Posted on 07/20/2014 4:04:22 PM PDT by Hojczyk
1. Anti-Aircraft Missile Proliferation Is Out of Control
The Malaysia Airlines 777 shot down today was flying at about 33,000 feet. It takes a big rocket—one about 16 feet tall—to hit a plane at that altitude.
There was a time when the missile proliferation threat everyone worried about was the shoulder-fired variety. Now it seems that more powerful mid-range missiles are falling into the hands of rebel groups and untrained paramilitaries. It's pretty scary to consider that three fighting forces in the area—Russian government forces, Ukrainian government forces, and separatist rebels—have the technology that could have taken down the airliner.
This proliferation is happening in Ukraine, but there is a risk of such equipment falling into the hands of ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq. Oh yeah, and those shoulder-fired missiles are also proliferating, with governments giving them to rebels fighting Assad regime in Syria. So it’s not like that threat is diminishing, either.
2. With Missiles Everywhere, Bad Aim Can Kill Hundreds
As the ranges of available weapons increase, expect collateral damages to reach unexpected places—like an airliner traveling above any airspace restrictions or perceived risk. With powerful anti-aircraft rockets out there, more flights and fliers are caught in a possible crossfire.
3. Protecting Civilian Aircraft is a Bigger Task Than We Imagined
The U.S. government has often pondered whether to install missile countermeasure systems on commercial airliners. It’s wildly expensive and not an ironclad defense against enemies attacking airlines by firing shoulder-fired missiles close to landing or takeoff. But with these larger missile systems spreading, this scenario goes out the tube. A modern anti-aircraft system has no trouble targeting airliners; their power and reach make countermeasures impossible. This incident just showed in lethal detail that the future of protecting airlines is more bedeviling than we thought.
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
The shoulder fired systems are the largest threat. They are easy to transport and conceal. They can be smuggled across borders. Terrorists can hide near an airport, in fields, forests or waterways, and surprise an airliner landing or taking off.
Imagine a dozen of these, using Al Qaeda tactics, so the shoot-downs are timed to happen simultaneously across the country.....a dozen airliners shot down at the same time....3000 dead, our air system shut down, no defense possible, our economy shattered.
Which is why 9/11 could well be described as “amateur hour”.
It is folly to believe they did not learn from the exercise nor develop new tricks.
Next time it will likely be just before the elections.
4. SAMs are deadly and are programmed to avoid Russian aircraft entirely.
The biggest problem is that, throughout history, a lot of those with power tended to be idiots, a-holes, or some
combination of the two.
Stalin, Himmler, Goering, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-un (or WTF his name was), Baby doc Duvalier, Castro, Osama, etc., etc., and now Putin and the bozo in charge of that AA unit.
Some things never change - and so the misery continues. We can put men on the moon, but can’t get rid of the idiocy.
Nice of them to NOT blame Russia. ...
I’m thinking that would be incumbent’s worst nightmare no matter what party...have everyone in a “toss the bums out, they didn’t protect us” mindset.
...add one more: It’s not too bright to fly passenger planes over ACTIVE WAR ZONES and a habit of shooting at planes.
Here’s two more...
Don’t shoot at commercial jetliners
Don’t invade sovereign countries and take the over.
Don’t come on FR and blame everyone but the guys who shot it down.
I guess that’s 3.
Fair enough. But, when you speak of “incumbents”, you suppose a meaningful presidential election, or even an election.
When I think outside the box (as it was apparent we should have in Dec, 1941, when it was all in place before us), I see nationwide breakdowns in food distribution, civil disorder, etc. as the result of terrorist attacks. The next time around, “they” will no doubt have acquired world-class assistance from others with a similar agenda.
Sorry to be so negative, but it seems time for the USA to wake up.
Good aim can kill hundreds, too.
We knew this, in particular, in 1996...
Ok, the bad guys shot it down - they get blamed too.
But like a women who gates raped walking alone in LaHood, in the middle of the night, there are minimal steps possible to stay clear of trouble.
Seems this equipment was a bit more complicated than a home project.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai that was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes on 3 July 1988. The attack took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from the Vincennes.
All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died.[1] This attack ranks seventh among the deadliest disasters in aviation history, tenth if including the 9/11 attacks, which includes ground casualties; the incident retains the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Persian Gulf and the highest death toll of any incident involving an Airbus aircraft anywhere in the world.[2] The Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters after one of its helicopters drew warning fire from Iranian speedboats operating within Iranian territorial limits.
According to the Iranian government, Vincennes negligently shot down the civilian aircraft: the airliner was making IFF squawks in Mode III (not Mode II used by Iranian military planes), a signal that identified it as a civilian craft, and operators of Vincennes mistook for Mode II.
According to the United States Government, the crew incorrectly identified the Iranian Airbus A300 as an attacking F-14A Tomcat fighter, a plane made in the United States and operated at that time by only two forces worldwide, the United States Navy and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. The Iranian F-14's at that time had no anti-ship capability.
The US Navy had claimed that the Vincennes was defending itself in international waters at the time of the incident. Later disclosures would prove that the Vincennes had entered into Iranian waters and initiated hostilities. This was a key fact that was left out of the public inquiry led by Admiral Fogarty.
The event generated a great deal of controversy and criticism of the United States. Some analysts have blamed U.S. military commanders and the captain of Vincennes for reckless and aggressive behavior in a tense and dangerous environment.
As of 1993, the United States had not apologized to Iran.[8] In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice, including an apology in the form of "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the Loss of lives caused by the incident...".[9] As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.
Iran Air still uses flight number IR655 on the Tehran–Dubai route as a memorial to the victims.
So was Dutch responsible for that shoot down?
“Seems this equipment was a bit more complicated than a home project.”
It is. It has a high single shot kill probability. Something like 90%. Ordinary countermeasures do not bother it.
A fairly modern fighter jet has a slim chance of survival if one of these missiles gets a lock on it.
IIRC the best modern fighter jets have a 50/50 chance.
What a great line and food for thought.
“Seems this equipment was a bit more complicated than a home project.”
Yep, but it predates the breakup of the Soviet Union and 60 units were left in Ukraine, and obviously there are Ukrainian soldiers that know how to use it (on both sides of the civil war)...so this particular unit may have always been “owned” by the rebels.
There’s no way to know independently - we have to rely on what the US president tells us, and he is DESPERATE to get his open borders policy out of the headlines.
So...who knows?
Well, that’s just complete BS. Don’t you read or comprehend simple facts?
-The plane was shot down over 100Km inside rebel territory. It was targeted and shot down at first opportunity, 20Km from the Buk launcher and more than 100Km inside rebel territory so your fantasy that the Ukrainians could have shot it down is a lie. Perhaps you think a Ukrainian mobile SA-17 did a scoot and shoot more than 100 Kms into rebel territory?
-Civil aviation had cleared the plane’s altitude for flying since the rebels were not known or believed to have missiles capable of reaching 33,000’. Over 300 planes flew over the rebels’ Ukrainian territory each day.
-A photograph was taken on the evening of the shoot down showing a Buk SAM system with a missile missing loaded onto a flatbed truck reportedly travelling towards Russia.
-Radio intercepts of the rebels claim it was a “Cossack” SAM unit which had arrived in the early morning hours of the day the plane was shot down. Ergo, a Russian SAM system crewed by Russian military.
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.