Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
London 2012: Missile tenants lose legal ruling 
Author Message
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
Quote:
London 2012: Missile tenants lose legal ruling

Residents have lost their High Court battle to prevent surface-to-air missiles being stationed on the roof of their tower block during the Olympics.

They had said having them on Fred Wigg Tower in Leytonstone, east London, would make them a terrorist target.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has said the missile deployment is legitimate and proportionate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18778723

This really sticks in my craw.

You want your mad "war on terror"? Fine. You want to deploy military assets? Fine. But for pity sake leave civilians out of it, they didn't ask for it, some of them clearly don't want it and commandeering civilian buildings in this manner is morally and ethically questionable, especially since we're not even in a state of war. I don't see why civilians are suddenly fair game for the MoD and frankly I don't like the implications.

I'm fairly certain we didn't spend (waste?) £37 billion on the Eurofighter Typhoon just to "defend" London's airspace with SAM sites. Just what is the Royal Air Force for, exactly, if not exactly this situation?

Quite frankly if David Cameron authorises the shooting down of a plane over one of the most densely populated cities in the European Union then he belongs in Broadmoor, not Downing Street.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:29 am
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:38 am
Posts: 2967
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Reply with quote
I must say, I tend to agree. We're not at war. Unless we are, in which case, someone ought to let us know.

_________________
I've finally invented something that works!

A Mac User.


Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:42 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
tombolt wrote:
I must say, I tend to agree. We're not at war. Unless we are, in which case, someone ought to let us know.

I’d think it hard to justify the current state of affairs as a “war” - as observed many times, what if some maniac decides to aim a 747 at the Olympic site? What’s a SAM going to do? Nudge it away? If they decide to shoot it down, that burning debris has to go somewhere.

Other Olympic games have been similarly protected - but we’ve never been privy to the protestations of those near the rocket sites - possibly because in China they just did it and told anyone who didn’t like it to STFU. They certainly would not have allowed any media coverage of it.

The IOC has demanded certain kinds of legislation to ensure the sanctity of sponsors in Olympic sites. I am wondering if they will start to demand legislation to tone down or even silence media coverage of other matters, such as the security arrangements surrounding the games.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:07 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
paulzolo wrote:
The IOC has demanded certain kinds of legislation to ensure the sanctity of sponsors in Olympic sites. I am wondering if they will start to demand legislation to tone down or even silence media coverage of other matters, such as the security arrangements surrounding the games.

Probably wouldn't have to. It's entirely possible for the UK Gov to classify such things as 'national security issues' and slap a DA notice on them if they felt like it. In this case you've got a group of people actively protesting (and taking the government to court) so there's no way they could keep it quiet.

jon


Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:23 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
To be honest I'm with the government on this. Not that I think missiles are a good idea, but it's a pubicly owned building (ie government owned) and I find the 'human rights' argument stupid. People try and claim human rights for every little thing these days.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:41 am
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:14 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Scotland
Reply with quote
with all the referances in films etc the threat will be underneath the stadium not in the air :(

_________________
Image


Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
what, moles? Trip up the hundred metre runners, that kind of thing?


Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:17 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:14 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Scotland
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
what, moles? Trip up the hundred metre runners, that kind of thing?


are you quite illegal? you are partially right as the place apparently will be highly "molested" :x

_________________
Image


Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:36 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:06 pm
Posts: 6355
Location: IoW
Reply with quote
More likely a Transit Van chock full of Ammonium Nitrate and Diesel.

TBH, I don't mind the placement of the missiles - it's hardly going to make any of those buildings a target, is it?

_________________
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!


Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:40 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
Spreadie wrote:
More likely a Transit Van chock full of Ammonium Nitrate and Diesel.

TBH, I don't mind the placement of the missiles - it's hardly going to make any of those buildings a target, is it?

Agreed. Some nutter with a nail bomb backpack just before a security check our in a railway station.

On a lighter note. That could be a cheap way of knocking down that horrible sixties tower at no cost to the tax payer if it does become a target ;)

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:36 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
Spreadie wrote:
More likely a Transit Van chock full of Ammonium Nitrate and Diesel.

TBH, I don't mind the placement of the missiles - it's hardly going to make any of those buildings a target, is it?

For me it's not about them being a target, it's about the principle of the military commandeering civilian buildings for military purposes - all at a time when we're not even in a state of war.

I could understand if it was necessary to counter a ground threat - say sniper cover, because there is not necessarily a military alternative available. But in this case we have the Royal Air Force.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:05 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
Linux_User wrote:
I could understand if it was necessary to counter a ground threat - say sniper cover, because there is not necessarily a military alternative available. But in this case we have the Royal Air Force.

The RAF wouldn't be any use in such an incident.

Firstly there's the question of how one is supposed to detect a rogue aircraft. Usually the only way tell if a large plane is definitely flying towards an obstacle is when it gets within a couple of miles - it's not like one like you can just look at a plane and tell. A plane going off course, while not routine, is not exactly uncommon either. The only way to tell would be to have a large (between 20 - 30 miles) exclusion zone around the venues However, in order to do that we'd have to shut down Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City Airports for the duration of the games. Not going to happen.

But let's be charitable. Let's assume that instead of diving into a strafing run before entry into the main Heathrow landing stack, the pilot heads straight towards the venue with 30 miles to spare. Let's further assume that we have a means of figuring out that a plane is rogue. By the time an aircraft is known to be rogue and needs to be shot down, it could be 30 miles out over the Thames estuary flying at 500mph towards central London, a flight time of under 3.6 minutes.

Meanwhile the nearest Typhoon is at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, 111 miles away. Even at maximum supercruise speed - 1550mph - that's a flight time of 4.3 minutes, which doesn't include the several minutes it takes to scramble an aircraft.

So let's just move the Typhoon to Heathrow. That's just not possible. The amount of kit, staff, fuel and spare parts required to keep just one fast jet in the air is colossal. Even the Quick Reaction Alert bases can only support a small number of Typhoons. And besides, it still takes several minutes to scramble an aircraft.

So let's have a Typhoon in the air at all times. Which venue of the 40 does it hold station over? There are Olympic venues in Dorset, Cardiff and Glasgow - do they get a patrol each? So you can't have just one aircraft in the air at any one time; I reckon you'd need at least 12 air patrols at all times just to provide coverage. But you can't fly a plane 24 hours a day and, in case of aircraft failure, you can't provide just one aircraft per patrol. A Typhoon can only provide about 3 hours on station and nobody would allow air-to-air refuelling over populated areas so you'd need to swap them out. So that's one in the air, one being readied, one coming back and one being serviced. That's eight aircraft per patrol area or 72 aircraft in total - from a fleet total of 86. If you factor in that after even just a few days' patrol, a Typhoon will require an extended downtime, you'll probably want a ninth spare for every patrol area. That makes 84 in total - leaving just 2 to cover non-Olympic threats like incursion by unidentified aircraft.

And that's not to mention the cost. 84 combat aircraft on constant patrol for 17 days? Fuel, parts, man-power, ancillary staff and support? The money required would be eye-watering.

And then assuming that we can both detect the aircraft in time and get a pair of Typhoons to it in time, there's the thorny issue of what exactly they're supposed to do. Once the threat is over a populated area you're no better off than if you'd used SAMs anyway.

So no, I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist about the RAF tbh.

_________________
Jim

Image


Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:34 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
Uhm... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138488/Typhoon-fighter-planes-stationed-RAF-Northolt-Olympics-military-build-up.html

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:44 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote

That article exactly proves my point.

That's 4 aircraft to provide 24-hour standby cover which means that either there'll be a single aircraft on patrol or they'll wait for a threat and scramble.

Even assuming the former, a 737 straying into the "restricted zone" at cruising speed will be 3.6 minutes flight time from the stadium. That's less than 4 minutes to fly to the correct area, find the rogue aircraft, attempt to make contact, check whatever the possible terrorists tell the pilot, communicate with commanders, have those commanders communicate with Cameron, have Cameron to decide to shoot down the area, have that order relayed to the pilot and then have him shoot it down.

It's laughable.

_________________
Jim

Image


Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:05 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
There's a handy guide for pilots detailing what the protocol is http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/media/7037/asi_intercept_leaflet_v5_lr.pdf.
Website here: http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/

I suspect they don't need to wait for Cameron's approval to start shooting, depending on orders given to the flight.

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:30 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.