Military Unprepared For 9/11 Attacks

www.military.com/ ^

[chance33_98]

Military Unprepared For 9/11 Attacks

United Press International May 26, 2003

WASHINGTON - The panel established to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was told Friday that the United States was so unprepared that the first warplanes sent to the capital's airspace to intercept the hijacked airliners were unarmed.

The two F-16s, part of the 113th Air National Guard based at Andrews Air Force Base were visible in the sky above the Pentagon as it was evacuated after being struck by American Airlines Flight 77, Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a commander in the Air Force told the panel.

McKinley is in charge of the division of the North American Aerospace Defense Command -- known as NORAD -- responsible for protecting the continental United States. He was one of a number of federal officials who gave evidence on the second day of public hearings held by the commission to find out what went wrong and why on Sept. 11.

The picture that emerged was one of military and federal agencies scrambling desperately to respond to an attack for which they were completely unprepared, but officials said much had been to improve the nation's readiness since.

The F-16s -- which were not tasked to NORAD -- had been launched at the request of the Secret Service after the first two airliners crashed into the World Trade Center, McKinley explained. But they had just returned from a training exercise and were not equipped with any weaponry they would have needed to shoot down either Flight 77 or the remaining hijacked airliner, Flight 93, which was thought headed for the White House.

The two pilots showed "incredible bravery," said Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste.

NORAD also scrambled F-16s from Langley air force base in Virginia, he said. They were in the air within six minutes, which he said was "exceedingly quick." But they were still 12 minutes away from Washington when Flight 77 crashed in the Pentagon.

Moreover, the man who had McKinley's job on Sept. 11, retired Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, told the panel that he could not have ordered the hijacked airliners shot down even if either set of F-16s had been able to make it to the capital in time.

"To my knowledge, I did not have the authority to shoot it down at that time," he said, adding later of Flight 77, "even if we were there, I don't think we would have shot it down."

He said that he only learned President Bush had made the decision to give him that authority five minutes after the last plane, Flight 93, crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania because passengers who had learned the fate of the other airliners apparently stormed the cockpit.

McKinley admitted that NORAD was utterly unprepared for the attack.

"Our mission was at that time ... to look outward, as a Cold War vestige ... to protect against Soviet long-range bomber penetration of our intercept zone," he said.

Arnold added that NORAD commanders had no radar cover in the United States -- relying instead on civilian air traffic control radar data relayed to them over the phone -- and could not even talk directly to their pilots while they were in the air.

"Would you agree," asked Ben-Veniste, "that on the basis of the information available there could have been better preparedness by NORAD?"

"In retrospect, sir," the general replied, "I think I would agree with your comment."

McKinley explained that many changes had been made since then.

"I believe at the present time we have (the capability to defend the United States)," he said in response to one question.

He said that the authority to designate civilian aircraft as "hostile targets" in U.S. airspace -- which had never been used before Sept. 11, and previously rested solely with the president -- has since been delegated to Gen. Eberhardt, the man in charge of NORAD. He also said that there were "emergency procedures" which could give officers even lower on the chain of command the authority to shoot down civilian aircraft.

"We call it the 'Kill Chain,' and it's been shortened and tightened," NORAD spokesman Maj. Don Aries later explained to United Press International.

McKinley told the panel that these procedures were used "eight to 15 times a week," not as exercises, but in what he called "real world situations."

"In an emergency situation, we can now take the appropriate action," he said.

Another retired NORAD commander, Col. Alan Scott, explained to UPI after the hearing that a minor occurrence like an air traffic controller believing he had heard something odd in a pilot's voice and reporting it up the line of command would now trigger a response. "We open our lines of communication," when that sort of thing happens, Scott told UPI.

Such a plane immediately becomes "a target of interest," added Aries, and fighters might be scrambled to look at it.

"The interagency process works very well," McKinley told the panel, referring to NORAD's improved liaison with the Federal Aviation Administration, "the way they're lashed up with us now."

[lelio]

"I believe at the present time we have (the capability to defend the United States)," he said in response to one question.
And how would getting airplanes up in the air 20 minutes earlier have stopped the WTC? You might get a better camera image right after the hit.
All the "defense" we have doesn't stop the one off attacks, which is what terrorists are going to do. They're all suicide missions so they don't think about how to get out of a situation, which is what the police are prepared to do: contain the situation and maybe trap the bad guys.
What stops those is locking down the borders and that hasn't happened. Or making security at ports tougher, and from what I've read that hasn't happened either. We're not any safer today than we were Sept 10th.

[chaosagent]

And it's very possible that shooting down one or all of the airliners could have killed more people than already were.

Think of one or more airliners, streaming flaming jet fuel pinwheeling down a street in Manhattan, crushing cars, people, and buildings, incinerating everything for blocks.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"What stops those is locking down the borders and that hasn't happened. Or making security at ports tougher, and from what I've read that hasn't happened either. We're not any safer today than we were Sept 10th."

While I agree that the border issue has not been adequately addressed I can tell you with the utmost confidence that port security is tighter and greater than before 9/11.

[Pro-Bush]

Lessons learned...I hope.

[Timesink]

The panel established to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was told Friday that the United States was so unprepared that the first warplanes sent to the capital's airspace to intercept the hijacked airliners were unarmed.

Didn't this come out somewhere around September 13, 2001?

[Roscoe Karns]

"Speaking of kitchen table issues, I'd like to remind American moms and dads that it was the the clinton military that won the war in Iraq and that, at the end of the day, you have the Bush military to thank for being unprepared for the 9/11 Attacks. Thank you and good night"

[DeepDish]

I can only think of one nonsuicidal way to possibly take
down an airliner with an unarmed f-16. Fly in front of it,
slow down to get close to the cockpit, then turn on the
afterburners. Burner blast should be hell on the windows.

Like a lot of my ideas, this is probably crazy.

[RJayneJ]

Quote of the Day by Lizavetta

[dixiechick2000]

Great QOTD! Thanks!

[dixiechick2000]

I think I have seen you post on this subject and I would appreciate your thoughts.

If I am wrong, please forgive this ping.

[El Gato]

Arnold added that NORAD commanders had no radar cover in the United States -- relying instead on civilian air traffic control radar data relayed to them over the phone -- and could not even talk directly to their pilots while they were in the air.

This is at best a distortion. The NORAD regional Air Defense Secotrs get that air traffic control radar data, which does come over phone lines, but not as voice data, but in a manner virtually the same as your dialup modem as digital data (although they are dedicated lines, not dial ups, IIRC) and the Regional Air Defense Sectors can talk to the pilots. That data comes mostly from "Dual use" ASRS-4 (and here ) systems developed with use by both military and FAA in mind. The radars that generate it are as good, in terms of range and detection capability, as any thing the that is pure military. Other than AWACS perhaps. The only real problem with the dual use radars is lack of low altitude coverage in a few low traffic areas, but that's a matter of not having enough of them, and is as much a problem for the FAA as it for NORAD. From the Southeast Air Defense Sector Site:

Air Route Surveillance Radar Model 4 (ARSR-4)

The Joint Surveillance System is a network of long range surveillance radars, primarily operated and maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but providing communication and radar data to both FAA and USAF control centers. The newest long-range search radar in the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) that has recently been fielded is the Air Route Surveillance Radar Model 4 (ARSR-4). Providing air defense and air traffic control for the continental United States, Guam, and Hawaii, forty joint radar sites were installed during the 1992-1995 period. Compared to the radars it replaced, the ARSR-4 is more reliable, easier to maintain, and increases the radar coverage area from 200 to 250 nautical miles. This three-dimensional, solid state, unattended, long rang surveillance radar has an operational frequency range of 1215-1400 MHz and uses dual-channel frequency hopping technology for long-range and anti-jam search and tracking, and is capable of detecting small objects by minimizing clutter, weather, and multipath effects. Each channel pair requires 83 MHz of frequency separation to maintain its highest possible reliability. This radar system supports defense of the national airspace and provides initial coastal civil air traffic control.

The sites can "see" transponder equiped aircarft from much farther away than the 250 nm indicated, which is for a "skin return" from a 1 square meter target. Even considering just skin return, airliners have considerably larger radar cross sections than that. Maybe around 50 to 100 sq. meters, 81 sq. meters would be detectable 3 times as far away, everything else being equal.

[El Gato]

But they had just returned from a training exercise and were not equipped with any weaponry they would have needed to shoot down either Flight 77 or the remaining hijacked airliner, Flight 93

My understanding is that they were DC ANG aircraft just returned from an Air to Ground training mission. They probably had practice ammo in the drum of the Vulcan cannon, which might be used to shoot down an airliner, if you got really lucky and hit multiple engines or the cockpit. The projectiles from the practice ammo are inert, that is non-explosive as regular 20mm rounds are.

[Carbonsteel]

The best thing to do is to ensure that people know that they have to fight back. Terrorists can't fly airplanes into anything if the passengers kick thier a$$.

[Defender2]

If you would like to read about how our Air Defense evolved, and subsequent questions will arise about what happened to it over the years after reading it, I suggest
strongly this book, "the Emerging Shield, the air force and the Evolution of Continental Air Defence, 1945-1960", by the author, Kenneth Schaffel, published by the Office of Air Force History, ISBN 0-912799-60-9. -ISBN 0-912799-61-7 (pbk.)

[Defender2]

Air Defense used to be my specialty, I lived, breathed, and
took it very seriously for quite the number of years that I
served in it(and got very angry at what I saw continually happen to it over the years during which I served and after I left it). I will later post a long list of essential reading material books and magazines along with
their associated Authors, publishers and Library of Congress numbers. Air Defense was taken quite seriously
after December 7th, 1941. We took Lessons from Britain's
success of the "Battle of Britain" and After the Soviets
detonated their first atomic bomb in 1948, U.S.A.F. took
Air Defense quite seriously. Unfortunately after the Cold War, Defense took a back seat to everything else and suffered. I'll post the essential list of books with the
above later on this same thread for you and all to read.

[Windsong]

Pure lies. Tell them to the Navy SEALS that repeatedly thwart attacks you are not aware of.

[dixiechick2000]

Thank you for your response, and the recommended reading material.

When you post that thread, please ping me to it. TIA!

[Jonah Hex]

I'm just winging it here, but I believe maneuvering into a position where you have a maneuvering non-cooperative target (such as a hijacker pilot) within your AB zone is low-probability and could easily lead to a collision. While it would stop the airliner, it would likely ruin your day as well.

Instead, you could say "the hell with the enviroweenie rules" and pull Mach while making a close pass from target tail-to-nose. Encountering shock buffet, especially if the target is flying close to Mach, could result in target loss-of-control.

[El Gato]

81 sq. meters would be detectable 3 times as far away, everything else being equal.

Which it isn't. The primary limitation becomes line of site due to curvature of the earth. At 750 miles from a ground based radar the target would have to be at an impossibly high altitude to have line of sight between the radar and the aircraft. Even at 250nm the target would have to be at about 41,000 feet to have line of sight from a ground site.

[Defender2]

Here's another book on the subject:
"North American Air Defense Command: How the U.S.A. and Canada Stand Guard Together", by the author, C.B. Colby,
published by Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, N.Y., 1969, Library of Congress Catalog Card number: 73-91412
Second Impression: SBN: GB 698-30261-3. I'll be posting more shortly.

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"Fighter Interceptors: America's Cold War Defenders", by
the Authors, Rene` J. Francillon, Peter B. Lewis and Jim Dunn, published in 1989 by Osprey Publishing, ISBN 0-85045-932-X.

[Defender2]

Here's another Book:
"USAF Fighter Interceptor Squadrons" By the author, Peter R. Foster, published by Osprey Publishing, 1994, ISBN 1 855324350.

[Defender2]

The next series of post highlight aircraft developement, however they also help to show how our system developed over the years, so here's another book:
"Lockheed F-94 Starfire: A Photo Chronicle" By the Authors,
Marty J.Isham & David R. Mclaren, published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1993, Library of Congress Catalog Number:
92-62387, ISBN: 0-88740-451-0.

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"North American Sabre Jet: F-86/D/K/L, Part One, Design/Structure/Testing" By the author, Ray Wagner, published by Steve Ginter, 1999, ISBN 0-942612.

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"Northrop F-89 Scorpion: A Photo Chronicle", by the authors, Marty J. Isham & David McLaren, published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1996, Library of Congress Number:
96-67280, ISBN: 0-7643-0065-2.

[ladyinred]

Well of course they weren't. Who knew something like this could happen. Ridiculous to even bring it up IMO. Just try to be ready next time. DUH!

[ladyinred]

BRAVO!!!!!!

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"F-89 Scorpion in detail & scale: D&S Vol.41, The First Nuclear Armed Jet Interceptor" By the author Bert Kinzey, published by Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992, ISBN: 1-888974-24-9.

[Consort]

Then Clinton Legacy and the Torricelli Principle were responsible for the diminished effectiveness of the military and the CIA respectively.

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"F-89 Scorpion in action", by the authors, Larry Davis & Dave Menard, published by Squadron/Signal Publications, 1990, ISBN: 0-89747-246-2.

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"Aerofax Minigraph 14, Lockheed F-94 Starire, by the authors, Rene` Francillon & Kevin Keaveney, published by Aerofax Inc./Motorbooks International, 1986, ISBN: 0-942548-32-9.

[ErnBatavia]

Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste.

Democrat Counsel in the Whitewater stuff....what the hell is he doing there?

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"Lockheed T-33: a Photo Chronicle", by the author, David R. McLaren, published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1998,
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 98-85940, ISBN: 0-7643-0646-4.

[dixiechick2000]

Thank you so much for giving me a heads up on all of the reading material! I'm going to bookmark this thread so I will have it handy when I need to see your posts with the titles of all of these books. Hopefully, I will gain a better understanding of how our air defense is working...or, not working, as the case may be.

Again, thank you very much!;o)

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"Aerofax Minigraph 5, McDonnell F-101B/F", by the author,
Kevin Keaveney, published by Aerofax, Inc./Motorbooks International, 1984, ISBN: 0-942548-10-8.

[Defender2]

You're very welcome, dixiechick2000!!!!:-) I've got more, so I'm still in the process of posting them. Also I have more at a different location, at which I will be at this weekend. I'll post these for you also this weekend, Enjoy,
Defender2, D2. Now you ALL know how I chose my Screen name.

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"F-101 Voodoo in Detail & Scale, D&S Vol.21, Covers All ONE-OH-WONDER VERSIONS!", by the author Bert Kinzey, published by TAB BOOKS, 1986, Library of Congress Catalog number: 85-27707, ISBN: 0-8306-8131-0 (pbk.).

[dixiechick2000]

I'll be watching for them! Thank you!

"Now you ALL know how I chose my Screen name."

LOL! The cat's out of the bag now! ;o)

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"Convair F-102 Delta Dagger", by the author Wayne Mutza, published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1999, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 99-67407, ISBN: 0-7643-1062-3.

[Defender2]

#39!!!!:-)!!!!:-) More books coming in the following posts!!!!:-)

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
" F-102 Delta Dagger in Detail & Scale, D&S Vol.35, ADC's FIRST SUPERSONIC INTERCEPTOR", by the author Bert Kinzey, published by TAB BOOKS Inc., 1990, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 89-20199 CIP, ISBN: 1-85310-618-6.

[dixiechick2000]

It looks like I'll be learning a lot about USAF planes.

I have to smile at that because hubby was a Navy jet jock!;o)

[Defender2]

Even though this book centers around the F-102's deployed history in Europe, it Still provides fascinating information on how Air Defense works and this book still has in it some NORAD/ADC, NORAD/ADCOM history inputs, so I will include it here:
"F-102 Delta Dagger in Europe", by the author J.D. Ragay, published by Squadron/Signal Publications, 1991, ISBN: 0-89747-220-9.

[Defender2]

Who knows we might have went head to head in DACT/ACM engagements!!!!:-)

[dixiechick2000]

"...some NORAD/ADC, NORAD/ADCOM history inputs..."

That looks like what I need! Thanks!

And, thank you for your service to the good ol' USA. It's much appreciated.;o)

[section9]

Ben-Veniste was hired by the Rats on the committee to drum up enough circumstantial evidence to write a minority report which will blame the entire 9-11 affair, from start to finish, on Bush.

I'm not kidding. It will be the fault of Bush, the tax cuts, and the Stolen Election.

I promise you this.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"F-104 Starfighter in action, Aircraft NO.27", by the Author, Lou Drendel, This book also covers ADC & NORAD/ADCOM/ANG F-104A usage, published by Squadron/Signal Publications, 1976.

[Defender2]

Now for the Fastest(single engine, operational fighter!!!!:-) Here's another book!!!:-):
"Convair F-106 "Delta Dart": Aero Series 27, by William G. Holder, published by Aero Publishers, 1977, Library of Congress Catalog Number: 75-15272, ISBN: 0-8168-0600-4.

[Defender2]

Here's another book:
"F-106 Delta Dart in Action: Aircraft No. Fifteen", by the authors, Captain(Ret.Colonel) Don Carson and Lou Drendel,
published by Squadron/Signal Publications, 1974, ISBN: 0-89747-014-1.