This is good old American know-how applied to fixing a problem. Makes one proud to be American.
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