Proposed U.S. Legislation Would Mandate Defenses On A380

A recently proposed bill in the U.S. House would require the new Airbus A380 to have self protection against SAMS. THe congressman that is pushing the bill cites the large number of people that the plane could carry (calling it a village) and the that over 27 groups have acess to MANPADS including Bin Laden. Others say its an attempt to target AIrbus in favor of Boeing. However according to opensecrets.org, he does not get alot of money from defence/aerospace companies and Boeing does not have huge production facilities in Florida unless I missed that??

Defence PAC money to John Mica
Defense Aerospace $4,000

BAE Systems North America $1,000

General Dynamics $0

Rockwell Collins Inc $1,000

Vought Aircraft $2,000

Mica Money

Any carrier wanting to fly the new Airbus A380 in U.S. airspace would have to equip it with defenses against surface-to-air missiles under legislation introduced by Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee. He wants to require an anti-missile system on the 800-passenger European aircraft within two years of a defensive system's certification.
Self Protection

[edit on 6/24/05 by FredT]

This could eventually hurt Boeing also.
They are currently developing a new larger capacity 747 called the 747 advanced.
It could, if enacted, be applied to that aircraft and possibly lower capacity aircraft.

I think it's a big mistake to make this mandatory.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
This could eventually hurt Boeing also.
They are currently developing a new larger capacity 747 called the 747 advanced.

I think the 747A would have like 450 seats or so, maybe more. A340's already can seat this in certain configurations and the 747-400D can seat over 500 in a short hual dence packed arrangement but niehter were mentined in the article. Perhaps they will set the bar for like 550 or 600 or so?

It's not just the 380, it's going to be any plane flying into the US in the next few years. They're already testing defensive systems for airliners, and before long they will be required on all airliners.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's not just the 380, it's going to be any plane flying into the US in the next few years. They're already testing defensive systems for airliners, and before long they will be required on all airliners.

This piece of legislation is specific to the A380. However, Ratheon has a new approach that will protect the airspace around airports agianst this threat that i will post in a seperate thread.

But two questions occur. Why set the bar (apparently deliberately) specifically where it will affesct trhe A380 and nothing else? Makes no sense. Is he saying that 9/11 was not worth worrying about as the 767 is far smaller and therefore immune to this measure?

Does he think there is a major worry of US citizens shooting down the big Airbus? This is the only benefit of SAM protection in US aircpace surely?

It makes no sense to me unless I view it as a deliberate attempt to make thgings awkward/expensive for the A380, otherwise surely ALL civil transports over, say, 100 seats would have to be included. To imagine a SAM attack on an A380 would be devastating while a similar attack on a 747 is nothing to fuss over is clearly ridiculous. Remember Lockerbie.

Originally posted by waynos
It makes no sense to me unless I view it as a deliberate attempt to make thgings awkward/expensive for the A380, otherwise surely ALL civil transports over, say, 100 seats would have to be included.

ding ding ding ding. Its clearly a political move if just the A380 is targeted and not other large transports like the 747, md-11/DC-10, A340/330, 777 et al. Thats why i looked up his donor information to see if he gets money from Boeing et al.

There is a affordable protect airspace around airports from the threat using HPM weapons. I started a thread here:

Raytheon Plans High-Power Microwave System To Protect Civil Airplanes

[edit on 6/24/05 by FredT]

Makes no sense. Is he saying that 9/11 was not worth worrying about as the 767 is far smaller and therefore immune to this measure?

This is to protect airplanes from getting shot down with SAM’s it has nothing to do with hijacking airplanes.

Does he think there is a major worry of US citizens shooting down the big Airbus? This is the only benefit of SAM protection in US aircpace surely?

Perhaps you have not heard of major FBI busts last year of people wanting to buy and of people willing to sell shoulder launched missiles, they could or could not be US citizens.

However you do have a point that they should make it mandatory on all civilian airplanes carrying more than 200 people.

"We are trying to address the greatest potential for risk for an aircraft that would transport a number of people that might live in a small village," Mr Mica told the Financial Times.

The Department of Homeland Security is working with industry to develop the technology in the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks on the US. While the bill does not single out Airbus, the A380 is the only aircraft under development that could carry more than 800 passengers.

Mr Mica denied that the legislation was an attempt to punish Airbus. "Any passenger plane that has 800 passengers is a flying target for terrorists," he said. "I don't care who produces it."

Airbus has dismissed the legislation as an attempt to give Boeing an edge over the European company. Agence France Press quoted John Leahy, Airbus commercial director, as saying the legislation was "silly".

The Air Transport Association, which represents US airlines, opposes congressional efforts to mandate the technology for airlines.

Asked whether he believed the ATA had softened its stance, Mr Mica responded: "I don't know and I really don't care. The technology is right around the corner. Anybody that produces an aircraft that carries that many human beings should be required to have . . . some type of a defensive system. It is only a fraction of the cost of the aircraft."

In the past Mr Mica has made controversial statements about US airlines, saying some of the legacy carriers were "brain dead" dinosaurs. On Friday, he said some airlines had made improvements on returning to profitability, while others were likely to go bankrupt.

"My prediction is coming true that the ones that make the changes will survive and the others will go by the wayside."

It doesn't have anything to do with Airbus, and it DOES make sense when you read the quotes by Mica. Eventually however ALL civilian aircraft in the US should have at least some kind of missile warning system, if not an active defense.


www.airportbusiness.com...

[edit on 25-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

Westpoint, that is a reasonable point, and no, I wasn't aware that SAM's were becoming a problem in the US, jeez, as if owning guns isn't bad enough!

zaphod, unlike on the SR-71 in a different thread about two minutes ago, I have to disagree

It doesn't actually make sense at all, why would aircraft carrying 'more than 800' people be a target for terrorists? Does he think that a plane carrying 750 will not? Certainly only carrying about 250 doesn't make the 767 immune does it. You see its the complete arbitrariness of the figure that I find silly.

Then of course there's this

While the bill does not single out Airbus, the A380 is the only aircraft under development that could carry more than 800 passengers.

Wow, that's a coincidence isnt it

Maybe it isn't a deliberate attack on Airbus, maybe the guy is either off his trolley or out to make a name for himself, possibly?

However there is no getting away from the fact that any such call as this would only make any sense if targeted at ALL large transport aircraft, the murmurings about 'eventually' extending it to cover them just comes across like a smokescreen.

However moving on, this isn't actually anything new, I remember reading around 1980 about SAM defences being installed on EL AL Viscounts and 707's which comprised flare dispensers and cooling shrouds on the exhausts of the engines among other 'secret' measures.

I suppose its a sad reflection of the times if people believe such measures are necessary in the USA itself

Actually there IS legislation being moved forward that will require defenses on every plane in the US. And I DO think that the 380 needs it. I mean if you have two targets, one carrying 500 people, and one carrying 7-800 which would you hit? If your goal is just to kill people, you're go for the 380.

There might well be such legislation but the guy does just talk about planes carrying 'over 800'. That is my point.

Also, how likely is it that our 'missile wielding terrorist scum' will be presented with a choice of targets like that? Surely, if he then knows the A380 carries missile defences he will aim at the plane which does not, but is still carrying 500 people?

Exactly! If he knows the Airbus has defenses, because it's required, he's not going to shoot at it and kill 800 people. Then when the US gets off its butt and makes ALL planes have them, we won't have a problem anymore.

Obviously US protectionist market manipulation at work. Somehow not surprised at this.

If this guys so bothered about a 'village' (did he also say 'folks'? Ah bless) why not bring it in for all planes carrying over 400. Vulnerability to GAM isn't a key US security issue - if it was this would apply to all planes over 10 seats. This isn't the proposal. So it's a false premise.

Just for once why can't the yanks be mature and decent in their dealings with the outside world? It's a better plane and it's made by europeans - just get over it.

I love this idea, load the A380 and the 747ER with flares, chaff, lasers and ecm.

Just wonder how long it would take for some "fool" to get into the cockpit and fire the flares out of the wings onto the refuelling tuck placed just under the wing!

Causing a smallish fuel fire, and a semi fuel air bomb, now that's safe!

RAB