MD-10 departs LAX with Northrop Grumman's Guardian anti-missile system

Considering all these homemade sentries we're teaching mischievous folks how to build, and all the zany ideas popping into folks' brains after catching the Jack Bauer power hours, it's no surprise that our Department of Homeland Security is equipping as many aircrafts as it can with anti-missile systems. While we'd heard that Boeing's laser-equipped 747-400F was ready for takeoff, and that these aircraft-mounted weapon detection systems weren't too far off, it looks like the DHS has completed the first step in rolling the technology out. An MD-10 cargo plane took to the friendly skies from LAX airport today as the "operational testing and evaluation of the laser system designed to defend against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles" began, and while its doubtful that we'll be seeing the very pricey Guardian system on typical passengers flights anytime soon, equipping the Civil Reserve Air Fleet is potentially one of the uppermost priorities. And for those paranoid folks who can't wait to get this on their next Southwest friendly fare flight, you should probably consider how much coin you'd have to lay down to help compensate for the $1 million installation cost (per plane), not to mention the $365 airlines would be forced to cough up each flight for "operational and maintenance costs" -- yeah, we'll hold off for awhile.

[Jeff @ Jan 18th 2007 9:32AM]

"Or just the shells, no need to aim at all those planes at LAX anyway, and any car mechanic can weld a tube strong enoguh to fire some mortar shells. Put it in a pickup truck, drive to the airport perimeter and start lobbing stuff at fueled aircraft full of people."

Possible but not very likely. I mean a lot of things are *possible* for terrorists to do, but for a variety of reasons they don't happen.

Major airport perimeters that are actually accessible are generally actually pretty well guarded, either by actual *guards* or by the public. For example, I live just outside NYC, and I can tell you that you'd never be able to just sit outside of JFK or LGA dumping mortars into the airport. The only accessible portions of the airport perimeters that aren't unguarded or otherwise protected are right next to major roadways. (LGA also has a big wall around most of it, which makes it impossible to see inside.) And with the police being so paranoid that they chase off even amateur aviation photographers immediately, there wouldn't even be time for a terrorist to set up, much less hit anything through trial and error.

The reason why SAMs are a concern is that while you can lock down an airport pretty good, terrorists don't actually need to be at the airport. They can be in a hidden backyard in a nearby neighborhood. Or in an abandoned building. Or whatever. And this has already happened in several areas around the world - airliners *have* been shot at with SAMs, both passenger and freight.

Maybe there's some airport somewhere in the United States that has an accessible perimeter, an unguarded perimeter not near any public areas, and that hosts airliners large enough for terrorists to feel it's worthwhile trying to blow one up. But if such an airport does exist, terrorists are gonna have a hard time figuring out which one it is. And I guarantee it's none of the airports in the major cities they'd like to hit. I mean are terrorists really gonna trek out to Minneapolis and try to blend in with the population there, then strike a blow in a city most of their countrymen back home have never heard of? I'm not saying smaller cities shouldn't worry - and in most cases I'm sure they do take precautions - but I think an attack in a place like that would be really unlikely even if it wasn't so hard to pull off.

Anyway, a SAM attack is a much bigger concern.

[Kevin @ Jan 18th 2007 7:43AM]

I believe in the article you mean 747, not 474...

[david @ Jan 18th 2007 8:09AM]

Assuming a useful life of 30 years (for the A/C, not sure on the defense system), that works out to about $33,333/year (amortized not including financing costs). Assuming 5-6 flights per day (actually more like 8, but being very conservative here), 340 days a year (taking out 25 days/year for maintenance) it's about $16.33 in cost per flight. Add the maintenance costs of $365 and call it $382/flight. Divide that by a typical/average passenger count of around 90 heads and we're talking $4.25 per passenger. Even if the number is double, triple or quadruple that, say $20 per passenger, in today's day and age, terrorism being what it is, I think that most people would gladly and willingly pay $20 extra per flight to fly on an A/C equipped with this . . . but maybe that's just me?

[Wurx @ Jan 18th 2007 9:06AM]

OK, first things first....Is that the torso of a woman mounted to the underbelly? Reminds me of the Austin Powers robots......An underbelly on an underbelly?

[engadget @ Jan 18th 2007 10:38AM]

El Al finished installing antimissile systems on its whole fleet a year ago:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=683390&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5

[mb @ Jan 18th 2007 12:43PM]

It has a nipple : (

[blore40 @ Jan 18th 2007 5:15PM]

Looks like Swee-Pea with a pacifier in his mouth.

[Adam @ Jan 18th 2007 5:55PM]

This whole thing is just another excuse for the multibillion dollar arms industry to keep making more money while capitalizing on people's fears. Northrop makes the money while people pay just to "feel" safe. When was the last time a passenger airplane was shot down with a missile? Is it frequent enough an occurrence to necessitate this multibillion dollar deal? Of course not! Just like we went from "knives are not allowed onboard, toothpaste is ok" to "knives are ok, toothpaste isn't". All the while entirely new agencies have sprung up (TSA, DHS) and who fronts the bill? That's right, you the tax payer. Now I wouldn't mind that so as long as they were actually doing their job, but just like Katrina and numerous other debacles, to Halliburton in Iraq not providing soldiers with the basic services they were contracted and paid to do, they did close to nothing. All in all I think some people out there are being naive and not critical enough of the erosion of checks and balances and the corruption that's happening.

[Murc @ Jan 18th 2007 9:23PM]

I've Always thought of this effort as stupid...It makes much more sense (to me) to have the laser be on the ground...that way its not hualed around all over the globe, making extra weight for every flight. and on the ground it can be upgraded easier, and you dont neek to shrink every component to as small as you can, because on the ground, the amount of space takes up doesn't matter.

There are ground ones being conceptualized as well...which I hope is the chosen method...and not a laser mounted in every commercial airliner.