4 ms·

The airforce is testing a cruise missile defense balloon in Maryland. It's a blimp tied to the ground. I'd imagine most of US civil air defense is just sending

The airforce is testing a cruise missile defense balloon in Maryland. It's a blimp tied to the ground. I'd imagine most of US civil air defense is just sending up fighter jets. But on 9-11, US air defense got caught with their pants down. I wouldn't expect much.

smeyer 11y ago
>I'd imagine most of US civil air defense is just sending up fighter jets. The US has developed a lot of missiles, including those used to shoot down other missiles. Do you have a reason to believe that their IADS is so dependent on fighters? I'm not particularly well-informed on the issue so I'd be interested to read more.
- rhino369 11y ago
  Just guessing based on lack of obvious military installations around cities.
  - nostrademons 11y ago
    Miniaturization technology has advanced enough that they don't need fixed installations. Low altitude anti-air defense is probably a bunch of Stingers stored in a locker in key target buildings. High-altitude ABM defense would be Patriots and THAADs, both of which are mounted on mobile trucks which presumably are housed in U.S. military bases and in secret garages or other locations. It's to your advantage to not let your enemies know where your defenses are; pretty much all missiles since the 1980s have been mounted on trucks that let them be stationed anywhere a road goes to.
    - rdl 11y ago
      The White House has NASAMS on nearby buildings, which is a pretty decent upgrade in capability over Stingers. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-capitol-is-guarded-by-norwegian-surface-to-ai-1556894733 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-capitol-is-guarded...
justizin 11y ago
> But on 9-11, US air defense got caught with their pants down. I wouldn't expect much. I'm not sure it's US air defense who got caught with their pants down, the entire notion of the 9/11 attack would have been to get around the effectiveness of US air defense at keeping foreign aircraft out of US airspace. The time needed to scramble F-16s is not based on a jet flying from Boston to DC or whatever. That's already the end zone.
- ecdavis 11y ago
  The FAA and NORAD did indeed have protocols to deal with hijackings in US airspace requiring a military response. Those protocols broke down somewhat on 9/11. A lack of communication between the FAA and the military slowed down the military response to the hijackings. The 9/11 Commission Report is well worth a read.

smeyer 11y ago

>I'd imagine most of US civil air defense is just sending up fighter jets. The US has developed a lot of missiles, including those used to shoot down other missiles. Do you have a reason to believe that their IADS is so dependent on fighters? I'm not particularly well-informed on the issue so I'd be interested to read more.

rhino369 11y ago
Just guessing based on lack of obvious military installations around cities.
- nostrademons 11y ago
  Miniaturization technology has advanced enough that they don't need fixed installations. Low altitude anti-air defense is probably a bunch of Stingers stored in a locker in key target buildings. High-altitude ABM defense would be Patriots and THAADs, both of which are mounted on mobile trucks which presumably are housed in U.S. military bases and in secret garages or other locations. It's to your advantage to not let your enemies know where your defenses are; pretty much all missiles since the 1980s have been mounted on trucks that let them be stationed anywhere a road goes to.
  - rdl 11y ago
    The White House has NASAMS on nearby buildings, which is a pretty decent upgrade in capability over Stingers. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-capitol-is-guarded-by-norwegian-surface-to-ai-1556894733 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-capitol-is-guarded...

justizin 11y ago

> But on 9-11, US air defense got caught with their pants down. I wouldn't expect much. I'm not sure it's US air defense who got caught with their pants down, the entire notion of the 9/11 attack would have been to get around the effectiveness of US air defense at keeping foreign aircraft out of US airspace. The time needed to scramble F-16s is not based on a jet flying from Boston to DC or whatever. That's already the end zone.

ecdavis 11y ago
The FAA and NORAD did indeed have protocols to deal with hijackings in US airspace requiring a military response. Those protocols broke down somewhat on 9/11. A lack of communication between the FAA and the military slowed down the military response to the hijackings. The 9/11 Commission Report is well worth a read.