Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
They're not using them for our protection. They're the GB athlete for the 1000m race. Didn't you know?
Surface-to-air missiles for the Olympics
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
I've just heard a rumour that Blair and Bush are planning to invade London as there are Weapons of Mass Destruction™ there.
Oh and there might be some oil under the ground in that area as well but that's just a coincidence obviously.
Oh and there might be some oil under the ground in that area as well but that's just a coincidence obviously.
You of course are able to tell us this based on your attendance of the relevant briefings between the security services, government and various other parties.
My own opinion is that they would, given that the people on board are all sitting in a terrorist guided suicide missile. It would be about a desperate attempt to minimise casualties in a stadium holding 10's of thousands of people.
But, that is just my opinion, and is based on nothing more than than yours.
Also, it probably is unwise to fixate on the hijacked airliner scenario. Perhaps, the easier route in the post 9/11 world is to buy, steal, or otherwise obtain light aircraft from small general aviation airfields. Shooting those down with a minimal amount of damage on the ground would certainly be within the capabilites of the systems under discussion.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 2,951
The whole thing about these surface to air sites is a load of rubbish to be seen like we are going all out on defence, where as IMO they are a discrete way putting people's mind at ease.
If they actually thought that there could be a serious threat from the air I'm sure they would just park a Type 45 in the Thames and a few extra radar sites around London.
If they actually thought that there could be a serious threat from the air I'm sure they would just park a Type 45 in the Thames and a few extra radar sites around London.
Are you stuck in a time warp?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Something tells me they will have armed guards to stop people getting on to the roof, and its not like we have to worry about people stealing planes and flying them into SAM batteries
So? It's easy to get weapons in the UK to take them out, knowing how much our country sucks, there be too few guards and what not for them to be easy overcome.
There is also the fact some of these Reapier sites are on grass fields with only barb wire fencing to protect them so it's easy to drive a suicide car/truck through them and into the SAM.
??
that post made no sense dude.If you really had trouble understanding what I wrote ill try and simplify it, a rapier system does not need the target to be close enough to see, it can use its radar to target it long before that.
It was and it is the point I made.
Lets recap the whole argument: Some guy reckoned that the range was so short on the missiles they would be pretty pointless at stopping an aircraft and the wreck would probably hit the target anyway; Firestar_3x pointed out they have more than a 30cm range; you told him the range was much shorter than he would expect and they need to be able to see the target; I pointed out they can use radar to target it before it comes in visual range and later backed it up with links to the army's website; you started resorting to insults.
The is nothing bad about being wrong but there's no need to be childish about it.
From air attack? Very little it's just simply not going to happen the olympic stadium/park just isn't the right target. If the terrorists learnt one thing from 9/11 it was that tower blocks make much better targets.
Wrong. It was pointed out that the effective range of the missiles is too short, and the aircraft (should one get shot down) would land in London. Not "hit the target." Having even a small aircraft come crashing down in London would be catastrophic.
The Rapier Missile system has a maximum operating range of 8.2km. That means it doesn't even cover the borders of London.
This will ultimately mean that should there be a threatening aircraft, it will be a lot closer than you think before they (the Rapier missiles) can shoot it down, and it will have a catastrophic effect.
It is also limited to line of sight. There must be a clear line between the rapier "base unit" and the target, and the missile throughout the entire flight of the missile for it to be used. You've been mistakenly believing the Rapier system is capable of long-range AA, also known as "beyond sight" AA. I've pointed out to you a number of times that this is false, with facts to back it up - to which you've gone and had a quick Google, found something that looks like a counter argument (such as the "BlindFire" system) and posted in this thread without actually reading/understanding what it is you are posting. You have been wrong, every time. Now you are trying to claim the topic of the discussion is not what it was to weasel out of it.
You, ubersonic, are wrong.
Last edited:
If the terrorists know one thing its high value symbolic targets and/or mass casualty events that suit their aims the best. They hit the WTC, Madrid trains, London transport system and the Pentagon for those reasons. Only one of those being a tower block obviously, twin tower pendantry aside.
I'd say that the Olympic games opening ceremony fits those two categories rather well. Some anonymous 1960's London tower block, not so much.
I understand the Rapiers are being deployed in a number of locations, some inside the M25 and some outside it. Your argument rather seems to assume we only have one.
I also understand that the Starstreak systems are being deployed within London proper as another layer of defence. I should imaging there are others, such as the already known Typhoon fighter aircraft. I imagine the approach is to create multiple layers.
*edit** Oh i see you are engaging in some pendantry about specific capability, carry on, i've nothing to add.
Last edited:
terrorists are very sophisticated, well trained and well funded, just look at the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber.
If the shoe bomber had stamped his foot it would have blown up.
No, My argument assumes there are multiple, and that London is actually rather large. Looking on the map (yes, I did check before arguing it!) any of the known positions, such as Bow, are ~10km from the border of London. 
Starstreak systems are not the topic of the argument, only the Rapiers are.
edit: But Starstreak also has the same limitation as Rapiers - they require Line of Sight targeting
Starstreak systems are not the topic of the argument, only the Rapiers are.
edit: But Starstreak also has the same limitation as Rapiers - they require Line of Sight targeting
Last edited:
the rapiers should be aimed at canary wharf
The Shard just opened, too
didn't you know its thunderbirds new base