Should all Civilian planes be equipped with Anti-Missle defense?

[Benata]

It's like asking to deconstruct all anti-air missiles, which is a cheaper alternative.

[Qaotic]

The most practical reason against them is that anti-missile capabilities would be [I]extremely [/I]expensive.

On top of that, civilian planes are rarely ever shot down, and [B]*should*[/B] not be shot down.

[Pikabuu2]

[B]ALL[/B] [U]Civilian[/U] planes?!?!
[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTMfGsk_oAmigYAWPjy-XLMYMhQnOqZwoyspWZVwNuB9cw0oxYdBw[/IMG]
Ok then I guess my Cessna outta have flares and chaff installed just in-case some guy goes crazy with a SAM turret in my neighborhood!

[Oniichann]

If passenger jets were armed with countermeasures such as IR flares, it would be too expensive. Also, passenger jets don't even get shot down on a normal basis.

[mushroompizza]

Unless we live in the world of Mad Max I don't think we need to. We just need to be smart enough to understand the deep scientific theory of "NO FLY OVER WAR ZONES".

[Kralizec]

[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;45429538]Far, far too expensive if you equipped it on all aircraft.

The better solution I would think would be what Israel uses - Iron Dome. Rework it so that it's effective for surface to air, instead of surface to surface, and run some tests to see if it can hit targets approaching 30K feet. Hell, 60K would be quite the feat, but up to 40K would be most practical.[/QUOTE]

If one were to go full kneejerk, sticking an ECM pod on the wings in conjunction with other systems would be a much better idea. An airborne Iron Dome or equivalent would be far too large and take up far too much space to even be practical.

Of course, the best idea is to [I]not fly through a goddamn warzone.[/I]

[viper720666]

[QUOTE=Kralizec;45538255]
Of course, the best idea is to [I]not fly through a goddamn warzone.[/I][/QUOTE]
This.
It costs a lot less too.