Commercial Airline Missile Defense Act

formatting link

Schumer is so 2-faced....last February along with that other stalwart for
freedom Mrs.Boxer, they introduce this act........and then
he turns around 6 months later and says our models can shoot down the same
planes that will have the first build is designed to
defend.....I wonder if the BATFE is aware of this 1st Bill? .....go figure
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Loading thread data ...
freedom Mrs.Boxer, they introduce this act........and then
planes that will have the first build is designed to
did you read the text of the act? my bullshit detector is on red alert. they want to install "missile defense systems" in all comair.
gee, the military has been working on this kind of pipedream for years but I don't think it works yet. what's next, legislating pi to be 3.0?
Reply to
Cliff Sojourner
3.1: close but no cigar :)
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
at least a law like this ACTUALLY IS DESIGNED to fight terrorists and NOT hinder law abiding citizens uselessly.
Chris Taylor
formatting link

for freedom Mrs.Boxer, they introduce this act........and then
same planes that will have the first build is designed to
Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
And you don't think the resulting massive increase in airline fares would hinder law abiding citizens?
Rocket Flyer Southeast Georgia
Reply to
Rocket Flyer
you know what I am talking about.
Law abiding citizens are going to pay this money whether you want or liek it or not so just drop that issue right now. WE ARE PAYING.
the question is do you want to PAY to reduce terrorism or do you want to PAY to reduce your own rights (remember either way your gonna pay)
I would rather pay to reduce terrorism.
this is the FIRST law I have seen that ACTUALLY MIGHT reduce the threat ot terror without infringing on our constitutional rights or provacy etc..
Amazing also today how Homeland Security tried to take credit for how effeciently cities handled the blackout issues. Grrr what the hell did homeland security do !!
Chris Taylor
formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
But your gonna pay either way.
so which would you prefer to pay for. Defense that might actually work and not reduce your privacy or rights etc..
or defense that does NOTHING to protect you except it does VERY well at reducing and trashing your rights.
either which way you choose YOU ARE GOING TO PAY. I prefer the first one if I have to pick one.
Chris Taylor
formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
Cliff Sojourner wrote in news:GkX_a.111948$cF.31640@rwcrnsc53:
The US already has missile warning systems that are quite effective,installed on military aircraft,and some aircraft already have versions of DIRCM,Directed InfraRed Countermeasures systems.The early ones use a xenon lamp,newer ones use lasers to either mislead or blind the seeker. You should subscribe to Aviation Week and Space Technology,occasionally they have articles on these systems,and the systems used to test them. They even have models on a cable across a span that they can fire real SAMs at while the aircraft model moves across the cable. They are much more effective than flare countermeasures for the newer MANPADS like Igla.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
Rocket Flyer wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Still cheaper than what would happen to the economy after a large jet full of citizens gets shot down.Look at what happened after 9-11.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
Are you sure you were allowed to tell us this? :)
On a more technical note, this strategy seems to assume that the threat is IR/optical guided. (The "Igla" may well be, but there's other ways...)
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
You can safely point to and quote from the Aviation Week articles. Anything beyond that might be treason and might be punishable (up to life in prison or execution).
I said "might".
Serious as a F-ing heart attack.
Why don't you folks just discuss model rockets? It's much safer.
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117
-- ""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
Reply to
Fred Shecter
I wonder if that jet was shot down as it passed right over the capitol and therfore also took out an additional 535 people, if it would help any?
shockie preparing to disappear........................... this was a unpaid political announcement......protected by the 1st amendment.......
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
I should think the effect on the economy as a whole would be similar to any other air disaster - rather small. Or it should be.
Most of the economic fallout from 9/11 we did to ourselves.
Reply to
Scott Schuckert
"shockwaveriderz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
You ought to remember that our Gov't representatives fly on commercial flights,so they are going to take action to protect those aircraft,as they might be on one of them.
BTW,how many of you folks vote? That's how those 535 men and women got into office. I vote.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
Scott Schuckert wrote in news:150820032227073643% snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net:
And we'd do it to ourselves again if a large jetliner was shot down,even worse than 9-11.(at least Wall St. would.)
Reply to
Jim Yanik
I think the whole thing is a pretty silly idea.
BUT... The subset of missles that a commercial airliner would have to worry about is a WHOLE lot smaller than what a military aircraft has to worry about. I mean, the airliner probably has to worry about deflecting ONE shoulder mounted surface-to-air missle. After which it can panic and land and shut everything down for a couple of weeks while forces chase terrorists. A shoulder-mounted S-A missle isn't going to have the kind of smarts a 200lb sidewinder. For that matter, it probably doesn't have all that much range, and would have to used during takeoffs and landings. I wonder if it would be easier to equip airports with anti-missle systems that would protect ALL the planes landing or taking off...
BillW
Reply to
Bill Westfield
Or our government did for us...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Think about the hazardous materials they'd have to put on commercial airliners to do this. The same kind of stuff they won't let us take on board now. On all commercial airlines in much larger quantities than ever before. Can any one say ValueJet?
Military pilots assume this risk. The death rate per person-mile flown is MUCH higher in a military aircraft than a commercial plane. Is that increased risk gonna be forced on the civilian population by our nanny government? Who is gonna pay the liability lawsuits the first time a plane goes down because of these devices?
I'd rather take my chances with hijackers under the air travel laws that were in place in the pre "D B Cooper" days than either what we had on 9/10/2001, what we have post 9/11, or what we're likely to have shoved down out throats in the next few years.
If we want security and don't give a damn about peoples rights, lets be honest about the process, and adopt the Israeli model, and put guards with Uzis all over our airports, on our planes, and for that matter on every street corner. And let's stop and search any one that walks by any where, at any time, for any reason. The hell with the constitution or bill of rights. They're just worthless pieces of paper.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
If I were a terrorist I would not buy a Stinger. I would buy a Sidewinder or SAM or whatever and ground launch it at the target.
I am not a terrorist.
The whole idea of countermeasures is silly but if a contractor could be ound to install flares and maybe a laser pointer on planes mass-market style (say Apple Computer as opposed to Grumman) then fine. But to saddle commercial aircraft with military engineered and priced ANYTHING is a realy bad economic idea.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
And that's the key to the whole thing, isn't it? Detect, deploy, intercept has a lot of time at 40,000 feet.
Joel. phx
Reply to
Joel Corwith

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.