Passenger jets may get anti-missile systems

miami herald ^ | 1/11/04

[knak]

wow

[Support Free Republic]

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!

[Scenic Sounds]

This is that issue that we disagree on. I'm sorry, but I still feel the same way about it.

[Dallas59]

All the while 10 million illegals here get "free" money, and our jobs are moved to India, China, South America...What are we protecting?

[Scenic Sounds]

This is that issue that we disagree on. I'm sorry, but I still feel the same way about it.

[U S Army EOD]

Can you immagine those still burning flares coming down in a residentual area or on the Interstate? We really need to think that one over.

[AntiKev]

Alright...

[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]

[USNBandit]

To work, the systems would have to be set to automatic since nobody in the cockpit will see the incoming missile. Lot's of false alarms and flares everywhere. Better to go with some kind of dazzler. Something not mentioned is any security issues with proliferating possibly classified technology to get the things to work.

[John H K]

Well, the issue that the regular media will not bring up is the low odds of these missles bringing down a large airliner.

I notice in threads that people are genuinely surprised when one hits an aircraft without destroying it; there's a general inaccurate belief that getting hit with a missle = destroyed.

I wouldn't want to be in an airliner hit with one, of course.

However, it's a cost-benefit issue; if the same amount of money was spent on intelligence to track down possible missle users, would that be more effective?

[DoughtyOne]

Strip searches in airports, missile defense systems on our aircraft, Patriot acts... what's wrong with this picture?

We have and still are allowing people from terrorist nations to enter the United States. We are allowing millions of unveted people to flood across our southern border. We allow cargo and trucking to enter this nation without inspection.

Folks, how about turning this into a proactive effort rather than a reactive one? We need to cut immigration into this nation to zero for a period of about three to five years. Then our dear homeland defense department needs to seal our borders and vet those who have already entered this nation.

We wouldn't be in this mess if those who establish our immigration and trade policies had used their heads for the last couple of decades, like we demanded that they do. Now the onus is on citizens, and what can be done to inconvenience them to 'fix' the problem.

Focusing on domestic flights, airports and citizens 'will never correct what veting immigrants and checking cargo should have and still could.'

[petertare]

This might eventually offer some degree of protection, but not cost effective protection in a commercial sense. Airliners are vulnerable for long periods of time, and from any one of millions of possible launch sites. A hit though does not necessarily equate to a kill, particularly on large aircraft with wing mounted engines.

A far more effective solution (excluding some new technology) would be to properly regulate our borders and ports and provide continuous airport boundary security. Since this is not politically viable to the gutless among us then I suppose it is likely airliners will be lugging around some out of date vacuum tube boat anchor gizmo masquerading as protection to the public at large.

I am no expert, and have never dodged anything other than a few bullets while airborne. I am confident, though, that the public (you) will be funding this show.

[B4Ranch]

"Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., are pushing legislation to install anti-missile systems on domestic airliners. "

I wonder what states have companies that manufacture these systems. Calif and NY, perhaps?

[B4Ranch]

Would flares protect a large commercial airliner on takeoff from an RPG?

What would flares have done for Flt 800?

[U S Army EOD]

No, an RPG is unguided. Even though they call it RPG or Rocket Propelled Grenade it is actually a Super Caliber Recoiless Gun. The original RPG 2 and the German Panzerfaust just basically lobbed a shaped charge projectile out toward its target. It is not like our 2.36" or 3.5" bazooka that is actually a rocket. However the RPG 7 and other versions of basically the same item, do in fact have a rocket assist. The rocket is a tractor motor type rocket because the exhaust or venturies are up right behind the warhead with the solid fuze for the rocket being behind the exhaust. It does not have the exhaust in the rear like a normal rocket.

There would be nothing that would protect an airliner from a RPG. However the RPG has a limited range and is not really that fast.

The SA7 is like our old redeye. It is heat seaking and has a pretty good range and I think about a little less than 1/2 pound of explosives. I don't remember if it has an impact or proximety fuze but I seem to remember it being impact.

If a heat seaking missle had been fired at FLT800 and they saw it coming in time, it is possible flares could have saved it. If it was a missle and it was radar or beam guided the flares would have done no good.

[U S Army EOD]

Look its simple, all you have to do is get the load master to stand on the ramp with a flare pistol in his hand to watch for the missles. That is what we did with the AC 130s and C 130s in Vietnam in 1972 for the SA 7's. It worked great every once in a while and sometimes it didn't.

Just pick out the two stewdii who you think can handle a flare pistol the best, keep the rear doors cracked a bit until you can get about 10k and everything will be fine.

[U S Army EOD]

Sounds good unless you are the pilot behind looking at the dazzle device.

[B4Ranch]

My understanding about aircraft avoiding missiles that the pilot must wait and wait until it gets close, dump flares or reflective material and then make a sharp turn out of the path.

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.

[U S Army EOD]

Actually you just start dumping flares before you see anything and climb to altitude. If the bad guy fires he will probably end up locking on one of the flares.

If you are waiting to turn with a 747 at the last minute with the missle tracking you, the end of your day is not going to turn out like you hoped it would.

[tortoise]

Hrmmm... This stuff will work with the older systems, but will have very limited effect on late generation hardware.

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.