F-16s Intercept Pilot, 75, in Restricted Airspace

[GuppyShark]

The thing probably wouldn't fly with a few hundred pounts of bricks on board.

[Broomstick]

Oh, it could lift a couple hundred pounds of bricks alright - but you'll have to stack them in the passenger seat and keep them there - if the pile topples over it could change the balance of the airplane sufficiently that it will become controllable and crash short of the target. You can't just randomly stuff crap into an airplane like that and be able to fly it.

Really, any argument against a J-3 Cub being used as a "bomber" applies even more so to a typical car which could, for instance, be used to ram a crowd, stuffed with explosives, and so forth. Again, Cubs aren't practical for mayhem. There are some many much more effective things you could use.

I'm getting rather tired of the OMG!AIRPLANES=DEATH meme.

[HMS Sophia]

How long does it take from detection to interception by fast jets?

(I nearly asked whether an F-16 could shoot down one of these... but then I remembered the comment about jet wash)

[Broomstick]

How long does it take from detection to interception by fast jets?

The general rule of thumb is 15 minutes to "scramble" a jet once you know you need it, plus however long it take the jet to get to the interception point, which isn't that much given the speeds involved. Call it 20-30 minutes.

If jets are already in the air the time goes down significantly, say down to 5-10 minutes, maybe even less.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Err, military planes don't have radio compatible w/ civillian radios?! :banghead: What the hack is the FAA/Pentagon thinking?! How hard would it be for the Air Force to request radio manufactures to make radios that are civ compatible?

I wondered about that myself, actually. Shouldn't the ability to monitor and broadcast on the International Distress Frequency be a fairly basic requirement for any interceptor aircraft?

And in fairness to the Secret Service, a J-3 or similar light aircraft might not be much use for ramming, but there's nothing to stop a terrorist using one as a bomber. They wouldn't even need to go to the trouble of cooking up an IED, a couple of hundred pounds of bricks would do the job.

They'd also have to cough up . . . like $45K to $50K to acquire one in working condition. I think the cheapest I've seen one go for is $28K. Mind you, that is dirt-cheap compared to something newer in the same size (which can go for $70K to $100K.) Even a two-seat ultralight goes for $10,000. All of this doesn't include the potential cost of training the would-be suicide bomber how to fly the damn thing.

An all-up aircraft is a terrible platform to make an improvised kamikaze bomb from. This is why terrorists usually build car bombs, instead of light airplane bombs.

[eion]

Perhaps the Secret Service should start bringing a BlackHawk with them on road trips equipped with a pair of giant LED boards on the sides to use in air intercepts so they can fly in front of 90 year old Canadian Bacon heiresses flying small airplanes without radios to flash a helpful message, something like, "HEY, NICE PLANE. WOULD YOU MIND LANDING IT NOW BEFORE WE HAVE TO SHOOT YOU DOWN? TY, SS."

[Broomstick]

Believe it or not, there was a serious proposal to equip a military helicopter in just such a manner post 9/11. Not sure why it was never implemented....

[Sea Skimmer]

Because they decided to use a blinding laser system from the ground as the last ditch warning before firing a Stinger, or in the DC area we have a couple NASAMS batteries as well. Helicopters are awful slow to use for an air intercept, even against a 90mph plane.

[Broomstick]

True, but there are a surprisingly large number of aircraft that aren't 90 mph, they're 50-80 mph. The never-exceed speed on a Cub is only 87 mph. That speed range is definitely in the helicopter speed range but way below the stalling speed of something like an F-16. Using a helicopter for those low-speed intercepts is actually much safer for everyone involved. Those small, slow planes are also more likely to be without a radio than larger, faster ones.

[eion]

If one used something similar to a pave hawk with it's mid air refueling capability it would also allow for longer loitering in the restricted area to be deployed as needed.

I think the bigger issue with using helicopters isn't they speed (A black hawk can cruise at 170mph) but rather their limited range. A tilt-rotor would probably give the best of both worlds, but would also be more expensive than either of course.

[Sea Skimmer]

True, but there are a surprisingly large number of aircraft that aren't 90 mph, they're 50-80 mph. The never-exceed speed on a Cub is only 87 mph. That speed range is definitely in the helicopter speed range but way below the stalling speed of something like an F-16. Using a helicopter for those low-speed intercepts is actually much safer for everyone involved. Those small, slow planes are also more likely to be without a radio than larger, faster ones.

They do use helicopters for very low speed intercepts; just not with any special features and only in certain areas like Camp David when they almost always have aircraft in the air anyway when the president is present. Safety isn't the priority, reaction time is otherwise. Also no US helicopters are currently equipped with air to air missiles creating a non trivial problem of what to do if the aircraft is in fact a threat.

If one used something similar to a pave hawk with it's mid air refueling capability it would also allow for longer loitering in the restricted area to be deployed as needed.

In-flight refueling costs about 1400% as much as refueling on the ground; not happening for something like this. It only makes sense when landing to refuel is simply physically not possible such as over water or on long range combat missions. The US has about three or four times as many in-flight refueling tankers as the rest of the world put together for this reason, its just ridiculously expensive.

[ChaserGrey]

Er, ComradeClaus? If you read the article, it says that she didn't have her radio turned on.

Military/civil radio compatibility is an issue, but if worse comes to worse every military aircraft can transmit on GUARD (the international emergency frequency), which every aviation radio can receive and which usually overrides any other channel. Doesn't do much good if the radio is off, though. Even then there's a standard set of hand and aircraft signals that can be used to communicate in no-radio situations, and private pilots are supposed to know them.

What really worries me is that temporary flight restrictions should have been part of a standard weather brief for the area. The fact that she didn't know about them may indicate that she didn't brief weather before her flight, and that's a pretty basic item of prep. Especially if you're flying something like a J-3, which has only basic instruments and can really only operate under visual flight rules- squalls can come in pretty suddenly off the Great Lakes in that area, and if that Cub got caught in one she could be in serious trouble. If I were the FAA inspector running the case I'd be asking some hard questions about that, possibly requiring some retraining on preflight, and definitely requiring retraining on intercept procedures.

[eion]

Also no US helicopters are currently equipped with air to air missiles creating a non trivial problem of what to do if the aircraft is in fact a threat.

Would not the M134 Minigun or GAU-19 gatling gun not be useful in such a rare instance? There is of course the threat of collateral damage, but not much more so than a pile of burning wreckage falling out of the sky anyway. Also if wikipedia is to be believed the AH-6 (A drone version of the MH-6) can be armed with Stinger missles. Presumably the MH-6 could be likewise armed with perhaps a little modification.

If one used something similar to a pave hawk with it's mid air refueling capability it would also allow for longer loitering in the restricted area to be deployed as needed.

In-flight refueling costs about 1400% as much as refueling on the ground...

Noted and withdrawn. The SS will just have to buy a few extra helicopters.

[Broomstick]

True, but there are a surprisingly large number of aircraft that aren't 90 mph, they're 50-80 mph. The never-exceed speed on a Cub is only 87 mph. That speed range is definitely in the helicopter speed range but way below the stalling speed of something like an F-16. Using a helicopter for those low-speed intercepts is actually much safer for everyone involved. Those small, slow planes are also more likely to be without a radio than larger, faster ones.

They do use helicopters for very low speed intercepts; just not with any special features and only in certain areas like Camp David when they almost always have aircraft in the air anyway when the president is present. Safety isn't the priority, reaction time is otherwise. Also no US helicopters are currently equipped with air to air missiles creating a non trivial problem of what to do if the aircraft is in fact a threat.

Er... just how fast and far do you think a J-3 Cub can go? A black hawk, as already mentioned, can literally fly circles around a Cub. Nor do you need an air-to-air missile to take one down, or an ultralight, or sportplane. You're talking about something essentially sticks of wood covered with the same fabric they make windbreakers from and a little paint slapped over it. The floor is reinforced because if it wasn't you'd punch a hole in the floor just stepping into it. Have someone hover off a wing of a Cub and throw a brick at it and it would probably go in one side and out the other. You don't need a missile to take down an aircraft that fragile. Or just freakin' shoot the pilot. Yeah, a missile would be handy to take one out, but it would be sort of overkill.

[Sea Skimmer]

Would not the M134 Minigun or GAU-19 gatling gun not be useful in such a rare instance? There is of course the threat of collateral damage, but not much more so than a pile of burning wreckage falling out of the sky anyway. Also if wikipedia is to be believed the AH-6 (A drone version of the MH-6) can be armed with Stinger missles. Presumably the MH-6 could be likewise armed with perhaps a little modification.

You could try with the machine gun, it wont work well. I would disagree about collateral damage, either way wreckage hits the ground but spraying thousands of bullets over a wide area is a lot worse all the more so when these would be API bullets that might start fires on the ground (imagine a thousand incendiary bullets raining down over several kilometers of a a drought zone). Also a missile hit is a lot more likely to detonate any explosives on board the terror plane; though on the other hand if the plane has chemical or bioweapons it would be preferable to let it hit the ground as intact as possible... or if we look at one bizarre USAF study they wanted a system to actually capture such aircraft in mid air and encapsulate them in foam. I'd say explosives are way more likely as a threat then an effective chemical or bioagent attack in the end.

In theory the AH-6/MH-60/AH-64 can all carry a twin Stinger launcher, in reality the US Army never bought the launchers as far as anyone can tell, a prime example of paper vs. actual capability. Marine Corps AH-1s used to fly around with a single Sidewinder but this capability seems to have either lapsed or just become highly uncommon; in any case none belong to the SS nor do Marine units have a major homeland security role so its not a factor. If you wanted to be nuts enough, I don't see any vast reason why Stinger could not be fired out of the door of a H-60; assuming you didn't have anyone behind you in the rear cabin. I'm thinking some stupid safety regulation involving minimizing risk of setting fire to the cabin will say we can't do that.

For a while after September 11th it was actually proposed to just build a small run of dedicated piston engine fighters based off some light utility plane, I forget which, armed with a single M3 .50cal,mainly to fire warning tracers, and a pair of Sidewinders. Program would have cost about 1 billion dollars but was rejected because 1 billion bought a lot of F-16 flying hours, and the piston plane would be useless if the terrorists flew something relatively high performance. This plane was expected to fly standing patrols over Washington DC and a few other high priority areas. Also we simply gave DC those Norwegian AMRAAM batteries to replace the less then optimal Avenger batteries, making it the only point in the United States defended full time by anything like proper SAM sites.

Noted and withdrawn. The SS will just have to buy a few extra helicopters.

Pretty much that, or else if we REALLY wanted, you could drive down air to air refueling costs by building a smaller tanker scaled only for H-60 helicopters, the smallest currently is a KC-130 after all, but it'd take decades of this for the 'savings' to actually show up after paying off the new plane. In the very long term we might field a UAV with air to air missiles to do jobs like this, once such UAVs are better established in regular military service then the not successful Predator flights over Iraq (Stinger not effective against MiG-25 intercept!). Then it'd be totally feasible to have a plane that can slow down to 65mph and yet fly for 20-40 hours at a time. This is likely to become a serious option as the next generation of UAVs appear, designed from the ground up as weapons platforms.

[Sea Skimmer]

Er... just how fast and far do you think a J-3 Cub can go?

It doesn't really matter when a terrorist plane could easily takeoff from an airport just twenty or thirty miles from it target. You need a missile to ensure total destruction of the plane and warhead so it doesn't plow into the target as a ball of flames; the order to fire is not going to be given until the plane is nearly right on top of its objective for the obvious reason that a errant idiot pilot is a lot more likely then terrorists. In any case a J-3 is just one of many low performance threats and nobody is going to pay for a defense intended only to deal with such a puny aircraft alone.

[Broomstick]

What really worries me is that temporary flight restrictions should have been part of a standard weather brief for the area. The fact that she didn't know about them may indicate that she didn't brief weather before her flight, and that's a pretty basic item of prep. Especially if you're flying something like a J-3, which has only basic instruments and can really only operate under visual flight rules- squalls can come in pretty suddenly off the Great Lakes in that area, and if that Cub got caught in one she could be in serious trouble. If I were the FAA inspector running the case I'd be asking some hard questions about that, possibly requiring some retraining on preflight, and definitely requiring retraining on intercept procedures.

^ This.

This, to my mind, is the most concerning issue. Now, weather briefings are always perfect but they are very important. As noted, weather can come in off the big lake very easily, and can take you by surprise even if you have a proper weather briefing (that's how, in August of 2000, I wound up parking a Cessna in someone's back yard). This goes beyond just blowing a TFR (though that is serious, too). Is this complacency? A deterioration of competence? Is this pilot maintaining an appropriate situational awareness? She is licensed to carry a passenger along, so it's not just a matter of risking her own life in the air, and, oh yeah, if there's a problem of competency that's not fair to the people she might fall on if something goes wrong. Not to mention it makes things harder for the rest of us folks who fly small airplanes and don't screw up in a highly visible manner.

See, if it were a matter of someone who was properly briefed accidentally brushing the edge of a TFR (which has happened) but the person responds immediately and appropriately to the intercept and is appropriately contrite after landing, well, the follow up lecture probably wouldn't be fun but the penalties would be relatively light, if anything more than a warning was imposed. Part of what worries me here is that her response wasn't appropriate. Sure, the nice young men (or women) in the F-16's might, in fact, be admiring your antique airplane but you need to assume they're on official business until proven otherwise.

[Broomstick]

Er... just how fast and far do you think a J-3 Cub can go?

It doesn't really matter when a terrorist plane could easily takeoff from an airport just twenty or thirty miles from it target.

You lack imagination, sir. A Cub doesn't need an airport. It doesn't even need a road. The Piper Cub variants are all known for being able to make extraordinarily short take-offs and landings. Observe this one performing a very short distance landing and take off on rough ground. However, the same traits that make such performance possible also make them s...l...o...w... and they really can't carry much. It's not impossible to cause trouble with one, but for deliberate mayhem they're a very poor choice.

In any case a J-3 is just one of many low performance threats and nobody is going to pay for a defense intended only to deal with such a puny aircraft alone.

Yes, that's my point - it's a low threat.

[Sea Skimmer]

You lack imagination, sir. A Cub doesn't need an airport. It doesn't even need a road.

I tend not to share my imagination as far as terrorist attacks go; deliberate policy. Not using an airport will just attract unwanted attention since its a crime out of hand, not the best way to launch a terrorist attack. At that point one could also point out that terrorists could well assemble a small helicopter within the limits of a city and launch it from the courtyard of a building or the parking lot of a warehouse. Its just the more complicated the plot, the less likely it is to work. Terrorists usually keep things simple.

[Broomstick]

You lack imagination, sir. A Cub doesn't need an airport. It doesn't even need a road.

I tend not to share my imagination as far as terrorist attacks go; deliberate policy. Not using an airport will just attract unwanted attention since its a crime out of hand, not the best way to launch a terrorist attack.

Depends on the location. Some places not using an airport is illegal, in others it's perfectly OK. Of course, half the battle is knowing the rules of the place you are. That's why I know off-airport operations are OK in Wisconsin and Indiana but not Illinois except in cases of genuine emergency.

But yes, a Piper Cub taking off out of an urban backyard will attract some attention.

At that point one could also point out that terrorists could well assemble a small helicopter within the limits of a city and launch it from the courtyard of a building or the parking lot of a warehouse. Its just the more complicated the plot, the less likely it is to work. Terrorists usually keep things simple.

Actually, you could just use a homemade UAV - the technology is available off the shelf and better yet the operator doesn't have to be suicidal. But I'm sure you'll all understand why I'm not going to go into detail about that on a public forum.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Jamming operates full time around POTUS iirc.

[Broomstick]

Oh, you think so? Cite, please.

Then there's programmable options but like I said, I don't really want to play that game on a public forum.

[Winston Blake]

Regarding the problem of how an H-60 variant can down a Piper Cub, a possibility I did not see mentioned is to simply fly above it and blast it with downwash, until it goes out of control or flies into the ground. A more whimsical possibility is flying above and ahead of it, then performing some kind of fuel dump and igniting the spray with a flaregun or something. Take that, bio-agents! (Directed by Michael Bay).

[Broomstick]

Er.... fuel dumping ability isn't universal even among airplanes, never heard of it being done by a helicopter (though I suppose there might be a helicopter with that ability even if I never heard of it)...

But yes, the downwash trick might work.

[HMS Sophia]

Going off his idea... What about a fire-fighting helicopter dumping a load of water onto the thing. I don't know about american helicopters, but the Russian Mi-14 can certainly carry water in it's bay. Slightly ridiculous maybe, but it would certainly be interesting to see... In fact, would it work

Downwash is probably a more sensible idea.

As for the shooting it down... How hard would it be to fly alongside the thing at a similar speed? A few men in the back with ridles could do serious damage to this thing, rather than using something quite as overkill as a Gau-8