Airliner with Anti - Missile System

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: 13 May 2004, 23:37

by Meathook » 17 Jan 2007, 17:37

Jet with Anti-Missile System Leaves LAX

What is the world coming too.......

An MD-10 cargo jet equipped with Northrop Grumman's Guardian anti-missile system took off from Los Angeles International Airport on a commercial flight Tuesday, the company said.

The FedEx flight marked the start of operational testing and evaluation of the laser system designed to defend against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles during takeoffs and landings.

Adapted from military technology, Guardian is designed to detect a missile launch and then direct a laser to the seeker system on the head of the missile and disrupt its guidance signals. The laser is not visible and is eye-safe, the company said.

"For the first time, we will be able to collect valuable logistics data while operating Guardian on aircraft in routine commercial service," said Robert L. DelBoca, vice president and general manager of Northrop Grumman's Defensive Systems Division.

During the current test phase, which concludes in March 2008, nine MD-10s equipped with the Guardian system will be in commercial service. Katie Lamb-Heinz of Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems said all those aircraft will be freighters. The ultimate goal is to defend passenger airliners.
The testing is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Counter-Man Portable Air Defense Systems program. BAE Systems has also been working for the government on a similar airliner defense system and has successfully tested it.

John Pike, a defense analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va., think tank, suggested that development of the system was the lesser of issues for the airline industry.

"I think the problem is making the numbers work in the sense of figuring out whose going to pay for it," he said.

More than capital costs, airlines are likely to be most concerned about the costs of maintenance and aircraft downtime, he said.

"They've gotten these airliners now (so) that they are just remarkably maintenance-free. They've also gotten these airlines to the point that they've got razor thin margins," he said.
No passenger plane has ever been downed by a shoulder-fired missile outside of a combat zone. But terrorists linked with al-Qaida are believed to have fired two SA-7 missiles that narrowly missed an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya, in November 2002.

The first commercial flight with the Guardian system followed 16 months of tests on an MD-11, an MD-10 and a Boeing 747 using simulated launches of shoulder-fired missiles.

The Guardian system appears as a pod with eye-like features attached to the belly of the FedEx MD-10, a freight version of what was originally the three-engine widebody DC-10 airliner.

DHS gave Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems $45 million each in 2004 to adapt military defense systems to civilian airliners, requiring improvements because military systems need too much maintenance and mistakenly fire too often.

A government report obtained by The Associated Press last summer said that both the Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems prototypes still don't meet the reliability standards set by the DHS, and it could be 20 years before every U.S. passenger airplane has such a system.

Billions of dollars would have to be spent to protect all 6,800 commercial U.S. airliners.

The report said testing showed that the systems can be installed on commercial aircraft without impairing safety; at least one company can supply 1,000 systems at a cost of $1 million each; and operation and maintenance will cost $365 per flight, above the $300-per-flight goal.

Northrop Grumman said Tuesday that during the 16-month flight test program a ground-based "electronic missile surrogate" was used to simulate launches and each time Guardian functioned as designed, automatically detecting the simulated launch and mock missile.

"Had the threats been real, an invisible laser beam safe to humans would have disrupted the missile guidance system and protected the aircraft," the company statement said.


Damn!!!!
More than likely have "been there and done that at some point", it sure keeps you young if done correctly


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

by elp » 17 Jan 2007, 19:25

Well if anything, something like a DC-10 would need it considering the tail engine would be one big heat magnet ( btw they ever mod the tail on that thing so that one hit in the tail doesn't take out all the hydralics?? )
A cargo 727 with all the engines in the rear could be interesting also.

Otherwise I think for certain big airframes it's a waste. MANPADs are dinky warheads. Note the DHL Airbus, a C-5, and a C-17 have survived MANPAD hits. For take off, V2 speed for climbing off the runway is based on engine loss anyway.

I would rather spend the money on a UAV that is ready to fry anyone walking around certain grounds outside the airport that doesn't belong there.
- ELP -


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1682
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 02:00

by snypa777 » 17 Jan 2007, 19:55

Meathook wrote:No passenger plane has ever been downed by a shoulder-fired missile outside of a combat zone. But terrorists linked with al-Qaida are believed to have fired two SA-7 missiles that narrowly missed an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya, in November 2002.


Wonder if those airliners had any anti-missile defence? The Israeli`s are usually ahead of the game and need to be sometimes...Or was it just bad marksmanship...
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".


Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 16 Oct 2006, 06:26

by Mal68 » 23 Jan 2007, 20:29

Nope, no defenses on the Israeli Airliner, just bad aim, perhaps he hit the launch button too soon or to late, or he was out of position when he launched.

Anyway, small warhead, might not be enough to bring one down.
It would kill an engine if it did hit, or put holes in the fuel tanks, cut some lines and cables.
But then these a/c are designed to land on 2 or even 1 engine.

Are those fuel tanks self sealing?
I'd don't remember anymore.


F-16.net Moderator
F-16.net Moderator
 
Posts: 3997
Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

by TC » 24 Jan 2007, 00:02

I believe El Al's aircraft have both ECM and chaff/flares. They have even been denied landings at certain airports, due to fears over an accidental flare release. Gimme a break! :roll:

More than likely, that is the airport's cover story, instead of saying that they don't want El Al to land, for fear of becoming a bullseye for certain terrorist groups.

I'd like to see this happen on a widespread basis. We have greatly improved security onboard, but it's those guys who anchor their 14' Boston Whaler in the water, near the runways at La Guardia that you have to watch out for. It would make it a lot harder for guys like that to operate.



Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests