What is Digg?282 Comments
- geekchic, on 01/05/2008, -1/+95All this technology - and the airports are still terrified of a tube of toothpaste.
- lordwow, on 01/05/2008, -1/+64Thank goodness. This will cause a 100% decrease in yearly passenger jets shot down by missiles. Or 0%. Either way...
- Emused, on 01/05/2008, -4/+58Whats next " Tower this is Flight 713 Heavy out of Tampa, we have a lock on an L1011 jacking our airspace, request permission to fire, over"
- kensavage, on 01/05/2008, -6/+52if someone can fire an RPG or shoulder rocket from within the US then we're all F*ed
- BK88, on 01/05/2008, -8/+52WHAT CRACK ARE YOU SMOKING?
As a former navigator on C-130s we had separate detection and countermeasure systems. Airliners DO NO!!!!T (with El Al being the lone exception).
You have ZERO knowledge of how that works, and all the specs are classified so the enemy doesn't figure out how to beat our current system (not saying the enemy isn't working on that though). Please do every one a favor and don't talk on stuff you don't know about.
The systems onboard have such a fast detection rate that countermeasures are released with time for the crew to still move the aircraft. Geeze... just cuz you have computer you know everything about everything! - roguedragon, on 01/05/2008, -50/+94The title is misleading. Passenger jets have had anti-missile countermeasures for years. This is merely an upgrade to improve existing systems. The old system gave pilots the ability to detect incoming missiles and the time to react and get out of the line of fire, or even deploy countermeasures if he had them. The problem with that is, during takeoff, low level missile attacks happen so fast, by the time the alarms go off, you've got a missile up your tail section. Therefore this will be an upgrade to deal with those problems. But even then I question their effectiveness. Typical intercept times are less than 3 seconds from launch to impact when firing on a low flying aircraft in its takeoff or landing cycle. That's not a whole heck of a lot of time for anything to react, including automated systems.
- dewyjuhl, on 01/05/2008, -1/+42its about damn time.
Last time I took a flight to denver to see my collage buddy we had missiles fired at our plane like 4 times. - jamesalfaro, on 01/05/2008, -3/+41"The device works with sensors, also mounted on the plane, that detect a heat-seeking missile and shoot a laser at it to send the missile veering harmlessly off course."
That sounds kinda badass. - barnis, on 01/05/2008, -13/+46this is the biggest waste of money ever...how about a few strategic guard rails or some new bridges?? or health care... or schools...or pretty muc ANY OTHER domestic project (the doesnt have security or homeland in the name
- DeskFlyer, on 01/05/2008, -13/+40This is retarded. You figure out why.
- Fracture98, on 01/05/2008, -2/+25But the anti-polar bear attack measures they currently employ have been an unqualified success. Not a single attack.
- crzdmn, on 01/05/2008, -4/+23So umm... anyone else wondering the last time someone managed to stand at the edge of the tarmac with a shoulder launched heat seeking missile in the US?
- gm33, on 01/05/2008, -0/+19FTA: "Keirstead says the systems could be installed for somewhere from $500,000 to $1 million per plane.." Great so now along with the "9/11 Security Fee" and the "Fuel Surcharge" we'll get a $300 per ticket "Anti-Missile Countermeasures Fee"...
- m3n0ch, on 01/05/2008, -0/+18No kidding, pass the bong my friend. There is no such device on a US airline passenger jet until now. I'm sure the airlines would certainly install countermeasures and radar systems capable of detection when it a. costs money, b. causes additional weight, c. requires pilot training.
All these things cost money, for which most airlines refuse to spend unless directed by a F.A.R. They even fought EDS units in airports as it takes away lobby space...
Why would I know? I trained commercial pilots at a major airlines training center. - salivalnz, on 01/05/2008, -0/+17$500k to $1m per plane???
How much money would the companies that make these devices earn if this became a legal requirement for planes flying into or around the United States? That's billions of dollars in revenue right there.
A good reason to lobby someone, if you ask me. - BK88, on 01/05/2008, -2/+19I went to this course while still in the Air Force:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2005/artic ...
Most of the classes presented classified info on how well our systems worked and how to use them to there full effectiveness with the other capabilties of the airplane. So I learned how to use a C-130 to defeat enemy missles with these systems. I even taught classes in my squadron on the subject.
Flew with these onboard
ALR-69 Radar Warning Receiver http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alr ...
AAR-40 Missile Appraoch Warning Receiver http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-aar ...
ALE-44 Counter Measure Dispenser System http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-ale ... - DDDavinnn, on 01/05/2008, -0/+17Although BK88's reply was a little out of sorts, he's right (at least about commercial airliners). As an airline pilot in the US, I can tell you that we have ZERO countermeasures on board our civilian jets. I have no idea where roguedragon gets his info. Maybe from the movie Air Force One?
- detree, on 01/05/2008, -6/+22Here's a crazy idea, how about the US government stops sending troops to murder muslims in the middle east then perhaps "terrorists" won't want to come to the US and blow up our planes.
- Mononuclear, on 01/05/2008, -0/+13you have a collage buddy? I used to make collages with a friend in 1st grade but I never considered him my collage buddy. Those weren't missiles being fired at your plane, just inner-city Denver kids shooting their 9's. You know Englewood, CO wants to get as much street cred as Inglewood, CA
- acrodev, on 01/05/2008, -0/+12Actually, from the most recent test of the TSA, all of the test bombs made it on board. So it's not like we're addressing that issue with anti-missile technology.
- DarthDubbya, on 01/05/2008, -0/+12Flight 713, do not fire unless fired upon, over.
- inactive, on 01/05/2008, -0/+11Can you cite a report where any production commercial aircraft has had missile detection systems installed? Please provide aircraft model as well. Last I checked, companies refrained from installing them due to the prohibitive costs ($2 million+ per aircraft), even after successful tests. I know for certain that no Boeing aircraft incorporate them in their standard configurations (nor does Boeing offer them as options). I worked there.
Can you provide info saying that airlines have retrofit their aircraft with missile detection systems? I would be _VERY_ interested, as this runs counter to every bit of news on this subject I've read. It would be very strange considering the state of airline industry; they're not exactly operating at peak profit these days and don't have much money to spare on equipment whose benefit is still being debated.
BK88 above is right, even though he sounds a bit excited. Please digg him up. - mdollarsign, on 01/05/2008, -0/+11Culture Of Fear
- liftedmedia, on 01/05/2008, -4/+13Good to see terrorism working and being prevented at the same time.
- spyd3rweb, on 01/05/2008, -3/+12Does this anti-missile device prevent the military from stopping another 9/11?
- rickspencer, on 01/05/2008, -1/+10Ladies and Gentleman, you'll notice the beautiful Grand Canyon out of your left window, and for those of you on the right, American Airlines flight 555 to Albuquerque. We'll be engaging them shortly with 2 to 4 Sidewinder missiles. You might want to set your tray tables to upright position, buckle up and prepare for some evasive maneuvering. Thank you. Flight Attendant Jones, please attend the tail gun.
- j.carcinogen, on 01/05/2008, -0/+9The Dept. of Homeland Security (which just adds to a bloated bureaucracy) went ahead and did this before getting the funding. This is a so called conservative administration? Absurd.
- Fracture98, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8He dodged our Taser! That means he's armed! Quick, shoot him!
- noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -1/+9They are not armed.
- JusticeAK, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8it's only for your safety
- garbanzo, on 01/05/2008, -1/+9It's for SAFETY! You can't question the profit on our children's safety! Whatever corporation wins the no-bid contract deserves the privilege of protecting us from all those stinger missiles we gave to afghan rebels. We must support our corporate lasers to protect us from the terrorists.
- Hananda, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8"Whats next".
Besides, he was clearly joking. - akatherder, on 01/05/2008, -0/+7The air marshals and ninjas are in place. What ninjas? Exactly.
- h4mx0r, on 01/05/2008, -1/+8Road Rage? Bah, how about Air Rage?
- slundal, on 01/05/2008, -1/+8How can a missle "veer" harmlessly off course when fired att a jet just taking off fom a crowded airport in a large city?
- Ramble, on 01/05/2008, -0/+7yea, you've said too much, that too much is described in the article.
- CloseTheCode, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6Considering that passenger jets aren't dodging missiles right left and centre, isn't this all a bit pointless?
- camiloteram, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6I think some one just "found" a shoulder fired missile launcher. No ammo though
- truspect0r, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7I bet they listened to Giuliani.
- richgustavson, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6It's about time we have passenger jets with "frickin laser beams" attached to them.
- PhrosTT, on 01/05/2008, -3/+9the whole dog and pony show that takes place at airports is ***** retarded. does forcing everybody to remove their shoes really make any flight safer?
this is just another instance of ***** designed to make us think terrorism is actually a daily threat to our existence.
thanks for wasting my money government! - akatherder, on 01/05/2008, -1/+7Let's just treat the symptoms and let our kids worry about a cure.
- Typhoon2009, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6It is. Go to Wikipedia and look up "laser". That pic of the blue laser at the top with the USAF guy there... there's an entire department of the Air Force dedicated to laser weaponry / defense research. Ion Cannon anyone?
- BK88, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6Sorry, just was y area of expertise while I was stil in the USAF. Read the reply to the reply.... how heck here is the sources.
I went to this course while still in the Air Force:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2005/artic ...
Most of the classes presented classified info on how well our systems worked and how to use them to there full effectiveness with the other capabilties of the airplane.
Flew with these onboard
ALR-69 Radar Warning Receiver http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alr ...
AAR-40 Missile Appraoch Warning Receiver http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-aar ...
ALE-44 Counter Measure Dispenser System http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-ale ... - noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5What airline company do you own?
- morpheus69, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5How stupid do you have to be to believe that we can AFFORD to defend against every possible attack imaginable? This is what the terrorists want. They want us to be so terrified of them that we borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese to pay for useless systems that defend against specific "movie plot" scenarios, and eventually bankrupt the country. So what if we install these systems, the terrorists could just bomb a movie theater or drive trucks into buildings or just open fire with assault weapons on crowded street corners. You can't protect against every threat. When the cost is reasonable and the threat high, we should spend the money (like reinforced cockpit doors). Anti-missile systems? Give me a break.
- crzdmn, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5My safety? When the hell has a single plane within the continental US had a f'in missile shot at it by "terrorists"?
I can see it now... Hey mommy, daddy! look at that man by the tarmac with that big thing pointed at the planes. Are you ***** kidding me??? Seriously why don't you just go dig a hole and live their "for your safety". - inactive, on 01/05/2008, -1/+6Also, no airliner has the agility to evade a guided missile without countermeasures (chaff, flares, laser etc.).
Successfully attacking an airliner (unless the attacker has his face pressed up against it) with an unguided missile (as in Black Hawk Down with slow, low flying helos) is virtually impossible. These things don't have lifting surfaces and aren't in trimmed flight, so they have arced trajectories. They also decelerate due to drag for most of the flight, since the rocket motor generally burns out very shortly (and the missile cruises on momentum for the majority of its flight), making aim leading very hard. It'd be like trying to throw a football and have its *tip* hit a bird flying a few hundred yards away. - greekgod8591, on 01/05/2008, -2/+7This is ridiculous think about how many commercial airliners there are in the U.S. Is it really worth x billions of dollars to guard against the threat of one of them being shot down. All this proves is the terrorists are winning, we are afraid of them enough to think we have to spend x billions of dollars protecting ourselves against this threat. The reality of the situation is that if they want to attack us they're going to attack us one way or another, it's impossible to defend every possible vulnerability. They're goal is to make us fear them, fear them so much we sacrifice money, manpower, and freedom due to them. Franklin once said, "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," and I believe it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 263 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is