Air defenses

[AMTMAN]

I was reading JamesB paper "There Are No Missile Defenses At the Pentagon"

< http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf >

the other day when I came across the part about John Judge stating that as a boy climbing onto a silver box his father said was a SAM battery. As James already pointed out the memories of a ten year old boy is proof of nothing. Also anyone who has been in the military can tell you that one does not go crawling onto weapons systems. Unless of course it's their job.

Anyway I looked at some of the papers written by John Judge and came across some interesting facts.

< http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/UQPC061002.html >

< http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html >

In both of these papers he talks of the fighters based at "Anacostia Naval Air Station". There's one problem with this, there's no runway capable of handling jet fighters. There hasn't been a runway for fixed wing jets in years. It does have however a hangar for HMX-1, the unit that flies the president.

< http://www.airfields-freeman.com/DC/Airfields_DC.htm >

< http://www.satellite-sightseer.com/id/6181/United_States/Maryland/Anacostia/Anacostia_Naval_Station >

Looks like we have another "researcher" who can't even look up pretty easy to find facts. Now I'll admit having been in the Navy I knew there was no runway at Anacostia Naval Station. However it did not take much to find this information. One would have thought that someone who claims to have grown "up in the Pentagon" would have been able to discover this.

Then there's the part where he states the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron, the 49th Marine Air Guard which defends the airspace over the DC area and F-18's that are combat ready. Maybe things have changed since I was in but the Navy and Marines are not tasked with air defense duties over the CONUS. Also he seems not to understand the difference between "combat ready" and aircraft that are actually fueled and armed standing alert duty. My squadron in the Navy had "combat ready" aircraft, once you armed and fueled them. Typically the only time Navy and Marine aircraft are armed at bases in the US is when they are getting ready to do a missile shot or do air-air/air-ground gunnery practice.

 

[Sabrina]

As far as I know, the ONLY time there has ever been any air defense systems (based on the ground) in DC was immediately after 9/11 when several Avenger platoons were temporarily stationed there. I'm not positive if they've called them in during other times when there were likely to be huge amounts of people in the capital (Fourth of July comes to mind), but I do recall seeing newspaper pictures of the Avenger units around that time. Other than that, there are no standing missile batteries in DC. Which, when you think about it, IS kinda dumb of us; wouldn't it make sense to have missile systems in place in case we get attacked from overseas? I'm a little surprised there aren't at least any SHORAD units stationed nearby; at least none I've heard of.

I know that's not really in relation to your OP, but as it has been brought up in the past, I thought I'd mention it.

 

[AMTMAN]

There used to be the Nike SAM, but the last of those were removed from service in the late 70's.

 

[stanleywinthrop]

Then there's the part where he states the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron, the 49th Marine Air Guard which defends the airspace over the DC area and F-18's that are combat ready. Maybe things have changed since I was in but the Navy and Marines are not tasked with air defense duties over the CONUS. Also he seems not to understand the difference between "combat ready" and aircraft that are actually fueled and armed standing alert duty. My squadron in the Navy had "combat ready" aircraft, once you armed and fueled them. Typically the only time Navy and Marine aircraft are armed at bases in the US is when they are getting ready to do a missile shot or do air-air/air-ground gunnery practice.

You are quite right, Marine and Navy are not typically tasked with air defense in CONUS. That's the Air National Guard's job. He gets the terminology spectacularly wrong, "the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron" is VMFA-321 "Hell's Angels", a marine reserve F-18 squadron (deactivated in 2004) that was based at Andrews. "the 49th Marine Air Guard" i believe is a reference to Marine Air Group 49 (MAG-49), the parent headquarters for VMFA-321, which is based at Willow Grove, PA. The correct terminology is easily available via google. You are correct in that when stateside, Marine and Navy squadrons only are armed when flying on specific live ordnance training flights, and never just sit around on the flightline with ordnance hanging. If one of these squadrons were ordered to take off armed to do an intercept stateside, it would be several hours at least to get the jets prepared.

 

[AMTMAN]

You are quite right, Marine and Navy are not typically tasked with air defense in CONUS. That's the Air National Guard's job. He gets the terminology spectacularly wrong, "the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron" is VMFA-321 "Hell's Angels", a marine reserve F-18 squadron (deactivated in 2004) that was based at Andrews. "the 49th Marine Air Guard" i believe is a reference to Marine Air Group 49 (MAG-49), the parent headquarters for VMFA-321, which is based at Willow Grove, PA. The correct terminology is easily available via google. You are correct in that when stateside, Marine and Navy squadrons only are armed when flying on specific live ordnance training flights, and never just sit around on the flightline with ordnance hanging. If one of these squadrons were ordered to take off armed to do an intercept stateside, it would be several hours at least to get the jets prepared.

I got a good laugh out of "the 49th Marine Air Guard". Tell any Marine air winger that he's part of the "Marine Air Guard" and see what reaction you get. I don't even know if they have AIM-9's for VMFA-321 there at Andrews. The Sidewinders the Navy/Marines use are different than the ones used by the USAF. The Navy/Marines use nitrogen stored in the LAU-7 rail to cool the seeker head on the Sidewinder. The USAF uses argon stored in the missile itself. Disclaimer, this is how it was when I was i. Maybe it has changed but knowing the military I doubt it.

 

[Reheat]

Maybe things have changed since I was in but the Navy and Marines are not tasked with air defense duties over the CONUS. Also he seems not to understand the difference between "combat ready" and aircraft that are actually fueled and armed standing alert duty. My squadron in the Navy had "combat ready" aircraft, once you armed and fueled them. Typically the only time Navy and Marine aircraft are armed at bases in the US is when they are getting ready to do a missile shot or do air-air/air-ground gunnery practice.

Yes, all correct. As has been mentioned the Air National Guard has assumed the Air Defense Mission for a number of years. During the Cold War that was not true, but the Peace Dividend allowed the Guard only to assume that mission. The numbers of aircraft and their tasked response time has changed over the years in accordance with the perceived threat.

"Combat Ready" is a DoD term that involves assets that are CAPABLE of conducting combat operations. That is reported through up channels to the JCS on a daily basis.

NONE of DoD's Combat Ready assets sit idly on a parking ramp or on a ship in an armed condition ready for combat on a routine basis. Aircraft are loaded with weapons on an "on demand" basis only. That means if they are tasked for ALERT they would be loaded with live weapons and ready to go within the time specified by their tasking. Even training ordnance is loaded in an on demand basis. The only exception would be gun training ammo (TP). If an aircraft returns from a training mission with unexpended training ammo (TP), it would not necessarily be downloaded. Another case would be aircraft configured with training munitions prior to an early morning mission, for example.

Live ordnance is very highly controlled and stored in a secure location. It is not left lying around in someone's broom closet or lying openly on a parking ramp. That is, of course, as it should be for security.

In most cases, it would not take hours to configure an aircraft for combat, but it's not minutes either. Live munitions are generally stored in bunkers in a secure location and are trailered to the aircraft and loaded. The time to load would be variable depending upon distance and other factors too numerous to mention.

The response during an emergency can be quite rapid. Missiles and gun ammo are generally easier than bombs and thanks to the many dedicated and proficient people involved it can be done very quickly.

Just as an example (not Air Defense related) following the axe murder of two US Army Officers in the DMZ between North and South Korea in 1976, we had 8 fighter bombers from the US loaded and ready for combat in South Korea in UNDER 24 hours. The flying time alone from their US base to their S. Korean base was slightly over 14 hours. Air-to-air Fighters were already in S. Korea.

In summary, the policies regarding live munitions are essentially the same for the Navy, Marines, and Air Force as is the reporting of "Combat Ready" aircraft.

 

[AMTMAN]

The CT's seem to think that the US has all that impressive military hardware is on hair trigger alert. Which of course is non-snese, it would be incredibly expensive to have it so.

Mr Judge calls the air space around Washington D.C. "one of the most secure airspaces in the world, protected under federal regulations from any over-flight by unauthorized planes". Key word here is regulations. Regulations does not mean there's an invisible shield around D.C. When it comes right down to it there are third world countries with more secure air space than the USA.

 

[gumboot]

Those people seem confused... they seem to be mixing up with the two units that were at Andrews AFB on 9/11 which were VMFA-321 and the 121st FS of the DC Air National Guard which fly F-16s. The 121st were not part of the 1st Air Force, and not part of the NORAD air defense mission, but by chance some aircraft were on training missions on 9/11 and by about 10am they had three F-16s (unarmed) over Washington DC at the request of the USSS. Additional fighters armed with AAMs arrived on station shortly after due to the quick thinking of the duty commander who ordered munitions pulled from the bunkers and loaded onto aircraft pretty quickly.

Post 9/11 the 121st FS has taken on NORAD alert duties, hence they promote their "Capital Defenders" motto pretty loudly, but on 9/11 it was a motto that didn't reflect their actual duties in peace time.

-Gumboot

 

[Reheat]

When it comes right down to it there are third world countries with more secure air space than the USA.

I wouldn't go that far, but it has a ring of truth. The US in the past has not had air protection from DOMESTIC AIRBORNE threats. All airborne threats were predicted to come from OUTSIDE of the US and would be detected in time to respond. Considering the geography that was a very good presumption. Of course, that all changed with 9/11.

Yes, other countries in a different geographic position have HUGE airspace restrictions around their Capitol in addition to missile and anti-aircraft gun defenses in strategic locations. However, those countries also do not have the amount of domestic air traffic that the US has, not even close.

Some countries (they shall remain unnamed) are so paranoid that any military or civil aircraft entering their airspace would/will be intercepted very quickly. Don't ask how I know!

 

[AMTMAN]

I wouldn't go that far, but it has a ring of truth. The US in the past has not had air protection from DOMESTIC AIRBORNE threats. All airborne threats were predicted to come from OUTSIDE of the US and would be detected in time to respond. Considering the geography that was a very good presumption. Of course, that all changed with 9/11.

Yes, other countries in a different geographic position have HUGE airspace restrictions around their Capitol in addition to missile and anti-aircraft gun defenses in strategic locations. However, those countries also do not have the amount of domestic air traffic that the US has, not even close.

Some countries (they shall remain unnamed) are so paranoid that any military or civil aircraft entering their airspace would/will be intercepted very quickly. Don't ask how I know!

Guess I could have used better terminology. I'm guessing one of those paranoid thrid world countries is North Korea.

 

[Reheat]

Guess I could have used better terminology. I'm guessing one of those paranoid thrid world countries is North Korea.

Of course, it is. However, they would fire SAMS and/or intercept to SHOOT, not just identify and direct to land. I actually wasn't referring to them at all.

I had an actual attempted intercept over France on one occasion. It was on a scheduled low level route, but they had a procedure in affect in which you had to contact them via radio prior to entry. They wouldn't answer and I went anyway.

They didn't complete a successful intercept and I'll leave it to you to guess why!

There was another one that I won't talk about.

Add: Various NATO aircraft practice unscheduled intercepts all over Europe. They are in no way hostile, they are really just practicing or playing as the case may be. New Aircraft are routinely greeted by other NATO fighters on their arrival in Europe. It's a kind of tradition!

 

[stanleywinthrop]

I got a good laugh out of "the 49th Marine Air Guard". Tell any Marine air winger that he's part of the "Marine Air Guard" and see what reaction you get. I don't even know if they have AIM-9's for VMFA-321 there at Andrews. The Sidewinders the Navy/Marines use are different than the ones used by the USAF. The Navy/Marines use nitrogen stored in the LAU-7 rail to cool the seeker head on the Sidewinder. The USAF uses argon stored in the missile itself. Disclaimer, this is how it was when I was i. Maybe it has changed but knowing the military I doubt it.

These days, we can disconnect the lau-7 nitrogen, if all we have access is the USAF Argon system. But your right VMFA-321 wasn't tasked for an alert pre-9/11 for DC airspace. It doesn't now because it doesn't exist anymore. I don't know what kind of munitions are stored at Andrews.

 

[AMTMAN]

Of course, it is. However, they would fire SAMS and/or intercept to SHOOT, not just identify and direct to land. I actually wasn't referring to them at all.

I had an actual attempted intercept over France on one occasion. It was on a scheduled low level route, but they had a procedure in affect in which you had to contact them via radio prior to entry. They wouldn't answer and I went anyway.

They didn't complete a successful intercept and I'll leave it to you to guess why!

Let me guess, F-111 going to fast for a Mirage without TFR to catch?

 

[AMTMAN]

These days, we can disconnect the lau-7 nitrogen, if all we have access is the USAF Argon system. But your right VMFA-321 wasn't tasked for an alert pre-9/11 for DC airspace. It doesn't now because it doesn't exist anymore. I don't know what kind of munitions are stored at Andrews.

Thanks for the info, I knew the Navy/Marine Sidewinders used nitrogen instead of Argon like the USAF winders. Did not know about being able to use Air Force winders on Navy or Marine birds by disconecting the nitrogen. Suffice it to say you can't use Navy/Marine winders on USAF birds. I've read that the new AIM-9X has it's own internal cooling system which negates the need for nitrogen or argon.

 

[Reheat]

Let me guess, F-111 going to fast for a Mirage without TFR to catch?

Yep, partly right. TFR doesn't matter at all. There was nothing that could catch an F-111F at low altitude. From what I've read, I'd say the Raptor might if the separation distance wasn't too much.

 

[AMTMAN]

Here's a little info for everyone. When I was in the Navy I did a detachment to NAS Key West back in the early 90's. Guess who was standing alert duty there due to the proximity of Cuba. Two F-15 Eagles.

 

[AMTMAN]

Yep, partly right. TFR doesn't matter at all. There was nothing that could catch an F-111Fat low altitude. From what I've read, I'd say the Raptor might if the separation distance wasn't too much.

I guess at those speeds it would not matter.

 

[SpitfireIX]

. . . Mr Judge calls the air space around Washington D.C. "one of the most secure airspaces in the world, protected under federal regulations from any over-flight by unauthorized planes". . . .

From a June 20, 2002 CNN.com article:

Two U.S. Air National Guard F-16s were not able to intercept a small plane that violated restricted air space around Washington until more than 10 minutes after the Cessna 182 passed near the White House, administration sources told CNN Thursday. . . .

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, conceded that the procedures in place were not adequate to protect the White House had a suicide bomber used a small plane or private jet to attack the building. . . .

Air patrols were scaled back over Washington and New York in April because of the cost and strain on air crews. [emphasis added]

 

[twinstead]

Wow. Interesting stuff.

This thread appears to be a decent smack down of any 'stand down' theory, IMO.

 

[Corsair 115]

Two U.S. Air National Guard F-16s were not able to intercept a small plane that violated restricted air space around Washington until more than 10 minutes after the Cessna 182 passed near the White House, administration sources told CNN Thursday.

I don't know, using F-16s to intercept a Cessna doesn't sound like a particularly efficient use of resources. Maybe they ought to keep a couple of old P-51s or F4Us around to tackle the slower moving small aircraft...