"Funds available for defense on U.S. passenger jets"

Friday, October 20, 2006

Funds available for defense on passenger jets 
In test, systems would go on a few planes to protect against shoulder-fired
missiles
By Paul J. Caffera
The San Francisco (CA) Chronicle


Washington -- The effort to put anti-missile defenses on some commercial
aircraft quietly received a big boost recently from Congress. 

A little-noticed provision of the Department of Homeland Security's latest
funding bill provides money to place onto passenger aircraft equipment that
can defend against shoulder-fired weapons known as MANPADS, or Man-Portable
Air Defense Systems. 

The legislation, passed last month and signed by President Bush on Oct. 4,
includes funding for an expansion of a Homeland program that is evaluating
the feasibility of permanently installing state-of-the-art missile defenses
on airliners. 

Earlier this year, the president requested $4.9 million for the existing
program. According to Homeland spokesman Christopher C. Kelly, Congress went
beyond this request and provided a total of $40 million for the program.
Along with the extra funds, Kelly says, Congress directed Homeland to expand
its counter-MANPADS program to include "a service evaluation in the
passenger-carrying environment." Until now, the program has been limited to
cargo planes. 

Under the current legislation, it is unlikely that more than about a dozen
of the nearly 4,000 passenger jets operated by the major airlines will be
outfitted with missile defenses. Even then, the installation will be a
temporary measure, designed to gather data on whether the systems create any
operational difficulties for airlines. 

The Pentagon contracts with commercial airlines to fly most of its troops
overseas, but none of the soon-to-be-protected passenger planes would be
allowed to ferry troops to the Middle East. The federal government's
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) restrict when sensitive
military equipment may leave or enter the United States. 

Jack Pledger, director of infrared countermeasures development for Northrop
Grumman, told The Chronicle: "The ITAR issues are a significant barrier to
protecting CRAF aircraft (the commercial airliners the Pentagon charters for
transporting troops)." 

How soon the systems can be installed is an open question. The Federal
Aviation Administration will not allow anti-missile defenses to be installed
onto any plane unless it can be shown they will not adversely affect the
aircraft's airworthiness -- a process that can become expensive and time
consuming. 

Although the systems under development for commercial use cost about $1
million per plane, not all of the $40 million budgeted for this fiscal year
will go to purchase the systems. A portion of the money would be used to run
the Special Program Office, which oversees the counter-MANPADS project. 

Also, which airlines will participate in the expanded program has not been
settled. When the Homeland counter-MANPADS program began, two passenger
airlines, Northwest and American, agreed to assist BAE Systems and Northrop
respectively by providing test aircraft. Currently, American Airlines is the
only passenger airline still providing an aircraft to the program. 

Northwest spokesman Roman Blahoski said that Northwest "is no longer
providing any aircraft for testing" as a result of its bankruptcy filing and
the need for the airline to focus on restoring itself to profitability. 

As a result, American Airlines, which lost two planes and crews in the Sept.
11 attacks, appears well positioned to become the first U.S. airline to fly
with shoulder-fired missile protection. A week ago, BAE System officials met
with American Airlines to discuss placing its "JETEYE" system onto
American's passenger planes. Earlier this week, BAE Systems met with
Homeland officials to try to move the plan forward. 

American Airlines spokesman John Hotard would say only that, "American
Airlines is in discussions with BAE regarding the next phase of its
counter-MANPADS program." 

Homeland spokesman Kelly said, "We are talking with both contractors about
this," but would not comment on airline participation in the program,
directing those inquiries to the airlines.

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************