U.S. Holds Briton on Missile Charge

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Lightweight shoulder fired missiles are floating around on the black market. It's just a matter of time before some maniac tries to use one on a commercial airliner. But Bush is opposing legislation to outfit commercial airliners with
jamming devices. Too expensive. After all, he flies on Air Force 1. It's already equipped.

From the NY Times

U.S. Holds Briton on Missile Charge
By DAVID JOHNSTON and PHILIP SHENON


WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 ? A British arms dealer was arrested today in Newark on charges that he tried to sell a Russian-made surface-to-air missile to an American undercover agent posing as an operative for Al Qaeda, law enforcement officials said.

A shoulder-fired SA-18 missile and launcher, which had been made inoperable as part of a sting operation, were seized today by American investigators, acting with extensive help from Russian and British authorities, officials said. The missile, when armed, is capable of bringing down a commercial airliner.

The case was, in effect, a complex double sting operation that unfolded over months. On one side the Russians, alerted by the American authorities, supplied the arms trader with the missile, which he tried to sell to American agents posing as terrorists. No real terrorists were ever connected to the plot.

The arrest followed a series of urgent warnings from Bush administration officials that terrorists might use portable missiles against commercial aircraft. American aviation experts have been dispatched to Iraq and cities in Europe and Asia in recent weeks to assess the vulnerability of commercial airports to missile attacks. Whether the experts visited Russia is not clear.

Russia's efforts in the case were said by officials to be a breakthrough in counterterrorism cooperation with the United States. President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin were regularly briefed on the case, which involved an exchange of agents between the F.B.I. and the F.S.B., Russia's internal security service, the officials said.

They said Russian agents, acting under cover, supplied the arms dealer, a British citizen of Indian descent, with the missile. The arms trader had the Russians ship the weapon to the United States, believing it to be fully operational. He then tried to sell it to American law enforcement agents, also acting under cover, according to the authorities.

The arrest took place at a hotel near Newark Liberty International Airport after the dealer agreed to sell a highly sophisticated SA-18 missile to undercover agents. Russian undercover agents sent the missile to the United States aboard a ship that docked at an East Coast port. During the trip, the missile was under the control of Russian and American officials, who remained under cover.

The identity of the arms dealer and the charges against him were not disclosed by the authorities, who acted on the basis of sealed arrest and search warrants.

In New York, officials said two other unidentified men had been arrested in the investigation. Officials said they were part of an illegal money trading business apparently used in the scheme.

New York city law enforcement officers led by the F.B.I. searched twelfth-floor offices at 1 West 47 Street in the city's diamond district. The agents wheeled filing cabinets, computers and boxes loaded with documents out of the building, pushing through crowded streets. Shops were closing for the evening and workers gathered to watch. The office is part of 580 Fifth Avenue, but is accessed through 47th Street.
The arrests today came two days after a shootout in Saudi Arabia that resulted in the arrest of a 10-person Qaeda cell that according to intelligence officials had hoped to mount an attack on a British commercial aircraft, possibly using a lightweight missile.

Intelligence agencies say Al Qaeda already has dozens of missiles, many of them American-made Stingers left over from the war in Afghanistan in the 1980's when the United States supplied them to Afghan guerrillas seeking to oust Soviet troops from their country. Hundreds of other surface-to-air missiles are reported to be circulating on the black market.

The officials said the arrested man was not a well-known arms trader, but had told associates in the New York area in the last year that he could obtain arms, including shoulder-fired missiles, from military stocks in countries like Russia. Other officials said the Russian authorities had received the first tip in the case, a feeler from the arms dealer trying to buy a shoulder-fired missile.

The arms trafficker lived in England but traveled regularly to the Newark area, where he had several associates who were aware of his activities. The officials said that the arrested man had been motivated by profit and that he was not directly involved in terrorist operations.

The investigation was carried out by a somewhat new grouping of American law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of the Homeland Security Department. The bureau's agents operated in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service.

The arrests seemed likely to fuel the debate between the Bush administration and members of Congress over whether the government is doing enough to deal with the terrorist threat posed by shoulder-fired missiles ? a danger that became apparent last November when terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda tried to shoot down an Israeli passenger plane in Mombasa, Kenya.

The two Russian-made missiles barely missed the Boeing 757. Later, American intelligence analysts said the launcher used in the failed attack in Mombasa had a serial number close to one on a launcher of the same type found last year after a failed Qaeda attack on an American warplane in Saudi Arabia.

The Bush administration has insisted that it is moving aggressively to respond to the threat, but it has refused to support legislation now in Congress that would require the government to spend billions of dollars to outfit thousands of passenger planes in the United States with the antimissile technology now used on military planes.

After the attack in Kenya, the Department of Homeland Security oversaw inspections at scores of major airports in the United States to determine whether they were vulnerable to attack by the small missiles.

As a result, administration officials said, security patrols around many of the airports have been increased, and electronic surveillance equipment has been installed to monitor activity along flight paths used on takeoffs and landings.

In recent weeks, the inspections have expanded overseas, with American inspectors dispatched to two airports in Iraq ? Baghdad and Basra ? and to 10 other major foreign cities, including Athens, Istanbul and Manila, where American air carriers have regularly scheduled flights.

After the arrest today, Democratic lawmakers said the case demonstrated the seriousness of the missile threat ? and the administration's failure to address the danger.

Representative Steve Israel, a New York Democrat, said the case "is just the latest indication of the gravity of this threat to the safety of air travelers." Mr. Israel is sponsoring a bill that would require that the antimissile equipment be placed in all 6,800 existing passenger planes in the United States.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a fellow New York Democrat who is sponsoring the Senate version of the bill, said today, "The White House ought to be providing Homeland Security with the money it needs to begin protecting civilian aircraft with jamming devices immediately, before it's too late."
 

Centinall

Member
Jul 5, 2003
59
0
0
speaking as a Brit I feel I must say that you yanks shouldn't let us limey bsatards into your country in the first place.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Centinall
speaking as a Brit I feel I must say that you yanks shouldn't let us limey bsatards into your country in the first place.

Right, that makes total sense...

Lightweight shoulder fired missiles are floating around on the black market. It's just a matter of time before some maniac tries to use one on a commercial airliner. But Bush is opposing legislation to outfit commercial airliners with jamming devices. Too expensive. After all, he flies on Air Force 1. It's already equipped.

Isnt everything illegal on the blackmarket? Air Force One is a much higher priority target than a commerical target. I wouldnt be surprised if the jamming system AirForce One was up to a million.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,875
282
126
Maybe Bush isnt against installing the jamming devices as much as having to foot the bill for all the Airline industry again.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Maybe Bush isnt against installing the jamming devices as much as having to foot the bill for all the Airline industry again.

It's because they are no guarantee against a shoulder fired missile. How many attacks have been made against airliners using shoulder fired missiles? One that I know of. Did it work? No. Ok, so let's outfit ALL AIRLINERS with expensive jamming devices that may or may not stop a missile attack.

Or, we could ply that money into law enforcement and intelligence activities to stop the attacks before they happen. Like the one in the news story. Which is the better use for the money?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Maybe Bush isnt against installing the jamming devices as much as having to foot the bill for all the Airline industry again.

It's because they are no guarantee against a shoulder fired missile. How many attacks have been made against airliners using shoulder fired missiles? One that I know of. Did it work? No. Ok, so let's outfit ALL AIRLINERS with expensive jamming devices that may or may not stop a missile attack.

Or, we could ply that money into law enforcement and intelligence activities to stop the attacks before they happen. Like the one in the news story. Which is the better use for the money?


mastertech01

Bush bailed out the airling industry after 9/11 without a thought toward increasing security. That money went to maintain the status quo. Now the airlines are asking for give backs from all their workers. Why not spend some tax payer dollars on something productive, like airline safety? It just might get more people back in the air. Subsidizing the airline's CEO's sure didn't work.

AndrewR

You are wrong on the number of commercial airliners downed by shoulder fired missiles. The figures worldwide are in the article below. I would also add Flight 800 to the list. People saw an object approaching the aircraft as it departed Kennedy Airport. It was even captured in a photo. The authorities said it was a reflection and tried their best to ruin the lives of anyone who said it wasn't. Including former ambassador Pierre Salinger. More below.

From The Newark Star Ledger

"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, some 27 civilian aircraft have been shot down by shoulder-launched missiles worldwide, including a 1994 attack that killed the president of Rwanda and the president of Burundi. Chechen rebels have used missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters, including one last week. "

There were 34 eyewitnesses who saw a missile approach Flight 800. Including Pierre Salinger who was attacked and had his reputation in near ruins for publishing a photo of a bright flash approaching the aircraft and his theory of its downing.

Salinger 'totally sure' TWA 800 missile theory is true

Flight 800

The airlines sure as hell don't want to advertise how many or how easy it is to acquire and use "Stingers." Got to keep those airline execs well compensated. Even if it includes sacrificing a few passengers.

I don't want to change the subject of this thread to Flight 800. But Flight 800 is another example.

Just my opinion. Read the links. Judge for yourself.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Centinall
speaking as a Brit I feel I must say that you yanks shouldn't let us limey bsatards into your country in the first place.

I thought we tossed all you Brits out in 1776! :D
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Maybe Bush isnt against installing the jamming devices as much as having to foot the bill for all the Airline industry again.

It's because they are no guarantee against a shoulder fired missile. How many attacks have been made against airliners using shoulder fired missiles? One that I know of. Did it work? No. Ok, so let's outfit ALL AIRLINERS with expensive jamming devices that may or may not stop a missile attack.

Or, we could ply that money into law enforcement and intelligence activities to stop the attacks before they happen. Like the one in the news story. Which is the better use for the money?


mastertech01

Bush bailed out the airling industry after 9/11 without a thought toward increasing security. That money went to maintain the status quo. Now the airlines are asking for give backs from all their workers. Why not spend some tax payer dollars on something productive, like airline safety? It just might get more people back in the air. Subsidizing the airline's CEO's sure didn't work.

AndrewR

You are wrong on the number of commercial airliners downed by shoulder fired missiles. The figures worldwide are in the article below. I would also add Flight 800 to the list. People saw an object approaching the aircraft as it departed Kennedy Airport. It was even captured in a photo. The authorities said it was a reflection and tried their best to ruin the lives of anyone who said it wasn't. Including former ambassador Pierre Salinger. More below.

From The Newark Star Ledger

"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, some 27 civilian aircraft have been shot down by shoulder-launched missiles worldwide, including a 1994 attack that killed the president of Rwanda and the president of Burundi. Chechen rebels have used missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters, including one last week. "

There were 34 eyewitnesses who saw a missile approach Flight 800. Including Pierre Salinger who was attacked and had his reputation in near ruins for publishing a photo of a bright flash approaching the aircraft and his theory of its downing.

Salinger 'totally sure' TWA 800 missile theory is true

Flight 800

The airlines sure as hell don't want to advertise how many or how easy it is to acquire and use "Stingers." Got to keep those airline execs well compensated. Even if it includes sacrificing a few passengers.

I don't want to change the subject of this thread to Flight 800. But Flight 800 is another example.

Just my opinion. Read the links. Judge for yourself.

Once again you prove your total lack of brain function by using Pierre Salinger as a reference. Do you ever do any real research or do you simply spew whatever bullsh!t you happen to come across. Salinger's BS has been disproven more often than yours (which is saying quite a bit). This is the reason for what's known as "Pierre Salinger Syndrome". Fscktards believing everything they read on the internet.

You're doing very well. Congratulations on maintaining your current standing.

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Maybe Bush isnt against installing the jamming devices as much as having to foot the bill for all the Airline industry again.

It's because they are no guarantee against a shoulder fired missile. How many attacks have been made against airliners using shoulder fired missiles? One that I know of. Did it work? No. Ok, so let's outfit ALL AIRLINERS with expensive jamming devices that may or may not stop a missile attack.

Or, we could ply that money into law enforcement and intelligence activities to stop the attacks before they happen. Like the one in the news story. Which is the better use for the money?


mastertech01

Bush bailed out the airling industry after 9/11 without a thought toward increasing security. That money went to maintain the status quo. Now the airlines are asking for give backs from all their workers. Why not spend some tax payer dollars on something productive, like airline safety? It just might get more people back in the air. Subsidizing the airline's CEO's sure didn't work.

AndrewR

You are wrong on the number of commercial airliners downed by shoulder fired missiles. The figures worldwide are in the article below. I would also add Flight 800 to the list. People saw an object approaching the aircraft as it departed Kennedy Airport. It was even captured in a photo. The authorities said it was a reflection and tried their best to ruin the lives of anyone who said it wasn't. Including former ambassador Pierre Salinger. More below.

From The Newark Star Ledger

"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, some 27 civilian aircraft have been shot down by shoulder-launched missiles worldwide, including a 1994 attack that killed the president of Rwanda and the president of Burundi. Chechen rebels have used missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters, including one last week. "

There were 34 eyewitnesses who saw a missile approach Flight 800. Including Pierre Salinger who was attacked and had his reputation in near ruins for publishing a photo of a bright flash approaching the aircraft and his theory of its downing.

Salinger 'totally sure' TWA 800 missile theory is true

Flight 800

The airlines sure as hell don't want to advertise how many or how easy it is to acquire and use "Stingers." Got to keep those airline execs well compensated. Even if it includes sacrificing a few passengers.

I don't want to change the subject of this thread to Flight 800. But Flight 800 is another example.

Just my opinion. Read the links. Judge for yourself.


It doesnt happen that often in the states, sorry.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Maybe Bush isnt against installing the jamming devices as much as having to foot the bill for all the Airline industry again.

It's because they are no guarantee against a shoulder fired missile. How many attacks have been made against airliners using shoulder fired missiles? One that I know of. Did it work? No. Ok, so let's outfit ALL AIRLINERS with expensive jamming devices that may or may not stop a missile attack.

Or, we could ply that money into law enforcement and intelligence activities to stop the attacks before they happen. Like the one in the news story. Which is the better use for the money?


mastertech01

Bush bailed out the airling industry after 9/11 without a thought toward increasing security. That money went to maintain the status quo. Now the airlines are asking for give backs from all their workers. Why not spend some tax payer dollars on something productive, like airline safety? It just might get more people back in the air. Subsidizing the airline's CEO's sure didn't work.

AndrewR

You are wrong on the number of commercial airliners downed by shoulder fired missiles. The figures worldwide are in the article below. I would also add Flight 800 to the list. People saw an object approaching the aircraft as it departed Kennedy Airport. It was even captured in a photo. The authorities said it was a reflection and tried their best to ruin the lives of anyone who said it wasn't. Including former ambassador Pierre Salinger. More below.

From The Newark Star Ledger

"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, some 27 civilian aircraft have been shot down by shoulder-launched missiles worldwide, including a 1994 attack that killed the president of Rwanda and the president of Burundi. Chechen rebels have used missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters, including one last week. "

There were 34 eyewitnesses who saw a missile approach Flight 800. Including Pierre Salinger who was attacked and had his reputation in near ruins for publishing a photo of a bright flash approaching the aircraft and his theory of its downing.

Salinger 'totally sure' TWA 800 missile theory is true

Flight 800

The airlines sure as hell don't want to advertise how many or how easy it is to acquire and use "Stingers." Got to keep those airline execs well compensated. Even if it includes sacrificing a few passengers.

I don't want to change the subject of this thread to Flight 800. But Flight 800 is another example.

Just my opinion. Read the links. Judge for yourself.


It doesnt happen that often in the states, sorry.

Terrorist attacks didn't happen often in the states either.

It's a different world out there now. Invading Iraq didn't do one single thing to make us safer from terrorism. Equipping civilian airliners with missile jamming devices will. There are estimated to be hundreds of shoulder fired missiles on the black market for sale to the highest bidder today. It's just a matter of time until one or more of them makes its way here to the states. Will we be prepared when it does? Or will we get the same BS excuses we got after 9/11.

They are a real threat. No one can say they didn't know next time.

We can afford an unnecessary invasion in Iraq, we can afford to make Americans safer.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Maybe Bush isnt against installing the jamming devices as much as having to foot the bill for all the Airline industry again.

It's because they are no guarantee against a shoulder fired missile. How many attacks have been made against airliners using shoulder fired missiles? One that I know of. Did it work? No. Ok, so let's outfit ALL AIRLINERS with expensive jamming devices that may or may not stop a missile attack.

Or, we could ply that money into law enforcement and intelligence activities to stop the attacks before they happen. Like the one in the news story. Which is the better use for the money?


mastertech01

Bush bailed out the airling industry after 9/11 without a thought toward increasing security. That money went to maintain the status quo. Now the airlines are asking for give backs from all their workers. Why not spend some tax payer dollars on something productive, like airline safety? It just might get more people back in the air. Subsidizing the airline's CEO's sure didn't work.

AndrewR

You are wrong on the number of commercial airliners downed by shoulder fired missiles. The figures worldwide are in the article below. I would also add Flight 800 to the list. People saw an object approaching the aircraft as it departed Kennedy Airport. It was even captured in a photo. The authorities said it was a reflection and tried their best to ruin the lives of anyone who said it wasn't. Including former ambassador Pierre Salinger. More below.

From The Newark Star Ledger

"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, some 27 civilian aircraft have been shot down by shoulder-launched missiles worldwide, including a 1994 attack that killed the president of Rwanda and the president of Burundi. Chechen rebels have used missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters, including one last week. "

There were 34 eyewitnesses who saw a missile approach Flight 800. Including Pierre Salinger who was attacked and had his reputation in near ruins for publishing a photo of a bright flash approaching the aircraft and his theory of its downing.

Salinger 'totally sure' TWA 800 missile theory is true

Flight 800

The airlines sure as hell don't want to advertise how many or how easy it is to acquire and use "Stingers." Got to keep those airline execs well compensated. Even if it includes sacrificing a few passengers.

I don't want to change the subject of this thread to Flight 800. But Flight 800 is another example.

Just my opinion. Read the links. Judge for yourself.


It doesnt happen that often in the states, sorry.

Terrorist attacks didn't happen often in the states either.

It's a different world out there now. Invading Iraq didn't do one single thing to make us safer from terrorism. Equipping civilian airliners with missile jamming devices will. There are estimated to be hundreds of shoulder fired missiles on the black market for sale to the highest bidder today. It's just a matter of time until one or more of them makes its way here to the states. Will we be prepared when it does? Or will we get the same BS excuses we got after 9/11.

They are a real threat. No one can say they didn't know next time.

We can afford an unnecessary invasion in Iraq, we can afford to make Americans safer.

Pierre Salinger?!? I suppose I made the mistake of thinking you were more intelligent than believing that bunk about TWA Flight 800. I apologize for making that mistake -- correct me if I'm wrong. I'll address that conspiracy theory with one simple question: Have you given any thought as to how many people, from civilian government employees to military members to plain ol' civilians, that would have to maintain a code of silence for the missile story to be true?

As for that article in The Star-Ledger, I take issue with some points in there. First off, what are the credentials of the professor of POLITICAL SCIENCE to address the lethality of a shoulder fired surface to air missile, more commonly called a MANPAD (MAN Portable Air Defence), other than writing 200 books on "national defence"? A brief search for his books shows them to be political in nature, and they don't appear to delve into detailed technical aspects of war and technology. I question his ability to discuss the capabilities of a MANPAD. Next, various Congressional leaders seem to completely misunderstand the nature of the sting operation conducted by the FBI, implying that the missile made it to U.S. shores while they were completely unaware, yet the FBI set up the entire operation including the purchase of the missile through law enforcement counterparts in Russia!

As for the International Civil Aircraft Organization, the reference to "some 27 civilian aircraft have been shot down..." appears inaccurate. Looking at their website, I found this document which shows 26 successful and attempted in-flight attacks. I believe the author misquoted, and I do believe you need to read the information that you cite as evidence to support your stance. If there is additional information available from ICAO, please do cite it. Further, the author in that newspaper article cites Chechen shootdowns of Russian helicopters as evidence to support his assertions. However, Chechnya is embroiled in an almost decade-long guerrilla war where weapons are readily available both from seizures by the rebels of Russian supplies and from corrupt Russian conscripts selling weapons. In both cases, the weapons are in-country and do not have to be transported through significant security before they are used. The people using them are also doing so in their own country, not in a foreign land.

Lastly, of those 26 attempted and actual shootdowns, I would like to know how many of those were large airliners in good condition as opposed to aging Russian transport aircraft or dilapidated Western planes or even small civil aircraft. I would venture a guess that few if any of those incidents involved modern, well-maintained Boeing 757s/767s or MD-11s or DC-10s or Airbus A300s.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Maybe Bush isnt against installing the jamming devices as much as having to foot the bill for all the Airline industry again.

It's because they are no guarantee against a shoulder fired missile. How many attacks have been made against airliners using shoulder fired missiles? One that I know of. Did it work? No. Ok, so let's outfit ALL AIRLINERS with expensive jamming devices that may or may not stop a missile attack.

Or, we could ply that money into law enforcement and intelligence activities to stop the attacks before they happen. Like the one in the news story. Which is the better use for the money?

You can show me the money...

mastertech01

Bush bailed out the airling industry after 9/11 without a thought toward increasing security. That money went to maintain the status quo. Now the airlines are asking for give backs from all their workers. Why not spend some tax payer dollars on something productive, like airline safety? It just might get more people back in the air. Subsidizing the airline's CEO's sure didn't work.

AndrewR

You are wrong on the number of commercial airliners downed by shoulder fired missiles. The figures worldwide are in the article below. I would also add Flight 800 to the list. People saw an object approaching the aircraft as it departed Kennedy Airport. It was even captured in a photo. The authorities said it was a reflection and tried their best to ruin the lives of anyone who said it wasn't. Including former ambassador Pierre Salinger. More below.

From The Newark Star Ledger

"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, some 27 civilian aircraft have been shot down by shoulder-launched missiles worldwide, including a 1994 attack that killed the president of Rwanda and the president of Burundi. Chechen rebels have used missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters, including one last week. "

There were 34 eyewitnesses who saw a missile approach Flight 800. Including Pierre Salinger who was attacked and had his reputation in near ruins for publishing a photo of a bright flash approaching the aircraft and his theory of its downing.

Salinger 'totally sure' TWA 800 missile theory is true

Flight 800

The airlines sure as hell don't want to advertise how many or how easy it is to acquire and use "Stingers." Got to keep those airline execs well compensated. Even if it includes sacrificing a few passengers.

I don't want to change the subject of this thread to Flight 800. But Flight 800 is another example.

Just my opinion. Read the links. Judge for yourself.


It doesnt happen that often in the states, sorry.

Terrorist attacks didn't happen often in the states either.

It's a different world out there now. Invading Iraq didn't do one single thing to make us safer from terrorism. Equipping civilian airliners with missile jamming devices will. There are estimated to be hundreds of shoulder fired missiles on the black market for sale to the highest bidder today. It's just a matter of time until one or more of them makes its way here to the states. Will we be prepared when it does? Or will we get the same BS excuses we got after 9/11.

They are a real threat. No one can say they didn't know next time.

We can afford an unnecessary invasion in Iraq, we can afford to make Americans safer.

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Maybe Bush isnt against installing the jamming devices as much as having to foot the bill for all the Airline industry again.

It's because they are no guarantee against a shoulder fired missile. How many attacks have been made against airliners using shoulder fired missiles? One that I know of. Did it work? No. Ok, so let's outfit ALL AIRLINERS with expensive jamming devices that may or may not stop a missile attack.

Or, we could ply that money into law enforcement and intelligence activities to stop the attacks before they happen. Like the one in the news story. Which is the better use for the money?


mastertech01

Bush bailed out the airling industry after 9/11 without a thought toward increasing security. That money went to maintain the status quo. Now the airlines are asking for give backs from all their workers. Why not spend some tax payer dollars on something productive, like airline safety? It just might get more people back in the air. Subsidizing the airline's CEO's sure didn't work.

AndrewR

You are wrong on the number of commercial airliners downed by shoulder fired missiles. The figures worldwide are in the article below. I would also add Flight 800 to the list. People saw an object approaching the aircraft as it departed Kennedy Airport. It was even captured in a photo. The authorities said it was a reflection and tried their best to ruin the lives of anyone who said it wasn't. Including former ambassador Pierre Salinger. More below.

From The Newark Star Ledger

"According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, some 27 civilian aircraft have been shot down by shoulder-launched missiles worldwide, including a 1994 attack that killed the president of Rwanda and the president of Burundi. Chechen rebels have used missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters, including one last week. "

There were 34 eyewitnesses who saw a missile approach Flight 800. Including Pierre Salinger who was attacked and had his reputation in near ruins for publishing a photo of a bright flash approaching the aircraft and his theory of its downing.

Salinger 'totally sure' TWA 800 missile theory is true

Flight 800

The airlines sure as hell don't want to advertise how many or how easy it is to acquire and use "Stingers." Got to keep those airline execs well compensated. Even if it includes sacrificing a few passengers.

I don't want to change the subject of this thread to Flight 800. But Flight 800 is another example.

Just my opinion. Read the links. Judge for yourself.


It doesnt happen that often in the states, sorry.

Terrorist attacks didn't happen often in the states either.

It's a different world out there now. Invading Iraq didn't do one single thing to make us safer from terrorism. Equipping civilian airliners with missile jamming devices will. There are estimated to be hundreds of shoulder fired missiles on the black market for sale to the highest bidder today. It's just a matter of time until one or more of them makes its way here to the states. Will we be prepared when it does? Or will we get the same BS excuses we got after 9/11.

They are a real threat. No one can say they didn't know next time.

We can afford an unnecessary invasion in Iraq, we can afford to make Americans safer.

Pierre Salinger?!? I suppose I made the mistake of thinking you were more intelligent than believing that bunk about TWA Flight 800. I apologize for making that mistake -- correct me if I'm wrong. I'll address that conspiracy theory with one simple question: Have you given any thought as to how many people, from civilian government employees to military members to plain ol' civilians, that would have to maintain a code of silence for the missile story to be true?

As for that article in The Star-Ledger, I take issue with some points in there. First off, what are the credentials of the professor of POLITICAL SCIENCE to address the lethality of a shoulder fired surface to air missile, more commonly called a MANPAD (MAN Portable Air Defence), other than writing 200 books on "national defence"? A brief search for his books shows them to be political in nature, and they don't appear to delve into detailed technical aspects of war and technology. I question his ability to discuss the capabilities of a MANPAD. Next, various Congressional leaders seem to completely misunderstand the nature of the sting operation conducted by the FBI, implying that the missile made it to U.S. shores while they were completely unaware, yet the FBI set up the entire operation including the purchase of the missile through law enforcement counterparts in Russia!

As for the International Civil Aircraft Organization, the reference to "some 27 civilian aircraft have been shot down..." appears inaccurate. Looking at their website, I found this document which shows 26 successful and attempted in-flight attacks. I believe the author misquoted, and I do believe you need to read the information that you cite as evidence to support your stance. If there is additional information available from ICAO, please do cite it. Further, the author in that newspaper article cites Chechen shootdowns of Russian helicopters as evidence to support his assertions. However, Chechnya is embroiled in an almost decade-long guerrilla war where weapons are readily available both from seizures by the rebels of Russian supplies and from corrupt Russian conscripts selling weapons. In both cases, the weapons are in-country and do not have to be transported through significant security before they are used. The people using them are also doing so in their own country, not in a foreign land.

Lastly, of those 26 attempted and actual shootdowns, I would like to know how many of those were large airliners in good condition as opposed to aging Russian transport aircraft or dilapidated Western planes or even small civil aircraft. I would venture a guess that few if any of those incidents involved modern, well-maintained Boeing 757s/767s or MD-11s or DC-10s or Airbus A300s.


I'd like to remind you the US military shot down a civilian airliner during maneuvers in the 90's. It has happened before.

As for your MANPADS. They were built to shoot down low flying aircraft. Would you like to be on a commercial flight while shoulder fired missiles are being fired at it? Are you that secure in their ineffectiveness?

And everyone knows this was a sting operation from the very beginning. The point is, what will we do when it isn't?
 

Fatdog

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2000
1,001
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN......snipped for convenience


I'd like to remind you the US military shot down a civilian airliner during maneuvers in the 90's. It has happened before.

As for your MANPADS. They were built to shoot down low flying aircraft. Would you like to be on a commercial flight while shoulder fired missiles are being fired at it? Are you that secure in their ineffectiveness?

And everyone knows this was a sting operation from the very beginning. The point is, what will we do when it isn't?

Your joking right? Your comparing a manpad shoulder fired missle to an air defence missle fired from a billion dollar guided missle cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defense system which is what mistakenly brought down that airliner. You really need to read these articles and comprehend what you read before posting.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Fatdog
Originally posted by: BOBDN......snipped for convenience


I'd like to remind you the US military shot down a civilian airliner during maneuvers in the 90's. It has happened before.

As for your MANPADS. They were built to shoot down low flying aircraft. Would you like to be on a commercial flight while shoulder fired missiles are being fired at it? Are you that secure in their ineffectiveness?

And everyone knows this was a sting operation from the very beginning. The point is, what will we do when it isn't?

Your joking right? Your comparing a manpad shoulder fired missle to an air defence missle fired from a billion dollar guided missle cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defense system which is what mistakenly brought down that airliner. You really need to read these articles and comprehend what you read before posting.

BURN! BABY!
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Apparently, the Brit hadn't had mentioned contact with any real terrorists in the 20 months that the FBI had been messing with him, and he "knew" the missile was going to be used against aircraft because an FBI undercover agent said so.
Unless the news reports I heard were wrong.

Entrapment I say.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Fatdog
Originally posted by: BOBDN......snipped for convenience


I'd like to remind you the US military shot down a civilian airliner during maneuvers in the 90's. It has happened before.

As for your MANPADS. They were built to shoot down low flying aircraft. Would you like to be on a commercial flight while shoulder fired missiles are being fired at it? Are you that secure in their ineffectiveness?

And everyone knows this was a sting operation from the very beginning. The point is, what will we do when it isn't?

Your joking right? Your comparing a manpad shoulder fired missle to an air defence missle fired from a billion dollar guided missle cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defense system which is what mistakenly brought down that airliner. You really need to read these articles and comprehend what you read before posting.

I'm not comparing the two. But thanks for illustration my point.

Point is the USA made the mistake once and they can make it again. The missile Salinger claims took down Flight 800 wan't a manpad but a "missile fired from a billion dollar guided missile cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defence system." Get it? If they can make a mistake with all that hardware once they can make the same mistake again. You know, with all the guidance systems and what not once fired that missile still has no name on it. There is a margin of error. Nothing, not even Bush, is perfect.

As for the manpads they are quite capable of bringing down a commercial airlliner at low altitude.

Again, what price do you people put on a human life? How about 400 human lives? Plus aircraft? And the effect on the economy?

Get real. There is a real threat as we all learned on 9/11. Point is the Bush administration isn't addressing it. They have us off on an adventure in Iraq for no apparent reason. No WMD, no terrorist links, no threat. $4 BILLION per month. They keep talking about "homeland security" but won't make the financial committment. They say one thing and do another. They are liars.

But Bush-bitches will never admit that.

One month of Operation Iraqi Freedom would pay to install missile defence systems on two thirds of the commercial aircraft in the US at $1 MILLION per aircraft.

How is that for priorities?
 

Fatdog

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2000
1,001
0
76
I didn't illustrate your point.

You insinuated the US brought down a foriegn airliner with a manpad, and I pointed out that never happened.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Fatdog
I didn't illustrate your point.

You insinuated the US brought down a foriegn airliner with a manpad, and I pointed out that never happened.

No, I said Salinger is of the opinion the US had fired a missile that brought down Flight 800.

Never mentioned what kind of missile but I though everyone understood who read the Salinger piece (you did read it didn't you?) that there was a military excercise going on off the south shore of Long Island at the time Flight 800 went down.

Show me where I said it was a shoulder fired missile.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Infrared Countermeasures

Pay Me Now, or Pay Me Later.


Great link, CK

Quote:

"Vulnerability reduction techniques are needed to insure the survivability of military and civil transport aircraft engaged by MANPADS missile threats. The MANPADS missile is a highly effective weapon proliferated worldwide. Typically containing an IR seeker, the missile offers little opportunity for a warning before impact. Impacts are often lethal. Examples of lethality include 1) the Afghan mujahedeen killing of 269 Soviet aircraft with 340 such missiles, 2) Desert Storm evidence that IR missiles produced 56% of the kills and 79% of the Allied aircraft damaged, and 3) civil aircraft experiencing a 70% probability of kill given a MANPADS hit. Such high kill ratios are unacceptable and require immediate solutions. Recent military engagements, such as Desert Fox, demonstrate curtailment of daytime operations as a result of the MANPADS threat. Civil aircraft remain virtual "sitting ducks" to terrorists. Delaying solutions may prove catastrophic."
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Fatdog
Originally posted by: BOBDN......snipped for convenience


I'd like to remind you the US military shot down a civilian airliner during maneuvers in the 90's. It has happened before.

As for your MANPADS. They were built to shoot down low flying aircraft. Would you like to be on a commercial flight while shoulder fired missiles are being fired at it? Are you that secure in their ineffectiveness?

And everyone knows this was a sting operation from the very beginning. The point is, what will we do when it isn't?

Your joking right? Your comparing a manpad shoulder fired missle to an air defence missle fired from a billion dollar guided missle cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defense system which is what mistakenly brought down that airliner. You really need to read these articles and comprehend what you read before posting.

I'm not comparing the two. But thanks for illustration my point.

Point is the USA made the mistake once and they can make it again. The missile Salinger claims took down Flight 800 wan't a manpad but a "missile fired from a billion dollar guided missile cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defence system." Get it? If they can make a mistake with all that hardware once they can make the same mistake again. You know, with all the guidance systems and what not once fired that missile still has no name on it. There is a margin of error. Nothing, not even Bush, is perfect.

As for the manpads they are quite capable of bringing down a commercial airlliner at low altitude.

Again, what price do you people put on a human life? How about 400 human lives? Plus aircraft? And the effect on the economy?

Get real. There is a real threat as we all learned on 9/11. Point is the Bush administration isn't addressing it. They have us off on an adventure in Iraq for no apparent reason. No WMD, no terrorist links, no threat. $4 BILLION per month. They keep talking about "homeland security" but won't make the financial committment. They say one thing and do another. They are liars.

But Bush-bitches will never admit that.

One month of Operation Iraqi Freedom would pay to install missile defence systems on two thirds of the commercial aircraft in the US at $1 MILLION per aircraft.

How is that for priorities?

Who has the money this exactly? You? You are still blind to fact that it doesnt ever happen enough to be considered a real threat. How many airlines are willing to pay a million to install this kind of security system?
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,875
282
126
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Fatdog
Originally posted by: BOBDN......snipped for convenience


I'd like to remind you the US military shot down a civilian airliner during maneuvers in the 90's. It has happened before.

As for your MANPADS. They were built to shoot down low flying aircraft. Would you like to be on a commercial flight while shoulder fired missiles are being fired at it? Are you that secure in their ineffectiveness?

And everyone knows this was a sting operation from the very beginning. The point is, what will we do when it isn't?

Your joking right? Your comparing a manpad shoulder fired missle to an air defence missle fired from a billion dollar guided missle cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defense system which is what mistakenly brought down that airliner. You really need to read these articles and comprehend what you read before posting.

I'm not comparing the two. But thanks for illustration my point.

Point is the USA made the mistake once and they can make it again. The missile Salinger claims took down Flight 800 wan't a manpad but a "missile fired from a billion dollar guided missile cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defence system." Get it? If they can make a mistake with all that hardware once they can make the same mistake again. You know, with all the guidance systems and what not once fired that missile still has no name on it. There is a margin of error. Nothing, not even Bush, is perfect.

As for the manpads they are quite capable of bringing down a commercial airlliner at low altitude.

Again, what price do you people put on a human life? How about 400 human lives? Plus aircraft? And the effect on the economy?

Get real. There is a real threat as we all learned on 9/11. Point is the Bush administration isn't addressing it. They have us off on an adventure in Iraq for no apparent reason. No WMD, no terrorist links, no threat. $4 BILLION per month. They keep talking about "homeland security" but won't make the financial committment. They say one thing and do another. They are liars.

But Bush-bitches will never admit that.

One month of Operation Iraqi Freedom would pay to install missile defence systems on two thirds of the commercial aircraft in the US at $1 MILLION per aircraft.

How is that for priorities?

How many commercial aircraft are you counting?

How much would it cost to maintain all those involved in Iraq, if they were not presently stationed there? You have to subtract the amount that would have been spent anyway from the amount expended while being there to give a true COST of the action.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: Fatdog
Originally posted by: BOBDN......snipped for convenience


I'd like to remind you the US military shot down a civilian airliner during maneuvers in the 90's. It has happened before.

As for your MANPADS. They were built to shoot down low flying aircraft. Would you like to be on a commercial flight while shoulder fired missiles are being fired at it? Are you that secure in their ineffectiveness?

And everyone knows this was a sting operation from the very beginning. The point is, what will we do when it isn't?

Your joking right? Your comparing a manpad shoulder fired missle to an air defence missle fired from a billion dollar guided missle cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defense system which is what mistakenly brought down that airliner. You really need to read these articles and comprehend what you read before posting.

I'm not comparing the two. But thanks for illustration my point.

Point is the USA made the mistake once and they can make it again. The missile Salinger claims took down Flight 800 wan't a manpad but a "missile fired from a billion dollar guided missile cruiser with a multi-million dollar air defence system." Get it? If they can make a mistake with all that hardware once they can make the same mistake again. You know, with all the guidance systems and what not once fired that missile still has no name on it. There is a margin of error. Nothing, not even Bush, is perfect.

As for the manpads they are quite capable of bringing down a commercial airlliner at low altitude.

Again, what price do you people put on a human life? How about 400 human lives? Plus aircraft? And the effect on the economy?

Get real. There is a real threat as we all learned on 9/11. Point is the Bush administration isn't addressing it. They have us off on an adventure in Iraq for no apparent reason. No WMD, no terrorist links, no threat. $4 BILLION per month. They keep talking about "homeland security" but won't make the financial committment. They say one thing and do another. They are liars.

But Bush-bitches will never admit that.

One month of Operation Iraqi Freedom would pay to install missile defence systems on two thirds of the commercial aircraft in the US at $1 MILLION per aircraft.

How is that for priorities?

How many commercial aircraft are you counting?

How much would it cost to maintain all those involved in Iraq, if they were not presently stationed there? You have to subtract the amount that would have been spent anyway from the amount expended while being there to give a true COST of the action.

Anyone know how many large 100+ air buses 747s ect we have in the states?
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
AirBus and Boeing were each delivering 200 to 500 Jetliners per year for an average of 400 per year between '95 and 9/11.
that accounts for seven years production from only 2 companies that's near 3,000 and if you toss in the 2,000 airplanes
that were made by the McDonnel Douglas Aircraft group that's an easy 5K production.
Airframe life expectancy is 20+ years, the planes made in the late 50's and into the 60's are still flying in some countries.

A conservitive estimate of In Country USA fleet would be 8,000 but in daily service easily 4,000 per day.
Don't forget that booeing after taking over McDonnel Douglas was preparing to build to a delivery rate
of over 600 a year - thats 2 a day if you drop the Saturday and Sunday, actually a bit higher than 2.
Even with the delivery cuts they are near 200 a year now.