Missiles on blocks of flats for Olympics

[rogerk]

How are they going to put them there ??

Underslung load from a Chinook ??:confused:

[TEEEJ]

Carry them up the stairs or use a lift! See images at Daily Mail link. It is the Starstreak High Velocity Missile that is on the rooftops.

Olympic security: London's green space transformed by anti-aircraft guns for Olympic ring of steel | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172909/Olympic-security-Londons-green-space-transformed-anti-aircraft-guns-Olympic-ring-steel.html)

Starstreak High Velocity Missile - British Army Website (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/artillery-air-defence/1509.aspx)

[NutLoose]

*
Supporting Systems - Firing Systems
The Starstreak High Velocity Missile is carried in a closed up launch cylinder. For the purpose of firing, such a cylinder is connected to a target-seeking element. The one who operates the system follows the target by means of the target seeking element's optically steadied display. Once fired the first phase rocket motor ignites which launches the missile from the cylinder. However, it is exhausted prior to getting out of the cylinder - for the purpose of shielding the missile operator.

Once the missile is at a harmless distance from the operator, the second phase rocket motor will fire.


Ok fine I get all of that, but on this image

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/13/article-2172909-140920DE000005DC-723_964x668.jpg

You are surrounded by a wall a couple of feet away and all the films I saw of the launch a chuffing great flame comes out the arse end of those tubes when it fires... Surely you would not want a wall the redirect that back at the operators?

Call me old fashioned but it all looks a bit Heath Robinson, is the thing so poorly weighted you have to chuck sandbags on the base to increase the stability of it? I take it the wooden base it to spread the weight? Also I bet they are really screwing up some guys TV picture, let alone it reducing their coverage :E

[Dunky]

Lets hope no-one nearby is using their mobile phone when they launch it, that could really make a mess of somebody's day ;)

[Walrus75]

Hmmm...
For the first time since the Second World War, London's green space is transformed by anti-aircraft guns for Olympic Ring of steel...
a show of strength not seen in this country since the Second World War....
Oh really, how's about the post-war (WW2) IGLOO scheme designed to protect our fair and pleasent land? Some journo's really need their arris's kicking IMHO.

More info at these links:
A brief Late/post WW2 A.A. history (http://www.kenthistoryforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3374.0)

Typical IGLOO HAA sites --> Worms Heath Igloo 2 H.A.A. Battery, Warlingham: Aug 2011 - Derelict Places (http://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/showthread.php?t=19922)

http://derelictmisc.org.uk/igloo2.html

Subterranea Britannica: Research Study Group: Sites: Penketh 3.7" Heavy Anti Aircraft Battery (http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/p/penketh_haa/index.html)

[TheWizard]

*sarcasm on* God forbid those guys on the roof are professionals who know what they are doing.........:rolleyes: *sarcasm off*

[Rigga]

I used to work at one of those sites - where the Emplacement blocks and gun mounting plates are still visible and the ammo lockers are still intact (lights working) and earth covered.

The 50's control center (GDOC?) for North London is still there too - A concrete theatre, in similar form to the WW2 Ops buildings, with a viewing gallery.
A spooky place to visit when you know what it was supposed to do.

[NutLoose]

* #6 (permalink)
TheWizard
*
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere near Oxford
Posts: 616
*sarcasm on* God forbid those guys on the roof are professionals who know what they are doing......... *sarcasm off*


We use to bimble from one farce to the next, everyone else used to think we knew what we were doing, have things changed?

Wasn't it the IRA that launched a rocket from a car without opening the other windows? Resulting in a toasted operator.

[Lima Juliet]

Starstreaks' plume isn't that big, see here...

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_SAM_Starstreak_Launch_lg.jpg

The missile fires its first rocket motor, which launches the missile but burns out before leaving the tube to protect the operator. Only once the missile is a safe distance from the operator the second motor fires, which rapidly accelerates the missile to burn out velocity of M3.5 some 400m away from the soldier. There is no warhead to speak of (~500grams), it is a "hit-tile". All in all, it is probably ideally suited to urban ops as it has little plume on the ground, no warhead and the small darts are the only thing that will do any real damage - they probably wouldn't drop a building but they would give you a "haircut" if they landed on you!!!

LJ

PS. i forgot to mention that the darts self destruct as they reach max range. So unless there is a guidance fail, there is little chance of serious collateral.

[Bill Macgillivray]

I feel that I am missing something here. Before anyone who knows me says "You silly old geriatric f**t!" I agree! However, who is the person who is going to order a firing (or Typhoon intercept.) at/of a hi-jacked airliner over London? I am confused!! (Unless it is targetted over Westminster!):confused::confused::confused::confused:

[NutLoose]

What ever you take down over London is going to make a mess wherever it lands... and sad to say if you are having to take it out over London you have already lost.. As said it does not have to hit any venue, Olympics and London are tantamount to the same thing in the worlds eyes, "Ohhh we took an Aircraft down it never reached any Olympic venue but crashed in Oxford Street killing XYZ people" will not wash.... To little to late.

[TheWizard]

I feel that I am missing something here. Before anyone who knows me says "You silly old geriatric f**t!" I agree! However, who is the person who is going to order a firing (or Typhoon intercept.) at/of a hi-jacked airliner over London? I am confused!! (Unless it is targetted over Westminster!):confused::confused::confused::confused:

The Prime Minister. It's in his TORs.

[Samuel]

The ultimate?
I feel that I am missing something here. Before anyone who knows me says "You silly old geriatric f**t!" I agree! However, who is the person who is going to order a firing (or Typhoon intercept.) at/of a hi-jacked airliner over London? I am confused!! (Unless it is targetted over Westminster!)

Thank you for your affirmation that I, too, am not a f****it, because it had also occurred to me that this whole missile system is the modern-day equivalent of a gorilla beating its chest, or a Zulu banging his shield: that is, utterly pointless.

Even allowing for the event of a hi-jacked 757 being pointed at Westminster or that dreadful McDonalds at the Olympic village, or the Olympics, shooting it down will achieve what exactly?

[500N]

Interesting re the PM.

They delegated the fire command to one of the AVM's in Australia (edit - or his deputy) for at least one of the events covered by air force jets.

[Arcanum]

The population density of a stadium is a lot greater than some random part of central London.

It comes down to a numbers game. You shoot the aircraft down before it reaches the stadium and perhaps 2,000-people are killed/injured. If it hits the stadium then you're looking at 20,000-people.

That said, the people in the stadium are choosing to be there despite knowing it is a potential target...

[reynoldsno1]

Safest place to be would be the block of flats, I guess ....

[Load Toad]

How do you know it'll hit this big lush target then?

The only possible use for these missiles is to shoot down a very small 'plane - one man type thing.

Anything else is bollix.

[cribble]

:DPlus, if it misses the stadium (where the fatcats are) but hits the surrounding suburbs (lower socioeconomic group, as I understand it) then no probs.

A short hysteria in the red banners, then on to Spain's forthcoming default.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Even allowing for the event of a hi-jacked 757 being pointed at Westminster or that dreadful McDonalds at the Olympic village, or the Olympics, shooting it down will achieve what exactly?

Dear me! We love to ridicule journos for their dimness and lack of understanding but that doesn't prevent some of out members eclipsing that a hundredfold does it?

Surely, surely even dimmest amongst us can see that what that achieves is in the ultimate event it drops a pile of wreckage somewhere, anywhere, where it cannot do a thousandth of the damage that it would if plunged into the Olympic Stadium killing 50,000 or wiping out the House of Commons (I'll refrain from the witless sarcasm that is bound to follow that statement).

For those without a sense of proportion it is called "Damage Limitation" and given the threat it would be criminally irresponsible not to take such a precaution.

:ugh:

[darkroomsource]

Maybe it's about control.
'We' get to decide where the plane goes down rather than the 'terrorist'
thus thwarting their plans

[MATELO]

to be honest, it is all about prevention rather than the reality of shooting down anything.

We have gone public on where all the sites will be, they know there are jets that can identify a target and launch a missile pretty much 30 miles away. Any potential terrorist will know what they are up against. It makes their job a lot harder, but not impossible. It is just another level of security in the long line of prevention.

I suspect that if the worst was to happen, the only person more fearful than the bloke with his finger on the trigger will be David Cameron, who for 2 weeks over the Olympics, blood running cold, every time the "bat-phone" starts ringing, so to speak,

[622]

Don't worry everyone...G4S have it all under control!

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb137/viking622/4190128816_84414dc296.jpg

[A A Gruntpuddock]

"to be honest, it is all about prevention rather than the reality of shooting down anything."

And how is threatening to shoot down airliners going to deter terrorists?

Reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where someone escapes by holding himself hostage!

If I were a terrorist would be delighted that the authorities offer such assistance.

[dazdaz1]

I'm waiting for the 'false flag' event at the end of the Olympics. As Ian R Crane predicted.

Daz

[Samuel]

Dear me! We love to ridicule journos for their dimness and lack of understanding but that doesn't prevent some of out members eclipsing that a hundredfold does it?

Surely, surely even dimmest amongst us can see that what that achieves is in the ultimate event it drops a pile of wreckage somewhere, anywhere, where it cannot do a thousandth of the damage that it would if plunged into the Olympic Stadium killing 50,000 or wiping out the House of Commons (I'll refrain from the witless sarcasm that is bound to follow that statement).

For those without a sense of proportion it is called "Damage Limitation" and given the threat it would be criminally irresponsible not to take such a precaution.


Arrant nonsense!

The facts are that these missiles are the last line of defence and as such will have failed to achieve any purpose whatsoever if used. A large passenger aircraft crashing, controlled or not, into the massive target which is London will cause catastrophic carnage regardless of any preposterous theory that shooting it down will somehow limit the damage. Besides, the inertia built in to the decision to shoot it down will guarantee that won't happen.

[Clearedtoroll]

Arrant nonsense!

Well there's definitely some polarised opinions on here aren't there?

I think examples of large aircraft accidents in urban areas show that whilst there can be significant casualties on the ground, there are - more often than not - relatively few casualties on the ground compared to the lives lost on board. Contrast that to a scenario where aircraft are deliberately flown into large buildings.

So I'd respectively suggest that allowing an aircraft to crash into a packed stadium or a tower block would probably cause massively more casualties than an engagement.

That's not to say I would regard stopping such a scenario as a 'success' - it would obviously be a tragedy - but in the extremely unlikely event it was to happen I would view it as the least worst option. Utilitarian perhaps, but not IMHO 'preposterous'.

[dazdaz1]

Would it be easer for the naughty boys to flush Semtex down the loo with a timer? No sh8t jokes please. The sewage system in London would be a plethora of various routes. Lucky dip?

Daz

[MATELO]

And how is threatening to shoot down airliners going to deter terrorists?

Reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where someone escapes by holding himself hostage!

If I were a terrorist would be delighted that the authorities offer such assistance.

If you read your quote properly I said prevention, not deter.

Quite a difference

[Samuel]

Well there's definitely some polarised opinions on here aren't there?

Not at all, but suggesting some people are thick for not subscribing to one, off the wall, opinion is equal to hitting a nail squarely on the thumb!:ouch:

[Agaricus bisporus]

Sam, as I said there are some people here who seem unequipped with a sense of proportion and you are clearly one. If you really think it is better to let someone fly an aeroplane into a stadium containing 100,000 people than to down it first, even into an urban area then you qualify fully for a number of epithets and doubting the intelligence of such a view is more than valid. I assume you'd prefer to have no final backstop at all and just risk it?

Just how is damage limitation an "off the wall" view? Dear oh dear...but clearly the Gov't and their security services suffer from off the wall thinking too...

[Load Toad]

How the **** to you 'deter' suicide terrorists with SAM's ?

'Oh dear - we might die slightly earlier than expected - we will still however murder all of the passengers we managed to take hostage, crash the 'plane into a major city with a good dense population & kill untold numbers on the ground AND leave behind years of recrimination, pain, wailing & gnashing of teeth while they debate how a supposedly free and humane government can sanction shooting down innocent civilians over a city...not to mention the class action law suits and international political fall out'

Anyone claiming 'deterrent' or 'well we get to choose where the innocent die' or 'well it's better than a direct hit on a stadium' is an utter dehumanized numpty of the lowest order.

[baffman]

Agaricus, well said.

This is about increasing the options and increasing the time for making a very unwanted decision. With no backstop as you so rightly term it, there might be no option but to take down an aircraft much further out.

Since the HVM capability exists, one can just imagine the "expert" criticism afterwards if we failed to deploy it and it turned out to be needed after all.

Hopefully this will all turn out to be academic.

[A A Gruntpuddock]

Flying into a tower block on a relatively even path at a constant elevation is a different problem compared to finding then diving into a stadium at ground level.

Apart from target acquisition, the acceleration due to sticking the pointy end downwards,etc has to be allowed for.

If a member of your family was killed because a (possibly) crashing plane was diverted elsewhere, would you be delighted and thank whoever was responsible?

[Dunky]

This all presumes that it's a large commercial passenger jet. It could equally be a small private aircraft packed with explosives, or other material.

[baffman]

This all presumes that it's a large commercial passenger jet. It could equally be a small private aircraft packed with explosives, or other material. Exactly. And a small private aircraft (fixed wing or rotary) doesnt need to be hijacked.

[ZeBedie]

How possible is it that, among the LHR traffic, police, military and VIP helicopters, they'll engage the wrong target?

[MATELO]

Rest assured ZeB, the RAF's finest has its hands on the situation.

[Windy Militant]

How are they going to put them there ??

Underslung load from a Chinook ??
If Only. :}
http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/aimages/G4149.jpg
Image pinched from Aviation Archive: Aviation Heritage.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Quote:



Arrant nonsense!

Well there's definitely some polarised opinions on here aren't there?

I think examples of large aircraft accidents in urban areas show that whilst there can be significant casualties on the ground, there are - more often than not - relatively few casualties on the ground compared to the lives lost on board. Contrast that to a scenario where aircraft are deliberately flown into large buildings.

So I'd respectively suggest that allowing an aircraft to crash into a packed stadium or a tower block would probably cause massively more casualties than an engagement.

That's not to say I would regard stopping such a scenario as a 'success' - it would obviously be a tragedy - but in the extremely unlikely event it was to happen I would view it as the least worst option. Utilitarian perhaps, but not IMHO 'preposterous'.

I agree. For example, El Al at Amsterdam hit a block of flats and the death count on the ground was 47..... although initial estimates were far higher.

The way I see it, an engagement at least allows the possibility of no more fatalities; the wreckage could come down in an open area. There are parklands and bodies of water, even in London.

Granted, 0 casualties on the ground is probably not going to happen, but there is at least a chance. There is a greater chance that the casualties will be relatively modest. Whereas if some nutter plants a jet into a packed stadium the death toll will probably be thousands.

Its a no brainer.

If a member of your family was killed because a (possibly) crashing plane was diverted elsewhere, would you be delighted and thank whoever was responsible?

Well, I'd blame who was responsible.... the terrorist organisation, not the people placed in the unenviable position of choosing the lesser of two evils.

The idea that a small number of people might need to be put at risk to protect a much larger number of people ought to be something that any current or ex-serviceman ought to understand imho.

pb

[NutLoose]

End of the day they have already won...

[Heathrow Harry]

As John Mosby , the great Confederate cavalry raider said "the worth of a guerrilla is not in what he destroys but in the number of men he ties up watching everything"

[finestkind]

Must admit I have lost a bit of the thread here. Is one side advocating don't shoot anything down as there is going to be fatalities anyway, whilst the other side is better to have a few fatalities instead of many?

Where does the argument go.
Reminds me, slightly laterally of the old joke.

80 y.o old gent approaches lovely young lass and ask's, "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars"

slight pause with an affirmative given.

"How about one dollar"?

Sharp retort, "no what do you think I am" ?

reply being: "We have already established that, we are now just haggling over the price"..


Will you take action even though it means fatalities. Yes sacrificing one life to save a thousand is/is not acceptable. ( 1,000to save 10,000? )