Chaff and Jamming systems on commercial aircraft...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
I thought this was pretty interesting. Looks like one of the biggest terrorist threats is shoulder launched SAM missiles.

Grumman and BAE are developing laser guidance jamming devices to eventually be fitted to commerical aircraft. United airlines are also developing a anti-missile flare system that oxidises, rather than burns but gives off short bursts of intense heat.

If you watched ABC news yesterday, they actually showed a 737-200 testing the flare system - an amazing sight.

Check out http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/anti-missile_system_040713-1.html for a closer look.

Apparently either passengers or tax payers will have to foot the bill.
 
Pretty cool video. I dont know if this is really necessary. It would probly be easier for a terrorist to sit under an approach path with a pistol or rifle and shoot the wing.

Tom
 
Well I think that just as easily that a spotter can get so close to aircraft when taking pictures, it might not be that hard to harm them either.
 
Yeah thats what I was thinking. The chances of hitting it with a pistol (about the easiest thing to concele) are very slim unless your lucky.

Tom
 
Cool, so does that mean we MIGHT get our viewing areas back since shoulder fired rockets will be less of a concern......
banghead.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently either passengers or tax payers will have to foot the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either way, the little guys pays!
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Cool, so does that mean we MIGHT get our viewing areas back since shoulder fired rockets will be less of a concern......
banghead.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Because I was so concerned about them last year....
 
It doesn't even take guys being at the airport perimeter to accomplish something like this.

Look at PHX, for instance. All it takes is some guys to sit at a hotel at night and watch the arrival flows from the NE and from the SE. Then, they could hike up the McDowell mountains east of Scottsdale or the SanTan mountains south of Willie-Gateway, and they've bought themselves some "closing distance" from the arriving traffic; as well as being in the middle of nowhere. Fire a MANPAD from there, and they could be gone long before anyone saw them (if they fired at dusk, for example), and before anyone could respond out there...since most emergency response units would be heading to the scene of the crash anyway. And those areas I mentioned are anywhere from 35-50 nm from KPHX itself. Scary thought.

I do find it interesting the talk about automatic flare dispensing systems that would counteract a MANPAD launched and targeted at an airliner. They might work in the scenarios I mentioned, but I find one problem with them working against a potential terrorist that might be positioned outside the airport perimeter....that is, having the system armed for takeoff and/or landing. The biggest problem with the automatic flare/IR systems, like the C-130s use, is that they're optimized for combat. They sense sorts of IR energy, and begin kicking out flares for defense. Now, if an America West 737 on takeoff from PHX Sky Harbor in the middle of summer gets sun/heat reflections from the many cars parked in long-term lots on the outside of the airport, and begins kicking out 2000 degree celsius self-defense flares at 100 AGL, that all hit the ground/cars/people, etc. That wouldn't be a good thing. With the C-130 taking off in a war zone, flares being kicked out are not really a problem. Too much chance for collateral damage in a civil setting. IMO, a bug that needs further engineering.
 
Thanks for giving us the inside scoop Mike.

And of course the comment about the little guys paying the price is off base unless you mean airline employees. Just at with the rest of the security costs the customer won't pay a nickel more for this. Ticket prices are based on supply and demand, not cost of production.
tongue.gif
 
Well, if the government picks up the tab, then the little guy (us taxpayers) will cough up the money. The question is whether or not that's a national security threat that's something we have to cough up the money for, or just something a business should pay for as a cost of doing business.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if the government picks up the tab, then the little guy (us taxpayers) will cough up the money. The question is whether or not that's a national security threat that's something we have to cough up the money for, or just something a business should pay for as a cost of doing business.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government doesn't seem interested in picking up any more airline tabs. Just mandating new unfunded costs. The sentiment on both sides of the aisle now seems to be "sink or swim and we don't really care which it is".
 
[ QUOTE ]
The government doesn't seem interested in picking up any more airline tabs. Just mandating new unfunded costs. The sentiment on both sides of the aisle now seems to be "sink or swim and we don't really care which it is".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. There's a very good case that antimissile defenses for civilian aircraft should be considered a national security issue. So is that something the government ought to pick up the tab for? Or should they just say, nope, you airlines pick it up?

I lean towards the national security side because of the economic damage that could be done if a terrorist brings down a plane with a missile. But I've got an open mind on the issue.
 
I think that 10-30 Billion is probably a very low estimate. For this to be an effective system, there would have to be an enormous cost. That enormous cost would be passed on to everyone that has a stake in the commercial aviation industry. Lower wages, higher ticket prices, higher taxes for aviation, lower profit margins, all sure to come if this becomes mandatory.
 
[ QUOTE ]
lower profit margins

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of hard to get a profit margin lower than the industry has now!
tongue.gif
 
>>> Lower wages, <<< No problem, in the works

>>>higher ticket prices<<< Can't do. No price elasticity

>>> higher taxes for aviation<<< Never a problem, when in doubt tax it!

,>>>lower profit margins, <<< What profit margins? You must mean larger losses.

>>>all sure to come if this becomes mandatory.<<< It's OK, as Scary Mary Schiavo used to say (where has she been anyway?): "You can't put a price on a human life" and "The only safe airline is a bankrupted and grounded airline".
smile.gif
 
Mary Schialvo. There's a winner.

After her speech to Katie Couric about the imminent dangers of icing on turboprop aircraft and how "You can't assume those young pilots up front know that they have icing on the wings, get up and say something because your life depends on it!", I endured the winter of 1996 with people banging on the cockpit door when we were eating or one of us taking a "combat nap" (tm) screaming "There's ICE!!! There's ICE!!! (insert Howard Dean "Yaaaaargh" here).

"Umm, yeah, we're going to umm, give it a pop when it gets at least an inch... Ya know, that procedural thing."
 
Too bad it was 1996. Now you could shoot them.

Mary used to drive me crazy. I just don't know why she's not around anymore. She's always good for a "you all are going to die unless they do what I say" quote.
 
Sold some books and she's probably hanging out with Milton from Office Space on the beach...
 
I wonder what Mary Schialvo's response would be...

"The airline let you onto this island with a butane torch! I'm going to write another book and do the talk show circuit!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top