Site Presented By
Tuesday, Nov 10, 2009
Because of the increased threat to its commercial-size aircraft due to the proliferation of sophisticated shoulder-fired missiles, the Air Force is starting to replace its standard missile-detection and countermeasures systems with LAIRCMs (large aircraft infrared countermeasures), which use laser jammers to disorient an attacking infrared-homing missile. In contrast to military aircraft, most civilian aircraft lack the countermeasures systems necessary to ward off a missile attack. There are two exceptions: Israel's El-Al Airlines, and some of the private jets owned by corporations and wealthy individuals.
The likelihood that any aircraft will be lost in a missile attack is dependent on a multitude of design factors. Nonetheless, analyses of man-portable missile attacks show that as a group, commercial aircraft (as opposed to small jet fighters that are specifically designed to detect, evade and withstand such missiles) have as much as a 70 percent chance of being lost if hit by a single missile. If an attacker succeeds at striking twice, the likelihood of downing an aircraft approaches 100 percent.
Even though small commercial aircraft are more likely to be lost in a shoulder-fired missile attack, two of the jet aircraft most familiar to American travelers have proven surprisingly vulnerable: Of the five Boeing 727s and 737s that have been hit by shoulder-launched missiles, three have been shot down, and in one of them 130 people died just after takeoff in Angola.
Despite the demonstrated risk that these missiles pose, no meaningful changes have been made to commercial aircraft design or flight operations to reduce it. While the president and other officials travel on aircraft equipped with countermeasures systems that protect them against a missile attack, most Americans do not. "The threats are real and the countermeasures exist," a retired government anti-terrorism expert told Salon, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Some of us are perplexed as to why a greater sense of urgency hasn't been demonstrated in securing our airspace."
The low priority placed on protecting commercial jets from shoulder-fired missile attack is eerily similar to the debate over the need to strengthen cockpit doors before 9/11. For decades government officials and the airlines knew that the cockpit doors were vulnerable to being broken down by a determined terrorist or a rowdy drunk. Still, nothing was done to fix the problem until thousands had died. Airlines may be reluctant to respond to the threat, one federal source told Salon, because "it would signify to the insurance companies that the airlines believe that it was a significant threat to their daily operations, allowing them to increase the premiums."
Daniel Benjamin, the former director for counter-terrorism for the Clinton White House's National Security Council, acknowledged in an e-mail interview that the threat might also have implications for the airlines' legal liability in the event of a missile attack. "No shortage of studies have been done," Benjamin said, "and up till now, the industry has been unwilling to consider paying for the defensive measures. In the post-9/11 environment, with Washington dictating more in the way of security improvements, there needs to be another look at the issue. With many airlines facing huge financial problems and some staring at insolvency, the problem of paying for the improvements -- which is considerable -- is not going away."
There are a variety of ways to reduce the likelihood that an aircraft will be hit by an infrared-homing missile and to prevent the loss of an aircraft that suffers a hit. One of the basic techniques is to reduce the ability of the missile "seeker" -- the electronic component that homes in on the targeted aircraft -- to "acquire," or lock on to, the intended target. Most shoulder-fired missile seekers use an infrared guidance system that detects the radiation that aircraft emit in the form of light and heat. Navigation lights, air-conditioning units, and aircraft engines all emit infrared radiation that a seeker can detect and lock on to.
Over the years, the military has developed a number of techniques for deflecting shoulder-fired missiles from its aircraft. One is for low-flying aircraft to disperse red-hot flares. Unfortunately, newer shoulder-fired missiles are able to distinguish an aircraft from a flare. Flares also have the drawback of triggering fires when they land on combustible materials. The military has also experimented with using "obscurants," fine metallic or chemical particles dispersed from an aircraft to prevent the missile seeker from locking on to it, and it is investigating the feasibility having an aircraft tow infrared decoys behind it. The military has also used "thermal management" -- suppressing the amount of emitted infrared radiation and thereby presenting a smaller infrared "signature" -- to reduce the likelihood that the infrared seeker will lock on to its intended victim. This in turn reduces the effective operating range of the missile.
Unfortunately, these techniques are not of practical use for commercial aircraft. One could imagine the outcry from people whose businesses or homes lie in airport approach and departure corridors if each of the thousands of daily commercial flights dropped dozens of flares upon takeoff and landing, or spewed fine metallic or chemical particles into the air along those same routes. Thermal management is also of minimal use in protecting commercial aircraft. In contrast to military aircraft, designed from the beginning to present small infrared signatures, commercial aircraft have huge signatures. Additionally, modern shoulder-fired missiles are programmed with sophisticated guidance systems that nullify aircraft designers' attempts to guide infrared-homing missiles to less deadly impact points.
Aircraft are highly sophisticated machines in which the loss of certain critical components eliminates a pilot's ability to control the aircraft. Aviation engineers have designed modern aircraft with redundant critical components to protect planes from crashing due to the failure of one of those components, from a missile warhead detonation or simple mechanical failure. According to Air Force publications on aircraft "survivability," one protective strategy that aircraft manufacturers can implement is to disperse these redundant critical components around the aircraft, while simultaneously keeping them away from likely missile-hit locations. Having a backup component does little good if both the primary component and its backup get destroyed in a missile attack.
Other engineering modifications can improve the survivability of an aircraft struck by a missile. Among the design modifications that airlines could make:
Because of the threat posed to its large aircraft, the ones most similar to commercial jets, the Air Force is embarking on an ambitious plan to install LAIRCM on its transport aircraft. Standard countermeasures systems combine a missile-launch detector, a warning system, and flashlamps to confuse an attacking missile. But the state-of-the-art LAIRCM replaces the flashlamps with one or more lasers, which emit energy pulses to disorient an attacking infrared missile. The new system is also smaller and uses less energy. For a cost of just over $3 million for each of the first 20 aircraft to receive the system, the Air Force is obtaining the best available protection.
With the proper design or retrofitting of aircraft, not every missile attack must end in a catastrophic loss of the airliner and all those aboard. Unfortunately, each airline and each manufacturer has an economic disincentive to expend the money necessary to improve their aircraft's survivability. Given the economics of the industry, unless the federal government forces manufacturers to build more survivable aircraft and mandates that airlines modify their existing aircraft, every flight within the United States is at risk.
The question is, will corrective action be taken before flights are shot down or will it happen only after American air travelers die in a missile attack?
