Stratofortress

[Matt308]

The only thing I cared about with that jacket was the fact I had like seven quid in change in the inner pocket, if you look. That's why it weighs so much.

On the missile thing, I'm just throwing this out here. But I think some kind of heat sensing equipment would be quite useful, it would be able to detect it when it's launched because obviously they give off a lot of heat to launch. I don't know how it'd work, but it's an idea.

Already exists gents. The question becomes one of money for retrofit. C-17 has 'em (IRST) with turret mounted laser for countermeasure. Civil regulations are being reviewed as we speak that may also require civil retrofit for Part 121 and 135 operations. Estimated costs are claimed to be about $1M per aircraft for laser countermeasures. Less for passive devices such as flares or decoys. As you can imagine, the manufacturers are salivating for this new rule.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I know on our Blackhawks all we had was Countermeasures kit which included a (wont go into details because the system is actually a classified system) a detection system for Radar guided missiles and Chaff and then a IR suppression system for the IR missiles but you still had to detect IR missiles by sight.

 

[syscom3]

.....passive devices such as flares or decoys. .....

I can see it now.....a 737 equipped with flares comes into land at Ontario Airport (in S. Cal), picks up a false alarm, fires off the flares and starts a massive fire in the nearby mountains



Or a 767 does the same thing coming into land at Orange County airport.



Wait.... that isnt funny..... those flares could land on my house!!!!!

 

[Matt308]

You laugh, but those discussions are actually taking place. Liability is a huge issue between operators, regulators, and Homeland Security.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When I worked for BAE flight systems we put a bid together for some of the major airlines for chaff dispensers and cameras inside the cargo bays as well as exterior video camera installations.

 

[Matt308]

Then you would know about having to satisfy FAR Part 25 and the impact to engineering deliverables (ie installation drawings, lab/ground/flight test plans, type inspections, etc). Can you imagine the safety assessment for pyrotechnics shot from the airplane? The lockouts to prevent ground personnel from blowing themselves up during a refuel? The development assurance necessary to satisfy regulatory requirements? What a nightmare.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Then you would know about having to satisfy FAR Part 25 and the impact to engineering deliverables (ie installation drawings, lab/ground/flight test plans, type inspections, etc).

Sure do - we had an STC ready to go - no Fed in the world was going to balk at it, especially after 9-11.

Can you imagine the safety assessment for pyrotechnics shot from the airplane? The lockouts to prevent ground personnel from blowing themselves up during a refuel? The development assurance necessary to satisfy regulatory requirements? What a nightmare.

Actually the system was quite safe and already used in a number of military aircraft (it would of been similar to the AEL-47). You could hit it with a base ball bat and nothing was going to happen. That was all worked out, it was all a matter of money and how much the airlines were going to pay at the time.

 

[Matt308]

Well if BAE is still in the countermeasures business, they must be waiting with baited breath. 15,000 airframes is quite a lucrative potential market.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well if BAE is still in the countermeasures business, they must be waiting with baited breath. 15,000 airframes is quite a lucrative potential market.

The Flight Systems division who I used to work for is, they been waiting for 5 years now...

 

[Matt308]

Well, between you and me, its a stupid idea. It seems that it would be more cost effective AND less burdensome upon the operators to just field ground based technology (ie microwave or laser) in the TCA. With stated ranges of 7mi (stated mind you), this would seem to be the most operationally effective versus the cost.

Too much politics are at play here and the lobbyists are going ape.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That's why i don't think any of the airlines have gone for the idea.

 

[jbabcock]

Depends on how high you are and how far away you are from it.

It's my understanding that modern flares are pretty cool. Modern IR seekers are pretty discriminating, and the all aspect ones try to home in on warm skin like leading edges, and ignore really obvious things like the sun and jet pipes. Hence, the modern flares are made to burn colder.

Still, a smoldering fire is nothing to laugh about. I used to be a fire fighter, and those fires can be hard to put out and are plenty capable of flaring up into something free burning. Plus the ejector charges are quite substatntial, even deadly according to a classmate of mine who services C-5's.

 

[jbabcock]

I remember reading about some B52 crews being angry that the gunner was moved forward. They liked having a set of eyes looking backards for any SAM's launched at them from the tail position.

I was once told by an acquaintance who knows a thing or six about AAMs and SAMs that most pilot's first warning of a missile launch is seeing the rocket engine as the missile overshoots. So, yeah, I can understand wanting to have eyes in the back instead of a radar antenna. Still, these days just about all combat aircraft have launch detectors that are much more sensitive at the right wavelengths than the human eye. As long as there are not muzzle flashes, explosions and what not saturating the sensors, they should give a much better warning. And if you are in a situation with that much IR noise, you are probably already executing countermeasures anyway.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It's my understanding that modern flares are pretty cool. Modern IR seekers are pretty discriminating, and the all aspect ones try to home in on warm skin like leading edges, and ignore really obvious things like the sun and jet pipes. Hence, the modern flares are made to burn colder.

For the most part yes, but the IR jammer has to be set for the most major threat. That was our biggest proplem was keeping up with the worst threat when we were in theatre.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was once told by an acquaintance who knows a thing or six about AAMs and SAMs that most pilot's first warning of a missile launch is seeing the rocket engine as the missile overshoots. So, yeah, I can understand wanting to have eyes in the back instead of a radar antenna. Still, these days just about all combat aircraft have launch detectors that are much more sensitive at the right wavelengths than the human eye. As long as there are not muzzle flashes, explosions and what not saturating the sensors, they should give a much better warning. And if you are in a situation with that much IR noise, you are probably already executing countermeasures anyway.

If you are doing your job right it is the corkscrew that you see first and with that you can still evade the damn thing. Ive had SA's fired at my aircraft before.