Home » Air » Air-to-Air Combat » The NYPD Has Air-to-Air Capability

The NYPD Has Air-to-Air Capability

by John Reed on September 26, 2011

The Internet was aflame this morning with talk of  NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly’s statement to 60 Minutes last night that his department has the ability to shoot down aircraft. Naturally, this prompted people to ask if the department has some type of surface-to-air-missiles. We’ve seen talk about the militarization of America’s police departments over the past few decades but this would take things to a new level!

Here’s what Kelly told 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley:

Pelley: Do you mean to say that the NYPD has the means to take down an aircraft?

Kelly: Yes, I prefer not to get into the details but obviously this would be in a very extreme situation.

Pelley: You have the equipment and the training.

Kelly: Yes.

At the end of the day, it turns out that the NYPD isn’t running around with SL-AMRAAM’s (pronounced slam-ram) like the ones that defend Washington DC, Patriot missiles or even shoulder-fired Stinger missiles. Nope, the department’s anti-aircraft capacity comes from snipers trained to fire the famous Barrett .50 cal while flying in a police department helo. This is very similar to how the Coast Guard uses HH-65 Dolphin choppers to defend Washington DC against small, slow moving Cessna-style planes.

From the NY Post:

The weapon, which the department has had for four years, is stored in an NYPD safe and is deployed only for “special occasions,” such as when the president is in town, the sources added.

Let’s just hope the NYPD doesn’t start experimenting with using an AT-6 light attack plane for this mission like U.S. Northern Command did last November.

For more on helo-sniping, check out this post at sister site Kit Up!

Via Gizmodo and 60 Minutes.

Share |

{ 104 comments… read them below or add one }

blight September 26, 2011 at 12:21 pm

It won't be long before the NYPD invests in such capability. They already have a foreign intelligence agency and collaborate with the FBI and the CIA intimately. They own Floyd Bennett and use it to deploy helicopters, so with more tax hikes they could refurbish it to deploy light aircraft for emergency operations, and procure some armed AT-6's.

There would be some serious legal questions about acquiring weapons, since things as "basic" as the M2 aren't in the law enforcement toolbox. Where air to air missiles would come from is kind of a mystery.

Reply

Posse Com? September 27, 2011 at 1:32 am

NYPD should send some cops to Mars and protect it from terrorists. This is insane!!!

Reply

ew-3 September 26, 2011 at 12:37 pm

Sad to see my hometown turned into Franco era Spain.

Reply

Daedalus September 26, 2011 at 1:08 pm

Kind of a necessity seeing as how NY is the largest US city, the the largest US target, and has huge multinational and financial interests . I'm glad to hear that NY has an intelligence agency that's considered one of the top in the world.

And I hardly think that NY's security initiatives even come close to the suppressive police state of Spain under Franco's rule. I must point at you and yell, "LIBERAL".

Reply

ew-3 September 26, 2011 at 2:39 pm

FWIW – I'm a mix of libertarian and conservative and a Viet Nam vet.

Problem I have is that a lot of the steps taken have had little or nothing to do with the WTC aircraft attacks.

The 9/11 attacks could have prevented by simply having locked and secured cockpits as the pilots wanted but were blocked on by the federal government.
Also the federal government (FAA) had rules that we should give in to the hijackers and not fight back. Lastly the knives they used were legal to carry on.

All this TSA cr@p at the airport is pretty much useless.
The cockpits are secure and the passengers know to kick ass when there is a problem. It would be even better if pilots were encouraged to carry firearms.

I'm not sure what the point of so many cops carrying M4s is. Do we expect terrorists to enter into a land battle? If and when terrorists attack again with stealth and likely with a bomb not small arms.

Want to make the country more secure stop illegal immigration. Secure the Mexican border. And stop allowing potential terrorists to come into this country (specifically the large number of Somalis that come in under UN refugee status)

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 3:35 pm

I agree that the security issue was never addressed in the '80s, and we were foolish enough to think that all hijackings were political in nature, where we could address them having the hijackers land and then storm the aircraft with commandos. Our high success rate here blinded us to the idea of using aircraft as suicide missiles.

The TSA is plus or minus, especially since all it's done is encourage AQ to devise new means to smuggle explosives onto aircraft. The various iterations of shoe bomber, peroxide explosives in water bottles and gels and the like seems to suggest that the presence of TSA has forced Emmanuel Goldstein to think outside the box.

The M-4s are definitely in appropriate for "security" duty, but if it boils down to stopping power to protect a facility from attackers, more firepower tends to sell better than less.

As for securing the country, illegal immigration won't stop terrorism. The Mexicans streaming across the border by and large /were/ coming here to work and to have children in a country where the bribes are less, the corruption isn't so bad and there aren't drug gangs running around all over the place.

I don't see what you have against the Somalis, especially as none were the "muscle" in the 9/11 hijackings, which was predominated by students of Saudi descent.

"Security" would probably come from the Saudis breaking out bread and circuses for their legions of unemployed or underemployed men who are easy bait for hostile ideology…which sounds like the incubator that is beginning to appear here in the states.

Is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia our enemy? Not, not openly. Is it Somalia, or Somalis? No. It is /some/ Somalis..and even then, Somalis are only in the limelight because it is American-born Somalis, armed with American passports who are easy marks for "terrorist recruiters".

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 4:01 pm

Agreed on the points regarding proper protection of cockpits and the TSA. The fact that AQ sent bombers even in the teeth of the TSA to attack aircraft suggests that the TSA was doing alright (alternatively, AQ did it to ensure we didn't take apart that apparatus, and to look like they were still in the game).

Illegal immigration won't instantly make this country secure. Making the Middle East do bread and circuses to keep their population employed, or to modernize their economies like Turkey would be the way forward. They're Muslims, and they're not regarded as "sell outs" by the Middle East?

Reply

oifvet September 28, 2011 at 4:37 pm

The m4 is nothing more than posturing. It is just a show of force to make the average citizen “feel safe”

orly? September 27, 2011 at 10:29 am

1. Pilots do fly armed, with issue training and handguns
2. Seems M4s are growing in use EVERYWHERE. Cops now need to counter assaultrifles. That's the world we live in.
3. As a half liberal halfbreed, I'm prowall/proamnesty.

Keep in mind, all refugees can easily be considered illegals. Hell even defectors are considered illegals.

Who does want to have their family live in the middle of a drug war (Mexico)?
Who wants to leave a communist country (Cuba)?
Who wants to leave a country to escape genocide (Nazi Germany)?

Reply

Mike September 27, 2011 at 10:56 am

The land ballle possibility is there. India had one in a city. Any Mall or place where large groups of people get together. Pick a holliday or week end. Put one or two snipers to shoot at the first police to respond and back up stops to take care of that. Have one group take out security, abd another group chane lock the exits. Pul out the AK and glocks bring a lot of mags. Then Kill Killl Kill. You are going to die for god any way. The way police respond the only thing to screw up this situation for the bad guys is someone with concealed carry who has the balls to do whats right.

Reply

orly? September 26, 2011 at 1:11 pm

What stance would you want NYC, THE most targetted city on the globe, take?

A hard target or a soft target?

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 1:12 pm

I'm looking for the mass graves in upstate New York, but…

Reply

Matt September 26, 2011 at 5:46 pm

Yep, fighting terrorism is exactly the same as a totalitarian state… Its not like theres abunch of intitled, liberal protesters (unshot and unbeaten) outside Wall Street… Cause a protest like that could never happen in a place like the America you apperently think exists.

Seriously there are steps that need to be taken by the gov to protect its people, that doesnt make America into Fracist Spain, Nazi German, or what ever.

Reply

Chuck September 26, 2011 at 11:44 pm

Really? A .50 caliber in a helicopter is equivalent to Franco era Spain? Really?

Reply

jamesb September 26, 2011 at 1:19 pm

Ok…..

Everybody Calm TF down!

The Offensive weapon is rumoured to be nothing less than mountable 50 cal. machine guns turrets…
I would assume simple to machine build the stands on the city's Agusta 109's or Bell 412's most likly since they would be like having Huey's….

My question is this?

For the military to 'shoot down an a/c the chain runs to a US General with National Command Authority….

Is Kelly saying HE or The NYC Mayor can give that comamnd?

Last is a Helo that can do about 120 gonna be able 'catch up' to a commerical jet?

Questions?

I'll bet this one lands on Obama and the Joint Chiefs desk's

ref:….. .http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nypd_kelly_says_cops_have_could_oLYGWtpJGmt4ewT0camuqL

Reply

Mike Ireland September 28, 2011 at 2:18 pm

commerical jets are intercepted by F16s this has no application ..

Reply

Musson1 September 26, 2011 at 1:33 pm

On 9/11 – the pilot of the police helicopter flying over the twin towers was told he must do 'whatever it took' to keep another plane from hitting the buildings.

In his case – he was suppose to crash his helicopter into the oncoming aircraft.

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 3:37 pm

I wonder if that would even do the job. If the bulk of the aircraft continues onwards, it might still hit a target skyscraper. You'd have to rip the aircraft to shreds and far enough away to allow debris to disperse all over NYC, which in turn would escalate the property damage, but definitely kill a lot less than three-thousand people.

Reply

EJ257 September 27, 2011 at 1:37 pm

Considering the mass of a airliner (say 757) is about 50 tons empty and over 100 tons fully loaded I would have to say no. A 5 ton helo hitting even head on is going to do little to slow it down. Remember Newton's 1st law, object in motion tend to want to stay in motion, that 100 ton is not going to stop on a dime for you. You best bet is to take it out over LI/ NJ/upstate NY somewhere. By the time its over Manhattan anyway you take it out is going to cause a lot of damage.

Reply

Blight September 27, 2011 at 9:51 pm

Conservation of momentum with a hard body treatment would suggest that the helicopter would have to be much faster if it were much lighter.

Reply

crackedlenses September 26, 2011 at 5:25 pm

I've read of Air Force fighters hitting the air during 9/11 with virtually the same mission because they didn't have time to arm up……

Reply

TMB September 27, 2011 at 1:55 pm

That was the mission of the F-16s that were scrambled to intercept the flight that went down in PA. One plane was to hit the tail and the other was to hit the cockpit.

Reply

Zach September 26, 2011 at 1:50 pm

When you've got the NYPD and Coasties flying MiGCAP in helos over NY and DC, you know something's not quite right. The AT-6s would make a world of difference, or even better, a squadron of something along the line of Skyraiders. The only precedent for a helo-on-aircraft kill is the Air America incident, in any case. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-
The option really isn't a feasible one. Or perhaps it's just my secret desire to see a Bae Hawk with AIM-9's in NYPD markings patrolling the city.

Reply

TLAM Strike September 26, 2011 at 10:06 pm

A Iraqi Mi-24 Hind shot down an Iranian F-4 Phantom once. Iranian AH-1Js shot down four MiGs in that war as well.

Reply

tiger September 26, 2011 at 2:49 pm

The NJ ANG 177th Fighter Wing Has F16's Just Out Side Atlantic City. They are a Intercepter unit And can be over NYC With A hit of the burners.

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 3:27 pm

Are they on 24 hour alert like the ominous old days?

Reply

tiger September 26, 2011 at 4:50 pm

I don't think we have any units on that status since 1996.

Reply

oifvet September 28, 2011 at 4:47 pm

My buddy is a crew chief and they all take turns pulling duty for alert unit. Plans fueled and armed 24 hrs a day ready for a call

Reply

ew-3 September 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm

If they are not on alert, what would be so difficult about keeping at least two on alert? I'm sure they are on alert around DC.

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 6:07 pm

Pre 9/11, even aircraft around Andrews weren't on alert. Probably not true anymore.

Reply

Lance September 26, 2011 at 3:06 pm

Just great to see the NYPD turn every bit as gestapo like with more and more military weapons in there hands and less accountability to use them and then they say how civilian should never own guns this is a sick mind set for America's largest city.

Reply

michael September 27, 2011 at 1:02 pm

Absolutely. They are more than half way thru, what with secret torture chambers at the NYPD HQ in lower Manhattan, massive surveillance going on 24/7, and the plans (reported by DailyBeast) to keep snipers on rooftops on a permanent basis. In terms of becoming a fascist nazi organization, only Israel can compete!

Reply

DanS September 26, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Would it be so hard to change the filter on this site so that the room at the front of the plane where the pilots drive isn't half **** every time its used?

Reply

No Nym September 26, 2011 at 3:27 pm

It is only a matter of time before SWAT and police chase types start calling for air support.

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 3:42 pm

They already do, but luckily for The People the legions of wrongful-death-suit lawyers prevent them from cracking out guns on subways and city streets.

NYC is more likely to request FAA exemptions for UAVs and use them for city monitoring than they are to use helicopters for "air support"

Reply

tiger September 26, 2011 at 4:53 pm

I say close off NYC, mine the bridges & make it a prison with Lee van Cleef in Charge…….

Reply

PMI September 26, 2011 at 5:28 pm

win!

Reply

Ben September 26, 2011 at 5:55 pm

The problem with MANPADS like Stingers is that the traveling airplane still possesses a tremendous amount of momentum due to the simple physics of it – heavy weight, high speed, takes a lot to stop. MANPADS usually have such limited range (5 miles or less) that a lumbering passenger jet could not be stopped in time – it could be made to veer off course, perhaps, into another block of residential buildings nearby, maybe, like apartment units instead of the Empire State Building – but that's really no better, of course, and you can't just blow a Boeing 757 to smithereens. MANPADS have small warheads.

To use an analogy, it would be a little bit like trying to use a blow dart to stop a raging elephant that is charging at you. To top it all off, MANPADS are usually infrared, and if you are trying to take down an airplane its exhaust would only be pointing at you if you were making a tail shot from behind, not from the front head-on.

Reply

ew-3 September 26, 2011 at 6:07 pm

There was a time that NYC was ringed by quite a few Nike missile sites. Grew up close to one of them.

What's so hard about a few strategically placed Patriot batteries ?

Although I doubt we'll get attacked by aircraft again. If the government really thought it was a threat they'd probably put up a few.

Reply

Zepheris September 26, 2011 at 6:48 pm

that's only with 1st generation IR missiles, that was AGES ago… modern generation IR missiles including MANPADS are fully capable of tracking and hitting targets from pretty much any direction.

this capability have been around for decades.

Or did you think that we still had to maneuver to 6o'clock to use IR missiles like sidewinder?

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 6:50 pm

His point is that it's a matter of "stopping power". Can you totally neutralize a flying aircraft, or will you just cripple it so a flaming fireball crashes into WTC and changes little, if anything?

Reply

ew-3 September 26, 2011 at 7:19 pm

Thank you Blight

Reply

Zepheris September 26, 2011 at 11:11 pm

true, and i am not contesting that… but i do feel the need to correct his original statement since the part i reflected was based on the old information that is no longer relevant with current world.

Reply

Cthel September 27, 2011 at 2:31 am

You've hit the nail on the head, I think, There is no (non-nuclear) anti-aircraft missile with a warhead big enough to shred a commercial airliner into pieces too small to be a threat to people on the ground. The biggest threat is of course the engines, which are (effectively) multi-ton lumps of metal that do a lot of damage if they hit the ground.

Reply

Chimp September 27, 2011 at 2:55 am

Perhaps some SA-2's? No idea what the warhead on one of those is, but the whole missile is a monster. That's gotta hurt…

Tiger_38 September 27, 2011 at 11:54 pm

KAL 007 (Boeing 747) flew on for another ten minutes after being struck by two K8 air to air missiles from a SU-15. I doubt a fifty caliber on a helicopter could stop any commercial airliner.

Reply

blight September 28, 2011 at 2:17 pm

Forgot about KAL 007. Considering the VVS ordered it to be engaged, it's not like they weren't shy about pulling punches at the time.

tiger September 27, 2011 at 8:07 am

Uh, that still leaves a of stuff falling out of the sky. Not much of a trade off if you save a hi rise but wipe out Times Square with Wreckage. Perhaps the NYPD should worry more about geese??? They seem to be a bigger air threat to planes………..

Reply

Mastro September 27, 2011 at 2:39 pm

Passenger jets have tons of fuel on board- I'm not sure- but I really wouldn't want to be hit by a warhead of any size.

The Concorde crash might be a good example of a plane full of fuel being hit by shrapnel (basically)- how far did that fly?

Reply

TLAM Strike September 26, 2011 at 10:10 pm

If no one else is going to say it I will:

Blue Thunder!!

Reply

tiger September 27, 2011 at 8:08 am

Yeah, hit that "whisper mode." LOL

Reply

Tom Fitz September 27, 2011 at 1:12 am

given police force's indiscriminate use of mace (and most recently in NYC) and tasers, I can't say I'm happy about this.

Reply

PMI September 27, 2011 at 1:21 am

Apples & oranges.

Reply

Joe Schmoe September 27, 2011 at 3:00 am

Yes, because we will have the NYPD knocking aircraft out of the sky every other week right?

Idiot.

Reply

crackedlenses September 27, 2011 at 9:52 am

Who says he's afraid of them attacking aircraft with these? M2's can be used on large groups of people as well…..

Reply

Mike Ireland September 28, 2011 at 2:08 pm

there not going to fire a .50 sniper rifile into a group of people…its not like they will walk around with it on their back….

Reply

Hansolo July 13, 2012 at 9:51 am
Leonidas September 27, 2011 at 10:33 am

There is no one at 1 Police Plaza with the balls, much less the authority, to give the order to shoot down an aircraft. It will never happen. This is a case of the Police Commissioner's old age catching up with him & getting the better of him during the interview. Ray Kelly has been around for way too long, and it's time for him to go. Unfortunately, he has used 09/11/01 as a pretext to involve the NYPD in things no local police force should be involved with. This is yet another example. I despise the federal government, but I know there are somethings that it should be responsible for, i.e., air defense. Not a local police department.

Reply

blight September 27, 2011 at 11:04 am

People are recommending Kelly to go to DC as DFBI.

I liked Bratton more, as he brought fixes to Los Angeles which were sorely needed.

Reply

Mike September 27, 2011 at 11:15 am

Stopping a light aircraft or hilo that has a dirty bomb or a chemical spraying system would be a good idea. buying 50 Cal rifles that are stored in an armory means its a waste of money. By the time you identify a threat its to late. As a counter sniper ability its a great idea buT again if its in an armory its a waste of money. The first responders will never have the time to put it into play.

Reply

tiger September 27, 2011 at 11:58 am

Can you picture Barney Fife Asking Andy for a SAM system for Mayberry?? "But Andy……"

Reply

Tad September 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm

What a money saver. Maybe this could supplant BMD, too.

Reply

Deane Gilmour September 27, 2011 at 1:02 pm

SHADES OF ROY SCHNIEDER. NYC the first of the country’s “Police States”. Unlike Kandahar, I guess those on the gound are acceptable collateral damage in NYC. This will continue to expand as long as the Fed REFUSES to do one of its FEW Constitutional mandates and protect the nation’s borders.

Reply

major.rod September 27, 2011 at 5:59 pm

Guys, no stress. Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD to deter Iran. It worked, kinda…

Reply

Kski September 27, 2011 at 8:23 pm

So if New York PD can have a AA ability. I guess there SWAT guys now bust up riots with military grade armored vehicles.

Reply

PMI September 27, 2011 at 8:57 pm

http://www.swattrucks.com/products-bearcat.aspx

They have some older Cadillac Gage Peacekeepers also.

Reply

orly? September 27, 2011 at 10:58 pm

You know that armored cars have been in use by SWAT for decades in some cities right?

Reply

Leonidas September 27, 2011 at 8:36 pm

As someone "in the know", believe me, the NYPD is all "smoke & mirrors." If the public only knew about the shenanighans that go on at 1 Police Plaza……

Reply

kyle September 27, 2011 at 9:12 pm

a plane shot down would do just as much damage as a plane crashing deliberately. makes no sense

Reply

orly? September 27, 2011 at 10:57 pm

Intended target vs unintended ground

Nuclear plant vs 50 yards away from nuclear plant, which is better?

Reply

tiger September 28, 2011 at 12:57 am

Vs hospital or the housing development? It will fall on somebody. The NYC area has little empty space.

Reply

orly? September 28, 2011 at 8:44 am

So if all those planes hit Union Square instead of the WTC we'd still get almost 3000 casualties?

What about Yankee Stadium? What happens if it hits the parking lot?

Still 50,000 dead?

Oh wreckage will fall, but placement counts. Human life also counts.

When crap like this happens, do the damned math.

Reply

crackedlenses September 28, 2011 at 10:03 am

It ends up a situation of the lesser of two evils…..

Reply

RetdusmCB September 28, 2011 at 2:12 pm

yup your right I worked under this idiot and trust me how he gets these positions over these agencies is a great mystery. His common sense is, well, he has no damn common sense!

Reply

blight2 September 29, 2011 at 8:32 am

Once the box cutters come out the question is more a matter of minimizing the win for Al Qaeda and cutting losses on our side. Once all three planes were hijacked, the "terror" component of terrorism kicked in, and from there the losses simply escalated with the subsequent strikes of 3/4 aircraft.

Taking out the aircraft in midair over NY is still a win for Al Qaeda, which is perfectly happy with anything at minimal costs. The idea scenario would be utterly stopping the aircraft, and destroying with a sufficiently powerful package to prevent sufficiently large debris causing problems below.

In the end, it isn't just body counts. There's the property damage issue, the psychological value of "bringing the fight" to NYC and Washington DC. If Flight 93 had hit its target, it would be another psychological body-blow. Though I wonder if they weren't going for DC or an alternate site like Camp David (though POTUS was in Florida), Mount Weather or Site R.

Reply

OMEGATALON September 28, 2011 at 12:10 am

If flying cars become popular, major cities around the country will need to deploy their own Apache attack helicopters just in case terrorists decide to take car-bombing to another level.

Reply

crackedlenses September 28, 2011 at 9:56 am

We'll have Halo-style vertical attack craft by then……

Reply

Mastro September 29, 2011 at 11:10 am

The flying car is actually a terrible idea- imagine 10,000 people commuting in a snowstorm while checking their cell phones.

Reply

Mike Ireland September 28, 2011 at 2:03 pm

this is not a big deal
first off it is not .50 machine guns it is just a sniper rifle
2nd off any military sniper trained in that guna can hit a target travling at 200-250 kts, so the NYPD can train to do it
3rd if it is a commercial jet it is the job of the Air Force or Navy to take it out
and 4th there is protocal for all military (and even police departments) for downing aircraft over a populated area
and lastly this rifile has been around forever the only knew thing about it is the rounds it shoots
so calm down….

Reply

blight September 28, 2011 at 2:16 pm

"any military sniper trained in that guna can hit a target travling at 200-250 kts"

If that were true, then in WW2 we would have had far more luck knocking down kamikaze aircraft, even with ships bristling with full automatic, mechanical-computer assisted AAA in the 20mm and up category? For that matter, B-17s bristling with M2s and no mechanical computer aids would not have expended so many rounds to take down attacking aircraft.

Reply

John September 28, 2011 at 2:04 pm

This is OUTRAGEOUS!
Consider a .50 cal slug that misses or is through-and-through. That slug falling from 1000 feet will kill a pedestrian!
RE: targets moving at least 250 mph! Hopefully even the NYPD would not be stupid enough to fire at a target moving at that speed!
This is OUTRADEOUS!

Reply

Mike Ireland September 28, 2011 at 2:16 pm

there are very few times that rifle is ever needed and with military aplication you will almost never see it used in a populated area like that, and again most of the air threats (even a small cessna is normaly intercepted by F16s) i agree it is a dumb idea and is not in need by the NYPD,but they are not guna walk around shooting for nothing (unless they want a S*** storm on their hands)

Reply

XAF2A6X4 September 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm

We have USAF/ANG and USN to protect our borders our borders for a reason! Maybe they were asleep at the switch on 9/11 but certainly not now. The last thing America or NY needs are a bunch of city sanctioned yahoos blazing away at unresponsive aircraft over crowded cities. This is something the DOD fighter jocks have training for, not to mention awareness of just what happens when you shootdown aircraft over populated areas. They have protocols and decision matrixes that are well established. What are NYC officials thinking anyway? Make the do their job, so that they can get back to their phony baloney jobs!

Reply

RetdusmCB September 28, 2011 at 2:10 pm

Ray Kelly is a butt hole he was one when he ran U.S. Customs in the ground and he appears to be doing the same to NYPD. I wonder how many under the table weapons contracts he's gotten like he did when he misguidedly transitions customs to the ineffective glocks we we issued in the dessert states???

Reply

blight September 28, 2011 at 2:11 pm

Wait, ineffective glocks?

Then why are they used by so many other LE departments in this country; and not just NYPD and BICE?

Reply

Ramon September 28, 2011 at 4:53 pm
CaptainDoc September 29, 2011 at 12:33 am

i have serious doubts that nyc is paying for this type of equipt. at $8.50 a round they spend lots at practice and it takes lots of training to shoot air to air, even then it will be a 50/50 chance of killing more on the ground than in the air. the range a .50 has from the air is quite impressive. we should just let nyc withdraw from the US and provide their own army and navy as they have lots of equipt. now. then we could bill them for anything we provide. how assinine can you get; auto weapons fired from the air for cities to rain down 300 grain bullets onto the public that pays for their protection.

Reply

orly? September 29, 2011 at 9:34 am

POP QUIZ:

What was the AA defense of NYC during WWII?

Garands and M1911s?

Reply

CaptainDoc September 29, 2011 at 10:51 am

heavy duty aa equipment that was fired from the ground up(dispersing over a non populated sea) not from the air down.those weapons were manned by well trained military/supervised and practiced regularly. not a bunch of ill trained,poorly supervised individuals in blue that want to be soldiers.the framers of the constitution very carefully put laws into effect to stop a military from harming citizens.this has been circumvented by using the word "police".we now live in a police state(with hoods to hide behind) that needs to be put in the proper perspective of "regulators" with better attitudes and training.compare the amount of time a soldier spends training to police training, there is a big difference.

Reply

blight September 29, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Coast Artillery units. Having issues putting together more information on AA platforms, but a preliminary dataset is
http://fortwiki.com/Category:Harbor_Defense_of_So

Reply

Shawn September 29, 2011 at 1:14 pm

The NYPD has a long history of going up against non-criminal and unconventional threats to the City of New York. During World War Two, members of it's Emergency Service Unit armed with elephant guns sat on top of the city's bridges, ready to fire on any Nazi subs that came into New York Harbor.

Reply

jamesb September 29, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Kelly update……NY Post 9/29/11
In his first remarks about an attention-grabbing claim that police had the means to shoot down a terrorist plane, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said yesterday that the department could arm helicopters with .50-caliber guns to fire at small aircraft, not a commercial airliner.
Kelly explained he was referring to crop-dusters that could be used to disperse anthrax or some other toxic material.
The NYPD sent officers to Fort Dix, NJ, to train on shooting from aircraft so they could be armed with heavy machine guns, if necessary.
“We didn’t want to be totally defenseless in a situation like that,” Kelly said yesterday.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ray_explains_s

Reply

Motive25 September 29, 2011 at 2:51 pm

I dunno- I kind of liked the image of a NYPD version of Dirty Harry with a Stinger. What a great bit of disinformation to deter terrorists that would be.

Reply

Shawn September 29, 2011 at 6:23 pm

Most terrorists would be smart enough to understand the basic laws of physics, which basically say that the odds of hitting a an aircraft traveling at hundreds of miles an hour from a helicopter with a semi-automatic rifle (even one as powerful as the 50-caliber) is very slim. At best, an ESU sharpshooter would get one shot and even if that shot struck it's target, you would likely need more than just one shot to bring down a commercial airliner, though I full believe that a 50-caliber can bring a jetliner down.

Reply

Leonidas October 1, 2011 at 10:18 am

That one about NYC cops being posted on bridges in the City during World War 2 to shoot at German U-boats is a myth. NYARNG troops were posted at locations believed in danger of sabotage. There was some police presence for law enforcement purposes, but protecting the City was the job of the Navy, which maintained extensive ASW defenses out in the Harbor and its approaches, and the Army, ashore.

Reply

Jeff Nmi Ruiz September 10, 2013 at 11:34 pm

Airwolf and Blue Thunder!!! That is all I got to add to this one!

Reply

Musson1 September 26, 2011 at 4:09 pm

And, without illegals – we would not have enough drunk drivers to fill our roadways every Saturday night.

Reply

crackedlenses September 26, 2011 at 5:24 pm

If the unemployment goes up high enough and unemployment gets cuts, people will do those jobs. It's all a matter of how badly you want to feed yourself…..

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Baghdad is holding on, but Kabul is in the running to seize that title.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen September 27, 2011 at 7:13 am

The S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline to NATO) is/was equipped with a 200kg (295kg for the SA-2E) HE warhead. According to unverified (AFAIK) reports, it could also accept a nuclear warhead.

Compare this with the 500 kg HE warhead in the conventionally armed Nike Hercules, which is a (very) roughly comparable system.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Chimp September 27, 2011 at 8:09 am

Well, Nike Hercules is clearly going to have some stopping power. Must be a monster missile.

Not sure how many of those are around now, though. There's a bunch of SA-2's decorating museums and so on in China. I believe a few are still in active service, too. I bet they'd sell.

Reply

blight September 27, 2011 at 9:53 am

The SA-2 is a high altitude SAM, and if I read the numbers right has a minimum range of 0.5-1 km.

They brought down both U-2s that were shot down (Cuba and Soviet Union). The Nike Hercules is totally discontinued, so they're unlikely to be of much help.

We've always tested our air defense systems against aircraft, predicated on the idea that a air defense "shield" would keep targets down well away from the target. We've never tested the idea that we might have to engage an aircraft over an American city, where mortally wounding an aircraft is not good enough, and annihilating it without destroying the city below is a must (which would eliminate nuclear weapons, which would handily annhilate an airliner but with low-yield weapons presumably cause great blast damage or irradation).

Reply

David September 27, 2011 at 12:35 pm

Good point. And even assuming that they somehow hit, couple of small holes won't disable airliner, just cause fuel leak or disable one engine, at best.

Reply

orly? July 13, 2012 at 11:01 am

Alittle late, but I'll make my point.

How many nukes target those cities?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: