| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Anti-missile system to be tested on passenger planes |
| 2008-01-06 |
| It won't do $hit against an RPG hidden in the weeds or under a tarp-covered foxhole at the end of a runway. I also saw something about how this technology will only work against old MANPADS technology. Heck, that dazzler laser might even act as a homing beacon to the newer stuff! I also heard that commercial engine exhaust heat cannot be used as effectively as military engine exhaust heat to guide a heat-seeking missile because it is more diffuse. I'm skeptical about that when I think about the B-52 bomber, which it seems should be included on a MANPADS list of favorite things to hit! In first-ever tests for commercial airplanes carrying passengers, as many as three American Airlines jets will be equipped with a shoulder-fired missile defense system. The Department of Homeland Security signed a $29 million contract with BAE Systems on December 21. BAE said Thursday it is working with American Airlines to put laser systems on the planes, which will be flying between New York and California. Since the contract calls for the planes to log about 7,000 flight hours, the tests will probably last from early spring, starting in March or April, until the end of the year, DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said. The systems have already been tested on cargo aircraft and out-of-service passenger planes. The new contract calls for the systems to be tested for the first time on aircraft carrying passengers. DHS, American Airlines and BAE Systems were all careful to assure there will be no test firing -- through simulators or otherwise. The tests primarily will check the systems' worthiness in air and their maintenance reliability. The system works by detecting the heat-seeking missiles and then emitting a laser that diverts the missile. Homeland Security officials say there is no specific threat of these weapons -- also known as MANPADS, for Man-Portable Air Defense Systems -- being fired at planes. Taliban forces, however, successfully used MANPADS against Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan. Terrorists tried, unsuccessfully, in 2002 to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet in Kenya with them. Insurgents hit a DHL cargo plane in Baghdad the following year, but the plane landed safely. Experts say about 500,000 to 700,000 MANPADS have been produced worldwide, and some have been purchased in Middle Eastern and Central Asian arms markets for as little as $5,000. Since 2003, Congress has pressured DHS to adapt military anti-MANPADS technology to commercial aviation. Commercial airlines have opposed efforts to install defense systems, which are costly, add weight, and can weaken the plane's aerodynamics. A chief goal of the testing program is to discover how to increase the systems' endurance. Military systems require frequent maintenance -- not practical for commercial airplanes that fly for extended periods between maintenance checks. American Airlines on Thursday said it is participating in the program, but added it is "not in favor of installing counter-MANPADS on commercial aircraft." The airline believes protection is best accomplished by preventing terrorists from getting shoulder-fired missiles, or by using ground-based systems, spokesman John Hotard said. But the airline said it is willing to participate because it "wants to understand the development" of these technologies that might be available in the future. Last year, American and BAE installed and test flew BAE's hardware on a Boeing 767 that was not in commercial service, Hotard said. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #7 Besides, which, Nimble, afaict, you could get a distinct improvement on the standard infantry rifle for the infantrymen (say, a piston driven system shooting a 6.5mm bullet) for just about the same cost-per-unit as the M-4 they're purchasing now. A different bore barrel/chamber won't cost any more, the piston won't cost appreciably more, and all the optical doodads (which are what lets the rifle remain competitive in spite of its age) are going to all be the same. (And unless you use some custom setup like the xm-8, they're going to be interchangable/reusable, just take them off the old rifle and put them on the new one). There may be reasons for sticking with the m-4, but as far as I can tell, cost isn't one of them. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-01-06 20:13 |
| #6 Talk to your congresscritters ... they're the ones pressuring DHS to require these systems. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-06 19:15 |
| #5 Not worth enough to get me to want to spend billions against all the other needs. I'd rather get infantry |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-06 18:54 |
| #4 Is there any evidence there is a credible threat from MNAPADS? They have been used in Africa by Islamicists against Israeli flights and at least one attempt in Kenya to use them against US flights has been disrupted that I know of. We've seen several small cells in the NYC area attempt to purchase or smuggle them into the area. FWIW. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-06 16:42 |
| #3 Solution, don't fly. (I don't, ever) let the airlines go bankrupt if they don't/won't change. When the government looks at footing the entire bill, this shit stops abruptly. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-01-06 16:33 |
| #2 Big risk allocation and insurance liability issues here. There comes a point at which the amount of money being spent is far in excess of the benefit derived. Is there any evidence there is a credible threat from MNAPADS? And to be credible, you've got to explain why they haven't been used yet but they will be soon. Another DHS TSA boondoggle in my opinion. They will find a way to hit us again if they can. We're just too vulnerable in too many ways. You can't prevent them all without turning the country into a police state. And we've already done that with air travel. I've got to admit that I'm surprised the American people have put up with the needless sacrifice of their liberties in airports for as long as they have. Time to stop living in fear and respond to provocations effectively, not fears ineffectively. As long as we're willing to slaughter 20,000 people a year and do nothing to stop drunk drivers, I can see efforts to potentially save 200 people at the cost of billions as nothing but conspicuous consumption. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-06 10:49 |
| #1 FWIW, Spook86 thinks this is a worthwhile move |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-06 10:02 |