AA Tests Missle Defense on a 767

[FN FAL]

yeah, and by the way it sounds it only works agenst infered missiles not the radar guided ones.

You could use an inferred missile defense system against inferred missles...it would save the taxpayers billions.

Inferred Missile Defense System...Saves Tax Payers Billions.

Although, I believe the government would still figure out a way to bilk the taxpayers 10 billion on the cheaper inferred missle defense system...just like they did on the 500.00 toilet seats and 1,500.00 hammers.

 

[Vector4fun]

I'm not sure you are understanding the mechanics of IR projectiles and the associated defenses.

It is without consequence how fast a missle accelerates or travels if its guidance is IR. It is defeated by virtue of interfering with its ability to track to a selected IR source. The defense system has no need to "sense, locate and disable" the projectile.

You're correct, I do not know the mechanics of how they plan to defeat the IR sensor exactly. But the news article(s) I've read referred to:

infrared laser-based systems designed to find and disable shoulder-fired missiles.

"Find" seems to imply it "senses" a launch, and "tracks" the missile. Of course, the press, (and for that matter, the press releases) can be pretty ambiguous and misleading about technical matters.

You seem to imply that the defensive system is not "aimed". Don't know if you can explain that further, but I would like to know how that works. And for that matter, how the system detects a launch, and differentiates a launch from, say, a bright glare off a reflective surface.

 

[sstearns2]

Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems have briefed members of Congress, urging them to invest in the systems, and Northrop has commissioned a poll in an effort to demonstrate public support for the program. One Northrop briefing featured photographs of men in long, loose robes taking a missile launcher out of a car and firing a round into the air.

This is welfare for the wealthy. It's an excuse to give another huge cost plus contract to the "defense" industry. It's just like the 50 billion dollar missile defense system that will never work. The wild thing is that it doesn't matter if it doesn't work, that's not the point.

It's sad that we have 50 billion for missile defense and 10 billion for BAE and Northrup to play around with a 767, but were cutting VA benefits and our people over in the Middle East don't all have the best equipment. Oh yeah, and we're 7 plus TRILLION in debt.

Scott




Bush plan eyes cuts for schools, veterans
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration has told officials who oversee federal education, domestic security, veterans and other programs to prepare preliminary 2006 budgets that would cut spending after the presidential election, according to White House documents.
The programs facing reductions — should President Bush be re-elected in November — would also include the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department.

Many of the targeted programs are widely popular. Cuts could carry a political price for a president who has touted his support for schools, the environment and other domestic initiatives.

A spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget said the documents, obtained by The Associated Press, contained routine procedural guidelines so officials could start gathering data about their needs for 2006.

Decisions about spending levels "won't be made for months," said the spokesman, J.T. Young. "It doesn't mean we won't adequately fund our priorities."

Democrats said the papers showed the pressures that a string of tax cuts Bush has won from Congress have heaped onto the rest of the budget.

"The only way we can even begin to pay for these huge tax cuts is by imposing cuts on critical government services," said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee.

A May 19 memorandum from the White House budget office to agencies said they should assume 2006 spending levels specified in an internal administration database that accompanied the 2005 budget that Bush proposed in February. The government's 2006 budget year begins Oct. 1, 2005.

"If you propose to increase funding above that level for any account, it must be offset within your agency" by cuts in other accounts "so that, in total, your request does not exceed the 2006 level assumed for the agency," the memo read in part.

The memorandum and portions of the internal database were obtained by The Associated Press from congressional officials who requested anonymity. The officials read other portions of the database to a reporter.

Congress is just beginning to consider the 2005 federal budget, which will total about $2.4 trillion. About two-thirds of it covers automatically paid benefits like Social Security, and the remainder — which Congress must approve annually — covers agency spending.

According to the database, that one-third of the budget would grow from the $821 billion Bush requested for 2005 to $843 billion in 2006, or about 2.7%.

But that includes defense and foreign aid spending, which are both slated for increases due in part to wars and the battle against terrorism.

The remaining amount — for domestic spending — would drop from $368.7 billion in 2005 to $366.3 billion in 2006. Though that reduction would be just 0.7%, it does not take into account inflation or the political consequences of curbing spending for popular programs.

"Continuing the strategy of last year's budget, the 2006 budget will constrain ... spending while supporting national priorities: winning the war on terror, protecting the homeland and strengthening the economy," the memorandum said.

The documents show spending for:

• Domestic security at the Homeland Security Department and other agencies would go from $30.6 billion in 2005 to $29.6 billion in 2006, a 3% drop.

• The Education Department would go from $57.3 billion in 2005 to $55.9 billion in 2006, 2.4% less.

• The Veterans Affairs Department would fall 3.4% from $29.7 billion in 2005 to $28.7 billion.

• The Environmental Protection Agency would drop from $7.8 billion in 2005 to $7.6 billion, or 2.6%.

• The National Institutes of Health, which finances biomedical research and had its budget doubled over a recent five-year period, would fall from $28.6 billion to $28 billion, or 2.1%.

• The Interior Department would fall 1.9% from $10.8 billion in 2005 to $10.6 billion.

• The Defense Department would grow 5.2% to $422.7 billion in 2006, and the Justice Department would increase 4.3% to $19.5 billion in 2006.

The documents were first reported by The Washington Post.

 

[Traderd]

You're correct, I do not know the mechanics of how they plan to defeat the IR sensor exactly. But the news article(s) I've read referred to:





"Find" seems to imply it "senses" a launch, and "tracks" the missile. Of course, the press, (and for that matter, the press releases) can be pretty ambiguous and misleading about technical matters.

You seem to imply that the defensive system is not "aimed". Don't know if you can explain that further, but I would like to know how that works. And for that matter, how the system detects a launch, and differentiates a launch from, say, a bright glare off a reflective surface.

ECCM for IR guidance is not aimed, rather it rus continuously with a signal emmision. The statement in the article that the system finds a launch and/or tracks a projectile would indicate an ECM directed at an active system, and active systems (currently) are not man portable.

ECM for IR guided projectiles works on a passive basis. It works by defeating the IR guidance capability of the missles sensor. When launched, an IR guided missle detects the IR signature of a proposed target and tracks to that target by continuously receiving and interpeting this signal. As you would expect, the target IR source is normally that where the largest signature is created; the engine(s). Most of the modern sensors are well equipped to lock onto a given source and track to impact (or a proximity detonation).

ECCM works to defeat this ability to track to the IR source by essentially "confusing" the seekerheads ability to track to the target. The defensive devise is turned on and left alone. All the while it is transmitting IR signals of varying frenquencies so that if an IR missle is launched, its tracking system will be unable to lock onto the IR signature of the aircraft carrying the device, rather it will lose all guidance as the "spoofed" signals provided by the ECCM device works to confuse it guidance system. There is no notification of a launch, track or missle defeat. The defensive system does not need to differentiate between any IR sources, that is the job of the projectile's seeker. It worked if a missle was fired and did not impact.

Another method would be flare launches, which is often done as SOP at certain points in the mission profile or where the threat missle has dual guidance, both active and passive. Again, these systems are not man portable. Well unless he is one hell of a man.

Most of the terms you have used will apply to an actively guided missle (i.e. radar). When such a missle is launched, some military aircraft are equipped with equipment that, when properly utilized, will tell the crew of a radar search and aquisition, missle launch and track. Additionally, some ECCM equipment has the functionality to automatically deploy CM dependant on the threat missle identified. In some cases it will alert the crew who then must take apropriate measures. I would assume this would be possible for commercial operations, but if a passive IR ECM system is projected at $10B, the cost for an active system defense would make that price look like a bargin.

Thanks

You are correct about the lack of accuaracy in technical matters on the part of the general media.

 

[Snoopy58]

The military has defensive systems like these, and they work... fairly well. There are at least 4 different mechanisms in use, and each has its limitations and associated costs. A system using flares has to "see" the launch, then expend flares that the missile homes on instead of the aircraft. Good sensors can generally tell the difference between a flash from a windshield and a missile launch, but nothing's perfect. Newer generation missiles can distinguish between a flare and an aircraft, but newer generation flares can defeat some missiles, though not others. It's an ongoing "race." The oldest manpads are most easily decoyed by all the defensive measures out there, and they're the cheapest & most prolific. The newest American missiles (along with laser beam riders and advanced radar-guided missiles) are extremely difficult to defeat, but they're also virtually unavilable on the open market. Things like SA-16's and SA-18's are somewhere in between.

Flares aren't generally under consideration for defending airliners, because of the costs (fires on the ground) of a false negative.

Other systems use IR jammers that operate continuously to decoy old missile guidance systems, but are pretty useless against new systems (counterproductive, even). Newer technology comes under the broader heading of DIRCM, directed IR countermeasures. All of these sytems "see" a launch, then send energy at the missile, either to mislead it (like a jammer, but more sophisticated) or to fry its seaker (i.e. with a fairly powerful laser). The latter is the newest & least mature & most expensive technology, but in theory can defeat about any IR seeker.

Until somebody invents a better mousetrap, of course. Is it worth $10B to render 98% of the MANPADS out there useless against the American airline fleet, while working to keep the other 2% under tight controls? Perhaps so... if only the latest & greatest missiles that only the US has can beat the system, that's pretty good, but if the $10B buys a system with zero capability against anything that hasn't already been obsolescent for decades, well, maybe not such a great plan.

Highly technical questions, and Aviation Week is a better source for the specifics of it all than FlightInfo. Read some of their back issues, and you can get a much broader education on things like cooled vs uncooled seekers, flare rejection technology, dual band seekers, the relative availability, cost, and capability of the SA-7 vs the SA-14 vs the SA-16 vs the SA-18, the difference between the various IR bands. But of course, even they don't have access to much of the actual hardware, and the closely guarded technologies behind them.

Which raises a whole other question: might the government allow classified equipement on US airliners? And under what conditions? Whole new can of worms there!

 

[Pedro]

More paycuts coming!!!!

"This defense system is expensive, we have to pay for it somehow...."

 

[EagleRJ]

The cost could be great, they said, but most likely smaller than the damage to the economy that would result from a single shoot-down.

Unless, of course, they denied the terrorists credit for the attack. It's worked before...

If I'm not mistaken, the IR dazzlers like this one being tested operate continuously when the aircraft is in a high-threat environment, and work by interfering with the guidance of any missile fired. It doesn't need to respond to a launch, like flare systems do. Airlines will only buy off on such a system if it is reletively cheap to install and maintain, and if there is no liability problem, as there is with flare systems.

And IR protection is all aircraft need to defeat a terrorist threat. All shoulder and tripod-fired missiles are IR guided. The smallest radar-guided missiles are vehicle launched, and we can assume the bad guys won't get their hands on them.

 

[FN FAL]

Unless, of course, they denied the terrorists credit for the attack. It's worked before...

And IR protection is all aircraft need to defeat a terrorist threat. All shoulder and tripod-fired missiles are IR guided. The smallest radar-guided missiles are vehicle launched, and we can assume the bad guys won't get their hands on them.

What about human guided threats?

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_03a/leadnews/188981-1.html

One of these in the wrong hands could negate 10 billion in countermeasures.