It occurs to me that even though the literature states that the mission of the LPWS is to protect high-value sites and population centers from artillery and mortar attack, this would be just the thing for taking out hijacked commercial aircraft that stray a bit too close to skyscrapers and government buildings.
Yes, gentlemen, this is the Anti-9/11 Gun. Coming soon to a city near you.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It occurs to me that even though the literature states that the mission of the LPWS is to protect high-value sites and population centers from artillery and mortar attack, this would be just the thing for taking out hijacked commercial aircraft that stray a bit too close to skyscrapers and government buildings.
Yes, gentlemen, this is the Anti-9/11 Gun. Coming soon to a city near you.[/quote]
Not a bad idea, but it would take a lot of 20mm rounds to bring down a Jumbo Jet, and even if it did, I doubt it would stop it in time to keep it from crashing into some other building in the city.
An Anti-9/11 “gun” would have to be something that fires missiles, not bullets, therefore just blowing the plane out of the sky, rather than disabling it and making it smash into who-knows-what.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
Anyway…
Here’s a good photo of it in action. From afar it just looks like any other radar dome, but it truly has hate in it’s heart for anything that doesn’t have the right IFF code.
B.[/quote]
Yep. I’ve been on the bridge of a ship with that thing going off. The sound is very unique.
[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Not a bad idea, but it would take a lot of 20mm rounds to bring down a Jumbo Jet, and even if it did, I doubt it would stop it in time to keep it from crashing into some other building in the city.
An Anti-9/11 “gun” would have to be something that fires missiles, not bullets, therefore just blowing the plane out of the sky, rather than disabling it and making it smash into who-knows-what.[/quote]
Oh, I don’t know. Unarmored, with huge fuel tanks, a jumbo jet would, I imagine, be a considerably softer target than an military aircraft, against which the Vulcan has had a proven track record (in both air-to-air and ground-to-air roles) since the 1960s.
Public relations-wise, as well, the cannon makes more sense, in that you don’t want Stinger missiles flying all over Manhattan. If they all hit their target, great, but if they don’t…
Meanwhile, the Vulcan in its LPWS configuration fires high-explosive incendiary tracer projectiles that self-destruct if they miss their target; the residue of which is considerably less hazardous than an errant missile.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, I don’t know. Unarmored, with huge fuel tanks, a jumbo jet would, I imagine, be a considerably softer target than an military aircraft, against which the Vulcan has had a proven track record (in both air-to-air and ground-to-air roles) since the 1960s.
Public relations-wise, as well, the cannon makes more sense, in that you don’t want Stinger missiles flying all over Manhattan. If they all hit their target, great, but if they don’t…
Meanwhile, the Vulcan’s ammunition fires self-destructing projectiles, the residue of which is considerably less hazardous than an errant missile.
[/quote]
Very good points. However, the Vulcan’s track record with bringing down military aircraft has been just that, bringing them down, not obliterating them in mid-air, as would be desired with a jumbo jet flying over the skyline of a major city.
I just think that the any weapon using non-explosive ammunition would do a fine job in disabling and bringing down an aircraft, but we wouldn’t want to “bring down” an aircraft into the heart of an urban city.
I see your points of the negative aspects of missiles though, too. I’m sure they could use a self-destructing missile that would explode if it missed it’s target? However, even a basic heat-seeking missile shouldn’t have any problem zeroing in on a commuter jumbo jet with no defense or anti-missile system.
[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Very good points. However, the Vulcan’s track record with bringing down military aircraft has been just that, bringing them down, not obliterating them in mid-air, as would be desired with a jumbo jet flying over the skyline of a major city.
I just think that the any weapon using non-explosive ammunition would do a fine job in disabling and bringing down an aircraft, but we wouldn’t want to “bring down” an aircraft into the heart of an urban city.
I see your points of the negative aspects of missiles though, too. I’m sure they could use a self-destructing missile that would explode if it missed it’s target? However, even a basic heat-seeking missile shouldn’t have any problem zeroing in on a commuter jumbo jet with no defense or anti-missile system.[/quote]
But missiles just don’t “blow up” an airplane and it disappears. Most missiles simply detonate near an aircraft, and the warheads are a small fragmentation device (with very little actual explosives, the AMRAAM for example has only a 40 pound warhead) designed to rip the plane to shreds and hopefully detonate the fuel tanks. The only real advantage it would have over the gun is the increased range.
Either way, you still have a huge flaming piece of steel hitting something on it’s way down.
I’m a 1911 kinda guy myself… Wouldn’t mind keeping one of those in my trunk, though.
Vulcan Phalanx. The last line of defense for an aircraft carrier