# Should passenger jets have missile defenses? (Debate prompted by MH17 tragedy)



## CougarKing (22 Jul 2014)

Mods, could you PLEASE keep this thread separate from the Ukraine instability thread? Putting this update in its own thread might be of more interest to those who want to look at just the aviation aspects.

Isn't it most likely the budget airlines that have routes that go over conflict zones won't be able to afford this?

Washington Post



> *Should passenger jets have missile defense systems?*
> 
> (...EDITED)
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jul 2014)

There are numerous reasons why this is an impractical idea, chiefly:

a. airline pilots are not trained to evade missiles
b. new radars will have to be installed in the aircraft
c. countermeasures will have to be installed in the aircraft
d. airline techs will have to maintain the new radars and countermeasures

That's just for a start.


----------



## medicineman (22 Jul 2014)

I was kind of wondering that if, since 9/11, that might be a little counterintuitive if the need should arise to intentionally shoot down an aircraft that has been possibly hijacked for badness other than a free trip to Cuba or Uganda?

Just a thought for what it's worth.

Mm


----------



## Zoomie (22 Jul 2014)

The Israeli national airline "El Al" has such devices installed on all their planes.  No training required for the pilots, no RADAR to install.

Research LIRCM.  Modern RWR systems have no need for human inputs.  The airplane doesn't even change course.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (22 Jul 2014)

A LIRCM will only protect against Infra-red missiles, so it wouldn't have helped flight MH17, as the SA-11 is a radar guided missile.

A Radar Waring Receiver (RWR) offers no protection at all. It is like the radar detector in your car, it simply alerts the user to the presence of the radar emission. 

edited - spelling


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jul 2014)

As soon as you install the next gen IRCM someone is figuring out the tech for a new IR brain to defeat it, and that is just IR.  I think this would be great but all encompassing systems for each stratotaxi would be $$$$$ and passed on to the consumer.  Would they be willing to absorb the cost?


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Jul 2014)

The view of Tim Clark, President of Emirates Airlines (emphasis mine)
http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/100694/flight-mh17-emirates-calls-for-airline-summit


> Emirates president Tim Clark has called for an international airline conference to discuss how best to respond to last week's Malaysia Airlines disaster.
> 
> Clark said he was "incandescent with rage" when he heard about flight MH17, which was travelling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur and carrying 298 people when it was shot down over Ukraine (see news, July 17).
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (22 Jul 2014)

This isn't just an aircraft in the proximity of war zones issue. 

There has been significant levels of discussion in the US about installing missile defense systems on domestic airliners since 9/11 to counteract the possibility of a terrorist attempt to bring down airliners within the US by surface to air missiles. The rhetoric ratcheted up this week on the punditry networks and within the halls of Congress.

Setting aside the obvious issues as was outline in an earlier post, the cost of adding countermeasures to the domestic fleet by the already cash strapped airlines is a non-starter. And when it was suggested that the government should subsidized or foot the entire bill, well the issues died a quick an painless death. But thanks to new incidents such as this, the issue rises from the dead like the latest zombie flick to take on a new life.


----------



## Zoomie (23 Jul 2014)

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> ... so it wouldn't have helped flight MH17, as the SA-11 is a radar guided missile.


There aren't many military platforms that would be able to defend itself against a successful radar lock on.  A RWR system would at least give SA and maybe give the false hope of letting the crew punch out chaff bundles in their last moments.

El Al uses LIRCM for the short range - on final approach - type of threat.  I don't imagine that any airline has considered the cruise threat while overflying territory.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Jul 2014)

There is just no realistic way of defending an airliner against a threat like an SA-11.  It is just too much missile and you are not going to equip each and every airliner with 10s of millions of dollars worth of sensors, jammers and counter-measure dispensers against a remote event such as this.


----------



## medicineman (23 Jul 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is just no realistic way of defending an airliner against a threat like an SA-11.  It is just too much missile and you are not going to equip each and every airliner with 10s of millions of dollars worth of sensors, jammers and counter-measure dispensers against a remote event such as this.



But imagine the money you coould make "consulting" on a job like this  ;D.

MM


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jul 2014)

I'd be in favour of an 'eye for an eye' approach to these things. 

Shoot down one of our airliners? We get to blow you all up. Or something like that.

Toothless musings will have no effect.


----------



## medicineman (23 Jul 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'd be in favour of an 'eye for an eye' approach to these things.
> 
> Shoot down one of our airliners? We get to blow you all up. Or something like that.
> 
> Toothless musings will have no effect.



Careful what you wish for - don't forget the US Navy shot down an Iranian airliner a ways back...could be one of so many reasons the two don't get along well.

MM


----------



## brihard (23 Jul 2014)

Is this realistic? Or is this another 'armed guards in every school' thing that makes for a good viral campaign but isn't likely to do much more than cost a great deal of money for negligible return if any?

I'm inclined to think that 'airliner shot down by radar guided SAM' is a rare enough thing that it falls more under 'the world sucks, stuff happens' than 'we can/should/must do anything we can to prevent this'.

Surely the money spent to outfit airliners with such systems could be better spent saving more lives through other safety/security initiatives...


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (23 Jul 2014)

I'm guessing a "Q-plane" armed with anti-radiation missiles is a non-starter for multiple reasons.


----------



## Robert0288 (23 Jul 2014)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm inclined to think that 'airliner shot down by radar guided SAM' is a rare enough thing that it falls more under 'the world sucks, stuff happens' than 'we can/should/must do anything we can to prevent this'.
> 
> Surely the money spent to outfit airliners with such systems could be better spent saving more lives through other safety/security initiatives...


I'm inclined to agree.  The risk vs the sheer amount of planes in the year for decades between the last incident doesn't make it economically feasible.  And whose to say a civy jamming system on a commercial airliner would even be enough dissuade a missile designed to take out military aircraft.  And if it was, how quickly could an updated missile system be developed or that particular weakness patched out on its firmware?


----------



## winnipegoo7 (24 Jul 2014)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> I'm inclined to agree.  The risk vs the sheer amount of planes in the year for decades between the last incident doesn't make it economically feasible.  And whose to say a civy jamming system on a commercial airliner would even be enough dissuade a missile designed to take out military aircraft.  And if it was, how quickly could an updated missile system be developed or that particular weakness patched out on its firmware?



Jamming is very complex and expensive.  You are asking about the missile being modified to beat the jammer, but the more important question is how does the jammer defeat the missile in the first place? 

The jammer will need to be able to detect and then identify the threat and then it would require a specific program to defeat that specific type of missile (or in the case of the SA-11 the ground based fire control radar). This type of information would be highly secret. 

The next problem would be that every different type of radar guided missile would need to be jammed differently. How many different radar guided surface to air missiles are there? dozens? hundreds? (I don't know how many there are)

The next problem after that is that not all missiles are radar guided, so an IR system would be required. Then add in that a jammer would take up space, require power and would add weight to the aircraft. Not to mention that the jammer might interfere with other non-threat signals, like air traffic control radars or communications signals. 

So, it's not even a question of economic feasibility - it would probably just be impossible (or at least impractical) to make a jammer that could jam every threat.

If you're bored, give this a read:
http://ausairpower.net/TE-Tacjammer.html


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2014)

There are smart people in the civilian world too.  The information on fire control radar of a specific type can be found (second or first hand) by sources or by your own collection and analysis.  Don't need to be military or have any security clearance.

Jamming, I would argue, is fairly cheap.  Think about how much this tragedy will cost then compare it to how much a jammer is sold for.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2014)

Just a thought, but I'll bet Air Force One is equipped to deal with these scenarios.

That, and it's fighter escorts


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jul 2014)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There are smart people in the civilian world too.  The information on fire control radar of a specific type can be found (second or first hand) by sources or by your own collection and analysis.  Don't need to be military or have any security clearance.
> 
> Jamming, I would argue, is fairly cheap.  Think about how much this tragedy will cost then compare it to how much a jammer is sold for.



And I would still argue that this is a rare enough event to not warrant the cost, effort or weight penalty.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jul 2014)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There are smart people in the civilian world too.  The information on fire control radar of a specific type can be found (second or first hand) by sources or by your own collection and analysis.  Don't need to be military or have any security clearance.



To know the exact frequencies that you need to monitor may not be that easy to discern, and will be constantly changing with every different air space you would be flying in.   The amount of frequency profiles that you can load into your detection system is limited.  You will also have to know exactly what weapon systems you are dealing with, in whatever air space you are flying over.




			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Jamming, I would argue, is fairly cheap.  Think about how much this tragedy will cost then compare it to how much a jammer is sold for.




Jamming is fairly cheap, but what frequencies do you have to jam?  You can't just jam ALL frequencies.  Again, you have to know exactly what weapon systems you are dealing with, and the exact frequencies that they are using.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Jul 2014)

Look, This ain't gonna happen!

Boeing and other providers are looking at satisfying the economic requests of their clients by seeing how many more seats they can stuff in coach by shaving a centimetre here in leg room or in the thickness of the seat padding, etc.

Those airlines owners are not going to spend one dime on any system that is not required to fly in 99% of the planet's airspace (and that covers a lot of airspace) when they can simply fly around the last 1%.

This "threat" of missiles shot at airliner by "terrorists" has been around since the seventies - hell, we had anti-terrorist patrols around Dorval, Mirabel, Kingston and Ottawa airports during the Montreal Olympics because of that.

So far, the only incidents of civilian airplanes being shot by missiles have all come from the military of nation states - and were accidents for which they apologized and took responsibility. The only thing different in the present case is that Russian military screwed up while operating disguised as "rebels" in east Ukraine so they can't take responsibility for their foul up without admitting being there, which the world would condemn even more - and obviously the "rebels" won't take the blame for something they didn't do and are therefore left with no choice but to lie by blaming Ukraine. (This last paragraph is my OPINION on what will ultimately transpire - so don't shot it down as incorrect/unproven/ etc.)


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jul 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> (This last paragraph is my OPINION on what will ultimately transpire - so don't shot it down as incorrect/unproven/ etc.)



Don't worry; Canada doesn't have any GBAD to shoot it down with


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Jul 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So far, the only incidents of civilian airplanes being shot by missiles have all come from the military of nation states - and were accidents for which they apologized and took responsibility.



You are right for the most part, however, during the war in Rhodesia the insurgents managed to shoot down two Air Rhodesia airliners using SA-7 Grails.

Source:  A Brief History Of Civilian Planes That Have Been Shot Down


----------



## winnipegoo7 (25 Jul 2014)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There are smart people in the civilian world too.  The information on fire control radar of a specific type can be found (second or first hand) by sources or by your own collection and analysis.  Don't need to be military or have any security clearance.
> 
> Jamming, I would argue, is fairly cheap.  Think about how much this tragedy will cost then compare it to how much a jammer is sold for.



I agree that there are smart people in the civilian world. 

The specific way an air defence system operates is generally secret and neither the people using the systems, nor those who intend to use Electronic Counter Measures to defeat that system are likely to just give that information away (perhaps it could be bought or stolen?)  It would not be likely that a civilian company could collect on modern air defence systems, unless someone willingly gave them access to the system. The US government spends millions and millions of dollars to collect this type of information - perhaps I am wrong, but I do not foresee a civilian organization building elint satellites, conducting ferret flights or launching raids to capture fire control radars. (once again, perhaps they could buy one on the black market?)

The expensive part of the jammer would be the collecting of the necessary threat information and then the development of an effective jam program.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> To know the exact frequencies that you need to monitor may not be that easy to discern, and will be constantly changing with every different air space you would be flying in.   The amount of frequency profiles that you can load into your detection system is limited.  You will also have to know exactly what weapon systems you are dealing with, in whatever air space you are flying over.
> 
> Jamming is fairly cheap, but what frequencies do you have to jam?  You can't just jam ALL frequencies.  Again, you have to know exactly what weapon systems you are dealing with, and the exact frequencies that they are using.



You seem knowledgeable on jamming, and you may already be aware of this, but I would just like to point out that it is more than just knowing frequencies. To jam modern fire control systems you need to actually know how that specific system works. This means learning the systems Electronic Counter Counter Measures (how the system tries to defeat the jammer); the different types of modulation it uses - this could include frequency modulation, interpulse modulation, intrapulse modulation (and I'm sure many others); and then developing an effective program to defeat the system.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Jul 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> You are right for the most part, however, during the war in Rhodesia the insurgents managed to shoot down two Air Rhodesia airliners using SA-7 Grails.
> 
> Source:  A Brief History Of Civilian Planes That Have Been Shot Down



I stand corrected. Thank you for the info R.A.F.G.

We seldom think about the goings on in sub-saharan Africa, even if we should not ignore them.


----------

