British Air Mulls Anti-Missile Systems on Airplanes

Barrons ^ | 09/05/03 | Staff Writer

[bedolido]

LONDON (AP)--British Airways (BAB) is considering fitting its aircraft with anti-missile systems and has contacted Boeing (BA) and Airbus (F.ABI) about adapting the technology to commercial planes, the airline said Friday.

"We're currently talking to airline manufacturers to understand the feasibility of deploying anti-missile systems on civilian aircraft," a spokesman for BA said. He said the company had approached Boeing and Airbus on the topic.

"There are a number of issues to be resolved, including whether the current technology in use on military aircraft can be adapted to be used on civilian aircraft," the spokesman added.

He wouldn't say whether there was a particular anti-missile system BA was considering or a company whose technology it was interested in using.

Last month, BA suspended flights to Saudi Arabia after local authorities broke up a terror cell that reportedly was plotting an attack on a British plane. At the time, the U.K.'s Department for Transport said it had received "credible intelligence of a serious threat to U.K. aviation interests in Saudi Arabia."

Thursday, the U.K. lifted its ban on flights by British airlines to Mombasa, Kenya's Indian Ocean port. Nov. 28, surface-to-air missiles were fired at an Israeli charter taking off from Mombasa airport, narrowly missing the plane filled with homebound Israelis. Almost at the same time, a car bomb exploded in a hotel north of Mombasa, killing three Israeli tourists and at least 10 Kenyans. The attack has been blamed on al-Qaida.

In the U.S., lawmakers have proposed a bill to equip 6,800 U.S. airliners with some form of anti-missile device, at an estimated cost of $10 billion. El Al (C.EAI), the Israeli airline, is believed to have anti-missile technology on its passenger aircraft.

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of Soviet-style SA-7s - heat-seeking rockets that can hit low-flying aircraft within 3 miles - are said to be available on the worldwide arms market.

BA said although it was looking into using anti-missile systems, it regarded improved security measures on the ground as the best way of reducing the threat from terrorism.

"Where there is a risk, we believe the most effective prevention is for the relevant authorities to identify any likely launch sites near airports," the spokesman said.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

09-05-03 0921ET

[Servant of the Nine]

The only effective defense against shoulder fired IR guided missiles is to pop lots of magnesium flares.

There is no way this can be done on aproach or departure to civilian airports without burning down whole neighborhoods.

So9

[Who dat?]

"There are a number of issues to be resolved, including whether the current technology in use on military aircraft can be adapted to be used on civilian aircraft," the spokesman added.

Yeah. Anyway, my uncle flew fighters in Viet Nam. He said they had all sorts of anti-missile crap on board. He claimed the first thing they’d do is start shutting off a bunch of the alarms and buzzers and stuff because they were annoying.

He indicated that they knew in general where the SAM sites were anyway, so they had an idea of where the trouble would be.

Then again, that was a while back. I suppose they’ve improved things since. He seemed to believe that the only time the SAM-alerting stuff wouldn’t go off would be if they actually targeted you. Otherwise, it’d go off for no reason.

El Al (C.EAI), the Israeli airline, is believed to have anti-missile technology on its passenger aircraft.

It’s fascinating that people get a hard-on for whatever El Al has. The last time I looked, El Al had a fleet of about 30 planes. That’s it. In comparison, I’d bet FedEx flies more flights in/out of Oakland in a single day than El Al flies in a week – maybe in a month. Comparing El Al to any American airline is sort of silly, IMO. But whatever.

[Tallguy]

Yeah. Anyway, my uncle flew fighters in Viet Nam. He said they had all sorts of anti-missile crap on board. He claimed the first thing they’d do is start shutting off a bunch of the alarms and buzzers and stuff because they were annoying.

He indicated that they knew in general where the SAM sites were anyway, so they had an idea of where the trouble would be.

Your uncle was flying against SAM-2 batteries. These were FIXED sites. The article is talking about MANPADS -- Man Portable Air Defence Systems. These are fired from the shoulder like a bazooka.

Bad News: A shooter can sneak close to an airport to take a shot at an aircraft on Take-Off/Landing.

Good News: The warhead on these missiles is too small (in general) to takedown a really large jet aircraft. Engines are tough enough to keep running for a short time, probably long enough to land; and there is no "explosive decompression" at low altitude (these missiles are only capable against low flying aircraft)

Bottom line: With all their limitationis, MANPADS are only effective against helicopters or single engine ground attack jets.

So from a purely cost-benefit analysis, anti-missile systems aboard commercial aircraft are a waste of money. OTOH, you can't say this because you will be lynched in the Media.