>>
>>
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.
