Companies to Design U.S. Airline Antimissile Options

[papau]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=RHWA2DEUTRAUOCRBAE0CFEY?type=domesticNews&storyID=4083408

Companies to Design U.S. Airline Antimissile Options
Tue January 6, 2004 06:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Tuesday selected three companies to design options for protecting U.S. commercial airliners from the threat of shoulder-fired missiles.

The Homeland Security Department said it was prepared to negotiate preliminary contracts worth $2 million each with teams led by Northrop Grumman Corp., bankrupt United Airlines and the U.S. unit of Britain's BAE Systems Plc .

The companies will be asked to refine complex concepts for adapting technology used by the U.S. military to the commercial fleet and submit cost proposals for development, deployment and maintenance.

While the agency has committed $122 million to research and development, it plans to re-evaluate progress over the next six months to determine if the government will proceed to a second phase. Even if the Homeland Security Department moves forward, it could be years before commercial planes carry antimissile systems.
<snip>

United, which is not spending any of its own money, is working with Avisys Inc., a privately held Texas-based technology firm and several other subcontractors. Their system would deploy low-intensity decoys to fool a missile. Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems are working on laser-based countermeasures to jam missile systems. Both defenses are currently used on military aircraft.

[Voltaire99]

1. Wouldn't a sane foreign policy be cheaper?

But then, where's the fun in that?

[papau]

2. big toys for big boys so there is no biting at play time

My grandkids are more mature than the Bush gang.

[Atlant]

7. "Sane foreign policy" won't enrich any defense contractors." (NT)

[mobuto]

11. Yes, BUT

we had a more-or-less sane foreign policy just three years ago, and we were still the target of terrorist attacks. So maybe instead of either-or we should be looking at both-and.

[JaySherman]

3. I have no problem with this.

Good move for once. Even with a saner foreign policy it would still make sense. If it's like the systems on military aircraft it should be completely benign and non-invasive. A much better way to protect airplanes than say, fingerprinting VISA holders at the gate. A very rare smart decision. Let's hope they follow through on it.

[papau]

4. Available in 2-3 yrs as soon as the 122 million is spent researching

how the airlines will not pay for the military system we now have developed.

The TV blurb hits on "lazer" developments.

Safety is always good - indeed the Israeli airline has these installed now.

[missile_bender]

10. U.S. has spent at least $70 billion on star wars--for nothing.

For our $billions we have nothing to show for it excpet fat defense contractors. An airliner can't defend against a missile. The only thing it can do is throw out a decoy or chaff, and that technology already exists, we don't have to spend $millions to develop it. It's just another expensive red herring designed to go on for years to launder treasury money to Bush Inc.

Unembedded.com

[Atlant]

5. Do people understand that we will never win this war?

You can design any defensive system you like, and a
sufficiently motivated enemy can over-top it.

If anti-missile defense actually worked, we wouldn't
be losing aircraft in Iraq (to rather primitive weapons).

This is nothing but "feel good horseshit" that will, at
the same time, transfer money from the taxpayers' and
travellers' pockets to Bush's friends in the defense
industry.

Atlant

[mobuto]

12. We're not losing planes in Iraq

we're losing helicopters, and mostly to unguided RPGs not SAMs.

There is no real way to protect a plane against RPGs other than flying above a hundred feet off the ground and there are few ways to protect a helicopter against much of anything larger than a slingshot.

[Atlant]

17. I believe the word I used was "aircraft". (NT)

[mobuto]

18. You did say aircraft

and my point is that your point is totally irrelevant to the issue.

Looking at aircraft in general is meaningless because most commercial air transport is done in planes and not in helicopters. If Boeing 747s hovered 100 feet off the ground in urban areas, then, and only then, your criticism would be relevent. Because unless a terrorist is actually sitting on the tarmac, he isn't ever going to hit a commercial plane with the kind of rocket propelled grenades that are downing our helicopters in Iraq.

Edited for spelling.

[Atlant]

21. Curious. Didn't they do an Airborne Express jet just recently?

> Because unless a terrorist is actually sitting on the tarmac, he isn't
> ever going to hit a commercial plane with the kind of rocket propelled
> grenades that are downing our helicopters in Iraq.

Curious. Didn't they do an Airborne Express jet just recently?

Is it totally inconceivable that a terrorist could get their
hands on a weapon roughly equivalent to a Phalanx close-in
weapons system? Or a sophisticated SAM? Or a human-guided
Lear Jet?

We will NEVER be able to adequately defend commercial
aircraft from terrorist attack, not for a reasonable price
and not even for an unreasonable price. The only defense is
to convince people to stop hatingus.

Atlant

[mobuto]

23. They hit a DHL plane

with a SAM but failed to shoot it down.

But there are distinctions.

1. SAMs are not the weapons that have, for the most part, been shooting down our helicopters. Those have been guns and RPGs and they can not easily shoot down airplanes.

2. Unlike RPGs, SAMs can be defended against using flares and pilot training. Also, since planes fly a lot higher than helicopters do, when planes are shot at by SAMs, the pilot should have more time to take evasive action.

[Atlant]

25. Do you figure all SAMs are thermally guided?

> Unlike RPGs, SAMs can be defended against using flares and pilot training.

Do you figure all SAMs (and more importantly, all possible SAMs)
are thermally guided?

And are you planning on ignoring my question about human-guided Lear
Jets?

And Phalanx-like unguided weapons?

Flack...

Birds on take-off...

Use your imagination.

Atlant

[demdave]

27. The only defense is to convince people to stop hatingus.

Right, about as easy as convincing people not to smoke. Before 9/11, when the terrorists were planning all this, what were we doing to make them hate us? If we stop doing it, how long will they continue to hate us? What are our defenses during this "hate cool down" period?

Yes you can always think up another scenario of how they can attack an airplane but a good plan today is better than a perfect plan in the distant future. My building isn't airplane proof but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the sprinkler system or the hand held fire extinguishers.

[bpilgrim]

22. ever drive by an airport?

i95 on your way into NYC offers a very dramatic view.

huge waste of money and besides who would want to live in that kinda world?

peace

[mobuto]

24. You have a choice?

I don't particularly like living in the same world with terrorists, either, but then our say doesn't really matter. They're here whether we like it or not, and we've got to do everything within reason to defend ourselves. There just isn't an alternative.

[Atlant]

26. I guess the obvious answer to my question is "No."

> "Do people understand that we will never win this war?"

I guess the obvious answer to my question is "No."

Atlant

[Robb]

6. Well, it might be worth $122M to look at

Maybe.

But there's a hell of a lot more to not getting hit by a missile than dropping a flare.

[Gin]

8. again...we foot the bill....geez..are the airlines nationalized?

they get a pass no matter what happens...we bail them out.

[Gman]

9. Ok... let's see what else we can think up

to give the defense industry more mega-bucks. There's got to be tons more. How about a system to find mentally unstable assistant green keepers with a propensity to play with plastic explosives while eliminating gophers. That's got to be worth at least a $100 million contract for somebody.

[Kellanved]

13. that took a long time

Dec 03:
EADS, Lufthansa to build anti-missile systems for civilian aircraft
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031215130521.9i73eioo.html

Sep 03:
BA considers anti-missile systems
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3083748.stm

[papau]

14. So the US is 2-3 years behind the EU - we need $122m to Bush Inc first

then we pay for our non-nationalized airlines safety improvements. - with said payment again going to Bush Inc.

[Kellanved]

15. months

and in the technology almost certainly ahead. It's just that (pardon me) paranoid demands usually originate in the US; Europe on the lead in a matter that is (IMHO) a complete waste of money is not unheard off, but in the field of "fighting terrorism" it is rather interesting.
Never mind that the reinforced cargo containers would add a lot more security than any external device.

[papau]

20. I thought cargo container/fire improvements were 12/31/03 - did they not

happen!

Why did the media not tell us that the deadline was missed - I mean - it told us about the deadline?

Gee

got to love the media and its selection of stories.

[Fovea]

16. I just wonder

What will it take to make the world decide that flying is not the safest, best way to move lots of people, it is merely the fastest.

Sadly, in some mid hop flight commutes, once you get the commute from the airport home factored in, high speed rail would be a winner. It is also a large scale savings in fuel.

We do not have to do business the way we do now. People do not need to press the flesh to work cooperatively. We need to reprioritize what sort of transportation system we have, and look at conservation and safety over speed.

[GRClarkesq]

19. Ejection seats for everyone!

n/t