Kamikaze: F-16 pilots planned to ram Flight 93

Originally posted by Aim64C

The military was decapitated after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Clinton administration really did a number on defense spending.
Granted - spending, per se, isn't the issue - but it costs quite a bit of time and man-hours to have an intercept-ready fighter on Alert Five. From a national defense standpoint - no one was thinking about being prepared to shoot down airliners being used as cruise missiles. Thus, most airbases simply kept things to around Alert 30 - nothing is coming across the Atlantic of Pacific so fast as to require Alert 5 readiness.

On a carrier (read: "big ass target representing American military supremacy" - "Bragging rights if damaged or destroyed") it is typical to have an E-2C airborne at any given time with a pair of interceptors. You also have two aircraft on Alert 5 much of the time. Though this is all going to vary from time to time - but only your Alert 5 aircraft are armed, typically. After the Forrestal, it's recognized as bad policy to have armed aircraft all over the flight deck and hangars.

Search and Rescue helicopters are a completely different matter. Doing your routine inspections and putting gas in the thing are about all that is required. Having an armed aircraft ready to roll is a bit of a different ordeal. The munitions have to check, cryogenics to the IR sensors have to be running, etc.

Even in the heyday of the Cold War, it was Strategic Air Command that kept their bombers ready to be airborne in five minutes of a launch notice. Keeping fighters that ready was simply not necessary as a nation-wide policy.

The voice of experience.
*4U
Some people just don't get it, Alert 5 Vipers are costly, yet freedom is never cheap.
With their fun meter pegged, these two pilots had to kick the tires and light the fires. They are definitely Sierra Hotel.

Originally posted by Violater1
Ah yes, the infamous TWA flight 800. Did you know that the data tape had been altered?
twa800.com...
This makes the NTSB's simulation invalid. But flight 800 is an entirely different thread.
Without the cockpit, and there being a huge (not to mention the flight physics of the airliner getting struck from above), this jet would be going down.

It's completely relevant to this thread.

A missing nose and a big un-aerodynamic hole in the front was apparently what they hoped to achieve according to you and that's what TWA flight 800 had.

Whether the data tape was altered or 4 seconds was missing doesn't affect my point at all, because the nose section was recovered in an entirely different area than the rest of the plane so regardless of the data recorder, it's obvious the plane flew without the nose section and with "a big un-aerodynamic hole in the front" as you put it, for some time. The plane was flying mostly east and the nose section was found in the yellow zone, the body was found in the green zone so it flew past the nose: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Violater1
Ah yes, the infamous TWA flight 800. Did you know that the data tape had been altered?
twa800.com...
This makes the NTSB's simulation invalid. But flight 800 is an entirely different thread.
Without the cockpit, and there being a huge (not to mention the flight physics of the airliner getting struck from above), this jet would be going down.

It's completely relevant to this thread.

A missing nose and a big un-aerodynamic hole in the front was apparently what they hoped to achieve according to you and that's what TWA flight 800 had.

Whether the data tape was altered or 4 seconds was missing doesn't affect my point at all

So the facts are not important, you think it's OK to base your thoughts on false and or altered data?

... the nose section was found in the yellow zone, the body was found in the green zone so it flew past the nose

Since the yellow zone and green zone touch each other in your diagram, that difference is maybe, a few hundred feet? The jet would still have gone down.

: en.wikipedia.org...

Now that I have proven, with your diagram, that the airliner would still have gone down, go some where else and attempt to derail another thread.
Or if you can, start your own thread.

This is nothing but more 'heart-wrenching-heroic-after the fact' propaganda [snip]!

Yeah sure, ten years later they can say whatever they want.
And obviously they are!

The bottom line is: we're STILL not being told the truth.
The media has become a huge staging ground for the government to propagate their consistent lie, false portrayal and/or omission!

The saddest realization is: clueless people are eating it all up faster than a 2 for 1 sale at Burger King!

Sometimes I truly despise our diet of MSM productions.

Most here know that in the case of a hijacked unresponsive aircraft over US territory, potential use of force is standard protocol.

Why would these pilots believe they couldn't successfully accomplish their mission? Something for which they are trained and is standard practice for which to be prepared?

This story reeks of hero manufacturing. I wish it weren't so... but after the "Let's roll." production, I can't sit by without admitting that I have problems accepting this 'story' at face value.

I don't blame the pilots; but the editors and producers of this piece are unknown to me.... and I have become conditioned not to trust them any longer.

kamikaze pilots are considered cowards for decades. how come its heroic and honorable all of a sudden?

reply to post by Maxmars


I agree with you there why the story now? why didnt the mainstream or this news network reported on it last year on 2010 sep 11 eh? dont you find that a bit strange?

reply to post by Aim64C


I do not disagree. I was one of the yellow shirts and worked on the hangar and flight deck and I had first hand knowledge of the operating procedures. However, your answer is certainly logical and would not surprise me that you are spot on accurate. But, when the orders came down the pipe, why would the commander even send unarmed aircraft up. There are several other bases in that vicinity that could have been scrambled. There is Norfolk and Langley not very far away. Why would the commander not tell their boss that they had planes but no weapons to put on them and call in craft from another base in the area. I know hind-sight is always 20/20. Coulda shoulda woulda I guess.

Originally posted by DOADOA
kamikaze pilots are considered cowards for decades. how come its heroic and honorable all of a sudden?

Because it is convenient to make up such stories to inspire American nationalism. It's called "doublespeak".

reply to post by Skewed

But, when the orders came down the pipe, why would the commander even send unarmed aircraft up.

Why not send them up? The cost of an F-16 and its pilot are far less than that of those aircraft successfully making it to their target. There's also the presence-factor. Having eyes-on an aircraft that -is- in communication with ATC is better than being in the dark. You also never know when a pair of F-16s riding an airliner's wings will have a positive effect on the situation.

There are several other bases in that vicinity that could have been scrambled. There is Norfolk and Langley not very far away. Why would the commander not tell their boss that they had planes but no weapons to put on them and call in craft from another base in the area.

You can't pass the buck. The order was given to scramble - you scramble what you have and file a report saying "we sent up aircraft - here's what they are armed with [a whole lot of nothing] - armed aircraft will be airborne in [time] - request any armed flights be given an intercept vector on [airliner]"

I can almost guarantee you that neither Norfolk or Langley had aircraft on Alert 5. The -only- U.S. military installation I have ever heard about having Alert 5 fighters was an unnamed base in Nevada that a pilot would routinely fly past, with restricted airspace over it. And that was anecdotal - he may have simply assumed they were 'fully armed.'

At the time - it was expected we would have ample warning before we ever needed to go to such a state of readiness. A Russian carrier off the eastern seaboard would not just pop into existence - you'd have plenty of time to see it coming and establish relative readiness levels. Inbound aircraft would be detected with over-the-horizon radars hours before they came within air defense range. ICBMs can mess you up - but fighters don't really have much role in defending against that sort of thing...

It just wasn't common back then for bases to have aircraft locked, cocked, and ready to rock.

Originally posted by Aim64C
It just wasn't common back then for bases to have aircraft locked, cocked, and ready to rock.

Wasn't NORAD conducting drills on 9/11? Wouldn't that include arming the aircraft?

Here is a link to further emphasize my point (although I must admit, I'm not really a fan of Alex Jones but it beats wikipedia).

NORAD was conducting drills featuring hijacked airplanes during the events of 9/11. Why would they conduct these drills with weaponless interceptors?

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the whole "we were flying unarmed interceptors so we were considering sacrificing ourselves" story. What is the point of sending interceptors on patrol without ammo, during such drills?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the whole "we were flying unarmed interceptors so we were considering sacrificing ourselves" story. What is the point of sending interceptors on patrol without ammo, during such drills?

edit on 10-9-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

There's nothing to buy because they're giving this psycho-babble away for free!!!

Originally posted by Maxmars
Sometimes I truly despise our diet of MSM productions.

the editors and producers of this piece are unknown to me.... and I have become conditioned not to trust them any longer.

If they are unknown to you, and you say that you don't trust them, are you not pre-judging them.
I'm just asking.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Wasn't NORAD conducting drills on 9/11? Wouldn't that include arming the aircraft?

No.

For example - I participated in a few of the Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercises in South Korea. There are several levels of "drilling" that go on during those joint exercises. Reservists are brought in by the ton to do their two week drill period. The marines go in and train commands in riot control, hand-to-hand, etc. Various weapon ratings brush everyone up on weapon qualifications, etc. This is going on for two weeks. Meanwhile - the base may be simulating a 'sniper', a bomb going off at the front gate, etc.

None of this, however, is 'seen' at the strategic level of the exercise, where the 'war' is being fought through computer simulations. Entire bases are being wiped out in the simulations but not actually being 'simulated' in real life (both an advantage and a limitation of the simulation methods).

When NORAD is doing drills - it's mostly going to be all computer simulated with business-as-usual at the bases. These types of drills are done quite often, and are based off of the real-world drills done on occasion by active components. It's not necessary to -really- scramble fighters to simulate something that is already very well documented.

reply to post by Skewed


I was stationed at Eielson AFB during 9/11. For one thing, military aircraft in CONUS bases aren't typically left armed with live air to air missiles for a variety of reasons. I worked in Air Force munitions systems for 6 years.

On 9/11 we had a Japanese Airliner headed for Fairbanks International Airport that had lost communication with the ground. See, we had a separate building that we would use for live missiles that could be opened in a moments notice so we could pull the trailers to the flight line. But enlisted personnel are not on duty during the weekend for all career fields.

After the second tower was hit, some of our guys had to be called in to pull the live missiles and tow the trailers to the flight line so the aircraft could immediately be loaded and launched to take out the Japanese airliner if the need arose. It turned out it was some kind of electronics issue and ground controllers eventually reestablished communication with the airliner but if they hadn't there's a good possibility that Japanese airliner would've been shot down.

Also, F-16's are sometimes left loaded with 20mm TP rounds (target practice) but no combat rounds because of the high explosives in the rounds. Especially over the weekend. SOME installations do always have military aircraft on alert in case of an intrusion of foreign aircraft. This is done at Elmendorf AFB here in Anchorage, Alaska where the Russians will try to fly bombers into American airspace at high altitude. F-15's are typically scrambled out of Elmendorf to intercept the aircraft and force them to turn around. It happens!

I assume the reason Eielson was tapped on 9/11 was because the airliner was headed for the local airport and we were basically a last line of defense.

Anyhow, I would imagine the situation on an a Navy aircraft carrier is very different than in the Air Force. You would always need aircraft on alert because you're position is always moving and you're more vulnerable in the case of an enemy attack. If the boat goes down, everything else does too unless you can launch aircraft in time.

Simply put, some bases can be put on alert to be launched as soon as possible if it is decided in the chain of command that it would be faster or more strategically advantageous to do so. Especially if there are no naval vessels or aircraft carriers in the vicinity. Plus, the situation on 9/11 was rife with uncertainty with how it unfolded - very different than in a typical "combat" scenario.

If a base is told to launch aircraft immediately to possibly shoot down an airliner, that doesn't necessarily mean they have aircraft on alert. People have to get called in, the trailers have to be pulled out of storage, the aircraft have to be loaded, it takes time. But it can still be faster than waiting on aircraft to arrive from hundreds of miles away.

Here at Elmendorf, F-15's are usually on alert because the Russians have a history of trying to intrude into our airspace to see how far they can get. I've heard of Russians once intruding into british airspace but that kind of thing is much less of an issue on the U.S. east coast.

20mm Target Practice rounds can still cut up an airliner pretty easily. They wouldn't have had any problem doing that if they had to. But it was probably deemed that there wasn't enough time to fully load the aircraft with air to air missiles because of how the situation unfolded that day in that part of the U.S.

-ChriS

Originally posted by varikonniemi

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The plane had 105 rounds of 20mm for its Vulcan cannon.

The hi-jacked fight wouldn't have stood a chance.

SourceI am not dobting you, just interested how the MSM reporting could be so far from the truth. I mean one round of a 20mm cannon would incapacitate the airliner if it would hit good. 10 rounds would shred it to pieces. 100 rounds would pulverize it.

The Article in the OP is the source.

**Well I guess we now know who posts without reading the very article a given thread is about...

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The plane had 105 rounds of 20mm for its Vulcan cannon.

The hi-jacked fight wouldn't have stood a chance.

Your too funny exuberant one. The Vulcan fires 6000 rounds a minute.
That would be a 1 second burst!

And?

What is your point here violater?

reply to post by Exuberant1

And?

What is your point here violater?

A 1-second burst with the Vulcan is not really enough to track your target. Sure - in sims, I can crawl up on a bomber and rape it with guns - but you really need to be able to rake a good track across a large airframe to be able to bring it down. Those things are built to fly - which is a bit of a pain in the ass when you want them to crash. They are built to withstand forces well beyond cruise conditions, and you will have to compromise a large part of their structure to make it happen.

100 rounds is enough to tell you that you got a hit, or let you know that you missed.

Honestly, even an AIM-120 would have a hard time bringing an airliner down. The missiles are designed to fragment (think of it as a claymore mine on a rocket) and shred engines. They don't actually make contact with the target - at least, not by design. This means that missiles don't cause near as much structural damage as one would first think - and you are going to need at least two to bring down a large aircraft with any kind of reliability.

The exception would be if you developed a "torpedo" to penetrate into the aircraft's cabin and then explode - which would devastate the airframe of larger aircraft (or could modify the software of existing missiles to allow for "torpedo mode" - presuming the warhead and detonator could survive contact with the fuselage). However, that simply isn't practical (aside from the software mode) given the logistics and strategy thereof.

reply to post by Aim64C


So you are seriously saying that you believe 105 rounds of 20mm couldn't bring down a commercial airliner? (I seriously cannot tell if you are just joking around.)

Who else here believes that 105 rounds of 20mm couldn't down a commercial airliner?


Here are some facts for those of you who hold these beliefs:

In order to avoid using the few hundred rounds carried in a matter of a single trigger pull, a burst controller is generally used to limit the number of rounds fired at each trigger pull. Bursts of from 2 or 3 up to 40 or 50 can be selected.

en.wikipedia.org...

What this means is that the f-16 had the means to fire over fifty bursts at the airliner. The f-16 had the means to destroy the cockpit and it's human contents along with destroying the wings, tail and engines should she have decided to.

This whole idea of a kamikaze attack being necessary is being hyped. She might have did a suicide run on that plane, but the fact is she probably never would have had to.

reply to post by Violater1

Too bad you didn't read the article. Both the pilots would have intended to eject if they had to ram the airliner.

Then the title is misleading and the article nothing but sensationalist nationalism....