Commercial jet flies with anti-missile system: This is an interesting turn of events, but I still think we should equip airports with anti-missile defenses rather than individual planes.
An MD-10 cargo jet equipped with Northrop Grumman’s Guardian anti-missile system took off from Los Angeles International Airport on a commercial flight Tuesday, the company said.
The FedEx flight marked the start of operational testing and evaluation of the laser system designed to defend against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles during takeoffs and landings.
Raytheon developing technology to divert missiles aimed at airliners: This is a competitor to the current plan of installing missle-avoidance systems in the airplaces themselves. Called the Vigilant Eagle system, it would position a grid of infrared sensors on cellphone towers and buildings around airports. When it detected a heat-seeking missile…
both ideas (anti-missile on planes and airports) are a waste of time and money. "Security theater", or "movie-plot terrorism", as Bruce Schneier calls it http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/antimissiledef.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/anti-missilede.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/01/airplane_defens.html
Whats really needed are secure cockpit doors. The airline industry refused to implement them during the Clinton administration because it cost $5000 per plane and they didn't care about safety, so the FAA didn't mandate it. It would have prevented 9/11 if they had them, and the GOP came up with the moronic idea of guns in the cockpit instead. Shoulder fire missile threat would only be an issue in war torn areas, and its unlikely that it would stop advanced truck-based missiles like the S-300 or the Tor-M1.
Some defense contractor must have pushed for this, and congress got their kickback somehow.