

A .50 cal machinegun can be used to shoot down an aircraft. If it's say a light, slow-moving thing. But a rifle? That's bordering on the impossible (there are recorded, though very rare, incidents where anti-tank rifles took down combat aircraft in WW2).

Can't remember where I read this, but there was a case of an American pilot taking out a Japanese fighter with a M1911 in WWII. IIRC, the pilot had to ditch his own aircraft, and while parachuting to the ground the Japanese pilot swung around to try and kill him.  He got a lucky shot off which either killed the pilot or destroyed the engine.

However, such an event is so rare that when it happens it's referred to as a "golden BB." And with passenger airliners, which typically have multiple engines and pilots, getting in a lucky shot that would take down the plane would be even harder. 

[kgbsquirrel]

To shift thread gears here some, I'm wondering what would actually be a good economical dedicated AA system for NYC, properly maintained and operated by one of the actual military branches (and not an overgrown municipal police department that has delusions of praetorian grandeur). Needs to have enough range and punch to swat a jumbo out of the sky before it gets over the major population center.

I'm thinking a, normally ship mounted, RIM-162 octal launcher with radar target illuminator slapped on top of the current tallest building.

[dogmush]

The ESSM from a -162 is designed for incoming missles.  very fast, but soft targets.  NYC need protection from slow, but comparably tough targets.  I'm thinking we need to go back and look at systems used when IC bumbers were a threat.  You need a missle that is manuverable, and has a big payload, but it doesn't have to be super fast (by missle standards)

[birdman]

An ESSM will take out an aircraft quite well.  And given that most current Non-manpads SAMs will damage even large aircraft severely, a large multi-engine non-military jet isn't a very tough (from an externally inflicted damage perspective) compared to military fighters or bombers).  Clipping a wing or tail (which is the dominant form of hit would be with a radar guided missile) would be pretty effective.  However, nothing other than a large (sm2, patriot PAC-2) missile would be able to really obliterate a large aircraft, and even then, it's not like the movies where it explodes into a million tiny pieces...no missiles (other than nuclear AAM or SAMs) are designed to do that, they are designed to stop the aircraft, not make the pieces that hit the ground small.

[CNYCacher]

How long before terr'ists realize that they can use fake panicked 911 calls to take down a plane?

[mtnbkr]

How long before terr'ists realize that they can use fake panicked 911 calls to take down a plane?

They're not far from it now ("credible threat").

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

A .50 cal machinegun can be used to shoot down an aircraft. If it's say a light, slow-moving thing. But a rifle? That's bordering on the impossible (there are recorded, though very rare, incidents where anti-tank rifles took down combat aircraft in WW2).

Are we talking them shooting it down from the ground, or an air intercept?  From the ground, if they had a fixed emplacement in the right place, maybe.  But just look at the kamakaze attacks on our ships in WWII.  Many made it through a barrage of AA fire up to and including 5" air burst rounds to plunge into the decks of ships.

It would have to be real light and real slow.  Or the NYPD would have to be real lucky.

The most modern of thier fleet seems to be the Bell 412.  Max speed, 140 knots. 
A cessna 172 has a cruise speed of 122 knots.  Max is higher, depending on a number of factors.
So you have a helo trying to intercept a cessna, with a whopping 18 knot overtake. 
I suck at math, but I more than make up for it in experience.  It takes awhile for that overtake to happen. 

[Pharmacology]

How long before terr'ists realize that they can use fake panicked 911 calls to take down a plane?

After reading all those pages of transcripts, I'd think it'd take a bit more than that, no?

What with all that Giant Killer, etc... talk

[CNYCacher]

After reading all those pages of transcripts, I'd think it'd take a bit more than that, no?

What with all that Giant Killer, etc... talk

That was the Military, who are more cautious.  I was thinking more along the lines of "What if" the NYPD did have the means to take down a plane.

And what is Giant Killer?  It sounds awesome

[Pharmacology]

That was the Military, who are more cautious.  I was thinking more along the lines of "What if" the NYPD did have the means to take down a plane.
And what is Giant Killer?  It sounds awesome

I have no idea;  I couldn't really make much sense of the transcripts.

[kgbsquirrel]

The ESSM from a -162 is designed for incoming missles.  very fast, but soft targets.  NYC need protection from slow, but comparably tough targets.  I'm thinking we need to go back and look at systems used when IC bumbers were a threat.  You need a missle that is manuverable, and has a big payload, but it doesn't have to be super fast (by missle standards)

An ESSM will take out an aircraft quite well.  And given that most current Non-manpads SAMs will damage even large aircraft severely, a large multi-engine non-military jet isn't a very tough (from an externally inflicted damage perspective) compared to military fighters or bombers).  Clipping a wing or tail (which is the dominant form of hit would be with a radar guided missile) would be pretty effective.  However, nothing other than a large (sm2, patriot PAC-2) missile would be able to really obliterate a large aircraft, and even then, it's not like the movies where it explodes into a million tiny pieces...no missiles (other than nuclear AAM or SAMs) are designed to do that, they are designed to stop the aircraft, not make the pieces that hit the ground small.

Perhaps we should do for the AIM-54 Phoenix what we did for the AIM-7 Sparrow then? That beast was designed to kill a Bear bomber in a single shot. Plus the mach 5 hundred mile range wouldn't hurt.   

[Boomhauer]

A cessna 172 has a cruise speed of 122 knots.  Max is higher, depending on a number of factors.
So you have a helo trying to intercept a cessna, with a whopping 18 knot overtake.
I suck at math, but I more than make up for it in experience.  It takes awhile for that overtake to happen. 

Eventually, though, the NYPD will "take down a plane". It'll be a 172 with a pilot and his whole family after they accidentally violate a TFR, but they will prove that they can take down a plane...

[Jamisjockey]

Eventually, though, the NYPD will "take down a plane". It'll be a 172 with a pilot and his whole family after they accidentally violate a TFR, but they will prove that they can take down a plane...

Agreed. 

[KD5NRH]

The most modern of thier fleet seems to be the Bell 412.  Max speed, 140 knots.  
A cessna 172 has a cruise speed of 122 knots.  Max is higher, depending on a number of factors.

For the 172S:
Vno 129kias
Vne 163kias

Again, that's Vne if you care about keeping the aircraft completely intact.

EDIT TO ADD: Cessna 150L Vne 141kias.  The Yugo of the skies can outrun NYPD's air force.

[Tallpine]

So if the terrists fly a Mooney there is no way to stop them 

[Ben]

So if the terrists fly a Mooney there is no way to stop them 

We could make them honorary doctors and give them Bonanzas...

[Ben]

How long before terr'ists realize that they can use fake panicked 911 calls to take down a plane?

In the era of Homeland Security, TSA, and "remain vigilant", a bratty 13 year old could be a more effective terrorist than the actual terrorists.

[longeyes]

Two words: John Muhammed.

Asymmetrism brought local.