JASPO Experts On Civil Aircraft Survivability

Aircraft Survivability • Spring 2003 • http://jas.jcs.mil
Although susceptibility-reduction measures such as the installation of
IRCM systems on airliners would no doubt improve the survivability of
those aircraft, experience has shown that vulnerability reduction
should
not be overlooked. Simply focusing on the susceptibility side of
military
aircraft was not sufficient, and many pilots owe their safe return
from
hostile environments to vulnerability reduction efforts. Since no IRCM
system is likely to prove 100 percent effective against all current
and
emerging IR missile threats, it may be wise to direct additional
attention
towards reducing civil aircraft vulnerability. Regardless of the
measures used on any particular aircraft design—whether relying
on such familiar approaches such as dispersing redundant critical
components around the aircraft, armoring
hydraulic lines, installing self-sealing fuel lines, and installing
strategically-placed fuel shut-off valves, or whether one looks
towards fuel tank fire and explosion protection through the use of
powder panels or other
technology, adjusting fuel chemistry to reduce the chances of fire or
explosion,
improved turbine blade and disk debris containment, or even adopting
explosive-resistant and lightweight fuselage materials—focusing
additional
resources on vulnerability reduction should be a priority. An
additional benefit that comes from vulnerability reduction efforts is
that
they also provide a degree of protection against non-IR threats such
as RF
missiles, RPGs, high-caliber machine guns and sniper rifles, as well
as from
damage caused by explosives that might slip through the passenger and
baggage screening process.
The efforts of the survivability community have resulted in the design
of
combat aircraft that are significantly more likely to avoid and
survive
MANPADS attacks. One notable example is the success of the
F/A–18 Hornet during Desert Storm.
The time may have come to apply aggressively the lessons learned in
the military
context to the civil air fleet. This will not likely be cheap and will
in all
likelihood necessitate live-fire testing with an assortment of
commercial
aircraft of different sizes and different propulsion systems. Whether
such
tests are conducted on static aircraft or whether additional funding
can be
obtained to “drone” the test aircraft, to avoid conducting
live-fire testing
based on cost considerations would be shortsighted.
Regardless of the funding mechanism, arguments against such testing
based on cost considerations are misplaced.

Put that one in your pipe and smoke it brooks