PK of Igla vs. airliner?

Little missile, big-ish airplane.

Countermeasures in the commercial fleet seems like an expensive
proposition. One or two "successful" attacks (losses, even) wouldn't
stop me from flying.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

Raptor wrote in :

Little missile, big-ish airplane.

Countermeasures in the commercial fleet seems like an expensive
proposition. One or two "successful" attacks (losses, even) wouldn't
stop me from flying.


But many other people sure would stop flying.
And the PK depends on how the SAMs are used,what point in the flight the
SAM is launched,like landing/takeoff,low and slow.Recovery from loss of an
engine during TO/landing is much more difficult than during regular flight
at altitude.

Countermeasures would be cheaper and better for the economy in the long
run,and better for a planeload or two of PEOPLE in the short run.(IMO.)

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
Raptor wrote in :

Little missile, big-ish airplane.

Countermeasures in the commercial fleet seems like an expensive
proposition. One or two "successful" attacks (losses, even) wouldn't
stop me from flying.


But many other people sure would stop flying.
And the PK depends on how the SAMs are used,what point in the flight the
SAM is launched,like landing/takeoff,low and slow.Recovery from loss of an
engine during TO/landing is much more difficult than during regular flight
at altitude.

Countermeasures would be cheaper and better for the economy in the long
run,and better for a planeload or two of PEOPLE in the short run.(IMO.)

Countermeasures on airliners looks like a good way to finnish bankrupting
the system.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Tarver Engineering wrote:


Countermeasures on airliners looks like a good way to finnish bankrupting
the system.

Yeah, ya' gotta watch out for those Finns.

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...




On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Tarver Engineering wrote:


Countermeasures on airliners looks like a good way to finnish
bankrupting
the system.

Yeah, ya' gotta watch out for those Finns.

The Brits are the bad guys in this one.

"John S. Shinal" wrote in message
...
Jim Yanik wrote:

But many other people sure would stop flying.

In huge quantities, they'd stop. We've already seen an
excellent model starting on 9/12/01. The media furor will be every bit
as effective as if they ran "don't fly" commercials.

Countermeasures would be cheaper and better for the economy in the long
run,and better for a planeload or two of PEOPLE in the short run.(IMO.)

Cheaper than what, I'm not sure. (tongue in cheek)

The fit is going to run somewhere around $3M per 'liner, from
some of the projections I've seen (I think they're talking about the
soon to be fielded Rafael kit). This won't just apply to the big
birds, either. Smaller jets like the RJ will also be fitted, I'm sure
- perhaps even the larger commuter turboprops (can you imagine the
lawsuits if someone pops a puddlejumper that wasn't protected due to a
cost/benefit analysis ? The corporate risk management people will push
this if nobody else does).

But most of all, expect the airlines to cry that they can't
afford it, and expect them to ask the Feds to chip in.

One way or another, airline ticket prices are going UP.

For the short term: less people flying - lower airplane ticket prices and
then, you won't be able to fly most places at all.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:30:15 GMT, the renowned
(John S. Shinal) wrote:


But most of all, expect the airlines to cry that they can't
afford it, and expect them to ask the Feds to chip in.

Presumably this would affect the carriers that fly a lot of regional
jets or turboprops more than carriers that have a lot of jumbos. But
carriers that have a lot of overseas routes (poss. except to/from the
UK) would suffer from people just shifting their business to non-US
(and probably non-UK) carriers. US carriers are generally cheaper and
less full than Asian carriers on the same routes already.

One way or another, airline ticket prices are going UP.
A lot.

Not necessarily. It doesn't help that oil is still ~$30/barrel even
though the economy is sluggish and the invasion of Iraq went
relatively well.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

(John S. Shinal) wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

But many other people sure would stop flying.

In huge quantities, they'd stop. We've already seen an
excellent model starting on 9/12/01. The media furor will be every bit
as effective as if they ran "don't fly" commercials.

Countermeasures would be cheaper and better for the economy in the
long run,and better for a planeload or two of PEOPLE in the short
run.(IMO.)

Cheaper than what, I'm not sure. (tongue in cheek)

The fit is going to run somewhere around $3M per 'liner, from
some of the projections I've seen (I think they're talking about the
soon to be fielded Rafael kit). This won't just apply to the big
birds, either. Smaller jets like the RJ will also be fitted, I'm sure
- perhaps even the larger commuter turboprops (can you imagine the
lawsuits if someone pops a puddlejumper that wasn't protected due to a
cost/benefit analysis ? The corporate risk management people will push
this if nobody else does).

But most of all, expect the airlines to cry that they can't
afford it, and expect them to ask the Feds to chip in.

One way or another, airline ticket prices are going UP.

A lot.

There's a 'poll' on CNN on this;
if all planes were fitted with missile defense;

40% would pay more for a tix
60% would not pay more.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove null to contact me

wrote in message
om
FAS shows probability of a fighter kill by SA-18 as somehwere between
30 and 50 percent. Not sure how that was measured. Therefore, I'd
imagine that PK on a liner taking off, is near 1. Most of them have
two engines now. Good luck gaining altitude with one out. But today on
CNN I read it's about 50/50 which sound like BS to me.

Say, where's our little buddy Tamas? I'm sure he'd like to jump in and let
us all know how he feels about civilians trying to defend themselves from
SAMs...

(For those who may or may not know, he's flat out said that civilian
airliners that try to evade or defend themselves from SAMs should be shot
down.)

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

.. Good luck gaining altitude with one out.

Damnit. You don't GET IT!!!!

It's not just the loss of the engine, it's the shredding of vital
componenets all along the rear of the wing that takes the plane down.

If you'd ever had a CLOSE look at all the crap that runs all along the rear
of a wing of a commercial airliner you'd lnow what I'd mean. The aileron
and flaps don't work so good with hydraulic lines shredded.

..