Will Capitol Hill keep funding missile defense for airliners?

• Author: Pappalardo, Joe
• Position: HOMELAND DEFENSE

An effort to protect commercial aircraft against shoulder-fired missiles will face a critical moment in January, when Congress is scheduled to vote on whether to continue funding development of the system. President George W. Bush's 2006 budget proposed a $49 million increase in funding for the project, raising the total to $110 million.

The controversial program has traveled a long road, according to its director, James Tuttle, in the Department of Homeland Security Office of Systems Engineering and Development.

The initial response to a 2003 request for proposals generated 110 white papers, ranging from the possible to the absurd. One advocated shooting Roman Candle fireworks from planes; another called for a net to snare onrushing missiles.

"Don't laugh," he told attendees at a recent conference hosted by DHS, referring to the net scheme. "The Defense Department actually tested that."

Three teams were selected to move on: Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and United Airlines were awarded $2 million each to develop a countermeasure system to defend commercial aircraft against shoulder-fired missiles. The UA idea--using flares, infrared and oxidizing countermeasures--was cut in favor of other methods that spoof oncoming threats with lasers.

The BAE system takes an internal-mounting approach, building the tracking and laser targeting components into the aircraft. Grumman's proposal advocates installing pods onto aircraft that can be removed and reinstalled as the need dictates. Both companies currently are installing prototypes--BAE in a Boeing 707 and Grumman in a Boeing MD-11.

If Congress approves, the second phase of the contract will feature construction and testing of systems. Tests will involve firing real missiles and judging the two finalists' abilities to deter them from striking their targets, Tuttle said.

Another major hurdle involves maintenance. Military anti-missile systems get checked after 300 to 1,000 flight hours, while commercial systems would get an inspection after 3,000 to 5,000 flight hours, he noted.

The false-positive rate for a system on a commercial airliner also would have to be much less than on a military aircraft. The analysis would be done by ground controllers. who would be alerted instantly to any missile incident and fed relevant data.

DHS shares responsibility for testing the systems with the Federal Aviation Administration, with DHS evaluating performance and the FAA checking airworthiness, Tuttle...