Newsstand - How to Make a Missile Miss

The imagined scene gives frequent fliers and security officials the chills: a Boeing 737 is ready to take off from Dulles International Airport outside Washington. Two men crouch among the trees a few hundred yards beyond the edge of the runway. At their feet lies an open metallic carrying case, empty now but for its gray foam padding. One man shoulders a cylinder just under five feet long and weighing about 35 pounds. The specifications vary slightly depending on whether the portable missile is of Soviet, Chinese, Egyptian or Pakistani manufacture.

As the Boeing taxis for takeoff, one of the men inserts the missile's thermal battery while the other slots a targeting device into place and switches it on. The warhead will use infrared homing -- based on technology found in all sorts of military and civilian hardware, like antiaircraft batteries, night-vision gear, NASA telescopes and medical equipment -- to lock on to the hottest part of its target, the exhaust plume at the rear of the jet's engines. The compact 737 makes a good target, because the engine pods hang tightly next to the wing. Larger jumbo jets like the 747 or the Airbus A380 are less vulnerable because their engines are mounted well below the wing (farther from the passengers), and the planes are designed to withstand the catastrophic failure of any single engine. The men wait for the 737 to rumble overhead, because they can fire a tail shot only from directly behind its engines' exhaust.

The plane screeches over the clearing in the woods, accelerating to greater than 200 miles an hour. The missile's solid fuel booster rocket motor will propel the warhead at 630 yards per second; as long as the operators get a shot off in the next 20 to 30 seconds, the warhead should catch the rising plane. But timing is everything in this business: the weapon has a safety feature common to many missiles and torpedoes -- the explosives are activated only after a certain distance is traversed (500 yards, in this case), in order to prevent a missile from exploding near the shooter. Fire too early, and it will harmlessly bounce off the target. Fire too late, and the missile self-destructs within 14 to 17 seconds. The manual is clear on that.

It is now or never. On this particular weapon the targeting element might vibrate against the shooter's cheek -- on another model it might beep -- letting him know that the infrared guidance system has captured the Boeing's heat signature. All that remains now is to pull the trigger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/magazine/08MISSILE.html

They could probably just hit it on the runway, as long as the fence is close enough to the plane.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

With modern missiles you don't have to be behind the Aircraft you can be in front of it .

I expect "pull the trigger" from illiterate Hollywood screenwriters, but a professional reporter ought to know well enough to use "squeeze" instead. Not to mention that the "None" on page 3 should be treated as a singular, not a plural.

In the hierarchy of mass-destruction threats out there, I have to believe losing an aircraft with 100-200 aboard is a relatively low priority for the braintrust at DHS. Not to pooh-pooh the possibility per se, but I think dollars will spent first on stopping ABC threats before we see commerical aircraft outfitted with frickin' "laser beams."

Airline Missile Defense Systems bill
Bill # S.311
Congressional Legislation
Original Sponsor: Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

About This Legislation:
2/5/2003--Introduced.
Commercial Airline Missile Defense Act - Directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations that require all turbojet aircraft of air carriers be equipped with a missile defense system. Requires the Secretary to purchase such defense systems and make them available to all air carriers. Sets forth certain interim security measures to be taken before the deployment of such defense systems.

http://capwiz.com/capapilots/issues/bills/?bill=4265171

quote:
---------------------------------------------
Airline Missile Defense Systems bill
Bill # S.311
Congressional Legislation
Original Sponsor: Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

About This Legislation:
2/5/2003--Introduced.
Commercial Airline Missile Defense Act......
---------------------------------------------

After seeing whats in bold type above I ignored all following it.

MisterNice

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Thanks for the link, LarryJ. I presume this bill is either DOA or buried deep in committee. It calls for Air National Guard and Coast Guard activations to patrol every airport until a missile defense solution is installed on every commercial aircraft. Please.

Sorry, I guess I didn't make my point very clear. I was trying only to point out that the technology exists to protect airliners from missles and that there are significant efforts underway to put that technology in place.

Evan a hit is not necessarily guaranteed to bring down the jet. Witness the DHL plane which survived a missle hit and landed with no casualties.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Bouncer:
Evan a hit is not necessarily guaranteed to bring down the jet. Witness the DHL plane which survived a missle hit and landed with no casualties.</font>

That's true. There have been quite a few large airplanes survive missle hits including a DC8.

The DHL crew was very lucky. The missle took out all of their hydraulics and they landed the airplane with no flight controls just like the UAL DC10 is Sioux City.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by eric_packer:
with frickin' "laser beams."</font>

Wouldn't you be worried about sharks with laser beams first? That's what keeping me up at night.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Pickles:
Wouldn't you be worried about sharks with laser beams first? That's what keeping me up at night. </font>

Are they ill-tempered? And aren't they just Chilean Sea Bass??

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by wigstheone:
[B]The imagined scene gives frequent fliers and security officials the chills: a Boeing 737 is ready to take off from Dulles International Airport outside Washington. Two men crouch among the trees a few hundred yards beyond the edge of the runway. At their feet lies an open metallic carrying case, empty now but for its gray foam padding. One man shoulders a cylinder just under five feet long and weighing about 35 pounds. The specifications vary slightly depending on whether the portable missile is of Soviet, Chinese, Egyptian or Pakistani manufacture.[B]</font>

The imagined scene gives drivers and police the chills: a Honda Accord containing a parent and three school children is ready to leave a grocery store parking lot. Two drunk men crouch in an old beat-up RX7 a few hundred yards beyond the edge of the lot. At their feet lies an open beer case, empty now but for its brown card board interior. One man raises a can with just under twelve ounces capacity. Now it is nearly empty. The specifications vary slightly depending on whether the beer is of Milwaukee, German, Thai, or Holland
manufacture...

Noticing one of the many risks out there doesn't make it any less or more probable, and there are more risks out there than most people imagine.

This article is one of the poorest written pieces of cr*p I have seen in the NYT. The writer read the specs for the Stinger and wrote a lotta inches of fiction. I cant remember reading anywhere of speeds noted in units of "yards/sec" as he did.

Missles are guided or unguided. Guided are via IR, UV, RF, wire, laser, sound etc. Unguided are the most common and little can be done to deter them. Most deterents are flares to distract the IR or UV. I wonder why the writer didnt suggest putting a smokescreen around all airports.

IMHO installing anti-missle flares on commercial aircraft would result is far more damage eventually because of an eventual malfunction of the flare system (or sabatage to the flare system) than from any missle hitting an airplane.

MisterNice

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MisterNice:
This article is one of the poorest written pieces of cr*p I have seen in the NYT.</font>

My theory about the NYT is that they find the most sensationalistic stuff they can so that they can harvest personal info off their sign-in. Pretty lame, but what do you expect of a newspaper that once started a war.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MisterNice:
Most deterents are flares to distract the IR or UV.</font>

The systems appropriate for installation on airliners don't use flares, they use lasers. They are completely passive, they alert the crew but the crew need take no action as the countermeasures are completely automatic. Costs look to be in the $1 million to $3 million range per aircraft which puts it in the 0.5% to 6% of aircraft cost range which is expensive but not unthinkable. Effectiveness is said to be very high though I don't have any numbers.

A logical approach would be to first outfit the aircraft flying in the CRAF program (Civilian Reserve Aircraft Fleet?) followed by international widebodies and working down from there.

One of my co-workers has become CAPA's lead expert and lobbiest on this technology. I was quite surprised at how for the technology has advanced. It's difficult finding information on this technology on the web but I did find the following article which discusses it and includes quotes from my co-worker. Keep reading into the second page.

http://www.house.gov/israel/news/082903-manpads.pdf

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
The systems appropriate for installation on airliners don't use flares, they use lasers. They are completely passive, they alert the crew but the crew need take no action as the countermeasures are completely automatic. Costs look to be in the $1 million to $3 million range per aircraft which puts it in the 0.5% to 6% of aircraft cost range which is expensive but not unthinkable. Effectiveness is said to be very high though I don't have any numbers.

A logical approach would be to first outfit the aircraft flying in the CRAF program (Civilian Reserve Aircraft Fleet?) followed by international widebodies and working down from there.

One of my co-workers has become CAPA's lead expert and lobbiest on this technology. I was quite surprised at how for the technology has advanced. It's difficult finding information on this technology on the web but I did find the following article which discusses it and includes quotes from my co-worker. Keep reading into the second page.

http://www.house.gov/israel/news/082903-manpads.pdf</font>

Thanks. Itsa nice concept and the article says it is being deployed, but no dateline or cost figures are given. Ditto for effectiveness.

Somehow a 360 degree fully auto system to detect and "confuse" IR/UV missles seems highly unlikely at the cost estimates you estimate, but this is far distant from my background and training. Truefully I hope it works, but I aint buying any stock in the company (yet).

MisterNice

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MisterNice:
Thanks. Itsa nice concept and the article says it is being deployed, but no dateline or cost figures are given. Ditto for effectiveness.</font>

As I said, the technology exists today, it's already installed on large military transports, the effectiveness is very high and the costs are estimated to be in the $1 million to $3 million per aircraft range when produced in quantity.

Take a look at http://www.fas.org/ Lots of other stuff there too but you'll also find information about missle defense and the MANPAD threat.

[This message has been edited by LarryJ (edited Feb 10, 2004).]

Use CCD/CMOS imaging on a missle guidance system and even dumping chaff/flares or other countermeasures ISN'T going to prevent the missle from STILL finding it's target.

Anti- Missile systems are NOT as effective as you are being told.....

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
Use CCD/CMOS imaging on a missle guidance system and even dumping chaff/flares or other countermeasures ISN'T going to prevent the missle from STILL finding it's target.</font>

Chaff/flares are older technology that the newer MANPADs can defeat. The technology under discussion uses lasers to confuse the tracking system of the missle and they are very effective. These are the systems that the military is now installing on it's large aircraft.

Gee thanks for the information. I was wondering about it everytime I get on an a/c. Maybe you should write a book and sell it at the airport.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
Sorry, I guess I didn't make my point very clear. I was trying only to point out that the technology exists to protect airliners from missles and that there are significant efforts underway to put that technology in place.</font>

No, seriously, without irony, thanks for enlightening me. I sincerely am surprised not at the advanced level of missile deterrent technology, but at how much effort and attention is currently directed toward its application to commercial aircraft.

I just figured that the probability-severity matrix would direct the majority of funds toward countermeasures against more massive types of destruction, namely N-B-C.

But like I said--if a workable solution can be implemented without bankrupting the airlines or whomever ultimately has to pay for the system, then I 'm not complaining.

As for the DHL flight--wow. How did they pull that off w/o hydraulics? Limited mechanical inputs, transferring fuel between tanks?

Thanks again.

EP

[This message has been edited by eric_packer (edited Feb 14, 2004).]

eric,

I talked to my co-worker last night. Apparently he wrote the Senate bill to which I earlier referred. He said it's dead in committee but they'll be introducing a new one in the near future.

The DHL crew controlled the airplane by adjusting the power on the engines, just like Al Haynes and crew on UAL 232.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
Chaff/flares are older technology that the newer MANPADs can defeat. The technology under discussion uses lasers to confuse the tracking system of the missle and they are very effective. These are the systems that the military is now installing on it's large aircraft.</font>

True, but even then it's not too difficult to modify parameters for a targetting system to deal with a more advanced MANPAD system.