AA to trial "anti-missile technology"
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Arkadelphia, Arkansas
Age: 38
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
personal favorite quote
from the article in USA today.
like into a school or a hospital?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ile-jets_N.htm
that detect a heat-seeking missile and shoot a laser at it to send the missile veering harmlessly off course.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ile-jets_N.htm
No risk of anyone being blinded; the emissions are very short range, and the whole event from detection to defeat takes only a very few seconds.
According to the quoted article,
"preliminary evaluation of the sensor to be developed, using Ofil’s proprietary technology, points to a detection capability of UV emitting threats from a distance of 4-5 km"
In contrast, another aircraft might be only 1000 feet below. At that range a laser powerful enough to disable a missile could be crippling to human eyesight.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sallyann1234, all ECM (electronic counter measure) is borrowed from the military. The "AA version" is no difference.
It is not completly known which technology (active, passive or a mix of it) is used in El Al, as in every VIP aircraft flying around the world with ECMs. And I'm pretty sure they wont tell you.
If they are producing too many false alarms ... - well, that's what they want to find out.
Dani
It is not completly known which technology (active, passive or a mix of it) is used in El Al, as in every VIP aircraft flying around the world with ECMs. And I'm pretty sure they wont tell you.
If they are producing too many false alarms ... - well, that's what they want to find out.
Dani
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the BAE Systems' news release issued last Friday evening (GMT) on the subject:
BAE SYSTEMS AWARDED HOMELAND SECURITY CONTRACT TO EVALUATE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM ON U.S. PASSENGER AIRCRAFT
NASHUA, New Hampshire — BAE Systems has received a $29 million award from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to test JETEYE, its infrared aircraft missile defense system, on passenger aircraft. The tests will evaluate the system’s compatibility with daily passenger airline operations and maintenance.
The latest contract is for the third phase of research and development on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) counter-man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) program. There will be no testing of the JETEYE system’s missile-defeating capability, as that testing was done at government test ranges as part of an earlier phase of the program.
As part of the, counter-MANPADS program BAE Systems will install its JETEYE aircraft missile defense system on up to three American Airlines aircraft.
Burt Keirstead, director of commercial aircraft programs for BAE Systems said:
“From the beginning, we actively engaged with U.S. cargo and passenger carriers to commercialize our technology to meet the needs of the airlines. We’re confident that the passenger-aircraft phase of the program will provide valuable data for DHS’s findings, providing critical, fact-based information to the airline industry and policy-makers.”
The JETEYE system is based on BAE Systems’ existing directable infrared countermeasures technology, used to protect military aircraft. With this award, JETEYE will be the only system installed on military cargo and passenger aircraft.
Craig Barton, American Airlines managing director said:
“American Airlines is pleased to continue its partnership with BAE Systems and is fully committed to supporting and participating in the passenger airline evaluation phase of the DHS’s counter-MANPADS program. We believe this is a key step toward understanding the true impact of the technology and operational models on the airline industry. “
DHS selected BAE Systems in 2004 to adapt the company’s military countermeasures technology to protect commercial aircraft against shoulder-fired missiles. Since then, BAE Systems has received $105 million in funding, and has delivered more than 14,000 infrared countermeasure systems worldwide — more than all other participating companies combined.
The counter-MANPADS program, created by DHS and Congress, is designed to commercialize proven military technology and gauge its suitability for protecting U.S. commercial aircraft by evaluating its performance, impact on aerodynamic drag, weight, reliability, maintainability, and system cost.
The company has already tested build and fit of the system on an AA 767, which was not operating passenger services. It does not involve an 'upturned canoe' being fitted to the belly of the airframe, but instead has some small sensors and a point and track head, within which the laser system is fitted. The technology is an adaptation of that already fitted to military and VIP fleets.
BAE SYSTEMS AWARDED HOMELAND SECURITY CONTRACT TO EVALUATE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM ON U.S. PASSENGER AIRCRAFT
NASHUA, New Hampshire — BAE Systems has received a $29 million award from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to test JETEYE, its infrared aircraft missile defense system, on passenger aircraft. The tests will evaluate the system’s compatibility with daily passenger airline operations and maintenance.
The latest contract is for the third phase of research and development on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) counter-man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) program. There will be no testing of the JETEYE system’s missile-defeating capability, as that testing was done at government test ranges as part of an earlier phase of the program.
As part of the, counter-MANPADS program BAE Systems will install its JETEYE aircraft missile defense system on up to three American Airlines aircraft.
Burt Keirstead, director of commercial aircraft programs for BAE Systems said:
“From the beginning, we actively engaged with U.S. cargo and passenger carriers to commercialize our technology to meet the needs of the airlines. We’re confident that the passenger-aircraft phase of the program will provide valuable data for DHS’s findings, providing critical, fact-based information to the airline industry and policy-makers.”
The JETEYE system is based on BAE Systems’ existing directable infrared countermeasures technology, used to protect military aircraft. With this award, JETEYE will be the only system installed on military cargo and passenger aircraft.
Craig Barton, American Airlines managing director said:
“American Airlines is pleased to continue its partnership with BAE Systems and is fully committed to supporting and participating in the passenger airline evaluation phase of the DHS’s counter-MANPADS program. We believe this is a key step toward understanding the true impact of the technology and operational models on the airline industry. “
DHS selected BAE Systems in 2004 to adapt the company’s military countermeasures technology to protect commercial aircraft against shoulder-fired missiles. Since then, BAE Systems has received $105 million in funding, and has delivered more than 14,000 infrared countermeasure systems worldwide — more than all other participating companies combined.
The counter-MANPADS program, created by DHS and Congress, is designed to commercialize proven military technology and gauge its suitability for protecting U.S. commercial aircraft by evaluating its performance, impact on aerodynamic drag, weight, reliability, maintainability, and system cost.
The company has already tested build and fit of the system on an AA 767, which was not operating passenger services. It does not involve an 'upturned canoe' being fitted to the belly of the airframe, but instead has some small sensors and a point and track head, within which the laser system is fitted. The technology is an adaptation of that already fitted to military and VIP fleets.
All very interesting.
Perhaps I'm being paranoid but what concerns me is the concept of a 'false alarm'. It sounds innocuous enough but the firing system has to be entirely automated for obvious reasons. There will be no human intervention or moderation. If 'false alarm' means that the laser is fired at an aircraft instead of a missile, that is a serious matter.
Is this equipment going to be more reliable than any other electronic gear in an aircraft? Most safety-critical equipment is extremely reliable and has very low levels of failure or false alarm, but yet is still duplicated or triplicated. Yet here we have an equipment that if it fails could potentially be a threat to any other aircraft which it overflies, with no backup or crosscheck from another instrument.
Divide the MTBFF (mean time between false firing!) by the thousands of aircraft that will be flying with it, and the danger of an accident seems very real.
Perhaps we should all be wearing IR-filtered goggles?
Perhaps I'm being paranoid but what concerns me is the concept of a 'false alarm'. It sounds innocuous enough but the firing system has to be entirely automated for obvious reasons. There will be no human intervention or moderation. If 'false alarm' means that the laser is fired at an aircraft instead of a missile, that is a serious matter.
Is this equipment going to be more reliable than any other electronic gear in an aircraft? Most safety-critical equipment is extremely reliable and has very low levels of failure or false alarm, but yet is still duplicated or triplicated. Yet here we have an equipment that if it fails could potentially be a threat to any other aircraft which it overflies, with no backup or crosscheck from another instrument.
Divide the MTBFF (mean time between false firing!) by the thousands of aircraft that will be flying with it, and the danger of an accident seems very real.
Perhaps we should all be wearing IR-filtered goggles?
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti-missile technology has been used by the military for many years. The military has many aircraft, large transports as well as small fighters, going in and out of places such as Baghdad. Do anti-missile systems work on these aircraft, particularly the larger transport types? If so, then install them on civil transport aircraft. If not, then further research and testing using military aircraft is needed. I fail to see why these systems now need to be “tested” on civilian B767s. Either they have already been proved to work by the military or they do not work. If they do work, then quit wasting time and get on with protecting the travelling public!
Note the comment above that the system under consideration only works against infra-red seeking missiles. A partial solution is no good. Aircraft must also have protection against radar, radio and wire guided missiles. Underestimating one’s enemy is a mistake. Do people really think that the sophisticated terrorist organisations we face will in future use only infra-red seeking missiles against aircraft, particularly knowing that the aircraft might be protected against such missiles? Of course not! They will soon get their hands on radar guided and other types of missiles that exploit the gaps in the protection. All round anti-missile protection is needed.
There have been many incidents of airliners being hit by missiles. Those mentioned by Outlook are just a start. Three more that I can immediately think of are the two Air Rhodesia Viscounts that were shot down and the DHL Airbus that stopped a missile at Baghdad two or three years ago. I remember an El Al aircraft being attacked by missile in East Africa a few years ago, although it seems this aircraft might have escaped because it had some sort of anti-missile protection.
This is a very serious threat that I feel is likely to increase. Unfortunately the half-hearted and foot-dragging way in which it is being handled does not give me any comfort that the travelling public is likely to receive meaningful protection against this very real risk anytime soon.
Note the comment above that the system under consideration only works against infra-red seeking missiles. A partial solution is no good. Aircraft must also have protection against radar, radio and wire guided missiles. Underestimating one’s enemy is a mistake. Do people really think that the sophisticated terrorist organisations we face will in future use only infra-red seeking missiles against aircraft, particularly knowing that the aircraft might be protected against such missiles? Of course not! They will soon get their hands on radar guided and other types of missiles that exploit the gaps in the protection. All round anti-missile protection is needed.
There have been many incidents of airliners being hit by missiles. Those mentioned by Outlook are just a start. Three more that I can immediately think of are the two Air Rhodesia Viscounts that were shot down and the DHL Airbus that stopped a missile at Baghdad two or three years ago. I remember an El Al aircraft being attacked by missile in East Africa a few years ago, although it seems this aircraft might have escaped because it had some sort of anti-missile protection.
This is a very serious threat that I feel is likely to increase. Unfortunately the half-hearted and foot-dragging way in which it is being handled does not give me any comfort that the travelling public is likely to receive meaningful protection against this very real risk anytime soon.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrier: The system, or variants of it, already works well on both military (rotary and fixed wing) and VIP fleets but the fact is that cost and ease of maintenance considerations are different for commercial airlines.
Whatever any of us would like to think, the impact on cost per seat mile flown will be the primary consideration for the bean counters at any airline. Fitting the system to operational passenger aircraft is the only way of checking the actual impact on finances through any increase in drag or weight, the robustness of the systems in day-to-day commercial operations and ease of maintenance by line engineers away from base.
You are right to suggest that false alarms would be problem, but this is well understood by the manufacturers, true for any aircraft (albeit to a differing degree) and may not be the issue you think it is.
The threats are understood from current military operations in various parts of the world and are largely from man portable shoulder launched missile systems, of the type this system is designed to counter. It would surprise you just how easy it is to acquire one of these system, which I understand can be effective up to >10,000ft, hence the Department of Homeland Security's programme.
More generally, I live in the hope that the boffins involved are doing everything possible to keep one step ahead of those characters on the other side that spend their time trying to do the same.
Whatever any of us would like to think, the impact on cost per seat mile flown will be the primary consideration for the bean counters at any airline. Fitting the system to operational passenger aircraft is the only way of checking the actual impact on finances through any increase in drag or weight, the robustness of the systems in day-to-day commercial operations and ease of maintenance by line engineers away from base.
You are right to suggest that false alarms would be problem, but this is well understood by the manufacturers, true for any aircraft (albeit to a differing degree) and may not be the issue you think it is.
The threats are understood from current military operations in various parts of the world and are largely from man portable shoulder launched missile systems, of the type this system is designed to counter. It would surprise you just how easy it is to acquire one of these system, which I understand can be effective up to >10,000ft, hence the Department of Homeland Security's programme.
More generally, I live in the hope that the boffins involved are doing everything possible to keep one step ahead of those characters on the other side that spend their time trying to do the same.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Sallyann, detection distance by the sensors is as you say a couple of miles, but the emissions from the turrets to confuse the missile is very short range, can't really say what as I signed a thingy somewhere. There are false alarms which the automatics cope with.
