Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System  
User currently offlineGreg3322 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 205 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8472 times:

Looks like it is flying.

http://kfwb.com/pages/185179.php?contentType=4&contentId=290412


Greg

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN685FE From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8347 times:

C-ManPADS is confidential information that is under the Homeland Security. That is all I can say about it.


psp. lead by example
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8268 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8039 times:

Quoting N685FE (Reply 1):
C-ManPADS is confidential information that is under the Homeland Security. That is all I can say about it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here?

It's about time US airlines invested in some countermeasures. The Israelis have been doing it for some time with a great deal of success. Now if we could track the missile and the guy who fires it and then shoot back, that'd be wicked cool... but that's just wishful thinking.  wink 



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinePlanenutzTB From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8023 times:

Quoting N685FE (Reply 1):
C-ManPADS is confidential information that is under the Homeland Security. That is all I can say about it.

WTF? There is allready a PR from FedEx regarding this system being depolyed on the first US flight today. How can this be a secret?



I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
User currently offlineJcf5002 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7788 times:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/16/a....ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Another link

-Jeff



Its always a sunny day above the clouds || CSEL, CMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
User currently offlineZvocio79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7714 times:

Quoting N685FE (Reply 1):

Good try, but the imformation wouldnt be available if it was that sensitive.


User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7628 times:

I was wondering what had happened to this project. I'll be interesting to see who, if anyone, orders the systems should they prove to viable. I'm guessing that airlines that elect to install the system could one day have a competitive advantage over those decide against it (from a pax's safety perspective).


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7586 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777fan (Reply 6):
airlines that elect to install the system

AA has been testing a system on a 767 over the Pacific and Mojave for a few months now.

If they decide to go with it maybe we'll see them back in Africa and Middle East sooner than later!  yes   airplane 


User currently offlineWarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 707 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7538 times:

I personally can not see the US domestic airlines adopting such a system without Federal funding.

1) Added weight of the system = added fuel burn = added cost = higher CASM.

2) What are the odds of this ever occuring? Very Very Very Low probability for all US based airlines. Unless AA, DL, B6, etc... want to fly to Tehran.

3) IF this did occur, how quickly would they be spotted from the ground? Unless they did this at DEN or some other airport which is far away from populated areas. Imagine a shoulder-fired missle fired from ORD? The police chase the spotters away in 5 minutes.

4) All the discussion here on A.net would conclude that adding AVOD as IFE, bringing back meal service in Y, and adding the Boeing Signature interior to older 767's would be a higher priority.


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7497 times:

5) Does a cargo plane represent a desireable target for a terrorist? Is it boxes that they hate, or is it humans?


Even though the anti-missile system doesn't really work, all that is needed is to present the illusion that something is being done about terrorism in order to pacify the public.


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7342 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 9):
Even though the anti-missile system doesn't really work, all that is needed is to present the illusion that something is being done about terrorism in order to pacify the public.

REALLY? Have you told Fedex this? I'm sure they may want to hear this great wisdom you have that they don't. Please give them a call. We already have the update bulletin in the CFM so I'll just trash it. Thanks.


User currently offlineGhostRider From Pakistan, joined May 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7325 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 10):
Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 9):
Even though the anti-missile system doesn't really work, all that is needed is to present the illusion that something is being done about terrorism in order to pacify the public.

REALLY? Have you told Fedex this? I'm sure they may want to hear this great wisdom you have that they don't. Please give them a call. We already have the update bulletin in the CFM so I'll just trash it. Thanks.

Now now, I'm sure he's personally tested this system extensively, otherwise he would have no room to say anything about the functionality......

I would guess that Fedex being one of the largest cargo transporters in the world flies to some "higher risk" cities than most pax airlines, so this would definitely warrant utilizing a system like this...I applaud Fedex on their forward thinking!


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7225 times:

I don't need to test it, the article was enough to confirm it's smoke-n-mirrors operation. The article mentioned a "laser" which is harmless to the human eye (according to the article)...yet it can penetrate a warhead nosecone (opaque) with enough energy to scramble it's guidance? This would be completely ineffective against radar guided missiles and infrared as well. Perhaps a laser guided missile could be fooled IF the tail equipped laser on the MD-10 focussed it's beam on the "shooter's eyes (causing them to have difficulty keeping the target illuminated) instead of the missile's nosecone....ahhh but then again the laser is harmless to the human eye.

Laser guided missiles follow the diffuse laser beam reflection off the target, provided by someone on the ground (the shooter or a spotter). Illuminating the nosecone with a laser defense system mounted >ON< the target, only provides an additional homing beacon for the missile to follow.

Missile countermeasures have been tested for decades on fighter jets, and even though what is mounted on advanced military hardware is the best of the best, fighter pilots still must very aggressively manuever to avoid getting hit. Aggressive manuevering is not something an airliner is known for.


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
I don't need to test it, the article was enough to confirm it's smoke-n-mirrors operation

Not to belabor this silly discussion BUT Fedex has participated for the last year or so with the development of this program and probably have a tiny bit more info than you and your article. Knowing their decision process for the last 20+ years I can say they always look ahead and use the best people available before making a decision that will be this costly. And as I said I sure don't want the co. to squander a pile of dough on some white elephant so please give'em a call and save us some money. Try MD-11/MD-10 flight test dept.


User currently offlineJBClark From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7015 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 9):
5) Does a cargo plane represent a desireable target for a terrorist? Is it boxes that they hate, or is it humans?

It seems as though they hate commerce and the exportation of American influence as well. There's a reason they chose the World Trade Center rather than a sold-out Giants Stadium or something like that. 70,000 people in Giants Stadium would have killed more PEOPLE, but the symbolic nature of the World Trade Center representing the "center of World Trade" was apparently as appealing as a shockingly high death toll.


User currently offlineFLY2LIM From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1184 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6910 times:

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 8):
I personally can not see the US domestic airlines adopting such a system without Federal funding.

1) Added weight of the system = added fuel burn = added cost = higher CASM.

2) What are the odds of this ever occuring? Very Very Very Low probability for all US based airlines. Unless AA, DL, B6, etc... want to fly to Tehran.

3) IF this did occur, how quickly would they be spotted from the ground? Unless they did this at DEN or some other airport which is far away from populated areas. Imagine a shoulder-fired missle fired from ORD? The police chase the spotters away in 5 minutes.

4) All the discussion here on A.net would conclude that adding AVOD as IFE, bringing back meal service in Y, and adding the Boeing Signature interior to older 767's would be a higher priority.

1) How about added amounts of people who are safe?

2) I'll totally borrow from other people on a.net. Six years ago, I'm sure we all would have doubted the odds of a hijacked plane hitting a building in New York and causing mayhem and destruction.

3) I don't want to sound like I've been thinking this for too long, because I have not. However, I know that the approach into SJC takes place mostly over the city, and there are hundreds or thousands of spots where someone could park, load up, and fire a surface to air missile at a plane, and probably elude police. I'm sure this can be said about many other airports.

4) I believe that safety is a higher priority over an older aircraft's interior.

My opinions.

FLY2LIM



Faucett. La primera linea aerea del Peru.
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 9):
5) Does a cargo plane represent a desireable target for a terrorist? Is it boxes that they hate, or is it humans?

It's the oil cans.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Speedbird999



M


User currently offlineAA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6723 times:

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 8):
2) What are the odds of this ever occurring? Very Very Very Low probability for all US based airlines. Unless AA, DL, B6, etc... want to fly to Tehran.

Perhaps we will see airlines installing these systems on their overseas a/c. While the odds of a missile attack seem unlikely, (unless you are a TWA 741, for those who believe that sort of thing  Wink j/k) we might see airlines use them just on the flights were they are not flying over guarded American soil.

Just a thought.



Sic 'em bears
User currently offlineAviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6606 times:

The following is from this article:
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/09/29/askthepilot203/

<< These compact, lightweight, and easily concealable weapons -- known alternately as shoulder-fired missiles or “MANPADS” (Man-Portable Air Defense Systems) -- have been a danger for decades, but since September 11th they’ve become the focus of intensifying worry. Most common are the Russian-made Strela and U.S.-manufactured Stinger. Tens of thousands of these and other models are believed to be available via black markets around the world.

The good news is that a degree of myth surrounds their efficacy. They are notoriously inaccurate, especially in the hands of untrained criminals, and even a direct hit doesn’t guarantee destruction. In 2003, an Airbus A300 operated by cargo carrier DHL (narrowly) escaped disaster in the skies over Baghdad after being hit in the left wing by a 23 pound Strela-3. A year earlier, two missiles were fired at an Israeli 757 packed with vacationers on takeoff from Mombasa, Kenya. Both missed.

Still, portable missiles are potentially very lethal, as various shoot-downs in the past -- mostly in Africa, involving guerillas targeting government or military planes -- have proven. I hate to say it, but with so many of these devices in so many countries, it’s possibly just a matter of time before a commercial airliner is destroyed. Smart money says an attack would almost surely take place outside the United States -- in one or more nations where these weapons are more easily available and their movements harder to detect.

The best way to avoid a catastrophe, obviously, is to prevent strikes from ever happening -- or at least reduce their likelihood. To this end, there has been talk of outfitting all commercial airliners with anti-missile systems. The technology exists; aircraft-mounted units use multi-band lasers to foil a missile’s infrared heat sensors. This seems like a workable solution, until one beholds the industry-wide cost of such a program, estimated in the tens of billions of dollars.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has partnered with Northrop Grumman and Federal Express in a $109 million feasibility study to determine if missile defense can be made cost-effective. FedEx is outfitting 11 of its widebody freighters with a bathtub-sized system called the Guardian. The Guardian’s maker, Northrup-Grumman, says the technology can be mass marketed to airlines with a pass-along cost to the passenger as low as .003 cents per seat-mile. Many experts, however, scoff at this claim.

The rocket threat might be one of those cases where the best defense is a proactive offense. Instead of shielding aircraft, we could concentrate on keeping missiles out of the wrong hands. Maybe that’s naïve, but if we accept that the goal of terrorism is to inspire panic and bad behavior, we risk granting the enemy exactly what it wishes, giving untold billions to vendors of elaborate technology instead of spending it more wisely. On the other hand, the socioeconomic impact of a large-scale civilian shoot-down would itself be colossal. >>

PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 3386 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6444 times:

Paranoia is a "fun" thing

To be honest I don't see the point unless you are flying into Baghdad or some other s**t hole. The chances that some one are gonne shoot down the plane is just too small that it is worth investing a dime in anti-missile systems


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6384 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
I don't need to test it, the article was enough to confirm it's smoke-n-mirrors operation. The article mentioned a "laser" which is harmless to the human eye (according to the article)...yet it can penetrate a warhead nosecone (opaque) with enough energy to scramble it's guidance? This would be completely ineffective against radar guided missiles and infrared as well. Perhaps a laser guided missile could be fooled IF the tail equipped laser on the MD-10 focussed it's beam on the "shooter's eyes (causing them to have difficulty keeping the target illuminated) instead of the missile's nosecone....ahhh but then again the laser is harmless to the human eye.

Laser guided missiles follow the diffuse laser beam reflection off the target, provided by someone on the ground (the shooter or a spotter). Illuminating the nosecone with a laser defense system mounted >ON< the target, only provides an additional homing beacon for the missile to follow.

Missile countermeasures have been tested for decades on fighter jets, and even though what is mounted on advanced military hardware is the best of the best, fighter pilots still must very aggressively manuever to avoid getting hit. Aggressive manuevering is not something an airliner is known for.

 rotfl 

Jeebus Christ, that's all we needed... an archairm weapons expert.

Good lord.

Look up the black hole system, then get back to us with your superior knowledge about how lasers can't defeat a ManPAD.

You're dismissed cadet.

Oh, Radar guided ManPAD?  rotfl  That's classic.

Here's a hint, opaque missile seeker heads... they aren't opaque in all wavelengths.. nor is your eye sensative to all wavelengths.


User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6191 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 9):
5) Does a cargo plane represent a desireable target for a terrorist? Is it boxes that they hate, or is it humans?

DHL found out the hard way that the answer to that question is yes.

http://coppermine.luchtzak.be/thumbnails.php?album=36


User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5848 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
I don't need to test it, the article was enough to confirm it's smoke-n-mirrors operation. The article mentioned a "laser" which is harmless to the human eye (according to the article)...yet it can penetrate a warhead nosecone (opaque) with enough energy to scramble it's guidance? This would be completely ineffective against radar guided missiles and infrared as well. ....

Ever heard of infrared lasers?

There is quite a bit of info available on the counter-ManPADS program, which is looking at a number of technologies. These include various missile-warning systems and countermeasures (both active and passive). Multi-band and infrared active laser countermeasures are just one part of a package of solutions, which are in various stages of development.

I'm in no position to say how effective or in-effective these systems may be, but all of the required technologies exist for military application, which are acknowledged by the program to require varying levels of modification for commercial aviation use.


User currently offlineDomokun From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5758 times:

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 19):
Paranoia is a "fun" thing

To be honest I don't see the point unless you are flying into Baghdad or some other s**t hole. The chances that some one are gonne shoot down the plane is just too small that it is worth investing a dime in anti-missile systems

This is not exactly how I would have said it; however, it is a fair point. Attention will focus on the greatest "known" risk. At this point people are concerned with airplanes and buildings (power plants, etc...). I am very sure if you saw a suicide bombing in the US or some other act, we would start getting paranoid about those possibilities as well. The simple fact is you cannot protect against all vectors of attack. That is, of course, unless you lock yourself down inside of an American fortress. Conceivably the modern suburbia is getting closer and closer with each iteration. Then again, who caused more food-borne illness this last year – terrorists (big worry) or simple farming mistakes (e-coli anyone)?

By the way, if we think about places as s**t holes and treat them as such, chances are they will end up living to the name.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 9):
5) Does a cargo plane represent a desireable target for a terrorist? Is it boxes that they hate, or is it humans?

I would doubt the majority of people, terrorist or not, could tell from the ground. Hell, even the US Military with all its high-tech electronics cannot tell an Iranian F-14 apart from an A300.

Quoting Aviateur (Reply 18):
The Guardian’s maker, Northrup-Grumman, says the technology can be mass marketed to airlines with a pass-along cost to the passenger as low as .003 cents per seat-mile. Many experts, however, scoff at this claim.

IIRC the system, according to one of the articles, was notably over cost at this point.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9637 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5443 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 12):
I don't need to test it, the article was enough to confirm it's smoke-n-mirrors operation. The article mentioned a "laser" which is harmless to the human eye (according to the article)...yet it can penetrate a warhead nosecone (opaque) with enough energy to scramble it's guidance? This would be completely ineffective against radar guided missiles and infrared as well. Perhaps a laser guided missile could be fooled IF the tail equipped laser on the MD-10 focussed it's beam on the "shooter's eyes (causing them to have difficulty keeping the target illuminated) instead of the missile's nosecone....ahhh but then again the laser is harmless to the human eye.

While harmless to the human eye seems like an extravagant claim, I think it is still possible to have a laser that could have an effect. I don't claim to be all knowing since I'm a mechanical engineer and therefore only have limited knowledge of lasers, but there are some specific missles that are being targeted. There are only a few out there that terrorists could get their hands on. These are known and therefore a certain laser with a given frequency could be targeted for these specific missles that could disable them. There are lasers that are completely harmless to the eye. The type of infrared light used in a remote control for your television is basically harmless to your eye but can have a very strong effect on something that is set at the frequency to detect it. If a laser is shot at a missile looking for a specific frequency, then it could disable the tracking device.

Lasers can do some pretty crazy things that are not intuitive at all. To take an example. Put a remote control car in a large metal pot. If there is no lid, then the car will move in the pot if you move the controls. If you put the lid on the pot then the car won't move. But to make things confusing, if you put a rubber liner along the rim of the lid so that the seal is between rubber and metal, then suddenly your remote control car will work within the sealed pot. I know that is a trivial example, but penetrating a nose cone and disabling a missile is not impossible.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
25 AirSpare : The nose cone would not be the part of the missile targeted, it would be the thin walled skin surrounding the fuel tanks.
26 Trex8 : lasers on these systems work by blinding IR guided weapons seekers, this is easier for the older (and far more prevalent in the terrorist world) syste
27 Icebird757 : There was a Fed Ex MD-11 and MD-10 that have done missed approaches last year at LGB that had that on the bottom of them.
28 Post contains images FXramper : Here is the pic of the A.M.S on the MD10 guys. I can't give the tail number out on the bird.
29 RoseFlyer : Ok. I didn't realize where the guidance system of a missle is. I've never worked on missiles myself although I did work for a company that did.
30 MD80fanatic : Yes, I understand that thoroughly (as I argued and agreed with this point in the cell phone/avionics interference thread.) What prevents a "terrorist
31 MDorBust : Oh lord. 1) Any coating that would block interferance on the seeker heads search wavelength would also block any useful information the seeker head w
32 Robsawatsky : Amen. Would be helpful if more people would do that before posting rather than after posting theories and explanations about things in which they cle
33 Squad55 : How do they do a simulated missle fire? When testing?
34 Ikramerica : Some of the systems being tested are 400 pounds, and I would assume, like all technology, that by the time it starts getting put on a large number of
35 Md80fanatic : Okay then, put this in your pipe and smoke it. What can this glorious anti-missile device do about: 1) Unguided missiles 2) Multiple incoming missiles
36 MDorBust : Nothing Then again, hitting an aircraft with an RPG isn't exactly an easy proposition. Unless you happen to be fast roping a chalk. Flash their seeke
37 Trex8 : but an ATGW in the approach to an airport could be just as much trouble. One day a fiber optic guided system like the German Polyphem which is being
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FedEx MD-10 Incident At MEM posted Fri Jul 28 2006 18:48:21 by Contrails
Northwest & Fedex To Test Anti-Missile System posted Sat Jan 29 2005 19:55:58 by KarlB737
Anti-Missle System On Aircraft posted Thu Nov 25 2004 12:13:07 by Scotron11
Fedex MD-10 posted Sat Nov 6 2004 08:23:46 by Ktachiya
Cause Of The FedEx MD-10 Crash @ MEM posted Mon May 3 2004 04:00:29 by Airlinelover
FedEx MD-10 Pilots posted Sat Dec 20 2003 22:26:32 by CBPhoto
How Long Can FedEx Use It's DC/MD-10/11 Fleet posted Wed Feb 8 2006 02:10:45 by Flywithjohn
FedEx DC-10/MD-11 Routes posted Wed Jan 10 2001 02:23:24 by FLY777UAL
Fedex And Their MD-10(s) posted Tue Jul 25 2000 17:41:43 by Rightflyer
Difference Between MD-10-10(F) & MD-10-30(F) posted Sun Dec 10 2006 16:51:57 by ElmoTheHobo