SCI/TECH: RAND: Aircraft Defense too Costly

The plan to put anti-missile systems on commercial aircraft might need to be put on hold because its too expensive according to a RAND study. The systems which are based on similar Israeli systems would cost over 2 billion dollars per year. The system was proposed after 9/11, due to fears of terrorists using shoulder fired missiles to down commercial jets.



I think its a bad idea, yes its expensive but think of an airplane getting shot down in the US, just once might completely destroy the airline industry or cost it far more than this system ever will. Lets hope the companies see it this way and pushes forward with this system. No doubt terrorists will eventually have a chance to take advantage if such defense isn't in place.

Related News Links:
today.reuters.com
www.washingtonpost.com



[edit on 26-1-2005 by TrickmastertricK]

I think the term "Level of acceptable risk" come into play on this one.

YES, terrorists COULD shoot a plane down
BUT
That plane could crash for any # of reasons too.
Does one incident "cost" more than the other...not really

The basic question we as a society need to ask ourselves is
How much risk is acceptable on this issue?

The huge cost of retro-fitting all of our passenger planes with the defensive system, which isnt really ready is stated here,

RAND calculates that it would cost about $40 billion over 20 years to develop, procure and operate anti-missile systems.

This investment plus the operating budget,

The study said operating costs alone for the missile countermeasures would consume $2.1 billion a year -- almost half of the money spent annually on all transportation security.

Who's gonna pay for that? and what do we get for that cost?

How many planes are going to be shot down in this time compared to that cost. Here is where the article lists that cost.

The cost of a successful missile attack would also be significant. The United States would incur "direct" costs of approximately $1 billion for every aircraft downed, the report says.

So the cost of just the system to be figured out and installed + the operating budget for it yearly = 4.1 (aprox) per year....that would be 4 planes a yera that would need to be shot down to = that cost.
Do you think we will have this many planes shot down a year?

After 9-11, the USA understood that we were not immune to terrorist attacks. We should have been paying closer attention to this growing threat, but we had our heads in the sand.
Now,
We live with the fact that our lives, or loved ones could end in this fashion. Suddenly, randomly, violently....
Is this any different than being accidently killed in a car wreck? Odds say you'll die in your car long before a terrorist shoots your plane down here in the states.

We need to remain vigilant, cautious and ready for another terror attack,
but we dont need this system to do so, at the cost level as is.
There are other things we can and are doing to remain as SAFE AS POSSIBLE.

Notice i said as safe as possible....
there are no garuntees in life
life is filled with potentials to kill you
lets be prudent
but
not flail about in panic
thats exactly what makes terrorists win...making us soo affraid that we dump billions into a system that might get used once in 20 years. Essentially making us soo scared we waste time and effort on something thats not really gonna do more than provide some illusionary comfort...
instead of hunting down the preadators and ensuring our own safety.

How do we really know that TWA 800 wasn't shot down by a terrorist with a shoulder fired rocket/missile?
There has been a LOT of controversy regarding that.
What did they do about that? We still don't know the truth about that, do we?

www.twa800.com...

[edit on 1/26/05 by Old_Crow]