Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pentagon Wants Kill Switch For Planes

Posted by samzenpus on from the jettison-the-wings dept.

mytrip writes "The Pentagon's non-lethal weapons division is looking for technologies that could 'disable' aircraft, before they can take off from a runway — or block the planes from flying over a given city or stretch of land. The Directorate's program managers don't mention how engineers might pull off such a kill switch. But, however it's done, they'd like to have a similar system for boats, as well. They're looking for a device that can, from 100 meters away, 'safely stop or significantly impede the movement' of vessels up to 40 feet long, with 'minimal collateral damage.'"

6 of 548 comments (clear)

  1. Soft Walls discussion and common objections by __aapopf3474 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Total disclosure: I've worked on Soft Walls.

    There was discussion on Slashdot about the Soft Walls Project that did something similar. See the 1/04 and 7/03 discussions.

    What I find interesting is just how vehement software engineers and pilots are about the idea, and yet everyone seems to trust fly-by-wire.

    There is Soft Walls FAQ that covers common objections.

    1. Re:Soft Walls discussion and common objections by enoz · · Score: 4, Informative

      What I find interesting is just how vehement software engineers and pilots are about the idea, and yet everyone seems to trust fly-by-wire. From your linked FAQ:
      "the Soft Walls system will choose the strategy that is most likely to protect the no-fly zone, even if it puts the airplane and its passengers at risk."

      Gee, I wonder why pilots don't like the idea...
  2. Re:Minimal collatoral damage by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    A "kill switch" as of now means an F-18A intercepting it and shooting it down.

    The term "kill switch" was a journalistic flair added by Wired, and doesn't actually occur anywhere in the Request for Proposals.

  3. Re:You say: "Defense"... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sorry, but why does everyone think that a terrorist's only weapon is a jet? How hard do you think it is to make a bomb (hint: diesel fuel+ammonium nitrate found in fertilizer = half the explosive force of dynamite per mass)? Any pissed off retard can mix a truckload those two together and blow up any building. So why hasn't it happened?. Oklahoma City Bombing, April 19th 1995 - shortly before 9am, Timothy McVeigh parked a van containing a 5,000lb bomb made mainly of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane, and diesel fuel outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. At 9.02am the bomb detonated, killing 168.
  4. Re:You say: "Defense"... by Leoedin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not correct. The jeep they used was filled with propane canisters, petrol and nails. The Ammonium Nitrate acts as an oxidiser, and these guys didn't have it. Propane canisters are designed to not explode. The Glasgow terrorists clearly thought that if they just lit a fire under one of them it would explode (playing too much GTA methinks). They didn't even attempt to make proper explosive with an oxidiser.

  5. Re:You say: "Defense"... by squoozer · · Score: 4, Informative

    You must be from the UK. That was the IRAs favourite bomb making mixture for a long time. Typically it was a transit van filled with oil drums containing a mixture of diesel and fertilizer (about half a dozen drums normally). I saw a video of such a truck going exploding once - I wouldn't like to be near that!

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.