Posted on 01/11/2004 6:22:46 PM PST by knak
WASHINGTON - Concerned that airline travelers are increasingly vulnerable to terrorist missile attacks, the government is developing plans to equip commercial airliners with the same protective countermeasures that military pilots use to fend off enemy missiles.
Thousands of easily concealed shoulder-fired missiles are within quick reach of terrorist groups from the world's black-market arms bazaars. In August, FBI agents arrested a British citizen in New Jersey suspected of trying to peddle a Russian-made SA-18, a newer-generation surface-to-air missile.
"As of today," defense analyst Loren Thompson said, "commercial airliners are naked against the potential of such a threat."
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security selected three companies to develop plans for equipping the nation's approximately 7,000 airliners with devices to counter missile attacks. Testing and development will take two years and cost nearly $100 million.
The holiday season brought new reminders of potential terrorism as British Airways repeatedly canceled flights from London to Washington and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge elevated the nation's terror alert. The alert was lowered for most of the nation Friday.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., are pushing legislation to install anti-missile systems on domestic airliners. They say the department's two-year study will take too long to confront a growing threat.
But airline officials say further review is necessary to avoid rushing into use of untested technology and saddling the struggling industry with billions of dollars in added costs.
Installing the equipment could cost $1 million to $3 million per aircraft. The Air Transport Association, which represents the industry, says the total costs could reach as high as $100 billion.
Fort Worth, Texas-based American Airlines would be required to equip more than 700 airliners. While the company has not expressed outright opposition, American spokesman Carlo Bertolini said cutting off terrorists' access to the missiles is a more effective way to deal with the threat.
As a "secondary measure," Bertolini said, American supports the creation of "secure perimeters" around airports that would ensure the safety of airliners during takeoffs and landings, when they are most vulnerable to missile attacks.
Homeland Security officials authorized Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and a team led by United Airlines to spend the next six months studying the feasibility of protecting commercial airliners with military-style missile-defense systems.
The field will then be winnowed to two companies, which will spend the following 18 months on research and development.
Northrop and BAE are developing plans for a new generation of laser defenses, which have been used in military aircraft since the Vietnam War.
The system will be contained in a pod, also called a canoe because of its shape, on the bottom of the fuselage. Sensors will maintain a 360-degree vigil around the aircraft. When a threat is detected, an intense laser beam will be directed at the missile, throwing it off course and away from the airplane.
The United-led team is developing an alternative plan to use flares as decoys to lead missiles away from the aircraft, another concept used for decades on military planes. A major participant on the team is Avisys of Austin, Texas, a 13-year-old company that develops protection systems for nonmilitary aircraft.
Avisys President Ron Gates, a former Navy commander, said the system will be similar to those the company is developing for wide-body aircraft used by the heads of state in Middle Eastern countries.
The flares will be ejected automatically from dispensers on the aircraft, collectively forming a "heat signature" larger than that of the airplane, tricking the missile into veering off course.
Unlike older technology on military craft, the flares burn so fast that they are invisible to the naked eye, so passengers would not be exposed to a horrifying fireworks show outside their windows.
All the systems under study will operate automatically and are designed to negate the threat within seconds, even before passengers and crew realize they are in danger.
An indicator on the instrument panel would presumably notify pilots afterward. The department is also requiring that the information be dispatched instantly and automatically to Washington so authorities can alert other aircraft and issue a terrorist alert.
Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said there is "fairly strong support in Congress" for missile-defense systems aboard airliners.
"Most experts believe that if we don't do it, it will encourage terrorists to attack aircraft," he said. "The question is not whether we do it, but how soon we'll have a system that's affordable and reliable enough."
In a November report, the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, cited other options, such as toughening airport security, modifying flight operations and cracking down on the proliferation of surface-to-air missiles on the black market.
"However, these techniques by themselves cannot completely mitigate the risk of domestic attacks and would not protect U.S. airliners flying to and from foreign airports," the report said.
Shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, or SAMs, have been in production since the 1960s. They are 5 to 6 feet long, weigh 35 to 40 pounds and can strike targets from four miles away, zeroing in on engine heat. An airplane flying at less than 15,000 feet would be in danger.
A recent United Nations report estimated that there are more than 500,000 portable SAMs, many in terrorist hands. On the black market, they cost $5,000 to $250,000, depending on age and model.
"The threat of seeing such missiles used by terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and their associates remains very high and persistent," U.N. officials said. They also expressed concern that the missiles can be easily concealed in 20-foot-long maritime containers routinely used for overseas shipments.
Among the most widely available missiles are Soviet-made SA-7s. In November 2002, two missed an Israeli aircraft departing Mombasa airport in Kenya. Another SA-7 believed to be from the same batch was fired at a U.S. military plane taking off from Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, but it apparently misfired.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | Ireland | 50.00 |
1 |
50.00 |
24 |
2.08 |
|
|
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
[RANT]
Anti-missile systems do exactly what for public safety? That's it...NOTHING! It's a feel good move that will cost the airlines hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. A domestic airliner is NOT going to be shot down over US soil. An international flight will NOT be shot down by a shoulder-fired missile or something similar, unless it's flying into or out of Baghdad International.
Speaking as a pilot, there is no reason for this "upgrade" other than to make the sheeple feel safer. It adds complexity, weight, and possibly another crew member to a flight crew. Not to mention the systems training. Say a typical system weighs 50 to 100 lbs. That's almost nothing when you're talking about an 800,000lb airliner (747) that burns 24,000lbs of fuel per hour. 100lbs may not seem like a lot, and it's not. But that's a small passenger or quite a bit of mail or other cargo, and lost revenue for the already struggling airlines.
There is NO reason to force airlines to equip their aircraft with anti-missile systems. There is no justification for it.
[/RANT]
I wonder what states have companies that manufacture these systems. Calif and NY, perhaps?
What would flares have done for Flt 800?
This would mean keeping the seat belts on tight all the time while in the air. Granny and the kids won't go for this. The airline industry is going to be doomed.
There is a misconception how "heat-seeking" missiles actually work. Truth be told, we haven't fielded a genuine thermal homing missile in decades. Terminal guidance systems are using broad spectrum IR imaging to find their target i.e. it follows something that looks like an airplane as viewed in a broad IR spectrum. Laser spectrums are too narrow, and flares don't look like an airplane.
The primary defense against a modern homing system is intercept or to lose it (VERY tricky). It is following the thing that looks like an aircraft, not a heat source, and in the broad IR spectrum which makes the planes (and most other things) easier to track in adverse environments. Putting out-dated countermeasures on civilian aircraft simply isn't worth the money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.