NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.spacewar.com/news/missiles-05zs.html

As far as I can see there are two ways to look at this...either they have legitimate concerns, in which case it would be okay. Question is, are there any plans to require other planes to carry weapons?

Which brings us to view number two, as suggested by the German magazine Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,368686,00.html) (sorry, link is German).
They say the reason might just be that they want to help Boeing along, now that the A380 looks like it's gonna make a lot of money for the European Airbus company. The Politician, Mica, has seemingly also been funded by Northrop Grumman - the prime supplier of said anti-missile technology.

But there are other problems as well, it seems like Singapore Air isn't happy that the A380 isn't gonna be delivered on schedule.

What do you think?

Personally, I never thought the A380 was viable let alone economical. Many airlines are trying to go for smaller, more compact Dreamliner 787s.

In my opinion, the A380 will be a target for terrorists and I would never want to be on it. I would refuse to fly on it.

Considering that your average terrorist does not have access to a radar system, I'd assume that they're talking about a system designed to protect against shoulder-lauched heat-seeking missiles.

In which case, the aircraft isn't agile enough to avoid them through the use of conventional countermeasures anyway (as modern fighter aircraft do), and the other option, ECM (electronic countermeasure) systems, are only useful against radar missiles.

I was unaware terrorists in the Middle East had the capability to launch surface-to-air missiles at an aircraft 30,000 feet up going 600 miles (about 970 Km) an hour. Either that or they have some kind of airforce no one was aware of.

I also love how a bill passed in the US can "insist" a European company do something.

When it comes down to it, I think a proper defensive measure would be to simply have good security measures during boarding, and maybe something on board for safety in case any hijackers manage to bring some kind of weapon onboard.

What a load of crap. Anti-air missile defense on a civilian airliner. There are so many more inexpensive and easy to deploy weapons than anti-air missiles. Terrorists know this as shown by the fact that not too many of them take pot shots at airliners with anti-air missiles.

What kind of missiles do you prepair for? Heat seaking? You need flares. Radar guided? You need chaff. Wire guided? No defense for something as unmanouverable as a flying cruise ship.

Not to mention that those systems would be useless in the very places that an airliner might need them; specifically while taking off and landing when an airliner is essentially flying in a straight line with no option to evade. Additionally, pyrotechnic systems like flares would probably be required to be disabled during take off and landing. Foolishness. My govenrment disgusts me sometimes.

I was unaware terrorists in the Middle East had the capability to launch surface-to-air missiles at an aircraft 30,000 feet up going 600 miles (about 970 Km) an hour. Either that or they have some kind of airforce no one was aware of.


Remember it has more to do with landings and take-offs. An israeli airliner was almost shot down some time ago (I think in either Kenya or Tanzania). It is not impossible.

Remember it has more to do with landings and take-offs. An israeli airliner was almost shot down some time ago (I think in either Kenya or Tanzania). It is not impossible.


My point exactly, you can't run a decent defensive system during those times anyway.

I was unaware terrorists in the Middle East had the capability to launch surface-to-air missiles at an aircraft 30,000 feet up going 600 miles (about 970 Km) an hour. Either that or they have some kind of airforce no one was aware of.

The danger is when the plane is taking off or landing. Anything below 10,000 feet is a risk for shoulder-launched missiles. (but then, you would assume that security on the ground is adequate near airports.)

The German article also suggests that this is similar to the time US Politicians tried to prevent the Concorde from flying to New York because of "Noise Levels".

At the Paris Air Show, by the way, Airbus booked orders worth 33.5 billion dollars from the various airlines. Add to that that it is a rather prestigious project, and you can see how certain US Leaders (namely at Boeing) may want to make it as hard as they can.
Justified?

The danger is when the plane is taking off or landing. Anything below 10,000 feet is a risk for shoulder-launched missiles. (but then, you would assume that security on the ground is adequate near airports.)
Grumman-Nothrop is apparently looking into rather fancy systems, ie laser cannons and the like.

I also love how a bill passed in the US can "insist" a European company do something.

.


Actually, they could pass it to keep the jet from landing here.

A pilot friend of mine says that most US airports are incapable of taking that much weight on a runway anyway. Not to mention the beefed up jetways they need to board the bloated thing.

Actually, they could pass it to keep the jet from landing here.

A pilot friend of mine says that most US airports are incapable of taking that much weight on a runway anyway. Not to mention the beefed up jetways they need to board the bloated thing.
Are just US airports unable, or are most European ones as well? Because I think that would effectively destroy a future for this thing if the US chose not to reinforce its runways to accomodate it.

Are just US airports unable, or are most European ones as well? Because I think that would effectively destroy a future for this thing if the US chose not to reinforce its runways to accomodate it.
Most Airports around the world (ie all the European ones, Changi in Singapore etc) have updated themselves for the new jets.
I would assume the various US airports have done the same by now, afterall they are a business, and missing out on those planes is a lot of lost money.

Tell 'em where to shove their useless missile defence systems. It'd be more useful up there anyway.

Most Airports around the world (ie all the European ones, Changi in Singapore etc) have updated themselves for the new jets.
I would assume the various US airports have done the same by now, afterall they are a business, and missing out on those planes is a lot of lost money.

Yep, Melbourne airport was just upgraded too...

This isn't what I want... This isn't what I want at all!!

This isn't what I want... This isn't what I want at all!!
Sorry mate, I obviously don't mean ALL Americans want this. But SOME do, so just assume I said "Some Americans..." ;)

Sorry mate, I obviously don't mean ALL Americans want this. But SOME do, so just assume I said "Some Americans..." ;)
That's fine.
I usually don't agree with most Americans.

Considering that your average terrorist does not have access to a radar system, I'd assume that they're talking about a system designed to protect against shoulder-lauched heat-seeking missiles.

In which case, the aircraft isn't agile enough to avoid them through the use of conventional countermeasures anyway (as modern fighter aircraft do), and the other option, ECM (electronic countermeasure) systems, are only useful against radar missiles.
There exist systems that can protect an airliner from heat-seeking missiles of the Stinger or Strela types by shooting off flares or laser beams. The Israeli El-Al is installing such devices on their civilian airliners as we speak.

Mica is just being a bitch, posturing for re-election probably. But there has been serious discussion about developing and adding some form of missle defense to all commercial airliners in the US. The Chinese knock-offs of American Stinger and Russian equivalents are cheap and easily smuggled into the a country where anything is easy to smuggle in.

It's not as if these kinds of technologies aren't employed, the Boeing 747 that typically serves as Air Force One is known to have an assortment of countermeasures.

Ultimately, it's just futile hysteria. The A380 might find some success in Asia, or as part of a superluxury start up (this seems increadibly dubious). But in the US with all the shit Airports have to go through with any kind of modification to their service, and the unwillingness (and inability) of airlines to pay for upgrades, the long lines and waits. It's an idea that might have been good 20 years ago. Particularly when the FAA is pushing for more smaller, easier to run airports that allow for more direct flights and idiot proof air transportation infrastructure, it's going to bomb in America. Who knows, if the infrastructure is there, and the economics of scale take over maybe everyone will fly from near their house to near their destination on an economy gulfstream, perfectly safe, in the hands of a guy who little more than a flying busdriver behind idiot proof controls that just tolerate the meatbag to keep the passengers from getting too nervous.

Also it's not like Boeing didn't have a 800 seat plane on the drawing board for better than 15 years. They had a blended wing body concept that would be able to use the current 747 infrastructure be cheaper to fly and seat 800 people in a cabin that felt more open. They know how to build flying wings (see YB-46 and B-2). But while it's a great concept on paper, it's not how people want to fly. Especially if they have to get to the airport 3 hours early, and wait for bags. If people can get a more direct flight saving a layover and hours, with less chance of lossing their luggage, they're going to take that over a flying bar.

Not to mention, the maximum return for an airline on an A380 would be to cram as many seats as possible on, holy shit, can you imagin having to fly across a country, let alone the pacific on such a miserable beast? But it'll probably have a long life in airfrieght, even if it doesn't take off more broadly with the flying public. Christ, they could be making them for 50 years for that alone. It'll probably be a worthy airplane for a long time, just not the grandslam they were swinging for.

Actually, they could pass it to keep the jet from landing here.

A pilot friend of mine says that most US airports are incapable of taking that much weight on a runway anyway. Not to mention the beefed up jetways they need to board the bloated thing.

If they wanted to do that though, all they would really have to do is insist all the doors work. No new laws or regs, just enforce the ones already in place. It will take years for them to correct the corners they cut.

There exist systems that can protect an airliner from heat-seeking missiles of the Stinger or Strela types by shooting off flares or laser beams. The Israeli El-Al is installing such devices on their civilian airliners as we speak.

Yes, but such systems are limited in their effectiveness if the plane cannot bank and change trajectory after using them. If the plane is flying in a straight line, flares may not do much good at all. (I'm not familiar with how the laser system works)

OK, assume we can put point-defence on these things. Why not force the 747 to have them? It's almost as big a target after all.

Not to mention a decent bomb can annihilate any commercialairliner.

Just wondering here, do airliners use the inherent instability technology?

Wow, is this really what its come to in the rest of the world?


Starts singing 'We don't know how lucky we are' by fred dagg.



wohoo!

Heres some pretty comprehensive information (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/ircm.htm) on (American) aircraft electronic defenses I found while looking for some answers to the problem.

I was intrigued by this comment;

The latest "third generation" IR decoys are described as "visually covert" and hence "politically safe."

By 'visually covert', do they mean 'invisible'? And by 'politically safe', do they mean 'will not be mistaken for UFO/incoming meteor/exploding airliner'?

Ziq.