On Olympic security, can anyone explain why surface to air missiles on flats round the Olympic park are actually needed?

I would have thought that any air threat, real, perceived or whatever, would be dealt with before it gets within coo-ee of London. If any plane changes course without air traffic control authority, or fails to respond, the RAF will be scrambled, surely?

Is anyone giving odds on Parliament being recalled during the Summer recess?

What about London City airport? Too close to be intercepted by planes.

So Theresa May has once again been proved to neither have a clue what she is on about and that she isn't fit for purpose.

Newsnight made me laugh last night.
Quote of the day (paraphrase but near enough) 'We telephoned G4S and the goverment, No one was available......We then asked if there was a soldier we could speak too and they hung up'

Its probably still on iPlayer or C4OD (can't remember which) but I watched a documentary last week about the American Air Defence tapes for 9/11 which have just been released into the public domain.

Basically, despite being on high alert that day because they were running an East Coast training exercise in case of invasion by Russian bombers, they were unable to get any Air Force jets in the air before each of the four AA aircraft had destroyed themselves into public buildings - and the only time they came close was when they identified jet number three heading for the Pentagon and scrambled two F14's from a base not really very close to Washington at all which then proceeded to head 60 miles out to sea as thats what their procedures said they had to do in such an event (assuming they were being attacked by a conventional enemy approaching with bombers).

The ground control staff, who had to keep asking if this was the exercise or "real world" had to just sit there and wait for Fox News to tell them where the next attack had been.

Think about the speeds involved. A B737 cruises up to 485mph, A B747 up to 570mph. The restricted areas have a radius of roughly 30 miles, with Stratford at the centre. That means an aircraft could, in theory, reach Stratford in around 4 minutes. In that time an threat has to be identified, that information needs to be communicated up the chain of command and a decision made (presumably at the very top), then that order needs to be passed back.

The RAF will presumably have 24-hour patrols, however 4 minutes is an incredibly short time to respond to the threat, go through the chain of command and position a fighter where it can target the aircraft. Missiles have the range to cover the restricted area and travel at up to Mach 3.5 - they're designed to intercept fighters, so a relatively slow moving passenger airliner is well within their capabilities.

As abhorrent as the thought is, if a hijacked aircraft is heading towards to Olympic area, it's better to destroy it in the air than allow it to crash, possibly into a packed stadium. Airliners are (obviously) mostly hollow and made of light materials wherever possible, so with the exception of some heavy machinery in the engines, landing gear, wheels and some others, ground damage should be limited.

[url=http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/media/9639/airspace_guide_june_26.pdfThis pdf[/url gives a good idea of the massive detail and restrictions involved in securing the airspace across much of the South-East.

The whole scenario is extremely unlikely, but better to have air-to-air missiles and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

I'm sure that Mintball's fears of a 747 falling in flaming pieces onto her house will be soothed by the idea that they will only be light pieces and that damage should be limited to a mere rattle on her roof tiles.



It is an abhorrent thought but an aircraft heading for a relatively open site like the Olympic Park, and presumably they'll be heading for a stadium and not the accomodation blocks (unless they can pick out which rooms the Isreali's have), might actually cause less damage than bringing it down in a thousand flaming pieces all over Central London ?

It really isn't.

First, the authorities are highly unlikely to know a plane has been hijacked. They may only know it is off course, and not responding to radio. If it's course is towards the general area of the Olympic village, are you seriously saying that that is enough to justify shooting it out of the sky?

Of course, the nearer the plane gets to the Olympic village, the more fears would mount but once it became pretty certain that's where it was heading, then the plane would be over heavily populated areas and if shot down would not cause light damage, but carnage.

So you shoot it down anyway. How do you justify that? You received no threat; you had no comms from the plane; you cannot even adduce any positive evidence that it had been hijacked. You have no certainty that you even saved any lives, by sacrificing the hundreds or thousands you chose to certainly kill.

What if then some terrorist organisation publishes a statement that they only intended to overfly the Stadium, to make a point, and had no intention of crashing it?

What if, even if terrorists had announced that the packed Olympic Stadium was the target; but then afterwards said we only did this to prove that your government would sacrifice its own citizens to protect commercial interests.

No, whatever the circumstances, it is in no way "better" to shoot a 747 out of the sky on the off chance that this may lead to a smaller number of overall casualties. It would never be done.


I'd agree with that, but don't see what the addition of ground-to-air missiles (which is what I thought we were discussing) adds, unless to cater for some outlandish risk that all our fighter jets might be incapacitated somehow, which does seem absurd.

One would assume any (intelligent) hijackers would time their attack for when the stadium is in use. Not hard to do - buy tickets for a flight coming in on the evening of Sunday 5th August, for example.

Ground damage would be limited - that is, severe in small areas but certainly not widespread. An aircraft simply isn't big enough to cause massive widespread damage. Look at AA 587 which crashed in Queens - the entire aircraft caused damage only over a very small area. If the aircraft disintegrated damage would be more widespread but unless every piece landed on someone, casualties wouldn't be heavy. There are a lot of rooftops and open spaces before seats start landing on people's heads.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bacle.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bacle.html

OK you have convinced me. Any passenger jet straying in that direction needs to be shot down, just in case.

What convinced me was the realisation that if this shoot-to-kill policy is adopted, then you wouldn't even need to clear the stadium, the events inside could continue uninterrupted and speccies leaving the stadium may never even come across the carnage, apart from maybe noticing some smoke in the distance.

Good plan.

Why are we assuming that the stadium would be the target for any terrorism attack? There are plenty of other viable targets that would carry equally, if not more weight, should they be attacked e.g. Parliament. In fact, if we have a whip round maybe we can influence their choices...

I think that's the danger. Security over-concentrated on The Olympic site with other prime targets more vulnerable.

You're assuming a 'shoot-first, ask later' policy is in place. It isn't. I'm talking about circumstances where a hijack has been positively identified whether via communication or interception and that aircraft is heading towards the Olympic Park.

If an aircraft is screaming across restricted airspace into London at 500mph, flying erratically and not responding to communication, there's fair chance of a threat. If it enters restricted airspace at normal speeds but deviates from course slightly and isn't communicating clearly then there's scope for an intercept and a visual check. Aircraft lose radio contact from time to time and I can guarantee you it's taken incredibly seriously every time, Olympics or no Olympics.

This [url=http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/media/7037/asi_intercept_leaflet_v5_lr.pdfIntercept Advice[/url explains in layman's terms the procedures should an aircraft lose radio contact or enter restricted airspace and no threat is immediately apparent:


You have a lot of 'what ifs' listed there. The authorities are not going sit back and say "that hijacked aircraft is fine, they said they'd just fly over to make a statement". You cannot be certain of their intentions but you aren't going to take chances. If someone presents such a threat they have to be taken seriously. Those are the hard decisions that have to be made and a 'wait and see' policy would be absurd. Put simply, it comes down to a numbers game and 60,000 in the stadium and possibly hundreds of thousands packed into the Olympic area take priority.

If, god forbid, we end up with a hijacked 747 over London there's no easy answer, but the restrictions are in place, every aviation company is aware of them and any breach of those restrictions will be treated seriously. Of course, an attack could happen at any time but clearly London is such high profile for the next few weeks it's an alluring target and measures have to be taken accordingly.

Again, an airliner crashing into populated areas would cause damage and casualties, yes, but not the massively widespread carnage you envisage. It's a machine, not a thermonuclear device. Even El Al 1862 which crashed into an apartment block in Amsterdam only resulted in 51 deaths and limited damage, and this is what AA587 did to Queens with damage contained to a very small area. However, superimpose that damage over a heavily crowded area or a packed stadium and the results are very different.




Given the relatively small restricted area, high speeds at play, and the very short reaction time, it's a last-ditch option.

I remember reading an article in The Observer shortly after that happened. The concensus was that if something similar happened on the approach to Heathrow, the death toll would increase exponentially

The wind. The wind direction dictates that planes landing at Heathrow usually have to approach either from the east or west - which in practical terms means that most flights from Europe fly over central London. With so many planes flying so close to the Olympic stadium there wouldn't be time to scramble an egg let alone the RAF if one suddenly veered off it's flight path.
Having said that, I'm not sure how firing more explosive into the air in central London is going to limit the loss of life when the wreckage crashes into the ground.

All good points made in response to my original query. Ta everyone. Good job I'm not in charge eh?

So, have I got this right:

The informed opinion is that the Olympics pose an increased security risk, and there has to be a layered response to any actual, or perceived threat. Where ever it comes from, be it a highjacked aircraft, or the traditional swarthy chap with a big rucksack riding around on London's Transport system. The pros and cons of any escalating response will have been war gamed many times, the collateral damage estimated,and the political briefings already written. Sounds sensible to me, although it is quietly understood that most of the advantages lie with the bombers. As one Irish terrorist opined 30 years ago....."yous have to be lucky all the time, we have to be lucky once"

That still holds true today


And on the other hand, what alternatives are being offered? Well, we have to give credit to IA for an excellent impression from Dads Army of Corporal Jones doing his famous headless chicken routine......"Don't panic....don't panic!"

I'm not convinced IA.

Perhaps someone could propose an alternative response, that offer something a tad more substantial in the defence of Mintballs et al?

It's one of the many reasons Heathrow is useless - it's in the wrong place because of prevailing wind direction - planes don't like cross wind when taking off or landing. There was a patch after 9/11 when all planes were diverted around London and had to approach Heathrow from the east. It was a nightmare.

Has that happened regularly, then?

Its a pity we have to put measure such as Ground to air missles on top of flats or fully armed Typhoon Fighters up over the capital, but it is far better that then wishing we had them after an incident. Hopefully they will not be needed and if they do need to take action against any aircraft they will have seconds to act and I suspect the decision has already been passed to the military to act if required.

I pose the question,

9/11 If US knew those planes where going to or thought they might have caused the death and destruction they did would they have shot them down ?

I think they would and think we would

I wonder how a Typhoon would square up against a small light aircrfat with no jet pipe, travelling slowly.

Not a declared Tory but very close to acting like one: [url=http://www.securityoracle.com/news/G4S-Appoints-John-Reid-As-Group-Consultant_14833.htmlEx Home Secretary Lord Reid appointed as Group Consultant to G4S[/url

The problem in 2001 is that the US authorities didn't know where the four jets were until they turned up on CNN / Fox News and given that the world had no other experience of hijacking other than that they always ended with a safe landing at an airport and then prolonged negotiations, sometimes successful, sometimes not, then I doubt that anyone would have given the order to shoot the flights down unless there was a definite proclamation that they were on a suicide mission.

Here's what will happen.

NOTHING.

A few un-named people will be arrested, then quietly released. Sky news will be getting carried away with non-existant terrorism stories.

David Cameron will tell the world that we're winning the war on terror.