Should passenger jets have missile defenses? (Debate prompted by MH17 tragedy)

[CougarKing]

Mods, could you PLEASE keep this thread separate from the Ukraine instability thread? Putting this update in its own thread might be of more interest to those who want to look at just the aviation aspects.

Isn't it most likely the budget airlines that have routes that go over conflict zones won't be able to afford this?

Washington Post

Should passenger jets have missile defense systems?

(...EDITED)

In 2002, an Israeli charter flight flying at a height of 500 feet was attacked above Mombasa, Kenya, by a shoulder-launched missile. No one was hurt, but it prompted the Israeli government to begin searching for ways to protect its country's passenger planes and helicopters from the threat of so-called MANPADS, or Man Portable Air Defense Systems.

That produced a government project called SkyShield, powered by a program called C-MUSIC, for Commercial Multi-Spectral Infrared Countermeasures.  The program uses lasers and radar jamming, explains Adi Dar, the general manager for Elbit Systems, the Haifa-based lead contractor on the project that has worked for nearly a decade developing anti-missile technologies for passenger planes.

With MANPADS long believed to be the greater threat, commercial aviation missile defense systems have not been engineered to protect against longer-range surface-to-air missiles (SAM) like the Buk SAM believed to have been involved in the Ukraine attack.

(...EDITED)

 

[ModlrMike]

There are numerous reasons why this is an impractical idea, chiefly:

a. airline pilots are not trained to evade missiles
b. new radars will have to be installed in the aircraft
c. countermeasures will have to be installed in the aircraft
d. airline techs will have to maintain the new radars and countermeasures

That's just for a start.

 

[medicineman]

I was kind of wondering that if, since 9/11, that might be a little counterintuitive if the need should arise to intentionally shoot down an aircraft that has been possibly hijacked for badness other than a free trip to Cuba or Uganda?

Just a thought for what it's worth.

Mm

 

[Zoomie]

The Israeli national airline "El Al" has such devices installed on all their planes.  No training required for the pilots, no RADAR to install.

Research LIRCM.  Modern RWR systems have no need for human inputs.  The airplane doesn't even change course. 

 

[winnipegoo7]

A LIRCM will only protect against Infra-red missiles, so it wouldn't have helped flight MH17, as the SA-11 is a radar guided missile.

A Radar Waring Receiver (RWR) offers no protection at all. It is like the radar detector in your car, it simply alerts the user to the presence of the radar emission.

edited - spelling

 

[Eye In The Sky]

As soon as you install the next gen IRCM someone is figuring out the tech for a new IR brain to defeat it, and that is just IR.  I think this would be great but all encompassing systems for each stratotaxi would be $$$$$ and passed on to the consumer.  Would they be willing to absorb the cost?

 

[The_Falcon]

The view of Tim Clark, President of Emirates Airlines (emphasis mine)
http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/100694/flight-mh17-emirates-calls-for-airline-summit

Emirates president Tim Clark has called for an international airline conference to discuss how best to respond to last week's Malaysia Airlines disaster.

Clark said he was "incandescent with rage" when he heard about flight MH17, which was travelling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur and carrying 298 people when it was shot down over Ukraine (see news, July 17).

He said the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and UN-body the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) could call an international summit to discuss whether changes need to be made with regards to flight paths over war zones.

Clark told Reuters: "The international airline community needs to respond as an entity, saying this is absolutely not acceptable and outrageous, and that it won't tolerate being targeted in internecine regional conflicts that have nothing to do with airlines...

"If you go East to West or vice-versa between Europe and Asia, you are likely to run into areas of conflict. We have traditionally been able to manage this... That was up until three days ago.

"Now I think there will have to be new protocols and it will be up to ICAO and IATA and the aviation community to sort out what the protocols have to be."

However, Clark dismissed suggestions that aircraft should be equipped with anti-missile devices.

He said: "Some people say planes should be armed with counter devices. That will go absolutely nowhere. If we can't operate aircraft in a free and unencumbered manner without the threat of being taken down, then we shouldn't be operating at all."

 

[cupper]

This isn't just an aircraft in the proximity of war zones issue.

There has been significant levels of discussion in the US about installing missile defense systems on domestic airliners since 9/11 to counteract the possibility of a terrorist attempt to bring down airliners within the US by surface to air missiles. The rhetoric ratcheted up this week on the punditry networks and within the halls of Congress.

Setting aside the obvious issues as was outline in an earlier post, the cost of adding countermeasures to the domestic fleet by the already cash strapped airlines is a non-starter. And when it was suggested that the government should subsidized or foot the entire bill, well the issues died a quick an painless death. But thanks to new incidents such as this, the issue rises from the dead like the latest zombie flick to take on a new life.

 

[Zoomie]

... so it wouldn't have helped flight MH17, as the SA-11 is a radar guided missile.

There aren't many military platforms that would be able to defend itself against a successful radar lock on.  A RWR system would at least give SA and maybe give the false hope of letting the crew punch out chaff bundles in their last moments.

El Al uses LIRCM for the short range - on final approach - type of threat.  I don't imagine that any airline has considered the cruise threat while overflying territory. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There is just no realistic way of defending an airliner against a threat like an SA-11.  It is just too much missile and you are not going to equip each and every airliner with 10s of millions of dollars worth of sensors, jammers and counter-measure dispensers against a remote event such as this.

 

[medicineman]

There is just no realistic way of defending an airliner against a threat like an SA-11.  It is just too much missile and you are not going to equip each and every airliner with 10s of millions of dollars worth of sensors, jammers and counter-measure dispensers against a remote event such as this.

But imagine the money you coould make "consulting" on a job like this  ;D.

MM

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'd be in favour of an 'eye for an eye' approach to these things.

Shoot down one of our airliners? We get to blow you all up. Or something like that.

Toothless musings will have no effect.

 

[medicineman]

I'd be in favour of an 'eye for an eye' approach to these things.

Shoot down one of our airliners? We get to blow you all up. Or something like that.

Toothless musings will have no effect.

Careful what you wish for - don't forget the US Navy shot down an Iranian airliner a ways back...could be one of so many reasons the two don't get along well.

MM

 

[brihard]

Is this realistic? Or is this another 'armed guards in every school' thing that makes for a good viral campaign but isn't likely to do much more than cost a great deal of money for negligible return if any?

I'm inclined to think that 'airliner shot down by radar guided SAM' is a rare enough thing that it falls more under 'the world sucks, stuff happens' than 'we can/should/must do anything we can to prevent this'.

Surely the money spent to outfit airliners with such systems could be better spent saving more lives through other safety/security initiatives...

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

I'm guessing a "Q-plane" armed with anti-radiation missiles is a non-starter for multiple reasons.

 

[Robert0288]

I'm inclined to think that 'airliner shot down by radar guided SAM' is a rare enough thing that it falls more under 'the world sucks, stuff happens' than 'we can/should/must do anything we can to prevent this'.

Surely the money spent to outfit airliners with such systems could be better spent saving more lives through other safety/security initiatives...

I'm inclined to agree.  The risk vs the sheer amount of planes in the year for decades between the last incident doesn't make it economically feasible.  And whose to say a civy jamming system on a commercial airliner would even be enough dissuade a missile designed to take out military aircraft.  And if it was, how quickly could an updated missile system be developed or that particular weakness patched out on its firmware?

 

[winnipegoo7]

I'm inclined to agree.  The risk vs the sheer amount of planes in the year for decades between the last incident doesn't make it economically feasible.  And whose to say a civy jamming system on a commercial airliner would even be enough dissuade a missile designed to take out military aircraft.  And if it was, how quickly could an updated missile system be developed or that particular weakness patched out on its firmware?

Jamming is very complex and expensive.  You are asking about the missile being modified to beat the jammer, but the more important question is how does the jammer defeat the missile in the first place?

The jammer will need to be able to detect and then identify the threat and then it would require a specific program to defeat that specific type of missile (or in the case of the SA-11 the ground based fire control radar). This type of information would be highly secret.

The next problem would be that every different type of radar guided missile would need to be jammed differently. How many different radar guided surface to air missiles are there? dozens? hundreds? (I don't know how many there are)

The next problem after that is that not all missiles are radar guided, so an IR system would be required. Then add in that a jammer would take up space, require power and would add weight to the aircraft. Not to mention that the jammer might interfere with other non-threat signals, like air traffic control radars or communications signals.

So, it's not even a question of economic feasibility - it would probably just be impossible (or at least impractical) to make a jammer that could jam every threat.

If you're bored, give this a read:
http://ausairpower.net/TE-Tacjammer.html

 

[SupersonicMax]

There are smart people in the civilian world too.  The information on fire control radar of a specific type can be found (second or first hand) by sources or by your own collection and analysis.  Don't need to be military or have any security clearance.

Jamming, I would argue, is fairly cheap.  Think about how much this tragedy will cost then compare it to how much a jammer is sold for.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just a thought, but I'll bet Air Force One is equipped to deal with these scenarios.

That, and it's fighter escorts

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There are smart people in the civilian world too.  The information on fire control radar of a specific type can be found (second or first hand) by sources or by your own collection and analysis.  Don't need to be military or have any security clearance.

Jamming, I would argue, is fairly cheap.  Think about how much this tragedy will cost then compare it to how much a jammer is sold for.

And I would still argue that this is a rare enough event to not warrant the cost, effort or weight penalty.