It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kamikaze: F-16 pilots planned to ram Flight 93

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Kamikaze: F-16 pilots planned to ram Flight 93


www.msnbc.msn.com

When the pilots of the 121st Fighter Squadron of the D.C. Air National Guard got the order to intercept Flight 93, the hijacked jet speeding toward the nation's capital, they figured there was a decent chance they would not come back alive. That's because the F-16 jets they were rushing to get airborne were largely unarmed, recalls one of the pilots, then-Lt. Heather Penney, leaving them one option to take out the wayward plane: a kamikaze mission. "We wouldn’t be shooting it down. We would be ramming the aircraft, because we didn’t have weapons on board to be able to shoot the airplane
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I had heard this story, several days after 9/11. But until it actually made the MSM, I was not going to comment on it. Several days ago an excellent pilot of the 121st Fighter Squadron of the D.C. Air National Guard
tp://" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

, Major Heather Penney,


described the tenacious, and patriotic fortitude required to a USAF pilot. However, our pilots should be allowed to have a fully weaponized Viper


if they are the ones who are going to scramble. Without rockets and a full can of ammo, the only thing that's going to get scrambled is our $16 Million dollar war bird, and Worse, our pilots. Now is not the time to point the blame at whichever politician, now is the time to allow our military to protect us the way they were originally formed to do.
www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 10-9-2011 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
thats why they have ejector seats so much for kamikaze pilots
edit on 9/10/2011 by toothpastert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
couldnt they fly into it an eject before crash?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by toothpastert
thats why they have ejector seats so much for kamikaze pilots
edit on 9/10/2011 by toothpastert because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by thegoods724
couldnt they fly into it an eject before crash?


Both of you post before you even read the article. You should give yourselves a round of applause.

"Both pilots thought about whether they would have enough time to eject before impact. "
edit on 9/10/2011 by LibertarianExpress because: added quote from article



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by toothpastert
thats why they have ejector seats so much for kamikaze pilots
edit on 9/10/2011 by toothpastert because: (no reason given)


Too bad you didn't read the article. Both the pilots would have intended to eject if they had to ram the airliner.
I would like to see how you would react in a simulator, going 500 Knots in a dive, striking a moving, jinking, target, and then ejecting.
Me thinks you would be splag.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The plane had 105 rounds of 20mm for its Vulcan cannon.

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



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Funny, when I posted this yesterday in the 9/11 Forums i basically got sneers and laughs...

Second line.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

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.



Source? I 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.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violater1
www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Their plan to take out the cockpit isn't well thought out. Shooting off the tail was the better part of the plan and that didn't require a kamikaze mission.


Sass looked at me and said, 'I'll ram the cockpit.' And I had made the decision that I would take the tail off the aircraft," Penney recalled....
The pilots chose their impact spots in order to minimize the debris field on the ground. A plane with no nose and no tail would likely fall straight out of the sky, its forward momentum halted, Penney said.
No tail, perhaps, but no nose...think again.

Here's the animation of TWA flight 800 which actually flew higher without the nose section, perhaps because of the reduced weight?


I think that's pretty good proof that their plan regarding the nose section was not a good plan. Shooting off the tail might have worked though.

If they were armed with missiles, there would be the possibility of the missile missing the plane and hitting a target on the ground I suppose, so even if they had missiles, would they have used them? I don't know what the air to air missile success rates are, but they are probably better against commercial airliners.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
It sounds patriotic, but if you think about it then it's not so smart. We spend millions of dollars on a militarized aircraft only to not use the weapons onboard? This says more about our domestic defense preparedness than it does the patriotic fervor of our pilots.

The article says it would require dozens of minutes to arm the f-16. There was NO armed aircraft within proximity of DC. That goes to show you what we had pre-9/11. Has it changed?

Also I'm thinking that they did not choose to use their 105 rounds of ammo because they wanted to reduce damage/casulaties to anybody on the ground. That's why they both chose to hit the plane; on the nose and tail. It seems kind of silly because I would think that losing millions of dollars for each aircraft and losing the pilots is not something you can ever reverse. There's no way to know 100% if they had shot it down with ammo whether the losses would be significant on the ground or not. Seems like a trivial thing to me - I would never force the pilots to throw their lives away just because of the chance that extra debris would harm someone below. There's a difference because harming citizens below is a possibility; losing two f16's is not!!

I imagine that even if they unloaded all their ammo that the plane might still be able to steer and that's hte real reason for ramming it in the nose and tail. But I imagine 105 rounds is major damage to a plan. Couldn't they aim at the tail and steering mechanisms?

In fact, I would like to see what the probabilities say...

What is the actual danger (to citizens on the ground):
1) plane disabled with ammo and coming down in a random direction
2) plane disabled by two f-16s ramming it and coming down in a random direction



I'd like to see an actual estimate, not a guess-estimate.
edit on 10-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I have issues with this story, and not that our pilots would not do it if there was no other choice. Having worked on flight lines on military airbases the story does not click with my experiences. First thing, the military doctrine says that it will be ready to move on a moments notice and out of the corner swinging so to speak. This was in the early to mid 90s.

While stationed on an aircraft carrier there were always a few aircraft fully fueled and armed at all times and the pilots on standby to be in the air within minutes. Same with the search and rescue chopper.

When I was stationed at an airfield and thereto were from various squadrons, several aircraft that were staged and ready to go and only waiting on the pilot.

I do not know, but either this story is false or someones head needs to roll for not having those aircraft ready to go.
edit on 10-9-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

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!

Again, I'd like to see how some people could hit a 450 Kt moving, swerving target, with a 1 second burst.

All the good pilots are saying," ramming speed Mr Sulu.

edit on 10-9-2011 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
I have issues with this story, and not that our pilots would not do it if there was no other choice. Having worked on flight lines on military airbases the story does not click with my experiences. First thing, the military doctrine says that it will be ready to move on a moments notice and out of the corner swinging so to speak. This was in the early to mid 90s. While stationed on an aircraft carrier there were always a few aircraft fully fueled and armed at all times and the pilots on standby to be in the air within minutes. Same with the search and rescue chopper.
When I was stationed at an airfield and thereto were from various squadrons, several aircraft that were staged and ready to go and only waiting on the pilot.
I do not know, but either this story is false or someones head needs to roll for not having those aircraft ready to go.
edit on 10-9-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)


Here is the problem, these were the pilots of the Air National Guard of Washington DC. Being Washington DC, there is no governor. The funds and leadership had been decimated by the previous administration. Which continues to take it's toll on our national defense today.
I tried to avoid a political mud fest here, but your comment left me no other choice.
Since the new administration had only been in office half a year, the funds were just beginning to be released. Since then, as the photo displays, the Viper's from the glorious 121st now have teeth and venom.
Come get some.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Hundreds of billions wasted on defence annually and no aircraft was armed within the vicinity of the nations leadership ? Priceless. This will undoubtedly be the reason to waste even more taxpayer money now.

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



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


F-16 to 747...

The 747, no matter how hard it tried, would not qualify as a 'moving target' to an F-16.

F-16 has too big of an energy and maneuverability advantage,

Keep in mind that these are aircraft designed to combat much smaller targets moving at far higher velocities with far higher maneuverability abilities.

This would have been akin to 'shooting fish in a barrel' for any competent F-16 pilot...barring the morality.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 



Having worked on flight lines on military airbases the story does not click with my experiences. First thing, the military doctrine says that it will be ready to move on a moments notice and out of the corner swinging so to speak. This was in the early to mid 90s.


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.


While stationed on an aircraft carrier there were always a few aircraft fully fueled and armed at all times and the pilots on standby to be in the air within minutes. Same with the search and rescue chopper.


This really depends upon what the carrier is doing. 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.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Violater1
www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Their plan to take out the cockpit isn't well thought out. Shooting off the tail was the better part of the plan and that didn't require a kamikaze mission.


Sass looked at me and said, 'I'll ram the cockpit.' And I had made the decision that I would take the tail off the aircraft," Penney recalled....
The pilots chose their impact spots in order to minimize the debris field on the ground. A plane with no nose and no tail would likely fall straight out of the sky, its forward momentum halted, Penney said.
No tail, perhaps, but no nose...think again.

Here's the animation of TWA flight 800 which actually flew higher without the nose section, perhaps because of the reduced weight?

I think that's pretty good proof that their plan regarding the nose section was not a good plan. Shooting off the tail might have worked though.

If they were armed with missiles, there would be the possibility of the missile missing the plane and hitting a target on the ground I suppose, so even if they had missiles, would they have used them? I don't know what the air to air missile success rates are, but they are probably better against commercial airliners.


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 un-aerodynamic hole in the front (not to mention the flight physics of the airliner getting struck from above), this jet would be going down.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Why on earth would they not have air to air missiles on board? Why even bother to scramble them then? The only other thing they could do would be to stop the engines of the commercial planes with the f-16's exhaust.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join