greg3322
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:35 pm

FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:01 am

 
n685fe
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:01 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:44 am

C-ManPADS is confidential information that is under the Homeland Security. That is all I can say about it.
psp. lead by example
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:16 am

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
 
PlanenutzTB
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:29 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:21 am

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.
 
jcf5002
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:41 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:06 pm

Its always a sunny day above the clouds || CSEL, CMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
 
zvocio79
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:33 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:43 pm

Quoting N685FE (Reply 1):

Good try, but the imformation wouldnt be available if it was that sensitive.
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:45 pm

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 avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:06 pm

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 
 
warreng24
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:32 pm

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.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:14 pm

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.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:22 pm

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.
 
GHOSTRIDER
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 5:29 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:31 pm

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!
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:45 pm

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.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:13 pm

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.
 
JBClark
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:12 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:58 am

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.
 
FLY2LIM
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:01 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:35 am

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.
 
ChiGB1973
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:39 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:13 am

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 avatar
AA777223
Posts: 970
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:13 am

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.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
aviateur
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:25 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:19 am

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
 
Someone83
Posts: 2901
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:26 am

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
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:30 am

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.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
airfoilsguy
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:28 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:43 am

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
It's not a near miss it's a near hit!!
 
robsawatsky
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:07 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:07 am

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.
 
domokun
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:46 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:13 am

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.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:36 am

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!
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:03 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 24):
I know that is a trivial example, but penetrating a nose cone and disabling a missile is not impossible.

The nose cone would not be the part of the missile targeted, it would be the thin walled skin surrounding the fuel tanks.
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
trex8
Posts: 4578
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:14 am

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) systems which were non imaging but still can be done to blind modern imaging seekers, They do not rupture warheads, fuel tanks etc etc. not easily anyway for solid fuel rockets anyway.
which is why the Airborne Laser for missile defense is really only useful for liquid fueled weapons of the like that the N Koreans and Iranians may have and will be less to non effective against solid fuelled strategic missiles like the Russians have and the Chinese increasingly. Why? Because its easier to heat and rupture a pressurized object than one which isn't even if both have noxious potentially explosive compounds in them.
Thank God the Brits don't sell their manpads willy nilly to everyone out there because Starstreak is close to unjammable by anything.There may be a few Blowpipes out there still though (thanks Ronnie!) but you have to be pretty well trained to use those as they are essentially manual command to line of sight and not a fire and forget system
 
icebird757
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:33 am

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.
LGB....where you can watch the grass grow because the traffic is so slow.
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:01 am

Here is the pic of the A.M.S on the MD10 guys.

I can't give the tail number out on the bird.  no 

 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:46 pm

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 25):
The nose cone would not be the part of the missile targeted, it would be the thin walled skin surrounding the fuel tanks.

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.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:34 pm

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 20):
Here's a hint, opaque missile seeker heads... they aren't opaque in all wavelengths.. nor is your eye sensative to all wavelengths.

Yes, I understand that thoroughly (as I argued and agreed with this point in the cell phone/avionics interference thread.) What prevents a "terrorist" from applying a mirror coating to a seeker head. Nothing to stop them at all, and nothing the genuises at Homeland Security and FedEx can do about it. It's all fluff to make you and everyone else think there is some kind of imminent and present danger due to these mannyPADS. Yes, I am familiar with the Baghdad frieghter incident, but that was in a warzone with the freighter's home base country as the prime aggressor.

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 25):
The nose cone would not be the part of the missile targeted, it would be the thin walled skin surrounding the fuel tanks.

By the time the aircraft get's a shot at the missile, the amount of (solid) fuel left inside the missile will be minimal to none. Besides, how difficult is it to maintain a lock on a tiny missile crosssection? Not that hard when the defense system is NOT moving too, but this unit is mounted to the moving target for goodness sake.


The only way to defeat missiles the majority of the time, is to put a spoof in your place (like a flare or chaff) while you get the "F" out of there as fast as you possibly can. Hey, if someone shot one of these tiny missiles at a F-16 on takeoff, the bird would have a most difficult time avoiding it. The missile can go supersonic in just a few seconds and can manuever faster and more effectively than a F-16 during it's early takeoff phase.

If any of you can tell me that ANY airliner can out manuever an F-16 at any point in their respective flight envelopes, then I will stand corrected.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:04 am

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 30):
What prevents a "terrorist" from applying a mirror coating to a seeker head.

Oh lord.

1)

Any coating that would block interferance on the seeker heads search wavelength would also block any useful information the seeker head was looking for on that wavelength.

*experiment at home*

1)Take a picture of any object
2)Put a mirror between you and the object
3)Try to take a second picture

2)

Building and modifying your own manpads isn't an easy task. You can't just superglue things onto the seeker head.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 30):
Besides, how difficult is it to maintain a lock on a tiny missile crosssection?

The point of a laser defense system on an aircraft isn't to destroy the missile, it's to blind the missile. It only needs to flash the seeker head to accomplish this.

*experiment at home*
(warning, this experiment will mess your eyes up bad)
1)get a cheap laser pointer
2)shine it in your eyes
3)profit?

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 30):
The missile can go supersonic in just a few seconds and can manuever faster and more effectively than a F-16 during it's early takeoff phase

We are talking about ManPADs here remember? Not Patriots and SA-12's.

Helicopter avoid ManPADs all the time in Iraq. Drop the flawed F-16 analogy, read up on actual in use IR missile defense systems, then come back to us when you know what you are talking about.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
robsawatsky
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:07 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:49 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 31):
Helicopter avoid ManPADs all the time in Iraq. Drop the flawed F-16 analogy, read up on actual in use IR missile defense systems, then come back to us when you know what you are talking about.

Amen.

Would be helpful if more people would do that before posting rather than after posting theories and explanations about things in which they clearly have no theoretical or practical experience.
 
squad55
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 3:12 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:13 pm

How do they do a simulated missle fire? When testing?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:52 pm

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 airplanes, the weight would come down.

One adult male + max luggage is 250 pounds or so. So the cost of flying the system around is the cost of flying one man around, and since few planes go out with 100% LF, it's not a crippling cost.

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 16):
It's the oil cans.

"We don't have defective cans, we have a defective poys'n!"
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:38 pm

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
3) Wire-guided missiles
3) Ahhh, what's the use?

The list is endless. Countermeasures are designed AFTER the weapons are designed they are supposed to counter. If someone really wanted to take out an airliner with a missile, there is nothing at all anyone can do about it.

So if a combat helo can avoid one of these virtual Estes rockets (as you seem to be describing), what makes you think a lumbering half a million pound airliner flying at V2+10 kts can avoid even one, much less multiple simultaneous missiles? Will the pilot be expected to sit there and hope this "magic box" does it's job? Will the pilot be expected to make a quick manuever which may just bring the whole plane and it's load down upon an unsuspecting public?

Honestly, it'd be much cheaper and infinitely more effective to post 4 - 6 armed guards at the ends of every active runway in the world, 24/7/365.
They could take out anyone with an Estes launcher long before the perp(s) they even think of pulling out the safety key and launching their Big Bertha.

Oh yeah.....but that solution would not make one or more military contractors any money, so that's an idea for the old round file....isn't it?
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:46 am

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 35):
1) Unguided missiles

Nothing

Then again, hitting an aircraft with an RPG isn't exactly an easy proposition. Unless you happen to be fast roping a chalk.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 35):
2) Multiple incoming missiles

Flash their seeker heads.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 35):
3) Wire-guided missiles

A wire guided ManPAD?

Never heard of one.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 35):
So if a combat helo can avoid one of these virtual Estes rockets (as you seem to be describing), what makes you think a lumbering half a million pound airliner flying at V2+10 kts can avoid even one, much less multiple simultaneous missiles?

Because the helicopter usually doesn't take evasive manuvers to avoid the missile. The counter measures sytems on the helicopter cause the missile to break its track and miss.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 35):
Will the pilot be expected to sit there and hope this "magic box" does it's job?

As opposed to the current version which consits of the pilot sitting there an hoping to god the missile misses?

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 35):
Will the pilot be expected to make a quick manuever which may just bring the whole plane and it's load down upon an unsuspecting public?

No he will not.

He may not even know that he has been fired upon.

Quoting Md80fanatic (Reply 35):
Honestly, it'd be much cheaper and infinitely more effective to post 4 - 6 armed guards at the ends of every active runway in the world, 24/7/365.

Are you going to post 4-6 armed guards every couple hundred yards to a length of five to six miles from the end of every active runway in the world?

Do you want snipers in your neighborhood watching every move you make with the authority to kill anyone that looks like they may pose a threat to an aircraft?

You fail, again.

Seriously, before you post again go learn about ManPADs and the currently in use counters for them. Your ignorance is showing, and mommy wrote your name on the waistband.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
trex8
Posts: 4578
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: FedEx MD-10 Anti-Missle System

Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:52 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 36):
A wire guided ManPAD?

Never heard of one.

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 developed for some anti air capability may end up in terrorist hands

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 36):
Are you going to post 4-6 armed guards every couple hundred yards to a length of five to six miles from the end of every active runway in the world?

clearly an impractical solution but using a anti missile laser system like the Israelis have developed, THEL etc, to take out surface-surface rockets may be one way to provide airport defense.