Northrop to Sell Laser Shield Bubble for Airports

NeoPrime writes "CNN Money web site has a story about Northrop Grumman forecasting development of a laser shield 'bubble' for airports and other installations in the United States within 18 months. The system will be called Skyguard — a joint venture with Israel and the U.S. Army. It will have the capability to generate a shield five kilometers in radius."

I have this rock that keeps tigers away.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean, does it work? Of course it's working, you don't see any tigers do you?

Re:Failure modes

[ozmanjusri]

And what happens when it is screwed with, causing it to shoot down planes

Rocks don't do that. Their failure mode is to lie there and gather moss.

Re:Failure modes

[Meneguzzi]

On a more serious note, if you are shooting a laser at a device that contains explosives within it, you need much less power to detonate it (or at least seriously damage its detonation mechanism) than to shoot down an airliner. SAM missiles are not built like tanks, especially the shoulder-fired variety, so the idea, in principle, does not sound that dangerous to me.
Nevertheless, the idea another slashdotter has posted about putting countermeasures on the airplanes, sounds much cheaper and safe than the laser thing. As far as I know, the Israelis are already using this in El Al planes, and I heard stories about them actually having to use this (and being successful).

Re:Failure modes

[trentblase]

On a more serious note, if you are shooting a laser at a device that contains explosives within it, you need much less power to detonate it (or at least seriously damage its detonation mechanism) than to shoot down an airliner.

Explosives, you say... you mean like jet fuel? It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Re:Failure modes

[Orange Crush]

That's fine until they're all repainted with reflective paint.

That shouldn't be a problem. The mirror would have to be virtually flawless. The slightest scratch or bit of dust and the first few pulses burn any reflectivity right off. From the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

"Some believe that mirrors or other countermeasures can reduce the effectiveness of high energy lasers. This has not been demonstrated. Small defects in mirrors absorb energy, and the defects rapidly expand across the surface. Protective mirroring on the outside of a target could easily be made less effective by incidental damage and by dust and dirt on its surface."

New Scientist says lasers can be reflected

[giafly]

Of course it's no Wikipedia, but even so: "The reflected energy typically will cover large amounts of real estate and space, since the energy is spread in many directions," Hengst said. And if the target was moving, hazardous reflections could sweep the surrounding area ... The US is working on special protective goggles for its soldiers.
- New Scientist [newscientist.com].

Re:Failure modes

[instarx]

That shouldn't be a problem. The mirror would have to be virtually flawless. The slightest scratch or bit of dust and the first few pulses burn any reflectivity right off. From the Wikipedia:

"Some believe that mirrors or other countermeasures can reduce the effectiveness of high energy lasers. This has not been demonstrated. Small defects in mirrors absorb energy, and the defects rapidly expand across the surface. Protective mirroring on the outside of a target could easily be made less effective by inciden

Re:Failure modes

[mysticgoat]

Well, this kind of new defensive weapon is always rolled out in several phases.

First phase is characterized by an upsurge in Northrup's market cap. That's just begun. All Aboard!

Second phase is characterized by initial installations and mild cost overruns (not to exceed 250% of estimated costs). Given the current Administration in Washington, that is almost certainly going to start before Nov 2008.

The next phase will see something "unexpected" happen, that will have the nickname "laser chaff" (possibly other nicknames, depending on how the decoys are actually implemented by the nasty, clever blackhats). Somebody's gonna die.

Then Northrup's market cap will drop again.

The trick to mastering this new technology is appropriate monitoring of potential terrorists' phone calls and email so you can know when to tell your cronies that it is time to trim their portfolios of Northrup stock.

The whole thing does point out the critical need for improving and expanding Homeland Security's capabilities for monitoring email, phone conversations, and the like. When it comes to protecting stock market portfolios of the rich and famous, we can't be too careful.

Re:Failure modes

[pockyninja]

I think it would work something like this:
http://resources.ubi.com/resources/39/39273-11-12. jpg [ubi.com]

Re:What kind of fallacy is this?

[JebusIsLord]

A & -B (there is a rock, and there are no tigers)

therefore,

A -> -B (a rock is a sufficient condition for their being no tigers)

Missile Command!

[LiquidCoooled]

Gentlemen (and ladies), unpack your Atari 2600's.

Protect those cities!

Re:Missile Command!

[nickheart]

This seems to be the closest that any of the current posts have gotten to the actual product that is being sold.

Yes it seems funny to have a real-life space invaders defence, but it's not the worst idea in the world.

We know that light is faster than any other Surface to air defence we currnetly employ, but also that it follow a (reletively) straight line.

i think that with enought testing and debugging, you should be albe to knock a missle out of the air even when it's raining/snowing - in reply to a diff

Can we please take this seriously?

[beaverfever]

Can we please take this seriously? These devices are intended to defend against very credible threats. I mean, really... won't somebody think of the children!?!

Re:Missile Command!

[servognome]

And make sure to take a picture of your high score, so you can get the patch

Picking up the "clue words"

[Rude Turnip]

I see "laser" and I see "bubble." Clearly, this plan involves some frickin sharks at some point.

Re:Picking up the "clue words"

[Ohreally_factor]

We have to develop this before some other country does. We cannot allow a bubble gap!

So,

[The Evil Couch]

What happens if it snows or rains in the area?

Re:So,

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if it snows or rains in the area?

It may affect visibility, and if you're outside you might get wet.

Re:So,

[smchris]

Don't worry about it. If decades of Star Wars have taught us anything it is that (1) you always run tests under artificially optimal conditions, and (2) it doesn't actually have to work to get more contracts.
 

Re:So,

[Martin Blank]

Actually, THEL has been rather quietly developed by the US and Israel since it's a tactical system more than a strategic one. The Wikipedia article is horribly out of date, but its success ratio was very good, in that it was able to shoot down rockets, artillery shells, and mortar shells. One of the challenges has been to get the system shrunk down to a reasonable size. At some point, there was hope of getting it to a size suitable for mounting on a Bradley APC or perhaps even a Humvee, in hopes that it would provide small units protection against certain airborne threats. Whether they've managed to do that, I'm not sure.

If this is feasible, I wouldn't be surprised to see it mounted in places where mortars, Katyusha-style rockets, and RPGs are common -- places like the areas surrounding Israel, and in the cities of Iraq. Removing the major ability of insurgents to use such mobile weapons may reduce overall casualties and introduce a frustration factor strong enough to either get them to do something easier to do but less likely to succeed (roadside or suicide bombs), or even get some to give up altogether. (Yes, it's optimistic, but still possible.)

Suicide bombers in Cessnas

[A nonymous Coward]

So, make it hard for mortar shells and Katyushas and Qassims ... a Cessna in the landing pattern with a few hundred pounds of explosives won't be detected as dangerous until it is too close to be stopped. Ditto for cars coming to the curbside loading zones.

I have always marveled at the willingness of the military industrial complex to come up with expensive ways of guarding against rogue cruise missiles, which are expensive and unlikely compared to the simplicity of stealing a Cessna and cruising over the border like any other returning drug plane. Or pack your nuke into a stolen cargo ship, packed down in the hold under enough metal barrier cargo to keep its radiation hidden, and sail right into a harbor.

Osama bin Laden is notorious for doing things cheaply. I can't believe he has much interest in stealing cruise missiles when he could steal Cessnas or a cargo ship.

This recent North Korean volley of missiles made me wonder if anyone at the top actually was worried about it. I think rather they saw it as a wonderful opportunity to spend more money on useless weapons to make it look like they were defending liberty. Osama bin Laden and his ilk have nothing to retaliate against and nothing to lose. North Korea and Iran do. Their glorious leaders may be crazy, but they're not stupid. If they actually did land a warhead in the US, even just a few hundred pounds of dynamite, there would not be a single dissenting voice trying to talk the US out of pulverizing their countries. They know that, and we know they know that. Even their own citizens know that.

Re:Suicide bombers in Cessnas

[Martin Blank]

There is no technology that is going to protect against all threats. THEL removes certain opportunities, forcing would-be terrorists to deal with a smaller attack profile. Just because the THEL concept doesn't work on all threats doesn't mean that it's an invalid concept.

Consider network security. We use firewalls to deal with certain connectivity threats. We use IDS/IPS to deal with certain threats that go through connectivity that must remain open. We use antivirus to deal with certain e-mail and file-based threats. We use logs to look for deviations from accepted activity within systems. None of those on its own will deal with all of those threats on its own.

Consider the threats faced out in the world. Whatever you think of the background reasons, Katyushas, RPGs, mortars, and even artillery shells are real risks to soldiers on the ground as well as to civilians near threat zones (think Israel, Iraq, and maybe Turkey). The ability to knock these down in flight, at least in the small quantities used by guerillas, saves lives and property. And to clarify for those that may not know, the Qassim and Katyusha rockets are not cruise missiles. They're simple rockets that can be constructed with the tools found in a basic machine shop. While THEL can knock down cruise missiles, that's not what they're intended for here.

Your mention of cars, light aircraft, and ships are another threat entirely, and much harder to deal with. Stolen ships are a less-likely vector, because a stolen ship is a lot harder to hide, especially when you're trying to get into port. It's more likely that it will be legitimately purchased by a shell company and then sailed under legal registration. In any case, THEL is not intended to deal with those threats. Those have to be dealt with largely by eyes. As a would-be pilot and an occasional commercial flier, I have the most concern with the light aircraft and the car bomb at the loading zones. I have no desire to deal with a plethora of additional FAA regulations to deal with just to rent a Cessna or a Piper, nor do I want to have to take a shuttle two miles from another drop-off point (which just moves the target) to the drop-off point.

Re:Suicide bombers in Cessnas

[Vexar]

The expectation is that the terrorists need to learn how to fly first. So long as we are dealing with people stupid enough to fall for the Islamo-fascist brainwashing of Al Quaeda, we are faced with a massive, naive enemy. There is considerable doubt that this mass includes people wealthy enough to have their own pilot's license ahead of joining "the cause." If Zaccaharius Moussawi (sorry about the spelling) is any evidence, the local "crop duster" pilot school is going to be suspicious of zealous, reclus

That goose is cooked

[ScentCone]

By which I mean actual, migrating waterfowl. They'll fall out of the sky right into the Orange Terminal's food vending area, where Duck a la Orange will still sell for $50, right next to the $50 sandwiches. This is convenient, because that's what it will take to finance the laser equipment.

Luckily, Reagan National, in DC, can just use shark-mounted lasers swimming in the Potomac River.

It would make sense for all sites to communicate

[aschoeff]

...and I propose they do this via some sort of dedicated network that controls them all, say, Skynet?

Protect the Airports?

[aslate]

Unless this "shield" protects the airport from terrorists attempting to board a plane, what use are they? When was the last time a plane crashed into an airport building? Now if this was the White House or tother big military places, sure, but your standard domestic airport? Why?

Re:Protect the Airports?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Because Smallpox vaccine doesn't protect against the common cold, what's the point of vaccination?

Re:Protect the Airports?

[dilbert researcher]

The main reason behind deploying the shields at airports is, to prevent terrorists from using hand-held rocket launchers. These rocket launchers can be used to destroy planes that are at a low altitude. Low altitude planes are easily sighted around airports when they are about to land or take-off. Hence domestic airports are a big market for these systems.

Re:Protect the Airports?

[StikyPad]

Low altitude planes are easily sighted around airports when they are about to land or take-off.

Having worked at an airport, I can say first hand that low altitude planes are very rarely about to take off.

Tastes like chicken!

[corndogg]

Just imagine... juicy cooked tidbits will simply drop from the sky... time to buy a convertible!

New safety notice for pilots

[mikael]

Do not look into laser with remaining eye

I'm unconfortable with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that we should trust a protective shield with a metric radius in the U.S.

Can I safely assume this is for military applicati

[Murphy Murph]

The company I work does more airport approach clearance surveys than anyone else in the United States. I'm not sure how Northrop can claim they will be able to offer 20km protection against shoulder-fired missiles. I'm not sure how they could offer 2km protection.
While most airports have a great view of everything more than 20-30 feet in the air, many are in congested areas where there is no way they would be able to see an individual with a Stinger. Since shoulder-fired missiles seem to be the most plausible form of attack, I simply can't see how this system offers much protection at all to urban/suburban commercial airports.

Re:Can I safely assume this is for military applic

[thrillseeker]

They don't need to see the Stinger prior to launch. The system has sufficient time to detect a high speed object on a vector towards an aircraft, or towards the facility, and to then target the system while in flight.

Do they work?

[SeanMon]

I would like to see solid evidence that they are effective and that they eliminate a threat before the government pours billions into this technology.

Re:Do they work?

[voice_of_all_reason]

I don't think you get this whole "government" thing. See, they already have the money. Why would they give a flying fuck what you think?

Spelling

[whitehatlurker]

I believe that the other nation named is usually spelled "Israel".

Eye used Opera's spell cheque on the post

Remember it does not have to work to fit the bill

[dbIII]

First thing - this technology has never actually worked in a carefully controlled test, but it will be on sale!

Remember folks - it does not actually have to work when the criteria is to spend money on anti-terrorism devices to show that you care. It is just more silicon snake oil - what more can you expect in an environment where intelligence agencies are using voodoo such as polygraph tests and pretend they are a highly accurate way of telling the truth, reading minds or whatever is the fashionable delusion these days.

We need better science education to stop the people who control the public purse getting sucked in by confidence tricks.

A license to print money...

[Anonymous Coward]

Number of US airports (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fiel ds/2053.html): 14,893
Major US airports (http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp): Approx. 40
US airports with international flights (http://aerospace.web.mtsu.edu/usinternational.htm ): At least 72

Minimum likely cost using low-ball $25 million per airport figure and only major airports: US$1 billion
Mid-range likely cost using higher $30 million per airport figure, and all international airports in the US: US$2.16 billion
Realistic projection, expecting a 50% cost overrun, and ~100 airports: US$4.5 billion
Potential maximum even if cost per airport is reduced to 1/10th the lowest projection, and only 1 in 4 US airports is protected: US$9.3 billion.

All this just to stop something that's never happened on US soil, and AFAIK never successfully happened elsewhere (terrorists using a missile to shoot down a commercial passenger aircraft). Who said terrorism was bad? It sure as heck is good business if you're Northrop...

Re:A license to print money...

[Aaron England]

I sympathize with your skepticism of this project's value. But I disagree with attitude of discounting the threat. For starters there have been several instinces throughout history where terrorists have used missiles to shoot down passenger aircraft. But more to the point, if insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan can use RPGs or MANPADs to bring down military aircraft, I think it's safe to say the same tools are just as a capable of bringing down a commercial. In fact, given that commercial airlines are relatively unmanueverable as well as the fact that they don't carry any countermeasures, you have to assume increased plausability.

Re:A license to print money...

[Breakfast Pants]

If we spent the 9 billion putting up guard rails around roads with drop-offs that don't have them we would save thousands more lives.

Re:A license to print money...

[_Sharp'r_]

putting up guard rails around roads with drop-offs that don't have them we would save thousands more lives

Spent that way, you'd likely cause more severe injuries and cost more lives. At least the laser system is less likely to actually cause as much additional harm.

From wikipeda [wikipedia.org]:

It is important to note that guardrail had frequently ranked as among the highest sources of injury and fatality in a fixed-object crash (1). Among the primary reasons for this is the type of treatment used at the leading end of the

Re:A license to print money...

[cliffski]

if it happens every 5 years, and maybe a thousand people lose their lives, your billions will save a thousand lives. But how many thousands die every year in road traffic accidents? or through preventable diseases? I know the UK (pop 60 million) loses 3000 a year to road accidents.
Im not saying you shouldnt do anything about terrorist attacks, but on a cost-benefit analysis basis, spending this much money on this system, rather than (for example) better healthcare, or road safety measures, is just inefficie

Re:A license to print money...

[kfg]

Maybe a $10B price tag doesn't sound so bad after all?

Ya know how we caused the Soviet Union to collapse by forcing their military to spend, spend, spend?

$10B here and $10B there and pretty soon you're talking real money.

For a couple hundred thou the terrorists could drive America to complete, parnoiac economic ruin (not to mention social ruin) buying worthless "security."

I think that's why they call it "terrorism."

KFG

Re:A license to print money...

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Ya know how we caused the Soviet Union to collapse by forcing their military to spend, spend, spend?

This is only half true because you're missing the most important part of the equation: we outspent the Russians because we were in a better position economically to do so. Our strength is our Capitalism, which has collectively allowed the citizens of this country to build up wealth the likes of which cannot be found anywhere else on Earth. Even the poorest person in ths nation generally has a home, a car, cable TV, air conditioning, and a cell phone. Reagan knew the Russian strength was gross manpower, quantity over quality. If we tried to beat them using the same philosophy, we'd have lost. You never fight your enemy where he is strong, you fight him where he is weak. Case in point, we outspent the Russians and still won the Cold War. They spent less and went bankrupt. Q.E.D.

While it is true the current crop of Republicans is spending like a bunch of drunken sailors, it's important to keep perspective. We beat the Russians because our economic philosophy was so much more efficient than the Russian planned economy. What's so damned tragic is that after we beat them, we're now starting to resemble them more and more each day.

Re:A license to print money...

[Sparr0]

The stock market cannot "lose" anything. It is a zero sum game. Someone got the money, even if it is just the people who shorted or sold the day before.

Poor birds

[Marcos Eliziario]

I see a new fast-food chain based on that: JFK Fried Chicken, (or ducks... or whatever..._)

Pointless.

[darkmeridian]

Given what we have seen of insurgent guerilla tactics in Iraq, popping RPGs at departing flights would bring do wn a plane. Perhaps not everyone on board will get killed because of the low altitude, but terrorism is all about terrorizing a population. That laser shield isn't going to do much, is it? Moreover, the laser is pointless unless it is deployed at all airports because terrorists with a man-portable surface to air missile would certainly do enough research to figure out which airports do not have the defense system and act accordingly. Or they would just go to Japan and knock down a plane bound for the United States. This appears to be more comfort food for a worried nation's spirit.

Re:Pointless.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Given what we have seen of insurgent guerilla tactics in Iraq, popping RPGs at departing flights would bring do wn a plane. Perhaps not everyone on board will get killed because of the low altitude, but terrorism is all about terrorizing a population. That laser shield isn't going to do much, is it?

It's not a 'shield' (dome) over the airport.
"Northrop described Skyguard as capable of destroying rockets, mortars, artillery shells, unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range ballistic missiles, as well as cruise missiles. Against shoulder-fired missiles, which are relatively easy to heat with a laser and destroy, the protective shield would extend to a 20-kilometer radius"

Or they would just go to Japan and knock down a plane bound for the United States.

""If it goes that path, it's a very large market," he said, citing potential demand from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and what he called virtually any country facing a threat from a neighbor."

Northrop's one simple request

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Airports with frickin' lasers on their heads!

But why...

[Digitus1337]

Why do airports need shielding from lasers?

Does it work *now*?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Is it 100% ready for full, zero defect deployment? Probably not. But then neither were aircraft, at first. Nor cars. Nor microwave ovens. Nor pretty much anything you can name.

Give it time. Some of these defense mechanisms WILL work. And work quite well.

useless against low-tech threats

[ridgecritter]

For example - the (normal) northbound departure from San Jose goes over about a jillion small industrial buildings and hard-to-inspect back alleys. A single person on one of the roofs under the departure route could badly damage departing aircraft with a rifle. A .223 or better would hole a wing (and fuel tank) with no trouble, and with good marksmanship, I doubt the Kevlar blade containment shields would stand up to a 50 cal round. No missile needed. No help from the can of laser whupass. Hell, the jihadi would probably even get away, although I understand that's supposed to be optional. How many billions are we going to spend on this? Do you feel safer? I didn't think so.

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[kognate]

You, my friend, have been watching too many Prime-Time news specials.

It is NOT easy to hit an aircraft with a rifle. This is why anti-aircraft guns are
machine guns or cannon. On approach, a 747 is traveling quite fast (around 170 knots, or 314 kph). It has four engines.
A Barrett .50 cal has a 10 round clip. That means you have 2 rounds per engine, plus two rounds. The recoil on that rifle
is PROFOUND. You probably couldn't shoot down a CRJ-6000 effectively with one of these, let alone an
inbound heavy.

Also, Since the effective range of a B.50 is 2000 meters (2 km), you would have about 22 seconds to make all eight shots in the best conditions. That may seem like a lot, but it's not. Especially considering your target is moving erratically (turbulence), is far away
(you have to begin shooting at the edge of the range of your weapon), and people are going to notice this firearm being discharged.

And this is with a .50 cal, not even a .223 (the effective range of which is _way_ less than 2000 meters). Think about it: if you could shoot stuff down with .223, why even issue MANPADs? Your average Jihadi would just use his trusty AK-47-like weapon.

Why be afraid? The world is dangerous, but fear of someone shooting down a jet with a pop-gun doesn't help anybody.

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[m874t232]

Think about it: if you could shoot stuff down with .223, why even issue MANPADs?

For defense, you need to be able to shoot planes down reliably. For terror, even a rare hit would be sufficient.

you would have about 22 seconds to make all eight shots in the best conditions

Why would a terrorist need more than a single hit? It seems to me that there are lots of vital structures on an airplane that, when hit by a single bullet, could cause serious problems.

Why be afraid? The world is dangerous, but fear of some

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[AJWM]

Why would a terrorist need more than a single hit? It seems to me that there are lots of vital structures on an airplane that, when hit by a single bullet, could cause serious problems.

Um, no.

Commercial aircraft are designed with multiple redundant systems. They are designed to withstand things like engines disintegrating and spewing turbine blades all over the place, bird strikes and other random foreign object impacts, lightning strikes, landing gear tire explosions, and miscellaneous failures like random hydraulic line ruptures or doors not properly latched. An Aloha Airlines 737 successfully flew to an airport and landed after a large section of fuselage ripped off because of excessive corrosion and pressurization cycle stress fractures.

Boeing learned aircraft design lessons by examining WW II bombers that returned from missions full of flak damage. Were the holes were, they knew they'd designed it right. In areas where no damage was found, they knew that aircraft that had been hit there hadn't made it back -- so they redesigned that area.

Most places on an airliner where a bullet hit would probably go unnoticed until the ground inspection crew noticed the hole or dent.

(Heck, even a shoulder-launched SAM might not do significant damage. There was a great photo in Aviation Week some years back, of a private jet (Gulfstream? Citation? I forget which) owned by some African country (presidental plane) that had been fired on and hit. Blew one of the engine pods apart. The rest of the aircraft, and the pilots, essentially treated at as a "routine" catastrophic engine failure and continued on to friendlier territory on the remaining engine.)

headless chicken

[m874t232]

True, but does that mean you shouldn't try to defend against such threats?

You should only defend against threats if the defense makes sense in a cost/benefit analysis: how many lives to you expect to save for every million you spend.

Say that again after the first airliner is shot down by a MANPAD.

Demanding perfect safety is irrational. We could lose a commercial airliner to a missile every month and flying would still be safer than driving a car. People need to stop acting like headless chicken.

A deeper

Re:headless chicken

[m874t232]

But the point is that, if, as you argue, we "just stop flying", our economy would tank in a week! "We could lose a commercial airliner to a missile every month and flying would still be safer than driving a car." Yeah, because nobody would be flying! So we need something that will make the masses of air travelers feel that there is a system in place that will safeguard them, so they will keep flying.

Get real! There has never been a missile-based attack against a US airliner on US soil. To my knowledge, th

Re:headless chicken

[m874t232]

"The government "got pilloried" on 9/11 for the specific and avoidable ways in which they screwed up: lousy intelligence work, lousy police work, lousy in-flight security, lousy border security." I think that is just what I said - for not doing enough to protect us ahead of time. The details you mention just illustrate my point.

How does buying a high-tech boondoggle improve intelligence work, police work, or in-flight security?

This system is NOT a high tech boondoggle - it is based upon proven technology, a

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[AK Marc]

does that mean you shouldn't try to defend against such threats?

Yes, you shouldn't try to defend against such threats in the manner discussed. The wasted money would save more lives buying helicopters for rural areas to improve emergency response. The wasted money would save more lives being invested in immunization programs for children. The wasted money would save more lives in many, many ways I could list. To spend it on a very-low probability event with minimal effect (300 on a plane once in a while - if ever from such threats, 3000+ per month die in auto crashes every single month) is a gross waste of money. About the same number died in September of 2001 of car crashes as in the Twin Towers, yet no one bats an eye at the highway fatalities. Spending trillions based on that one event is completely irrational. Give me the same money, and I'd save more than 10 times the number of lives per year as lost on 9/11.

bullshit

[aepervius]

Firstly anti aircraft gun are not for commercial passenger flight, they are for military craft. Secondly, I live near an airport. I can assure you that at landing the craft is in a quite straigth line, your erratically "moving" is only happenning in strong wind condition, which is certainly NOT the norm at any airport I know (well maybe not denver :)). Especially if you are in the alignement of the landing/take off strip. I have no idea how easy it is to fire a gun, and a better argument would be that you

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[dario_moreno]

a few dozen planes and helicopters were shot down in Vietnam by AK 47s. The NVA even trained specialists for that purpose. I personnaly met an old man who had received a special medal for one of these feats.

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If Oswald could do it, then hitting a low flying plane should be a snap.

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[east coast]

If Oswald could do it, then hitting a low flying plane should be a snap.

It's not the question of simply hitting a target but doing damage. Oswald was what? 120 yards out, maybe? Shooting at a vehicle moving nearly straight away from him traveling at about 8 miles an hour shooting at a soft target. If rifles were too pathetic to pull that off we wouldn't even have firearms today. But in this case we're talking about doing enough damage to a commercial airliner to either destroy it, make it crash or kill pe

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[PSC]

Also, Since the effective range of a B.50 is 2000 meters (2 km), you would have about 22 seconds to make all eight shots in the best conditions.

If acting alone, yes. However, this attack scales linearly with the number of terrorists involved... and getting together eight terrorists and training them to be good marksmen seems considerably easier than getting 20 terrorists to become pilots, which has been done. Plus you could always add more terrorists for redundancy.

Which would also make for a great acrony

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[hab136]

A hole, any hole is going to make the aircraft turn back. People will be terrified, especially if someone gets hit, or someone sees fuel streaming from a wing. The airport will then be shutdown for a while. Do this enough and you could cripple civillian aviation, followed by the whole economy if you can keep it going.

I doubt you would hear a bullet hit the plane while inside. The engines are extremely noisy and the whole plane is shaking. The first sign would probably be either the pilots noticing a loss of fuel, or an engine going out (not terribly uncommon even without terrorists - birds are far more dangerous to engines). The passengers would never know, and the pilots are trained to deal with both fuel leaks and loss of engines. Fuel leaks and engines failures already happen - terrorists adding a few more won't make a difference.

Besides, even when planes do lose and engine, they continue to fly 11 hours anyways [usatoday.com].

If a bullet hit the wing, nobody would know or care until the next ground inspection.

What about the cabin? There was even a show on Mythbusters where they showed that a bullet hole through the cabin wall would do just about nothing. No explosive decompression, no people being sucked out through a tiny hole - just a whistling sound where the hole is. They actually pressurized a plane and then shot it with a bullet, pretty neat.

Re:useless against low-tech threats

[RobertNotBob]

I doubt the Kevlar blade containment shields would stand up to a 50 cal round.

.

Actually, the failure they are designed to protect against is much more energetic than a 50 cal bullet. Sure, I will agree with your general sentiment that a 50 is quite a destructive force. But it isn't actually even in the same league this particular equipment. So, without even addressing the rest of your comment, I can tell you that you're already off course right here.

I would also argue that with tank design and modern fuel additives even serveral dozen holes in the gas tanks of 0.2 inches would not present a critical hazzard to a modern liner, but I would have to admit that I have no scientific data on that particular topic.

Terrible idea

[mcelrath]

Weaponizing civilian installations such as airports is a horrible idea. Sooner or later this system will accidentally shoot down a civilian aircraft. It's like weaponizing cars. You think there won't be mishaps? Increasing the number of ways an airplane can crash does not decrease the overall airplane accident rate.

Perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on finding people who want to commit homocidal acts and imprisoning them.

Or maybe stop international policies which cause people to want to commit homocidal acts against our airports.

While I'm at it...maybe we should stop trying to identify all the people that are not homocidal maniacs in a brain-dead attempt to find the homocidal maniacs by a process of elimination...

Does fear run your life?

Impractical

[Goonie]

This makes more sense than equipping every airliner in the US with anti-missile countermeasures, but not much.

I don't have an exact figure, but there are roughly 500 airports with commercial flights into and out of them in the United States. Some of them only have a couple of scheduled flights a day. At, say, $25 million a pop, it will cost $12.5 billion dollars to equip all those airports with such a system, plus operating costs (presumably you have to have at least one guy babysitting the thing).

And you pretty much have to install these things everywhere an airliner flies. Terrorists aren't stupid (well, actually the evidence is that most of them are, but that's another story. Assuming they're stupid isn't a good idea IMO). They'll realise that if these systems exist, they should pick somewhere that's unlikely to be equipped with it. So while the planes at LAX and La Guardia land and take off with laser-guarded safety, our friendly local terrorists cruise on down to Bum's Rush, Iowa, and take potshots at the one RJ that lands there every day.

But assume these things *do* get installed in every airport in the country. What do our terrorists do? They scrap plan A - missiles at airplane takeoff - and go to the equally lethal plan B, a couple of tonnes of explosives under the grandstand at the local high school football game. Or any one of plans C through ZZ. So we've blown 10 billion dollars to achieve very, very little.

This is almost a quintessential example of protecting against a movie plot threat [schneier.com].

Star wars

[Sir_Lewk]

Reagan is smiling in his grave.

Yeah, good idea...

[Pedrito]

How long before one of these things mistakes a passenger jet for a rocket? Who's going to man the thing? I mean, Aegis Combat System [fas.org] is more or less the same thing and it shot down a passenger jet and there's relatively few Aegis systems. Imagine having these things at every major airport. I dunno, I don't think I'd be very comfortable flying with these things up and running.

Re:Yeah, good idea...

[Eagle7]

Other than the fact that it is a weapon system that shoots at flying stuff, AEGIS is nothing like this. Perhaps most obviously, AEGIS (much like PATRIOT) is designed to shoot down aircraft with missiles, not heat up missiles (NOT aircraft) with lasers, as the system in the article does.

Re:Yeah, good idea...

[Eagle7]

Of course, but the composition of an aircraft is a lot different than that of a small explosive warhead, so the results will most likely be very different. For instance, if you throw a can of baked beans and a can of carborator cleaner into a campfire, you will get two very different results. By the time the carb cleaner explodes, the baked beans will likely show some exterior damage to the can, but not enough to render the can itself or the contents ruined.

That is ignoring the fact that a commerial (or e

Re:Yeah, good idea...

[MattHawk]

It shouldn't be too large a problem, even if it does take a shot at a passenger aircraft. This isn't a staw wars-esque deal where the target explodes the second the light begins to hit it. It relies on keeping the laser on-target for several seconds to heat the object up enough to cause fuel or warheads to explode. A passenger aircraft takes quite a bit longer to heat up then an RPG due to the size, much less of its mass is combustible, and there will likely be a human manning the system - as soon as they s

Evil Emperor On Airport Security

[HangingChad]

You and your pathetic band will die. Behold the power of my fully operational domestic airport!

They need something....

[Null537]

...to shoot down those snake infested planes.

spear and shield

[2Bits]

There's a chinese expression that literally translates to "spear and shield", meaning paradox. There was a weapon merchant selling spear and shield, claiming that his spear can cut thru any shield existed, and that his shield can protect against any spear existed.

Looks like Northrop Grunman is doing the same thing here, selling on one hand space laser gun that can destroy anything from outer space, and protective shield against laser gun on the other hand.

Someone is getting screwed somewhere.

Mmmmm

[maztuhblastah]

On one hand, we have a system which tracks fast moving objects, and uses lasers to torch them.

On the other hand, we have birds, flying past the detectors.

That's it... I'm bringing Jamaican Jerk spices when I fly next....

-m

You people just don't get it.

[Run4yourlives]

A billion dollar security shield to make us feel safe while terrorists take over planes with box cutters.

Brilliant.

Pictures

[ijakings]

Damn it, why are there never any pictures for kickass storys like a laser shield bubble but every time Microsoft does something I have to look at Steve Ballmers sweaty face...

Stupid Idea

[argStyopa]

LOL, that's simply an absurd concept. Airports don't have anything to fear from the sorts of 'tactical' battlefield rockets that this would help against, and I'm extraordinarily doubtful that it would do jack *shit* against an RPG.
Oh, and regarding it's promising utility against shoulder-launched SAMs? Yes, I've seen the test films on laser-missile defense and, in a clear sky with no clutter, no ground interference, it can take out AAMs in a second or two...of course, if Terrorist Abdullah is going to fire a SAM-9, he's not going to wait until that 747 full of people is 2 miles away on a departing vector at 5000' giving the laser a nice multi-second chase solution. He's going to nail it when it's 1000 yards away, 150' in the air, loaded to the gills with fuel, engines on HOT, and the pilot has no altitude to cope with the consequences. This laser system going to detect, track, power up, and fire early enough to kill the warhead in that case? (Not to mention to track and compensate for, I dunno, that landing JAL 747 full of 300 Mall of America shoppers that's about to cross the beam during firing????) Um, no.
And can you imagine the maintenance contract on a ultra-high powered system with that sort of a hair-trigger, that has to basically sit "charged" 24/7? Egad. Yeah, I BET Northrop is hoping to sell a few of these.

Re:Terrorists?

[ScentCone]

I hadn't heard anything about airports being threatened by ballistic missiles...

Presumably, the more likely concern would be shoulder-fired SAMs shot at approaching/departing aircraft. A system that could actually acquire and zap such a thing from anywhere around the airport grounds would have to be highly automated and very fast... I'm a little concerned about false positives. A lot, actually.

Re:Terrorists?

[SEWilco]

Maybe I don't want a flying car this year.

Re:Terrorists?

[YrWrstNtmr]

I'm concerned about false negatives as well. Face it....this thing will NOT be perfect the first time out. IIRC, the Patriot system shot down a British Tornado, mistaking it for a hostile aircraft.

A false negative will be almost as bad as a false positive.
"It didn't detect that missile, the airliner got shot down, 300 people dead, $25B wasted....SHUT THE SYSTEM DOWN!"

Re:Terrorists?

[evilviper]

A false negative will be almost as bad as a false positive.

True, but... Since you don't have several hundred ballistic missiles being fired at each airport, every single day, which senario do you think is more likely, and more of a cause for concern?

Just wait.......

[EmbeddedJanitor]

until the aircraft is 6km away, then it becomes easy to shoot down.

MANPADs

[Latent Heat]

According to TFA, the "shield" should be useful against a variety of threats, ranging from SCUD-like rockets to man-portable air-defense (MANPAD) shoulder-launched heat-seeking missiles.

You never know if the reporter got it right or if the publicist had an overactive imagination, but the big threat people are worried about is some dude hiding in the weeds and shooting one of those shoulder-launched heat-seeking missiles at an airliner trying to take off or land. There has been talk about equiping airliners with countermeasures against heat-seeking missiles.

The way the countermeasures are supposed to work is that most heat seekers are not full-fledged imaging devices but are instead rotating scan devices, and if you know the nature of the threat, you could pulse a heat source on and off to throw such a missile off target. I really think it is a stretch for a laser to stick in an airport control tower to actually shoot down a missile by zapping it with the laser. I think it would be a much safer thing, especially around a civilian airport, to spoof such a missle by pulsing it with IR to confuse the scanning seeker, or if that doesn't work, to blind an imaging sensor with a thermal pulse.

It kind of makes sense to provide a central, airport-based spoofer/blinder instead of having distributed spoofer/blinders on all of the aircraft. That avoids the old-aircraft retrofit problem, and the planes really only need this protection as they are landing and taking off -- those shoulder-launched missiles don't go very far. It would also make a lot of sense to provide protection against heat-seeking missiles because terrorists in theory could get a hold of them and they are small and portable to sneak around with. It would also make more sense that the laser system would be a spoofer/blinder kind of countermeasure rather than a Star Wars type of shoot-down ballistic missile defense.

Re:MANPADs

[modeless]

The system talked about in the article does not spoof tracking systems; it is a real offensive laser weapon that destroys targets by application of heat. In its previous incarnation it has successfully destroyed mortar rounds and missiles (cool video) [youtube.com]. I believe that normally it works by detonating the warhead carried by the missile/mortar as opposed to causing structural failure, and it requires a second or so of precise tracking for heat to build up in the target, so a brief stray hit to an aircraft probably wouldn't even be noticable. A bigger worry would probably be blinding people who are staring at the target. Reflected infrared radiation could be intense (especially a chance specular reflection), and since infrared is invisible there's no blink reflex.

Re:MANPADs

[DrXym]

The problem here that I see is that planes have to get low to land. No laser is likely to be reliable enough to take out a missile which has about 2 seconds to travel from the ground to its target. I think it more likely that any automated laser defence system is likely to get severely confused by itself and start blasting at birds, fireworks or even aircraft. Given that, I think I'd prefer an airport which didn't use such a system.

Besides which, I'm sure a .50 caliber machine gun or even a automatic rifl

Re:Who needs this

[OverlordQ]

Yea but Palestinians dont have batshit crazy neighbors who love to kill them with Nukes as soon as they finish their program ala Iran.

Re:Who needs this

[Burgundy Advocate]

Nuke Isreal and solve 90% of terrorism I say!

Well it's good to see that genocide has finally lost that bad-boy image it got during the reigns of Hitler and Stalin...

Really, you can argue all you want about whom was there first and who stole what from whom, but what it comes down to at this point is that there are two groups of people who desperately want to protect the areas which have been their homelands since birth.

Neither group is going away. At this point it's coexist or cease to exist.

Re:Based on worthless technology?

[tsotha]

I've known about this program for years. They spent quite a bit of time testing it against Katusha rockets, mortars, and artillery shells at White Sands missile range. It works. Of course it won't shoot down ballistic missiles - they're too large and it doesn't have the range.

As to why rockets keep landing on Israel, well, consider how many people have been killed by all those unguided Kassam rockets. According to Wikipedia, thirteen people have been killed by Palestinian rocketeers after hundreds of tries. That's far less than one suicide bomber can do in a pizza joint. In the great scheme of things they're more of an annoyance than a danger - they're a psychological weapon. There's probably a hundred ways Israel can spend two billion dollars that will save more than thirteen lives over four years.

Re:Interesting, but...

[megaditto]

To be sure, the detection part is least of this system's problems.

The real difficulty is keeping the beam perfectly focused on a moving target (need to re-adjust the focus, keep on precisely the same spot), probably flying during a heavy fog/rain (cannot use IR there).

Why does the beam need to be focused? Because the target energy density would need to be at least on the order of 30 GigaWatt/m^2 (and much more if you are dealing with hardened stuff: e.g. a Russian SS-18).

The work on Ballistic Missile shield

Not for ballistic missiles

[A nonymous Coward]

I admit to being a typical non-RTFA slashdotter, but the sumamry quote that this is meant to be a bubble, and some knowledge of current affairs, makes it pretty unlikely that ballistic missiles are the expected intruding weapon of choice. Those are long distance inaccurate area weapons (SCUD) or nuclear war weapons, and then you have other problems. This is meant for, as the sumamry says, mortar shells, artillery, and manpads with a very short range targeted against planes as they are landing and taking off. Manpad defense is best done by confusing the seeker, but you still have the problem of a confused missile coming down who knows where. Mortar and artillery shells have thicker skins and probably would require burn thru and the concomittant high accuracy and long dwell time, and that sounds problematical to me. Since their target is planes on the ground, terminal buildings, etc, there isn't much point to confusing their aim, which is impossible for such ballistic weapons, and exploding them in the air is only better in that the shrapnel will fall down slower. Maybe they have some idea of being able to disable the exploder entirely, but I how?

I wonder if this is just a fairy tale along the lines of the Alaska ballistic missile defense system, whose purpose seem to be propping up the starving defense industry and making it look like the Current Occupant is doing something.

Re:Not for ballistic missiles

[sumdumass]

Shrapnel falling will reach a terminal velocity based on gravity. Friction will play a much stronger role in it's speed and energy. A projectile such as a artilery shell or RPG would have some limitations too but it's bigger mass would means an increased amount of energy on impact as well as probably exploding near ot at impact giving more nergy to the projectile.

I'm guessing that a falling RPG after it has been detonated(mid air) might have enough energy to harm a person/place/or thing, but the overal eff

Re:Not for ballistic missiles

[megaditto]

[...]purpose seem to be propping up the starving defense industry

You say it like 'donating' to weapons development is a bad thing for the US. But when shit hits the fan, America will still have its weapon pipeline even while everything else is outsourced to China...

[...]makes it pretty unlikely that ballistic missiles are the expected intruding weapon of choice.

They aren't. I was merely pointing out why Reagan-style missile defences is hard to build.

Overall, deploying rocket interceptors (like in Patriot) o

Re:Not for ballistic missiles

[A nonymous Coward]

You say it like 'donating' to weapons development is a bad thing for the US. But when shit hits the fan, America will still have its weapon pipeline even while everything else is outsourced to China.

I don't mind the spending itself so much as what it's spent on. The missile defense system was authorized in spite of being known in advance to not be workable, and authorized to bypass all the normal checks at each phase to proceed to the next phase. The missiles in the ground in Alaska are known to not work,

Re:Interesting, but...

[Mr Pippin]

Absolutely, seems like most expensive defense systems, they are either limited in scope, or countermeasures are comparatively cheap to implement.

For instance, if it can only actively track and destroy one target at time, then fire two missiles concurrently.

Get a bunch of birds, paint their undersides with radar reflective coating, and let them loose near the system. Might be more fun that feeding alka seltzer to seagulls.

Re:Blaming the victim...

[mynameismonkey]

Similarly, there are terror attacks (successful and foiled), against countries, whose foreign policies bully no one -- like Canada or India.

Huh? Canada, while not ever experiencing a terrorist attack in response to Canadian foreign policy, hasn't experienced a terrorist attack [wikipedia.org] since 1985 (Air India 182), not including violence deemed terrorist in nature against Cuban, Turkish and Indian politicians on Canadian soil, which brings me to my second point. You might want to ask Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or any Sik

Re:Feel the Force

[ThousandStars]

Note: if you're shooting for "funny," please ignore the rest of this, but sometimes it's hard to tell on /..

Exactly what do you want Bush to do? His choices are:

a) Do nothing. In the case of North Korea, a synonym for this option is "diplomacy."

b) introduce UN sanctions, which Japan may do anyway, and which China will probably veto.

c) bomb North Korea, thus probably inciting another war in Southeast Asia.

d) invade North Korea. I can't imagine South Korea letting us, and North Korea also has a million-man