Re: Missles and airliners (was Terrorist...)

[Shawn Mulock <salamndr@xxxxxxxx>]

Eric Benson wrote:

> Benjamin wrote:
> >It was not disitigrated on impact from the missile......i din;t say
> >that the airliner would not come down from a missile attack, but shooting
> >down a 757 over new york or any other city will simply change where the
> >hundres of thousands of tons of jet crash down.
>
> Yes and no.  Gravity dominates, what goes up must come down - somewhere.
> Breaking the plane up reduces the size of the pieces, hopefully to the point
> where no one piece has the energy required to generate a structural failure.
>   Part of the problem with the WTC is the collateral damage that the
> building collapse caused.  Just an engine, for example, would have been
> unlikely to cause the entire building do collapse.
>
> Aside... if the missles today aren't capable of taking down a civilian
> airliner, what were we planning on using on the horde of Soviet bombers
> coming over the top during the cold war?

Let us also remember that missiles rely on something else for the kill. The
stress placed on an unbalanced airframe from the explosion, which, if it targets
a hot engine or centre of radar aspect, will often (On contemporary airliners)
result in a rupture of the tanks/frame located nearby, which will also cause a
fire and perhaps flash/explosive decompression. If you take a look at the wing
leading edge cross section, you will see it is pretty bloody thick. fill it full
of holes at the back, set it on fire and let the stresses do their work. Even if
all it did was to kill an engine, the pilot would have to be switched on to
stabilize it in time to make the target... of course I have NEVER heard of an
interceptor flight flying with only one live missile... or in size of less than
two aircraft. Then we add in AMRAAMs, which are radar guided... Centre of aspect
kind of stuff... I don't even know where to start with that...

As for the Soviet (at the time) interceptor flight, they followed that 747 down
and watched it smash into the water.

An instant/quick kill would require a lot more explosive than you would want to
pack into an air to air missile. The missiles we have been making since the
beginning of the technology for the purpose of shooting down aircraft are
designed to cripple, not disintegrate it in one horrific explosion. It is out of
the fight, that is all that counts.

Having said that... I believe if they would have had a chance to take those
aircraft down, they would have. It is cruel to say, but... If I had to choose
between a hamlet of 400 and a building of 25,000, I would sacrifice the hamlet
each time. I just thank my stars I never had to make a decision like that... but
if I had to, I would put that bloody 767/757 on or near the hamlet every time.

erm.... useful knowledge for a ME scenario.... yeah, that's the ticket...

S.