Civilian aircraft protection

[Jim Campbell]

Not sure what your stance on the matter is Eric. In agreeing with IForB are you not agreeing with my contention as well.

I never made reference to the business model of any particular company.

[c7xlg]

i believe the self defence systems we are talking about here would not be chaff and flares. More laser based systems that are designed to confuse/melt the sensitive IR seekers in heat seeking missiles, and clever things for the radar missiles.

[adsvx220]

Interesting replys so far!!

I obviously know that airliners are big easy objects to target on landing and take off. My main query was at cruising altitude as a lot of air traffic passes through hostile territory. E.g LHR to DBX will take you over or very close to Israeli, Syrian and Saudi airspace. Same as LHR to NBO will send you over Sudan for quite a while.

[anonymous-user]

Zulu 10 said:

Up until now the discussion on this thread has been of a general and non-specific nature - but I would respectfully suggest that discussions or even conjecture about the defence aids suite that is or is not fitted to RAF and other UK 'official' aircraft is not appropriate.

whatever

[RizzoTheRat]

c7xlg said:

i believe the self defence systems we are talking about here would not be chaff and flares. More laser based systems that are designed to confuse/melt the sensitive IR seekers in heat seeking missiles, and clever things for the radar missiles.

Might be a bit of an overkill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1

[Eric Mc]

c7xlg said:

i believe the self defence systems we are talking about here would not be chaff and flares. More laser based systems that are designed to confuse/melt the sensitive IR seekers in heat seeking missiles, and clever things for the radar missiles.

That's EXACTLY the system the chap at the Farnborough Air Show was flogging.

[RizzoTheRat]

Northrop Grumman by any chance?

[maffski]

RizzoTheRat said:

Northrop Grumman by any chance?

Like Guardian? I'd assume the main customers to be cargo movers with contracts to fly supplies into places like Afghanistan for the US

[J4CKO]

trashbat said:

J4CKO said:

Is that a possibility ? all the security seems to be about not allowing stuff/people onto planes ?

Well, to be blunt, how would you know about airfield perimeter security unless you'd tried to break it?

There've been a few incidents and purported plots - who knows what's real. There was one actual incident in Mombasa about ten years ago but ironically it was against an Israeli plane that may have had some systems fitted. That probably didn't do any good as they supposedly don't have flares and were attacked with old school heat seeking Strela missiles.

I was thinking about people standing outside and aiming at planes that are taking off or landing.

I don't think breaking onto an airfield would be that difficult for a determined individual but suspect you wouldn't get far, not sure what systems they have in place but dont think the average airport is like Area 51.

[Eric Mc]

RizzoTheRat said:

Northrop Grumman by any chance?

Can't remember now. It was probably 8 years ago.

[anonymous-user]

el stovey said:

Eric Mc said:

I am pretty sure that the BA aircraft that the Queen uses when on official duties are fitted with additional devices that at least warn of threats.

Really?

Maybe he meant a big red flashing light that goes off when they enter Australian air space?

[paulrussell]

I think it's a good way to make money by selling to the paranoid crowd. Sure a laser can destroy the IR sensor, but there is still the matter of a missile heading in your general direction. Another thing is I'm not aware of another incident where it would of saved the aircraft, so the system is pointless. People pay for a security system that chances are won't save their lives.

[nessiemac]

el stovey said:

Eric Mc said:

I am pretty sure that the BA aircraft that the Queen uses when on official duties are fitted with additional devices that at least warn of threats.

Really?

No!! Not at all.

[texasjohn]

Umm, the devices aren't exactly hidden on the QF146...

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

[creampuff]

Eric Mc said:

c7xlg said:

i believe the self defence systems we are talking about here would not be chaff and flares. More laser based systems that are designed to confuse/melt the sensitive IR seekers in heat seeking missiles, and clever things for the radar missiles.

That's EXACTLY the system the chap at the Farnborough Air Show was flogging.

Hahahaha. So we have an active system which needs to track a tiny surface to air missile travelling over the speed of sound, then point a laser at it, all within a few seconds. And on a civilian aircraft. I don't think so.

[eharding]

texasjohn said:

Umm, the devices aren't exactly hidden on the QF146...

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

I'm not sure why they bothered.

Any self-respecting IR seeker head is going to take one look at the heat plume from the four hair-dryers under the wings, decide that it's actually looking at four mildly flatulent Willow Tits flying in loose formation, and poke off somewhere else instead.

[trashbat]

To be honest I think I'd rather put my faith in a half-cut insurgent's ability to quickly thumb through the I-Spy Book of st Wot Flies than invest any degree of personal safety in one of Northrop Grumman et al's very expensive trinkets.

[shouldbworking]

Even the RAF don't have them on their transport aircraft unless they are specifically scheduled to be heading into areas with a significant threat.

During a tour of Lyneham (the observant may realise this was a few years ago) the techs were moaning about having to constantly swap them between c130s as they got tasked to go to theatre.

Anyway, if you want to shoot down an airliner there are a hell of a lot of easier ways to do it than hitting it when its at cruising altitude.

[paulrussell]

creampuff said:

Eric Mc said:

c7xlg said:

i believe the self defence systems we are talking about here would not be chaff and flares. More laser based systems that are designed to confuse/melt the sensitive IR seekers in heat seeking missiles, and clever things for the radar missiles.

That's EXACTLY the system the chap at the Farnborough Air Show was flogging.

Hahahaha. So we have an active system which needs to track a tiny surface to air missile travelling over the speed of sound, then point a laser at it, all within a few seconds. And on a civilian aircraft. I don't think so.

I think a laser could disable the IR sensor within time, but the missile would carry on and hit the aircraft.

[creampuff]

paulrussell said:

I think a laser could disable the IR sensor within time, but the missile would carry on and hit the aircraft.

A laser frying an IR sensor is easy.

Tracking the target moving at several times the speed of sound is hard.

Identifying that a missile has been fired is hard.

Distinguishing a missile from any number of other small heat sources is hard. Or if you use radar, then that's hard distinguishing a missile from another airplane moving towards you, with high closing speeds. Lasering somebodys home BBQ which is mistaken for a missile should be a great laugh.

The head of Emirates has got it; anti missile measures on civilian aircraft are a waste of time.

Also I don't know if any of you are plane spotters, but if you take a walk down to Myrtle Avenue in Heathrow, you can get within about 200 metres of incoming aircraft.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8424/7655466300_7320...
http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/149/149548_800.j...

Many airports are like this. In Sydney, the runway is on a bridge and ordinary motor traffic passes below it.

Why bother with missiles when a bunch of jihadists can just turn up in a van with a load of AK-47s?