- #1
- 8,252
- 2,664
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/16/airline.anti.missile.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Last edited by a moderator:
Commercial jet flies with anti-missile system
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the implementation of anti-missile systems on commercial aircraft, specifically focusing on the effectiveness, costs, and potential safety implications of such technology. Participants explore various aspects including theoretical protection during flight, takeoff, and landing, as well as the broader implications for airline safety and security.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
- Conceptual clarification
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of anti-missile systems, particularly during takeoff and landing when aircraft are most vulnerable.
- Others argue that the threat of missiles targeting commercial aircraft is a serious concern that warrants investment in countermeasures, despite the rarity of such incidents.
- A viewpoint suggests that the financial resources allocated for anti-missile systems could be better spent on other security measures, such as bomb scanning or addressing broader social issues like poverty and healthcare.
- Some participants question the practicality and cost-effectiveness of retrofitting existing aircraft with these systems, citing high expenses and maintenance costs.
- There is a suggestion that developing airport-based defense systems could be more effective and less costly than equipping individual planes.
- Concerns are raised about the reliability of anti-missile systems, including the potential for false alarms and the effectiveness of such systems against civilian aircraft.
- Participants note that historical examples, such as ElAl's use of anti-missile systems, may not directly translate to the commercial aviation context.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views remaining regarding the necessity, effectiveness, and financial implications of implementing anti-missile systems on commercial aircraft.
Contextual Notes
Limitations include the lack of definitive evidence regarding the frequency of missile attacks on commercial aircraft and the assumptions made about the effectiveness of proposed systems. The discussion also reflects varying perspectives on the prioritization of security measures in aviation.
- #2
Cyrus
- 3,246
- 17
I saw a program about this on tv. There are two ways you can protect an airplane. During flight, and during takeoff and landing. This system is good for normal flight, but provides very little protection when the aircraft is near the ground (takeoffs and landings). The opposite method is to have a network that monitors the nearby airspace around the airport, thus providing protection when the airplane is near the ground and someone can launuch a hand held surface to air missle.
So, will this make flight any safer, ehhhhhh probably not. How many airplanes do you know of are getting shot by missiles appart from that one israeli airliner?
So, will this make flight any safer, ehhhhhh probably not. How many airplanes do you know of are getting shot by missiles appart from that one israeli airliner?
- #3
- 8,252
- 2,664
cyrusabdollahi said:
This is often cited as an area of imminent concern. We certainly don't want to wait until planes start falling from the sky before we take action, but how much should be spent, and how soon?
The fact is, this is something that is relatively easy for a terrorist to achieve.
If my future plane ride happens to be first one doomed to destruction by a missile, then I would tend to favor the defense system now.
- #4
Cyrus
- 3,246
- 17
I think its all a big waste of money.
I mean, if a plane gets shot down, it gets shot down; but I am not going to waste billions of dollars to get a false sense of security.
Chances are, your airplane is not nor never will get shot down by a missile. You should worry about pilot error more than missile or mechanical failure.
I mean, if a plane gets shot down, it gets shot down; but I am not going to waste billions of dollars to get a false sense of security.
Chances are, your airplane is not nor never will get shot down by a missile. You should worry about pilot error more than missile or mechanical failure.
Last edited:
- #5
- 8,252
- 2,664
cyrusabdollahi said:
At what point if any would you support using this technology on commercial aircraft; at least, passenger aircraft?
- #6
Cyrus
- 3,246
- 17
None. Its all a waste of money.
Okay, let's say your airplane has this fancy ant-missile system on it. Now, as before, its NOT very good when the airplane is MOST vunerable, ie. take off and landing. So unless the airport your American Airlines takes off from in Yamen or Syria has an anti-missile system (good luck on that one), your airpline is STILL going to get shot down.
It is a waste of money.
Spend that money to scan bags for bombs; but I think it has better use fighting poverty and providing health care and education.
Okay, let's say your airplane has this fancy ant-missile system on it. Now, as before, its NOT very good when the airplane is MOST vunerable, ie. take off and landing. So unless the airport your American Airlines takes off from in Yamen or Syria has an anti-missile system (good luck on that one), your airpline is STILL going to get shot down.
It is a waste of money.
Spend that money to scan bags for bombs; but I think it has better use fighting poverty and providing health care and education.
Last edited:
- #7
J77
- 1,092
- 1
Just how many commercial planes get shot down by missiles? 
- #8
- 8,252
- 2,664
I think you have to take into account threat analysis which concludes that this is a serious vulnerability.
Consider this: What would happen if a civilian airliner, or worse, several, were shot down tomorrow? What would happen to the airline industry? What would the effect be on the economy? How long would it take to begin to implement countermeasures? There is a risk to benefit ratio to be considered.
But, actually, I tend to agree that this is probably too expensive to be practical as a retrofit.
At a cost of about ~$150 million for a new airplane, 0.7% of the cost doesn't seem all that bad; assuming that it actually works and there is a genuine threat... But then again, this all comes from the Department of Homeland Security and my confidence there is very low. On the other hand, I believe that this may have been a recommendation from 911 commission report.
Consider this: What would happen if a civilian airliner, or worse, several, were shot down tomorrow? What would happen to the airline industry? What would the effect be on the economy? How long would it take to begin to implement countermeasures? There is a risk to benefit ratio to be considered.
But, actually, I tend to agree that this is probably too expensive to be practical as a retrofit.
At a cost of about ~$150 million for a new airplane, 0.7% of the cost doesn't seem all that bad; assuming that it actually works and there is a genuine threat... But then again, this all comes from the Department of Homeland Security and my confidence there is very low. On the other hand, I believe that this may have been a recommendation from 911 commission report.
- #9
J77
- 1,092
- 1
This can still happen with or without "anti-missile" devices.Ivan Seeking said:
eg. The apparent "threat" to the UK airports this summer still has repercussions for flying around Europe - no hand luggage etc.
Where is the proof that anything was going to happen?
I'd rather live in a society in which I can travel effiecntly, with some security, and with whatever risk there may be from "terrorists", rather than the paranoid state which has been made.
- #10
3trQN
- 337
- 1
They would be better off developing a defence system at the airports than on the plane, for take off/ landing, because it would be easier/less expensive than re-fitting the planes all the time.
After all, it would be an airport security breach more than anything.
After all, it would be an airport security breach more than anything.
- #11
Cyrus
- 3,246
- 17
3trQN said:
Like I said, doing that would only give you some security at US airports that have the system. Once you fly over seas, your airplane won't be protected. And its not just 0.7% of the new cost, most airplanes are pretty old.
Americans need to stop being so paranoid. The rest of the world lives in far more dangerous conditions and does not waste billions like we do. I thought we were already in massive debt to china?
- #12
Panda
- 197
- 0
ElAl have had anti-missile systems for a number of years. Some reports indicate that they have been used.
What you also have to take into account is that anti-aircraft missiles are designed ot take down military aircraft which would look very different in almost every sensor band to civilian aircraft, so how effective are SAMs against commercial airliners?
What you also have to take into account is that anti-aircraft missiles are designed ot take down military aircraft which would look very different in almost every sensor band to civilian aircraft, so how effective are SAMs against commercial airliners?
- #13
Andre
- 4,296
- 73
Technical problem is that if you happen to take a picture of the aircraft with the flash on, it will probably destroy the camera. Have seen tests of optical/IR missile launch warning systems. False alarm rate is a sincere problem.