Walt BJ ) writes:
Y'all are arguing from ignorance about semantics.

Well, Rauni is. My original point was that, on 9/11, the concept of
" intercepting " any possibly hijacked airliners included shooting
them down ( And, articles and documentaries I have seen have included
interviews with Pres Bush and PM Chretien on both authorising armed
action, including the shooting down or airliners ), so the usual
standard of sidling up to a plane, but doing nothing more then
radioing them, went right out the window that AM.

For some reason, Rauni didn't like that point. shrug

And where did you get the idea Air Defence interceptors are not armed?

An article posted over here ( On soc.men ) today specified that most
ready fighters in the eastern US, that AM, were not armed. So, I'd say
thats a starting point.

As the article went on to say, prior to 9/11, the notion of a military
need to keep many armed fighters in the CONUS wasn't on.

In about 20 years
of the trade I never made an intercept in an unarmed airplane and God
knows I made a bunch of air defence intercepts on hot scrambles for ID
purposes in aircraft from F86F, F86D, F102A, F104A and F4D and F4E.

Post the Cold War, many things eased back...

And our 104 squadron down at Homestead was always armed - we carried
Sidewinders with live warheads even on training missions and they were
armed prior to takeoff to be fired if necessary. The only time we flew
unarmed aircraft in that outfit was on test hops and cross countries.
Oh, yes, dart tow - that needed three tanks so no missiles.
Walt BJ

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.