American Airlines Tests Anti-Missile Gear

Up To 3 Passenger-Carrying Jets To Get U.K. Defense Co.'s Laser Technology

(AP)  Up to three passenger-carrying 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 will not 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 did not interfere with the jet's other controls, officials said.

American, the largest U.S. 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.

[rf35]

Just which planes are these systems to be installed on? Which planes are big enough to "make safe?" A 767 can carry this system, but can a commuter puddle-jumper? And what about other nations'' aircraft? This is a truely stupid idea. There are more effective and certainly less expensive ways to defend against take-off and landing missile atacks. How about just installing a few of these systems at the airports themselves???? Then ALL planes are protected. I don''t think the laser would be any less effective if fired from the ground. And why just jam the missile? There are lasers perfectly capable of destroying them. Even with a fried guidance system, the missile still has a chance to hit SOMETHING, especially in a target-rich environment like LAX. Or maybe they''ll just fall on your house when they run out of fuel.

[jowand]

wake up AMERICA,terrorism is a sham..keep feeding your fear..
Posted by fitedafuture at 08:14 AM : Jan 07, 2008

Crawl back into your hole in N Korea along with freefeel

[fitedafuture]

wake up AMERICA,terrorism is a sham..keep feeding your fear..

[fitedafuture]

The department of Homeland Security,Thats a joke, cause its JUST ANOTHER CORPORATION...

[fitedafuture]

this is the dumbest sh&t I have ever heard..this story sucks.!!!!

[watcher269-2009]

This is probably a Really Good idea since the US Military has LOST hundreds of Singer Missles in Iraq - or should I say - the Military let them just disappear.

[runningralph]

Two points occur to me. How do they know what sort of missile guidance system the enemy will be using and how will it be jammed by a laser? Maybe a missile guidance system could be designed to home in on a laser. The 2nd point is that it is obvious that the vast majority of bloggers can''t afford to buy an airline ticket so they scoff at airline safety measures.

[downsteamjim]

Won''t this offend our peaceloving muslim friends. Where is the compassion?

[erasmus6]

"This could be an attempt to show the American people that the administration is working to make them safer..." posted by babykilller

Is that what they were doing when they reported that the military flew a plane loaded with nuclear weapons over several states by mistake?

Some have said they did it to send a message but the only message I can see that they sent was of their absolute STUPIDITY.

[red1530]

I believe Allowing pilots to carry guns into the cockpit is logical.

[usayesterday]

Planning to prevent terrorism? Here are examples, some with logic and some without:

Preventing terrorism (with logic):

- SECURE BOTH OF OUR BORDERS COMPLETELY

- INSPECT EVERY SHIPPING CONTAINER BOUND FOR THE UNITED STATES

- SECURE THE PROPERTY AND A SIZABLE PERIMETER AROUND EVERY AIRPORT

Now, preventing terrorism (without logic):

- Allow pilots to carry guns into the cockpit

- Put expensive laser systems on airplanes to stop GUIDED missiles

So basically, if we, the American people want truly effective and comprehensive security measures against terrorist acts...

...just add logic!

(which is not possible with the current administration)

[usayesterday]

Well then, I think this demonstrates how absurdly spoiled we are. I mean, how many times have commercial jets been shot down by missiles?
Posted by Winnemuccan at 10:05 PM : Jan 05, 2008

I don''''t know. How many times, until 9/11/2001 had commercial jets been hijacked and flow into buildings? It is called preventative measures for a reason...

Posted by me4prezz at 10:10 PM : Jan 05, 2008
............

Here''s a great preventative measure...


... PAY ATTENTION TO THE INTELLIGENCE REPORTS THAT SAID (months before it happened) THAT TERRORISTS ARE PLANNING TO FLY AIRLINERS INTO BUILDINGS AS A FORM OF ATTACKING AMERICA!

Now THAT is a GREAT preventative measure!

(but that''s just me).

[usayesterday]

From the article:

"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."

Of course this is the most logical, reliable, and economical approach.

But as I said in my earlier posts on this board, regarding the relationship between the Military Industrial Complex and our politicians, clearly the approach mentioned by the parent company of American Airlines...

...is the least profitable for our government military contractors. And revenue and profitability is the SOLE REASON for the advancement of this goofy, inefficient, and highly suspect airliner "anti-terrorist" device. Really, $100 million just to develop the system, that DOES NOT include the $500k to $1 million to install and integrate the system in EACH PLANE!

Like having guns in the cockpit, anti-missile lasers are only a "feel good" approach to preventing terrorism. (But based on a few postings on this board, it seems that the "feel good" approach has worked well in fooling some people).

[cyberdjs4]

"What I want to know. Why is a non U.S.A. company, getting U.S.A. government contracts?"

For the same reason your American computer contains Chinese-made parts, because its CHEAPER.

[me4prezz]

Well then, I think this demonstrates how absurdly spoiled we are. I mean, how many times have commercial jets been shot down by missiles?
Posted by Winnemuccan at 10:05 PM : Jan 05, 2008

I don''t know. How many times, until 9/11/2001 had commercial jets been hijacked and flow into buildings? It is called preventative measures for a reason...

[winnemuccan]

Well then, I think this demonstrates how absurdly spoiled we are. I mean, how many times have commercial jets been shot down by missiles?

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by jeff-fla at 08:05 PM : Jan 05, 2008

Harder to prove the kickback to Halliburton.

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by walt1944 at 04:25 PM : Jan 05, 2008

Hahahahahahahahhahaahaha! Now I''m shickled!

[jeff-fla]

What I want to know. Why is a non U.S.A. company, getting U.S.A. government contracts?

[mb95835]

American Airlines would be better advised to spend their money upgrading their aging aircraft. That will do much more for safety than this screwy idea.