Slashdot Mirror

Yeah rock on!
You rant about how easy it is.

I am surprised that you didn't suggest the Airborne Laser

laser beam

The system IS heavy but the main reason for the bulk is the fuel necessary for repeated firings. As you can see in this diagram (or more precisly the full size copy on Boings site which requires free registration) the actual laser mechanism only takes up about as much space as 4 rows of seating in a commercial airliner, however the fuel takes up over 1/3rd of the plane with 1/3rd being the forward section containing flight and battle crews and the remainder being misc systems and some empty space. Btw the initial plan a couple years ago was to have enough fuel for 150 shots onboard each plane and to have 3 planes per field to allow for around the clock overlapping coverage.

Reference This picture. There ain't room for anything else. And probably won't be any time soon.

For people that think it's too slow/big/whatever. Take a look here on the abl page. It fly's a ways away. Basically, if fighters were scrambled toward it first, the US would know a war had begun. If missile are launched first, it can take a few down before it has to run from the fighters.

For people that say it has no use because ICBMs are cheap and so many would be launched: China and Russia have lots of ICBMs. Not many others do. It costs a LOT of money. Because the first time you have to use it it HAS to work, you have not only the missiles, but the silos, the staff, the training (continuious), the fuel care, etc, etc, etc. Maintaining a stockpile of ICBMS is a LOT of money. And not easy as russia showed by boinking 2 sub launched ICBMs during Putin's dog and pony show before the election.

Also, remember, it's limited shots because it's chemical. This isn't some type of perfect solution to fighting in the sky.

also remember that this is focused on exploding the fuel tank on a ballistic missile, nothing else.

Also, the Kenetic Interceptor contract has been awarded for development of a boost phase hit to kill interceptor which will provide layered defense with the ABL. These things create a launch area denied, not blanket coverage that means no missile will ever be launched.

For people that think it's too slow/big/whatever. Take a look here on the abl page. It fly's a ways away. Basically, if fighters were scrambled toward it first, the US would know a war had begun. If missile are launched first, it can take a few down before it has to run from the fighters.

For people that say it has no use because ICBMs are cheap and so many would be launched: China and Russia have lots of ICBMs. Not many others do. It costs a LOT of money. Because the first time you have to use it it HAS to work, you have not only the missiles, but the silos, the staff, the training (continuious), the fuel care, etc, etc, etc. Maintaining a stockpile of ICBMS is a LOT of money. And not easy as russia showed by boinking 2 sub launched ICBMs during Putin's dog and pony show before the election.

Also, remember, it's limited shots because it's chemical. This isn't some type of perfect solution to fighting in the sky.

also remember that this is focused on exploding the fuel tank on a ballistic missile, nothing else.

Also, the Kenetic Interceptor contract has been awarded for development of a boost phase hit to kill interceptor which will provide layered defense with the ABL. These things create a launch area denied, not blanket coverage that means no missile will ever be launched.

Er, no. The beam exit is from a steerable turret on the nose of the aircraft, and can cover almost the entire hemisphere in front. Note the nifty animation on it's home page. ;-)

Also, it is not designed to destroy "inbound ICBMs", it is designed to go after boost phase missiles just after launch. They are easiest to see then, moving relatively slowly, under stress, can't launch decoys AND the debris (including warheads) falls on the launching party's territory. That's the theory anyhow...

If you bothered to do some research, you'd have found out it's a US Air Force project to provide boost phase intercept missile defense. Take a look here.

http://www.airbornelaser.com/

http://www.airbornelaser.com/

The offical project website with pics progress reports et al.

Here's another recent article with some details about the adaptive optics system used to focus the laser.

Exactly. That ASAT missile isn't even the most lethal anti-satellite threat these days. The Airborne Laser 747 will have a quite lethal ASAT capability as well. It could probably shoot down LEO satellites at the rate of a couple a minute, as long as they're above the horizon. IIRC it gets about 10 one-minute shots during a single flight.

The website doesn't appear to have been updated lately, I guess the government decided to turn down the publicity on one of it's most impressive new weapons. (It should also be hell against planes, BTW.) It was originally scheduled for live firing in 2004, I'm curious where the program is now. They are building seven ABLs if things are going according to plan. Here is the most recent article I could find about the program.

Exactly. That ASAT missile isn't even the most lethal anti-satellite threat these days. The Airborne Laser 747 will have a quite lethal ASAT capability as well. It could probably shoot down LEO satellites at the rate of a couple a minute, as long as they're above the horizon. IIRC it gets about 10 one-minute shots during a single flight.

The website doesn't appear to have been updated lately, I guess the government decided to turn down the publicity on one of it's most impressive new weapons. (It should also be hell against planes, BTW.) It was originally scheduled for live firing in 2004, I'm curious where the program is now. They are building seven ABLs if things are going according to plan. Here is the most recent article I could find about the program.

So, this program doesn't have a coherent plan I guess.

I half expected to see airborne lasers used for boost-phase antimissile defense in the current war. I guess it's still too experimental. Then again, maybe they were trying to use it as the primary defense and didn't tell us. It seems like a smart approach to combine this with something like the Patriot missile. If the laser fails, then try the missile.

Also, it's probably not a visible laser, but if you really want to burst your enemy's bubble, there'd be nothing like having him launch his most sophisticated missile, and then seeing a friggin laser come out of the sky and shoot it down.

Also: http://www.airbornelaser.com/

The airborne laser program has been around for at least the past 20 years - you can check out the DOD home page for it here

That's the kind of sh*t that pisses me off, I don't pay taxes to have the government simply hand that money to a corp.

Actually, that's exactly what you do. Of course you could delude yourself into thinking that your particular share of the money was going into Condoleezza Rice's pocket, or perhaps Colin Powell's paycheck instead.

Of course, your money is probably going to TRW, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing, or perhaps all 3.

Remember, it might be neat to think about Bill Gate's money, or how much cash Microsoft has, but really. Call me when Microsoft gets awarded a multibillion dollar contract that has the potential to blow up or get shot down.

I've never seen Windows crash quite like that.

For the past several weeks, I've had a perplexing but cool mousepad advertising "AIRBORNE LASER" (@ http://www.airbornelaser.com/, fancy that). It seems a goofy idea, and it has a really awful website. But, I dunno, it seems somewhat relevant to the discussion.

In what year were we supposed to have orbiting phaser platforms, again? I left my Star Trek Chronology at home for some reason.

(Oh, and my mousepad is even weirder when you consider where I'm working (I deny any connection to that site, yech).)

Regarding nukes in space... the Soviet Union, under Khrushchev, did plan to build a space station that would hold and launch nuclear weapons. You are correct in that an ICBM could already hit any target that a space-based platform could target. The space platform, however, could launch with significantly less warning. Defensive systems are designed to detect the launch of ICBMs, they would not detect a space-based launch. There are, of course, significant drawbacks. A space-based platform is easily tracked and would likely be an easy target in case of war (assuming it wasn't used for a nuclear first-strike).

It depends on the range of the weapon, which they are not saying, and the range of air-to-air missiles that can splash the plane, and the quality of the tracking system... I don't think this will be a superweapon. Just a super COOL weapon.

This is just rehashed technology from the Airborne Laser anyway. They've been putting giant chemical lasers into Boeings for a while now, and the intention is to make it a widely-deployed weapons system for theater missile defense. Can't say for sure, but I bet the ABL has a much more potent beam.

Not that the Spectre version isn't hella cool! Gives a new meaning to "light 'em up."

Personally, I prefer the idea of knocking the damned things down in the boost phase with the 747-mounted laser.

I am an enlisted member of the Air Force and first wish to note that I am not a member or participant of this project. I have no affiliation with it whatsoever. However, it is interesting use of technology to me and I've been following it very closely.

The official website: Airborne Laser.

To be blunt, this isn't new news. It's been in design for a couple years now and they're just now getting ready to test fly the actual aircraft with the laser onboard pretty soon now. It's undergoing preliminary testing at the base I'm currently stationed at. (Kirtland AFB, NM)

The slashdotter's concern that a computer controls the laser should come as a surprise to no one. Almost every part of every aircraft and space vehicle is controlled primary by computers, to include weapons systems.

Perhaps there is the concern that this plane will go up, fly itself, and indiscriminately shoot down whatever it finds. That is bull. It will be flown by experienced pilots with expertly trained individuals operating the laser weapon systems. The computer *has* to be the one to "pull the trigger" because the calculations are far to numerous for humans to do. But the computer is always being operated by a person.

How it works is rather interesting. The crew first receives news of a missle launch somehow and it's approximate coordinates. The fly to the approximate area of the missle and try to identify it. Based on the type of missle it is, the computer picks out a specific spot to fire the high-powered laser at on the missle, (such as the fuel tank) to ensure its destruction. A tracking laser locks on to the missle while the high powered laser fires and destroys the missle within seconds. This is, of course, greatly simplified.

Hemos noted that this hasn't appeared on slashdot before.. that's partially correct. It's never been an actual story, but the conversation has come up many times before in the comments where discussion has been on the topic of US defense against global weapons. I know I've mentioned the airborne laser at least once to prove my point.

www.airbornelaser.com - it's kind of funny, and very surreal. I thought it was a joke the first time I saw it, and watching the promo films on there made me think of the opening to Real Genius. Gotta love it...

www.airbornelaser.com - it's kind of funny, and very surreal. I thought it was a joke the first time I saw it, and watching the promo films on there made me think of the opening to Real Genius. Gotta love it...

I am a geek in the military (education benefits), and I have to say that I take exception to two things said by these candidates.

McReynolds suggested he would give no tax cut, but more fairly distribute taxes (and tax breaks) amoung the different earning classes. I admire this. But he also proposes cutting military spending by HALF.

This is the worst idea I've seen yet. It is true that we are not at war, but as history will prove, you *always* have to be prepared for the slightest chance of conflict and maintain a realistic image of strong national defense. As it is right now, the US military is not even receiving close to what it needs to support our missions and excersises. Training, in particular, is in desparate peril. The Air Force (for example), is below 2/3 the size of what it was in the mid-80's and due to Operations Tempo, we are deploying twice far more, and in general, doing twice as much. All services right now are suffering large, looming retention problems and cutting member's benefits to make up for cut spending will be a direct blow to what they are trying to accomplish.

Later on, Browne noted that the nation has no global missle defense system in place. That is true, only to a very minor extent. First of all, we do have many monitoring stations and satellites to watch what other countries military forces are doing, missle-wise. If we get attacked, we may not be able to prevent it, but we know who did it and can decide what to do about it. In other words, no country in their right mind *knows* that they can get away with sending a missle towards us and expect no Americal missles to come back at them.

Second, the Air Force does have such a program underway. It's called the Airborne Laser program. Basically, it's a very high-powered laser system built into a 747 that's capable of detecting and shooting down enemy missles right over the country of origin. The prototype is still being built, but plans are for several of the planes to be in the air by late 2004. So far, everything is ahead of schedule and no roadblocks, apart from the work yet to be done, have presented themselves.

(A link to the official Airborne Laser page.)

If anyone would like to debate me on these two issues, I will more than gladly prove you wrong.

The fact that it exists, does not imply that it has been tested in such a way that usable and reliable figures can be produced. As their schedule points out they have yet to fly or test--let alone mass produce--this aircraft in its entirety. Therefore, it is not something that one can project results upon, nor even see tested, since it does not exist in a complete testable form as of yet.

Press release detailing the operational laser.

---
chahast at pangaea dot dhs dot org

As it stands no country, that I am aware of, currently has the capability to "shoot down" a missle of any type with any viable accuracy. The only defense to missle attack at this point is a missle which detonates in close proximity to the inbound missle showering it with shrapnel, thus disabling the inbound missle.

The folks at Lockheed Martin are working on something called the Airborne Laser. It uses a very intense beam of light to shoot down missiles from inside a 747. It has a range of somewhere around 400 km, I believe.

Very, very cool stuff.

---
chahast at pangaea dot dhs dot org