Issue Brief #20
October 18, 2005

MANPAD Protection: Let’s Consider All the Options

September 11 showed that terrorists have the desire and ability to attack our homeland and kill innocent civilians.  Many have surmised that one future terrorist tactic could be to shoot down one or more of our civilian aircraft with man-portable, shoulder-fired missiles, or MANPADs.  The proliferation of MANPADs is alarming, and depending on the type of MANPAD, one can be purchased on the black market for as little as $5,000. 

It takes very little time to teach a person to use one.  It can be assembled easily, taken apart, and transported, so that once it is fired, a terrorist can run and blend back into society.  Unfortunately, our commercial aircraft are vulnerable and are easy targets; and our airport security, while improving, still has gaping holes—especially when it comes to security outside of the airport perimeter.

To address this threat, Congress appropriated $60 million in FY 2004 and $61 million in FY 2005 toward developing and testing MANPAD countermeasure systems using mature technologies adapted from the military sector for the commercial sector.  Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate to perform a 24-month program to develop and test these systems.  The results of Phase II of this program will be evaluated upon its conclusion in January 2006.

The goals of this MANPAD study are laudable, but the urgency and intensity of the threat require a more comprehensive approach to protecting our commercial aircraft.  No single solution is adequate and we must not overlook the fact that if a MANPAD is launched against a commercial aircraft—even if an aircraft-based system effectively responds and defeats the missile—the launch itself would have a chilling effect on our airline industry, our economy in general and the safety and security we often take for granted.  However, DHS is only studying aircraft-based countermeasures and they have narrowed their focus on laser-based systems.  While this technology has proven to be effective against MANPADS and should certainly be a necessary component of commercial aircraft protection, I believe that all options should be considered.  DHS should develop a layered response that interweaves several technologies and strategies, but it needs direction from Congress.

The Electronic Warfare Working Group has looked into several technologies and strategies for the effective defense against the threat of shoulder-fired missiles to our commercial aircraft as well as to military bases, including ground-based systems, such as one called "Vigilant Eagle."  This system and others like it are plausible alternatives, or could be additions, to the on-board systems currently under evaluation by DHS.

In its basic configuration, Vigilant Eagle can provide a 10-mile radius of protection around airports, which is particularly useful because airplanes are considered to be most vulnerable to attack upon take-off and landing.  In addition, this model potentially could be used at overseas airports, such as Baghdad International Airport.  Furthermore, the financial implications are compelling, and the proven technology appears to be low-risk.

Direction to DHS in the report accompanying H.R. 2360, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2006, that no less than $10 million of the FY06 Counter-MANPADS funding be used to evaluate "emerging technologies," is commendable.  This was a reasonable first-step to a more comprehensive solution, particularly in light of concerns about cost, maintenance per flight hour, and false alarm rate of on-board systems.  Although conferees did not agree to retain the $10 million provision within Counter-MANPADS funding, an additional $10 million was added to the Office of Science and Technology Rapid Prototyping program with direction that the funds be used “to evaluate emerging civil aviation defense technologies.” 

I believe ground-based systems clearly would be an appropriate technology to evaluate under this provision, and Congress should encourage DHS to take these systems into consideration for further development and evaluation.  There is no single solution that will provide an effective defense against MANPADS.  It is important that the testing and evaluation of MANPAD countermeasure systems be comprehensive in scope.

Joe Wilson
Member of Congress

Electronic Warfare Working Group

Congressman Joe Pitts, Founder and Co-Chairman

420 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

202 225-2411 phone    202 225-2013 fax