FedEx Asks FAA To Let It Install Anti-Missile Lasers On Its Cargo Planes (gizmodo.com) 104
With the right military equipment, a single person can target a plane from three miles away using a heat-seeking missile. While such a nightmare is a rare occurrence, FedEx has applied to the FAA seeking approval to install a laser-based, anti-missile defense system on its cargo planes as an added safety measure. Gizmodo reports: FedEx's request to the Federal Aviation Administration, filed on Jan. 4, didn't come completely out of left field, however. In 2008, the company worked with Northrop Grumman to test its anti-missile laser-based defense systems on 12 of the shipping company's cargo planes for over a year. At the time, Northrop Grumman announced that its "system is ready to be deployed on civilian aircraft," although no commercial orders had been placed at the time, according to a company spokesperson. That may have changed, however.
FedEx's application to the FAA (PDF) to allow it to install and use anti-missile systems on its Airbus Model A321-200 cargo planes doesn't specifically mention Northrop Grumman's hardware, so the shipping company could now be working with another company, but the proposed hardware is basically the same as what was tested back in 2008. In the application document (PDF), which is "scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Jan. 18," FedEx cites "several incidents abroad" where "civilian aircraft were fired upon by man-portable air defense systems" which are nearly impossible to detect given their range of operation, but undoubtedly a serious threat when operating aircraft in some parts of the world.
The biggest problem with FedEx's application seems to be that the FAA's "design standards for transport category airplanes did not envisage that a design feature could project infrared laser energy outside the airplane" and that the "FAA's design standards are inadequate to address this capability." As a result, the defense system is being considered a "novel or unusual design feature" and as such will be subjected to several special safety regulations given how dangerous intense infrared light can be to the skin and eyes of "persons on the aircraft, on the ground, and on other aircraft." These regulations will include the ability to completely disable the system while the airplane is on the ground to prevent "inadvertent operation," a design that prevents inflight use from ever damaging the aircraft itself or risking the safety of the crew and passengers, even in the event of a system failure or accidental operation. They also require extensive markings, labels, warnings, and documentation for everyone from maintenance staff to ground crew, to pilots, warning them of the laser's class and risks, including an addendum to the flight manual explaining the complete use of the system.
FedEx's application to the FAA (PDF) to allow it to install and use anti-missile systems on its Airbus Model A321-200 cargo planes doesn't specifically mention Northrop Grumman's hardware, so the shipping company could now be working with another company, but the proposed hardware is basically the same as what was tested back in 2008. In the application document (PDF), which is "scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Jan. 18," FedEx cites "several incidents abroad" where "civilian aircraft were fired upon by man-portable air defense systems" which are nearly impossible to detect given their range of operation, but undoubtedly a serious threat when operating aircraft in some parts of the world.
The biggest problem with FedEx's application seems to be that the FAA's "design standards for transport category airplanes did not envisage that a design feature could project infrared laser energy outside the airplane" and that the "FAA's design standards are inadequate to address this capability." As a result, the defense system is being considered a "novel or unusual design feature" and as such will be subjected to several special safety regulations given how dangerous intense infrared light can be to the skin and eyes of "persons on the aircraft, on the ground, and on other aircraft." These regulations will include the ability to completely disable the system while the airplane is on the ground to prevent "inadvertent operation," a design that prevents inflight use from ever damaging the aircraft itself or risking the safety of the crew and passengers, even in the event of a system failure or accidental operation. They also require extensive markings, labels, warnings, and documentation for everyone from maintenance staff to ground crew, to pilots, warning them of the laser's class and risks, including an addendum to the flight manual explaining the complete use of the system.
Friggin' FedEx (Score:2)
Re: Friggin' FedEx (Score:3)
Re: Friggin' FedEx (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't personally have any information on this system or FedEx's application, but I imagine that the US might be more favorable to a US company using a (defensive) weapons system developed by another US company. If/when it is approved in the US, then FedEx might have an easier time getting approval in other places.
I have no idea if this is true, just idle speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
I am more curious if other countries will allow such airplanes to routinely fly over their countries, or land at their airports.
I understand civilian ships are not allowed to have weapons in them. Would similar rules apply to civilian planes? Especially since this defensive system can presumably modified to become weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Airplanes themselves can be "modified to become weapons." If that were the criterion, no one could fly.
Re: (Score:2)
I would presume because of goods traveling to/from foreign countries and the US that might travel over hostile regions?
So, the planes would be in the US airspace at times.
Re: (Score:2)
Travelling "over" hostile regions wouldn't be a problem when you're flying at 36,000ft...no shoulder mounted missile is a threat then. It's during takeoff and landing that you get within range, but that can be 100+ miles from the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
Search up Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and get back to me. There's a lot more than shoulder mounted missiles laying around a battlefield when countries like Russia arm and take advantage of small groups of untrained separatists to cause chaos before a planned invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... the missile that took down Flight 17 was a Buk 9M38-series surface-to-air missile with a 9N314M warhead. The missile itself weighs 690 kg and is 5.5 meters long. The warhead adds another 70 kg to that.
The world weight lifting record is under 500kg, but you somehow thought a 760kg missile that's 3x longer than the average human height could be fired from a shoulder.
You should be ashamed that you were dumb enough to suggest others should look up that incident when you have clearly not done the same
Re: Friggin' FedEx (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did, and he was responding to my comment, and the whole point is that FEDEX specified that type of weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Birds of that size use semi-active radar homing guidance systems, so an infrared laser jammer would be ineffective for that threat. The laser system should be effective against smaller infrared seeking missile like the one that hit the DHL [youtu.be] cargo jet leaving Bagdad.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would they be applying to the FAA (U.S. government) for permission to do things in foreign nations? (Serious question)
Because the planes probably have to land in the US at least occasionally, and I doubt someone is going to go out and uninstall the system while the plane is over the Atlantic Ocean.
Re: Friggin' FedEx (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine many countries would find a weapon, even an anti-missile laser system, less than enticing to allow planes to land per how ship
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the ship.
Commercial ships usually can declare the weapons and have them either in a sealed container or stored at port authorities in a sealed container.
For pleasure boats it is more complicated. A handgun for emergency flares that I could obtain in Germany, e.g. is illegal because gun laws in France (which is pretty strange as "ordinary guns" I much easier to get their than in Germany, as far as I know).
The main problem basically is that most countries demand a permit to carry/posses a gun. And
Re: (Score:2)
Weapon, what weapon, all I see is an infrared anti-collision light, now does your country's President want his Amazon Package or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they be applying to the FAA (U.S. government) for permission to do things in foreign nations? (Serious question)
US registered and flagged aircraft.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I didn't know missile attacks were such a big problem. I'll bet those things aren't cheap
Now they will be able to safely serve Oakland and Chicago.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"Now they will be able to safely serve Oakland and Chicago." ... and Los Angeles?
https://twitter.com/johnschrei... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They have another solution [abc.net.au] for the rail yards in Los Angeles.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like they could use some of those here:
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
This could be a job for police drones in the future, hang around watching for burglaries and then follow the perp's.
Re: (Score:1)
Now they will be able to safely serve Oakland and Chicago.
Neither of which are in the top ten in violent crime.
Re: Friggin' FedEx (Score:2)
Gang bangers from the hood with anti-aircraft weapons makes complete sense, as opposed to wacko militias from Trumpistan.
Are we talking about the Robocop universe or reality? Because if an incident like this were to actually happen, I think I'd scratch the 'hood off my list of suspects pretty quick.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Every Israeli passenger aircraft has this system installed. I've never heard of it being used, but they'd likely never tell us.
Re: (Score:3)
Although from what I gather just now in a quick google search, Israeli aircraft use a flare-based system to throw off heat-seeking missiles. Not anything laser based.
Re:Friggin' FedEx (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I used to design these systems for a living. I worked on one for BAE Systems called Jeteye based on the military ATIRCM system, and the competing system from Northrop was called LAIRCM - I don't know which one Fedex is asking to install, and the article doesn't say, but if forced to guess I would say LAIRCM. The Israelis have a combination of laser based and flare based systems. My understanding is that the flare based systems are not allowed near cities because of the risk of the flares starting a fire. The laser systems are expensive, probably $250k USD a pop, and I've heard that while all of the Israeli passenger aircraft are fitted with the countermeasure housing (and I've seen some of them while at the airport), only some of them actually have the full system inside the housing.
Re: Friggin' FedEx (Score:1)
Re: Friggin' FedEx (Score:4, Informative)
There's a crapton of math involved, and some classified bits, but long story short, the same way the missile finds the aircraft. The aircraft looks for the missile engine signature, and if it keeps getting larger, it's probably headed towards you. There can be some error if you're in an area where there are a lot of aircraft (like and airport) in that it may be headed towards another aircraft near you, and not you, but in the case of laser-based countermeasures, the laser shots don't cost you anything so there's no significant harm in a false alarm, except maybe for the pilot's underpants.
Re: (Score:2)
How on earth does the aircraft know it has a missile coming for it?
Pretty much the same way you can buy a device for your car that detects police radar, laser or lidar.
Small single seat military aircraft have had that capability since at least the 1960s. Some missiles are guided by radar, some all the way to the target, some until it is at close range and can switch to its own onboard targeting system, possible another radar or infra red. More recently you could add the flash of a missile launch being detected, a laser designator detected.
Re: (Score:3)
Disclaimer: I used to design these systems for a living. I worked on one for BAE Systems called Jeteye based on the military ATIRCM system, and the competing system from Northrop was called LAIRCM - I don't know which one Fedex is asking to install, and the article doesn't say, but if forced to guess I would say LAIRCM. The Israelis have a combination of laser based and flare based systems. My understanding is that the flare based systems are not allowed near cities because of the risk of the flares starting a fire. The laser systems are expensive, probably $250k USD a pop, and I've heard that while all of the Israeli passenger aircraft are fitted with the countermeasure housing (and I've seen some of them while at the airport), only some of them actually have the full system inside the housing.
A B787/A350 is about that much, A 777 is about US $320m. This is to say nothing of the value of the cargo or cost of the pilots life (in human terms and insurance terms).
That being said, I largely agree this sounds like a poorly thought out brain fart, but FedEx operates all over the world including countries where insurgents getting a hold of an old Russian MANPAD. A 777 on take off or landing isn't going to be able to manoeuvre away from a SA-7, let alone the more modern SA-14 and 24s... but this sound
Re: (Score:2)
The cost seems small against the cost of the aircraft and the human losses, but you have to think about the whole system. . There are 25,000 commercial aircraft in the world, so putting a system at $100k on each would be $25B + spares + maintenance. How many lives/aircraft would actually be saved by doing this? How many aircraft are actually shot at in any given year? There was a program in the US several years ago called Countermanpads (you can Google it), and they looked at a lot of these questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Those questions are not really relevant.
As every airline only has to cover the costs for its own planes.
I guess there are plenty of > $25B (per even) industries (companies even) on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Question: How the hell does a commercial jet detect an incoming SAM? Commercial-grade RADAR pretty much is confined to a forward cone.
And how much time do they have from detection to defensive response? My guess is well less than 20 seconds in most cases. Is this all automatic or do the pilots have to pull the trigger?
(disclaimer: I've done work for BAE as well but it was on the P8A.)
Re:Friggin' FedEx (Score:4, Interesting)
I answered part of this above - incoming missiles are detected optically from their engine signature, not radar. As for how long an engagement takes, that depends on a ton of factors. What's the velocity of the incoming missile? What's the range to the aircraft when it is fired? Is it a nose shot, in which case the aircraft velocity adds to the missile velocity, or a tail chase, or something from the side? Classified, classified, classified, yadda, yadda, yadda - the engagements are fast enough that the systems are entirely automated under most conditions. BTW, there's an interesting side conversation about missile detection, in that the more time you spend looking at the incoming signature, the more sure you can be that it is a missile and that it is headed towards you, but the less time you have to do something about it. It's a trade space between false alarms versus getting hit with a missile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The rocket motors in most missile have a very high impulse grains that ignite initially and quite explosively to get the missile out of the tube or off the rail and up to speed. This makes a huge launch signature of high temperature smokey gasses and noise. After that lower impulse sustainer grains keep the bird flying. With the shoulder fired missiles it's actually more of an recoiless rifle like ejection charge to get the bird down range far enough the the engine ignition doesn't kill or mame the operato
Re: (Score:1)
I'd guess LAIRCM as well...I don't know about combat usage, but the N-G systems are installed on USAF C-17 and C-5 aircraft, and we haven't heard about either of those A/C being shot down by SAM (either handheld or ground-based).
Re: Friggin' FedEx (Score:2)
I had that thought as I wrote my comment, but had no idea what else to call it. Interesting tidbit?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I used to design these systems for a living.
Why would that be a disclaimer?
Because it's the rare instance where someone knows what they're talking about, and the audience might not be accustomed to that.
Re: Friggin' FedEx (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't know missile attacks were such a big problem.
Yep. This is the insular thinking I've come to expect on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
they are very rare, though.
Airliners fly too high for MANPADs.
Re: (Score:1)
Suppose your package is going to the Ukraine (Score:2)
Also consider scenarios such as international relief aid, in an area where politics prevents US military aircraft. Or simple where commercial is more convenient due to a low, but non-zero, threat environment.
Also consider flying near war zones. Pro-Russian separatists shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over the Ukraine.
Airlines and Cargo Carriers have Nat Defense role (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Pull the pins on a full sized M-16A2 and it fits in the overhead.
Bah.
Pull the pin on an M67 before you put it in the overhead, and it enlarges the bin enough to fit the M16 with everything still attached!
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know missile attacks were such a big problem. I'll bet those things aren't cheap
They aren't. Some sales rep at Grumman is getting a massive bonus this year.
Next year, they'll sell FedEx a shark-repellent coating for their aircraft.
I'd allow it, with a caveat (Score:2, Funny)
They should be required to paint their planes to look like sharks.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be required to paint their planes to look like sharks.
Something like the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk [wikimedia.org] ...
Re: (Score:2)
That plane is awesome enough even without a laser.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/n... [lonelyplanet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That’s definitely laser ready.
Laser Beams (Score:2)
Must be working (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe competition is heating up.
WUT? (Score:2)
Real question: has a FedEx cargo plane every been (almost?) shot down by a missile?
Re: (Score:2)
No [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here are a few other incidents [wikipedia.org]. A good question might be 'why protect a cargo plane instead of passengers'. But there might be some certification issues placing weapons (even defensive) onboard passenger aircraft. As well as liability issues. Defending yourself could be seen as a challenge to some groups and attract more attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that might make sense is one of the aviation company is making a play to commercialize the technology for civilian aircraft. FedEx would make a reasonable proving ground. It might cost fedex nothing in e
Re: (Score:2)
It not like the proud boys or sovereign citizens are going to go a rampage and shoot down multiple planes
Unless... the CEO of FedEx is a clairvoyant!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. A defense contractor is the most likely driving force behind this.
I can also see the military placing some limitations on the system too. "Make sure you only approve the 3rd Generation technology, not the new 5th Generation stuff." I can see some bad actors practicing on FedEx planes to try to fine tune their heat
Re: (Score:2)
Delay their delivery. Oh wait..
Re: (Score:2)
The question is how does this investment make sense from a business point of view.
US commercial carriers have a military auxiliary role. Its one of the reasons for the occasional financial bail outs. Our airliners and cargo carriers are considered a strategic asset in major world war scenarios. Sort of like commercial cargo ships from WW2 days. Having a compartment on airliners and cargo aircraft that would allow for the quick mounting of a defensive system would be something the US government might help out with. Or something agreed to during a bail out.
Re: (Score:2)
> It seems it would be cheaper to get middle insurance and good life insurance policies for the pilots.
That would be wasted money.
With such a threat identified, were an attack to occur, the insurance instead of defense would almost certainly be construed as bad faith, negligence, or reckless, and punitive damages in excess of the cost of the missile system would be assessed.
Remember the Ford Pinto?
Under the law at the time, the cost of preventing the projected number of accidents grossly exceeded the val
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty safe to assume your insurance doesn't cover acts of war, terrorism, insurrection or riots unless your lawyer tells you otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
in this case, that would be the very *purpose* of such a policy, and would explicitly cover it.
Re: (Score:2)
Real question: has a FedEx cargo plane every been (almost?) shot down by a missile?
An actually airliner was shot down over the Ukraine in 2014 by Russian separatists. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.
Re: WUT? (Score:1)
That was a Russian BUK anti air system, firing radar guided telephone pole missiles to 30,000+ feet.
Slightly different to an IR manpad fired at a plane 1000 ft up.
Re: (Score:2)
That was a Russian BUK anti air system, firing radar guided telephone pole missiles to 30,000+ feet. Slightly different to an IR manpad fired at a plane 1000 ft up.
Some SAM are guided to near the target, then the SAM switches to onboard guidance. Such onboard guidance may be interfered with by lasers.
Re: (Score:2)
"You say 'UPS plane.' I say 'Giant missle attack!'"
Federal Express (Score:2)
frikken 747s with "lasers" (Score:1)
FEDEX needs these lasers to take out the Verizon and Sprint 5G towers near the airports.
Re: (Score:2)
FEDEX needs these lasers to take out the Verizon and Sprint 5G towers near the airports.
What, people are modding down "laser" jokes as "Flamebait" now?
Sigh...
First it's militarization of police (Score:1)
Gotta wonder at the real purpose.
Not like this happens enough to be reflected in the insurers declarations.
Economic competition isn't supposed to get violent (Score:1)
Are we missing something here? Or is this forward planning for the imminent civil war in the USA?
Re: (Score:2)
Are we missing something here? Or is this forward planning for the imminent civil war in the USA?
Its very old planning. Cold War planning sort of stuff. Commercial airliners and cargo aircraft have always been considered a military auxiliary asset, like commercial cargo ships at sea.
Re: (Score:2)
In a related news... (Score:2)
The obvious conclusion is (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Just don't call them asking where your package is [youtube.com]
Need one for ground attack (Score:1)
You know how we hear about the asshats who think it's funny [fox19.com] to shine lasers into the eyes of pilots [justice.gov]? Instead of worrying about a missile attack, have the missile go after the ground target.
Guaranteed people will think twice knowing a missile will be on its way in seconds to their location.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because overreaction is always a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people really, really want to live in a hyper-violent authoritarian state because at least then those damn kids next door will get what's coming to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what is even more dangerous? (Score:2)
As a result, the defense system is being considered a "novel or unusual design feature" and as such will be subjected to several special safety regulations given how dangerous intense infrared light can be to the skin and eyes of "persons on the aircraft, on the ground, and on other aircraft."
I think I'd rather be inadvertently struck for a moment by an anti-missile laser as I sat on the ground, rather than have burning aircraft debris raining down all around me.
I do wonder how this deploys though, does it
Re: (Score:2)
Subsidizing Weapon Suppliers (Score:1)
Start with package shippers because no one really cares, then work your way toward school buses ... for the children. And Sharks!
Flak is better (Score:1)
Wait, are we talking Stellaris?
Nasty plan (Score:2)
I assume it is just a plan to get rid of enemies's delivery drones like Amazons.
They're probably worried.. (Score:1)
..about the arsenal of weaponry the allah akbahs got their hands on when the US cut and ran from Afghanistan.
EL-AL already has had them for some time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"On 22 November 2003, shortly after takeoff from Baghdad, Iraq, an Airbus A300B4-200F cargo plane, registered OO-DLL and owned by European Air Transport, was struck on the left wing by a surface-to-air missile while on a scheduled flight to Muharraq, Bahrain"