An Inside Look At Flight Guard
In the aftermath of
9/11, with commercial aircraft still in the crosshairs of terrorist
groups like Al-Qaeda, Israel’s El Al Airlines has begun
testing a new on-board system designed to protect its planes from
the threat of shoulder-fired missiles. Meanwhile, the United States
has yet to complete the first stage of a feasibility study for its
own anti-missile system for commercial aircraft.
"Flight Guard," developed by ELTA Systems Ltd., a subsidiary of
Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), is designed to detect incoming
missiles, and in such cases, it releases a flare to divert the
heat-seeking missile away from the targeted aircraft.
Reports earlier this year said that El Al had begun installing
Flight Guard on a very small number of its passenger jets, after
the anti-missile system successfully passed the development stage.
The government budgeted 6 million shekels ($1.3 million) for El
Al’s first purchases; at an estimated cost of several
hundred-thousand dollars per system, it is believed that Flight
Guard was being installed on two planes at this stage.
El Al refuses to discuss the Flight Guard system, as the airline
does not comment on its security arrangements, which are considered
among the most stringent and comprehensive used by commercial
airlines today.
In November 2002, an Israeli charter jet in Kenya narrowly
escaped a shoulder-held missile fired by militants linked to
Al-Qaeda. It was in the wake of this near miss that the Israeli
government took steps to protect its commercial aircraft from such
missiles, also known as man-portable air defense systems
(MANPADS).
"We don't have to wait
until, God forbid, something happens," says Arik Ben-Ari, acting
director-general of Israel's Civil Aviation Administration.
Ben-Ari said that despite the system’s high cost, the
Israeli government "decided that it was important enough to spend
the money to defend planes from shoulder-fired missiles."
But Flight Guard has several hurdles to overcome before the
technology, already used for years in the military arena, is ready
for widespread use on commercial aircraft. One such obstacle is
that current Federal Aviation Administration regulations forbid
foreign aircraft equipped with such an anti-missile system from
landing at American airports, due to safety concerns.
One fear is that the flares could damage the plane itself or
nearby aircraft. Ben-Ari says that these issues were "being dealt
with and checked according to the highest standards in
international airports."
Such obstacles were discussed when Israeli Transportation
Minister Avigdor Lieberman met his American counterpart, Norman
Mineta, in Washington in late April. Shaike Rosenfeld, a spokesman
in the Israeli Transportation Ministry, says that the two held
"positive" conversations covering "everything having to do with air
travel security." However there was no indication if and when the
US would allow El Al planes equipped with Flight Guard to land at
American airports, but the two officials agreed to continue
discussions on the issue.
According to IAI, up to two weeks are needed to equip a plane
with Flight Guard, which includes front, side and aft antennas and
advanced miniaturized Pulse-Doppler radar installed inside the
cargo bay, which scans 360 degrees around the plane, and flare
dispensers attached to the underbelly. When the system detects a
missile, special mini-flares adapted for civil aviation use are
released and ignite a few meters from the plane, burning out after
three seconds with no residuals, but long enough to attract the
attention of a heat-seeking missile away from the aircraft. IAI
says that the flare trajectory while burning is within 150 meters
behind the plane and 100 feet below it, safely away from any other
aircraft and high above the ground. Pilots are informed by
indicators in the cockpit when a flare has been released, and they
also have access to an on/off switch to disable the system.
IAI claims that Flight Guard provides protection in all
missile-firing scenarios, including multiple launches, and in all
weather conditions. It says that the system has an ultra-low false
alarm rate, 99 percent probability of missile detection, no
unprotected zones ("dead zones") and uses a minimum of aircraft
resources. After testing is completed on El Al aircraft, it will be
clearer whether Flight Guard meets these standards.
Another potential obstacle is the cost. While the price of the
system is substantial, the greater cost is in the upkeep. US
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, Dr. Penrose "Parney"
Albright, who is familiar with Flight Guard, says that military
planes equipped with such anti-missile systems undergo much more
extensive and routine maintenance than commercial aircraft.
"It’s like a race car and your family Buick," he explains.
"The race car comes in for a pit stop and the crew takes care of
it. But the family car only gets an oil change after 5,000
miles."
Albright says "huge
costs" will be required to train crews at airports around the
country for upkeep of an anti-missile system. "Acquisition costs
are only a small piece," he says, adding that in the US no decision
has been made on who will foot the bill to equip aircraft with such
a system.
Albright says that El Al has an advantage in this regard because
it has such a small fleet and Israel has only one major airport,
Ben Gurion International Airport. Applying such a system to the US
poses many more challenges because the major airlines have many
more planes, and crews at numerous airports around the country
would have to be trained to handle an anti-missile system.
But while Israel is already in the testing phase, the US is
studying the feasibility of anti-missile systems for non-military
purposes. In January, the Department of Homeland Security announced
that teams led by BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman and United Airlines
were awarded $2 million contracts over six months to develop a plan
and test prototypes to determine whether a viable technology exists
to be used to protect commercial aircraft from the threat of
MANPADS.
In March, Northrop Grumman proposed a ground-based laser system
to defend commercial aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles, but the
Department of Homeland Security rejected the idea as "ineffective,"
says Albright.
Albright explains that there are two phases to the current
study: By the end of the first phase, which lasts six months, each
contractor is expected to produce a preliminary design, demonstrate
the ability to operate and maintain the system, and to decide
whether to go ahead with a prototype. By the conclusion of the
18-month second phase, which would come at the end of 2005, the
prototype will have been tested and be in a position for use.
Albright says the system will need to secure over 100 square
nautical miles around an airport to protect planes from MANPADS,
with some areas more vulnerable to attack than others.
"There’s no specific intelligence of an immediate threat
to our commercial aircraft, but we should recognize it as a threat;
we’d be remiss if we didn’t address it," says
Albright.
While analysts have
doubts that the American agencies responsible for the security of
civilian aircraft are capable of developing a system to protect
planes from missile-attacks, they are optimistic about
Israel’s chances.
Andrew Thomas, a professor of international business at the
University of Akron and author of Aviation Insecurity, thinks
Flight Guard "is a great idea for a commercial airline like El Al.
Israelis have a great understanding of training, assessment and
basic security principles. The US agencies charged with protecting
aircraft in the aftermath of 9/11 lack this understanding."
Aviation security analyst David Forbes, of BoydForbes, Inc., in
Evergreen (CO), says that experience fighting terror has made the
Israelis "more analytical about what you can achieve and what you
can expect" when developing such technologies, while Americans lack
this experience.
(ANN expresses its sincere thanks to Clark Hoover at The
Media Line)