Airplanes with friggin’ lasers

guess premium pay for those TLV turns ain't cutting it LOL :D
 
1. FedEx doesn’t ostensibly own any A321s
2. Back in 2007 FedEx had loaned an MD-10 to be retrofitted with an anti-missile defense pod for testing.
3. As part of the FedEx umbrella, FedEx runs a “Q Branch,” if you will, that develops and tests different technologies to put on its aircraft or develop STCs to sell.
Case in point: FedEx’s development of a Fire Suppression System to be fitted on cargo jets.
https://www.icao.int/safety/Dangero...rs/FedExFireSuppressionSystemPresentation.pdf
https://flightsafety.org/bendix-trophy-awarded-to-fedex-for-fire-suppression-system/
These FSSs are installed on all FedEx’s MD-10/MD-11/B777 aircraft.

I’m guessing this A321 authorization request is part of something like this. Patent this technology and then sell it to operators that do fly places where this might be helpful.

That’s just my guess though.
 
Margy's flight instructor flew DC-8s for one of the cargo carriers (I'm thinking Zantop but I might be misremembering that). It was not uncommon for them to get shot at on some of their routes (they were flying into the gulf during Desert Storm). He says the DC-8 was a hell of a plane, you can get shot in the wing and not feel a thing. Because of the sensitive (government) cargo and destinations they also were required to carry sidearms. He pulled it on a pushy TSA guy who exceeded his authority in trying to inspect the classified cargo.
 
Kinda surprised it’s taken this long to install IRCM systems on their aircraft. At least install them on aircraft that routinely visit less desirable locations around the world. Seen the DHL in the flesh at BIAP in 2004. Great job by that crew getting it down in one piece…with a bit of luck involved.
 
Velocity173 said:
Kinda surprised it’s taken this long to install IRCM systems on their aircraft.
Click to expand...
There was a push for this back in the post-9/11 mid-2000s. One of the big defense contractor companies developed a passive system for airliners and was lobbying Congress to promote them. Never went anywhere, but I don't think that had anything to do with the technical feasibility of the hardware.
 
How about we modify it to “return fire” to the idiots on the ground that like to lase us inflight?
 
P-jhMf.gif
 
I was in the cockpit of a new aircraft (767, I think, but can't recall for sure) at the FedEx facility in Indy they were putting in a proprietary FLIR system for landing in 0/0 vis. Add the laser defense system and some rockets and it's ready for deployment.
 
Sluggo63 said:
3. As part of the FedEx umbrella, FedEx runs a “Q Branch,” if you will, that develops and tests different technologies to put on its aircraft or develop STCs to sell.
Case in point: FedEx’s development of a Fire Suppression System to be fitted on cargo jets.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure they have an STC for that forward looking infrared system that allows the pilots to see and land in zero visibility. As I recall, the head of maintenance was telling me that they have sold STCs for their system to other operators.
 
USAF flew a COIL laser for anti-missile testing back in the '90's... 20+kW when fired.
 
Craig said:
USAF flew a COIL laser for anti-missile testing back in the '90's... 20+kW when fired.
Click to expand...

These are not that. The COIL laser took up an entire 747, and it could only fire a few shots before it had to land and recharge the laser. This one is about IRCM, not too different than flares, to confuse heat seeking missles.
 
PPC1052 said:
I was in the cockpit of a new aircraft (767, I think, but can't recall for sure) at the FedEx facility in Indy they were putting in a proprietary FLIR system for landing in 0/0 vis. Add the laser defense system and some rockets and it's ready for deployment.
Click to expand...
It's not that good. Nothing gives us 0/0 capability, especially not the FLIR (we call it EFVS--Enhanced Flight Vision System). In fact the EFVS is pretty bad in wet particulate (cloud/fog/rain). Where it really shines is in dry particulate (SMOG) like is normally encountered in places like China and India.

That notwithstanding, the EFVS system gets us two things.

1. We get to lower minimums for an approach. For instance, if a CAT-1 ILS requires 1800 RVR on the plate, but we have an operational EFVS, we can shoot the approach legally if the RVR is being reported as 1200 RVR.

2. We can descend to 100' above TDZE using the EFVS image. Typically, at DA if you can see the laundry list of required items (approach light system, REILs, threshold lights, etc.), you can descend to 100' TDZE, where at that point you need to be able to see (another laundry list of items), then you can land. With the EFVS installed and operational, we can get to DA, see the list of items in the EFVS (not natural vision), and still descend to 100' above TDZE. When we get to 100 above, we still need to see the same items using natural vision as we would without the EFVS.

So, it's helpful mostly for guys flying into places that are CAT-1 only in order for them to have a better chance of getting in and not diverting, but nowhere close to 0/0 capability. In my airplane, to the airports I typically go to, if the weather is that bad, I'm doing a CAT-3 autoland (but still use the HUD/EFVS for SA).
 
sarangan said:
These are not that. The COIL laser took up an entire 747, and it could only fire a few shots before it had to land and recharge the laser. This one is about IRCM, not too different than flares, to confuse heat seeking missles.
Click to expand...

 
Shepherd said:
I want anti-missile lasers on my PA-17.
Click to expand...
From the factory Vagabonds already have a very effective two-part anti-missile system. The passive part was covered in Randolph Products "Piper Cub J-3 Yellow" and the active part controlled by that big knob-- might be blue-- low in the center. :)
 
Last edited:
Airplanes with friggin’ lasers...

"I figure every creature deserves a warm meal."
 
462869

Lots of airliners flying worldwide have a missile defense pod installed. They are normally on the aft rear of the aircraft in a canoe type fairing.
 
Last edited:
Lois said:
From the factory Vagabonds already have a very effective two-part anti-missile system. The passive part was covered in Randolph Products "Piper Cub J-3 Yellow" and the active part controlled by that big knob-- might be blue-- low in the center. :)
Click to expand...

I wanted to install twin .50s in the wings, but they won't fit. sigh...
I thought the lasers would be a good second choice.

You aren't too far wrong with the "anti-missile system". At two of the area airports I regularly fly into, they can't see me on radar until I am flying past the tower.
ATC at one tower actually pitched a fit and had me call them when I landed.
Me: "Did I violate any any rules, use incorrect radio technique, fail to identify myself and my location at any time?"
Them: "No, but this is a problem that has to be addressed!"
Me: "Maybe it is, but not by me. Enjoy your day."

I've heard others are experiencing the same issue, especially if they have a lot of wood in the aircraft. Mine doesn't so I don't know what the problem could be.
 
Shepherd said:
I wanted to install twin .50s in the wings, but they won't fit. sigh...

You aren't too far wrong with the "anti-missile system". At two of the area airports I regularly fly into, they can't see me on radar until I am flying past the tower... I've heard others are experiencing the same issue, especially if they have a lot of wood in the aircraft. Mine doesn't so I don't know what the problem could be.
Click to expand...
Ah, for MGs (.30 not .50s) you need a Globe / TEMCO Swift... (If-n it's on the TC you don't even need a STC :) just a Class-III.)

"While TEMCO was building the Swift, the company received an inquiry from the Philippine government. They wanted a military version of the GC-1B. TEMCO modified a Swift to become the TE-1A in 1948. It had had tandem seating, a new canopy and a rudder with a big square tip and the engine was upgraded to 145 HP... They upgraded the airplane with a Franklin 165-HP engine. Shortly afterwards, several countries looked at the TE-1 which, by 1953, sported two .30 caliber machine guns mounted in the wings and hard points for 10 2.75-inch rockets... The TE-1A became the T-35 Buckaroo." -- Swift Museum Foundation

Both my Mooney "Model-12" (aka Culver Cadet) and a good friend's -18 (Mite) are mostly monocoque wood, and pretty much invisible to most radar. We joke that the Air Force could have saved a ton of money by resurrecting the deHavilland Mosquito as a "stealth fighter / bomber". And what a pleasant sound those Merlins make.
 
Last edited:
I can tell you that modern fire control radars will easily see wooden or fiberglass aircraft if they have a metal engine. If they have a metal prop it’s a huge radar reflector. German WW2 radars could see the Mosquitos with their props.
 
Jeff767 said:
I can tell you that modern fire control radars will easily see wooden or fiberglass aircraft if they have a metal engine. If they have a metal prop it’s a huge radar reflector. German WW2 radars could see the Mosquitos with their props.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that's why Mosquitos tended to fly low until they got to the target area (at least according to a documentary that I saw).
 
Jeff767 said:
462869

Lots of airliners flying worldwide have a missile defense pod installed. They are normally on the aft rear of the aircraft in a canoe type fairing.
Click to expand...

I didn’t know that.

Are they intended to confuse heat-seeking missiles?
 
Don’t need no stinking lasers. The good ole days, when you weren’t really confident in the effectiveness of the “disco ball.” ;)

F395FFAB-3B56-4CD9-94B6-117BEAF322B8.jpeg
 
Velocity173 said:
Don’t need no stinking lasers. The good ole days, when you weren’t really confident in the effectiveness of the “disco ball.” ;)
View attachment 103891
Click to expand...

A long time ago I worked on Hueys with "toilet bowls" to deflect the T-53's exhaust up into the rotor. I always wondered how effective that really was.
 
Lois said:
A long time ago I worked on Hueys with "toilet bowls" to deflect the T-53's exhaust up into the rotor. I always wondered how effective that really was.
Click to expand...

No idea about the effectiveness but it’s made a comeback with the newer Apaches and Black Hawks. I’d say it would have to be at least a little bit better than the old suppressors to go back to upturned exhaust.
 
PPC1052 said:
I was in the cockpit of a new aircraft (767, I think, but can't recall for sure) at the FedEx facility in Indy they were putting in a proprietary FLIR system for landing in 0/0 vis. Add the laser defense system and some rockets and it's ready for deployment.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of enhanced vision systems that are either out there or in varying forms of development. As @Sluggo63 pointed out, most of the time the real benefit is that they give you legal authorization to use lower minimums, but not necessarily getting you to true 0/0. With the right equipment and training/procedures in place you can get a lot different approved from what's on the plates. When my wife was flying S-92s off the coast of Newfoundland, they had authorization to shoot CAT II down to... I believe it was 800 RVR, maybe 600. I seem to recall their limits came down to 100-1/8 but it's been a while.

Ultimately, you see pretty limited use of them even in upper end GA. You have to get to super upper end GA or various scheduled operations where it's considered worth the investment, or be based/routinely operating out of places with bad enough weather that it truly is beneficial. Really, even CAT II approaches are something you don't see many GA operators doing, only a few of the larger 135 outfits. I can count on one hand the number of times that a standard ILS down to 200 ft wasn't enough to get me in. In fact, I think it only happened once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top