View Full Version : Rapier defends London
30th Jun 2012, 22:10
I have dashed over here, in response to a question asked by one of our grounded brethren on ARRSE, (an entertaining place BTW), about the effects of a Rapier shoot down on a large civilian passenger aircraft over London.
Surely a Raper wouldn't do more than knock a bit of a wing off or what have you, it would probably cause less harm to let such an attack run to its conclusion.
Kudos to the first person to suggest that Boeing/Airbus is better able to survive such a terrible thing, or not.
Sorry for the facetiousness in my topic, I mean no ill.;)
30th Jun 2012, 22:30
I find that, on balance, a sabre is best. Foils and epees (sp), bit lightweight.
30th Jun 2012, 22:43
But do they have the range and endurance for this job?
30th Jun 2012, 23:35
I would class the Foil as more of a training round and would therefore hope that we have progressed beyond that stage prior to the Olympics starting and us potentially needing to use it in anger.
Out of the sabre and epee, I guess it all depends what you want to do. The sabre is more flexible in terms of target, the epee more flexbile in terms of full weapons effect. The epee has what you would describe as more of an impact fuse whilst the sabre is a bit more of a proximity weapon and you get to have a good slash around in the hope of hitting something. I guess it all depends what you want the headlines to read the next morning!
30th Jun 2012, 23:42
(an entertaining place BTW),
Not sure why you dashed over here then. Entertainment of any kind is discouraged on this stuffy old corner of the internet.:(
1st Jul 2012, 01:50
maybe the rapier is intended to shoot down small GA planes?
I've often thought that sending an AEGIS equipped cruiser and berthing it next to a major city would provide the best possible anti aircraft defense.
1st Jul 2012, 02:53
Journo alert !
1st Jul 2012, 07:41
"I've often thought that sending an AEGIS equipped cruiser and berthing it next to a major city"
I've often thought people take those Tom Clancy novels too seriously
1st Jul 2012, 11:06
Aircraft with say 300 people on board aimed at stadium with about 80,000 capacity.
Bit of a no brainer to say bringing it down anywhere in suburban London except a football stadium would be a least worse option at least on the collateral damage front ?
There's an old 70's book called SAM7 by Richard Cox about the effect of an airliner being brought down in central London. Cannot imagine casualties in the suburbs would be near 80,000 though, but I have no idea really.
1st Jul 2012, 11:26
Agree with Phil9560 - discussions about GBAD are not a topic for an open forum. However, anyone who (a) has an 'O'-level knowledge of physics and (b) reads the Richard Cox book already cited should be able to work it out for themself.
1st Jul 2012, 15:38
Sound like sort of question one might get from the Scottish Wg Cdr on the Tacaval team (before he was the Scottish Gp Capt) on day 3 of a Part 2.
1st Jul 2012, 18:03
Guess it depends who is on the flight...............:E
250 Chavs heading back from Costa del Drime or Shagaluf
250 Playmate Pets heading to London on a fraternal visit
Save the latter by all means necessary :O via Diversion to a suitable base where it would be necessary to shelter them in quarters :E
Would keep the fluffies happy with that old 60's slogan...........
1st Jul 2012, 18:25
I'm under the impression that displaying this equipment and the attendant publicity is for the attention of the Great Unwashed, be they from the East End or indeed points much further East.
Such as Chelmsford.
Thught thread title to be 'Rapist to defend London',imagine my dissapointment !
2nd Jul 2012, 01:17
Won't be any worse than a V2. Although would wake up a generation.
"Won't be any worse than a V2. Although would wake up a generation. "
Could take more than a V2 to wake up a fair few of them:O
A A Gruntpuddock
2nd Jul 2012, 10:23
If a missile (ground or air launched) brought down an airliner just think of the lawsuits and possible criminal trials!
It could (and would) be argued that -
it might not have crashed if left alone,
it would not have crashed where it did,
the passengers and crew were unlawfully killed by the missile.
So the government would be liable liable for all the costs, injuries, etc and whoever launched could be prosecuted for murder and/ or manslaughter.
Lawsuits would be launched in many countries by the relatives of those killed or injured as well as by the aircraft owners and insurance companies.
The threat of death would not deter terrorists and they would be delighted if the authorities scored an own goal!
It is all just political posturing.
2nd Jul 2012, 11:23
Can't we have London defended by a really big inflatable hawk or something?
In fact - why not barrage balloons? They'd look f'ace and bring back the great Dunkirk spirit or something like that.