mcartier713

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ile-jets_N.htm

rickair7777

The driving force behind efforts to equip airlines with missile countermeasures is the aerospace industry. Billions in revenues are at stake! The defense industry, not the flying public, are the intended beneficieries of these concepts.

- Portable missiles (MANPADS) are battlefield weapons which are not designed to take down airliners and are not likely to do so for a variety of technical reasons.

- The bad guys know this, and like any reasonably competent tacticians, they will not attempt "Hail Mary" operations with a high likelyhood of failure. This is critically important for the terrorist organizations which depend on public opinion in the muslim world for their moral and financial support. They don't want to attempt an operation, fail, and then look bad on CNN.

- MANPADs have a VERY limited range and altitude envelope...basically they would only have a chance if fired from near the airport perimeter.

A much more realistic and cheaper defense system would be an airport-based phased-array (AESA) radar system which would detect a nearby missile launch, and then focus enough radar energy on the missile to disable it flight. Ideally this sort of radar defense system would be the responsibility of the governement, not the airlines, to operate and pay for. It would be much cheaper than installing and maintaining flight-certified countermeasure systems on EVERY airlineer in the system.


I can't wait to see the TSA's results from this test...if none of the 767's get shot down by MANPADs during the course of the test, they will probably call it a resounding success!

HSLD

It sounds like a placebo test to make it look like the TSA is on top of things. I mean really, can you imagine the entire US fleet of airliners being equipped with jammers? Short of that, how hard would it be for a shooter team to look for an ECM pod. Makes you wonder what the threat is between LA and New York though.

DHL got hit, El Al was a shoot and a miss - both outside the US. If our ports were more secure I wouldn't worry so much, but sadly, I've been watching too much Lou Dobbs .

de727ups

"Portable missiles (MANPADS) are battlefield weapons which are not designed to take down airliners and are not likely to do so for a variety of technical reasons."

Yeah, what about DHL? I mean, they got it back in, but I think they were pretty lucky, in spite of the pilots doing an excellent job.

Slice

They landed ok...wouldn't want to experience it for myself though.

FlyerJosh

The unit that shared the national guard armory with my unit was an Air Defense Artillery unit (Stinger MANPADS). After seeing those guys in action, I have no doubt that a properly trained person with such a unit (or an equivalent) could bring down an airliner...

Even though only short range (1-9 miles, 10,000' ceiling), they could probably be fired from anywhere within a 6-10 mile radius of the airport center and still make a civilian airliner. Remember- they were designed to bring down faster moving military targets than your typical airliner.

Terrorists don't need to bring down a jumbo jet this day and age to strike fear into the hearts of the common public and have massive impact on economic areas.

Although small, I have no doubt that a MANPAD could do serious harm and bring down an airliner, particularly one A320/737 size or smaller. Even though the missile is only about 23lbs, 23 lbs travelling at supersonic speeds complemented with a bit of high explosive can do some serious damage...

That said, I don't think that on aircraft systems are a feasible option...

rickair7777

MANPADs home on engine heat. On a tactical aircraft that will hit the center of mass where all the goodies are: engines, sensors, crew. On an airliner that will get an engine hung out away from the fuselage...unlikely to destroy all redundant systems. Wouldn't be a fun ride, but the DHL example would probably be typical of MANPAD vs. airliner.

Like I said before, airliners don't have to be 100% MANPAD proof to scare off the terrorists...they just have to be a marginal target. Which they already are.

rickair7777

It has nothing to do with the skill of the operator...HITTING the aircraft isn't the issue. If a functional MANPAD is fired at an airliner, it will most likely hit it. Then you do your engine-out procedure, and return to land with your redundant systems.


I'm all for a MANPAD defense, but it should be airport-based, where the risk is. The airlines shouldn't have to buy and maintain countermeasures, and then take the weight and fuel penalty to haul them around the flight levels where the risk is zero. We are talking BILLIONS, folks, and every dime of that will come out of, you guessed it, employee pockets

ToiletDuck

Ahhh yes. The master of obvious one sided statements. ie "Don't the people deserve a government that works?" or "Don't the middle class deserve a better life?". Don't fall into his trap of generic voice for ratings!!!

ToiletDuck

Exactly. Even if they never hit an airliner all it does it take one person shooting at one to do the damage. Remember the scare when they found weapons off the departure end of, was it ORD, a while back?