Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US considered 'suicide jet missions'
BBC ^

Posted on 08/30/2002 6:12:24 AM PDT by Jake0001

US considered 'suicide jet missions'

Some fighter pilots had no weapons on 11 September US Air Force commanders considered crashing fighter jets into hijacked planes on 11 September because of a lack of armed planes, a BBC investigation reveals.

In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks US fighter planes took to the skies to defend America from any further attacks.

Their mission was to protect President George W Bush and to intercept any hijacked aircraft heading to other targets in the US.

But, as a new BBC programme Clear The Skies reveals, the threat of an attack from within America had been considered so small that the entire US mainland was being defended by only 14 planes.

As a result unarmed planes were diverted from training missions in a desperate bid to increase the number of fighter planes patrolling American airspace.

Colonel Robert Marr was Commander of the North East Defence Sector and remembers the words that came over the secure phone "we will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground".

US military unprepared

However, at the time of the attacks the US had just four fighter pilots on alert covering the north eastern United States.

US pilots were forced to take to the skies without any weapons and might have had to deliberately crash into a hijacked plane to prevent casualties on the ground.

"I had determined, of course, that with only four aircraft we cannot defend the whole north eastern United States," he said.

"Some of them would have just gotten in the air possibly without any armament onboard.

"If you had to stop an aircraft sometimes the only way to stop an aircraft is with your own aircraft if you don't have any weapons.

"It was very possible that they [the pilots] would have been asked to give their lives themselves to try to prevent further attacks if need be."

Colonel Marr said: "That was the sense of frustration, of I don't have the forces available to do anything about this, we've got everything up that we can get up and still can't do anything."

Two of the pilots patrolling north east America told the programme how they struggled to get to New York as fast as possible after the first plane had hit the World Trade Center.

Pilots "Duff" and "Nasty" recalled they were only minutes away when the second plane hit the towers.

Pilot Duff said: "For a long time I wondered what would have happened if we had been scrambled in time.

"We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker." US considered 'suicide jet missions'

Some fighter pilots had no weapons on 11 September US Air Force commanders considered crashing fighter jets into hijacked planes on 11 September because of a lack of armed planes, a BBC investigation reveals.

In the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks US fighter planes took to the skies to defend America from any further attacks.

Their mission was to protect President George W Bush and to intercept any hijacked aircraft heading to other targets in the US.

But, as a new BBC programme Clear The Skies reveals, the threat of an attack from within America had been considered so small that the entire US mainland was being defended by only 14 planes.

As a result unarmed planes were diverted from training missions in a desperate bid to increase the number of fighter planes patrolling American airspace.

Colonel Robert Marr was Commander of the North East Defence Sector and remembers the words that came over the secure phone "we will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground".

US military unprepared

However, at the time of the attacks the US had just four fighter pilots on alert covering the north eastern United States.

US pilots were forced to take to the skies without any weapons and might have had to deliberately crash into a hijacked plane to prevent casualties on the ground.

"I had determined, of course, that with only four aircraft we cannot defend the whole north eastern United States," he said.

"Some of them would have just gotten in the air possibly without any armament onboard.

"If you had to stop an aircraft sometimes the only way to stop an aircraft is with your own aircraft if you don't have any weapons.

"It was very possible that they [the pilots] would have been asked to give their lives themselves to try to prevent further attacks if need be."

Colonel Marr said: "That was the sense of frustration, of I don't have the forces available to do anything about this, we've got everything up that we can get up and still can't do anything."

Two of the pilots patrolling north east America told the programme how they struggled to get to New York as fast as possible after the first plane had hit the World Trade Center.

Pilots "Duff" and "Nasty" recalled they were only minutes away when the second plane hit the towers.

Pilot Duff said: "For a long time I wondered what would have happened if we had been scrambled in time.

"We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker."


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
It isn't reassuring that we have a mere handful of fighters protecting our own territory. We spend one-sixth of our total fiscal budget and we don't have any air defenses!?

It looks like we have a bad case of "soft underbelly". So theoretically if Canada used their puny airforce on us, they'd literally have a field day?

1 posted on 08/30/2002 6:12:24 AM PDT by Jake0001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
Clinton legacy. Though it is Bush's watch now.
2 posted on 08/30/2002 6:16:44 AM PDT by pttttt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
considered suicide missions
3 posted on 08/30/2002 6:18:54 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
because of a lack of armed planes, a BBC investigation reveals.

Two points - It took the foreign press to come up with this. The NY Times is so lazy.

And no armed combat planes? Is this some kind of joke? I know this happened under Clinton, but come on, George was running the show for going on a year. He failed to clean house, and kept on the Clintinoids.

This kind of personnel management is in a league by itself - Bush League Management.

4 posted on 08/30/2002 6:19:08 AM PDT by spudsmaki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
The "peace dividend" is really paying off. Many thanks to the DNC, Kongress, Klinton, and Bush I.
5 posted on 08/30/2002 6:19:22 AM PDT by Fresh Wind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
Monday morning quarterbacking.

Regardless of the causes and effects, nothing would of prevented these attacks. Nothing.

6 posted on 08/30/2002 6:22:47 AM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spudsmaki
Actually...there were armed combat planes airborne from the alert facilities...but those took time to scramble. The ones who were airborne were not armed because they were not alert aircraft...they were on training missions. Until Sept 11th, alert aircraft sat on the ground waiting the scramble order. With the demise of the soviet union...the thinking was there would be plenty of warning to get aircraft up (armed) in time because you can track these aircraft on radar. Nobody was thinking you would have to shoot down a jetliner. Within 10 minutes or so...there were armed planes airborne from every alert base in the country. I know because I work at an alert base that is part of SEADS (Southeastern air defence sector)...the southern neighbor to NEADS...I was in the wing CC's office when the second plane hit the 2nd tower and we scrambled the alert sitters (armed with sidewinders) 5 minutes later.
7 posted on 08/30/2002 6:29:32 AM PDT by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Yes, many things would have prevented those attacks:

1. Clinton taking real action to stop Osama in 1993 when the first world trade center bombing occurred.

2. Clinton taking real action to stop Osama in 1995 when the embassy bombings occurred.

3. Clinton taking real action to stop Osama in 1999 when the USS Cole was attacked.

The failure of the U.S. Federal Government to appraise and countermand threats against this country is the greatest travesty since December, 1941. The MOST IMPORTANT job of the Federal Government, the one actually described in the Constitution, is defense of this country against foreign attacks.

Our public servants failed miserably. They were too busy trying to restribute income and provide free sex change operations to San Francisco queers.
8 posted on 08/30/2002 6:29:54 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Profiling in the airports would have.

Guns in the hands of the airline pilors would have.
9 posted on 08/30/2002 6:30:48 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NELSON111
So then was it even possible for Flight 93 to have been shot down? The conspiracy theories claim it was, but then if there really were no armed fighters in the vicinity..?
10 posted on 08/30/2002 6:35:26 AM PDT by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
What gets me is there is no excuse NOW. We should maintain a CAP over the Washington airspace 24/7. We should have a Patriot battery at each end of the Federal Mall in DC. We should have guys with stingers and a Phalanx on the White house, the Capital and the Pentagon, and any other buildind in DC that is considered critical to national command. Are we at war or are we not?????????????????
11 posted on 08/30/2002 6:35:43 AM PDT by Kozak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
Whoa! Consider the source.
12 posted on 08/30/2002 6:36:17 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Jake0001
Thanks for your insight, Private.
14 posted on 08/30/2002 6:41:46 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spudsmaki
You misunderstand. It's no that the NYT is lazy; IT DOESN'T CARE TO REPORT THE TRUTH. With Harold Raines (sp?) at the helm, the once-long-ago venerable Times has turned into a house organ for the FAR-left. If you remember, recently they had a journalist jump from the Times building to commit suicide - IMO, the Times has degraded to nothing more than a back shelf tabloid.
As far as the Bush administration goes, the rot and totally disheveled condition that he was left by the Clinton admin. is still, to this day, a problem. There are so many leftist bureaucrats with government union protection in all sectors of all departments that we may not live to see the complete righting of the ship. Remember, the Clinton admin. was responsible for denying the troops guarding the USS Cole any ammunition for their guns - they were deemed 'not required in peacetime'. Now that's a soft underbelly, especially in a port that was known to be previously hostile.
15 posted on 08/30/2002 6:44:15 AM PDT by Spacetrucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
they'd literally have a field day?

Just one. Then hell would engulf them.

16 posted on 08/30/2002 6:47:24 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NELSON111
Thanks for your comments! Why are people so quick to believe what the BBC has to say about our military?
17 posted on 08/30/2002 6:51:50 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
We should have a Patriot battery at each end of the Federal Mall in DC. We should have guys with stingers and a Phalanx on the White house, the Capital and the Pentagon, and any other buildind in DC that is considered critical to national command.

It's been rumored for years that there have been Stingers on the roof of the White House and I think it's pretty safe to say that the Pentagon is now the well defended fortress that it always should have been. I'd have a hard time seeing Rumsfeld NOT picking up the phone and chewing someone's a$$ until that building had a real parimeter defense.

The use of the Phalanx would be interesting. I don't know the history of that weapon, but from what I understand, it was designed for use onboard our warships against incoming missiles like the Exocet(sp). If it could be adapter for land-based use, it would be a very capable backup for the Stingers. I can't think of anything that flies that it couldn't reduce to powder in seconds. I don't know how much the Phalanx system weighs, but it might bee too heavy to be installed on the roof of some of those old buildings in DC.

18 posted on 08/30/2002 6:55:02 AM PDT by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
Does anyone wonder why it is that taxpayers cough up $396,000,000,000 (next year) and can only count on 4 planes to defend the entire Northeast section of the country? Never mind that it's the job of the DEFENSE Department to DEFEND us. If our air defense is this lame, couldn't we assume that our terrorist intelligence was just as lame pre-9/11? Who knows, if we spent a little less money being the aggressor overseas, and applied that money toward REAL defense and intelligence, we may have avoided the disaster of 9/11.
19 posted on 08/30/2002 7:04:14 AM PDT by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake0001
How do they ever get these guys to stay in? Must be pretty hard finding volunteers.
20 posted on 08/30/2002 7:11:16 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson