Missile-protected El Al planes may be banned from U.S. airports

Israel Insider ^ | April 23, 2004 | Ellis Shuman

[yonif]

The "Flight Guard" electronic counter-measure system to protect civilian aircraft against shoulder-fired surface to air missiles will be installed on El Al planes in June, as part of an Israel Civil Aviation Administration (ICAA) test, Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman said yesterday. The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), however, refuses to allow civilian planes to be equipped with the flare-based system due to the safety risks.

According to Transportation Ministry spokesman Avner Ovadiah, the new anti-missile system will be installed on one El Al aircraft in June, with tests lasting two to three months. If the tests are successful, he said, the system would be installed on all 30 El Al aircraft.

"We expect the first plane to be flying by June, and this is just the beginning of a comprehensive upgrade of the El Al fleet," Ovadiah said.

The ministry allocated 6 million shekels ($1.3 million) in September to the adaptation of the anti-missile system, currently employed on IAF military aircraft, to civilian planes. Additional funds have since been allocated to develop the program. The government decided to allocate the funds after two Strella anti-aircraft missiles were fired at and just missed an Arkia airliner taking off from Mombassa airport in Kenya in November 2002.

"Installing the system on El Al planes will boost international marketing of the system, because El Al is a global leader in airline security," said Elta managing director Yisrael Livnat, whose company, along with Israel Military Industries, manufactures the Flight Guard system. "The ICAA will register the system, but further registration in the U.S. may be necessary before sales there can begin," he said.

Costing between $750,000 and $1 million per unit, the Flight Guard system's radar-connected sensors respond automatically to an approaching heat-seeking missile, firing thermal decoys to divert the missile from the aircraft.

Aviation sources said Flight Guard is embedded out of sight in the plane's body to avoid drawing attention, and its flares are designed not to be a fire risk if they land in civilian areas, Reuters reported.

Lieberman left this week for a working visit to the U.S, where he will hold talks with Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and other officials in order to raise awareness about the need to protect civilian passenger aircraft, Globes reported.

Defense industry sources told Globes that the FAA refuses to approve flare-based anti-missile systems for civilian airplanes, due to the safety risks. ICAA director Yitzhak Raz is discussing the matter with the FAA in an effort to change the decision, the paper said.

Flight Guard lost an FAA tender 18 months ago, Globes reported. In view of the failure in the tender, it is not clear how El Al planes equipped with Flight Guard will be able to use U.S. airports, the paper reported.

According to officials familiar with the Flight Guard system, its flares are calibrated not to discharge below a safe altitude in order to prevent fires or injury to people on the ground. The flare-based defense system can also be turned off, allowing the planes to land at U.S. airports, Globes reported. However, it is during the landing and takeoff procedures that aircraft are most vulnerable to the threat of heat-seeking missiles.

Rival manufacturer Rafael (Israel Armament Development Company), is developing its own electro-optical anti-missile defense system for civilian aircraft. The company is greatly encouraged by Flight Guard's troubles with the FAA, Globes reported, as its own system does not fire flares to divert incoming missiles. Rafael executives hope that the Israeli airlines will wait for its systems to be developed, and afterwards they will be able to market them successfully in the U.S.

[GeronL]

The US won't allow planes with missile defense??? huh??

[Bobby777]

all of this expense, preparation, worry, concern, regulation, development, testing, deployment, death, destruction because of Islamic terrorists wreaking havoc all over the world ...

I wonder if, one day, the world will have enough and outlaw Islam ... sounds far-fetched but I wonder how long all this accomodation will have to take place ... China would not allow Muslims on airplanes after September 11 ... I don't know if they have relaxed it (I think they have) but it was right after the attacks ...

[F14 Pilot]

PING!

[GeronL]

That rule is right up there with not being allowed to search more than 2 arab males per flight.

Makes oh so much 'sense'

[Bobby777]

the flare dispensers might be a risk at public airports ... the flares are discharged as the aircraft departs and arrives (without any launches) and of course, if there are launches detected ... you could see Russian aircraft in Afghanistan kicking out tons of flares as they took off to protect them from Stingers as much as possible ...

[GeronL]

well, I am sure they could be set only to launch flares if they detect a missile.

[Travis McGee]

How can effective flares not be a fire risk? Imagine them cascading down on a forest outside of Denver or LA.

[dufekin]

We won't even allow security screens to process more than two Arabs or Muslims per plane. If we can't keep more than two terrorists (under the almost-always-true assumption that they're all Arabs or Muslims) from boarding a plane, why would we try to keep terrorists from attacking the plane externally? It just wouldn't make sense. If we're going to be vulnerable...why cover any holes at all?

[Travis McGee]

We're going to find out, sooner or later, if Abdul will pray, to a glowing crater.

[Lancey Howard]

And SUVs must be redesigned so that in an accident, they take an equal amount of damage as a Toyota Camry. It's only fair.

[Texasforever]

It may make more sense than you think. What if we needed to shoot down one of these planes?

[Bobby777]

I think they may not have launch detection systems ... they'd have to have 360-degree, at least below the aircraft and forwards, side, and rearward-looking ...

that's why many military takeoffs just fire the flares on every approach and every takeoff in areas where the concerns are ...

[yonif]

What if we needed to shoot down one of these planes?

If we really needed to shoot down one of these planes, we would suceed using fighter jets, etc.. This system is aimed mostly at shoulder fired missiles.

[Bobby777]

yes, my friend ... it is going to come to that I'm afraid ... they are committed to that cause ... and these 5-a-day call to prayers are not a good sign ... cities are going to have to ban such ...

[F14 Pilot]

It is ECM pods and it can not be Flares or Chafs.
Flares jam both civilian & military radars and can also be harmful for other flights.

[PLMerite]

There's a new system, MAWS - Missile Approach Warning System (AN/AAR-47), that detects the IR signature of a launched SAM and only *then* starts ejecting flares.

They've got 'em on most everything military now, I think.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-aar-47.htm

[Bobby777]

how can ECM avert infrared missiles? ... ECM could interfere with instruments (if radios can, ECM can for sure) ... ECM won't work against infrared ... perhaps the rotating laser spoof or flares ... heat spoofing only ...

[Bobby777]

yeah, I know many of the military planes can detect ... civilian aircraft, airliners, is what I wonder about ...

one would expect certain planes, like Air Force One, NAOC, Looking Glass, etc. all have those systems ... but I think it's still cost-prohibitive on civilian airliners ... of course it's cheaper than a plane going down but adding it to the whole fleet of U.S. airliners would be pretty expensive I think ...