A New Push for Missile-Proof Planes—But Can We Afford Them?
The Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 attack proves that no airliner is completely safe, even at 33,000 feet.
By Barbara Peterson
A Palestinian militant carries a Man Portable Air Defence System (MANPAD).
Mahmud Hams/AFP/Getty Images
In the wake of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, several members of Congress are proposing they do just that. Despite the enormous expense, estimated at up to $2 million per plane, the shootdown in eastern Ukraine has put the idea on the front burner.
The targeting of MH17 was likely a mistake; Russian-backed rebels in the area had already shot down several Ukrainian military jets and were probably trying to do so again. Still, many dangerous conflict zones lie under well-traveled commercial flight paths. The threat to airliners seemed to deepen when the FAA briefly banned U.S. planes from landing at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, following a rocket attack that came close to the airport’s perimeter.
As a result, Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Steve Israel, both Democrats from New York, called on the FAA, DHS, and the Pentagon to study technologies that could protect airliners and to recommend the best technologies available to repel both portable shoulder-fired missiles, or MANPADS, and the more powerful type of anti-aircraft missile that attacked MH17.
"An attack on a civilian aircraft remains a significant threat," Israel said in calling for the study. Of the estimated 500,000 to 700,000 MANPADS around the world, he said, several thousand are believed to be in the hands of terrorists or other non-state actors, and they’re available on the black market for as little as $5,000.
Systems for protecting airlines have also been around for a while—they’re just expensive. Northrup Grumman, for example, has developed the Guardian anti-missile system that is in use on some military aircraft such as the Air National Guard’s KC-135 aircraft, and has been tested on FedEx cargo planes. The system, which fits in a pod mounted on the underside of the aircraft’s fuselage, uses an ultraviolet missile warning sensor to detect an impending hit. It uses a laser to jam the missile’s guidance system.
Other systems in use include one developed by Israel’s Elta systems, known as Flight Guard, which was deployed on civilian planes after a failed MANPAD attack on an Israeli charter flight off Mombasa, Kenya. The system uses Doppler radar to detect incoming heat-seeking missiles, which it fends off by firing flares that act as decoys to throw the missiles off their intended targets. However, the flares themselves were considered to be a fire hazard, and subsequently Israel backed a laser-based jamming system for civilian use.
Some aviation experts point out that there are other more economical ways of protecting planes from MANPADS, which, due to their low range, are mainly effective against aircraft landing or taking off. Raytheon, among others, has developed anti-missile systems to protect airport perimeters. Vigilant Eagle, Raytheon’s system, combines an antimissile warning system with a high-powered microwave that can knock a shoulder-fired missile launched at an airplane off course. Other ideas include routing aircraft to avoid flying low in certain areas right outside of the airport’s boundaries, so someone with a MANPAD never gets in range for a show.
As for the powerful type of surface-to-air missile that destroyed MH17 at 33,000 feet, the response by most airlines and countries is to reroute aircraft around any area that might have weapons capable of reaching targets at that altitude. Such attacks were considered highly unlikely before MH17, but now they cannot be ruled out.
No comments:
Post a Comment