| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Does NYPD have anti-aircraft capabilities? |
| 2011-09-26 |
| From 9/25/11 CBS 60 Minutes interview with NYPD police commissioner Ray Kelly: Kelly: Well, it's something that's on our radar screen. I mean in an extreme situation, you would have some means to take down a plane. Pelley: Do you mean to say that the NYPD has the means to take down an aircraft? Kelly: Yes, I prefer not to get into the details but obviously this would be in a very extreme situation. |
| Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418 |
| #12 Whoa, BATMAN = THE DARK KNIGHT HAS PATRIOTS ADS!? Who knew? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-09-26 19:27 |
| #11 First off, the warhead on a Stinger is small in comparison most missiles in use: it just has to hit the jet engine and spray its cutting jet into that. The disintegrating turbine does the rest. And Stingers are easily mounted on helicopters and light planes, of which the NYPD has several. Stingers also can be set to detonate if they miss the target and travel a set distance. Beside which, a helicopter with a door-mounted light machine gun or a plane with a similar setup can take out the cockpit or the engines on an airliner. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2011-09-26 18:21 |
| #10 AH, Do you really believe this? Either of the planes that hit the World Trade Center would most likely have caused far less damage if they had been shot down, even if over a populated area. Do you a stinger wouldn't stop a plane so one of the WTC planes would have still connected even if they could have gotten it in the first place. What happens to the missles they fire that miss the target, especially if they are big enough to destroy a jumbo jet? And where are these missles staged; NJ, Long Island, Westchester? No, the police don't have a hope in hell of doing anti-aircraft defence correctly and the fall out would be horrendous. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2011-09-26 15:49 |
| #9 we shot down a plane by mistake but we have immunity ain't gonna cut it Similar rationales have worked pretty well in instances of police misconduct. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-09-26 14:44 |
| #8 Have they done the maths to determine that a shootdown would be dramatically less likely to kill and injure as many people as a deliberate impact could? Either of the planes that hit the World Trade Center would most likely have caused far less damage if they had been shot down, even if over a populated area. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-09-26 14:43 |
| #7 The ongoing militarization of police with SWAT and counter terrorism as an excuse is distressing to say the least. If you buy it you want to use it and I don't trust regular gov't with that much force. All you have to do is look at the "mistaken" drug raids as to what can and does go wrong. Ooops we shot down a plane by mistake but we have immunity ain't gonna cut it. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2011-09-26 14:21 |
| #6 There is something wrong with this. I assume they have a MANPAD of some sort. If the NYPD shoots down a large airliner over NYC with a MPAD weapon, which are typically engaged at or below 2500 meters AGL, the airliner causes a fair amount of destruction hitting the ground in a dense urban terrain, yes? A heat seeker would hit the engine shooting the aircraft down. Therefore a large airline it would leave much of the air frame intact including any centre fuel tanks and fuel in the unaffected wing's tanks. The airframe and remaining large aircraft parts would then impact buildings in the impact zone at random. In addition the hit-side engine may detach the wing or explode the wing and fuel and rain flaming debris over a large area. If it does not detach then the target aircraft could yet be flown into the nearest large building in its path. Am I the only person to think this through to the end? Have they done the maths to determine that a shootdown would be dramatically less likely to kill and injure as many people as a deliberate impact could? This is a brutal calculus of human lives. Interception should be done at a distance. The Battle of Britain proved this long ago. |
| Posted by: The Other Beldar 2011-09-26 13:22 |
| #5 IRC US fighters were not carrying weapons on 9/11. The only option they had for several hours was to ram any hijacked aircraft. After 9/11, USAF had armed fighters over several US cities, but has now gone back to pre-9/11 procedures. In that context, NYPD is on its own. One problem with a suicide plane (which the USN discovered in WWII) is that once it gets close in, it's not enough to shoot it down. You have to stop it in its tracks. This requires a very large warhead (and a larger missle). A stinger is not going to cut it. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2011-09-26 11:38 |
| #4 The NYPD probably has a phone number that will get a rapid response from Air Force, Air National Guard, Navy, or whatever. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2011-09-26 10:26 |
| #3 Even during 911 they would not have shot down the second aircraft. They did not have the situational awareness of exactly what was going on in the short time between strikes. They only real use would be in a known strike and DOD would be in front of it. NYC counter terrorism unit is a solid unit, but shooting down a Plane is the last war. Their nuclear detection and hazmat is where they need to go as well as imbedding into the local Muslim community. I was in NYC this weekend and walked around the WTC. Then we went uptown to Times square and ran into a Muslim parade and they were talking of how peaceful Islam is. Unbelievable! I am certain they should have left the WTC a smoking hole as a testament to just how peaceful Islam really is...... |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2011-09-26 09:28 |
| #2 Should the police have anti-aircraft capabilities? Probably best left to the military to counter major terrorism. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-09-26 06:53 |
| #1 Too little, too late. Always fighting the last war... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-09-26 06:15 |