Monday, 12 October 2015

Desperate scaremongering by panicky Euro agencies

Passenger aircraft, as we all know, spend most of their tme in the air at an altitude somewhere north of 30,000 feet. Cruise missiles, as we all know, spend most of their time hugging the contours of the terrain at an altitude of a few hundred feet. The Closest Point of Approach as we sailors say (I expect the Biggles boys have something similar) is therefore about 10 kilometers. 

So when the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) both (no doubt with their arms twisted behind their backs) issue scare warnings about the risk to intercontinental aircraft flying high routes over Iran and Iraq from Russian cruies missiles, you know 'our' side has pretty much lost it. 

Passenger aircraft in the region are in actual fact at far greater risk of being shot down by rogue US warships - in 1988 Iran Air flight 655, en route from Tehran to Dubai, was shot down by USS Vincennes and all 290 civilians on board, including 66 children, were killed. In fact engine strikes by Kuwaiti geese or Turkish swans probably pose a far more substantial risk to passenger aircraft than Russian cruise missiles ...

The fact that the Telegraph's story is from some unknown stringer in Berlin suggests that even Con Coughlin, normally the most credulous and gullible of Fleet Street's finest, saw though this one - and that's saying something. 

Try harder, please, boys.

10 comments:

anon 2 said...

Great article, Raedwald. That's how some of us civilians could see explosions on the ground -- evidencing the Vietnam War.

Just one point though ... what's that 10 k********* in para 1? I'm quite sure Biggles wouldn't know what you/they are on about, if only as a matter of principle!

Anonymous said...

Twas ever thus, Raedwald.

The New Equation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ZLYUvAZvs

Steve

Anonymous said...

Most of you will probably already read this piece by Peter McKay in the Daily Mail, if you haven't then it is truly worth a look:

"Trained as an Arabist, Ford, 67, has served in Beirut, Riyadh, Paris and Cairo. He was British ambassador to Syria from 2003 to 2006.

So he knows what he’s talking about. Certainly, he has more expertise than anyone at tomorrow’s NSC meeting."


Here Daily Mail

He goes on to say:

"Our official attitude towards Syria — and the Russian intervention there — is ‘churlish’ and ‘petulant,’ he says. We should let the Russians get on with it.

We are ‘impaled’ on a policy of being against President Assad, he says, warning: ‘After Assad, the deluge.’
After Assad, the deluge.
Britain’s former ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford

Previously, Ford called Cameron’s policy towards Syria ‘arrogant and reckless’, claiming it positively encouraged young British Muslims to become jihadis there.

He argued, somewhat undiplomatically: ‘Having got away with bombing Libya, with barely a thought for the poor Libyans, whose country is now a tragic mess, he must have arrogantly thought that Syria would make a nice encore.’

Ford’s argument is simple and persuasive. He says there are no democrats, or moderates, in Syria. ‘The only powerful forces ranged against the Syrian government are the extremist Islamists, ISIL and the like-minded.’"


Now, at the risk of restating the bleedin' obvious "we told you so!" - why the fuck are we saddled with the thickest administration since Gordon Browns lot and a civil service and media who just regurgitate bird brained, shit stained irrelevance 'house muzak';

i."Turkey are our allies"
ii. "Russia is bombing the moderates" [FFS]
iii. "al Assad must go"
iv.Isis are the only bad guys..

Our political elite and the UK media, with Brussels are FUBAR and we, as a nation because such utter incompetence: have totally lost the plot.

DeeDee99 said...

@ Anonymous. I suggest Ford is at risk of finding himself dead - through "suicide."

You don't, from a position of expertise, contradict and criticise the USA/UK's policy on destabilising the middle east.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous. I suggest Ford is at risk of finding himself dead - through "suicide."

You don't, from a position of expertise, contradict and criticise the USA/UK's policy on destabilising the middle east. /quote.

DeeDee99,

We live in very uncertain times, the people who we name as 'leaders' play WeltPolitik as do adolescent gamers existing almost in a virtual world and that's the best I can say of them. Their [Obama, Langley and the Pentagon] underlings wasted, spent $500 million attempting to fashion an army out of Zealots and various nutters who were petty thugs and melding the ranks with psychotic murderers - as soon as a shot was fired in anger they disappeared with some very valuable kit.
All of that money just chucked down a black hole and still they don't know which side they're [the west] are supposed to be backing.

Syria, is a total clusterfuck and western politicians can be blamed for much of it and oh yes - the rise of the Daesh too.

Lest we forget, the manoeuvring and political shenanigans Brussels fomented in the Ukraine, and where Brussels still backs the faction who were the allies of the Nazis.

Fuckwits, the insanity of our leaders: will be the death of us all.

Sceptical Steve said...

Though it's impossible to argue with R's logic, I'd guess the most likely threat to civil aviation in the area is not the cruise missiles themselves, but (as in the MH17 tragedy in Ukraine) someone trying to bring one down by letting loose a SAM without effective guidance.

James Higham said...

It's the new game, is it not? Frighten the c*** out of the public and have them running around every which way. Oh, whatever shall we do?

Raedwald said...

Sceptical Steve - yes, this risk applies to SAMS aimed at Russian combat aircraft over Syria but harder to see why cruise missiles are mentioned; MANPADS in particular are pretty crap against cruise missiles - by the time the operator sees it, it's gone (stinger needs 3 - 5 secs to acquire target for launch), plus any MANPAD (or SAM) IR / target sensors would be buggered by ground clutter, given the ground-hugging nature of the thing.

I suspect the truth is embarrassing to either Saudi, Turkish, gulf or US interests - i.e. that one of them has given US high-altitude SAM missiles to ISIS, hence a warning to aircraft not to overfly what are in effect ISIS held areas. ISIS already have a number of Stingers 'leaked' by Turkey.

G. Tingey said...

Bollocks
NOT a cruise missile, but a specific anti-aircraft one.
PROBABLY fired by Putin's hired thugs, especially given the recording that they foolishly let out ...

Not that this reflects credit on the "other" (i.e. West-Ukrainian) side, either.

Raedwald said...

Greg - I'm confused

You think Putin is supplying anti-aircraft missiles to the Syrian rebels / ISIS?