Passenger Aircraft Anti-missile Systems

[Big Guy]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/attacks-spur-debate-on-antimissile-systems-for-passenger-jets-1406228507

Some airlines like El Al have equipped their passenger airplanes with basic anti-missile systems. Most airplanes do not have that capacity at this time. The cost of about $1 million per plane makes it an expensive initiative and passengers would have to cover the costs.

Most airlines argue that they avoid target areas but more and more groups are getting mobile missile systems and they are getting more sophisticated. There are already many missile systems missing from Libya, Syria, Iraq and the old Soviet Union.

Is arming passenger aircraft a good idea or a bad idea?

Would you be prepared to pay more to use an aircraft with an on board anti-missile system?

[Bonam]

I'd like my airliner to have ejection seats for the passengers long before it had an anti-missile system. For every instance of a commercial airliner being shot down by a missile, there are a thousand instances of crashes due to mechanical failure, pilot error, bad weather, etc, in many of which lives could be saved if the passengers could safely bail from the aircraft.

[Guest]

Imagine the fun you could have getting white knuckle flyers to eject prematurely...

[overthere]

Here is something you can count on: any flight on any airline with an anti missile system will have a surcharge.

Pillow: $5

Sandwich: $10

Checked bag: $50

Anti missile defence system: $500

[Big Guy]

Imagine the fun you could have getting white knuckle flyers to eject prematurely...

I understand there are medications that deal with premature ejection.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Big Guy

[On Guard for Thee]

Some of the meals I have been served on planes would make me consider punching out. I'll catch a later flight after lunch.

[GostHacked]

How about avoiding flying over conflict zones? And what if the system fails?

[-TSS-]

Sorry but commercial airliners are totally defenceless against military actions. Similarly as are commercial trains, buses, boats and cars. In this insecure world you just can't guarenteed a 100% safety. 99% will have to do.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think the system EL AL pays about a million a plane for is an attempt to protect against early Manpads. Which is a far cry from the BUK that took down MH17. I agree with TSS on this one, just not feasable to try and protect pax airplanes from this type of threat. Current fighter aircraft have very sophisticated/expensive anti-missile "jamming" systems and they get shot down all the time. Bend the course around the war zone and prepare to pay a bit extra for fuelburn. Much safer and I'm sure a hell of a lot cheaper.

[guyser]

Let em get anti missile systems installed.

Then they will not be able to land anywhere since no one will allow them to.

But then going forward theyll have a perfect record.(of course theyll never fly)

Edited July 28, 2014 by Guyser2

[The_Squid]

How about the world agrees that any nation that shoots down an airliner will have sanctions immediately in effect until such time that they can behave like civilized human beings?

Totally isolate them like was done against South Africa or during the Cold War.

[Bonam]

How about the world agrees that any nation that shoots down an airliner will have sanctions immediately in effect until such time that they can behave like civilized human beings?

Totally isolate them like was done against South Africa or during the Cold War.

So how would that have worked when the US did it?

[The_Squid]

So how would that have worked when the US did it?

We may now have had a big wall at the border?

But if there aren't repercussions, then it will keep happening. The USA shoot down was more a case of incompetence than a deliberate terrorist act.

[TimG]

But if there aren't repercussions, then it will keep happening. The USA shoot down was more a case of incompetence than a deliberate terrorist act.

There is no evidence that the missile operators knew they were shooting down a civilian aircraft. As in the US case it was most likely incompetence.

[ASIP]

There is no evidence that the missile operators knew they were shooting down a civilian aircraft.

Not correct.

There were no any military aircraft in the area. The shot plane in no way resembled a military aircraft and flew among other passengers jets on the dedicated route. The SAM operators must have known they were shooting on a passenger jet.

[bush_cheney2004]

We may now have had a big wall at the border?

But if there aren't repercussions, then it will keep happening. The USA shoot down was more a case of incompetence than a deliberate terrorist act.

It will keep happening anyway. How much of Canada's economy would be sacrificed to demonstrate such "repercussions" ? 1988 was a generation ago for the Aegis combat system, but similar circumstances may still result in the downing of a civilian aircraft.

[TimG]

There were no any military aircraft in the area. The shot plane in no way resembled a military aircraft and flew among other passengers jets on the dedicated route. The SAM operators must have known they were shooting on a passenger jet.

Except terrorism is only effective when terrorists take credit for the destruction. In this case no one is taking credit (on the contrary everyone is blaming everyone else). This makes incompetence the only plausible explanation. Edited July 28, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Except terrorism is only effective when terrorists take credit for the destruction. In this case no one is taking credit (on the contrary everyone is blaming everyone else). This makes incompetence the only plausible explanation.

How would you figure that? You'd have to be a bit stupid to take credit for downing a civilian airliner, whether you did it on purpose or not.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not correct.

There were no any military aircraft in the area. The shot plane in no way resembled a military aircraft and flew among other passengers jets on the dedicated route. The SAM operators must have known they were shooting on a passenger jet.

There were reports of 2 SU 27's in close proximity to the 777. At 33,000 feet you can't determine aircraft type. You can decipher military from civilian xponder codes, if you have had sufficient training to know how to read radar codes.

[TimG]

How would you figure that? You'd have to be a bit stupid to take credit for downing a civilian airliner, whether you did it on purpose or not.

Do you do realize that the objectives of terrorism are to create fear among the civilian population? That is why every real terrorist group will take credit for attacks (e.g. Al Qaeda took credit for the 9/11 attacks). Allowing people to believe a terrorist attack was an accident completely undermines the objectives of terrorism. This is why is is extremely unlikely that this was a deliberate attack on a civilian airliner. It was most likely incompetence. Edited July 29, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

This is why is is extremely unlikely that this was a deliberate attack on a civilian airliner. It was most likely incompetence.

I believe that is what OGFT was saying and has been saying all alone, as many of us were saying. Why would a terrorist group admit to such an incredibly stupid mistake.

[On Guard for Thee]

Various bits of evidence certainly point to a big old goof. But not conclusive. As we know crashing planes and then bragging about it will

A: stir up a lot of fear

B: bring a lot of wrath down on your head

Knockiong down a plane and keeping mum will still instill that fear, but possibly avoid the wrath, at least until solid evidence emerges, which is unlikely in this case.

[ASIP]

Except terrorism is only effective when terrorists take credit for the destruction. In this case no one is taking credit (on the contrary everyone is blaming everyone else). This makes incompetence the only plausible explanation.

You are missing the point. A SAM professional must have identified the plane as a commercial liner.

The goal of downing a passenger plane can be not only pure terrorism. Just a sabotage. And do not forget, the Buk crew was Russian military, they might not care about immediate needs of the separatists. Downing a passenger jet is bad for Ukraine from their point of view.

Actually the separatist have been caught in these actions. They shell residential area, kill civilians in the cities occupied by them. Isn't it terrorism? They don't claim responsibility though as you suggested.

[ASIP]

There were reports of 2 SU 27's in close proximity to the 777. At 33,000 feet you can't determine aircraft type. You can decipher military from civilian xponder codes, if you have had sufficient training to know how to read radar codes.

Reports from who? The only reports I heard were from Russian propaganda (so called Spanish air traffic controller).

Even Russian MoD did not dare to repeat this BS.

[Big Guy]

Looks like Harper is taking this seriously;

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/29/na0730-missile/