9-11 F-16s Would "ram" Flight 93

mscard88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
23,217
Location
Alabama
Display Name

Display name:
Mark
Received a newsletter today, and it had this article, which I had heard of before. Remember the Cold War was over and the US didn't have aircraft on alert any longer.

HER MISSION WAS TO TAKE DOWN FLIGHT 93!
On September11, 2001, Lt. Heather “Lucky” Penney, in an F-16 at Andrews Air Force Base, had her orders. She was to take down United Airlines Flight 93. The hijacked plane was headed toward Washington DC. Three other planes had already hittargets in New York and Washington, and Flight 93 was destined to become the fourth. Penney was the second combat pilot in the air that morning. The idea of shooting down a civilian aircraft, even a hijacked one, was troublesome enough–but Penney had no missiles or live ammunition. All she had were her orders and her plane. She was going to have to take the plane down the hard way.“We wouldn’t be shooting it down. We’d be ramming the aircraft,” Penney said of the surreal moment. “I would essentially be a kamikaze pilot.”Ten years after the event, Penney began talking openly about that day. Penney was one of the first female combat pilots. She now works for Lockheed Martin, where she helps direct the F-35 program.“We had to protect the airspace any way we could,” she said.On that Tuesday in 2001, there were no planes standing by ready to defend the skies over Washington. Not a single plane equipped with live ammunition. “There was no perceived threat at the time, especially one coming from the homeland like that,” said Col. George Degnon, vice commander of the 113th Wing at Andrews. “It was a little bit of a helpless feeling, but we did everything humanly possible to get the aircraft armed and in the air. It was amazing to see people react.” But it would take an hour or more to arm a plane, and though that process was begun, they needed pilots in the air immediately. “Lucky, you’re coming with me,” said Col. Marc Sasseville, her commanding officer. “I’m going to go for the cockpit,” Sasseville said, “and you’ll take the tail.” And with that, the two skipped their pre-flight checks and took off.
“We don’t train to bring down airliners,” said Sasseville who is now stationed at the Pentagon. “If you just hit the engine, it could still glide and they could guide it to a target. My thought was the cockpit or the wing.”Sasseville’s plan was to maneuver the faster, more agile F-16 into the commercial airliner with enough time to eject. That timing, though, would require split-second perfection. “I was hoping to do both at the same time,” he said. “It probably wasn’t going to work, but that’s what I was hoping.”“If you eject then your jet could soar through without impact,” Penney said, thinking back. She wasn’t going to try to eject. In the end, they didn’t have to make the sacrifice. United 93 went down in Pennsylvania. Passengers aboard the plane fought back against the hijackers, and crashed in an isolated field. “The real heroes were the passengers on Flight 93 who were willing to sacrifice themselves,” Penney said. “I was just an accidental witness to history.” When asked why she was willing to fly a kamikaze mission, Penney doesn’t hesitate. “Why? - because there are things in this world that are more important than ourselves. Freedom, the Constitution of the United States, our way of life. We belong to something greater than ourselves. As complex and diverse and discordant as it is, this thing, this idea called America, binds us together in citizenship and community and brotherhood.”
 
When asked why she was willing to fly a kamikaze mission, Penney doesn’t hesitate. “Why? - because there are things in this world that are more important than ourselves. Freedom, the Constitution of the United States, our way of life. We belong to something greater than ourselves. As complex and diverse and discordant as it is, this thing, this idea called America, binds us together in citizenship and community and brotherhood.”

Now if we could get some of our alleged leaders to recognize this...
 
Last edited:
I'd almost think the the best course of action would be taking out the empenage. No tail, she isn't staying in the air long. I don't know how much force would be required, but you'd think even slowly flying/pressing into the tail section would be enough to disable elevator and rudder. I'd think there's too much room for error to go in like a missile and try to eject at the last second.
 
I'd almost think the the best course of action would be taking out the empenage. No tail, she isn't staying in the air long. I don't know how much force would be required, but you'd think even slowly flying/pressing into the tail section would be enough to disable elevator and rudder. I'd think there's too much room for error to go in like a missile and try to eject at the last second.

In WWII German fighter pilots used to ram the wings of bombers then parachute back down, get in another plane and try it again. (Wheelbarrows needed)

Of course the planes back then were slower and smaller.

But yes, my thought as well, too much room for error to safely eject before the collision.
 
In WWII German fighter pilots used to ram the wings of bombers then parachute back down, get in another plane and try it again. (Wheelbarrows needed)

Of course the planes back then were slower and smaller.

But yes, my thought as well, too much room for error to safely eject before the collision.

Keep I mind the hijackers would have that big jet firewalled, so the F-16s would be cruising pretty fast also in order to ram it.
 
In WWII German fighter pilots used to ram the wings of bombers then parachute back down, get in another plane and try it again. (Wheelbarrows needed)

Of course the planes back then were slower and smaller.

But yes, my thought as well, too much room for error to safely eject before the collision.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking about. Really just disabling/destroying any control surface would be easier than trying to bust through the cockpit. Closing in over the top of the wing/elevator and then initiating a descent. I'm thinking the elevator/horizontal stabilizer snaps right off, with opportunity for the Viper driver to continue another round of damage, or punch out if needed.
 
You don't have to ram a jet to take it down with another jet.
Just pull in front of an engine and go to full afterburner.
Take out two on the same side and, Achmed is going down.
Wasn't there an incident a couple of years ago where a Navy plane went down this way?
 
You don't have to ram a jet to take it down with another jet.
Just pull in front of an engine and go to full afterburner.
Take out two on the same side and, Achmed is going down.
Wasn't there an incident a couple of years ago where a Navy plane went down this way?
If you’re thinking of the P-3 incident the other aircraft was trying to thump the Orion and cut it just a little too close. The other guy lost big time while the P-3 landed in China.
 
If you’re thinking of the P-3 incident the other aircraft was trying to thump the Orion and cut it just a little too close. The other guy lost big time while the P-3 landed in China.

I thought an F-18 went down when another crossed to close in front and caused the trailing plane to flame-out.
 
I suspect it would be a bit hard to stay in front of an engine/cockpit of a maneuvering jet to use the A/B as a weapon but probably doable. I’d go for the empennage from the rear hemisphere where they can’t see the attack.

Cheers
 

6BvDG2b.gif
 
As fast and low as those guys were flying, a good "thumping" might have either caused a structural failure or caused them to lose control.
 
Good for her, and for him . . . a million years ago I was in the 113th (F105's at the time); anyway they raised their right hands, took it to heart, prepared to do the necessary. Good on 'em. . .
 
Take out two on the same side and, Achmed is going down.
It's not just Ahmed, it's potentially hundreds of voters.

UA93 and incidents since then have shown that pax and crew aren't going to cooperate. If anything, a crew member could be radicalized.
 
It's not just Ahmed, it's potentially hundreds of voters.

UA93 and incidents since then have shown that pax and crew aren't going to cooperate. If anything, a crew member could be radicalized.

I dunno about that. Possibly the FAs. A lot of our pilots were armed, and many times I jump seated on Delta those cats were armed too. One ex-NWA Capt briefed me to just lean to the side so I won't get shot when Ahmed broke into the cockpit. It was funny but real at the same time.
 
I wish I had a copy of the orders that we were shown to my squadron on that day, signed by the SECDEF, declaring the airspace over DC a "weapons free zone". The verbiage said something about all measures "up to and including ramming" were directed to stop a hijacked aircraft.

Still seared in my mind.
 
This lady is a hero. But one of the stupidest things I've ever read to this day is having these airplanes sitting without at least one of them ready to go fully armed with bullets and missiles. I hope that has changed.
 
This lady is a hero. But one of the stupidest things I've ever read to this day is having these airplanes sitting without at least one of them ready to go fully armed with bullets and missiles. I hope that has changed.

When the Cold War ended alert aircraft stood down. Wise decision? Even if they had alert aircraft they would be focused on a threat from outside the country, not within. I think Otis AFB in Massachusetts used to have an alert mission. Hard to say whether had they scrambled (IF they were on alert & armed) if they would catch the two that rammed the towers in NYC. Would they have even thought to shoot them down as they would not know the intentions of the hijackers as they were the first two hijacked planes. I would say probably not, maybe the second one if enough time was there.

Has it changed? You betcha. @EvilEagle mentions it from time to time. He flys an F-15 out of New Orleans and they have an alert mission.
 
Last edited:
Yep, there are many alert sites around the country now. 24/7/365 people from the ANG (and a few active duty units - but only a few) are on alert to defend the US.
 
This lady is a hero.

I'm not sure I agree (anymore than any other person in the service is a hero). As one general put it "she's the only person I know that got famous for almost having to do her job."

No doubt those were trying days. Many people were in the same boat as her; she's just the one on the lecture circuit because of it.
 
She used to race L-29s at Reno. Not sure if she’s still doing that.
 
Any AF or ANG pilot who would take on what is best described as a suicide mission has my ultimate respect.

What ever it took to deter the highjackers back then was the order of the day and those pilots who obeyed those orders deserve our utmost respect. Who but the most patriotic among us would launch into a mission knowing they would never see home or their loved ones again. IMO, it is the ultimate sacrifice. Those pilots were not Kamikazes but patriots dedicated to keeping America safe. My two cents worth. Kudos to those who accepted the mission.
 
I'm not sure I agree (anymore than any other person in the service is a hero). As one general put it "she's the only person I know that got famous for almost having to do her job."

No doubt those were trying days. Many people were in the same boat as her; she's just the one on the lecture circuit because of it.

Yeah, maybe hero is too much, maybe not. I just hope if I'm ever in a situation like her or the passengers on Flt 93, that I'm strong enough to react the way they did.
 
I wish I had a copy of the orders that we were shown to my squadron on that day, signed by the SECDEF, declaring the airspace over DC a "weapons free zone". The verbiage said something about all measures "up to and including ramming" were directed to stop a hijacked aircraft.

Still seared in my mind.

Crazy, and to put that into context for the non-mil folks, Hacker is talking about what we refer to as "Weapons Control Status". There are 3 levels, Hold, Tight, and Free. It is theater specific and based on the current situation, the theater commander's intent, and as a basis for that, SECDEF and POTUS intent. But I don't think there has been a war, other than maybe WWII at times (not that such a definition existed back then), where anything has gone beyond WCS "Tight". In layman's terms, Tight means you can shoot (in an autonomous sense, without waiting for several layers of command and control to approve, which would effectively be the case in "Hold"), but you have to know it is a hostile aircraft via some reliable means. "Free" means you can basically shoot anything that isn't positively identified as friendly. Obviously that is a little easier to implement when the entirety of US air traffic was grounded, and theoretically the only things flying were friendly military aircraft, and anything else would have been a hijacked aircraft about to do bad things. However, in any case, the "burden of proof/guilt" is much smaller in Free than it is in Tight. A bit unprecedented in modern history, at least to my knowledge. I was still in college at the time, so I didn't experience that, but interesting anecdote for sure.
 
Last edited:
... But I don't think there has been a war, other than maybe WWII at times (not that such a definition existed back then), where anything has gone beyond WCS "Tight". ...

A couple of days into Anaconda, there were two air to ground engagement zones where the zones and everything in them were declared Hostile. Took about 3 days to turn it all into a giant smoking hole. As close to Weapons Free as I’ve experienced and am willing to admit knowledge of in an Unclas environment.
 
Several free fire zones in the Vietnam War for ground stuff. Air to air? Besides 9/11 I don’t know of too many examples.
 
Sorry, should have been more clear, I meant in an "air to air engagement" sense. I've seen everything from "don't come here if you think you are dropping bombs" to "this is the Wild West" in terms of air to ground/support of ground forces.
 
Back
Top