The Oculars are no problem because the turret will be in a stowed position until the radar sensors detect a missile launch.
Three of these have been flying since August of 2006, and just reached 12,000 flight hours.
Posted on 10/29/2007 9:22:04 AM PDT by BenLurkin
MOJAVE - A system designed to protect passenger aircraft from portable missiles is proving successful in operation testing, according to Northrop Grumman Corp. The system, called Guardian, has logged more than 12,000 hours of on-aircraft operating time and been flown on 2,500 flights.
Northrop Grumman is conducting the testing under a $55.4 million contract awarded last summer by the Department of Homeland Security to continue the development of a system aimed at decoying shoulder-launched missiles fired at jetliners.
"The program and system are a continuing success," said Robert Del Boca, sector vice president and general manager of Northrop Grumman's Defensive Systems Division. "The accumulation of operating hours in the intended environment is providing significant data regarding the veracity of the design. We will continue the flight test program for the next four months and anticipate ongoing positive achievements."
The Guardian system is contained in a pod that is mounted on a jet's belly. Four sensors detect an approaching missile, which is then tracked by an infrared camera. A laser signal is beamed at the missile to confuse its heat-seeking guidance system and decoy it away from the jetliner target.
Similar technology has been in use by the military since 2000. However, there are a number of challenges to making the system practical for commercial airlines, including reducing maintenance. Military systems require maintenance after a few hours of flying, something that is not practical in a commercial operation, officials said.
The system was also designed to be as maintenance-friendly as possible. A pod carrying the system can be installed in less than 10 minutes. At 500 pounds, the system weighs about the equivalent of two passengers and their luggage.
(Excerpt) Read more at avpress.com ...
This is good old American know-how applied to fixing a problem. Makes one proud to be American.
The use of the laser dazzler technology on commercial aircraft is stupid. It is not online yet with the vast majority of military equipment, while a much cheaper and simpler missile warning receiver/flare dispenser would be just as effective.
It’s not as if the flares would be going off every other takeoff, and the dispenser system is proven, reliable, and requires much less maintenance than slewing IR video cameras and slaved IR lasers.
Additionally, you are adding ordinance to a civilian airliner. That adds a hazard element to processing aircraft at the ramp.
I hated the old way of manually countering incoming vampires - you couldn’t blink and always had to bat a thousand.
Why can’t the missile actually be set to home in on the laser the way laser guided weapons do?
I wonder if they ever test these things by firing an actual (non-explosive) missile at the plane. Must be fun being a test pilot the first time they try that.
Some of you might think this sounds like a great idea, but in practical, operational terms this is a nonstarter. Here are just some of the issues that come to mind: 500 pounds is quite a bit of weight for smaller airliners like the 737. In addition to applying this weight penalty to weight-limited performance it has an equivalent drag penalty of a few tenths of a percent. Not much you say? Consider how much fuel an airliner burns in a year and the cumulative penalty adds quite a bit of cost. The article doesn’t mention any drag penalties to go along with the weight increment. Those will add trip fuel as well.
There are other things to consider: Anyone who’s been around commercial aviation knows that there’s practically nothing that can be installed in 10 minutes. Once it’s installed, does it become a no-go item in the MEL if it’s inop? The belly area of most airliners is a nasty environment of dirt and is subject to FOD damage. How would the lenses and antennas fare when exposed to slush and deicer fluid?
This seems like an expensive solution to a problem that isn’t very likely to happen (sorry to all of you TWA800 truthers out there). You may argue that even if it saves one flight, it will be justified. The cold, hard facts are that aviation can be made perfectly safe at a cost that would make it impossible for most people to afford to fly. Insurers know how much it will ultimately cost to settle claims following an accident. I’d guess that the cost of a self-protection system would be far greater than the cost of an airliner being shot down in the United States.
Should the government pay for it? I hope not. I’d rather see the money go toward the real security provided by defensible boarders and aggressive steps to find and prosecute terrorists and illegals.
NAMSMAN
Technoology.
That’s a word meaning “New Technology”? :)
Oo”o”ps
I hope it can handle more than one missile at a time, otherwise the nutballs are going to pair up and try to fire two missiles from different places and get the desired result.
Does the flare system handle multiple incoming missiles? I know it can pop out a number of flares (heat sources).
The shoulder launched SAMs they are talking about are one man very portable and concealable small arms. It is not a complicated weapon and does not have lase guidance. I don’t know if these guys would be able to make a laser guided missile (or if they would even know if the plane had the laser system on it - if it doesn’t they;re screwed) - but every plane has a heat signature to lock on.
I’d probably go with the flare type system that’ proven and is lower maintenance. If a jet ever had to release flares on takeoff, you don’t think people at the airport would be going into code red status? They could get their fire teams out to the areas where they saw flares possibly going into neigborhoods or work with local fire departments. I mean even the laser system that confuses the missile - the missile has to go down somewhere too - and it could explode and start fires and damage buildings or houses, just like conventional flares can. Neither system is without risk to nearby houses and buildings.
“They could get their fire teams out to the areas where they saw flares possibly going into neigborhoods or work with local fire departments.”
You aren’t in Southern California are you ?
Good point. There is only one laser/tv turret, so only one threat at a time can be engaged.
No, but I didn’t think I also had to address arson along with anti-SAM systems! But even so, a missile blinded by a laser still has to fall to the ground and/or hit something and possibly explode and start a fire. Either system you are risking a fire on the ground somewhere, either by the flare, or by the missile itself.
I think the point made earlier about keeping the oculars clean especially in snow/slush/high dirt/dust conditions would be an incredibly serious problem.
The Oculars are no problem because the turret will be in a stowed position until the radar sensors detect a missile launch.
Three of these have been flying since August of 2006, and just reached 12,000 flight hours.
I agree installing these on every commercial airliner is a waste of counterterrorism funds.
The other thing that people aren’t really aware of is that large airliners are poor targets for MANPADS. They have small warheads, and even have trouble taking down jet fighters when they hit - they’re only REALLY effective against helicopters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.