U.S. Explores Protection of Airliners From Missiles

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:07 am

It will be interesting to see if and when this technology makes it's way onto commercial aircraft. Can you imagine what the passengers would think if they saw the flares being shot off? In the event of a misfire you would have one needlessly terrified group of passengers.

U.S. Explores Protection of Airliners From Missiles
By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: December 26, 2003

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 â?? With two recent attacks on big airplanes leaving Baghdad International Airport, experts on civilian aviation are debating how civilian airliners outside the battle zones could be protected from shoulder-fired missiles.

The Department of Homeland Security is planning to announce soon that it has selected two or three teams of bidders to explore how to put military-style antimissile technology on airliners. But airline experts have been questioning whether on-board systems are adequate. After an attack on an Air Force C-17 as it flew out of Baghdad on Dec. 9, those questions have increased.

The Air Force said that one engine on the four-engine C-17 exploded because of "hostile action," but has not confirmed that it was a missile. The plane returned to the airport.

It was the first combat-related damage to a C-17, the Air Force said. The incident raised questions with civilian experts because the C-17, built by Boeing, is one of the younger planes in the Air Force inventory, and would presumably have been equipped with a system that detects missiles and then either drops decoy flares or deploys a laser to blind incoming missiles, the two technologies in broad use.

"If a C-17 so equipped was hit, it's some bad news for the civil world," said Langhorne M. Bond, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration from 1977 to 1981. But Mr. Bond said that it might not have had any antimissile defenses.

An Air Force spokesman said that for "operational reasons," he would not say what equipment the C-17 carried. Civilian experts say that over the years, the Air Force has put a variety of systems on those planes. In addition, they said, some are so prone to false alarms that pilots have been known to turn them off.

A few days before the C-17 was hit, a civilian wide-body jet was hit by a missile. On Nov. 22, a DHL cargo plane was hit on departure, a vulnerable time because the engines are working near maximum thrust, and emitting an easy-to-spot heat trail. It did not have an antimissile system.

The DHL plane was an Airbus A-300, a type in common use for carrying passengers. It, too, successfully returned to the airport, although aviation experts said it had a narrow escape. According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, the missile destroyed the plane's hydraulic systems, and the crew could maneuver the plane only by independently varying the speed of its two engines.

In response to the missile threat, in September the Department of Homeland Security asked contractors for proposals to equip civilian planes with military antimissile technologies. Twenty-four responded, and the department invited five of them to present their technologies.

Of the five, two or three are expected to get contracts early next month for $2 million each, to work on their proposals for six months. Then the department would select some number of those three for another $45 million contract for development of prototypes and testing, industry participants said.

The whole program would take 18 to 24 months. Michelle Petrovich, a spokeswoman for the department, said that at the end of the period, the department would decide whether to deploy the technology, invest in new research and development or take some other path.

"This is an extremely aggressive timeline," Ms. Petrovich said.

Security experts have taken the threat of missiles more seriously since November 2002, when terrorists tried to shoot down an Israeli Boeing 757 as it took off from Mombasa, Kenya.

The technologies that the companies are trying to adapt for civilian use are based on those in use on military aircraft, but in some cases are more modern.

For example, the Avisys Corporation, of Austin, Tex., which says it has installed antimissile technology on aircraft that carry foreign heads of state, and Arinc, of Annapolis, Md., which specializes in various kinds of aviation-related electronics, have proposed a system that will use two kinds of sensors, to cut down on the false-alarm rate. One is a system that looks for light in the ultraviolet spectrum that is emitted by a missile's plume. The other is doppler radar that calculates the speed of an incoming missile, as well as its direction. The idea is to eliminate false alarms, according to the designers.

The system releases flares that burn on contact with air. But the flares burn at a relatively low temperature, so they are nearly invisible from the ground, so opponents with missiles would not know they were in use, said Ronald A. Gates, president of Avisys. Proponents say the system would sell for about $500,000 per airplane and would be easy to maintain, because not much can go wrong with the flares.

Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors, of Akron, Ohio, is one of three groups of companies to propose a system that uses an onboard laser. Cary Dell, a spokesman for the company, said that with a laser, "it's always available and there's nothing to replenish." If a plane relies on expendable flares, Mr. Dell said, "there's a limit to the load of expendables you can put into a system."

Lockheed Martin's system was developed over the last two years at the Air Force's White Sands test range in New Mexico, and is not yet on any planes, Mr. Dell said. It would meet the government's goals for price and weight of $1 million per plane and no more than 1,000 pounds, he said.

But the airlines remain unenthusiastic. "There have been no tests to show that this technology can be transferred from military jets to commercial airliners," said Douglas Wills, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, the trade group of the major airlines.

Most military planes can evade missiles because they can maneuver like high-performance sports cars, Mr. Wills said. In contrast, he said, a commercial jet "is like the Greyhound bus of the sky."

Mr. Wills said that there was no single solution, but that the government should be offering bounties for shoulder-fired missiles, to dry up the black market. And the government should be securing the areas around airports, he said.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:50 am

They're too paranoia.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:58 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tricord:
They're too paranoia.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not so sure about that. Ask that DHL crew how paranoid they are being.

I have seen the pics of that plane. The damage was extensive. Those pilots really earned their paychecks that day bring that plane down safely.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:38 am

Flying on Bagdad Airport is quite more risky than say, Heathrow in London or Orly in Paris.

Also, consider the amount of planes taking off each minute. They all don't get fired upon, are they? Half a million bucks for each plane is a lot of money, I'm sure there are better ways to spend it.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:20 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tricord:
I'm sure there are better ways to spend it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not if you are on the plane that gets fired upon. Don't forget the El-Al flight that was fired upon coming out of Kenya.

I agree that the likelihood of a shoot down is low today. But, and this is not a small point, at potentially 200 + deaths a shoot down, airlines tend to take it extremely seriously. If the shoot down attempts continue and or increase in frequency, you are going to see the public get very shy about flying. If that happens, the air lines will start to look at this new technology.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:51 pm

I'm pretty sure that the Israeli civil airline (Name????) already has anti-missile technology on board.

However, it's probably a waste of time. Here's why: bringing down a 747 is one helluva task. The things can fly on only one engine, and unless you lucked-out and managed to take out a fuel tank and cause a massive fuel-air explosion, you'd be hard pressed to drop one.

I recently read a report concerning the difficulties an F-14 pilot would have trying to down a 747. Firstly, they only carry (as standard) 3 air-to-air heat-seekers. These missiles will home on engines, and are indeed powerful enough to take out a motor, but not enough to rupture fuel tanks.

The plan seemed to revolve around taking out three engines, and then using guns to take out the fourth, or to shoot out the ailerons on the tail of the plane. This, apparently would take up to 4-5 minutes depending on the situation.

So, trying to blow up a wide-body using a small heat-seeking SAM, pretty much won't work to bring down a big plane. You might get lucky, but probably not. It'd just use 3 engines to go around and come in for an emergency landing.

Certainly, as a kiwi - it's not something I'm losing any sleep over.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:05 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by [NuB] Dedman:
If that happens, the air lines will start to look at this new technology.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They'll look at it alright, and determine that it's too expensive to install vs possible business lost.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:17 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mobius:
However, it's probably a waste of time. Here's why: bringing down a 747 is one helluva task. The things can fly on only one engine, and unless you lucked-out and managed to take out a fuel tank and cause a massive fuel-air explosion, you'd be hard pressed to drop one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might not be a waste of time. Hereâ??s why:

You are assuming the target aircraft is at cruise while flying on that one good engine. During takeoff or landing, (which is when these attacks have occurred) the aircraft is producing a lot of parasite and induced drag.

The parasite drag comes from the configuration of the aircraft i.e. flaps, L.E. slats, and landing gear are all extended. The induced drag comes from the high lift being generated from the flaps and slats. At take off the aircraft is close to max gross weight. This means it has to generate close to max lift, which in turn means it generates close to max induced drag.

Now, all that means that an aircraft taking off or landing can most definitely NOT fly on only one engine; especially at take off. When taking off, the aircraft needs every pound (Newton for you metric types) of thrust it can produce to overcome the tremendous amount of drag being produced.

All this is not even considering what happens if critical (read HYDRAULIC) systems are damaged. The only reason the DHL Airbus was able to land controllably without hydraulics was because it still had two good engines and was using differential thrust to control yaw. If it had lost an engine as well it would have been a very different outcome.

Bringing down a big jetliner with a shoulder launched heat seeker is not as hard as you think.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:18 pm

Nor does everyone fly on 747s Mobi...

All one would have to do is take out the cockpit. Regardless of auto-pilot it still takes pilots and the main instrumentation of the cockpit to control the plane. Without those you have no means of landing and a passenger plane out of control.

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:45 pm

Yes, because heatseekers prefer aluminum sheilded 97 degree heat from human pilots over a couple thousand degrees of jet engine.

Doesn't this all relate back to airport security anyhow?

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:48 pm

Apparently that went over your head

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:48 pm

hasnt this been covered once already, in another thread? if not i stand corrected.

heres my input, despite some of the worlds most advanced techonology in the US, Flares, Chaff and electronic means of evading and "Jamming" a missle are not 100% effective and thus have a flaw for a ??% chance of nabbing a plane that has launched its defensive measures, but they fail and we still have a plane that gets damaged or worse goes down in a ball of fire.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:43 pm

So? There's always a chance that something in the plane will blow up too, but every reasonable step to mitigate that possibility is much appreciated.

Mr. Perfect · Post by **Mr. Perfect** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:47 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tyranny:
Apparently that went over your head <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just your second post.

The discusion is about protecting planes from shoulder fired heatseeking missles, what are you talking about?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 9:19 am

Here is an update on the upcoming push to install anti-missile technology on commercial airliners.

This appeared in the January 7, 2004 edition of Aviation Daily.

The Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) yesterday
said it has selected three vendors â?? Northrop Grumman,
United Airlines and BAE Systems â?? to begin
the first phase of adapting technology to protect
commercial aircraft against shoulder fired missile
attack.

Each company will get $2 million to produce
designs during the next six months, and the DHS will
determine if itâ??s appropriate to develop a prototype
for testing, said Science and Technology Under Secretary
Charles McQueary. There is no intelligence indicating
any immediate threat to U.S. aircraft from a
shoulder-fired missile, DHS Under Secretary for Border
Transportation Asa Hutchison noted.

â??The President and the Secretary are taking a very
aggressive approach on measures to counter the
potential threat of shoulder-fired missiles,â?

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 11:25 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mobius:
 I'm pretty sure that the Israeli civil airline (Name????) already has anti-missile technology on board.

However, it's probably a waste of time. Here's why: bringing down a 747 is one helluva task. The things can fly on only one engine, and unless you lucked-out and managed to take out a fuel tank and cause a massive fuel-air explosion, you'd be hard pressed to drop one.
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's El Al.

Didn't the Soviets manage to shoot down a 747? Korean Air Lines - I forget the flight # - that flew a little to close to Kamchatka.