Posted on 04/19/2005 7:53:08 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, or MANPADS (man-portable air defense systems), have proliferated throughout the world. They can be purchased on the military arms black market for as little as $5,000. More than two dozen terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, are believed to possess such weapons. The FBI estimates that there have been 29 MANPADS attacks against civilian aircraft resulting in 550 deaths. At least 25 of the reported attacks have been attributed to non state actors.
Even though a U.S. airliner has not been attacked by a missile, the question well may be when, not if, such an attack will happen. Therefore, the federal government should act now to provide protection for civilian aircraft instead of waiting to respond to an attack. The need to act beforehand is particularly acute because, although the human death toll would likely be less than on September 11, 2001, the economic consequences of an attack could be enormous. According to one estimate, the total economic loss resulting from an attack could be as high as $70 billion.
After 9/11 the public could eventually be coaxed back into flying by assurances that the government and airlines were taking security precautions to prevent more hijackings. But if even a single airliner is shot down by a missile, public confidence will not be easily restored. The harsh reality is that ground security to defend against MANPADS is nearly impossible.
The U.S. government should take advantage of available technology currently used on military aircraft to protect the U.S. commercial aircraft fleet. The cost to outfit all 6,800 U.S. commercial aircraft with advanced laser-jamming infrared countermeasures against MANPADS is estimated at $11 billion plus $2.1 billion in recurring annual operating costs. In 2004 Citizens Against Government Waste documented a total of $22.9 billion in federal pork-barrel spending—more than twice what’s needed to procure the countermeasures against shoulder-fired missile attacks. Canceling the Air Force’s F-22, the Navy’s F/A-18E/F, the Marine Corps’ V-22, and the Navy’s Virginia-class submarine would yield savings of $170 billion in future program costs. The president’s proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2006 is $2.6 trillion. Certainly, the U.S. government can find needless spending equal to less than one-half of 1 percent of its budget to help fulfill its primary responsibility of providing for the common defense.
Charles V. Peña is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute
bump
TWA800 was not only attacked, but brought down by a missile. Many Clinton admin people mentioned TWA800 as an example of terrorism immediately after 9-11. So did sKerry, twice.
I've got a better idea:
Why don't we go after the nations that provide support to terrorists? Why don't we be pro-active and destroy those who would threaten us? Why don't we take control of our borders?
Great. Plow that money into UCAVs.
WTF??
"Canceling the Air Force’s F-22, the Navy’s F/A-18E/F, the Marine Corps’ V-22, and the Navy’s Virginia-class submarine would yield savings of $170 billion in future program costs."
BTTT
I've been told by folks that should know that there are no countermeasures that can stop the newer MANPADS.
Possibly the most breath-takingly stupid idea I've ever seen written down. Frankly, I think chaff/flare dispensers would be useless, too. Dunno what would work, but stopping the F-22/F18-f/Ospry/etc. is just plain foolish.
At low altitudes, which is where MANPADS are used, you are correct. The bloody things are simply too fast and too smart.
Totally different story if you've got 10,000 feet between you and the ground and someone hoses off a MANPADS missile - but then, almost nobody is stupid enough to try that. Stingers have a 10,000 foot ceiling, but their kill percentage drops off notably with targets over about 5,000 feet.
In 2004 Citizens Against Government Waste documented a total of $22.9 billion in federal pork-barrel spending
The Republican Party of Big Stupid Government would, and does, rather have the pork.
Then, when (not if) an airliner is shot down, they'll quickly "craft" legislation to steal even more pork to "fix" the problem over some indeterminate period of time, i.e. as long as they can keep stealing Security Pork.
Why spend the money on this when they can just deny it was a missile that took down the plane?I love the way our fearless leaders step up to the plate when we need them to.
I like your BS flag ....but ....
9-11 drove United into Chapter 11 and if Delta can hold on without their having to declare, well call be a colored orangutang. Which other carrier is also at risk is beyond my purview.
From where I sit, the ability to defend a slow moving aircraft from MANPADS is doable. Expensive yes, but the alternative would certainly drive many if not all air carriers out of business. That is a big chunk of our economy.
Pay me now or pay me later. My advice is to buy Northrop Grumman. This company is installing two different defense systems into "large aircraft". A lot of customers outside of the US of A. I work as a civil servant for the Air Force.
Not if, but when in my estimation.
WD
I've heard that the concern is that these things have been brought across the Mexican border and are in the hands of Mexican and South American gangs. The Islamo-Nazis don't need anything but money to hire the gangsters.
Very scary.
Yup. And there's basically nothing that anyone can do about it other than the impossible of excluding everyone from a 40 mile radius around an airport.
Oh, except go over and kill all the people who order the shooting. And all their devotees in the area. That usually tends to stop such plots.
Um... against a current or current minus one generation man-pack missile like a Stinger, THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE DEFENSE THAT A LOW FLYING AIRCRAFT CAN MOUNT. Even the "Black Hole" IR suppression systems aren't of any use against current generation man-pack missiles. Once they get a skin paint on you, you're toast unless you have enough altitude *and* airspeed to evade, and you have neither in an airliner near an airport.
The only other solution would be to replace all aircraft with full stealth designs, complete with buried baffled engines, and that's not going to happen.
And what happens in 10 or 20 years when we need those systems? Hmm. The airlines could install the IR countermeasures sets with no permission required. Then they could advertise the fact that *their* aircraft are protected. They they could charge a few bucks more per ticket, and they'd still get more business than their "fly naked" competitors.
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.