The Main item on today’s BBC One O’Clock News was about BA possibly fitting anti-missile systems to it’s aircraft, at a cost of aprox. $1Million per aircraft.
British Airways is considering fitting anti-missile systems to its aircraft to protect against possible terrorist attacks.
The airline is in talks with aerospace firms, but said it was still “early days” for the project.BA also announced on Friday that flights to Saudi Arabia will resume on Saturday, following a review of security at Riyadh and Jeddah airports.
Its flights to the country were suspended on 13 August due to security fears.
‘Terrorist risk’
Confirming its interest in anti-missile systems, a BA spokeswoman said: “We are currently talking to manufacturers to understand the feasibility of deploying anti-missile systems on civilian aircraft.”
But she added: “Where there is a terrorist risk, we believe the most effective preventative is for the relevant authority to identify any likely launch site near airports.”
Fears of attacks on passenger airlines using surface-to-air (Sam) missiles have increased in recent months.
Briton Hemant Lakhani was arrested in the US last month on charges of trying to sell a portable missile to an FBI agent posing as a member of al-Qaeda.
And last year a shoulder-launched rocket was fired at an Israeli passenger jet over Kenya, narrowly missing the plane.
UK flights to Kenya were suspended in May because of the threat of terrorist attack and only fully resumed on Thursday.
Following the suspension of flights to Saudi Arabia last month, a truckload of smuggled Sam missiles was seized by police in the country on Thursday.
Flares and lasers
Analysts say the main obstacle to putting anti-missile systems on commercial aircraft is the cost and that there are limits to how well airliners that fly slow and unarmed can be protected.
Israel’s national carrier, El Al, already has protection systems and all other commercial carriers in the country are set to follow suit.
Missiles can be deflected by scattering “chaff” – fine filaments of aluminium – to confuse missiles which seek electromagnetic signals given out by a plane.
For protection against heat-seeking missiles, lighted flares can be dropped by an aircraft to draw off the incoming weapon.
Lasers can also be used as a more costly, but safer, alternative.
Missiles could be detected by means of a sensor on the fuselage, which would scan for approaching rockets and automatically trigger the defence system.
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th September 2003 at 05:23
The real problems are finding out which systems will be more trouble than they are worth… remember that if safety was really the only concern every passenger would have an ejection seat and rubber boat… of course the direct cost and hidden cost of extra weight and maintainence just means it isn’t going to happen.
Equally, how many fires started by flares, or blinded aircraft enthusiasts will it take before insurance companies star raking in serious money for every anti MANPADS system used.
None of the CMs mentioned would stop a laser beam riding missile, or wire guided anti tank missile.
By: batbay - 6th September 2003 at 20:46
Just like Russian Cruise liners used to have very large stern doors – just about big enough to disembark T72 tanks:p
By: mmitch - 6th September 2003 at 19:44
Some years ago I used to see Il 76 aircraft at Manston with a glazed dome under the tail. I used to joke that it was a sun lounge for off duty crew! What it really was of course, a rear gunners position.
Some Aeroflot planes were fitted out for use in war and the fitting of (twin cannons?) was a simple defensive measure. The 747 at least has the APU exhaust in the way there. Pity 🙂
mmitch.
By: Ren Frew - 5th September 2003 at 21:13
Originally posted by batbay
Possibly a good PR press release, but pie in the sky.
Detection of missiles? And what about the proximity of aircraft movements at Heathrow for instance. Will the detection system be able to differentiate? I dont think so. “El Al already has a system installed”. Really?
I’m afraid that this risk is very real – it was real back in the 1970’s at Belfast, but there is no practical defence in the real world.
I agree, all it would take is one hit or near hit and people will stop flying anyway. The risk is real and but for the grace of god and counter terrorism it hasn’t happened yet. Personally I’d spend the money stopping arms falling into the wrong hands.
By: batbay - 5th September 2003 at 19:29
Possibly a good PR press release, but pie in the sky.
Detection of missiles? And what about the proximity of aircraft movements at Heathrow for instance. Will the detection system be able to differentiate? I dont think so. “El Al already has a system installed”. Really?
I’m afraid that this risk is very real – it was real back in the 1970’s at Belfast, but there is no practical defence in the real world.
By: kev35 - 5th September 2003 at 18:59
Interesting. But how many aircraft would be fitted with some kind of defensive system? If you’re talking of the whole fleet the cost would be astronomical. You can guarantee that the British Airways board wouldn’t take a pay cut to implement such measures so the cost would be met by the passenger.
“But she added: “Where there is a terrorist risk, we believe the most effective preventative is for the relevant authority to identify any likely launch site near airports.” “
For me that is the most worrying statement. How could you protect Heathrow from such an attack? A terrorist would ensure they have escape and evasion routes in place. Residential areas under Heathrow’s flightpath are like rabbit warrens and would be easy to ‘disappear’ into. A fanatical terrorist would have no regard for their own safety and would probably take greater risks to achieve their aim.
“……..any likely launch site near airports.”
Yet another opportunity to marginalise the spotter or the photographer. Myrtle Avenue is an excellent case in point. How long for that area is closed to spotters?
Regards,
kev35
By: Saab 2000 - 5th September 2003 at 18:27
An attack on an aircraft and terrorism is obviously a serious threat to British Airways and airlines in general. BA must be extremely concerned to be considering such measures in the end. While there has been no success in bringing an aircraft down, the threat is there with flights suspended to Kenya and Saudi Arabia and a failed attack on the Arkia aircraft as examples. Therefore I think if the system is proven to work then it is definitely worth considering countermeasures to protect aircraft.
By: KabirT - 5th September 2003 at 16:31
hmmm…..good or over-reacting?
Sign In
September 5, 2003 at 4:08 pm