Talk:E-3 Sentry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Orders to shoot down airliner September 11, 2001
Dear Netsnipe:
You recently commented after your edits, "E-3s are unarmed, so this source is highly doubtful. Please find more sources to corroborate."
I request that you please read carefully. No one at the University of St. Thomas nor Lt. Kuczynski, quoted in University publications, has claimed that E-3's are armed. The fact that the E-3 is unarmed casts no doubt whatsoever on the fact that the pilot of the E-3, a plane which coordinates battle commands, said he "was given direct orders to shoot down an airliner." You are conveniently ignoring the fact that Lt. Kuczynski's E-3 Sentry was accompanied by two well armed F-16 fighters. Two university publications have published these facts on two different occasions. These two university publications are within the standards of Wikipedia reliable sources. If have some actual evidence that the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) is a "highly doubtful" source please present it. The fact that the E-3 is unarmed is not in dispute and irrelevant to the facts established by the University of St. Thomas. Thomist 21:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hrm. I think the problem is that, as posted, it implied that the Sentry itself would be shooting down the airliner. It'll need clarification if it's to stay in the article - which I'm not sure it should; it's a bit anecdote-ish. --Scott Wilson 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thomist has been insisting on putting conspiracy theories in other articles: United Airlines Flight 93, and Brett Kavanaugh. 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have read in several aircraft books that E-3s are in fact armed with underwing AIM-9 Sidewinders for self-defence. 85.210.7.19 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Unless they've mastered the Russian "Cobra" aerobatic move ;} Akradecki 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Heh... well, since the AIM-9P isn't all aspect like the L or M, the E-3 would have to pass the airliner head on, lock onto the back of the airliner and fire. (sigh) ...nutjob conspiracy theorists... ZakuTalk
- "All-aspect" is with respect to the seeker, not the target. Not that it gives the theory any more creedence. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Heh... well, since the AIM-9P isn't all aspect like the L or M, the E-3 would have to pass the airliner head on, lock onto the back of the airliner and fire. (sigh) ...nutjob conspiracy theorists... ZakuTalk
-
-
[edit] E-767
Should a page about E-3s really have a section Units Using the Boeing E-767 a completley different aircraft. There is also Japan has four Boeing 767-based AWACS aircraft. No problem with a mention of the E-767 as an alternate platform but I believe the other information should be removed - any comments from watchers ? MilborneOne 22:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- As nobody has commented I have removed E-767 units and amended Future Direction MilborneOne 09:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories: B-Class aviation articles needing review | B-Class aircraft articles | B-Class aviation articles | B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class military aviation articles | Military aviation task force articles | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles