I just heard on the radio, that on 09-11-01 a group of F-16's that were unarmed, were sent to confront any incoming planes, the listener asked the General on the radio, what would have happened if they saw a plane with bad intentions. The Air Force General responded saying, that if that was the case, they would have had to ask the pilots to crash against the planes, and the pilots would have done it, without even thinking twice about it. I salute all of you flight boys. Thank God it did not come to that.

I was under the impression that fighter jets virtually never left the ground without at least cannon rounds. How long does it take to load missles - say a sidewinder?

It just sounds kinda odd...

Been covered, and then some.

[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=141851[/url]

as a pilot, and a future figter pilot, i wouldnt hit a ist plane.  heck ya i'd shoot at them. but i dont think i would go up and be expected to be a comicozi (sp). NO WAY. what is the world coming to these days.

Back in WWII American fighter and bomber pilots crashed their planes into the enemy all the time.  Hell the Russians even trained their pilots in the technique and I think there might have been a Soviet ramming ace who knocked down 5 German planes by ramming.  

GunLvr

That's BS.

You cannot tell me that a UNARMED military fighter jet was sent to confront the hijacked plane.

Also, I don't ever recall the government say that they didn't shoot the sucker down. In fact, I remember them alluding to it.

I believe they did.

I was under the impression that the CG for a fighter plane was figured with a full load of cannon rounds. Missles do not apply as much as thay are typically attached close to the CG. As the cannon is towards the front of the aircraft, it has a greater impact on CG so the F-15's (at least) were always loaded with cannon rounds. If my info is incorrect, please let me know....nicely.

Since an airliner isn't exactly the most maneuverable plane in the sky, I suppose it would be possible for the pilot of a fighter to get his aircraft "aimed" at his target, then eject just before impact......risky as hell considering the explosion that would follow. I'd bet that just about ANY US pilot would be willing to fly his plane into another if he had to.

At least in the US Navy, the guns are normally empty.  No CG problems that I know of.

Edited to add - my experiece was with A7Es

I was an aircraft weapons system specialist (RADAR tech) with VMFA-235 during that squadrons last WestPac deployment with the venerable F-4S Phantom II.  One of the missions assigned to the squadron during that time was CAP over the Sea of Japan.  The aircrews were intercepting Russian Bear and Backfire.  They recorded at least one Backfire with nuclear capable cruise missles hung under the wings.  

Our birds launched with 4 AIM-9, and 2 AIM-7.  A few also carried 2 pods of 4 inch Zuni rockets.  For 62 days straight I was responsible for the pre-flight tuning of the AIM-7's, and SEAM checks for the AIM-9's.  It takes about 1 hour to verify the aft AIM-7 racks with the MSTS, if EVERYTHING goes right.  The RF sniffer (AWG-8) checks only take a few seconds after the RADAR transmitter has warmed up.  It then takes the Ordies about 20 to 25 min to attach each AIM-7.  AIM-9's are quite a bit easier.  About 5-10 min per rail for the electrical tests, and a few minutes more for the seaker head coolant checks, then 3-5 min to hang the missle on the rail.  Then, apply E-power and the Hyd Jenny, put an Ordie in the front seat and me in the back, fire up the RADAR, ensure that the AIM-7's tuned, and the AIM-9's would growl.  Then let the aircrew go hunting.

One morning during launches, the XO, Major Thomas B. "T-Bone" Moore, called me over and asked how everything was going back home, how the moral was holding up in the Avionics department, and in general just wanting to BS with one of "His" RADAR techs.  The XO was a RIO and felt a deep kinship with the RADAR shop.  I asked him what the heck was the purpose of the Zuni rockets during Air-to-Air engagements.  He said they were going to be used in place of 20mm cannon if the engagement was inside of Rmin of the AIM-9.  I said that was kind of strange since there were only 2 birds carring Zunis.  [b]His demeanor turned from jovial to dead seriousness, he said that if needed, they would ram the Russian plane before they could attack Japan.[/b]

My experience on the F-18 was limited to just a few months, and during several WTI's at Yuma, I had hands on with AV-8B's, A-4M's, and A-6E's.  For security reasons, I never got to see what made the EA-6B tick.

The only time any of those birds launched with live ordanance was when the mission called for it.  That included chaff and flares.  Ordanance is loaded under the most stringent supervision even during combat ops.  There is NO chance to load in time to counter a sneak attack.

If there are CG problems they load ballast, not live rounds.

What happened to those pics I've seen of F15's waiting in the hangars with a pilot always at the ready?

Aren't there anymore "active" SAM sites in the US?  I know there used to be Nike SAM sites before.

The pilots are out on peacekeeping missions handing out candy bars to starving people who hate the US.

The birds are grounded for lack of spare parts.

a groups of F-16[b]s[/b] that were unarmed [b]was[/b] sent to confront...

Citabria, what the world is coming to is that if you take the military up on their offer, and take the oath, and give a damn about your country, you will do whatever it takes to get the job done. What we do NOT need is service members who decide that they aren't going to do what is necessary.  I may just be a dumb grunt, but if I was strapped in to an F15 on that morning and had the opportunity, I woulda gladly did my job, as would most others here I believe.

I think the 3000 people who died in the WTC would beg to differ.

Bradd

Concur. If circumstances such as this presented itself to me, I'd be all for ramming the aircraft. No second thoughts at all.

Aviator  [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/Aviator%2Faviator%2Egif[/img]

Incoming from where exactly? LaGuardia to O'Hare? From overseas?

I for one can believe they would crash into the plane. Heck man, they do it on a regular basis all the time and without even thinking once about it, much less twice. You hear it in the news. They do it mostly while conducting training exercises. Now we know the true purpose of those exercises. I would say, to call them "Brave" pilots would be an understatement.

Well, we're starting to get closer to the real truth of what brought down Flight 93...

Let's say that someone gave you that order.

What if it was actually an assasination of someone who was on the plane, and not some terrorists?


What if the "terrorist" story was just a smokescreen?

That is bullshit that someone would not "think twice" about becoming a Kamikaze on a moments notice from someone elses' orders. Nobody is that stupid.

(Ya know, they coulda told 'em to put the gear down and clip a wing with it...)

However, if what you say is true, then we can NOT depend on any of our military to go AWOL once the Constitution is burning into ashes.

So pick one...Either they are that stupid and follow orders blindly, or they will not defend the Constitution when asked to be JBTs.

Take a pick...Those are the only options I see at this time.

If you think the US military has a training program for the intentional ramming of fighters into other aircraft, then your tin foil hat is way to tight.

Mid air collisions do occur during ACM training but they are accidents, and are fully investigated.  So do collisions between automobiles.  If a mid air collision is what brought flight 93 down, then where is the other aircraft?  I'm not saying a mid air didn't happen.  I'm just asking for proof that flight 93 was not brought down during an attempt by the passengers to regain control of the plane.

Kamikazi (Devine Wind)

Bill

DA:
Soldiers are given many orders, and are expected to obey them with out question. I my military life, many times I was told, "W***," "take the point."

What would it have been like, if I would have stopped and debated the necessity of that order?

That would have been different, than Nuremburg,  1946, where they said, "We were only following orders."

Bill

When I was assigned to fighter wings (A-10, F-15 and F16) keeping the cannons loaded depended on the wing king; some did, some didn't.  



I haven't heard the term ASP for quite some time.  Also, missles usually aren't stored in bunkers.  Most are stored in Butler type buildings (metal warehouses) or aboveground magazines.  The latter provide some measure of protection from blast.  

The way it works (or still did when I retired) is a certain numer of lives (usually enough to generate a squadron) are loaded on delivery trailers.  The munitions control center gets proper authorization and the wheels start rolling.  Timeframe depends on several factors: How far from the storage site to where the drivers are; how far from the storage area to the flightline ramp; time of day (how much manpower is available).

Whoever said you don't have enough time to react to a sneak attack was pretty much on target.  That's why we should completely annihilate the sneaky ^@%#$*!$.

Eddie

Bradd, I am with you, well said.

No after 2 planes have already crashed against the WTC and one was on the way to the White House, Screw that, KILL the bastards at any cost.

Nah, we are just getting closer to the real reason for your paranoid, delusional, bullshit.

As to the aircraft that crashed in rural Pennsylvania, it would have been possible to down it without ramming.  Jets do not glide and jet engines require stable air on the intake, a military fighter could cause a flameout or two and down that commercial airliner goes, much like a rock.

As for the aircraft that attached the WTC and Pentagon the only recourse for a pilot without armament would be ramming to decrease shrapnel size and protect as many civilian structures as possible.

Ryan

WTF?  Last time I checked, the basic laws of aerodynamics and all didn't change for jets.

If you're going to be a spelling and grammar nazi, you have to make sure you don't have any mistakes in your own post... [:D]

No ... the basic laws of aerodynamics are no different for jets.  However Jets travel at a rate of speed that allows them to use less wing surface area to reach sufficient lift.  When thrust is lost the wings no longer provide enough lift and the law of gravity prevails.

Ryan

I think what [b]reidry[/b] was alluding to, was the passenger jets [b]Glide Ratio[/b], making the passenger jet emulate a brick, rather than a glider.

 But they will still glide, they just aren't real good at it , right? Not trying to snipe ya just curious. An aircraft that won't glide  is basically a contradiction I would think.

Thanks heli, glide ratio was the word I was looking for, been too long since I studied this stuff.

Actually, passenger jets glide quite well..about 15 to 1 is a typical glide ratio.  That's way better than a light aircraft (except sailplanes or motor gliders).  An airliner at 33000 feet without power can land at an airport 100 miles away, depending on wind.

Let me continue my point.  The terrorists are surmised to have taken the controls and were rather inexperienced pilots.  Loosing thrust and probably autopilot would definitely be a blow.  I am uncertain if an inexperienced pilot coult maintain the proper glide path for a 100 mile decent, personally I don't believe so.  Most likely the aircraft would crash.

I was only trying to stimulate a little "out of the box" thinking.  It is my sincere hope that ramming enemy aircraft with our own fighter planes would be the absolute last resort.

BTW - the previous discussions as to readiness are absolutely correct, ordnance is not loaded unless the specific mission requires it.  Given the enlightenment that occured on 9/11/01 I imagine that US forces on the mainland have changed the operational status and now probably have a few (but still only a very few) aircraft available with live ordnance at all times.

The military restrictions on ammunition and live ordnance are worse than buying ammo at walmart.

Just my .02!

Ryan

Good shot LarryG - Old Tricky got nailed again.

Tricky is a hit and run artist. He comes in shoots his pathetic shots with his [b]Alligator mouth[/b], and leaves before the heat can get to his [b]Hummingbird Ass[/b]. Sort of like a [b]Yappy Little Ankle Biter.[/b]

Bill

[:O][;D]

Thanks Zak  [:D]

The military restrictions on ammunition and live ordnance are worse than buying ammo at walmart.

Just my .02!

Ryan[/quote]Thats the damn truth I spent 6 months in saudi during Desert Sheild and Desert Storm and packed a M16 with no live ammo the whole time.

When I first heard the story, my thinking was a lot like reidry. I am not a pilot or any kind of expert, but it seems to me that a fighter could something short of crashing into it.  Maybe he could take out the jumbo jets engines with his wash, and he might even be able to put it into a spin with his afterburners.

The jumbo jet would not crash right away, but it would be pretty hard to fly into a tall building without any power.  If they shot it down, the parts still gotta crash somewhere.

In response I give you the F-4 Phantom; proof positive that you can even make a footlocker fly if you strap a big enough engine to it.

1.  Sometimes we flew with the gun empty, and sometimes we flew with it full but the ammo "rolled back," meaning we couldn't shoot it even if we wanted to.  When we flew with it armed, it was for a reason, either shooting the banner, strafing, or combat.

2.  I don't believe it would be possible to bring down an airliner without crashing into it.  Anyone who has ever tried to join on a cooperative aircraft knows it is very hard.  Doing so on an uncooperative one is very, very hard, and flying in front of a motor of an uncooperative bandit to try to stall it would be impossible.

Now, you might be able to force the enemy pilot to deviate his course by thumping him and such, but if he's suicidal, that might not work either.

No, you'd pretty much have to hit him.

3.  If it were me, I would have done it by a rear-quarter unobserved intercept, trying to shear off the vertical stab, and hoping I could eject after impact.

If I were in that position, I would have done it.  I can't think of a more clear cut case of "defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."  The job of an interceptor is to intercept.  We were at war that day and just because the only viable air defense assets we had were Winchester (out of ammo) at the time doesn't mean we shouldn't have tried to use them.  Many an officer has ordered his men to charge the machine gun nest, knowing full well they were all going to die.  If I were the General that day, I would have said "sic 'em," and if I were in the jet, I would have.

4.  Citabria7GCBC, you might consider another line of work.  You clearly do not have the Spirit of Attack.