WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 (UPI) -- As defense contractors move ahead with prototype systems to protect civilian airliners from shoulder-fired missiles, urgent questions linger unanswered: How much will it cost? Who should pay? And -- most urgent of all -- is it worth the money?
"On a coast-to-coast flight from New York to San Francisco, every customer would have to pay one dollar more" to be protected by a plane-based missile protection system, said Jack Pledger of Northrop Grumman, who joined a panel last week at the Heritage Foundation. The financially troubled airlines, though, doubt that number, fearing that the already hesitating customers wouldn't accept higher costs.
Shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, also known as MAN-Portable Air Defense Systems or MANPADS, thousands of which are believed to be in the hands of insurgents or terrorists worldwide, are seen by the U.S. government as a major threat to passenger air travel and the commercial aviation industry.
John M. Meenan, senior vice president of the Air Transport Association of America, which represents the major airlines, says there is too much focus on these missiles, which "are only one piece of a much larger mosaic of concern." He told the Heritage panel he recommended a risk management analysis that considers anti-missile measures as a part of a larger security strategy.
The State Department says that shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles have shot down 25 civilian aircraft since the 1970s, killing 600 people.
"Most of the aircraft that were brought down by MANPADS were small and operated in a war-time environment," Meenan told United Press International in a telephone interview. "They got shot in countries like Angola, Sudan or Afghanistan. There's never been an attack in the United States and the ATA does not operate in any of these countries.
"We are not saying that it couldn't happen," Meenan cautioned.
Several large defense contractors are developing anti-MANPADS systems for civilian airliners.
California-based Northrop Grumman offers a system installed under the plane. Military constructor Raytheon, based in Massachusetts, is developing a system to be installed in airports. Both systems detects the missiles and then inteferes with their guidance systems so they miss their target.
Both systems, though, share a disadvantage: They are too expensive to be installed in every aircraft or every airport in the United States. Mark Slivinski, joining the Heritage panel for Raytheon, said his company could equip one airport for $25 million, but only if 30 airports would buy the system. In that case, 71 percent of the American air traffic would be covered.
Planes don't need to be protected during their flight as the missiles generally cannot reach cruising altitude for jumbo jets. They are only in danger during takeoff and landing. Plane-based systems, therefore, have the advantage of defending American airplanes landing at non-protected airports in countries abroad.
On the first look, they also seem less expensive. Still, the costs would be horrendous as every plane would have to be protected to guarantee total security.
"Either you do the whole fleet or you don't," Meenan told UPI, adding that terrorists would logically search for the weakest point.
The Department of State estimates over 1 million of the missiles have been manufactured worldwide. According to a department press release, the United States believes that most of them are in national inventories or that they have been destroyed. A lot of the systems, however, have not been accounted for.
"There are such a lot of MANPADS in circulation that I'm personally surprised that there were not more planes that got shot," said Loren B. Lexington, Chief Operating Officer of the Lexington Institute, a public-policy think tank.
Lexington does not share the airline organization ATA's worries that it eventually had to pay for the implementation of an anti-MANPAD system. The analyst told UPI the government would be aware that it would have to pay the installation if it required the system: "The government knows that the airlines under their current condition cannot pay the costs."
