RAAF get the nod to shoot down lighties
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF get the nod to shoot down lighties
An RAAF F/A-18 Hornet buzzed central Sydney as authorities warned lethal force could be used against errant aircraft during the APEC summit.
Brigadier Andrew Smith, speaking to reporters in a restricted area at Walsh Bay, said civilian pilots should be aware they would need a permit to enter the temporarily restricted airspace over Sydney during the September 2-9 summit.
As the Hornet flew a low-level familiarisation pass over the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Brigadier Smith warned that any pilots entering the area without a permit ran the risk of being shot down.
"That would be an absolute last resort," Brigadier Smith said.
"What is more likely to occur is we'll find a pilot who hasn't been reading his mail ... and we'll remind him of his civil aviation obligations in the nicest possible way."
The restricted airspace zone will encompass a 45 nautical mile radius around Sydney Airport during the summit, which will climax with a meeting of world leaders on September 8 and 9.
In the restricted wharf area, Australian Defence Force (ADF) troops put on a display of searching cars for hidden bombs while wetsuited navy clearance divers checked the surrounding water.
Authorities signed a memorandum of understanding which formalised the sharing of security operations between NSW Police and the ADF.
"The ADF, under the MoU, don't have a role as an aggressor..." Mr Campbell said.
Be a real shame if the first air-to-air kill by a RAAF pilot since - what, the Korean War??? - turned out to be poor old Joe Lighty in his C140 or some nerd from the Aero Club or D.S. in his robbo!!!!!!!!
Does the knuck still get a silhouette for that?
Brigadier Andrew Smith, speaking to reporters in a restricted area at Walsh Bay, said civilian pilots should be aware they would need a permit to enter the temporarily restricted airspace over Sydney during the September 2-9 summit.
As the Hornet flew a low-level familiarisation pass over the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Brigadier Smith warned that any pilots entering the area without a permit ran the risk of being shot down.
"That would be an absolute last resort," Brigadier Smith said.
"What is more likely to occur is we'll find a pilot who hasn't been reading his mail ... and we'll remind him of his civil aviation obligations in the nicest possible way."
The restricted airspace zone will encompass a 45 nautical mile radius around Sydney Airport during the summit, which will climax with a meeting of world leaders on September 8 and 9.
In the restricted wharf area, Australian Defence Force (ADF) troops put on a display of searching cars for hidden bombs while wetsuited navy clearance divers checked the surrounding water.
Authorities signed a memorandum of understanding which formalised the sharing of security operations between NSW Police and the ADF.
"The ADF, under the MoU, don't have a role as an aggressor..." Mr Campbell said.
Be a real shame if the first air-to-air kill by a RAAF pilot since - what, the Korean War??? - turned out to be poor old Joe Lighty in his C140 or some nerd from the Aero Club or D.S. in his robbo!!!!!!!!
Does the knuck still get a silhouette for that?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scotty, they'll have to do a lot better than the attempt to shoot down the Auster over Sydney many years ago. 'Bout all they got to paint on the side that time was perhaps a red face. 
For those too young to know or remember:
The Aussie story!!
The Facts - according to the RAN!! (pdf file)
I vaguely remember the "incident" - I must be old!!
Tail Wheel
Dunnunda Mod Bod!
For those too young to know or remember:
The Aussie story!!
The Facts - according to the RAN!! (pdf file)
I vaguely remember the "incident" - I must be old!!
Tail Wheel
Dunnunda Mod Bod!
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times have changed.
The facts are that Australia is doing nothing more than any other country would do, or would be expected to do, in similar circumstances of being host to twenty one World leaders.
Get over it, get used to it!
Fifty years ago the then PM, Sir Robert Menzies put the Army on the Australian wharves, in a non aggressive role. I have a recollection there are constitutional reasons that the Australian ADF can not be deployed within Australia, in an aggressive role?
The facts are that Australia is doing nothing more than any other country would do, or would be expected to do, in similar circumstances of being host to twenty one World leaders.
Get over it, get used to it!
Fifty years ago the then PM, Sir Robert Menzies put the Army on the Australian wharves, in a non aggressive role. I have a recollection there are constitutional reasons that the Australian ADF can not be deployed within Australia, in an aggressive role?
I wouldn't worry too much. 
If I am correct the last time the RAAF were tasked with shooting down a lighty, (Auster, no pilot onboard either) they couldn't get it.:
It ended up running out of fuel.
The auster that is!
I have no more faith in them today.
If I am correct the last time the RAAF were tasked with shooting down a lighty, (Auster, no pilot onboard either) they couldn't get it.:
It ended up running out of fuel.
The auster that is!I have no more faith in them today.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangerous Times..Dangerous people
What right in Gods name have these people putting thousands and thousands of good Australians at peril for some bloody wank politicians...
what happens when billy blowfly flys throught the restricted area...they shoot a missile...it misses the target...it goes straight into a kindergarten school...
who do these people think they are...they must be voted OUT....probably the same people who brought you the ASIC card fiasco.
SEND APEC somewhere else...may I suggest Mars!
You might have had a chance Jonny Jackboot but this will seal it for the Libs when you pissoff 3 million voters in one foul hit.
what happens when billy blowfly flys throught the restricted area...they shoot a missile...it misses the target...it goes straight into a kindergarten school...
who do these people think they are...they must be voted OUT....probably the same people who brought you the ASIC card fiasco.
SEND APEC somewhere else...may I suggest Mars!
You might have had a chance Jonny Jackboot but this will seal it for the Libs when you pissoff 3 million voters in one foul hit.
Last edited by emu787; 29th Aug 2007 at 14:16. Reason: error
This was done in 2005(?) in Melbourne for the Commonwealth games opening and closing ceremonies where even an errant C172 could have done a a lot of harm.
I watched al the precautions being taken in great detail, since I live where most of the guys were "based" for that event.
I would guess that if the F18's didn't get you, the Navy would.
I watched al the precautions being taken in great detail, since I live where most of the guys were "based" for that event.
I would guess that if the F18's didn't get you, the Navy would.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it's nice to know that the RAAF have been cleared for the use of force in advance IF it is required. It's better than having authorities watch a small twin loaded with fertiliser plummeting towards the ground at 250kts while they try to obtain clearance and ideas on how to stop it.
And should a missile or a few rounds just happen to go astray in the process and kill a few hundred innocent people on the ground, I should think Zhaadum will be delighted. Nothing Australia hasn't deserved, right?
And should a missile or a few rounds just happen to go astray in the process and kill a few hundred innocent people on the ground, I should think Zhaadum will be delighted. Nothing Australia hasn't deserved, right?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seem to remember a discussion at the Prime Minister's Cabinet Security Committee some years back - I think it was about the CHOGM Conference on the Sunshine Coast.
Lot's of back and forward talk about exclusion zones, maintaining CAPs, and who could legally authorise the shooting down of civilian aircraft over Australian territory.
Couple of points came from that.
Government realised that the laws didn't allow the Australian Defence Forces to operate live military engagements in Australia - let alone shoot - something to do with Constitution, and external powers, etc. The government had to chage the law to allow the military to act on that and subsequent occassions.
The other interesting debate centred around 'command and control', and collateral damage.
The argument went that if an F18 tried to shoot down a C172 and missed, the trajectory of the missile would be downwards, and might actually cause more damage on the ground at impact than the so-called terrorist' in the C172 could have managed.
Army argued that it would be better to have soldiers with shoulder launched surface to air missiles used - the argument being that if the SAM missed, it would fall [relatively] harmlessly to earth.
Air Force then argued that the Army command and control lines would preclude rapid response - i.e., soldier on the ground cannot act unilaterally - needs to have a line of authorisation up the chain of command, and back down again [even if there were pre-determined rules of engagement] - and it might take valuable minutes [or longer] to get an authorisation to fire.
Air Force argued that in the case of the F18 option, the pilot was a 'trained officer in Her Majesty's service' who had completed substantial training in the etiquette of instant decision making, and could be trusted to act immediately and correctly on pre-existing rules of engagement.
It was interesting to note, though, that Air Force decided against a full time CAP, and opted to 'scramble' an F18 from forward base Amberley if an 'incursion' occured - requiring the NOTAMing of a vast swathe of airspace as 'restricted' to allow enough time for the jet to get on station!
Lot's of back and forward talk about exclusion zones, maintaining CAPs, and who could legally authorise the shooting down of civilian aircraft over Australian territory.
Couple of points came from that.
Government realised that the laws didn't allow the Australian Defence Forces to operate live military engagements in Australia - let alone shoot - something to do with Constitution, and external powers, etc. The government had to chage the law to allow the military to act on that and subsequent occassions.
The other interesting debate centred around 'command and control', and collateral damage.
The argument went that if an F18 tried to shoot down a C172 and missed, the trajectory of the missile would be downwards, and might actually cause more damage on the ground at impact than the so-called terrorist' in the C172 could have managed.
Army argued that it would be better to have soldiers with shoulder launched surface to air missiles used - the argument being that if the SAM missed, it would fall [relatively] harmlessly to earth.
Air Force then argued that the Army command and control lines would preclude rapid response - i.e., soldier on the ground cannot act unilaterally - needs to have a line of authorisation up the chain of command, and back down again [even if there were pre-determined rules of engagement] - and it might take valuable minutes [or longer] to get an authorisation to fire.
Air Force argued that in the case of the F18 option, the pilot was a 'trained officer in Her Majesty's service' who had completed substantial training in the etiquette of instant decision making, and could be trusted to act immediately and correctly on pre-existing rules of engagement.
It was interesting to note, though, that Air Force decided against a full time CAP, and opted to 'scramble' an F18 from forward base Amberley if an 'incursion' occured - requiring the NOTAMing of a vast swathe of airspace as 'restricted' to allow enough time for the jet to get on station!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Otautahi (awright, NZCH)
Age: 74
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least you guys can get an armed response into the air.
Tell you what, they should have scheduled the conference in Blenheim. The town has a lot going for it.
1. Two airfields, one military
2. Most overseas visitors have never heard of the place
3. Produces some great wines, so a lot of visitors would be passed caring
4. They can scramble 7 Fokker Dr1s with handguns very quickly from Omaka - when they can find the 'live' ammo
Indominable.
And they have the best foam-laying team in NZ
Incoming...
Le Vieux
Tell you what, they should have scheduled the conference in Blenheim. The town has a lot going for it.
1. Two airfields, one military
2. Most overseas visitors have never heard of the place
3. Produces some great wines, so a lot of visitors would be passed caring
4. They can scramble 7 Fokker Dr1s with handguns very quickly from Omaka - when they can find the 'live' ammo
Indominable.And they have the best foam-laying team in NZ
Incoming...
Le Vieux
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zhaduum,
Are you saying that Innocent people "Deserved" to die?
Quite frankly that type of attitude really scares me.
TBT
Are you saying that Innocent people "Deserved" to die?
Quite frankly that type of attitude really scares me.
TBT
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: over the rainbow
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how the Brigadier would handle a squadron of powered 'chutes flown by the kind of wombats normally on surfboards that attempt to get in the way of US Navy ships visiting Sydney.Maybe it wouldn't be necessary to shoot at them,just a fast pass or two and let wake turbulence do the job.
Grumpy
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wellconcerned
All interesting but I can assure that the RAAF had an F18 on CAP whenever all of the heads (and the Queen) were congregated at CHOGM on the Sunshine Coast in 2002 including up to late at night.
When Bush can to Canberra a few years ago - they put an F18 up on CAP at that time as well as putting in a navy Seaking to follow the motorcade.
Cheers
All interesting but I can assure that the RAAF had an F18 on CAP whenever all of the heads (and the Queen) were congregated at CHOGM on the Sunshine Coast in 2002 including up to late at night.
When Bush can to Canberra a few years ago - they put an F18 up on CAP at that time as well as putting in a navy Seaking to follow the motorcade.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Barkly 1922.
My recollection in relation to CHOGM was that CAF told the PM that RAAF would have difficulty in maintaining CAP H24 - hence the need for a primary exclusion zone [45NM as I recall] - and a larger alert zone [around 200NM as I recall].
I have no doubt that your recollection of what actually ensued is correct.
Interestingly, the security advisors were having kittens at the fact that the two primary conference hotels were so close to the short final approach paths for either end of the runway at MC. There was simply no way to guarantee that an RPT operator or VIP flight wouldn't 'speer in' to one of the hotels - never mind the odd 'stray' C172.
Anyway, the key point was that there was considerable debate about authorising any Defence arm to 'act in anger' within Australian landmass airspace. Several laws had to be amended. What a pity we live in times such as these that require such measures.
My recollection in relation to CHOGM was that CAF told the PM that RAAF would have difficulty in maintaining CAP H24 - hence the need for a primary exclusion zone [45NM as I recall] - and a larger alert zone [around 200NM as I recall].
I have no doubt that your recollection of what actually ensued is correct.
Interestingly, the security advisors were having kittens at the fact that the two primary conference hotels were so close to the short final approach paths for either end of the runway at MC. There was simply no way to guarantee that an RPT operator or VIP flight wouldn't 'speer in' to one of the hotels - never mind the odd 'stray' C172.
Anyway, the key point was that there was considerable debate about authorising any Defence arm to 'act in anger' within Australian landmass airspace. Several laws had to be amended. What a pity we live in times such as these that require such measures.
Grumpy
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe me I know this well. I was a member of the Taskforce - based on the Sunshine Coast from November 2001 immediately following the election and because of aviation background, involved with government discussions and consultations with industry.
You are right about runways and resorts - one of the first things I did was to get a flight in a C172 around the circuit. I lived in the Atlantis Apartments directly opposite Maroochy from November 2001 to March 2002.
I hated it.
You are right about runways and resorts - one of the first things I did was to get a flight in a C172 around the circuit. I lived in the Atlantis Apartments directly opposite Maroochy from November 2001 to March 2002.
I hated it.