perfidy

The Times of New York is reporting that government contractors are considering equipping passenger airliners with missile defense technology, possibly as early as this summer.

The technology has been installed on military planes for years, offering laser-jamming equipment and decoy flares to deflect small missiles that are known to be in Al Qaeda's stockpiles.

"Can we do it in 90 to 120 days and protect the aircraft? Absolutely," said Paul Handwerker, a business development executive at BAE Systems, a British military supplier that is leading one of three groups of contractors selected by the Department of Homeland Security in January to develop the technology for passenger jets.

Mr. Handwerker said that while he agreed with the reasoning behind the government's timetable, the company's engineers "would find a way to do it much faster" if the request was made.

Jack Pledger, an executive who oversees antimissile systems for Northrop Grumman, another contractor selected for the program, said that laser-jamming devices installed by Northrop on military planes could be quickly converted to passenger jets. "We could do it right now," Mr. Pledger said. "If it became necessary to provide this system immediately, we're ready."

Considering the easy and cheap availability of shoulder fired missiles, this is a good idea. The article also notes that,

The department's timetable has been criticized on Capitol Hill, where a group of lawmakers, most of them Democrats, has urged the government to move much faster and to commit billions of dollars to begin equipping planes immediately.

The department says that it is moving as quickly as it can and that it would be irresponsible to try to outfit passenger planes until the reliability, safety and cost-effectiveness of the antimissile device is demonstrated.

They note that military antimissile systems cost as much as $3 million per plane, require intensive maintenance and can produce a high rate of false alarms, factors that could be economically disastrous to the nation's already-beleaguered airline industry.

This is, I think, a valid point. Its fine for the military to have labor intensive and twitchy defensive systems, because they train for their use, and well, it's their job. The same system on a civilian plane would be an unending headache. Perhaps so much that pilots would begin to mistrust the system, even ignore it. Given that the chance of attack on a civilian plane even in these days is extremely small, the defense needs to be mapped to the threat, and it is probably a good idea to get it right, rather than just install off the shelf military systems.