In regard to American Airlines allowing BAE Systems to test an anti-missle defense on test airliners:
"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."
That could be the most ignorant statement possible with regard to this situation. Both "solutions" are naieve.
The first aspect is considering how many shoulder launched missle systems are in the hands of underpaid soldiers in former-Soviet countries. If you aproached one of those units and said you'd pay 80,000 for a single launcher, what do you think they would do? 80k and all they have to say is that one was destroyed by a forklift in a warehouse, or in a training accident. This reeks of the same ignorance that thinks guns can be kept out of the hands of criminals.
The second, airport security, is full of dumb when you consider that these launchers have at least a 5 kilometer range. That includes straight up. So if they stood 10 miles from an airport, directly under an ingress path or holding area, they just have to point up, and any plane aproaching will be vulerable. This is a system that could easily be transported in a small car, truck, or even a motorcycle if the bad guys were bold enough.
American and BAE aren't using live flights or live weapons in the tests. Right now it's just testing the system to see if it can withstand the workload of an airliner. I presume one of the next steps will include a remotely-operated empty aircraft, and live missiles.
I do take my hat off to them for allowing these tests. But I can't help think American is getting some kickback for this. The DHS awarded this contract to BAE, and there is almost surely a provision in the contract that rewards airlines for participating.
BTW, I bet I jsut tricked Annie into reading this, just from the title.
1 comment:
I should also point out that this device is designed to "blind" the incoming missile. Since the 70's, missile systems have had a failsafe where they continue on a course that will intercept the target, in the event they lose tracking abilities.
And modern missiles don't need to hit their target either, they have magnetic fuses that trigger the warhead once they are within a predefined range. And many warheads are designed to do MORE damage if they detonate a few dozen meters away. So even if the missile is "blinded", AND the pilot alters course, there is still the possibility that it won't be enough to avoid damage. Airliners don't evade well, and these missile systems are designed to engage military planes that are MUCH more agile than airliners.
My opinion is that we should equip airliners with MAW sensors, chaff, and flare countermeasures. A single flare, released from near each engine, would be far more effective IMO. The reson for this is that the missile will often start tracking the heat from the flare instead of the engine heat. As the flare slowly falls to the ground, the missile is diverted away from the airliner, so even a magnetic fuse will never trigger. Chaff, which is designed to fool radar tracking missiles, may not work well, since an airliner has such a massive radar cross-section. But most (all?) shoulder launched missiles are infra-red (heat seeking).
Post a Comment