58 replies to this topic

[Overdose]

American Airlines to test anti-missile system
Move latest phase in testing technologies to protect commercial jets

DALLAS - Up to three American Airlines jets carrying passengers will be outfitted with anti-missile technology this spring in the latest phase of testing technology to protect commercial planes from attack.

An American Airlines spokesman said Friday that the test will determine how well the anti-missile system holds up under the rigors of flight.

The first Boeing 767-200 will be equipped in April or later, said the airline spokesman, Tim Wagner. American operates that Boeing model mostly between New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles.

American said it is "not in favor" of putting anti-missile systems on commercial planes but agreed to take part in the tests to understand technologies that might be available in the future.

The technology is intended to stop a missile attack by detecting heat given off from the rocket, then firing a laser beam that jams the missile's guidance system.

The device on the belly of the Boeing 767-200 aircraft will be operational but won't be tested on regular flights, Wagner said. The use of a signal to mimic a missile attack has already been tested in the air, Wagner said.

American, the largest U.S. carrier, has been working with defense contractor BAE Systems PLC on the project for a couple years. In 2006, BAE installed its hardware on a Boeing 767 that wasn't used to fly paying passengers.

About a year ago, reporters were invited to American's maintenance base in Fort Worth to see a jet outfitted with the laser-jamming device on its belly.

"We are now entering the next phase," Wagner said, which is "to see how the system holds up on an aircraft in real-time conditions — weather, continuous takeoffs and landings, etc. — and to test its maintenance reliability."

Wagner said American is also collecting more information on how the laser-jamming device affects fuel consumption.

Congress has approved funding for anti-missile research partly out of fear that terrorists armed with shoulder-fired weapons could hit jetliners as they take off and land. U.K.-based BAE won a contract from the Homeland Security Department to test its technology.

Fort Worth-based American, a unit of AMR Corp., has said anti-missile defense is best handled by stopping terrorists from getting missiles that could shoot down commercial jets and by improving security around airports.

Source here

-----

What is the world coming to? Next thing we know civilian planes end up having tail guns.

[CoLT]

Yes. What is the world coming to? When civilian airliners are under threat from terrorists who might want to shoot it down?

I think it's a great idea.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Getting from point A to point B in an armored convoy as a daily commute.

[Whitey]

Sounds good to me. I'm all for putting money into protecting civilians.

[Overdose]

I think it's a cool idea, there's a slight difference. Being Captain Obvious, I say this world is beyond fucked up atm.

[narboza22]

With all the crap that the TSA puts people through before letting them get onto planes, I'm surprised that this was made mandatory years ago. The military has had this technology in one form or another since Vietnam.

[Foxhound]

This does raise the question though: if it becomes necessary to shoot down a civilian airliner due to hijacking, what happens if the hijacked plane has countermeasures?

However, this technology is definitely a good idea. Prime example of hostile airspace for civilian transports, cargo or passenger: Baghdad International. I remember reading an article in Air and Space magazine about how many pilots adopted a sort of rolling technique ever since a DHL jet was struck by a shoulder-fired SAM on takeoff to avoid missile fire. And if you look at other airline crashes and accidents, many other times, lightweight SAMs like the Stinger have been used. They should put these on planes asap.

Though, I will say this: the KAL 007 incident could've been prevented with this system even if it was ultimately Soviet communications failure.

Edited by Foxhound, 05 January 2008 - 07:27.

[Whitey]

It's called guns. The civilian airliner would not return fire.

[Overdose]

Yea, a few pops at the tail and the wing and the plane's history. It's also cheaper than a missile.

[Dauth]

Protecting the population is a governments job, if this stops a fanatic causing a catastrophe then its a good thing.

[narboza22]

Foxhound, on 5 Jan 2008, 1:23, said:

This does raise the question though: if it becomes necessary to shoot down a civilian airliner due to hijacking, what happens if the hijacked plane has countermeasures?

Use a radar guided missile, and I really can't fathom anyone ever shooting down a plane full of civilians.

[Whitey]

What if it's gonna crash into.... the Sears Tower? And it would kill 4000 people?

[Foxhound]

narboza22, on 6 Jan 2008, 0:09, said:

Use a radar guided missile, and I really can't fathom anyone ever shooting down a plane full of civilians.

That's why there were CAPs over American cities after 9/11.

[Waris]

If I HAVE TO choose between 400 and 4000 casualties, I'd choose the former.

[Whitey]

And if I had to choose, I'd pass the trigger over to the next person.

[AllStarZ]

And I had to say something, its that there is nothing totally unremarkable about this. We are too used to safe and easy travel. A century ago your great grand parents had to cross a cold dark Atlantic on a passenger liner with no radar, no sonar, no GPS, and had to stay on a rocky boat with little to no amenities, at least probably for them. Ten years after not only did you face those hazards but the possibility of being condemned to a watery grave by a torpedo or mine.

Personally, I don't feel like giving funding to arms contractors whose very products put said planes at risk.

Edited by AllStarZ, 06 January 2008 - 07:55.

[narboza22]

If there was a 747 on a collision course with a building, and it was full of people, don't you think that they would try to force it to land by either shooting out the engines or shooting the wings to force the plane to lose fuel. I'm sure there are other fail safes built like ways to make the auto pilot take over, by tricking it into thinking that the crew was non responsive or something.

[Waris]

Over a dense, big city with many buildings? They'll just crash it randomly.

[Whitey]

Well, missile, gun, or nothing, that plane is going down somewhere over that city... Unless planes had built-in self-destruct sequences that caused them to fragment...

[AllStarZ]

It doesn't matter how many people they kill, so long as they get the message across.

[Cattman2236]

Wow.....why don`t you just put anti-missile counter measures in your shoes as well, After all you don`t want to come under attack when your going for a stroll [/sarcasm]. I wont say much to this but hey whatever floats your boat.

[Kris]

This "protection" will back fire If a plane got hijacked and the Airforce's only option is to shoot it down. How can they shoot down a countermeasure protected Jet liner?

[Whitey]

With any number of unguided projectiles.

[AllStarZ]

Boidy, on 6 Jan 2008, 13:07, said:

With any number of unguided projectiles.

Perhaps an RPG could hit it as its taking off, but that's a matter of airport security.

[narboza22]

You would have to be a god like shot in order to hit a plane with an RPG.