Posted on 11/16/2007 10:04:18 PM PST by Sioux-san
On the Sunday morning of July 3, 1988, at the tail end of the Iran-Iraq War, an Aegis cruiser, the USS Vincennes, fired two Standard Missiles at a commercial Iranian Airbus, IR655.
The first missile struck the tail and right wing and broke the aircraft in half. All 290 people aboard were killed. Misunderstanding America, the Iranians claimed that our Navy had intentionally destroyed the plane.
The Navy did no such thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at cashill.com ...
Speculation, but not informed spectulation. More like paranoid speculation. As should be clear to anyone who stops and thinks about if for a moment.
Your tagline indicates Air Force. So when was the last time the Air Force conducted a live-fire exercise in a civilian air corridor as busy as those around New York? You know, put a couple of F-15s on one side, a couple of F-16s on the other and then shoot at each other through the stream of traffic. When was the last time the Air Force ever tried something like that? My guess is that your answer would be 'never'. The first reason would be obvious, it's insane to take such a risk around civilian air traffic. The second reason would be that the Air Force maintains missile ranges for just such live fire exercises, miles away from civilization and any unauthorized traffic, and tests would be conducted there. Well, the Navy operates the same way. Believe it or not, they can also recognize the insanity of firing into air traffic corridors. And at the time of the TWA800 crash the Navy also maintained a missile test range, hundreds of miles away off Puerto Rico.
Another point, which you would not be familiar with, is the fact that there is no such thing as a VLS anti-aircraft missile on a submarine. Such a weapons system on a sub would be useless. Submarines are stealthy platforms. Their best defense against aircraft is to hide and avoid. Subs are quiet, they can do that easily enough. And it's a big ocean with lots of room to hide in. An anti-aircraft missile like you theorize negates all these defenses. They would need to target an aircraft, using radar. Otherwise what would they shoot at? That gives away their position right off the bat. A missile leaving the water is an even bigger indicator of not only a sub in the area, but exactly where it is. In short, a weapons system like you described would be absolute suicide for a sub.
I don't know exactly what caused the 747 to crash. I spent enough time in the Navy to know that none of the missile theories make a lick of sense. Maybe it was a bomb, but maybe it was just what they said it was. Whatever it was, nothing seems to stop those who would blame the military for it and it really disappoints me that people would believe the military is really that evil.
“Why did attention focus on a Test Missile? Initially, it was claimed that there was virtually no explosive residue on the 747 wreckage.”
A test missile would still go boom.
“In normal practice, missiles being tested or used for training have dummy warheads; inert packages which are the same size and weight of real warheads but which do not explode.”
Nope. These “training” missiles do not have motors or warheads. They don’t go WOOOSH! and they don’t go KABOOM!.
These training missiles or as someone on here called them “bluebirds” are not certified to fly, they’re used in ground crew drills. These are also called training shapes.
Then there is the CATM or Captive Air Training Missile, which are certified to fly and the only thing operational about the missile is the seeker element. These are used in ACM (Air Combat Manuvering) or force on force exercises such as Red Flag. These missiles do not have a motor nor do they have a warhead. They will not go WOOSH! when the pilot squeezes the pickle and they don’t go BOOM! either. In an emergency they can be jettisoned but they fall away from the aircraft.
For live fire they’ll use a warshot from an old lot number thats about to expire.
And by design, a missile used in a live fire is not reusable. I know this for a fact based on my experience of firing the BGM-71 TOW. Trust me there is nothing left that would resemble a missile after it hits something.
A missile is constructed in a similar fashion to an aircraft with a thin sheet metal skin.
“In many cases, such practice munitions are recovered and reused.”
The only munitions I know of that are “recovered and reused” are the small practice bombs such as the 50 pound BDU-33, the 10 pound BDU-48 (Both of which give off a flash and white smoke on impact) or the much larger 500 pound BDU-45/50 or the 2000 pound BDU-56. These last three bombs have no charge in them and impact is marked by the “splash” of dirt.
Now that being said, the Navy does not conduct live fire exercises in that area because of all the commercial air traffic in the area consisting of the northeast corridor as well as the trans-Atlantic routes.
Did the Navy have an exercise in the area? Yes.
Was there any live firing? No.
Mk 41
The current generation of American-produced VLS is known as the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System. It is capable of carrying an extremely wide range of missiles, including the Sea Sparrow naval self defense, short range SAM, SM-2 medium range/long range SAM/SSM, VLA anti-submarine missile with Mk-46 torpedo warhead, very similar to the ASROC, and the Tomahawk cruise missile (long range strike). There are also plans to increase the number of missiles it is capable of carrying.
United States of AmericaSubmarine VLS
In addition to surface ships, all Virginia-class submarines and USS Providence and later Los Angeles-class submarines have had VLS systems installed. The maximum rate of fire is one missile per second. The U.S. Navy has modified three of the four oldest Ohio class Trident submarines to SSGN configuration, allowing them to carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles using vertical launching systems installed in tubes which previously held strategic ballistic missiles. Modification of the fourth sub is underway as of 2007.
“Another point, which you would not be familiar with, is the fact that there is no such thing as a VLS anti-aircraft missile on a submarine. Such a weapons system on a sub would be useless. Submarines are stealthy platforms. Their best defense against aircraft is to hide and avoid. Subs are quiet, they can do that easily enough. And it’s a big ocean with lots of room to hide in. An anti-aircraft missile like you theorize negates all these defenses. They would need to target an aircraft, using radar. Otherwise what would they shoot at? That gives away their position right off the bat. A missile leaving the water is an even bigger indicator of not only a sub in the area, but exactly where it is. In short, a weapons system like you described would be absolute suicide for a sub.”
The only VLS that our subs have are the SSBN’s, the recent SSGN 726 thru 729, as well as the SSN-719 thru 750 of the Los Angeles Class.
And like you said, they don’t fire SAM’s
No, they fire Tomahawks. A cruise missile designed to fly at very low altitudes to avoid detection and also because it uses a terrain mapping navigation system. I don't think that they are even capable of flying at the altitude the 747 was at.
“I beg to differ:
Mk 41
The current generation of American-produced VLS is known as the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System. It is capable of carrying an extremely wide range of missiles, including the Sea Sparrow naval self defense, short range SAM, SM-2 medium range/long range SAM/SSM, VLA anti-submarine missile with Mk-46 torpedo warhead, very similar to the ASROC, and the Tomahawk cruise missile (long range strike). There are also plans to increase the number of missiles it is capable of carrying.”
I beg to differ as well since the Mk-41 is for surface combatants:
“MK 41 VLS
Description
The MK 41 VLS is a modular, below deck missile launching system that was originally designed for the Navy’s Aegis-equipped guided missile cruisers to provide air threat protection for naval battle groups. The MK 41 VLS is a multi-missile, multi-mission launcher, capable of launching SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, Tomahawk, and Vertical Launch ASROC missiles.
Platforms:
DDG 51 Class (DDG 51 – 112)
CG 47 Class (CG 52 – 73)
Eleven Allied Nations”
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=550&ct=2
The VLS used on the Los Angeles Class submarines consist of 12 tubes to launch the Tomahawk cruise missiles. These 12 “VLS” cells are basically upward firing torpedo tubes and use compressed air t opush the missile out of the tube once clear of the surface, the booster ignites lobbing the missile upto around 1500 feet before burnout and deployment of the wings and engine start up.
As it’s been said before, submarines do not employ surface to air missiles. They have never been tested with surface to air missiles, and will never have that capability tested.
I know they fire Tomahawks.
I was supporting what you said about them not having the capability to fire SAM’s.
Sorry, I was providing that information in an attempt to forestall any claims from the tinfoil brigade that an errant Tomahawk flying at 13,000 feet could have easily downed the 747. I've read enough of your posts on this thread to know that you're not a caught up in all the wacko conspiracies that so many others have fallen for.
What you have described is a lauch system for surface to surface cruise missiles, not surface to air anti-aircraft missile. Tomahawks, and Harpoons for that matter though they are fired from torpedo tubes, fly at low altitudes. Usually only a few hundred feet off the surface. As such they are harder to locate, harder to hit, and pose absolutely no threat to aircraft of any kind.
Neither missile requires targeting assistance from the sub, while a surface to air missile would. Your claim of some sort of sub-launched SAM still makes zero sense for all the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Haven’t you heard...
Christian leaders ask for Muslim forgiveness
Kaleej Times via Jihad Watch ^ | Nov 26 2007
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1930931/posts
No need to be. I should have been a little clearer on what I had typed.
“I was providing that information in an attempt to forestall any claims from the tinfoil brigade that an errant Tomahawk flying at 13,000 feet could have easily downed the 747. I’ve read enough of your posts on this thread to know that you’re not a caught up in all the wacko conspiracies that so many others have fallen for.”
Yeah, I know.
IF it were a missile it definitely wasn’t one of ours.
I’m actually starting to lean towards a possible bomb though because wasn’t this supposedly around the same time frame that AQ and ramzi yousef was working on that bojinka plot?
Hell it could have also been some sort of HAZMAT in the cargo hold like in that Valuejet crash in Miami for all we know.
But I do not buy the whole exploding fuel tank thing, at least not in the way the government claims. I don’t buy that there are unshielded bundles of wires that run through the fuel tanks instead of through conduits. Or the claim that it’s because the plane sat on the tarmac with the AC on for however long.
If that were the case, wouldn’t there be more of these planes going KABOOM during the summer months?
I also don’t buy the 3200 foot “death climb” either because in the case of PanAm flight 103 it didn’t happen AFIK.
It was within the last three years, that’s all I know. I don’t usually watch it unless they do historical questions (Archimedes “laser beam”), but was drawn to this particular test.
It was climbing to 17,000, and I didn’t think anything cut off before then. Again, we have to make sure that distance and altitude are combined. Every mile away from the plane is less altitude the missile can fly, so it’s not “15,000 AND six miles” or whatever, but a combo of the two.
Well, I watched the episode, so there. Sorry if you don’t believe me. And they used different levels of sparks and were stunned at the size of the explosion. So if you “can’t get that right,” why should we believe the rest of your “research?”
Why do that? I don't know, but maybe so that the search radar and the missile come from different directions. Harpoons have been test fired from canisters, and that allows the sub to at least vacate the immediate area prior to launch, and also to allow launch from depth.
The idea is just about as wacky as the 747's 'zoom climb,' but there were many witnesses that saw a flare or other light rise up from the surface of the water.
If not a missile, then what? The offical explaination is that TWA 800 lost it's nose after the CWT exploded, continued to fly at 500+ mph with no center wing box, climbed 3,200 feet in altitude, all without the wings instantly snapping off.
So in the end I suppose that a sub launched SAM is about as implausible. I find it improbable but not impossible that some sort of accident occured and was covered up by the Clintoon administration. However, the CIA 'zoom climb' I do find absolutely impossible, and that leaves trying to explain what so many witnesses saw.
UFOs, most likely.
Wow. I watch Mythbusters too, and I don’t recall that episode. I can’t find that episode listed on their website. But you saw it so that’s that?
Fine.
They had to kick up the formula, but were very surprised at how fast the fabric burned.
Then they built scale models filled with hydrogen and burned them up, too.
You sure that's not the episode you're remembering?
Well no, it isn't. The latest Standard missiles are about 6 feet longer than the Tomahawks are. My understanding is that the VLS tubes on the submarines are only about 20 feet long. Extended range SM-2s come in at a bit over 26 feet.
There have suggestions to test sub launched SM-2s that would be guided by a nearby Aegis, in much the same way a single F-111F could lase targets for several aircraft carrying Paveway PGMs but had no target designators of their own.
With all due respect there have been suggestions that the moon is made of green cheese, too. That doesn't make it credible. In all my years of commissioned service, including considerable time at the Pentagon while in the reserves, I'd never heard of the suggestion. Why would you have a sub launch a missile to be guided by a nearby Aegis? Why wouldn't the Aegis launch the missiles themselves? Having the sub do it compromises the safety and security of the sub itself. Every bubblehead in the place would have laughed themselves sick at the suggestion.
The idea is just about as wacky as the 747's 'zoom climb,' but there were many witnesses that saw a flare or other light rise up from the surface of the water.
Having served on Standard-equipped ships and having participated in missile shoots during the day or night, I can tell you that a Standard missile doesn't look like a flare. There is nothing else like it. There is a tremendous flash on launch that would have lit up the sky for miles, the missile itself trails a plume of smoke and fire from the moment it launches till the moment it hits, and they are unbelievably loud. None of the descriptions I've seen sounds anything like a Standard.
So in the end I suppose that a sub launched SAM is about as implausible. I find it improbable but not impossible that some sort of accident occured and was covered up by the Clintoon administration.
Well let's be honest here. In the end what you are suggesting is that not only was the Navy criminally stupid enough to test a missile in the busiest air corridor in the world, they were sinister enough to cover up the mass murder they committed. By my way of thinking that is the least credible, most implausible, absolutely impossible scenario of them all.
No, the DFDR stopped recording at 13,800' (13,760', actually - See page 256, NTSB AAR-00-03).
According to the document, there were other airliners who reported the explosion taking place at what they estimated to be 16,000', but the last recorded altitude on the DFDR was 13,800'.
Where did you see the 17,000' figure?
According to the diagram in the PDF document produced by Northop-Grumman, anything witin the box I described (and shown on page 4 of the PDF) is susceptible.
Granted, I don't expect that one could launch a MANPAD at one end of the box and expect to hit an airliner at the other end, but as you noted earlier, the 'reliable' eyewitnesses descibed the smoke trail as going straight up, so your point about the combination of the two is moot.
According to everything I've read, TWA 800 was within range of most MANPADs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.