You don't want the ending of the escort service

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
Display name:
iWin
You do realize that the end mission for the F-16 fighter escort is to bring down the airliner. There was an interview with National Guard pilot who was ordered on 9/11 to ram Flight 93.

Think about what that means.

Imagine the jet flying up the eastern shore and heading toward Manhattan where the F-16s will stop it by dropping it on Newark. Or it's aimed toward DC so they shower it down on Baltimore.

:hairraise::dunno:
 
I was thinking about a different escort service, but yeah, huh.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I was thinking about a different escort service, but yeah, huh.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want that ending either. It generally ends like this:

american-aids-patient-300x259.jpg
 
Then there was the Jan. 5 attack where the intercepting aircraft (a helicopter) watched the guy fly into the side of a building - he was ignoring their hand signals.
 
mikea said:
You do realize that the end mission for the F-16 fighter escort is to bring down the airliner. There was an interview with National Guard pilot who was ordered on 9/11 to ram Flight 93.

Think about what that means.

Imagine the jet flying up the eastern shore and heading toward Manhattan where the F-16s will stop it by dropping it on Newark. Or it's aimed toward DC so they shower it down on Baltimore.

:hairraise::dunno:
Click to expand...

What's with all the threads about this lately? Lots of info on the red board now too. There are a lot of reasons for a fighter escort, it happens more than you realize and we do a lot of things besides potentially shooting down a passenger plane. Saying that this is the "ending of the escort service" is a little mis-leading. In the 10 years we've been doing this, we've never shot down a passenger plane. Normally the ending is being escorted to an airport for an uneventful landing.
 
So no offense, but none of those things you mentioned are an argument for it's effectiveness at any particular mission. If the "normal" ending is nothing happens, and the "bad" ending is ramming an airliner, which hasn't happened and is quite unlikely to... it's actually weakening your position that there's a necessary mission being fulfilled, right?
 
denverpilot said:
So no offense, but none of those things you mentioned are an argument for it's effectiveness at any particular mission. If the "normal" ending is nothing happens, and the "bad" ending is ramming an airliner, which hasn't happened and is quite unlikely to... it's actually weakening your position that there's a necessary mission being fulfilled, right?
Click to expand...

It was only ramming on 9-11 because the jet was unarmed on a training mission. We can guess that the F-16s are armed now. We know they shoot flares as a warning.

Your point is right. They know the mission is really expensive security theater - to impress the civilians and bust pilots who will follow instructions and nothing more.

"Normal mission is to escort to an airport for a safe landing?" And what if the aircraft ignores the "follow me?" You can't do a pitt maneuver in the air.

I think the Smoketown two came really close to being shot at, other than the helicopter had a visual on them and held up a sign.

Exactly what is the purpose of F-16s forming up with an airliner where a passenger is spending too much time in the lav? To look for the dump discharge?
 
Last edited:
I don't know there could be some benifit from the direct observation of the plane:dunno:
 
"Base, it blew up and FODed my engine. Mayday, Mayday, Mayday."

That's about all you're going to "observe" of someone doing something naughty in the Lav of an airliner from an F-16.
 
Okay..."Escort Service" and "Doing something naughty in the lav"...I thought I was on the wrong forum for a minute.
 
As stated on red, there are lots of reasons for us to be there - to get info flowing to the appropriate authorities, getting the attention of a crew that has zoned out (prob wouldn't happen to US carriers, but...)

Aside from that, if I could get us off the hook for doing these missions - DenverPilot - no offense, but we've got a LOT of missions to do and this one is the least challenging, fun or rewarding so if there was a way for us to stop doing it, I'd be all for it. However, I don't see the politicians changing their mind (they are the boss afterall). Don't like it? Talk to your congressman!
 
I hear ya man, thanks for serving.

My Congresscritter doesn't listen anymore, he's gone "All In" on Party-line rhetoric.

In his particular Party, he's one of the spending types who'll at least make sure you guys get to go flying a lot. The other Party spends on other stuff.

We can't seem to slow down either one's spending, apparently. Might as well send you guys up. :)
 
EvilEagle said:
.... politicians .... minds .... Don't like it? Talk to your congressman!
Click to expand...

This applies to 99.9% of all the crap that takes place in and around or because of Washington --- including crap from the WH. That 99.9% responsibility belongs to members of congress and THEY are the ones that need to be leaned on or given an invite from Vinni
 
How about all the military money that gets spent with out even getting to an intercept. Got army mobile radar surrounded by concertina wire not to far from here in advance of a visit tomorrow.
 
You figured it out! How could I miss it?

Constant Presidential travel and VIP travel is the new Jobs Plan!

Keeps lots of folks busy!

Oh. Wait. They already had jobs.

Darn. I thought I cracked the code. ;)
 
I should count the digicam clad folks in my hangar tomorrow, we lent them a little floor space...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top