QRC3288

The fighters are primarily dispatched to view what's going on in the cockpit of a problem airliner and if there are any other visible issues, not necessarily to shoot it down. That's why they fly so close. If it was determined that the plane was indeed hijacked (and assuming those F-18s don't have missiles) and the intent was to crash the aircraft into buildings etc., presumably SAM sites could be utilized or other aircraft scrambled

Cathay Boy

The fighters are there to shoot it down should the need arises. There's no need for a missle to shoot down a plane. Machine gun fire from the fighter will more than be enough to shoot down the commercial airliner.

QRC3288

If you want to pull hairs, it's technically cannon fire...that wasn't exactly where I was going, I was just pointing out the fact that those intercept aircraft's first role is to get a birds' eye view of what's going on in the cockpit and report back. The initial response of most people when they hear a fighter intercepts an airliner is to think rather morbid thoughts, but there are more practical, common-sense reasons: to see for themselves if anyone has taken over the cockpit and report back to people on the ground making decisions, to see if the pilots have fallen asleep or are incapacitated, if the cabin or cockpit has de-pressurized, to see if there are people armed inside the aircraft, etc.

Crocodile

Maybe you shouldn't comment on something that you have no knowledge of.

They use missles "to shoot it down". Missles are used because (a) It is easy; and (b) It does the job immediately. They don't want to just "shoot it down" - they want to blow it up and destroy it immediately.

Firing a "machine gun", or whatever, is generally an inefficient way to shoot down a large object, as it is likely to continue on at an unknown trajectory. From a strategic viewpoint, it is the optimal outcome is use missles to blow it up.

But, as QRC has said, the fighters are there for many other things in the first place.

Cathay Boy

Maybe you should chill and realize you won't be more of a man just because you feel your self-esteem is boosted when you put down another person.

1) I am from a military family and I know what I'm talking about. I am talking about "shooting a plane down", not "blowing it up in the air", that's new information. And even if you want to "blow it up", a machine gun fire (or cannon fire if you prefer) in the fuel tank will more than do that job. You do realize many commercial planes got blown up in the air because of bad fuel tank issues right? Or are you suggesting all planes that blew up in the air are done by secret military missiles that the gov'ts don't want us to know?

2) Your talk of "missiles" and "machine guns" and which is preferred is a joke. When missiles first came out there were a few arrogant "experts" that claimed the age of dog fights in the air is over (dueling it out with the guns), but they quickly realized counter measures, training, etc. can counter missiles and gun fights are still needed, and preferred, in some cases.

3) When you read please do the courtesy of reading the whole thing. I did not say the fighter isn't there to check out the cockpit, etc. I ADDED that the fighter is more than capable of shooting it down should the need arises, no need to scramble another missile fight jet in the air.

Why are some people so hostile in this forum and feel like it's their duty to play forum cop is beyond me.