Missles and Jetliners

Aug 16, 2003 47 Replies

Here is a story from strategypage.com.



Basically it states that shoulder fired missles might damage, but will not bring down a modern, large Jetliner. Older models are vulnerable.



formatting link
A snippet below. (PS, sounds like everyone had fun a NARAM...see ya next year)


"Larger airliners, like the Airbus's, and 757s, 767s and 747s, have not been brought down because these missiles were not designed to take on aircraft with such large and powerful engines. While these missiles were originally intended for use against jet fighters operating over the battlefield, the reality turned out to be different. The most likely targets encountered were helicopters, or propeller driven transports. These aircraft proved to be just the sort of thing twenty pound missiles with 2-3 pound warheads could destroy. Against jet fighters with powerful engines, the missiles caused some damage to the tailpipe, but usually failed to bring down the jet. This was first noted during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, where the Egyptians fired hundreds of SA-7s at Israeli A-4 light bombers. Most of the A-4s, with their 11,187 pounds of thrust engines, survived the encounter. Larger jets, like the F-4 and it's 17,000 pound thrust engines, were even more difficult to bring down. Smaller commercial jets, like the 737 or DC-9 (each using two 14,000 pounds of thrust engines) have proved vulnerable. But a 757 has much larger engines with 43,000 pounds of thrust, and the 747 is 63,000. Moreover, the rear end of jet engines are built to take a lot of punishment from all that hot exhaust spewing out. Put a bird into the front of the engine and you can do some real damage. But these missiles home in on heat, and all of that is at the rear end of the engine."



Quilly Mammoth


I guess the point is that if it is this hard for the actual weaponry, it would be downright impossible for a "home-brew". Wasn't that one of the concerns expressed to the Senate? QM

This type of story makes me wonder why ex-cons don't form coops to mass-murder cops and DA's. I guess they have forgiveness in their hearts UNLIKE ANY element of the system that entrapped and coerced them.

Jerry

jerry: the answer to your rhetorical question is do you remember the way the LAPD dealt with the SLA back in 1974? Or the way the FBI dealt with Ruby Ridge? or the ATF/FBI dealt with Waco? If any uppity ex-offenders even considered retaliation against the "system" they would be squashed with so much overwhelming force so fast it would make them spin like tops.........

shockie B)

Agreed but the ex-cons I have met have perfected the skill of blending in after their continuing crimes. The Three Strikes Law gives them infinite incentive to succeed at all cost.

And they do.

Jerry

The primary "benefit" of prohibition was crime became organized and proliferated, and the government spent lots of money on proven futile efforts to curb it.

Exactly like the "war on drugs".

Jerry you GOT to stop hanging around with convicted felons .....

As far as your Prohibition comments, OC and the War on (the citizens of the US that want to do)drugs....

Can you say history is repeating itself?

You might find this interesting... I can remember having a conversation with a friend about smoking pot at concerts circa 1970-71..

The conversation basically was that the police couldn't arest Everbody at the concert smoking pot as there was just too many people....

By 1980 I was at a concert and the undercover cops were popping people right and left........

Well of course as we all know now, I was wrong, THEY can arrest and lock us all up..... Thank You Ronnie Reagan.....

shockie B)

ps.... I do not recoomend that people under the age of 21 do drugs in any shape form or way: this includes tobacco and alcohol which I also consider drugs....

OK, that's two. You're done for the day.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

And doesn't that automatically make that government agent just as guilty?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

As you know police are not prosecuted unless there is a video that cannot be sequestered in time AND 3 or more witnesses that are NOT police.

Jerry

I should stop studying the fastest growing industry in California since I cannot sell model rocket motors to turbo-whiners?

Hmmm. Employment is a feature not a bug.

Jerry

Damn, I would get ALOT of sex!

Jerry

Scott Schuckert wrote in news:170820031856292075% snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net:

I gotta ask;how do you know the woman posing as the underage girl -asked- the guy to do anything illegal? Since the communications were probably recorded as evidence,it's unlikely that she would do such a thing,as it would be clearly entrapment. I suspect that the guy is the one who initiated the illegal stuff.

At what point is speech, even speech about ilegal acts still speech? Doesn't it take SOME actual act to become a crime or have the threshold of crimes been dropped so low that mere speech is now a crime?

Jerry

This is the police exception I told you about. The supreme court has ruled police may lie to get people to admit to or commit crimes.

How sad a day was that for civil rights and the constitution?

Especially if the police are allowed to not only lie but also have the lie be treated legally as if it were true...

-dave w

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net:

The ACT would be sending certain types of pix to a minor,or going to a meeting with a known minor for improper purposes,or sending them plane or bus tickets to allow the minor to make the trip.

David Weinshenker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:

As I recall,the guy was arrested AT THE SCENE of the proposed meet for sex/funny business.Besides,any citizen has the ability to *refuse to do* an illegal act.

I say you folks do not know all the facts here,only what has been reported,and we all know about news reports and their accuracy these days. At least I **HOPE** we all know.

Until they actually do it, you don't have any idea what they would have actually done. How many folks say stuff on the net and never follow through with their words?

IMHO it's not child sex until you actually do the act. Then I'd call in Lorena Bobbit...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Not always...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required