USAAF practices shooting down airliners...
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true daysleeper, but this is the begining of UAVs and they are learning extremely fast. The amount of reseach still done today to improve the system is phenomenal. Wait until you see the results of the " Access Five " task force.
(For those who do not know Access 5 is a team made of NASA, FAA, USAF and the US UAVs manufacturers : e,g Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop-Grumman etc.. the goal is to resolve within 5 years all the problems of navigation and integration of UAV in dense controlled airspace. )
UAVs is seen by many Generals as the future for everything , but if they ( and I foresee they will ) make their entry into the civilian market at one time or another, it will create a new problem of its own on the security field : .Hacking into an UAV program to " hijack" it could be done from a PC somewhere , in a anonymous way and would be probably easier to perform than boarding a flight with weapons and struggle with crews and/ or pax.
The moment you make a ( control) link between the ground and the aircraft, you open the possibility for someone to interfere or worse take over.
(For those who do not know Access 5 is a team made of NASA, FAA, USAF and the US UAVs manufacturers : e,g Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop-Grumman etc.. the goal is to resolve within 5 years all the problems of navigation and integration of UAV in dense controlled airspace. )
UAVs is seen by many Generals as the future for everything , but if they ( and I foresee they will ) make their entry into the civilian market at one time or another, it will create a new problem of its own on the security field : .Hacking into an UAV program to " hijack" it could be done from a PC somewhere , in a anonymous way and would be probably easier to perform than boarding a flight with weapons and struggle with crews and/ or pax.
The moment you make a ( control) link between the ground and the aircraft, you open the possibility for someone to interfere or worse take over.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAV's are only as vulnerable as moden airliners to "outside interference". All it takes is a home made transmitter to skew the ILS, or similar. UAV or not, same effect, at least in low vis. If, of course, the weather permits you to see where you are going, I'd rather have 2 guys sat up front complaning about a duff ILS...
At least when UAV's the crash investigators will have a much easier job - it will always be controlled flight into terrain.
The answer as to how to make sure UAV's can't be hijacked from the ground is to make the totally autonomous, with no way to contol them from the ground. Just provide a plug for some guys laptop on the ground.
At least when UAV's the crash investigators will have a much easier job - it will always be controlled flight into terrain.
The answer as to how to make sure UAV's can't be hijacked from the ground is to make the totally autonomous, with no way to contol them from the ground. Just provide a plug for some guys laptop on the ground.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody seems to have forgotten that two F-15s were on their way to shoot down Flight 93 on 9/11 when it crashed by itself. There was enough time since the first three impacts to take the decision to shoot UA93 down should it continue towards Washington. And the USAF pilots were even interviewed by BBC Panorama. The French scrambled their fighters with orders to shoot down the A300 hijacked by Islamists at Christmas 1994 should it deviate to Paris from its expected destination of Marseille. Put that together with the other Soviet and Israeli shootdowns of airliners in history and I think it's pretty clear that "doctrine" on airliner shootdowns is a lot older than 9/11/01.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets get the perspective here. N American and European air defence fighters have been intercepting airliners for decades. Visual Ident procedures (VID) are routinely practised but for real unidentified airliners have been intercepted to verify their bona fides prior to entering national airspace. It's only one step further to conduct such ops over national territory.
The difference these days is that the prospect of shooting down such an airliner is a more likely proposition.
God help the fighter crews who have to carry out the [necessary] act - as has been said before, the needs of the many...
The difference these days is that the prospect of shooting down such an airliner is a more likely proposition.
God help the fighter crews who have to carry out the [necessary] act - as has been said before, the needs of the many...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Great Hibernia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets pull back a bit here, instead of going the whole hog and blasting it out of the sky, what about disabling some of the control surfaces 30%, 40% or so to restrict manouverability therefore 'buying time'
The eventuality may be the same, but, if for instance turns to port were disabled a larger turn to starboard might be required to achieve desired target... initially turning away from target and adding possibly vital minutes for better decisions etc.
Perhaps even disabling starboard turn continuing on reaching 180 degrees from target....
I think there are possibilities other than big ball of flame !
Who said it'd be easy ?
possible is all I'm saying... have a think...
The eventuality may be the same, but, if for instance turns to port were disabled a larger turn to starboard might be required to achieve desired target... initially turning away from target and adding possibly vital minutes for better decisions etc.
Perhaps even disabling starboard turn continuing on reaching 180 degrees from target....
I think there are possibilities other than big ball of flame !
Who said it'd be easy ?
possible is all I'm saying... have a think...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a report about this aswell and thought..where exactly do you shoot at??
Say a plane is heading over sparse countryside..towards a city 80/90 miles away at speed
No cities or population anywhere nearby. Would the procedure be to fire missiles at the fuselage,decompress it,the gun the wings / fuel tanks to finish her off at altitude..OR fire a round of cannons into each engine and turn them into a glider.
Would the latter be such a bad thing (give the pax and crew half a chance),and could it easily be done? or is it a choice,you either rip the aircraft to shreds or don`t touch.
I sure do feel for anyone in their fighter,who is told to shoot down an airliner.Must be horible,helpless feeling.
Say a plane is heading over sparse countryside..towards a city 80/90 miles away at speed
No cities or population anywhere nearby. Would the procedure be to fire missiles at the fuselage,decompress it,the gun the wings / fuel tanks to finish her off at altitude..OR fire a round of cannons into each engine and turn them into a glider.
Would the latter be such a bad thing (give the pax and crew half a chance),and could it easily be done? or is it a choice,you either rip the aircraft to shreds or don`t touch.
I sure do feel for anyone in their fighter,who is told to shoot down an airliner.Must be horible,helpless feeling.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All things considered the hijack option is dead as far as terrorists are concerned. It is simply too difficult to take over an aircraft, you must overcome the passengers and crew and then break into the flightdeck armed with the something less dangerous than a a nailfile. I think the bomb or poison gas attack is more plausible these days. I am inclined to believe all these security scares lately are less hijack orientated and more bomb/gas attack/biological related. Destroying an airliner over a major city would have much the same effect as on Sept 11. That I believe is the real risk we face now. Just like Lockerbie and Air India and all the other bomb events. A bomb in the luggage, that's all it takes.
I find it hard to believe that anyone working in the business these days thinks a hijack is likely. Flight 93 ended all that. Leave it to the media and Joe public to keep that particular scenario going.
Although I've dismissed the hijack option I have thought about this and assuming I would be at the controls unless someone more qualified was on board. I think a suitably strong stream of anglo saxon invective aimed at the intercepting pilot would convince him I was legit. That and a bit of tight formation work of which Air Force and Navy pilots are justifiably proud, would soon apprise them of just who sits in the hot seat. Military pilots are not automatons. No airliner would be shot down as a distant bogey on a radar screen. It'll be up close and personal. Neither would it be 'shoot to disable' It would final and fatal if the order is given.
I find it hard to believe that anyone working in the business these days thinks a hijack is likely. Flight 93 ended all that. Leave it to the media and Joe public to keep that particular scenario going.
I'd suspect that, once there is an indication that the aircraft is under seige, calling-off the shoot-down would be a tough sell. I'd guess that it would be difficult to convince the folks outside the aircraft that everything's once again OK inside the airframe...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Abroad
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corsair You havenŽt been to Bradford or Birmingham lately have you? YouŽll find good old Anglo Saxon invective available in various dialects/accents. I think those innocent days are gone. If a pilot is naive enough to declare an on board "disturbance", it will be out of his hands as soon as the fighters are on station.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody seems to have forgotten that two F-15s were on their way to shoot down Flight 93 on 9/11 when it crashed by itself.
Lets pull back a bit here, instead of going the whole hog and blasting it out of the sky, what about disabling some of the control surfaces 30%, 40% or so to restrict manouverability therefore 'buying time'
Cunning Artificer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its going to be a long haul flight...
Well, we've had the shooting them down is all we can do argument and the pre-programmed or ground controlled UAV scenario. With the armoured cockpit doors the procedure in the event of a take over is presumably for the crew to abandon their flight plan and head for the nearest suitable airfield. Should the on-board protection be breached and high-jackers succeed in taking control, in the short term there isn't much that can be done apart from shooting a high-jacked airliner down - modifications of existing aircraft would be far too difficult.
My personal (avionics specialist) viewpoint looks at the long term - and make no mistake, this problem is going to be with us for many decades - auto-flight systems can easily be developed, using existing technology, that can be captured by military aircraft if required. Then, instead of shooting down an airliner and creating 'martyrdom' for some group of brainwashed loonies, the aircraft can be taken over externally and flown to a military base where the hijack situation can be dealt with in more traditional ways. They may be on top now, but there's no need for us to let these b*st*rds keep the upper hand by accepting the situation instead of using our brains...
My personal (avionics specialist) viewpoint looks at the long term - and make no mistake, this problem is going to be with us for many decades - auto-flight systems can easily be developed, using existing technology, that can be captured by military aircraft if required. Then, instead of shooting down an airliner and creating 'martyrdom' for some group of brainwashed loonies, the aircraft can be taken over externally and flown to a military base where the hijack situation can be dealt with in more traditional ways. They may be on top now, but there's no need for us to let these b*st*rds keep the upper hand by accepting the situation instead of using our brains...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right there under the stair
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought here with regard to the remote controlling of a hijacked aircraft and the security of that. Could the said airliner be controlled from the fighter which is sent up to meet it. My fighter knowledge is very little but lots seem to have a pilot and a navigator could the navigator be trained to operate a short range (say half a mile) remote control and land the aircraft from that position?
