FAA begins equipping its jets with anti-missile system

SF Gate.com ^ | October 12, 2006 | Paul J. Caffera

[KeyLargo]

FAA begins equipping its jets with anti-missile system

Move is latest to protect aircraft from terror attack - Paul J. Caffera, Special to The Chronicle Thursday, October 12, 2006

(10-12) 04:00 PDT Oklahoma City -- In yet another reminder of the lurking threat terrorist missiles pose to airliners, the Federal Aviation Administration has begun installing anti-missile systems on its fleet of aircraft.

Northrop Grumman spokeswoman Ellen Hamilton confirmed the $12.5 million contract to The Chronicle on Tuesday.

The first system was installed on a Bombardier Challenger 601 aircraft by FAA personnel last week at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City. In coming days, the FAA plans to install additional countermeasure systems on two additional Challenger 601s and one Challenger 604. The devices are designed to combat the threat from so-called MANPADS, or Man-Portable Air Defense Systems.

The defenses are to be installed on FAA jets used to inspect navigation beacons, radars and airport lighting at commercial airports.

The FAA would not comment on the installations. ...

[KeyLargo]

"The FAA move is the latest in a stepped-up effort to protect "commercial derivative" aircraft from missile attacks. Commercial derivative aircraft are essentially commercial airliners the government has modified for official use. The twin presidential Air Force One aircraft, which have missile defenses installed, are modified Boeing 747s."

[KeyLargo]

Aviation Ping

[dalereed]

They must be contemplating some really horrendous rule changes!

[toddst]

Well, in addition to selecting commercial flights using Boeing aircraft, now I'll be looking for aircraft equipped with "missile defenses." And when will these be installed on airlines planes for the "common folk?"

[edpc]

Pretty..........

[gorush]

...and all the while our right to keep and bear arms is ignored and criminalized. We've got our democracy, but, as Franklin alluded, can we keep it?

[whipitgood]

Oh sure, the FAA boys are 'protecting' their important little backsides using OUR tax dollars. Now that's what I call a good use of tax money. What self respecting terrorist is going to target the FAA anyway?
(sarcasm alert)

[george76]

[Fractal Trader]

Aerospace ping

[Mr Rogers]

I believe these are modified LAIRCM systems. A full up LAIRCM runs around $5 million a plane, so I doubt they will be widespread.

[isthisnickcool]

I wonder if al-Qaeda and the south American gangs have maybe smuggled MANPADS in to the US so they can shoot down commercial airliners. Nah! Not with the border security we have. /sarcasm off

[Just_an_average_Joe]

I believe they are deploying Counter MANPADS (the civilian version of the Guardian system).

[Mr Rogers]

Sounds right. It should be a lot cheaper, but still too much for installing on all commercial aircraft unloess the threat becomes a lot greater.

[the invisib1e hand]

and all the while our right to keep and bear arms is ignored and criminalized. We've got our democracy, but, as Franklin alluded, can we keep it?

The odds of success are roughly proportional to the amount of active, sacrificial effort we make to protect it; roughly inversely proportional to the amount of time and effort we give to predicting its demise.

[the invisib1e hand]

that is a fearsome sight indeed.

[george76]

That is awesome.

[sam_paine]

that is a fearsome sight indeed.

Yeah. Imagine what it'll look like when the pyros go off accidentally on a live tarmac with fuel trucks and pax on board.

Fearsome sight indeed.

But it's the FAA. What could go wrong?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Not flares, DIRCM

Flares tend to ignite things on the ground.

[KeyLargo]

Kool!