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.

[cdfoxtrot]

Militarizing our civilian passenger jets. Sounds like a winner!

[erasmus6]

I don''t know, I think that maybe you should have them installed on your cars and buses too.:)

[alphaa10-2009]

The threat to civilian airliners is no joke. AP reported a missile launcher was found on a lawn in suburb of an eastern US city, recently. Thousands of Stinger-type missiles are floating in the world''s arms market, and penetrating the US is no problem at all thanks to six years of a GOP-led congress asleep on port security.

Pressed on his response to the imminent danger, Bush has played this crisis as though it did not exist. Reminding many of how he handled Katrina, as well.
("No one expected a missile attack on an airliner...(?)")

That non-policy also explains the suppressed NASA report about near-misses at the nation''s airports. Official reason offered? It might depress the public morale (and reduce airline profits).

However, what is guaranteed to depress morale is the thought Bush has sanctioned the "FAA Rule"-- there must be a body count / backlog of civil suits large enough to justify a new policy which might cost money.

The essential question is this-- how much is a planeload of family members actually "worth"?

[andrew_693]

I guess we all need to be worried about hte missiles ronald reagan gave the freedom fighters, a.k.a as the terrorists now. Hopefully Oliver north didn''t sell the iranians some of our nukes during the negotiations with the other terrorists during the republican administration.

[andrew_693]

Oh I forgot we are getting close to election times. Get ready guys, the jesus and fear monger squad is going to start trying to scare us. Expect to see things like "the democrats will send you to concentration camps" "the UN will take your freedoms away and your guns" etc........ meanwhile, the patriot act took care of all that already. Maybe they will try something with their terrorist friends to scare the American people.

[searingtruth]

Long ago their were visionaries, who shall remain unnamed, who advocated that passenger aircraft be designed to segment during catastrophe, and that each segment be supplied with self contained oxygen systems and ballistic parachutes.

So that when a passenger airliner suffered a catastrophe, no matter what the reason, the most people possible could survive.

But these suggestions have been roundly rejected for decades as unnecessary and too expensive.

But now we''re going to equip airliners with anti-missile equipment?

Sheesh.
ST


"It''s not a war on terror gone wrong, it''s a war on American liberty gone right."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com

[crater7]

WHY NOT EQUIP OUR PASSENGERS AIRLINERS WITH OFFENSIVE MISSILES, AND RADAR TRACKING DEVICES SO THEY CAN LOCK ON THE INCOMMING MISSILES LAUNCH SITES, RETURN FIRE AND TAKE OUT THE LAUNCH SITES.

HEY, WE WON''T EVEN NEED THE MILITARY ANYMORE. THE PILOTS CAN ALSO BE TRAINED TO BE "TOP DOG" RAMBOS AND EVEN CHALLENGE ANY INCOMMING ENEMY AIRCRAFT INTO A DOG FIGHT.....IMAGINE, THE THRILL OF THE PASSENGERS WHO WILL BE TREATED TO A REAL LIFE MILITARY ATTACK. I''LL BET THEY WILL EVEN PAY EXTRA FOR THE CHANCE TO EXPERIENCE SUCH A TREAT.

FOR ONCE, THE PRICE INCREASE FOR YOUR TICKETS WILL BE JUSTIFIED....

[usayesterday]

...IMAGINE, THE THRILL OF THE PASSENGERS WHO WILL BE TREATED TO A REAL LIFE MILITARY ATTACK. I''''LL BET THEY WILL EVEN PAY EXTRA FOR THE CHANCE TO EXPERIENCE SUCH A TREAT.

FOR ONCE, THE PRICE INCREASE FOR YOUR TICKETS WILL BE JUSTIFIED....

Posted by crater7 at 06:45 AM : Jan 05, 2008
...............

And it would be nice if everybody could view the smart bombs hitting their targets on their own individual flat TV screens!

A cup of Coke, a bag of peanuts, and modern warfare on your own TV screen!

Lost my bags?... ***** it!... who cares! I got to see stuff blown up live, while it was happening!

:-)

[rafterman1]

I''m not sure why everyone is so pi$$ed off. It hasn''t happened yet, but a commercial jet will be brought down by a terrorist missile sometime in the future, you can guarantee it. It''s already happened accidentally. You think KAL007 or that Iran jet could have used this system? I see nothing wrong (or there being some military plot) with having defensive anti-missile systems on commercial jets, whether it be lasers or more traditional chaff and flare dispensers.

[usayesterday]

The Military Industrial Complex circle explained:

(Part 1 of 3)

(Since it is a circle, its hard to pick a particular starting and ending point, but you''ll get the picture)...


1. A politician (or group of politicians) create a reason hypothetical scenario, to give a government contract to a company or group of companies who helped contribute to their campaign. This reason or hypothetical scenario is used to justify the hundreds of millions to billions of tax dollars needed to pay for this contract, and the majority of the U.S. population fall for it... hook, line, and sinker.

2. The contract is given to whichever company helped to contribute to that particular politicians campaign, for example: Bush/Cheney gives no-bid contract to Halliburton.

3. Excessive prices are paid to the government contractors for basic materials that could be found for pennies on the dollar, for the purpose of inflating profit margins for the government contractor(s). This allows for money to be funneled through various channels, never being noticed by the tax payers and watchdog groups, until its too late. How many times have we heard about missing money sent to Iraq? And here is another example: $500 toilet seat (yes, that practice still goes on)

(continued)

[usayesterday]

The Military Industrial Complex explained:

(Part 2 of 3)

Item #4:

The double-digit to triple-digit profit margins help to pay for the contributions made to the various politicians, from the government contracting companies, for their campaigns to remain in office to keep the money flowing to the contractors. The politicians dupe the voters into believing that they are real "leaders". In fact, the politicians (both Democrat and Republican) are aided to their positions solely to help feed the military industrial complex.

Now I know that item #4 is beginning to sound like item #1. But like I said, the military industrial complex is a circle and it is hard to pick a particular starting point to explain it, without returning to the same starting point in the circle.

So to sum up "the circle":

1. Politicians give contract to contractor(s)

2. Contractor(s) make big money from contract

3. Contractor(s) give some of that money to politicians campaigns

4. Politicians win elections to remain in a position to continue to give government contracts to the companies who helped them win their election.

(continued)

[usayesterday]

The Military Industrial Complex explained:

(Part 3 of 3)

So in this case, tests are being made for airliners to carry a technology to help stop a guided missile from a "terrorist". The chances of a terrorist in obtaining a guided missile (and system to launch it), and in a position to launch it successfully, AND escape without being noticed (the smoke trail is quite obvious)... IS EXTREMELY NIL! This system would not help to deter unguided RPGs (which is what some terrorists used to **unsuccessfully** shoot down a chartered airliner in Africa a few years ago).

But the realities do not matter within the military industrial complex. As I have outlined in my previous two posts...

...the politicians have created a hypothetical scenario (terrorist shooting guided missile at airliner)...

...then dupes the public into believing this is a worthwhile cause (to create, build, and install a very expensive technology onto every airliner in America)...

...finally forcing you and I to pay more in taxes and more in ticket prices for the sake of a politician handing a very lucrative "thank you" gift to a government contractor.

In the "thank you" card from the politicians, it says:

"Thank you for your contribution to my campaign"

[inbredwhty]

Actually, its cheaper to change some of our foreign policies, but then I guess companies and politicians wouldn''t really benefit financially from that.

[usayesterday]

Actually, its cheaper to change some of our foreign policies, but then I guess companies and politicians wouldn''''t really benefit financially from that.

Posted by inbredwhty at 09:10 AM : Jan 05, 2008
..............

There''s an underlying mindset among the military industrial complex:

Peace is not profitable.

[erasmus6]

The part that always gets me is that CBS feels the need to advertise what the U.S. is doing to the rest of the world. (and the terrorists)

The terrorists are probably thinking, OK, we need to hurry up and do our thing, BEFORE they get that anti-missile gear installed and working. Geez

[sjc_1]

I think it is sad that this system could become a marketing feature for one airline. If this is a necessary system, then all commercial airliners should have it where necessary and the government should help them with it.

It is nice to say that the stinger supply should be carefully watched, but so many of them made it into the hands of people in the middle east during the Afghan/Soviet war that I do not think that they know any more.

[alphaa10-2009]

USAYestrrday said, "... The chances of a terrorist in obtaining a guided missile (and system to launch it), and in a position to launch it successfully, AND escape without being noticed (the smoke trail is quite obvious)... IS EXTREMELY NIL!"
---
Not really-- you forget most al Qaeda forward groups have survival last on their agenda. The key point in the MANPAD threat scenario is the missiles are (1) abundant in the world market (2) easily brought into the US in pieces (3) easy to deploy and fire.

Those who live near airports already understand how how low and slow the airliner flies on takeoff and approach patterns. It would be a piece of cake for even the most unreliable of the Skela, Stinger, and other AA missiles.

Your primer on the military industrial complex was appreciated. That is a fairly accurate description of how Rep. Cunningham (R) was caught-- but only after flagrant abuses over a long period.

A better, more recent case in point is the Boeing "Insecurity Fence" along the southern border. This multibillion project authorized by DHS cannot distinguish between windblown sagebrush and running ********. Boeing calls it a "technical problem", but the rest of us recognize it as the political malfunction it is.

[starleo146]

The part that always gets me is that CBS feels the need to advertise what the U.S. is doing to the rest of the world. (and the terrorists)

The terrorists are probably thinking, OK, we need to hurry up and do our thing, BEFORE they get that anti-missile gear installed and working. Geez

Posted by erasmus6 at 11:33 AM : Jan 05, 20

You are right and that is what was part of the problem with the Iraq war as well. Notice how no one is talking now you hardly see anything on tv anymore. They knew everything we did and was going to do before Even I saw that. This is why I agree with your post

[starleo146]

My question is ---Who is paying for this I heard it was us the government will take care of it and again the government help the airlines bailed them out on 9/11 and will not help the uninsured children or the people who are losing their homes right and left.

[walt1944-2009]

It has been learned that the new anti-missile system being installed on passenger planes will alert the pilot of the launch of a missle. The pilot will then throw a switch which will release thousands of ballons each with a picture of the Great Emperor Bush II on them!

It is thought that once the missile "sees" all these faces of the Great Emperor Bush II looking at it, the guidance system on the missle will become hopelessly confused as to which one to target first, allowing the plane to make its escape (it is hoped!).

The system will be installed by KBR and Halliburton on all commercial aircraft at full taxpayer expense with the ballons being manufactured and inflated by peasants in China!

AIN''T THE WORLD ECONOMY WONDERFUL???

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!

[fibonacci_]

Boy does this make me feel safer.

[denn034]

This story is good to see.

[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.

[jeff-fla]

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

[rowdytexan2]

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

Hahahahahahahahhahaahaha! Now I''m shickled!

[rowdytexan2]

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

Harder to prove the kickback to Halliburton.

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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).

[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]

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)

[red1530]

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

[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.

[downsteamjim]

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

[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.

[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.

[fitedafuture]

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

[fitedafuture]

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

[fitedafuture]

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

[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

[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.