Airline to Test Anti-Missile System

[encmetalhead]

By DAVID KOENIG
The Associated Press
Saturday, January 5, 2008; 12:08 AM


DALLAS -- Up to three American Airlines jets will be outfitted this spring with laser technology being developed to protect planes from missiles fired by terrorists.

Officials said Friday the anti-missile systems won't be tested on passenger flights. But the tests, which could involve more than 1,000 flights, will determine how well the technology holds up under the rigors of flight, they said.

The first Boeing 767-200 will be equipped in April or later, American spokesman Tim Wagner said. American operates that Boeing model mostly between New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles.

American said it is "not in favor" of putting anti-missile systems on commercial planes but agreed to take part in the tests to understand technologies that might be available in the future.

The anti-missile technology was developed for military planes, and U.K.-based BAE Systems PLC said Friday it won a $29 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to test it on passenger planes.

The technology is intended to stop a missile attack by detecting heat from the rocket, then responding in a fraction of a second by firing a laser beam that jams the missile's guidance system.

The device on the belly of the Boeing 767-200 aircraft will be operational but won't be tested on regular flights, Wagner said. The use of a signal to mimic a missile attack has already been tested in the air, Wagner said.

Those tests also showed that the anti-missile systems didn't interfere with the jet's other controls, officials said.

American, the nation's largest carrier, has been working with BAE on the project for a couple years. In 2006, BAE installed its hardware on a Boeing 767 that wasn't used to fly paying passengers.

About a year ago, BAE invited reporters to American's maintenance base in Fort Worth to see a jet outfitted with the laser-jamming device called Jeteye.

"We are now entering the next phase," Wagner said, which is "to see how the system holds up on an aircraft in real-time conditions _ weather, continuous takeoffs and landings, etc. _ and to test its maintenance reliability."

Burt Keirstead, director of BAE's commercial airline protection program, said BAE's contract requires it to prove that Jeteye will operate without failure for 3,000 hours of flight and sets a goal of 4,500 hours.

"If there is one aspect of performance that is hardest to satisfy, it's reliability," Keirstead said. "We predict we'll meet the (3,000-hour) threshold, and we hope to get to the (4,500-hour) goal."

BAE expects to test the device through 7,000 hours of flying in 2008 and early 2009, he said.

With the latest contract, BAE has received more than $100 million in funding for aircraft-protection systems. Keirstead said BAE's technology will cost $500,000 to $1 million per plane to install.

Congress has approved funding for anti-missile research partly out of fear that terrorists armed with shoulder-fired weapons could hit jetliners as they take off and land.

Fort Worth-based American, a unit of AMR Corp., has said anti-missile defense is best handled by stopping terrorists from getting missiles that could shoot down commercial jets and by improving security around airports.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404356.html

[TheDarkHorse]

better, cheaper solution: don't fly over terrorist training grounds.

[Surtr]

Better, cheaper solution: Who the **** is actually paranoid enough to waste money on such a thing?

[Valhall]

Better argument: Terrorist nations don't give a flying **** where you are, they want to hit you anywhere they can. The apathy on these forums with regard to national security is astonishing.

God forbid we have anti-missle technology. Better yet, god forbid we actually use it. Christ, this mentality is ridiculous.

[Iskandar]

There are entire nations full of terrorists?!?! Where???

[monkeysonmars.]

i was gonna say that :(

America is pretty much not concerned with security

[Valhall]

America is pretty much not concerned with security

Which is why 9/11 happened.

By the way, "terrorist nations" refers to nations fully intent on doing the U.S. nothing but harm, or that are "known to harbour terrorist organisations", not "nations full of terrorists" lol. The term is quite frequently used.

[Iskandar]

9/11 happened because you pissed off a lot of Arabs.
By the way, "terrorist nations" refers to nations fully intent on doing the U.S. nothing but harm, or that are "known to harbour terrorist organisations",Which nations are these?

[monkeysonmars.]

Which is why 9/11 happened.

By the way, "terrorist nations" refers to nations fully intent on doing the U.S. nothing but harm, or that are "known to harbour terrorist organisations", not "nations full of terrorists" lol. The term is quite frequently used.

america has always spent ridiculous amounts on militarism, it's no more concerned with security now than it was before 9/11, since the cold war that is.

[Valhall]

america has always spent ridiculous amounts on militarism, it's no more concerned with security now than it was before 9/11, since the cold war that is.


That's my point. You would think 9/11 would have given us reason to be more concerned with security, but it hasn't. So I really question why things like this are bad...they can be used for national defense/security measures.

[Mr. Ron]

Which is why 9/11 happened.

By the way, "terrorist nations" refers to nations fully intent on doing the U.S. nothing but harm, or that are "known to harbour terrorist organisations", not "nations full of terrorists" lol. The term is quite frequently used.

9/11 happened mostly because we're morons when it comes to foreign policy.


That's my point. You would think 9/11 would have given us reason to be more concerned with security, but it hasn't. So I really question why things like this are bad...they can be used for national defense/security measures.

What? The executive branch has been expanded to immense proportions and an entire new agency has been formed, along with the patriot act.

[monkeysonmars.]

That's my point. You would think 9/11 would have given us reason to be more concerned with security, but it hasn't. So I really question why things like this are bad...they can be used for national defense/security measures.

i don't have a problem with security was just arguing your original point which seemed to be we should all be as concerned about security as america is, when they just aren't.

[Valhall]

i don't have a problem with security was just arguing your original point which seemed to be we should all be as concerned about security as america is, when they just aren't.

I was saying that nobody gives a crap about security, America being the worst about it, so I don't see how measures like this are bad.

We're pretty much on the same page.


What? The executive branch has been expanded to immense proportions and an entire new agency has been formed, along with the patriot act.

Fat lot of good it's doing, besides wasting tax dollars. We can still sneak bombs into Sky Harbor International as of a couple weeks ago.

[Mr. Ron]

Any superpower is OBSESSED with security, actually.

[monkeysonmars.]

yeah, well loads of people do care about security, they're keeping their heads down.

[Mr. Ron]

I was saying that nobody gives a crap about security, America being the worst about it, so I don't see how measures like this are bad.

We're pretty much on the same page.




Fat lot of good it's doing, besides wasting tax dollars. We can still sneak bombs into Sky Harbor International as of a couple weeks ago.
I didn't say it was 100% effective, I just pointed out that there are obviously people who care about security, maybe a little too much.

[monkeysonmars.]

Any superpower is OBSESSED with security, actually.

traditionally but not since the cold war. look at foreign policy in the middle-east. they spend 2/3 of all foreign aid directly and indirectly on Israel, in the UN the US is often the only country that votes alongside Israel, it gains pretty much nothing from this an alienates others in the middle-east whose support they now want.

They have a huge presence in the middle-east to secure oil which is a key reason that al-qaeda target the US and general anti-west feeling in the region. in this case they're putting cash before security. then there's all the foreign investment in the economy for short-term economic gains which risks security.

[Valhall]

I didn't say it was 100% effective, I just pointed out that there are obviously people who care about security, maybe a little too much.

I'm just saying you can supposedly be "obsessed" with it all you want, but actions need to back up words, or your "obsession" really isn't an obsession at all.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm just saying you can supposedly be "obsessed" with it all you want, but actions need to back up words, or your "obsession" really isn't an obsession at all.

What would you like to see happen with US security to meet your standards of what you think is truly "secure"?

[Surtr]

Solution: Stop pissing people off and you don't need to be putting lasers that can shoot down missiles that are aimed at your commercial planes.

Think about it. You're kicking over the kid down the roads sand castle, then running home and telling your family you need the money so you can buy a water gun.

[Valhall]

Solution: Stop pissing people off and you don't need to be putting lasers that can shoot down missiles that are aimed at your commercial planes.

Think about it. You're kicking over the kid down the roads sand castle, then running home and telling your family you need the money so you can buy a water gun.

This.

[Krash100]

Solution: Stop pissing people off and you don't need to be putting lasers that can shoot down missiles that are aimed at your commercial planes.

Think about it. You're kicking over the kid down the roads sand castle, then running home and telling your family you need the money so you can buy a water gun.


Do you suggest we become a muslim theorcracy so the fundamentalists will be friends with us?

[Mr. Ron]

Do you suggest we become a muslim theorcracy so the fundamentalists will be friends with us?
yeah man thats what he is suggesting

[monkeysonmars.]

must spread

[Aaron]

Solution: Stop pissing people off and you don't need to be putting lasers that can shoot down missiles that are aimed at your commercial planes.

Think about it. You're kicking over the kid down the roads sand castle, then running home and telling your family you need the money so you can buy a water gun.
Exactly. The US Govt. is that kid at school who punched people in their younger years, and then when everyone else out grew them said they were being bullied.

"Oh shi! We had guns for years, but now they have guns too. Now we need to put up laser-beams cause they bought our old guns and could use them against us. They're not allowed guns, but we are."

[Surtr]

Do you suggest we become a muslim theorcracy so the fundamentalists will be friends with us?

Ron said it pretty much. No thats not what I'm ****ing saying. I'm saying you need to start using some common sense, which apparently isn't something all that common among your Gov't. You kick people down and then when they retaliate in defense you get all worked the **** up about it and are convinced its their fault and that the only way to solve the problem is to fight back.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, the American government are antagonists.

In England we've never had a problem with terrorists.

[Surtr]

Yeah, the American government are antagonists.

In England we've never had a problem with terrorists.

Oh no, we're antigonists too. Though not to the extreme the US seems to be pulling it off. We've had the whole I.R.A. issue, and then various Radical Muslim acts, which were somewhat our fault. I find that the Radical Muslim issues are much more not so much our fault though, as the reason why we've been targeted is because we're a major world power, who has allied ourselves with the US and we've put troops into the Middle-East and joined this Goose-Chase of "Terror".

But no, I definitely won't argue that we've been all that fantastic either, but at least we're usually not like "zomgz y r dey attakin uz?"

[Aaron]

You don't need a long neck and feathers to be a Bush.

[Independent_CA]

But no, I definitely won't argue that we've been all that fantastic either, but at least we're usually not like "zomgz y r dey attakin uz?"
Um, I don't think there's anyone credible really saying anything like that. People would rather just be able to defend themselves during such attacks.

Solution 1: Destroy religion...*cough*

Solution 2: Get off of oil.

That goes for the entire world, not just the US.

[Surtr]

Well yes, but defending yourself =/= attacking them.

Sure the best defense is a good offense, but being bent on somehow trying to crush an entire country and take their oil isn't going to put an end to attacks, especially when the country you're attacking isn't really the problem anyways.

[Independent_CA]

Well yes, but defending yourself =/= attacking them.

Sure the best defense is a good offense, but being bent on somehow trying to crush an entire country and take their oil isn't going to put an end to attacks, especially when the country you're attacking isn't really the problem anyways.

You do remember 9/11 happened two years before Iraq right?

And I think this idea is more a result of past attempts to shoot down airliners in places like Africa.

[Krash100]

Do you suggest we become a muslim theorcracy so the fundamentalists will be friends with us?



yeah man thats what he is suggesting

...not getting the sarcasm, huh?

[Against Miik!]

Lol. And people though "Star Wars" was a waste of money.

[Smokey D]

Oh no, we're antigonists too. Though not to the extreme the US seems to be pulling it off. We've had the whole I.R.A. issue, and then various Radical Muslim acts, which were somewhat our fault. I find that the Radical Muslim issues are much more not so much our fault though, as the reason why we've been targeted is because we're a major world power, who has allied ourselves with the US and we've put troops into the Middle-East and joined this Goose-Chase of "Terror".

I dunno I think the oppression of Ireland for 8 centuries was probably a bit more blameworthy than whatever the US has done in the Middle East in the last 50 years.


And I think this idea is more a result of past attempts to shoot down airliners in places like Africa.

And blow up embassies.

And US ships.