Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (22159)	1/25/2005 4:03:36 PM
From: RealMuLan	Respond to of 116555

Study: Airliner Anti-Missile System Too Costly Tue Jan 25, 2005 02:48 PM ET By Deborah Charles WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. anti-missile technology is still too costly to install on America's passenger airlines to guard against Al Qaeda using shoulder-fired missiles to shoot down the planes, according to a study on Tuesday. Laser-based jammer technology, used mainly in military aircraft to thwart shoulder-fired missile attacks, is not yet practical to use on commercial airplanes, said the study by RAND Corp., a non-profit research organization. The report said it would cost about $11 billion plus about $2.1 billion a year in operational costs to install missile countermeasures on the nation's 6,800 commercial aircraft. "Given the significant costs involved with operating countermeasures based upon current technology, we believe a decision to install such systems aboard commercial airliners should be postponed until the technologies can be developed and shown to be more compatible in a commercial environment," RAND said in its report. "Al Qaeda and its affiliates have both the motive and the means to bring down U.S. commercial aircraft with shoulder-fired missiles," the study said. "No such attempt has yet been made against a U.S. carrier, but given the measures being taken to preclude 9/11-style attacks, the use of (shoulder-fired missiles) will unavoidably become more attractive to terrorists," it said, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001 hijacked plane attacks by al Qaeda on the United States that killed 3,000 people. RAND researchers found many unresolved questions about how the anti-missile systems would operate on commercial airlines, including issues such as the number of false alarms and whether attackers could find ways to circumvent the safeguards. Last year the U.S. Department of Homeland Security awarded $45 million contracts each to Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems Plc to design separate proposals to re-engineer the military system so anti-missile systems could be used on passenger aircraft. A Homeland Security spokesman said the defense companies were about one-third finished with the effort. The two main priorities are to find ways to reduce costs and improve the operational integrity of the systems, for example by decreasing the number of false alarms, said Donald Tighe of the department's Science and Technology section. Concern over the possibility that attackers might use the shoulder-fired missiles to shoot down a plane grew after the Sept. 11 hijackings and after shoulder-fired missiles nearly hit an Israeli airliner with 261 passengers taking off from Kenya in November 2002. Al Qaeda and other groups hostile to the United States have shoulder-fired missiles and the ability to use them, RAND said. It said more than 700,000 such missiles have been produced since the 1970s. Thousands of the missiles are unaccounted for and some types can be bought in arms bazaars in parts of the Middle East and Central Asia for as little as $5,000, the report said. The biggest domestic airlines are aware of the threat but have been skeptical of the plan to protect commercial planes with an anti-missile system. In addition to equipment and installation costs, airlines were concerned with maintenance expenses and liability at a time when they are struggling financially. The U.S. industry is expected to post losses of more than $2 billion for 2004. (additional reporting by John Crawley) © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. reuters.com