Surface-to-air missiles for the Olympics

Dj_Jestar said:
The Rapier Missile system has a maximum operating range of 8.2km. That means it doesn't even cover the borders of London.
Click to expand...

Well at least your getting the range correct now, but I very much doubt they will only use one of them.


Dj_Jestar said:
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.
Click to expand...

As above, more than one.


Dj_Jestar said:
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.
Click to expand...

No I have correctly been string the above, and that it does not need its target in visual range to target or shoot it.


Dj_Jestar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Im going to say this one last time, I have never mentioned the rapiers "BlindFire" system, you brought that up. I spoke about its "blind fire" capability. blind fire is a term used to describe firing at something you cannot visually see (ideally via the use of radar or other tracking abilities). I had never heard of "BlindFire" when I made that comment.


Dj_Jestar said:
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.
Click to expand...

So your trying to say you weren't wrong you just misunderstood what the conversation was about? lol.

Edit:

You know I don't even care any more, way to trash out an interesting thread :( /unsubscribe
 
Last edited:
8.6km is the maximum range of the missile. Operational range of the entire unit is 6.8km.

From wikipedia:
Operational
range 400 - 6,800 m
Click to expand...

What now? Are you going to use the old "Wikipedia is always wrong" argument?

Never have I said they will only use one of them. Sorry, that straw just doesn't exist so no point clutching to it.
 
Stolly said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was more hinting at the impact and effectivness, if your going to fly a plane into it 9/11 clearly demonstrates that tall buildings are a much more effective target and the lack of.

The transport system bombings are hardly comparable as they didn't use planes so some SAM's will not help.

Dj_Jestar said:
The Shard just opened, too :p
Click to expand...

Which has bog all to do with the olympics unless you think we should permanently place missile deffences in and around London 'just in case'!
 
Looks like the whining residents lost their case :D

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking
Residents lose case to stop missiles "necessary for national security" being placed on UK tower block for #London2012
 
He added that the MoD's voluntary engagement with the community over the plans was "immaculate" and the residents who challenged the missile sites had misunderstood the facts.
Click to expand...

So much like the general publics understanding on the risks associated with nuclear power and likelihood of an accident.

I wouldn't ask my butcher for car maintenance advice, so why should those in power consult with a bunch of uninformed people and ask them about a subject they will never understand.
 
a1ex2001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That Destoryer has better Anti-Air defences then everything else they could ever put in London.

To be honest, the Destoryer by itself is defence enough from Air attack, everything else is just a backup.
 
IronWarrior said:
That Destoryer has better Anti-Air defences then everything else they could ever put in London.

To be honest, the Destoryer by itself is defence enough from Air attack, everything else is just a backup.
Click to expand...

It's called redundancy. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
 
this is partly like the 'tanks at Heathrow' shenanigans a while back - whilst there might be some utility to be gained from these things they also act as a great deterrent/show of force

anyone planning on hijacking an aircraft is going to be left in no doubt that they have close to zero chance of getting anywhere near the Olympic site

SF pilots borrowing little bird helicopters from the yanks etc.. ought to mean only the stupidest of terrorists would decide to launch a Mumbai style attack given that we can land special forces on pretty much any street in London within minutes.

Marines on HMS Ocean too - would be a very silly terrorist that decided to try anything...
 
Looks like I was totally mistaken, it's not a Destroyer that is going to be in the Thames at all! Ha! It's the largest ship in the fleet!
 
Adam said:
Looks like the whining residents lost their case :D

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking
Residents lose case to stop missiles "necessary for national security" being placed on UK tower block for #London2012
Click to expand...

Why do you describe them as 'whining'? You know there's probably families in there with young kids.

I sure as hell wouldn't want an operational missile battery anywhere near where I live.

It's easy to dump on those who might be effected when it has nothing to do with you I suppose.

But well done anyway.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Marines on HMS Ocean too - would be a very silly terrorist that decided to try anything...
Click to expand...

You almost sound complacent. I travel to London every day, and it's strange how hinged on airplane attacks and Mumbai style shootings people have become.

I just look at how busy the underground is at the moment, and it's going to get worse in the next few months. People from all over the world walk in and out of those stations carrying bags of all descriptions, and are never challenged.

Now of course it would be totally impractical to expect airport type security in tube stations, but as a consequence it makes for a relatively easy target.

Going back to the post I quoted, don't forget these people aren't expecting to come out alive. By the time any forces have the opportunity to react, it might all be over.

The missiles are a stupid idea. Will they actually deter an attack or will any potential attacker chance it? Think back to 9/11. It's reasonable to think the terrorists might have assessed the success rate of their attack, and may even have considered success to be a low probability due to likely interception. They still went ahead with it though.

Personally I think it's down to Inteligence. Prevention is the only way a disaster can be avoided - if there's even anyone out there plotting anything.
 
The money for these sam installations could no doubt be used to provide more tangible benefits elsewhere, security or otherwise, rather than catering to hypothetical scenarios.
 
Domo said:
The missiles are a stupid idea. Will they actually deter an attack or will any potential attacker chance it? Think back to 9/11. It's reasonable to think the terrorists might have assessed the success rate of their attack, and may even have considered success to be a low probability due to likely interception. They still went ahead with it though.
Click to expand...

Obvious security flaws on internal flights, authorities not envisaging a hijacked plane to be used in a big kamikaze style attack... pre-911 this sort of thing ended with the plane landing somewhere and the hijackers making some demands - the idea that the plane would crash into a building wasn't really on the table as far as the authorities were concerned.

The same security flaws don't apply - you can't walk onto an international flight with box cutters... authorities won't be letting a hijacked plane anywhere near the games...
 
Energize said:
The money for these sam installations could no doubt be used to provide more tangible benefits elsewhere, security or otherwise, rather than catering to hypothetical scenarios.
Click to expand...

Quite, exactly the same argument that would have us focus on defences against Nuclear weapons instead of deterrence.

Of course morons never see it, there will eventually come a time when a third party gets their hands on the weapons, then the deterrence becomes useless, simple as that.
 
god so many idiotic and stupid people talking about stuff they dont have a clue about yet again in the media and elsewhere.

do people really think we are the first country to have the idea post 9/11 to setup sam batterys around major events ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom