Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on September 25, 2011, 10:10:13 PM
-
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYPD_60_MINUTES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-25-19-59-04
THAT RIGHT THERE is some spooky sh!t.
Never mind the whole notion that the freaking US Military will not pull the trigger on a passenger plane without approval directly from the Oval Office. For NYPD to have the means, the notion, and the will to do it is tantamount to insurrection/rebellion in my mind.
The amount of time they would need to ACT upon an aircraft inside their airspace where they have ANY arguable jurisdiction whatsoever is so laughably small that the act of shooting down a plane is for all intents and purposes, the same as premeditated murder.
It's one thing for the US Air Force or the New York State Air National Guard to have interdiction assets for such a mission.
Completely inappropriate for a metro police department to have premeditated means/will/plan to do the same. That's a BAD plan that needs to be re-worked with more appropriate assets in mind. And whomever came up with that plan needs to be shown the door, with a bootprint on his *expletive deleted*ss to mark him for his stupidity.
-
They must have bought one of those Barrett 50 cal anti passenger plane rifles. :facepalm:
-
With what exactly?
I certainly hope that no one was dumb enough to give the NYPD a Stinger or whatnot.
-
More than likely, it's a surveillance drone similar to a Predator, or even a squadron of them. Either it's armed with anti-aircraft missiles, or they think they can kamikaze it into an aircraft.
Regardless, this is something that police departments should NOT be doing. Probably right up there on the top of the list.
10. Stake-out a suspect while parked at the front curb of his house
9. Allow criminals to get leverage over you
8. Flip out and shoot up your own neighborhood
7. No-knock warrants
6. Charge someone with crimes due to ego or pride rather than the facts
5. Have sex in uniform on the hood of your patrol car
4. Be a "Law Enforcement Officer" rather than a "Peace Officer"
3. Abandon their service pistols in public bathrooms
2. Demonstrate how "professional" they are with loaded Glocks
and number 1...
1. Attempt to shoot down aircraft
ETA: Municipal governments can purchase class 3 weaponry... but do missiles count as class 3 weaponry?
If Raytheon actually sold this directly to NYPD, my estimation of them as a company will seriously drop a peg or three.
-
I like how they mention sending NYPD agents "abroad" as part of their grand plan.
Wonder if that's parallel to sending agents into neighboring states trying to bait gun dealers and private citizens into "straw purchases"...
-
More than likely, it's a surveillance drone similar to a Predator, or even a squadron of them. Either it's armed with anti-aircraft missiles, or they think they can kamikaze it into an aircraft
Or just something as simple as a rifleman riding in the cargo bay of a helicopter...match speed with a smaller aircraft and shoot the cockpit area up.
Regardless, NYC is just an example of a large city that thinks it's an autonomous country...they need to be brought back in line, and this is just one reason.
-
Or just something as simple as a rifleman riding in the cargo bay of a helicopter...match speed with a smaller aircraft and shoot the cockpit area up.
Inside of NYPD's airspace, you'll never get the chance to scramble a bird with a marksman in it, intercept, and match vectors within acceptable distance (500 yards? In a vibrating helicopter at a moving target? 300? 100 yards? I've heard the prop-wash actually shoves the bullet down about a foot as it exits the barrel...) to shoot up a cockpit. And you won't break the craft apart, which is the goal of airborne violence over a metro area. Those 737's that hit the Trade Towers were incendiary missiles. If they broke up over Manhattan into half a dozen pieces and rained burning jet fuel over town there would have been bad things that happened, but nothing on the scale of 3000 lives and trillions of dollars of economic impact.
The whole point of interdiction is to prevent the improvised missile attack, using a craft as an explosive delivery device. For that, you have to blow it up or smash it into little bits. Even if you headshot the pilot, the craft is still going to more or less go straight until it crashes into its target (within NYPD air space, you are looking at mere seconds between successful head shot and the bird hitting its target).
Nope. We already know that NYPD and DHS have Predators over NYC.
I'm betting that rather than a SAM system, they have constant airborne assets attached to their Predators.
You're just not shooting down a passenger jet with a rifle. Even a super-evil Barrett.
-
ETA: Municipal governments can purchase class 3 weaponry... but do missiles count as class 3 weaponry?
Define as a Destructive Device, sub-definition Missile. $200 tax to the ATF if you want to buy one privately. So, the answer to your question, is yes.
-
1. NYPD doesn't have predators (to the best of my knowledge)
2. The FAA has rarely, and I mean rarely, given UAV's permission to fly in the US over anything other than test range airspace, or immediate transit from a base to over water., let along congested airspace over a city, as see and avoid is a major problem.
3. I have never seen a predator or reaper with air to air weapons installed or in use.
Where does this thinking come from?
-
In the "60 Minutes" interview Kelly did not elaborate on what methods the NYPD's would use to take down a plane deemed a threat, saying simply that:
"NYPD Aviation has weapons that could be deployed with that capability."
Bullshit. the kind of aircraft that is needed to catch, engage, and destroy an airliner is pretty well known. It's not a 206 with guns attached. Even if NYPD had managed to get and re-militarize an interceptor with missles, it would be obvious. There would be large planes with missles on the ramp, pilots on ready-5 infrastucture, mechanics, training flights, shots on drones, fuel bills. All the logistics that goes with air-to air capability.
The chief is either lying, or (more likely to me) played COD and is VASTLY overestimating what a surplus M-60 in a Bell 412 can do to an airliner.
-
More than likely, it's a surveillance drone similar to a Predator, or even a squadron of them.
why?
and where is your source for nypd having predators?
this? http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2011/08/12/gay_city_news/news/doc4e4414474e153994147714.txt [popcorn] [popcorn] >:D
-
More than likely, it's a surveillance drone similar to a Predator, or even a squadron of them.
why?
and where is your source for nypd having predators?
this? http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2011/08/12/gay_city_news/news/doc4e4414474e153994147714.txt [popcorn] [popcorn] >:D
You know, I almost clicked that link, but even post DADT I'm not going to "Gay City News" from my .mil computer. =D
-
2. The FAA has rarely, and I mean rarely, given UAV's permission to fly in the US over anything other than test range airspace, or immediate transit from a base to over water., let along congested airspace over a city, as see and avoid is a major problem.
Even then, they generally make them fly with a chase plane between their base and whatever warning/restricted area they're working in. As strict as the FAA is even with DoD in commercial airspace, I can't see them saying, "Sure NYPD, have fun with your UAV."
-
You know, I almost clicked that link, but even post DADT I'm not going to "Gay City News" from my .mil computer. =D
lol
wuss
-
Maybe they have Chuck Norris?
-
Photographic proof of NYPD's fixed wing UAV capability (http://www.acrtucson.com/UAVgallery/silverfox/NYPD.html)
-
Photographic proof of NYPD's fixed wing UAV capability (http://www.acrtucson.com/UAVgallery/silverfox/NYPD.html)
That isn't a plane, it is a cruise missile.....a very very slow cruise missile. =D
-
Everyone knows that all you need is a Barret to bring down air craft. You don't even need to hit it. The shock wave of a near miss from a powerful 50 caliber bullet will rip the wings right off.
I bet the got hold of one of those quad mount anti-aircraft trucks.
-
Photographic proof of NYPD's fixed wing UAV capability (http://www.acrtucson.com/UAVgallery/silverfox/NYPD.html)
I'd be interested to know the context of that pic (i.e., demo, or application). We've flown both the Silver Fox and Manta before, launching them off our boat, but doing so in a Whiskey. We've never received a COA for civilian airspace.
Two weeks ago we flew the Raven during a major Coast Guard oil spill exercise I was on the planning team for. We had to specifically move our origin point into a local Whiskey in order to use the UAV, even though the exercise was in open ocean and the UAVs were restricted to <1000'.
If NYPD is getting special consideration for COAs, I wonder how the FAA is justifying that when they are so strict with other Fed agencies?
-
pics from 2003 too
-
FWIW, from a quick googling:
NYPD operates Bell 412's and Augusta AW119's which have a max speed of 140kts and 144kts respectivly. It's marginally possible that they could have 2.75" rocket pods for the 412's. (as in the mounts exist. Not that there's any evidence NYPD has them).
The public info for a 737-400 has a do not exceed speed of 250 kts under 10,000AGL. The aproach speed with flaps down is 180kts. So if the hypothetical terroists dropped to approach speed with flaps down, the helicopters still couldn't "pace" them. NYPD needs to place their aircraft in ambush for the airliner, then as they fly by at ~50kts faster then the helicopter's MAX airspeed shoot an unguided rocket accuratlly enough to knock the airliner from the sky. And that's assuming that pissant rocket could even break up that large an aircraft.
I am no an air-to-air expert, but I don't think even a Stinger or Sidewinder will do it reliably. Weren't they designed for other fighter aircraft? IIRC once you get into bomber or airliner sized craft we used bigger missles (i.e. Phoenix or Sparrow) to assure a kill as opposed to simply a damaged craft still limping to the target area. Anyone think NYPD is hiding a surplus F-14 somewhere? Or maybe they jumped on those SU-27's that Russia was selling?
I renew my call of bullshit.
NYPD would be better off buying some surplus SA-7's and stationing officers on rooftops 24/7. And I'm sure that would go over well.
-
I'd be interested to know the context of that pic (i.e., demo, or application). We've flown both the Silver Fox and Manta before, launching them off our boat, but doing so in a Whiskey. We've never received a COA for civilian airspace.
Two weeks ago we flew the Raven during a major Coast Guard oil spill exercise I was on the planning team for. We had to specifically move our origin point into a local Whiskey in order to use the UAV, even though the exercise was in open ocean and the UAVs were restricted to <1000'.
If NYPD is getting special consideration for COAs, I wonder how the FAA is justifying that when they are so strict with other Fed agencies?
Ben, I yanked that pic from the BAE systems website. It was a demo/proof of concept thing that I knew about because one of the BAE guys I worked with in Arifjan in '08 had been there and told me about it. (although it was stupid easy to find, a quick googling will show it) Last my friend knew NYPD didn't have the COA's to fly them, and might or might not buy them, but that info is out of date by probably 5 years.
-
Dogmush -Roger that. The last time we actually used any of their stuff was maybe in '07, back when I think they were still ACR (still have the SWAG hat).
-
Inside of NYPD's airspace, you'll never get the chance to scramble a bird with a marksman in it, intercept, and match vectors within acceptable distance (500 yards? In a vibrating helicopter at a moving target? 300? 100 yards? I've heard the prop-wash actually shoves the bullet down about a foot as it exits the barrel...) to shoot up a cockpit. And you won't break the craft apart, which is the goal of airborne violence over a metro area. Those 737's that hit the Trade Towers were incendiary missiles. If they broke up over Manhattan into half a dozen pieces and rained burning jet fuel over town there would have been bad things that happened, but nothing on the scale of 3000 lives and trillions of dollars of economic impact.
The whole point of interdiction is to prevent the improvised missile attack, using a craft as an explosive delivery device. For that, you have to blow it up or smash it into little bits. Even if you headshot the pilot, the craft is still going to more or less go straight until it crashes into its target (within NYPD air space, you are looking at mere seconds between successful head shot and the bird hitting its target).
Nope. We already know that NYPD and DHS have Predators over NYC.
I'm betting that rather than a SAM system, they have constant airborne assets attached to their Predators.
You're just not shooting down a passenger jet with a rifle. Even a super-evil Barrett.
They didn't say what TYPE of aircraft they had the capability to shoot down. This could be simply people shooting their mouth off. when the only thing they could do in the air to air arena is to have the rudimentary ability of having a helicopter pace a small aircraft. No one has uncovered evidence of serious air to air equipment or capability that would extend their abilities to larger aircraft or actual, successful engagement other than "bringing a plane down"
Snipers and riflemen engage targets successfully all the time from helicopters. There was even a competition at one of the big three gun matches out west where they did a stage of sniping from a helicopter...even easier, though, if you have an light MG rather than mere rifle, since we are all aware that LE agencies can get 'em.
The public info for a 737-400 has a do not exceed speed of 250 kts under 10,000AGL
That's not necessarily the max it will do under that altitude...there's an FAA speed limit below 10k.
-
Yeah, getting outraged about one BS off hand comment in a 60 Minutes interview is... not justified, inho.
-
2. The FAA has rarely, and I mean rarely, given UAV's permission to fly in the US over anything other than test range airspace, or immediate transit from a base to over water., let along congested airspace over a city, as see and avoid is a major problem.
I'm working on the DO-178B cert for a UAV right now.
-
The distinction between police departments and warlords seems to be fading.
-
No, it isin't.
I hate overly militerized police as much as the next guy, and more then most. And I have real problems with the way US law enforcement does many things.
But they're not even close to war lords, and to call them so makes you look like a fool. Call me when a US LE agency makes a long term plan to control the food and water of a region and use it to starve people to death. Then the line will be fading.
I just wish that a reportor in the near future will confront the NYPD with this idiocy. Call BS to their face.
-
Yes, I'm a fool who thinks that there are police departments, run at the top by politicians who have forgotten they are cops, that will do what the people in political power tell them to do. I'm not ripping the rank-and-file, I'm ripping the culture of today's big police departments, which are all about power politics and preserving and enhancing big budgets. 9/11 has become the perfect excuse to demand the equivalent of a local war machine with a commensurate budget. There is no doubt something deeper--and more ominous--too in the growing obsession with SWATting local police work. I see all of this as an inevitable result and counterpoint of liberal policies that have created gangsta ghettos populated by uneducated poor minorities and illegal aliens coddled by liberal courts and aided and abetted by social welfare hacks.
You must have missed some of the police behavior during "Katrina." Or some of the remarks of guys like Bill Bratton, my former police chief.
Police are human, part of the same American culture obsessed with Grand Theft Auto and Call Of Duty and innumerable action movies featuring martial arts and full-auto weapons.
-
Well, they have come out and said that it's .50 rifles from helicopters.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYPD-Take-Down-Plane-Ray-Kelly-Commissioner-60-Minutes-130576953.html
More security theater.
And grounds for Bloomberg to build his "zOMG the .50 Bee-em-gee can shoot down airplanes!eleventy1!" case for Congress to ban them. After all, if the NYPD says so, and hopes to be able to in the event of a tur'rist threat, then it must be true. ;/
NYC idgits that don't know better will feel "safer."
And those of us that know a .50 ain't gonna do anything to any plane of substance, aren't too afraid of the NYPD's capabilities, aside from the totalitarian gall of claiming it's okay for a local PD to plan to shoot at aircraft. :O
-
Yes, I'm a fool who thinks that there are police departments, run at the top by politicians who have forgotten they are cops, that will do what the people in political power tell them to do. I'm not ripping the rank-and-file, I'm ripping the culture of today's big police departments, which are all about power politics and preserving and enhancing big budgets. 9/11 has become the perfect excuse to demand the equivalent of a local war machine with a commensurate budget. There is no doubt something deeper--and more ominous--too in the growing obsession with SWATting local police work. I see all of this as an inevitable result and counterpoint of liberal policies that have created gangsta ghettos populated by uneducated poor minorities and illegal aliens coddled by liberal courts and aided and abetted by social welfare hacks.
You must have missed some of the police behavior during "Katrina." Or some of the remarks of guys like Bill Bratton, my former police chief.
Police are human, part of the same American culture obsessed with Grand Theft Auto and Call Of Duty and innumerable action movies featuring martial arts and full-auto weapons.
I didn't miss squat. As I said in my post I have real issues with the way US law enforcement handles much of what they do. I just don't like listening to wild hyperbole. Which your first post was. Despite all the abuses (or maybe including them) US Civilian law enforcement bears no resemblance to a War Lord. None At All.
-
Big city police departments have been policitized as well as militarized; they have become arms of the liberal urban establishment, with all that implies. That was my point. Forgive my poetic hyperbole, but please address the crux of the issue as I defined it.
-
I just don't like listening to wild hyperbole.
My hyperbole is broke to ride, but sometimes it bucks once in a while.
-
Or just something as simple as a rifleman riding in the cargo bay of a helicopter...match speed with a smaller aircraft and shoot the cockpit area up.
Regardless, NYC is just an example of a large city that thinks it's an autonomous country...they need to be brought back in line, and this is just one reason.
Looks great in a James Bond flick. Having actually vectored Helos and aircraft to intercept other aircraft in real life, I can tell you its not as easy as it seems in the movies. Unless the NYPD was already in place and ahead of the game, no chance in *expletive deleted*ing hell they will prevent anything.
-
Is there actually anything constitutionally wrong with NYPD having air to air and/or surface-to-air capabilities? Don't they get to have their own milita? Home turf prerogative or something?
I don't like police departments for the same reason I don't like all government, but I'm surprised people are so worked up about it.
-
Is there actually anything constitutionally wrong with NYPD having air to air and/or surface-to-air capabilities? Don't they get to have their own milita? Home turf prerogative or something?
I don't like police departments for the same reason I don't like all government, but I'm surprised people are so worked up about it.
I admit to not knowing if it's actually illegal, but in my view there should be a clear line between civilian and military. Law enforcement, despite what they seem to want to believe, are civilians. To me, if a NYC needs anything beyond "Arms" in the 2A/colonial definition of it, they need to be talking to the military. In this case, I'm sure the NY Air guard could hook them up, and if the city really felt an air-to-air capability was worth the costs, a deal could be worked out with the Guard to run a CAP, or at least some interceptors on Ready-5.
LE is NOT the military. And as a Soldier let me add the the Military is NOT law enforcement. Forgetting that gets people killed.
-
Looks great in a James Bond flick. Having actually vectored Helos and aircraft to intercept other aircraft in real life, I can tell you its not as easy as it seems in the movies. Unless the NYPD was already in place and ahead of the game, no chance in *expletive deleted*ing hell they will prevent anything.
Yes, I know. I am, after all, a pilot. Again, I did not say it was a realistic, actually workable plan to intercept an actual threat aircraft (which, if I was a terrorist, I'd also learn to jink).
But you will note it is exactly as I predicted.
Well, they have come out and said that it's .50 rifles from helicopters.
Now I wouldn't be surprised to see the NYPD shoot down some poor bastard who accidentally violates a TFR. With his whole family onboard. Just wait till that happens...
-
Is there actually anything constitutionally wrong with NYPD having air to air and/or surface-to-air capabilities? Don't they get to have their own milita? Home turf prerogative or something?
I was of the notion that a militia is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state, as the police are. And in any case, you seem to be applying the second amendment to an arm of government - which does not compute.
-
I was of the notion that a militia is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state, as the police are. And in any case, you seem to be applying the second amendment to an arm of government - which does not compute.
You have two wrong notions:
#1 - Private militias are illegal just about everywhere in the US. The Polity (city/county/State/FedGuv) must have the monopoly on force.
#2 - The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution applies equally to the States, the People, or to other forms of Free Association put in place by the People (such as a city).
Is there actually anything constitutionally wrong with NYPD having air to air and/or surface-to-air capabilities? Don't they get to have their own milita? Home turf prerogative or something?
I don't like police departments for the same reason I don't like all government, but I'm surprised people are so worked up about it.
I like your train of thought... I just don't like NYC having stingers.
But then again, General Gage didn't much care for Colonel Barrett's cannon buried in Concord. Started a bit of a scuffle over the Concord Militia's claim to legitimate ownership of those field pieces. Turned into quite the row by the end of the day.
I'll stew on it.
I still have problems with the notion of NYPD shooting down planes out of "self defense" of the city, and having any pretense that that is acceptable behavior or risk management. Though the issue is entirely theoretical now that we have been told their defensive tactic is helos and .50 rifles.
-
You have two wrong notions:
#1 - Private militias are illegal just about everywhere in the US. The Polity (city/county/State/FedGuv) must have the monopoly on force.
Hmmm. I didn't say that militia are legal, I was just saying that they are not the sort of govt.-funded, entirely-govt-run, entirely-govt-owned organization that a police force is.
#2 - The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution applies equally to the States, the People, or to other forms of Free Association put in place by the People (such as a city).
So you subscribe to a collective rights view?
-
Yes, I know. I am, after all, a pilot. Again, I did not say it was a realistic, actually workable plan to intercept an actual threat aircraft (which, if I was a terrorist, I'd also learn to jink).
But you will note it is exactly as I predicted.
Now I wouldn't be surprised to see the NYPD shoot down some poor bastard who accidentally violates a TFR. With his whole family onboard. Just wait till that happens...
Not an attack. I think the NYPD are morons if their primary plan is intercepting an aircraft moving 120 from a helo moving 140 and using a .50 to down it. Fail.
-
Not an attack. I think the NYPD are morons if their primary plan is intercepting an aircraft moving 120 from a helo moving 140 and using a .50 to down it. Fail.
You can tell by the full statement of the idiot who claims that the NYPD could "take down a plane" that he doesn't know a damn thing about aviation, not to mention intercepts or shooting down another aircraft.
My theory is the higher ups asked the lower line guys "Hey, can we shoot down an airplane?" and the lower guys, snickering, said "SURE!" and mutter under their breath "You didn't say what kind of plane or if the plan had a chance in hell". They are laughing their asses off.
-
Hmmm. I didn't say that militia are legal, I was just saying that they are not the sort of govt.-funded, entirely-govt-run, entirely-govt-owned organization that a police force is.
So you subscribe to a collective rights view?
Both collective and individual. By virtue of a reading of the 10th amendment.
States/counties/cities are free to create/organize/train such defensive forces as they see necessary to defend their jurisdictions (except New York City because I have an irrational dislike that I haven't straightened out yet, pertaining to them shooting down aircraft).
Note that I also said:
#2 - The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution applies equally to the States, the People, or to other forms of Free Association put in place by the People (such as a city).
States can have State Guards, State Troopers, etc. Counties have Sheriffs, who institute posses or other volunteer adjunct law enforcement groups. Cities have police departments who also sometimes have posses or auxiliary volunteer systems.
I believe that the 2A protects a police department's right to arm itself against foreign and domestic threats every bit as much as the 2A protects an individual's right to protect himself from a foreign or domestic threat.
-
I believe that the 2A protects a police department's right to arm itself against foreign and domestic threats every bit as much as the 2A protects an individual's right to protect himself from a foreign or domestic threat.
I think you are wrong. The 10th amendment may provide for that power, but the Second amendment is pretty clear:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Amendment is talking about private individuals, not states or agents of the state (and the fact that the 10th amendment mentions the States and the people seperately indicates the framers knew, and intended, them to have distinct powers and rights.)
-
You can tell by the full statement of the idiot who claims that the NYPD could "take down a plane" that he doesn't know a damn thing about aviation, not to mention intercepts or shooting down another aircraft.
My theory is the higher ups asked the lower line guys "Hey, can we shoot down an airplane?" and the lower guys, snickering, said "SURE!" and mutter under their breath "You didn't say what kind of plane or if the plan had a chance in hell". They are laughing their asses off.
You give the underlings too much credit. I once had it out with UHP because I told them hell no they couldn't chase a stolen car across my finals while I was running a 3 mile nut to butt sequence. Guy had the audacity to argue with me.
-
That's not necessarily the max it will do under that altitude...there's an FAA speed limit below 10k.
This, and vNE numbers generally refer to the speed which people who wish to land safely in a functioning aircraft should not exceed. Manufacturers don't publish the VNEEIYASLWPTCTPA. (VNE even if you're a suicidal lunatic who plans to crash the plane anyway.)
-
More than likely, it's a surveillance drone similar to a Predator, or even a squadron of them. Either it's armed with anti-aircraft missiles, or they think they can kamikaze it into an aircraft.
Regardless, this is something that police departments should NOT be doing. Probably right up there on the top of the list.
10. Stake-out a suspect while parked at the front curb of his house
9. Allow criminals to get leverage over you
8. Flip out and shoot up your own neighborhood
7. No-knock warrants
6. Charge someone with crimes due to ego or pride rather than the facts
5. Have sex in uniform on the hood of your patrol car
4. Be a "Law Enforcement Officer" rather than a "Peace Officer"
3. Abandon their service pistols in public bathrooms
2. Demonstrate how "professional" they are with loaded Glocks
and number 1...
1. Attempt to shoot down aircraft
ETA: Municipal governments can purchase class 3 weaponry... but do missiles count as class 3 weaponry?
If Raytheon actually sold this directly to NYPD, my estimation of them as a company will seriously drop a peg or three.
Did you make up that top ten list? If so, it's pretty good.
-
5. Have sex in uniform on the hood of your patrol car
At least that one is relatively harmless, assuming the sexee is willing.
-
ETA: Municipal governments can purchase class 3 weaponry... but do missiles count as class 3 weaponry?
If Raytheon actually sold this directly to NYPD, my estimation of them as a company will seriously drop a peg or three.
Did you make up that top ten list? If so, it's pretty good.
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal and don't forget to tip your waitress.
Yep, all mine.
-
NYPD has a hard time taking down a criminal on foot with handguns and several magazines of ammo expended without collateral damage, I can't wait to see how they are going to bring down and airplane.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinger_missile#Comparison_chart_to_other_MANPADS) if the information there is true.
-
The actual answer is hilarious. (http://www.gunpoliticsny.com/?p=4623)
-
;/
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.
-
;/
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
How long before terr'ists realize that they can use fake panicked 911 calls to take down a plane?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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. >:D
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
So if the terrists fly a Mooney there is no way to stop them :P
-
So if the terrists fly a Mooney there is no way to stop them :P
We could make them honorary doctors and give them Bonanzas...
-
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.
-
Two words: John Muhammed.
Asymmetrism brought local.
-
EDIT TO ADD: Cessna 150L Vne 141kias. The Yugo of the skies can outrun NYPD's air force
You're not going to get 141KIAS in anything resembling level flight...you can't get your Ricky Bobby on in a 150 or 172...
-
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.
Downhill, maybe. I've had to keep coast gaurd helos out of 150's asses on more than one occasion.
Like I've said, I've provided intercept headings to military Blackhawks, police helos and even light fixed wings up to Cessna 210's. Had the TFR and airspace violaters actually had ill intent, or for *expletive deleted*ck's sake hijacked a Citation jet, there was nothing they could have done.
The only RFN vectors I've had intercept in time were F16's. And they can barely handle the low speeds to identify a target like a 150. Open ROE, they would have shot it the *expletive deleted*ck out of the sky, though....
-
You're not going to get 141KIAS in anything resembling level flight...you can't get your Ricky Bobby on in a 150 or 172...
You assume stock engine. IIRC, the .mil figured out an engine that could take the 150 to Vne. With its weight, that's kinda like putting enough motor in a Geo Metro to make it dangerous.
Plus, it ain't rocket science to come in high and dive at the target. Hitting the "happy zone" of as fast as you can go without the wings falling off before you get there is a bit harder, but still manageable.
-
You assume stock engine. IIRC, the .mil figured out an engine that could take the 150 to Vne. With its weight, that's kinda like putting enough motor in a Geo Metro to make it dangerous.
Plus, it ain't rocket science to come in high and dive at the target. Hitting the "happy zone" of as fast as you can go without the wings falling off before you get there is a bit harder, but still manageable.
You could probably go a lot faster without the wings :lol:
-
You could probably go a lot faster without the wings :lol:
For some reason your post reminded me of this... :lol:
http://youtu.be/AJ76BSassms
-
For some reason your post reminded me of this... :lol:
http://youtu.be/AJ76BSassms
Proof of the "lifting body" concept =)
However, it doesn't work so well on C-130's, especially at low altitudes =(
-
Proof of the "lifting body" concept =)
However, it doesn't work so well on C-130's, especially at low altitudes =(
I thought the "lifting body" concept was proven in the 60s & 70s with craft like the Northrop HL-10, the H2F2 and such.
I have read about the Israeli F-15 and the incident with the loss of the starboard wing. Scary indeed -- and a helluva pilot to do that.
IIRC the F-14 also had some "lifting body" effect in the fuselage.
-
Couldn't they just shoot at the engines? It's not like they would be shooting at an armored fighter jet. There target would be a big airliner with big engines for targets. Can't imagine one of those reacting to well with a few rounds of lead shot into it. Of course them actually doing that inside a city doesn't sound to smart. One, if they miss those rounds are going somewhere, and two, they actually manage to bring it down instead of the plane hitting some target, more than likely a single building, it now would be crashing down into who know what.
-
Shoot at the engines from where? A helo, when you're bumping along, and trying to line up your sights on a intake on a aircraft's engines?
Or from the ground, where it is a very small, fast moving target?
Something tells me this ain't gonna be too easy ... ... ... ???
-
Couldn't they just shoot at the engines? It's not like they would be shooting at an armored fighter jet. There target would be a big airliner with big engines for targets. Can't imagine one of those reacting to well with a few rounds of lead shot into it. Of course them actually doing that inside a city doesn't sound to smart. One, if they miss those rounds are going somewhere, and two, they actually manage to bring it down instead of the plane hitting some target, more than likely a single building, it now would be crashing down into who know what.
You would be surprised what those engines can absorb and remain running.
Unless you have a sniper rifle that fires Canadian geese, you probably will have less luck than you imagine.
-
A helo, when you're bumping along, and trying to line up your sights on a intake on a aircraft's engines?
To quote Avenger29 from the 2nd page;
Snipers and riflemen engage targets successfully all the time from helicopters. There was even a competition at one of the big three gun matches out west where they did a stage of sniping from a helicopter...even easier, though, if you have an light MG rather than mere rifle, since we are all aware that LE agencies can get 'em.
Of course you still have the problem of having to intercept the plane to begin with and rounds that miss going into a city. Maybe they got a hold of some mobile Phalanx systems, [tinfoil]
-
Freakazoid, i dont imagine the NYPD cares too much about stray rounds or falling pieces of airplane. Or mistaking innocent aircraft for legit targets. After all, that would only kill the little people.
-
kill or injure pilot plane fall down
-
Couldn't they just shoot at the engines? It's not like they would be shooting at an armored fighter jet. There target would be a big airliner with big engines for targets. Can't imagine one of those reacting to well with a few rounds of lead shot into it. Of course them actually doing that inside a city doesn't sound to smart. One, if they miss those rounds are going somewhere, and two, they actually manage to bring it down instead of the plane hitting some target, more than likely a single building, it now would be crashing down into who know what.
Best bet would be to just hover out it front of it and let the chopper get sucked through one of the engines :P (kinda sucks to be the pilot of the chopper, though)
That might slow it down it a bit. ;)
-
Couldn't they just shoot at the engines? It's not like they would be shooting at an armored fighter jet. There target would be a big airliner with big engines for targets. Can't imagine one of those reacting to well with a few rounds of lead shot into it. Of course them actually doing that inside a city doesn't sound to smart. One, if they miss those rounds are going somewhere, and two, they actually manage to bring it down instead of the plane hitting some target, more than likely a single building, it now would be crashing down into who know what.
Getting to where they can execute the shot is the hard part.....and what makes this unlikely to begin with.
-
Best bet would be to just hover out it front of it and let the chopper get sucked through one of the engines :P (kinda sucks to be the pilot of the chopper, though)
That might slow it down it a bit. ;)
Take back the money, stay out of each others' way. Got it. I'm right there with you.
-
Best bet would be to just hover out it front of it and let the chopper get sucked through one of the engines :P (kinda sucks to be the pilot of the chopper, though)
That might slow it down it a bit. ;)
IIRC, one of the ideas toyed with for AA guns was basically just stuffing a shell with as big a parachute as it could hold, using steel cable shroud lines. Lob a bunch of them up, and let them float down in front of the aircraft you want stopped. Sucking one into a prop or jet intake would do Bad Things, having the pilot effectively blinded would reduce the effectiveness of the aircraft, and of course, dodging the things would play merry hell with a tight formation.
-
You would be surprised what those engines can absorb and remain running.
Unless you have a sniper rifle that fires Canadian geese, you probably will have less luck than you imagine.
They are Canada Geese. They don't carry passports [/Hunter Ed Instructor]
-
IIRC, one of the ideas toyed with for AA guns was basically just stuffing a shell with as big a parachute as it could hold, using steel cable shroud lines. Lob a bunch of them up, and let them float down in front of the aircraft you want stopped. Sucking one into a prop or jet intake would do Bad Things, having the pilot effectively blinded would reduce the effectiveness of the aircraft, and of course, dodging the things would play merry hell with a tight formation.
So, temporary barrage balloons. Think I'd rather have the balloons, at least then you can also use them for lofting your radio antennas and what not.
-
What happened to all the domes that were supposed to be over all our major cities by now ???
This isn't the future that Popular Mechanix promised =(
-
So, temporary barrage balloons. Think I'd rather have the balloons, at least then you can also use them for lofting your radio antennas and what not.
Balloons pretty much have to be in place before the attacker gets there. If he can see them, he can go over them. The parachutes could be shot up too close to avoid that easily.
-
Unless you have a sniper rifle that fires Canadian geese, you probably will have less luck than you imagine.
Want. WAAAANT!
-
What do you have against geese ???
I heard that they were monogamous and mate for life =)
-
What do you have against geese ???
I heard that they were monogamous and mate for life =)
They're not sufficiently sex positive.
-
What do you have against geese ???
??? Geese are always flying through the air. It would just be a little change of pace for them. You don't think they'd enjoy it?
-
Unless you have a sniper rifle that fires Canadian geese, you probably will have less luck than you imagine.
We already have chicken canon. How hard would it be to upscale it for geese?