Surface-to-air missiles for the Olympics

EdGey said:
That was my first guess... do you think we'll find out what they are?
Click to expand...

I expect that if they do take the decision to deploy it will be a mixture of both, with the Rapiers deployed at airfields or military installations and the Starstreaks as part of 4-6 man threat response teams........depends on how far they want to go and what the threat levels are. It is SOP to pre-deploy specialist response teams

I note that HMS Ocean will be in berth, so I would go with that.
 
Castiel said:
I expect that if they do take the decision to deploy it will be a mixture of both
Click to expand...

I think it was an article in the Guardian which said that some of the open sites were getting Rapiers but the urban on-top-of-building sites were getting "high velocity missiles", whatever that means. I'll go see if I can find it again.
 
Do the Starstreaks actually have the capability to completely destroy a hijacked passenger jet? As I don't think few of these as a last line of defence will not be able to stop a passenger jet heading for the stadium as they will have to completely disintegrate the aircraft or cause a catastrophic failure, ie shoot off a wing or the tail. Putting a few holes into an aircraft that is diving towards the stadium will most likely have very little effect.
 
Maybe we will have a nice SAM fly past as part of the opening ceremony!

Joking aside can you imagine if someone managed to do something a large scale at the olympics and we have a couple of tazer equipped boy scouts deployed. The UK would look a complete laughing stock and the games would come to a halt - I would consider that a "terror" event so maybe we should thank that someone is going to have all bases covered. I doubt we are going to have armed soldiers stood outside every venue and wont mind a bit when I have to stand in line to have my bags searched along with everyone else.

Too many nutters in the World not to try something even if its just a small scale streak across one of the venues.
 
Castiel said:
I expect that if they do take the decision to deploy it will be a mixture of both

Art said:
I think it was an article in the Guardian which said that some of the open sites were getting Rapiers but the urban on-top-of-building sites were getting "high velocity missiles", whatever that means. I'll go see if I can find it again.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yep:


The four that are in open spaces – at Blackheath, Lea Valley reservoir, Shooters Hill and Epping Forest – will be home to a battery of Rapier surface-to-air missiles, which are the UK's primary air defence weapon.

Smaller high-velocity missiles (HVMs) will be put on the top of residential buildings in Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.
 
Fire_fly said:
Do the Starstreaks actually have the capability to completely destroy a hijacked passenger jet? As I don't think few of these as a last line of defence will not be able to stop a passenger jet heading for the stadium as they will have to completely disintegrate the aircraft or cause a catastrophic failure, ie shoot off a wing or the tail. Putting a few holes into an aircraft that is diving towards the stadium will most likely have very little effect.
Click to expand...

Do you think that a plane will be let to start a dive on say the olympic stadium before someone says go on have a pot shot at it. I imagine there is going to be a no fly zone and anyone in that is going to be identified pretty quickly and escorted away
 
Nothings going to happen anyway so there's no need to debate the practicality of certain missiles and the direction of hijacked aircraft.

The majority of casualties at the Olympics will be heat stroke and accidental trauma. I know, it's not exciting 24-hour rolling news kind-of material but it's the truth.
 
Art said:
I think it was an article in the Guardian which said that some of the open sites were getting Rapiers but the urban on-top-of-building sites were getting "high velocity missiles", whatever that means. I'll go see if I can find it again.
Click to expand...

Art said:
Yep:


The four that are in open spaces – at Blackheath, Lea Valley reservoir, Shooters Hill and Epping Forest – will be home to a battery of Rapier surface-to-air missiles, which are the UK's primary air defence weapon.

Smaller high-velocity missiles (HVMs) will be put on the top of residential buildings in Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.
Click to expand...

HVMs are starstreaks....it looks more or less what I said......I think the media and some of our fellow posters are getting a bit stressed over nothing.
 
jimjamuk said:
Do you think that a plane will be let to start a dive on say the olympic stadium before someone says go on have a pot shot at it. I imagine there is going to be a no fly zone and anyone in that is going to be identified pretty quickly and escorted away
Click to expand...

Yes they would be stupid just to rely on the missiles and not take a layered approach to controlling the airspace around London. but my point is that as a line of last defence you need something for more beefy than just a couple of starstreaks to take out a passenger jet.
 
Castiel said:
HVMs are starstreaks....it looks more or less what I said......I think the media and some of our fellow posters are getting a bit stressed over nothing.
Click to expand...

The only way I can see it being a problem is if it's an issue for the locals. Someone posted on another site saying that because their balcony overlooks a popular stadium somewhere they're always getting grief from the police snipers who sit up there when politicians come visiting. If it's not overly inconveniencing the locals what's the problem?
 
Fire_fly said:
Do the Starstreaks actually have the capability to completely destroy a hijacked passenger jet? As I don't think few of these as a last line of defence will not be able to stop a passenger jet heading for the stadium as they will have to completely disintegrate the aircraft or cause a catastrophic failure, ie shoot off a wing or the tail. Putting a few holes into an aircraft that is diving towards the stadium will most likely have very little effect.
Click to expand...

No they don't, but then they are not deployed to do that....Rapiers are. Starstreaks are not just anti-aircraft missiles, they are multi-role missiles...they can be used in the same way as a TOW missile as well.

It is a bit naive to think that an unidentified Aircraft such as an Airliner will get anywhere near London, let alone close enough for it to be diving toward a stadium......These weapons are part of an overall defence strategy, not the spearhead of it.
 
Art said:
The only way I can see it being a problem is if it's an issue for the locals. Someone posted on another site saying that because their balcony overlooks a popular stadium somewhere they're always getting grief from the police snipers who sit up there when politicians come visiting. If it's not overly inconveniencing the locals what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Quite.....the starstreaks would probably be part of a sniper team anyway, so the sniper teams would be there anyway, all it means is that they also have an extra weapon.
 
Don't know what the fuss is, its just a sam. Ive had to put up for years american and uk ssbn calling into our port. ie a few hundread meters from my flat. hmmm a sam or hundreads of nulcear warhead, you choose. Either way its all just part of the national sport, moaning.
 
Castiel said:
Erm....that is why they are deployed.....it is a little concept called Deterrent. I know, let us have no security at all, advertise that fact and see what happens.....



Yeah, because we should stop living our lives simply because of potential threats......most people will not even know they are there.
Click to expand...

It's not a deterrant, having sam sites on roofs to having more difficult security measures at airports and generally less freedom... this is the actual goal of terrorism. They don't like they way we live, they don't like us living in freedom, loss of life is disgusting and utterly evil, but its not the end goal.

Every time we spend more money on security and make our lives a little less free, they win.

Every time we react to a terrorist attack with changes to the way we live, they win, them seeing us change encourages them, it just shows they can effect the way we all live our lives.

Anyone, anywhere can kill one person you can't plan it, nor stop it effecting every last person in a nation of 250mil is a much harder thing, the USA's reaction to terrorism has effected far more people than the terrorist act itself.

If they did plan and carry out an attack at the olympics, and that attack is foiled by a sam site shooting down a plane that was due to crash into a stadium, when we then decide its a great idea to stick 1000 of these around the UK year round with 10k men working at the sites year round, and 100's of millions spent every year doing so..... they win.

Terrorist attacks have always happened and will always happen, you can't stop it, not least because the more we react in bigger ways by going to war, the more hatred we generate in the world and the more terrorists there are.

Over reacting and making everyone here less free, while waging war and creating new terrorists is all just unbelievably stupid.
 
drunkenmaster said:
snip.
Click to expand...

It is for a few weeks while there is a very high profile global event happening in the Capital......it is not an infringement or removal of your freedom.:rolleyes:

You only have to look a the Atlanta Games to see the risks inherent in holding such an event.....would it be more of an infringement of our freedoms if we didn't hold such events because of Terrorism? or is it simply better to mitigate as many risks as possible with the resources that we have.

This is simply about safety and security of millions of people during a high profile event, it is not about trying to remove your liberty or create a police state.
 
Last edited:
The deterrent factor is most like the only reason they are doing this. Preventing anyone stupid enough to want to attack the Olympics with reports in the press about London bristling with defences causing them not to mount any sort of attack is always much better than stopping the actual attack it self.
 
Wouldn't it be wiser to stick US style sky marshalls on inbound flights, this way protecting people in the air and on the ground, and preventing damage to infrastructure?

It all just seems like war games to me. Like a pretend use for all this hardware kicking about doing nothing. No matter what people say, I cannot believe such a counter measure is ever going to be effective. And is anyone really going to give such an order? It's like a Tom Clancy novel being played out. Last line of defence? Where's the start and middle??

And if anything else, there's something really depressing and defeatest about sticking SAMs on rooftops in London. I can't explain it. It's just weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom