FAA set to ban EL AL anti-missile system from US airports
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA set to ban EL AL anti-missile system from US airports
The 'Flight Guard' electronic counter-measure system to protect civilian aircraft against shoulder-fired surface to air missiles will be installed on El Al planes in June, as part of an Israel Civil Aviation Administration (ICAA) test, Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Thursday.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), however, refuses to allow civilian planes to be equipped with the flare-based system due to safety risks.
According to Transportation Ministry spokesman Avner Ovadiah, the new anti-missile system will be installed on one El Al aircraft in June, with tests lasting two to three months. If the tests are successful, he said, the system would be installed on all 30 El Al aircraft.
'We expect the first plane to be flying by June, and this is just the beginning of a comprehensive upgrade of the El Al fleet,' Ovadiah said.
The ministry allocated 6 million shekels ($1.3 million) in September to the adaptation of the anti-missile system, currently employed on IAF military aircraft, to civilian planes. Additional funds have since been allocated to develop the program. The government decided to allocate the funds after two Strella anti-aircraft missiles were fired at and just missed an Arkia airliner taking off from Mombassa airport in Kenya in November 2002.
Costing between $750,000 and $1 million per unit, the Flight Guard system's radar-connected sensors respond automatically to an approaching heat-seeking missile, firing thermal decoys to divert the missile from the aircraft.
Aviation sources said Flight Guard is embedded out of sight in the plane's body to avoid drawing attention, and its flares are designed not to be a fire risk if they land in civilian areas, Reuters reported.
Lieberman left this week for a working visit to the U.S, where he will hold talks with Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and other officials in order to raise awareness about the need to protect civilian passenger aircraft, Globes reported.
Defense industry sources told Globes that the FAA refuses to approve flare-based anti-missile systems for civilian airplanes, due to the safety risks. ICAA director Yitzhak Raz is discussing the matter with the FAA in an effort to change the decision, the paper said.
Flight Guard lost an FAA tender 18 months ago, Globes reported. In view of the failure in the tender, it is not clear how El Al planes equipped with Flight Guard will be able to use U.S. airports, the paper reported.
According to officials familiar with the Flight Guard system, its flares are calibrated not to discharge below a safe altitude in order to prevent fires or injury to people on the ground. The flare-based defense system can also be turned off, allowing the planes to land at U.S. airports, Globes reported. However, it is during the landing and takeoff procedures that aircraft are most vulnerable to the threat of heat-seeking missiles.
Rival manufacturer Rafael (Israel Armament Development Company), is developing its own electro-optical anti-missile defense system for civilian aircraft. The company is greatly encouraged by Flight Guard's troubles with the FAA, Globes reported, as its own system does not fire flares to divert incoming missiles. Rafael executives hope that the Israeli airlines will wait for its systems to be developed, and afterwards they will be able to market them successfully in the U.S.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), however, refuses to allow civilian planes to be equipped with the flare-based system due to safety risks.
According to Transportation Ministry spokesman Avner Ovadiah, the new anti-missile system will be installed on one El Al aircraft in June, with tests lasting two to three months. If the tests are successful, he said, the system would be installed on all 30 El Al aircraft.
'We expect the first plane to be flying by June, and this is just the beginning of a comprehensive upgrade of the El Al fleet,' Ovadiah said.
The ministry allocated 6 million shekels ($1.3 million) in September to the adaptation of the anti-missile system, currently employed on IAF military aircraft, to civilian planes. Additional funds have since been allocated to develop the program. The government decided to allocate the funds after two Strella anti-aircraft missiles were fired at and just missed an Arkia airliner taking off from Mombassa airport in Kenya in November 2002.
Costing between $750,000 and $1 million per unit, the Flight Guard system's radar-connected sensors respond automatically to an approaching heat-seeking missile, firing thermal decoys to divert the missile from the aircraft.
Aviation sources said Flight Guard is embedded out of sight in the plane's body to avoid drawing attention, and its flares are designed not to be a fire risk if they land in civilian areas, Reuters reported.
Lieberman left this week for a working visit to the U.S, where he will hold talks with Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and other officials in order to raise awareness about the need to protect civilian passenger aircraft, Globes reported.
Defense industry sources told Globes that the FAA refuses to approve flare-based anti-missile systems for civilian airplanes, due to the safety risks. ICAA director Yitzhak Raz is discussing the matter with the FAA in an effort to change the decision, the paper said.
Flight Guard lost an FAA tender 18 months ago, Globes reported. In view of the failure in the tender, it is not clear how El Al planes equipped with Flight Guard will be able to use U.S. airports, the paper reported.
According to officials familiar with the Flight Guard system, its flares are calibrated not to discharge below a safe altitude in order to prevent fires or injury to people on the ground. The flare-based defense system can also be turned off, allowing the planes to land at U.S. airports, Globes reported. However, it is during the landing and takeoff procedures that aircraft are most vulnerable to the threat of heat-seeking missiles.
Rival manufacturer Rafael (Israel Armament Development Company), is developing its own electro-optical anti-missile defense system for civilian aircraft. The company is greatly encouraged by Flight Guard's troubles with the FAA, Globes reported, as its own system does not fire flares to divert incoming missiles. Rafael executives hope that the Israeli airlines will wait for its systems to be developed, and afterwards they will be able to market them successfully in the U.S.
How are they going to test it? Fire a SAM at it?
"The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), however, refuses to allow civilian planes to be equipped with the flare-based system due to safety risks."
Sounds more like a case of 'Not invented here' syndrome from the land of the Free......
Idiots!
Sounds more like a case of 'Not invented here' syndrome from the land of the Free......
Idiots!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong BEags,
If there was any way this far-right Administration could pander further to Israeli interests, including sending more money to them via way of a "purchase", they would....
I think, however, the FAA is at the same thought-process level as we were in the RAF when we were testing non-emittive defensive systems for the 146, VC-10, 125, etc, back in the late '80's. It simply wasn't cricket for the Queen to dump a flare into an African thatched hut....
If there was any way this far-right Administration could pander further to Israeli interests, including sending more money to them via way of a "purchase", they would....
I think, however, the FAA is at the same thought-process level as we were in the RAF when we were testing non-emittive defensive systems for the 146, VC-10, 125, etc, back in the late '80's. It simply wasn't cricket for the Queen to dump a flare into an African thatched hut....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm having trouble following the logic in this.
If a missile is fired at an airliner it is unsafe to fire off a few flares and have the aircraft escape, because the flares may cause some damage on the ground.
It must therefore be preferable to let the missile strike the aircraft and have the aircraft crash, as this will not cause damage on the ground ??
If a missile is fired at an airliner it is unsafe to fire off a few flares and have the aircraft escape, because the flares may cause some damage on the ground.
It must therefore be preferable to let the missile strike the aircraft and have the aircraft crash, as this will not cause damage on the ground ??
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible that the septics are worried that the flare devices WILL work. If so, it restricts the septics efforts to down an El Al flight (if necessary) as their missiles will be rendered impotent!!
Just a thought from the far side
vB
Just a thought from the far side
vB
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If so, it restricts the septics efforts to down an El Al flight (if necessary) as their missiles will be rendered impotent!!
It is a valid point, however, i'm sure they could always switch to guns and take out the engines, no?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devils Advocate
Not being privy to the type of system El Al intends to install, or its redundancy/safety systems I just want to play devils advocate for a second..........
Having seen a chinook accidentally ripple fire its whole load of flares at about 50ft after take off (& burn down a barn) and having seen an sea king fire 6 flares on the ground (one of which bounced off the helo pad, past the fuel tanker and impact the refueller in the back - thankfully he was wearing his you cant burn me clothes) and having had many flares personally miss-fire due to reflected flashes of light from window glass & gunfire rather than a incoming missile, I can surely see the FAA wanting to see more proof of the systems safety.
These systems operate well at medium altitudes but at low level there are problems.....and of course there is the human error aspect.
How many flares is an El Al 777 going to have and what package is it going to use to fire them...... not one at time thats for sure; probably 10 at a time to cover the required threat/arc.
Imagine for a second and accidental misfiring on the ground in the alley at LAX............ carnage!!!!
As I said, I'm playing devils on this argument...... it could be that the spams need to have an aircraft shot down first to justify the threat.
By-the-by, doesnt Airforce 1 have chaff/flares/jammers already?
I can see the day now that after deicing we'll move to the ORP for arming then on to the holding point at the runway...............
Personally I think we'd be better off with laser jammers anyway!
Having seen a chinook accidentally ripple fire its whole load of flares at about 50ft after take off (& burn down a barn) and having seen an sea king fire 6 flares on the ground (one of which bounced off the helo pad, past the fuel tanker and impact the refueller in the back - thankfully he was wearing his you cant burn me clothes) and having had many flares personally miss-fire due to reflected flashes of light from window glass & gunfire rather than a incoming missile, I can surely see the FAA wanting to see more proof of the systems safety.
These systems operate well at medium altitudes but at low level there are problems.....and of course there is the human error aspect.
How many flares is an El Al 777 going to have and what package is it going to use to fire them...... not one at time thats for sure; probably 10 at a time to cover the required threat/arc.
Imagine for a second and accidental misfiring on the ground in the alley at LAX............ carnage!!!!
As I said, I'm playing devils on this argument...... it could be that the spams need to have an aircraft shot down first to justify the threat.
By-the-by, doesnt Airforce 1 have chaff/flares/jammers already?
I can see the day now that after deicing we'll move to the ORP for arming then on to the holding point at the runway...............
Personally I think we'd be better off with laser jammers anyway!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: THE BIG SUNNY SANDPIT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You bet it does, but there will be 2 differences from the El Al version.
1. No one actually admits what is fitted to Airforce 1. It is difficult to rule against something that is not officially there.
2. Airforce 1 will have an American version fitted and EL AL will not.
Here is one to ponder,
Historically the 'American way' of dealing with a threat is to use maximum force and firepower to neutralize the threat regardless of collateral damage and the Israeli way is to use surgical strikes against known targets.
I know which country I would trust to build the safest system.
1. No one actually admits what is fitted to Airforce 1. It is difficult to rule against something that is not officially there.
2. Airforce 1 will have an American version fitted and EL AL will not.
Here is one to ponder,
Historically the 'American way' of dealing with a threat is to use maximum force and firepower to neutralize the threat regardless of collateral damage and the Israeli way is to use surgical strikes against known targets.
I know which country I would trust to build the safest system.
Nexialist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK all Man portable missles are IR homing, whereas a typical US mil jet will have IR homers, Rader homers, and of course guns. So there would be no problem in a US mil jet subjecting an ElAL jet to err rapid dissassembly.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 653
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's also the safety issue of a large passenger aircraft carrying flares? I'm thinking of the Valujet tragedy in Florida caused by Oxygen generators self igniting. I imagine if flares (phosphorous?) did the same, it'd all be all be over very quickly.
I haven't read through all the replies, but anyone with experience with flare-based systems should know false alarms are common. The USAF systems have spread ground fires in various locations and you know who you are. I know of an instance where a C-5 going into MLD set acres on fire with an accidental discharge.
I don't live around JFK, but I did I would have a hose and a lawyer handy when El Al was in the area.
GF
I don't live around JFK, but I did I would have a hose and a lawyer handy when El Al was in the area.
GF