|
AA to trial "anti-missile technology"
I can't see this reported anywhere else...
The UK teletext news is reporting up to 3 American Airlines B767's will be fitted with anti-missile technology in the spring as part of an ongoing trial. :eek: |
I give up, what's the ":eek:" for?
|
Great Idea
Yes, and at the end of the trial period when none of them have been shot down by a terrorist missile, it will be deemed a successful test of a lifesaving technology that should be installed on all passenger aircraft. Meanwhile crews will have to undergo increased security scrutiny, worked harder with less rest for even less money to offset the cost. What a great system!
|
so how are they going to shoot down hijacked aircraft now?
|
It would help, unless the terrorists decide not to use conventional missiles (hard to move about) and decide to use home-made rockets that the anti-missile system wont be able to detect. Or they can just walk in like last time and takeover. Then they'll have GPS precision.
|
For a meaningful trial they will have to be used where terrorists are going to shoot at them, otherwise it is just an academic exercise.
Three means they can be scheduled to go on a daily basis to such places as Baghdad, Kabul and Mogadishu! Will they do normal descents and approaches into such places instead of spiralling maximum rate descents over the airfield? Are they going to try it with pax, freight or empty apart from crew? What escape provision is there for the occupants if the trial fails (they get hit!) – eg ejection seats, parachutes, follow-up choppers to get them off the ground before the terrs reach them, etc? How many successful missile evasions will be needed before the system is declared ready for general use? Where will they recruit the crews from for such a realistic trial and what will the compensation package be? |
This particular "news" comes from Aviation Week - in 2005!
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ws/11145p3.xml BAE is testing "Jeteye," an adaptation of its AN/ALQ-212 Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures (Atircm) system, and Northrop Grumman is testing "Guardian," taken from its AN/AAQ-24(V) Directed Infrared Countermeasures (Dircm) system. Jeteye and Guardian are similar in concept--both have wide-field-of-view, ultraviolet staring-array sensors that cover the lower hemisphere, and a narrow-field-of-view IR tracker in a turret with a boresighted laser jammer. The ultraviolet sensors first detect a potential missile plume and report the location to the IR tracker, which swings into position and locks on. The system compares the UV and IR intensities to check that they match the signature of a missile plume, and not some false target. When verified, the laser emits a narrow, powerful beam of modulated multiband IR light at the missile to confuse its seeker by overpowering the chopped light from the seeker's spinning reticle that's used for guidance. BAE and teammate American Airlines installed Jeteye on a Boeing 767 at American's engineering and maintenance base at Alliance Airport in Fort Worth. Jeteye has a 6-in.-dia. turret at the bottom of the end of the fuselage constant section. A forward- and aft-looking pair of staring ultraviolet detectors are mounted on each side of the fuselage about 10 deg. above the turret. The electronics boxes are inside the benign environment of the pressure hull. The aircraft made its first flight against a missile simulator on the airport grounds on Nov. 10. The team plans to fly over Houston to see if the bright clutter causes false alarms |
This technology has other proven benefits.
1. prevents the aircraft from being eaten by polar bears. 2. will promote lower pilot wages to finance this all important technology. And if the plane needs to get shot down by the air force, they will use radar guided missiles or guns. The testing is just for operational analysis...though I recall a thread about a rocket near LAX |
Guns! Guns! Guns! :)
|
Bags not flight testing that!
|
I can think of two incidents where this technology may have helped save lives.... The shooting down of Civilian Aircraft by the American Warship and further back in time, the shooting down of the civilian aircraft by the Russian Mil. But isn't this idea this just adding to the hype and playing into the terrorists hands? Surely a measure of risk management, and personal safety, says I am not going to fly into any War Zone or other high risk area.... We train our military for that and they have the proper skills, equipment and Intel to perform that task.
What will be the next steps? Training the CC to be waist and tail gunners during TO and Landing? (I can just imaging the local airport security... No, you can't take that bottle of water or the leatherman through but the 500 rounds of ammo is ok) Would aircraft with this system fitted be targeted by highjackers as they should be more difficult to shoot down? Would this become a MEL item :mad:(ie the financial impact if the aircraft was shot at and it was found the system was inop). The world seems to be getting crazier to me each day... or I am just getting old :{ |
What difference is there between the signature of a missile plume and that of a plane's jet engines or piston engine exhaust, and just how reliable will the detector be in rejecting constant false alarms from the latter?
I can just magine the effect on a flight crew of an intense laser burst from an overflying a/c fitted with one of these systems. |
If I understood well, this countermeasure would only work against IR guided missiles, so it couldn't have done much against the SM2 being a radar guided missile (launched from the USS Vincennes)... Anyway... If it will be equipped to most of the traffic, mils just gotta make sure that the QRA is equipped with AMRAAMS or Meteor or something using radar homing...
|
Solid fuel?
Sallyann12324.
I think most SAM systems are solid fuel based so the exhaust composition is different to jet or piston engine exhaust. If you know what the fuel is you can look for its characteristics. Having a bit of a google showed up this article : http://www.sbuv.com/MissileWarning/r&dproposal.html which outlines how the detection technology works and avoids false alerts. |
Can they please modify for use against laser pens?
Glaring eye sensation, rapid electrical motor noise, ZAP, one less hoody.:E |
Memetic
Thanks for the info. What it doesn't say is how low is the low false alarm rate Given that it will receive many 'friendly' returns on every flight and almost never an 'unfriendly' one, it will need to be almost unimaginably reliable if it is not statistically to degrade safety by the risk of blinding innocent pilots. And yes I know the laser is supposed to be infra-red but eyes are still sensitive to injury in the IR region, and the jammer is powerful enough to dazzle or damage the seeker of the missile |
El Al fitted its entire fleet with anti-missile technology about two years ago. Is this news only because an "American Airline" has decided to give it a try? :rolleyes:
|
Fact is that the next terrorist attack will be from outside, not from the inside of a plane, i.e. a missile attack. I would assume that this test is not only about protection but mainly about operational experience on a passenger plane.
Dani |
El Al fitted its entire fleet with anti-missile technology about two years ago. |
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.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:06. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.