Smart Weapons Need to Be Smarter No missiles should shoot down civilian airline

[daftandbarmy]

Smart Weapons Need to Be Smarter

No missiles should shoot down civilian airliners by mistake.


A campaign to make anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles less dangerous would not seek to ban such weapons. Rather, it would accept that nations arm for war, and ask only that armaments become less likely to take life by mistake. Winston Churchill once commented on the problem of military weapons killing civilians: “Are we beasts?” Let’s prove that we are not.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/smart-weapons-need-be-smarter/609472/

 

[Good2Golf]

...or perhaps when a weapon isn’t truly autonomous, the controllers of those weapons should be smarter?  I think Churchill was being Überrhetorical, what with the Dresden fire-bombing and all...

 

[CBH99]

Or, airlines could use half a brain and not fly flights over active warzones.  That would help mitigate their losses substantially.


I'm not suggesting the users of such weapons are absolved from responsibility at all.  Obviously, proper target identification, proper protocols, and common sense need to be as present as possible before launching a SAM at any target.  Especially one appearing as large and slow as an airliner on radar...  something as large and slow as an airliner probably isn't an F-15 or F-16, and thus a few extra moments can certainly be taken to double check.


That being said...Iran?  Really?  Letting civilian airliners take off and land from an international airport, in the same vicinity you just launched dozens of missiles at American targets from?  Then shoot down your own airliner as you mistake it for American combat aircraft?  Seems preventable with common sense.

Malaysian airlines...never going to fly on them.  They get abducted by giant UFO's, randomly go missing over the ocean, or...fly right over Crimea while Russia is literally taking ground underneath the aircraft.  Again, seems preventable with a bit of common sense.



Sure, advanced SAM's shouldn't be taking down airliners.  Nobody disagrees with that.  But if the people operating the radars, fire control radars, and weapon systems themselves aren't operating correctly, the missiles won't either.  :2c:

 

[Weinie]

Thus

Or, airlines could use half a brain and not fly flights over active warzones.  That would help mitigate their losses substantially.


I'm not suggesting the users of such weapons are absolved from responsibility at all.  Obviously, proper target identification, proper protocols, and common sense need to be as present as possible before launching a SAM at any target.  Especially one appearing as large and slow as an airliner on radar...  something as large and slow as an airliner probably isn't an F-15 or F-16, and thus a few extra moments can certainly be taken to double check.


That being said...Iran?  Really?  Letting civilian airliners take off and land from an international airport, in the same vicinity you just launched dozens of missiles at American targets from?  Then shoot down your own airliner as you mistake it for American combat aircraft?  Seems preventable with common sense.

Malaysian airlines...never going to fly on them.  They get abducted by giant UFO's, randomly go missing over the ocean, or...fly right over Crimea while Russia is literally taking ground underneath the aircraft.  Again, seems preventable with a bit of common sense.



Sure, advanced SAM's shouldn't be taking down airliners.  Nobody disagrees with that.  But if the people operating the radars, fire control radars, and weapon systems themselves aren't operating correctly, the missiles won't either.  :2c:

''

I'm with CBH 99 on this. The instant you make FCR's smart will be the time that self-identifying Cessnas and Musketeers become 90% of the worlds A/C traffic over warzones.

Not so sure that I wouldn't fly Malaysian Airlines. Being abducted by a giant UFO would beat this current shyte hands down. Plus Montfort Hospital already has given me the you know where probe. Thusly prepared, my only recompense is "To boldly go where no man only a handful of celebrities has gone before."

https://www.therichest.com/pop-culture/celebrities-abducted-by-ufos/

 

[BurmaShave]

Thus''

I'm with CBH 99 on this. The instant you make FCR's smart will be the time that self-identifying Cessnas and Musketeers become 90% of the worlds A/C traffic over warzones.

Well, there's other ways to ID your targets than just by what they say they are, called Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR). It's all very technical stuff, but in a broad sense you can identify radar targets via specific characteristics of their return. Makes it hard to pretend your big ole Bear is a Cessna. The article is a bit dumb about depending on Mode C/ADS-B.

Still, weapons will only ever be as smart as their operators. People will still use incomplete systems (the SA-11 in TELAR-only mode that shot down MH-17), ignore what their systems say (Iran Air shootdown), or just panic under the stress of combat. Not flying over active warzones would be a easier fix.

 

[Weinie]

Well, there's other ways to ID your targets than just by what they say they are, called Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR). It's all very technical stuff, but in a broad sense you can identify radar targets via specific characteristics of their return. Makes it hard to pretend your big ole Bear is a Cessna. The article is a bit dumb about depending on Mode C/ADS-B.

Still, weapons will only ever be as smart as their operators. People will still use incomplete systems (the SA-11 in TELAR-only mode that shot down MH-17), ignore what their systems say (Iran Air shootdown), or just panic under the stress of combat. Not flying over active warzones would be a easier fix.

I admit I am a long way from an expert in this. So maybe you don't squawk Cessna, you squawk cargo L1011, and then the big ole Bear gets a pass and a free ride to launch. My point was that the instant you put restrictions on these types of encounters, all sides will look at ways to exploit it. Considering the amount of air traffic through some of the most heavily contested airspace in the world, I'm surprised there have not been more incidents of this type.

 

[medicineman]

There would have to be an over ride of some sort in the case of needing to actually down an airliner, like in the case of a 9/11 like situation...

MM

 

[daftandbarmy]

I admit I am a long way from an expert in this. So maybe you don't squawk Cessna, you squawk cargo L1011, and then the big ole Bear gets a pass and a free ride to launch. My point was that the instant you put restrictions on these types of encounters, all sides will look at ways to exploit it. Considering the amount of air traffic through some of the most heavily contested airspace in the world, I'm surprised there have not been more incidents of this type.

And, of course, Wikipedia has a list of such shoot downs not including terrorist bombings etc...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How long before the military spoofed it to make a bomber look like a civilian craft?

 

[tomahawk6]

When you play dangerous games bad things can happen including accidents. In the case of an aircraft trying to penetrate US airspace the USAF will scramble fighters to look the aircraft over. This has happened inside the US if an aircraft strays into a forbidden airspace. Sadly our nationwide air defense was shutdown in the late 60's early 70's. Now we have two missile sites one in Alaska and one in Cali.

 

[dimsum]

Still, weapons will only ever be as smart as their operators. People will still use incomplete systems (the SA-11 in TELAR-only mode that shot down MH-17), ignore what their systems say (Iran Air shootdown), or just panic under the stress of combat. Not flying over active warzones would be a easier fix.

Exactly.  Operators need to appropriately trust their systems, especially when they're automated (ie. SA-11 TELAR-only mode).  Over-trusting or under-trusting them can result in catastrophic consequences.