Super Bowl Security to Shoot Down Drones within 32 miles of stadium

Acrodustertoo said:
We got to talking and we all have the same question right now. How hard or easy is it to shoot a piper cub out the sky with an f-15? We all saw the video of the Eagles trying to keep pace with a Cessna, now cut that speed down by thirty five knots or so and now how effective are the cannons on the eagle to a target at that speed and how effective would any of our current ordnance be at that speed and target size?
Click to expand...

It presents a difficult but manageable problem, especially if they are low. One of our exercises would often include a low, slow mover. Any competent pilot should be able to handle it, but it has an element of difficulty that you don't normally deal with, so need to be aware of.

Fighters never want to overshoot a target, and they also don't want to get dragged in to a slow flight regime where their options are limited. If it is a single civilian aircraft that presents no threat, then slowing down to manage the problem isn't much of an issue. Overshoot isn't that big of an issue except that it can cause you to lose SA and take longer to reset. So, the plan of attack would be to set up an S-pattern behind the target aircraft coming in at an angle taking a shot, then reversing to set up again. One pass should be all it takes, but a second could be set up quickly managing the angles so that you don't flush out in front or set up too much of a high-aspect shot on the follow up.

If the slow mover drops down to really low altitude, it complicates the problem for the fighter.
 
Cooter143 said:
It presents a difficult but manageable problem, especially if they are low. One of our exercises would often include a low, slow mover. Any competent pilot should be able to handle it, but it has an element of difficulty that you don't normally deal with, so need to be aware of.

Fighters never want to overshoot a target, and they also don't want to get dragged in to a slow flight regime where their options are limited. If it is a single civilian aircraft that presents no threat, then slowing down to manage the problem isn't much of an issue. Overshoot isn't that big of an issue except that it can cause you to lose SA and take longer to reset. So, the plan of attack would be to set up an S-pattern behind the target aircraft coming in at an angle taking a shot, then reversing to set up again. One pass should be all it takes, but a second could be set up quickly managing the angles so that you don't flush out in front or set up too much of a high-aspect shot on the follow up.

If the slow mover drops down to really low altitude, it complicates the problem for the fighter.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Does this include an advisory at 65 kts ?
What kind of target does a j-3 cub present to an eagle? As far as firing a missile goes ?
 
Acrodustertoo said:
Thank you, Does this include an advisory at 65 kts ?
What kind of target does a j-3 cub present to an eagle? As far as firing a missile goes ?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by advisory at 65 kts.

There is an Eagle guy on the forum, and I'll let him speak more specifically to its systems if he jumps in. But generally, it depends on range and type of missile. If the J-3 is canvas it would be tough with either radar or IR, especially at low alt. I'm not familiar with the AIM-9X or whatever is out there now, but the older models and IR missile would have a difficult time with a non-turbine aircraft, depending on sun-angle and background (looking down instead of up). For a radar missile, aluminum aircraft would be easy, canvas would be tougher. Closure is an issue when dealing with a really slow mover and you've been dragged into close quarters. You need to manage your minimum distance for the weapon, which can present a challenge if you are remaining within visual range on a small aircraft.

I don't know what scenario you are envisioning, but any decent pilot flying CAP or Alert would be able to handle that type of situation. I would imagine that post-911 that they train for that type of thing. But, in any scenario, a small low flying aircraft that was being evasive can be difficult but not un-manageable.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
Thank you, Does this include an advisory at 65 kts ?
What kind of target does a j-3 cub present to an eagle? As far as firing a missile goes ?
Click to expand...
Can't say I'm qualified to say what a fighter can do..I definitely am not.

But...I'm a systems guy..and I think about systems....So with that in mind:

Best bet in something like a J3 would be to fly pretty much on the deck over traffic. The more traffic, the better. They pretty much can't touch you there even if they want to. They sure the hell aren't going to try to chase you in with guns (they really don't want to end up low and slow), not going to get a radar lock, given all the ground clutter, and there are other heat signatures just as substantial all around you. Plus too many innocent people around they'll be more likely to hit.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
That is indeed security. Security is not, and likely never will be perfect. That said, making it as hard as possible for the bad guys too succeed is a good thing. On a small level, locking your doors accomplishes that first layer.
Click to expand...


Pfft. Locking car doors accomplishes nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Kritchlow said:
To answer your question, yes, I do believe security works. It's not perfect, but the harder we can make it for the bad guys the better.



I realize this thread is about Super Bowl security, but really the elephant in the room is aviation security. There is nothing I can say about the TSA that will please you, but I do believe they make a huge difference. Deterrence. I just can't imagine getting on an airliner with zero security. Letting everyone on, armed, knives, bazookas... And while we're at it lets just leave the cockpit door open.



So, where do I draw the line?? I'm not sure. I'll know it when we get there. I don't think we are there yet.
Click to expand...


So you admit you have a *belief* (known in other circles as religion, fiction, whatever synonym you like)...

And your belief is supporting a system that is headed for being overbearing and stupid...

And you're "not sure" if we're there yet!

Got it.

Spiffy. Just what we all need.

Loved the "ISIS Flamethrower Man" idea, though. Classic. Read a lot of comic books?

Because that's everyone's first thought when terrorizing people, is to carry around a 150 lb backpack of liquid accelerants and a device that has to be set on fire prior to use... over 6 lbs per gallon and it goes through how many gallons in a minute?

Wouldn't want to use a much more compact, easier to use, and much more useful thing to do harm with, than a giant tank of gasoline and a sprayer attached to your back. LOL

Hold on to those "beliefs" that DHS and billions spent on it per year, is real "security", if you enjoy them and they make you feel warm and fuzzy.
 
I am going to leave this here because I like saying the words. Posse Comitatus
 
denverpilot said:
Pfft. Locking car doors accomplishes nothing. Absolutely nothing.




So you admit you have a *belief* (known in other circles as religion, fiction, whatever synonym you like)...

And your belief is supporting a system that is headed for being overbearing and stupid...

And you're "not sure" if we're there yet!

Got it.

Spiffy. Just what we all need.

Loved the "ISIS Flamethrower Man" idea, though. Classic. Read a lot of comic books?

Because that's everyone's first thought when terrorizing people, is to carry around a 150 lb backpack of liquid accelerants and a device that has to be set on fire prior to use... over 6 lbs per gallon and it goes through how many gallons in a minute?

Wouldn't want to use a much more compact, easier to use, and much more useful thing to do harm with, than a giant tank of gasoline and a sprayer attached to your back. LOL

Hold on to those "beliefs" that DHS and billions spent on it per year, is real "security", if you enjoy them and they make you feel warm and fuzzy.
Click to expand...
Locking car doors certainly does accomplish something. Been there done that first hand.

I won't answer your next comment.

As to the flamethrower, yes, that was intentional exaggeration to prove a point. I guess that went over your head.

Finally, you will never find an example where I said security, whether it be at the super bowl, or the TSA, was great. My point has always been that it's better than nothing, and acts as a deterrent.
 
Last edited:
Acrodustertoo said:
Thank you, Does this include an advisory at 65 kts ?
What kind of target does a j-3 cub present to an eagle? As far as firing a missile goes ?
Click to expand...

It depends. Those of us who sit alert (ANG) train to slow and low targets quite often. Rag wing airplanes or ultra lights come with a different set of challenges, but it's certainly doable.

Cooter143 said:
There is an Eagle guy on the forum, and I'll let him speak more specifically to its systems if he jumps in. But generally, it depends on range and type of missile. If the J-3 is canvas it would be tough with either radar or IR, especially at low alt. I'm not familiar with the AIM-9X or whatever is out there now...
Click to expand...

I'm an Eagle guy. The 9x can track a cub no problem. Cueing it to the cub will depend on a lot - type of radar, type of prop, angle, etc.

jesse said:
Best bet in something like a J3 would be to fly pretty much on the deck over traffic. The more traffic, the better. They pretty much can't touch you there even if they want to. They sure the hell aren't going to try to chase you in with guns (they really don't want to end up low and slow), not going to get a radar lock, given all the ground clutter, and there are other heat signatures just as substantial all around you. Plus too many innocent people around they'll be more likely to hit.
Click to expand...

If they were flying that close to traffic at traffic speeds, the SS, FBI, whoever would most certainly take care of the "threat" with some ground vehicle based system. We wouldn't be involved because of the lack of surgical capability/no way to ensure no collateral.

I've said on this board, the red board, purple board and beechtalk many many times, so I won't go into the normal detail. Short version: intercepting slow targets is not a problem - there will be two of us and one will be behind and in a firing window 100% of the time. We don't need to park it next to the airplane we are intercepting.

The reason they use fast jets instead of something cheaper/slower is time. Its a simple math problem - we need x amount of time to take action (move the principle, get authority to engage & do so, whatever), given a nominal airspeed for a threat, that means we need someone to intercept and visually confirm what's going on (pilots in uniforms, no one at the controls, etc) at a distance y. Given that nominal speed, there will be a range where the TOI becomes a real threat: z. So, between y and z we need x amount of time. Those are pretty fixed for a given threat. The y distance may be 175 miles for a fast mover and 12 miles for something slow, but you need something that can be launched and intercept either in the smallest amount of time.
 
Kritchlow said:
Finally, you will never find an example where I said security, whether it be at the super bowl, or the TSA, was great. My point has always been that it's better than nothing, and acts as a deterrent.
Click to expand...


And I said it doesn't act as a deterrent.

Anyone who really wants to harm people at any of these events will find a way to get it done, bypassing whatever "security theater" is in their way, with about ten minutes of thought.

Then the powers that be will lament their ineptitude on TV and ask for more money to do it right the next time.

Wash, rinse, repeat. Useless.
 
denverpilot said:
And I said it doesn't act as a deterrent.

Anyone who really wants to harm people at any of these events will find a way to get it done, bypassing whatever "security theater" is in their way, with about ten minutes of thought.

Then the powers that be will lament their ineptitude on TV and ask for more money to do it right the next time.

Wash, rinse, repeat. Useless.
Click to expand...

We will disagree on that I guess. It is my belief that if that were true, the terrorists would have indeed taken another plane.

If it is so easy to get around security, what was the purpose of trying to come up with new ideas such as the whole liquid thing a few years ago? Seems like too much work. Just carry a gun through security because after all, it's theater only.
 
Kritchlow said:
We will disagree on that I guess. It is my belief that if that were true, the terrorists would have indeed taken another plane.



If it is so easy to get around security, what was the purpose of trying to come up with new ideas such as the whole liquid thing a few years ago? Seems like too much work. Just carry a gun through security because after all, it's theater only.
Click to expand...


The liquid thing was more an example of weak planning and lack of dedication to the objective, than actual security.

Your misuse of the word "security" instead of "security checkpoint" is the key to understanding that you've moved the goalposts.

I said a dedicated attacker. Not someone looking for attention willfully walking through a known checkpoint. That's not a plan. That's a mental health problem.

And as stated before, guess what stopped both of those doofuses? The passengers. Act weird in an airliner cabin, you'll get your ass handed to you. The TSA response was AFTER they *succeeded* in beating the "security".

Airport ground "security" is fairly low in available attack vectors nowadays, but there's ways. Most of them don't go through the TSA checkpoint.

It's nice and convenient that you changed the topic from TFRs to airline cabins to try to make a non-existent point about TFRs, though.

It's not about "disagreeing", it's about facts. Your examples of "security" changes were too little, too late, and failed before they were implemented. The quintessential thumb in the dyke.
 
denverpilot said:
The liquid thing was more an example of weak planning and lack of dedication to the objective, than actual security.

Your misuse of the word "security" instead of "security checkpoint" is the key to understanding that you've moved the goalposts.

I said a dedicated attacker. Not someone looking for attention willfully walking through a known checkpoint. That's not a plan. That's a mental health problem.

And as stated before, guess what stopped both of those doofuses? The passengers. Act weird in an airliner cabin, you'll get your ass handed to you. The TSA response was AFTER they *succeeded* in beating the "security".

Airport ground "security" is fairly low in available attack vectors nowadays, but there's ways. Most of them don't go through the TSA checkpoint.

It's nice and convenient that you changed the topic from TFRs to airline cabins to try to make a non-existent point about TFRs, though.

It's not about "disagreeing", it's about facts. Your examples of "security" changes were too little, too late, and failed before they were implemented. The quintessential thumb in the dyke.
Click to expand...
You're correct, they did come afterwards. But, does that mean we shouldn't even attempt to stop further activity? Should we not learn from our failures and oversights?

I cannot comment on the whole vendor security thing. That said, most people do not have that access.

BTW... Feel free to chat about the TFR. I had no reason to want to change that topic. It seemed to just to turn into a security in general type discussion.
 
Kritchlow said:
You're correct, they did come afterwards. But, does that mean we shouldn't even attempt to stop further activity? Should we not learn from our failures and oversights?



I cannot comment on the whole vendor security thing. That said, most people do not have that access.



BTW... Feel free to chat about the TFR. I had no reason to want to change that topic. It seemed to just to turn into a security in general type discussion.
Click to expand...


Stop further activity? Heck if we knew how to do that we wouldn't have the fullest jail cells in the world. I hear "gun free zones" work too. Haha. Rich.

The TFRs are way more useless that most of the stuff done on the ground, I've definitely never argued that.

Here's your way around the TFR if you're a bad guy. File IFR right past the thing and make a hard turn. That's pretty much it. If you can cross the radius of the TFR faster than the decision to shoot you down can be made, you win. Game over.
 
denverpilot said:
Stop further activity? Heck if we knew how to do that we wouldn't have the fullest jail cells in the world. I hear "gun free zones" work too. Haha. Rich.

The TFRs are way more useless that most of the stuff done on the ground, I've definitely never argued that.

Here's your way around the TFR if you're a bad guy. File IFR right past the thing and make a hard turn. That's pretty much it. If you can cross the radius of the TFR faster than the decision to shoot you down can be made, you win. Game over.
Click to expand...

Still better to try versus throw in the towel IMO.

I don't understand how gun free zones figure in here. With certain exceptions, I do not believe in gun free zones. Two exceptions I can think of is on an airplane, and at a football game.
The reasons why vary. On an airplane it is a bit much to express typing on an iPhone. In a football stadium I would say fine if 1/2 the crowd wasn't three sheets to the wind and already pretty excitable.
 
Kritchlow said:
Still better to try versus throw in the towel IMO.



I don't understand how gun free zones figure in here. With certain exceptions, I do not believe in gun free zones. Two exceptions I can think of is on an airplane, and at a football game.

The reasons why vary. On an airplane it is a bit much to express typing on an iPhone. In a football stadium I would say fine if 1/2 the crowd wasn't three sheets to the wind and already pretty excitable.
Click to expand...


People who "try" are cute. I prefer people in charge of "security" fight to win. And fighting to win means not fighting fair in those games.

The gun free zone comment was a joke that mostly what government does is just hang up signs and declares something "not allowed" and pretends that took care of the problem. In other words, what a TFR really is. TFRs keep the honest out, just like door locks. Seeing a pattern here?

Obviously there are places where you'll be shot on sight my someone working for the government if you are where you're not supposed to be. Those aren't public stadiums however. The Israeli's do it at airports sometimes. Even we haven't gone that far yet, but they're pretty "successful", if we're looking for an objective success measure of "security".

If your thought process isn't limited to "the rules" you'll get around everything "security" throws at you, right up until they hold you at gunpoint.

And many "terrorists" are willing to trade their lives for an outcome so even holding them at gunpoint is nothing to them. Go ahead and shoot. They don't care. They're going to heaven or whatever they've deluded themselves into believing. Maybe Valhalla. Or the eternal embrace of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Doesn't really matter. They made a decision.

Crowd control is a completely different topic than security, but every year someone is trampled to death at a soccer match somewhere. I'm sure they felt quite "secure" right up until their fellow drinker fan friends crushed them to death underfoot. LOL.
 
What is completely lacking in America's security apparatus is something commonplace in its industry. Simple risk assessment. The collective security apparatus asks "what could happen?", while most other rational actors ask "what's most likely to happen?". I could implement and anti-elephant brigade in my town armed with elephant guns. Heck, we could arm them with pink elephant guns to shoot rampaging pink elephants. After years of not shooting any elephants we could claim victory, as no one was hurt and no property damaged by rampaging elephants under our watch.

I think rampaging elephants are about as likely as someone using a drone to try and harm someone as the Super Bowl. I think they are about as likely as someone trying to use an airplane to harm someone at the Super Bowl. Quite literally dozens of Superbowls were held when as much as twice as many aircraft graced our skies and no one tried to fly one into the Super Bowl.
 
steingar said:
What is completely lacking in America's security apparatus is something commonplace in its industry. Simple risk assessment. The collective security apparatus asks "what could happen?", while most other rational actors ask "what's most likely to happen?". I could implement and anti-elephant brigade in my town armed with elephant guns. Heck, we could arm them with pink elephant guns to shoot rampaging pink elephants. After years of not shooting any elephants we could claim victory, as no one was hurt and no property damaged by rampaging elephants under our watch.

I think rampaging elephants are about as likely as someone using a drone to try and harm someone as the Super Bowl. I think they are about as likely as someone trying to use an airplane to harm someone at the Super Bowl. Quite literally dozens of Superbowls were held when as much as twice as many aircraft graced our skies and no one tried to fly one into the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity... It was many years ago but does anyone remember the airplane that tried to land on the football field and crashed into the stands? I think it was as the stadium was clearing out.
 
steingar said:
What is completely lacking in America's security apparatus is something commonplace in its industry. Simple risk assessment. The collective security apparatus asks "what could happen?", while most other rational actors ask "what's most likely to happen?". I could implement and anti-elephant brigade in my town armed with elephant guns. Heck, we could arm them with pink elephant guns to shoot rampaging pink elephants. After years of not shooting any elephants we could claim victory, as no one was hurt and no property damaged by rampaging elephants under our watch.

I think rampaging elephants are about as likely as someone using a drone to try and harm someone as the Super Bowl. I think they are about as likely as someone trying to use an airplane to harm someone at the Super Bowl. Quite literally dozens of Superbowls were held when as much as twice as many aircraft graced our skies and no one tried to fly one into the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...

Obviously, that's because the system worked...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top