Passenger planes at JFK to be outfitted with anti-missile systems

Hey, we try our best to be as paranoid as the next guy, but we confess we were caught a little off guard by this one. US Department of Homeland Security folks announced yesterday that three American Airline passenger planes that frequent JFK airport are going to be set up with anti-missile systems in a test run to see if they'd be effective in helping to prevent a terrorist shooting down a jet with a shoulder-fired missile. It's step three in a government-mandated program to determine the suitability of such systems, which involve radar jammers to throw ground-fired missiles off course. The tests are to determine if the jamming system works in real-time conditions, and what sort of sustained costs of maintenance will be required, but all actual tests of the technology have already been performed on non-passenger jets, so it appears no actual missile-firing will be required. Oh come on, you know you were thinking it.

[Thanks, Brett]

[Cap'n Obvious @ Jan 23rd 2008 10:34AM]

So, if the missile's radar gets jammed, where does the missile go? Surely it could not head downward, towards the metropolis/oil refinery/nuclear plant below, effectively robbing 1000's of Peter's to pay 100's of Paul's.

[WebJames @ Jan 5th 2008 6:22PM]

erm.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 5th 2008 6:39PM]

- missile inbound...

CHAFF CHAFF CHAFF !

[wslcrew @ Jan 5th 2008 9:02PM]

So... how are they gonna test this? Are they gonna shoot blank missiles (if they exist) at these planes or something?

[helloUser @ Jan 5th 2008 6:22PM]

Has a passenger airplane from any nation (particularly the US) ever been threatened by a missile attack?

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 5th 2008 6:29PM]

yeah. the Middle East has had a few passenger planes shot down.

[linumax @ Jan 5th 2008 6:54PM]

Yes, "Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by US missiles... killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians, 66 children and one pregnant woman. Both IR655 and the Vincennes were 'inside Iranian territorial waters' at the time of the attack."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[ebrough @ Jan 5th 2008 6:56PM]

Yes, in the middle east, Russia, and Africa have had missiles hit passenger aircraft. The system is made by Northrop Grumman.

[matt @ Jan 5th 2008 7:54PM]

http://www.google.com/search?q=dhl+missile&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS237US237

[Mark @ Jan 5th 2008 8:56PM]

Korean Airlines Flight 007 was shot down by Soviet jets when it mistakingly entered Soviet airspace in 1983. Because of this incident, Ronald Reagan would make the Global Positioning System (GPS) available for civilian use once completed.

[Korsakow @ Jan 6th 2008 8:11AM]

Incidents involving man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS):

September 3, 1978: An Air Rhodesia Viscount passenger airliner crash landed after being hit by a MANPADS fired by Zimbabwe Peoples Revolution Army rebels. Four crew members and 32 of the 54 passengers were killed in the crash. 10 survivors were shot to death afterwards.

December 19, 1988: Two Douglas DC-7 spray aircraft, chartered by the U.S. Agency for International Development to eradicate locusts, en route from Senegal to Morocco, were struck by MANPADS fired by POLISARIO rebels in the Western Sahara. One DC-7 crashed killing all 5 crew members. The other DC-7 landed safely in Morocco.

April 6, 1994: A Dassault Mystere-Falcon 50 executive jet carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and its French flight crew was shot down over Kigali, killing all aboard and sparking massive ethnic violence and regional conflict.

October 10, 1998: A Boeing 727 airliner was downed over the Democratic Republic of the Congo by Tutsi rebels, killing 40.

December 26, 1998: A United Nations-chartered Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport was shot down over Angola by UNITA rebels, killing 14.

January 2, 1999: A United Nations Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport was shot down over Angola by UNITA rebels, killing 9.

November 28, 2002: Terrorists fired two MANPADS at an Arkia Airlines Boeing 757-300 with 271 passengers and crew as it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. Both missiles missed.

November 22, 2003: A DHL Airbus A-300 cargo jet transporting mail in Iraq was struck and damaged by a MANPADS. Though hit in the left fuel tank, the plane was able to return to Baghdad airport and land safely.

from http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/Sep/21-544508.html

[Homeboy @ Jan 5th 2008 6:23PM]

How about putting the system to test in Iraq where hundreds of young American soldiers are fired at?? There's no substitute for in real situation use.

[Senor_Tom @ Jan 5th 2008 7:05PM]

i think the UK are worriued about the US more then Iraq as we seem to be shot at my your fighter pilots.....

[swissfreek @ Jan 5th 2008 7:15PM]

There are several Air Force aircraft that have a system like this. The C-130, C-17, MH-53, and CV-22 I believe all have it installed on at least some aircraft. I'm sure some of those have been deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

These systems actually aren't radar-based. They use a laser to "dazzle" and confuse the IR seeker on a heat-seeking missile. I bet they could also work on optically-guided missiles to some extent as well. They also won't stop an RPG, since the only way to stop those is maneuver out of its way or add armor.

My additional $.02: a smaller airport would, in my mind, be more vulnerable to this type of attack than a place like JFK. Say, Manchester, NH, where you can get right on the approach or departure end of the runway. Not as busy and smaller planes, but easier to hide a Stinger or SA-7...

[Kamokazi @ Jan 5th 2008 9:49PM]

Virtually every US aircraft has a missle countermeasure system, many of which are far more advanced than this, and designed to fend off many different types of missiles, not just the shoulder-mounted ones (which are usually IR, I believe).

[Andrew @ Jan 5th 2008 6:28PM]

Ah, the days of comfort and safety in our neighborhoods are long gone.

[kamandriat @ Jan 5th 2008 8:26PM]

its all politics

[Dean McGearey @ Jan 5th 2008 6:52PM]

Except that the most likely attack would come from heat seeking, wire-guided or laser guided missiles this plan is perfect.

[yaakov florans @ Jan 5th 2008 6:34PM]

a couple me year ago an israeli arkia plane was shot at with a rpg over africa flying from south africa currently all elal planes have this system

[Will @ Jan 5th 2008 6:36PM]

Hawt.

[RC @ Jan 5th 2008 6:36PM]

I don't have to imagine.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Arsenal_of_Freedom

[Flashpoint @ Jan 5th 2008 6:42PM]

MISSILES will become a thing of the past in the future. We really will have "phasers" like on ?Star Trek.

They are called DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS.

The new Lockheed Martin F-35 and some ground based defense systems are currently testing DEW.

They are basically high powered lasers you can point at a target and fire - causing the target to explode since the fuel overheats. The Pentagon believes in them as the best choice for ballistic missile defense but, more likely fighter jets will use them since they don't require the same storage space a machine gun does and are INSTANT HIT weapons (speed of light)

[T-Bone @ Jan 5th 2008 7:01PM]

Just because missiles will become obsolete doesn't mean we can just ignore them. They exist right now and are extremely dangerous right now and in the future.

[m @ Jan 5th 2008 7:37PM]

Earth to Flashpoint: I don't think we have to worry about somebody firing ballistic missiles at airplanes from the back of a pickup truck in Queens. Enough with the Star Trek references already, ok?

[rob @ Jan 23rd 2008 2:28PM]

if you could find a way to store the energy needed for a high powered laser in a fighter jet and not that massive thing boing is using right now, I would kiss your feet and pray to you at my mother's deathbed

[Eric Leung @ Jan 25th 2008 2:20AM]

um.... directed energy weapons require far more room than the simple machine gun/vulcan on our aircraft today; and arent our air-to-air missiles capable of pretty much the same?

[Flashpoint @ Jan 5th 2008 6:46PM]

Counterwarfare devices will not work againt Rocket Propelled Grenades. They will only work against Stinger missiles and other guided InfraRed missile types. An Iraqi with an RPG could wait near an aircraft route and take down a passenger jet with a well placed RPG and their would be nothing you could do about it.

I wonder however, what would happen if an airplane was used in a terrorist attack - and the government sent a fighter to shoot it down - and the jet had one of these counter warfare systems.

[Ayle @ Jan 6th 2008 2:28AM]

Isn't that how a f117 was shot down in yougoslavia?

[don @ Jan 8th 2008 1:57AM]

I love the nay sayers. Nothing would ever please them. Folks need to learn that "Prefection is the enemy of progress" I get really tied of negative thinking.

[John P @ Jan 5th 2008 7:41PM]

Progress is great - in fact, I would imagine that people who read engadget are even more fond of progress than the average joe. This is, in fact, a technology blog. But really, while safeguards are great and all, we should also consider that 9/11 was in its essence a very simple operation. In fact, technology was completely left out. Even the simple RPGs that this new system cannot actually stop are more advanced than what the country went up against before. Perhaps there are other avenues upon which this money should travel.

[don @ Jan 6th 2008 3:58PM]

see my previous reply, you gotta start somewhere, just beacuse penicillin did not stop all infections should we have not persused it's development?

[Scott B. @ Jan 5th 2008 7:35PM]

El Al has had their entire fleet outfitted with anti-missile defense systems.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1540304&C=airwar

[Wwhat @ Jan 5th 2008 7:50PM]

That seems to be just flares, which is basically all you need though.

[Wwhat @ Jan 5th 2008 7:49PM]

Great plan, a radar jammer at a busy airport, great excellent safety plan...

[matt @ Jan 5th 2008 7:59PM]

did you even read the article?

"The anti-missile system, which can be attached underneath the aircraft, amounts to a jamming device that works to send a heat seeking missile off course."

[Wwhat @ Jan 5th 2008 8:02PM]

Did you? I quote:
"it's step three in a government-mandated program to determine the suitability of such systems, which involve radar jammers to throw ground-fired missiles off course."

Notice that? radar jammers

[matt @ Jan 5th 2008 8:38PM]

that line isn't in the article. it's in the engadget "summary", but not the article. the word radar doesn't even appear in the article.

"This is phase three of Congressionally mandated testing to determine the suitability of these systems," said DHS spokeswoman Amy Kudwa.

[Wwhat @ Jan 5th 2008 10:16PM]

Well OK but I'm responding on engadget to an engadget bit, and seemingly I'm right and the real thing won't have a jammer then, because it would be a bit tricky on a busy airport.
Thanks for the info though, comforting to know they aren't quite so daft :)

[Wwhat @ Jan 6th 2008 9:38PM]

I suddenly realize that I recently heard that the FAA is planning to do away with RADAR and go for use of GPS/advanced transponders rather than RADAR for flightguidance, which would make a radar jammer less dramatic I guess once the move was made.
Although I guess there are smaller objects and weather radar that would still need some basic cleanness of the radar-frequencies to be kept an eye on.
But even when a terrorist of some sort had a radar-guided missile he'd still be best foiled with chaff rather than a jammer.
Then again, a terrorist with lots of technical skill and finances could make a transponder seeking missile theoretically..

[JoBob @ Jan 5th 2008 7:55PM]

Huh, how bout those pilots who tip a few before flights?

[SAM @ Jan 5th 2008 9:36PM]

The plane is saved, while the errant missle strikes school...damned if you do, damned if you don't

[John Russell @ Jan 5th 2008 11:33PM]

The missile doesn't just go for a school, it goes straight for NYC.

[SAM @ Jan 5th 2008 9:36PM]

The plane is saved, while the errant missle strikes school...damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Ron @ Jan 5th 2008 11:51PM]

I should hope they wouldn't bother with radar-based systems. I've been working Electronic Warfare systems for the USAF for 8 years now, and our radar systems are being phased out due to lack of threat. Radar guided missiles are too expensive especially when compared to IR missiles. The ragheads just can't afford that tech.

[Tim Osman @ Jan 6th 2008 12:53AM]

Rag heads? The same rag heads that gave you the Arabic numerals so you can log onto teh interwebs and post your venom? Fuck you!

[Ron @ Jan 6th 2008 2:02AM]

Yeah, the same ragheads that gave us our numerals, including the ones that attacked us on our own soil. Yup, those same ragheads, ya bleeding-heart baby. I'd be happy to go with camel jockeys if that suits the libs in the audience. I have zero respect for jihadist pigs or their hippie sympathizers.

[Dave B @ Jan 6th 2008 12:31AM]

Yeah, but what if WE need to shoot one of them down?

[matt @ Jan 6th 2008 1:55AM]

radar guided missile or bullets.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 6th 2008 8:38AM]

The F-117 by no means was shot down by an RPG.
First of all, the F-117 was exposed due to rain on the stealth paint creating a radar image for a guided missile to track. it was a guided missile that downed her.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 6th 2008 6:33AM]

wow... if this is what's going on CIVILIAN airliners then I wonder what's on Air Force One? =O