On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 03:24:59 +1100, Jeremy
flightTKOF.org> wrote:
>
>
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21088191-23349,00.html
>
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21081300-23349,00.html
>
>Just wondering what others think of the idea of anti missile technology
>on board civilian airliners.
>
>Historically, an airliner has never been downed outside of a combat
>zone yet there have been numerous attempts to destroy aircraft by
>passing explosives into the cabin of an aircraft. Is this technology
>really necessary? To quote Dick Smith, what is "affordable safety" with
>regard to the money spent on potential terrorist attacks?
>
>I was interested to read Alexander Downer's comments, when he said,
>"I've been on an aircraft myself in Iraq back in 2003 where the
>computer identified that a MANPAD had been fired at the aircraft". I
>can't recall this event ever making the news and I was unsuccessful
>finding any reference to it in a Google search. Could it be a political
>furphy to qualify the costs involved in fitting all Aussie airliners
>with this technology? As technology evolves does this mean we'll have
>to modify aircraft for anti-terrorist related activities on a regular
>basis?
>
>Unless Mr Downer is on Northrop Grumman's payroll, I can't think of any
>good reason why it is necessary. I'll concede that's it's worthy of
>debate - like anything relating to national security. It's just a
>question how far you go and what price you're prepared to pay. It's
>only a matter of time before we have tail-gunners in heavies and gun
>pods like the ones in the Millennium Falcon. Soon you'll see Tomahawk
>missiles lined up underwing of a 747 and armed trigger-happy troops is
>the back of the bus... woops... we already have those.
>
>Are we going too far with this talk of anti missile technology?
The problem is we aren't going far enough. All of the systems being
discussed for use on civil aircraft are based upon military technology
that is twenty years old, designed to defend against shoulder fired
missiles designed 20 years ago. These counter measures are far less
effective against cooled sensor equipped designs (as the previous
generation of Stinger/Mistral/Gremlin/Gimlet are) . (Generally a
cooles sensor can discriminate between a realy target and most
decoys).
The counter measures are largely INEFFECTIVE against dual band
seeker equipped missiles, such as the current generation Stinger and
Gimlet. These seekers will also ignore flares, and many similar
counter measures. Dual band allows the missile to estimate the
temperature of the exhaust plume. Too hot or too cold, and it ignores
it.
None of the IR counter measures have ever had any effect at all on the
Blowpipe or Javelin, which are radio command guided, and none would
have any effect on a TOW missile. While Westerners would shy away
from these weapons because they are not fire and forget, if you
believe that you are going to paradise as a result of your death from
guiding one of these missiles to the target, there is no shortage of
willing volunteers among the likely terrorist populations.
I'd like to know how a directed Infra counter measure aimed at a TOW
is going jam it. (TOW stands for Tube launched, Optically tracked (by
the operator), Wire guided). Unless you can break the wire trailing
out behind the missile, or break the operator/control unit, you aren't
going to stop a TOW. While these missiles are primarily designed for
anti-tank use, I don't think anyone serious believes a TOW wouldn't
take out an airliner.
The reality is these system are a form of corporate welfare. They are
going to cost about 1 million USD Per copy, and the target is an
operational cost of $300 per flight. For an Airline like Southwest in
the USA that works out to $600 million for the system, and $300
million a year to operate it.
Fortunately both the Russians and the American got wise, and have
been a lot more circumspect about who they handed out the Cooled
sensor, and dual band sensor variants of these missles out too. The
main reason the attacks to date have been so unsucessful is the early
weapons weren't all that great to begin with, and they are all so far
beyond their 'use by date' (and it isn't just the batteries that die
of old age), that it takes a near miracle to match up a competent
operator (fairly easy), to a Stinger/Grail/Mistral that is actually in
good working order, and score a hit. Even new, something like 25%% of
stingers were 'duds'....
A far more rational approach is to install area defense systems around
airports at risk. Raytheon has prototyped such a system, and even at
tens of millions of dollars per copy, it is a lot less than fitting
out the airport, and much lower operating cost than fitting out many
thousands of aircraft at million dollars each, and that system doesn't
really care about how the missile is guided, i.e. it detects missiles.
Both the Israeli's and the South Africans used these counter measures
in the 1980's, and both abandoned them on commercial aircraft, as
being far more cost and trouble than they were worth.
