Next up: Hellfire missiles on traffic copters.
Jet with anti-missile system leaves LAX
An MD-10 cargo jet equipped with Northrop Grumman’s Guardian anti-missile system took off from Los Angeles International Airport on a commercial flight Tuesday, the company said.
The FedEx flight marked the start of operational testing and evaluation of the laser system designed to defend against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles during takeoffs and landings.
Adapted from military technology, Guardian is designed to detect a missile launch and then direct a laser to the seeker system on the head of the missile and disrupt its guidance signals. The laser is not visible and is eye-safe, the company said.
It’s about time we had this tech on commercial aircraft.
Let me get this straight. In just seconds we’re going to detect the launch of a missile (uh huh), shine a laser at the missile while both plane and missile are in motion (uh huh), blind the missile with this completely safe laser (uh huh) and save the plane? Sounds like a Northrup plan to me!
Question: where does the missile then go? A kindergarten? A passenger terminal?
#2. Should we just ignore the threat?
As opposed to the whole damn plane crashing into whatever. Man you are an idiot.
And let’s keep in mind that FedEx flys to lots of not so nice places. Baghdad comes to mind.
Interesting RAND paper on the threat:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/RAND_OP106.pdf
“Fly the friendly skies” in our airplanes fully equipped with laser missile disruptors, chaff dispensers, automatic missile avoidance systems, ejection seats, radar disruption systems. We can guarantee the safest flights between Akron and DesMoines.
In the process we will give you filthy airplanes, lost luggage, surly (outright nasty?) service, timetables that are just a suggestion. false security precautions, uncomfortable seats, legroom adequate for 5 foot tall people, etc… etc.. etc…
Too bad the system doesn’t immediately fire a counter missile at the launch point.
2,
All those things you describe are actually pretty easy with current technology, especially considering the missile will be tracking the aircraft in a very narrow cone of approach. The cost was the primary barrier to deployment.
As for the stray missile, the risk is actually low unless the warhead is triggered, and as has been pointed out, less than that of a flaming aircraft crashing.
Question: Where does the missile then go? A kindergarten? A passenger terminal?
Answer: The missile then directs itself to Janky’s house.
Cool tech, that does work, but:
1) They are pressuring for ALL passenger aircraft in the US to have it.
2) Considering the number of attacks of this type on US passenger craft ever it is pointless.
3) Hideously expensive.
why not just allow commercial airliners to have chaff and flares??? or ECM pods for that matter
The US Government has created an entire department to make you feel safer
That’s appropriate, since we’re not actually IN any danger in the first place, although W has tried his best, and partially succeeded, to make everyone FEEL like they’re in danger.
Or as Whoopie would say, “Molly, you in DANGER girl!”
Perhaps the missile will spew vitriol all over dvorak’s forums!
I wasn’t addressing the need in #2 (although I imagine more civilians die of falls down abandoned wells each year than are killed by missiles on takeoff). The question is whether it will work (#8 seems to think so, as does Northrup), and whether the six billion dollars to be spent (plus maintenance) will be obviated by taping a blue filter to the nose of the missile. If’n the bad guys can do something cheap to make the missiles work, then it’s certainly a waste of money.
Consider,
HOW densely populated is the EAST coast, and that is where this will probably be needed, with international airports.
I drive by Tampa International Airport a lot, and every time i shudder, thinking how easy it would be for someone to launch a handheld missle at a jet. The fact that it hasn’t been done yet is pretty amazing. It’s sad, but i suppose systems like this are a necessity in this day and age.
I think chaff and flares only work at high altituted or in air to air situations. Laser is probably faster acting in low altitude settings.
And an attacker couldn’t fire a 100 KW laser at a plane, why? How do you protect a plane from millions of square miles of ground, on which a single truck with a generator with a new gen laser could burn a plane out of the sky? http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003156.html
I’m still stunned that no one has figured out that, if a laser exists that can take out a missle, it can take out a plane, and more easily.
I guess we could all just ride on horses again. But wait…
I need an antiterrorist system to protect me while I ride to all of my destinations.
Holy cow, that technology exists too. A six-shooter!
The bigger question should be: Will this be more effective at preventing losses than spending equal amounts of money on hiring more/better skilled pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, or police? My guess is “no,” as human error (drowsiness, misjudgment, poor mechanic work, etc.) tends to be responsible for most accidents. Quite frankly, do we really live in dangerous enough times for this to be warranted in the U.S.? I think not…
Why dont the soldiers get this stuff?
About 20 years ago, a man invented a sprinkler system to put out fires on board passenger aircraft. It uses water already on board for drinking so there is no extra weight penalty. It is also fairly cheap and has been proven effective in testing. It could have saved thousands of lives by now if it had been implemented.
If they won’t implement a cheap, effective solution to a real problem with no weight penalty or impact on aerodynamics, why would they implement a multimillion dollar, heavy, bulge in the fuselage as protection against a lesser threat?
#23: Good PR.
Flight 800 could have used one of these systems..
http://www.twa800.com/index.htm
although I suspect this is targeted PR designed to lower the insurance rates…I imagine this thing firing and blowing up the plane in the process because something was mis-aligned.
When do they actually fire a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile at this plane to assure us this technology actually works? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Shows you how much faith they have in it. There’ll be no guarantee this thing will actually work in a real world scenario.
The 9/11 attack and subsequent war on terror has been quite a boon for the defense industry. There’s a vast amount of money to be made in defending against every conceivable terrorist attack. Playing on people’s fears has become quite lucrative.
#26 — It’s like animal testing. Just run a computer simulation. Nothing beats that, right?
25. Your asking for trouble.
26,
They did over 4 years ago…during testing. DUH…
27,
YEP…very true… and if they fire 2 or 3 rockets, DOES IT WORK?
another easy trick is to use wire guided, or Fire and forget…Just aim better/properly, or even a heat seeker..
@ #11
Shoulder-launched SAMs are heat-seaking. CHAFF, which is designed to thwart radar-guided missiles, is useless against them.
Heat-seaking missiles almost always have to be detected by sight, which is probably the most expensive part of this system: the visual detection and recognition system.
As for flares, well, I wonder what sort of fires those will start when popped at low altitude…
14,
If the missile is a heat-seeker, any filter that would block a hefty IR laser would also block a lot of the target’s heat signature. If a filter is used that blocks the exact frequency of the laser, that’s a different matter. However, all you need to do is to change frequencies often (during routine maintenance, for example) to evade that countermeasure. Having said that, I will not say that such a filter is impossible. Even then, any such ountermeasure would have to be distributed with new weapons, as the solution can’t just be screwed onto current inventories. The laser will at least render all those stingers we have out there less deadly.
16,
Shoulder-fired weapons are only effective at a relatively short range.
30,
The plume from the initial launch charge is very visible, as it also strikes the ground behind the gunner. A shoulder-fired antiaircraft (and many anti-tank) weapon uses a small primary rocket charge that blows the missile clear of the tube and far enough away from the gunner before the sustainer engine kicks on and sends the missile on its way. That charge is very explosive, as it is of a very short duration. (it must be spent before the missile clears the tube). As for tracking it in flight, we’ve had radar-steered guns (think Phalanx) for a while now and a laser doesn’t have to compensate for windage.
You guys have heard of El Al, right? They’ve been doing this for years, and while they get shot at a few times a year, none of their planes have been lost.