U.S. Tests Missile Defense Technology on Commercial Planes

The U.S. government is moving ahead with plans to test technology to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles, a major step toward requiring all U.S. planes to be so equipped. Meanwhile, a key lawmaker suggested it should first be mandatory on the new 800-passenger A380 jet produced by Airbus.

Just months after the U.S. Congress approved another $110 million to develop technology against so-called "Man-Portable Air Defense Systems," the government will test devices developed for the military on three out-of-service Boeing 767 airplanes, the Department of Homeland Security said. The technology uses sensors to determine if a missile has been fired at the plane and deploys lasers to jam the missile's heat-seeking guidance systems.

U.S. officials have become increasingly concerned that terrorists will attempt to shoot down a commercial jet since two shoulder-fired SA-7 missiles were launched at an Israeli charter jet in Kenya in 2002. A shoulder-fired missile also hit a DHL plane in Iraq, forcing it to make an emergency landing.

"We are long overdue for a passenger aircraft to be taken down by a shoulder-launched missile," said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), who chairs the House subcommittee on aviation. The worries are compounded by estimates that there are many as 70,000 missile launchers available for sale on the black market.

Mica this summer introduced legislation to require the A380 be outfitted with the technology, calling the superjumbo jet an "irresistible target" for terrorists.

"When you launch a new aircraft that can carry the population of a small village, it must require, at a minimum, a missile defense system as standard operating equipment," Mica said.

This summer's tests will demonstrate what the $120 million spent on the project already has produced. U.S. airlines are skeptical of the proposal, with the Rand Group warning it would cost between $11 billion to outfit all 6,800 U.S. aircraft with the defenses.

The Rand Corp. concluded in a study earlier this year the defenses were "not cost-effective" and said money would be better spent on airport security and design improvements to help an aircraft withstand a missile strike.

James May, president of the Air Transport Association, the trade group for U.S. airlines, warned the White House in a letter last month the ultimate tab to outfit U.S. aircraft with the anti-missile sensors may reach $100 billion to install and maintain the systems year after year. Moreover, he said, there's little guarantee the technology provides blanket protection.

"If you look at the relative threat involved, it's simply not worth that kind of investment," May said. "All the reports I have seen indicate that it is not fully effective against those missiles that it is designed to defeat, and there are a number of missiles it is simply incapable of defeating."

Two separate contracting teams, one led by Northrop Grumman and the other by BAE Systems, each have spent $45 million adapting technology already in use by the military. More than 200 U.S. military transport planes use Northrop Grumman's technology and BAE Systems equips U.S. military helicopters in Iraq.

The military has been so pleased with the Northrop Grumman technology that it last month paid Boeing Corp. $31.2 million to upgrade 25 more C-17 transport planes with the technology. The Department of Homeland Security said no matter how successful the technology has been in protecting military planes, adapting it for commercial use is more difficult because passenger jets fly in and out of myriad airports, making maintenance a challenge.

Israel's El Al jets are equipped with the technology, but they're relatively easy to maintain because they all fly in and out of one airport where maintenance operations can be centralized.