Skip to comments.
Experts: Arkia Airliner saved by secret defence systems
Ha'aretz Daily ^
| 29/11/02
| Roni Singer
Posted on 11/29/2002 8:52:24 AM PST by the_second_moon
This is my translation from Ha'aretz Hebrew edition:
Weapon experts and intelligence sources claimed today that it was secret defence systems installed on the Arkia airliner, not luck, that saved the passengers.
The Boeing managed to escape from two heat seeking missiles after it took off Mombasa airfield.
"Israel work on plans to defend civilian ariliners from terror attacks since the 70s", told today Igal Eyal from the Hebrew University and a former intelligence agent. "the Mombasa incident looks like a successful implementation of amti-missile technology"
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: miltech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-129 next last
To: Bobby777; wirestripper
From the prior posts I gather that there is a fair amount of consensus that the shooters were in the wrong position which contributed to the two misses. What would the right position have been?
To: Bobby777
Check this link for the type of defense system they probably have: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2001/dot-e/airforce/01laircm.html
This is a good deal--uses a beam of light to confuse the missile, making it miss.
To: cebadams
any clear view of the exhaust for that kind of weapon ...
To: Bobby777
land temp. vs water temp. / in daylight wouldn't the surface of land heat up faster than the surface of water ? / so wind during the day would blow consistently inland along the coast / which would mean local aircraft would take off into the wind, or out to sea...
an inland flight path (takeoff) would occur if the winds were blowing out to sea strong enough, which isn't impossible as a front could be passing through or a storm could be brewing...
To: Bobby777
Out of curiousity I checked the local weather in Mombasa / last report was for 3AM / it was raining and the winds were blowing inland at 11 mph. Seems that the a/c would likely head into the wind at 11 mph. I do not know if the rainy weather has the winds coming in off the sea, or if I was off on my theory for wind behavior, which is just the opposite of this. Inland during the day, and out to sea at night ? Perhaps some Navy personnel could report on the winds characteristics near shore / day and night.
To: freepersup
I'll take a wait and see approach
I was sure Osama was dead. I chatted with someone tonight that said they were sure he was alive. The person would know. I can't expand on that. But I'd bet the odds are he is alive.
To: AndrewC
That was on Drudge 3 days ago!
To: freepersup
well, we may have to wait to see what the Mossad digs up ... so to speak ...
To: The Real Deal
That was on Drudge 3 days ago! My news must use donkeys for delivery.
109
posted on
11/30/2002 2:05:00 AM PST
by
AndrewC
To: cebadams
From my limited knowledge of this subject, combined with my extensive technical background, I can come up with a few things that make sense.
The sensor in the missile head would need a hot spot to lock on to. It would not have found one if it approached from the side or from directly below. The missile would have hit hot air.
It would need to come in from the rear to get a good lock. Modern commercial engines are high efficiency, as thus do not have as pretty of a heat signature, so this further complicates matters.
Due to the speed of the missile, if it were fired too close to the aircraft it likely would not be able to lock in and make the turn to come in from the back unless it were fired from just the right angle.
From what I know of defense systems, something needs to trigger it. A active radar source would be one type trigger, but a the airport, that would be a common occurrence. The system would not work, (unless you want flares and chaff spewing all over the place. The other trigger is manual. A plane taking off would not likely be able to sense a missile on approach. Particularly one with only a heat sensor and no radar guidance.
The strobe idea might work, but it would need to be turned on all the time. It would also be a visible mod to the aircraft.
I do not buy this evasive hardware story.
The idiots just plain missed again. That's all.
To: TexVet
Even if the missles weren't armed they could have torn away enough of the craft to have brought it down. Imagine the structural damage the two missles would have caused to the craft without hitting any fuel. Then imagine what would have happened if a fuel tank in a wing had been struck.
111
posted on
11/30/2002 8:16:06 AM PST
by
em2vn
To: wirestripper
He was just taking off. He would have had no opportunity to evade except to pop flares and there was no report of that. I wonder what the heck they are talking about? Take a look here. (This is a google cache -- the original seems to be gone). Down toward the bottom:
But we can protect commercial jets. There's a system that affixes six sensors on the aircraft's wings and fuselage to detect and track the missile, fires a wide-beam laser to blind it, managed by a computer all of that in much less time than it takes to describe it.
It also says that it's stuck in procurement in the U.S., but I wouldn't put it past the Israelis to have developed and deployed something similar. They're quite good at high tech stuff.
To: John Jorsett
I appreciate the info!
To: wirestripper
Freon, or other type gas used to "cool down" the missile eye and contrast up the target.
It's not fool proof and requires a skilled and knowledgeable operator. I once saw a Red Eye at Ft. Bliss ignore a target rocket with flares on it's tail and go down range and punch through and through an unoccupied, green Army bus.
Sometimes the proximity fuses go off too soon, or too late, or not at all. Sometimes the missile will just go right into the engine, or punch through a wing. Another thing they will do is bounce along the side of the aircraft a few times then go off.
In the US Army, it takes months of schooling to get the most out of the operator and the missile system. Somehow I picture a couple of hookah smoking semi illiterates puzzling over a old Soviet/ Egyptian manual while watching BayWatch.
114
posted on
11/30/2002 12:42:38 PM PST
by
Leisler
To: the_second_moon
Weapon experts and intelligence sources claimed today that it was secret defence systems installed on the Arkia airliner, not luck, that saved the passengers. LOL! This alleged attack never occurred in the first place.
115
posted on
11/30/2002 12:59:06 PM PST
by
Demidog
To: wirestripper
The other scenario that is even more likely is that the claim of a missile attack was fabricated. It never happened.
116
posted on
11/30/2002 1:02:02 PM PST
by
Demidog
To: wirestripper
There are several IR jammers that stay on and can confuse all but the most recent series of IR seekers. A commcerical aircraft could have several mounted without much to notice. Not that I know this aircraft had one, and it might have, but they would be a good countermeasure in the flat lands.
To: freepersup
Strela = arrow (Russian) Definitely not from my side of the family. The ex probably got her welfare check and drank it up again ;)
118
posted on
11/30/2002 4:32:12 PM PST
by
strela
To: PatrioticAmerican
Thanks, I just learned about the laser confusers today.
To: Demidog
Where have ya been for a while Demi? I have missed your cogent comments and touch of cynicism for some time.:-)
Saw you on another thread for the first time in months.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-129 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson