Flight 370

[ArcadiaGP]

Here Are the Latest Developments on the Missing Malaysian Plane | Mediaite

Former USAF Gen. McInerney says Malaysia plane hijacked to be used as nuke delivery vehicle

 

[hoosierdoc]

They'd have to blow up the plane they spoof I bet. Scary thought x 2

 

[avboiler11]

One totally legitimate reason to turn a transponder off in flight is because it is malfunctioning, causing ATC issues.

Transport-category aircraft typically have two transponders, but only one is turned on at any given time.

Within the range of that airplane given its block-out fuel load, you'd have to have five things in order for that airplane to still be intact AND viable as a weapon or weapon delivery vehicle:

1. Somebody to fly the damn thing, who is familiar (enough) with 777 systems and avionics, and capable of landing that massive aircraft without damaging it
2. A runway long enough to land a 777, and allow it to take back off
3. Facilities to hide a 777 (that's a big-ass hangar) and fueling capability to fuel it (thats a lot 'o gallons of Jet-A)
4. #2 and #3 in a location where it wouldn't be seen by military radars and intercepted, or military/government turned a blind eye to a primary target approaching their shores
5. Unseen by ANYBODY on the ground, or seen and not mentioned by ANYBODY.

I'm sorry, I don't think an airplane with the radar signature of a freaking 777, that isn't squawking a discreet transponder code, flies into Iran or Pakistan or India or anywhere else without being intercepted by their military.

As much as it pains me to say it, it'd be a ***** ton easier to steal an old Gulfstream/Hawker/DC9, etc. from Mexico, South America or Africa if you wanted it to deliver a nuclear device somewhere.

 

[88GT]

The logistics needed to land a plane that big, fuel it and get it up in the air again with no one noticing is staggering.

One totally legitimate reason to turn a transponder off in flight is because it is malfunctioning, causing ATC issues.

Transport-category aircraft typically have two transponders, but only one is turned on at any given time.

Within the range of that airplane given its block-out fuel load, you'd have to have five things in order for that airplane to still be intact AND viable as a weapon or weapon delivery vehicle:

1. Somebody to fly the damn thing, who is familiar (enough) with 777 systems and avionics, and capable of landing that massive aircraft without damaging it
2. A runway long enough to land a 777, and allow it to take back off
3. Facilities to hide a 777 (that's a big-ass hangar) and fueling capability to fuel it (thats a lot 'o gallons of Jet-A)
4. #2 and #3 in a location where it wouldn't be seen by military radars and intercepted, or military/government turned a blind eye to a primary target approaching their shores
5. Unseen by ANYBODY on the ground, or seen and not mentioned by ANYBODY.

I'm sorry, I don't think an airplane with the radar signature of a freaking 777, that isn't squawking a discreet transponder code, flies into Iran or Pakistan or India or anywhere else without being intercepted by their military.

As much as it pains me to say it, it'd be a ***** ton easier to steal an old Gulfstream/Hawker/DC9, etc. from Mexico, South America or Africa if you wanted it to deliver a nuclear device somewhere.

Size of the plane aside, I don't think it would be nearly as difficult to achieve these things as you guys think. Remote areas of 3rd world countries are perfect for this kind of surreptitious behavior. Having said that, the size factor does make it close to impossible. But I think you put too much faith in the ability of spy services to detect things.

 

[HoughMade]

...I'm sorry, I don't think an airplane with the radar signature of a freaking 777, that isn't squawking a discreet transponder code, flies into Iran or Pakistan or India or anywhere else without being intercepted by their military...

Tom Clancy was a master of taking an implausible scenario and scaring a reader to death. I just finished reading a book where a Hawker was flown to the U.S. with a false or "cloned" transponder code. What say you?

As for the business jet rather than the airliner, a crude nuclear device is large and heavy. True "suitcase" nukes are the stuff of nations, not terror cells. Depending on the device, they may need a plane large enough to carry a load equivalent to the original Fat Man or Little Boy which they believe they could "sneak" into the U.S. posing (paint and transponder) as a commercial flight (assuming the U.S. is the target....a big assumption).

With all that being said, I still think it's at the bottom of an ocean somewhere (except the seat cushions of course), just not where they have looked yet. Again, oceans are vast and this is a visual search with only the tiniest sliver of a fraction of the moving ocean surface visible at any one time.

 

[avboiler11]

Size of the plane aside, I don't think it would be nearly as difficult to achieve these things as you guys think. Remote areas of 3rd world countries are perfect for this kind of surreptitious behavior. Having said that, the size factor does make it close to impossible. But I think you put too much faith in the ability of spy services to detect things.

I don't think its as easy to achieve as you think - not with a Boeing 777, and the logistics required to support it.

IF - and its a HUGE if - a foreign government was directly involved in the plot, all bets would be off.

But you're not going to sneak a 777 into that part of the world - too many players with distrust of each other, with air defense radars skyward..and a 480kt return as large as a widebody Boeing isn't going to be missed.

Further playing into this is the fuel onboard at blockout in Kuala Lampur - it was reportedly WAY less than a 777 can hold, limiting how far the plane could go.

As for transponder codes...they are issued each instrument flight plan and generally not unique to a given aircraft. And while they aren't considered "large" planes, one might be surprised just what you could get into something the size of a Hawker (let alone an old G-II) with the seats ripped out. Probably not a "Little Boy", but a whole B61 isn't out of the realm of possibility and the entire physics package of a current or recently-fielded bomb or warhead would be a cakewalk.

I think Europe or even Moscow (Putin has plenty of enemies in the Caucuses) are at FAR greater risk than the US from this aircraft, IF (again, a big IF) it is still in flyable condition.

But you wouldn't need a 777 full of passengers to do the kinds of nefarious deeds discussed here...especially when a small briefcase of rubles or US dollars would probably buy you a jet airliner in Lagos or one of the 'stans.

 

[Ruffnek]

If,and it's a big if,this is the case,what could be done about this if they repainted and got an "innocent" transponder code?This could be a real situation.What if it landed in the US?Nothing odd could really be detected until the plane was on the ground and by then it's too late.As for the skills to fly the plane,the 9/11 hijackers all went through flight school and carried out their mission pretty successfully.Whats to say the pilots aren't still alive and doing the flying at gunpoint?There's a lot of variables at play here.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

We don't have the training, experience, or information to make informed speculation about Flight 370. Therefore, I won't. Similar to Reddit and Twitter "solving" the Boston marathon bombing.

 

[Ruffnek]

I didn't think we were "solving" anything,just playing the possible what-ifs.Hijacking is a very real possibility;comms killed,change of flight path,dropping below radar.These are symptoms of multiple scenarios;either a catastrophic failure,or a hijacking.What makes me len toward the latter is that there were many more radar pings AFTER these things happened and you would think that a failure would bring a plane down before it could get very far with such a failure.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Would the US be willing to shoot it down if it had 200 people and a few Americans on board?

 

[shawnba67]

Would the US be willing to shoot it down if it had 200 people and a few Americans on board?

Be flat stupid not to.

 

[SumtnFancy]

Ill tell ya who it was... it was that damned Sasquatch.

 

[GregD]

I think you might be on to something where

 

[hoosierdoc]

Be flat stupid not to.

That's not in question. Are you aware of who our president is?

 

[OneBadV8]

I think its the real life version of Oceanic Flight 815

 

[HoughMade]

Would the US be willing to shoot it down if it had 200 people and a few Americans on board?

I believe that was on the table on 9/11/2001

 

[gunsisgood]

Would the US be willing to shoot it down if it had 200 people and a few Americans on board?

Maybe,
but depending what ELSE might be on board shooting it down over a populated area might be a really bad idea.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Maybe,
but depending what ELSE might be on board shooting it down over a populated area might be a really bad idea.

yeah, cause I'm sure they're planning to drop it on montana if we let them carry on. If it would be used as a vehicle, likely going to hit DC, NYC or LA. The determination would be made before it's over land.

 

[chezuki]

Would the US be willing to shoot it down if it had 200 people and a few Americans on board?

Absolutely. Thousands of lives would have been saved had this been done on 9/11 (I know, "hindsight" and no one knew it would play out like it did). I think 9/11 is solid proof of what CAN happen, and I doubt the US would hesitate if a suspected dirty bomb were en route to US soil.

 

[88GT]

I don't think its as easy to achieve as you think - not with a Boeing 777, and the logistics required to support it.

IF - and its a HUGE if - a foreign government was directly involved in the plot, all bets would be off.

But you're not going to sneak a 777 into that part of the world - too many players with distrust of each other, with air defense radars skyward..and a 480kt return as large as a widebody Boeing isn't going to be missed.

Further playing into this is the fuel onboard at blockout in Kuala Lampur - it was reportedly WAY less than a 777 can hold, limiting how far the plane could go.

As for transponder codes...they are issued each instrument flight plan and generally not unique to a given aircraft. And while they aren't considered "large" planes, one might be surprised just what you could get into something the size of a Hawker (let alone an old G-II) with the seats ripped out. Probably not a "Little Boy", but a whole B61 isn't out of the realm of possibility and the entire physics package of a current or recently-fielded bomb or warhead would be a cakewalk.

I think Europe or even Moscow (Putin has plenty of enemies in the Caucuses) are at FAR greater risk than the US from this aircraft, IF (again, a big IF) it is still in flyable condition.

But you wouldn't need a 777 full of passengers to do the kinds of nefarious deeds discussed here...especially when a small briefcase of rubles or US dollars would probably buy you a jet airliner in Lagos or one of the 'stans.

Geez, I twice excepted the likelihood due to the size. Did ya miss that part? I'm aware the size makes the logistics side of it highly unlikely. But I don't think the logistics of hijacking a plane, landing it in some remote jungle, getting the fuel for it, and having it take off again are nearly as difficult as you think.