Slashdot Mirror
Laser-equipped 747
omnirealm writes ""Engineers are making plans to change the gentle giant (Boeing 747) into a hot-blooded killer with a swiveling nose-cone laser beam theoretically capable of destroying enemy missiles hundreds of miles away." Of particular interest is the fact that "No human finger will actually pull a trigger. Onboard computers will decide when to fire the beam." I find this to be a bit disconcerting. " Somehow I feel as if we had posted this a while ago - no search found it. i do remember that this has been talked about for quite some time, tho'.
Aircraft and ships are constantly being tossed around by the fluid through which they travel.
Fixed-trajectory munitions will miss unless the roll, pitch and yaw are compensated for. Hitting a 10 ft target at 100 miles isn't easy.
What will probably happen is a target is locked into the fire control computer, the operator presses the fire button, and the computer waits a few milliseconds until the weapon is on target (after compensating for aiming offset, refractive index gradients, target movement, etc).
I'm sure the big 16" guns on US Battleships have very sophisticated firing [delay] systems. Just so they can hit the broadside of a barn at 15 miles. Otherwise, they could miss the broadside of a mountain!
I was looking at the description of this a few years back also. (Can't find the article now either, stange.) The impressive hurdle they had to overcome was getting the laser to actually hit the target.
They had a problem with the atmosphere curving the beam. They were using something new, a mirror that could be adjusted on the fly, extremely fast, it's in the nose. Turbulence is very very slow compared to targeting and firing. The only other thing they mentioned was that it was a chemical laser.
Later,
ErikZ
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
The airframe is a Boeing 747-400F, a standard commercial freighter, with modifications to house the laser.
Testing is slated to begin as early as 2003, with a seven-plane operational fleet in service as early as 2009.
The laser is to be a multi-megawatt oxygen-iodine system. A multi-hundred-kilowatt system was successfully flight-tested in 1998.
The system uses "adaptive optics," mirrors which can be deformed to correct for atmospheric effects such as "thermal bloom," the heating of air by the laser, causing distortion (like looking down a hot road).
The project is run by the Air Force Research Labs Directed Energy Directorate, based at Kirtland AFB, NM, and has been around in some form or other for at least 20 years.
Contractors include Boeing, TRW Space and Electronics Group (developing laser), and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (developing beam- and fire-control systems).
Boeing and Rockwell competed for a $22 million concept-definition contract, with Boeing winning that contract, and the $1.3 billion Airborne Laser Program Definition and Risk Reduction contract.
The program calls for destruction of a boosting theater ballistic missile by the fall of 2002.
A follow-on contract of about $4.5 billion to complete engineering, manufacturing, development and production efforts of a seven aircraft fleet will be awarded following successful completion of the initial contract.
t ml. Incidentally, the best description I've ever found of the optical technology can be found in Tom Clancy's The Cardinal of the Kremlin.
There were some really neat pictures of the airplane on the USAF website www.af.mil, as well as a couple of stories, but they've been relegated to the archives. One of those stories, from which most of this information is taken, can be found at http://www.af.mil/news/Jan2000/n20000124_000101.h
An additional note: there was mention that a computer would fire the laser, not a person. This is true, at least after a fashion. Yes, the computer actually fires the laser--this is necessary, as there is no human out there who has the timing to hit an object moving at 12,000 miles an hour. The system must first be armed, though, and this is done by a human. While I do understand the concern about a computer controlling the weapon, in this case, there is still a man in the loop.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
But it seems like, given enough computing power and electricity, a couple of these 747s could blow away a whole bunch of missiles in a relatively short amount of time. And because they are flying and not fixed on our soil, or on soil at all, they don't violate the 1972 ABM treaty either. Since the incoming administration seems very gung-ho about implementing missile defense (which is a very stupid idea... but that's another thread), it seems like this system could be the answer to their prayers, so to speak. I'm curious why more senators & congressmen haven't jumped on board with more funding for this program, or why it has recieved relatively little publicity given that the failure of our ballistic MD tests made international headlines last year.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Especially about the gentle giant. 747 is a subject to additional USAF and NATO requirements and all 747s currently in operation are subject to draft in case of military emergency. Which actually happened during the Gulf War. The airlines were extremely pissed off but there was nothing they could do.
It is not a gentle giant. It is a military transport aircraft. It is redundant by the military, not the civil aviation spec (check the engine redundancy and power excess parameters for example). And it was already used in several projects as a carrier for Star Wars weapons (mostly missiles and stuff). So nothing new. Nothing amazing.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
If memory serves, the plane that was shot down in this tragedy was a 747.
The NATO forces were purportedly running Cobra Ball surveillance runs in the area in question that night. Cobra Ball planes are made out of Boeing RC-135 airframes, which are derivatives of the Boeing 707 and look like a large 707 in profile. While they're obviously different in profile, someone could accidentally mistake one for the other in the heat of a tense situation.
This translates into a dangerous in the dark situation where someone in a combat plane might mistake a civillian airliner with a military plane and shoot it down- which is what aparently happened in the case of KAL 007.
Now this takes into account the prospects of a situation where the countries and the people involved are aware of the "Law" of Armed Conflict (which really isn't a law but an agreement between most of the potential combattants in a conflict- that's usually honored). What about the others that aren't in on the agreements or just don't give a damn?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I don't know the details of this system, but I can make some guesses at the types of problems they've had to work through:
:)
- Powerful lasers can ionize the air along the path, creating a plasma barrier that subsequently stops/hinders the laser beam. General workarounds include pulsing the beam to "beat" a path through the atmosphere or using a large enough beam so the total energy is high but the power at any given point is low.
- A temperature gradient in the atmosphere results in an index of refraction gradient. This will cause the beam path to deviate from a straight line. (This is the cause of mirages - hot road, cool air == large temperature gradient). If the gradient is large enough or the beam distance far enough, the beam could be moved significantly off-target (according to a straight-line estimate). I'd guess this is not an issue for this system, but I don't know.
- Scattering. If there are clouds, then there are water droplets or perhaps ice crystals, which will scatter and absorb the laser beam to various extents (depending on the wavelength chosen). Then will reduce or eliminate the laser's effectiveness. Solutions include selecting a wavelength that is not scattered or absorbed strongly by water, and praying for good weather
- Maintaining laser alignment. The mirrors in a laser (assuming it isn't a solid state laser) have pretty low tolerances for their position. Maintaining the alignment in a hostile environment (e.g. loud, bumpy 747 ride) might be a challenge. But, feedback-based stabilizing systems have been around for years, so this was probably dealt with pretty readily.
Anyhow, just some thoughts from an optics geek.
And remember, do not look directly at the laser with your remaining good eye.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
I mean, this could be real useful when you are in one of those holding patterns trying to land at O'Hare....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
You are correct, sir. I said that missile defense was a stupid idea right there in my post, for this very reason. The MAD doctrine virtually assures that no one in their right mind is going to launch a nuclear missile at us, because we'd launch six times as many W-88 nuclear warheads up their ass in a heartbeat. If a terrorist or some "rogue nation" - the State Departments current euphemism of the month - really wanted to nail the states, they'd carry over a 15lb nuke in a backpack and take out half of LA. And that's gonna be a lot, lot harder to defend against. Certainly for this reason NMD makes almost no sense - but the incoming administration seems hell-bent on it anyways, because they are stupid. So I offer up this laser thing as a tolerable alternative, because NMD on our own soil would wreak havoc internationally. There's a lot of good coverage of this in Slate if anyone is interested.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
I wonder how long it would be before someone else can develop a type of missile which isn't identified as such by this system? And how much more will it cost them to release a patch?
I bet saddam is having his missles chromed right now. Next we'll have to make a 747 that can take the chrome off a scud.
--toq
I find it more disturbing that such a 'weapon' is actually considered a bad thing by some politicians...
The computer part of it isn't anything surprising. When your dealing with aiming a weapon fired from a platform traveling ~400mph at something hundreds of miles away traveling even faster the average quake players aim isn't gonna cut it.
Click here to read too much about my personal life
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...
--Dg
some 747's with freakin' laserbeams on their heads! Honestly people, throw me a freakin' bone here...
-Dr Evil
The killer satellites are to kill other satellites. The fuel needed by anything to vector towards a ballistic missile that is A) only going to be in the upper atmosphere for a short time B) traveling a lot slower and on a different course than anything in orbit.... there's just better ways than to put a floating fuel tank in space. Hence the 747 with a big stick :)
I do believe that the chinese and Russians are pretty peeved about this though; upsets strategic balances, donchaknow.
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
It is at least theoreticly possible that we will have 747's blowing up terrrorists? Is it just me or is the irony overwhelming?
This story reminds me of the movie Real Genius. The parallels are staggering: Big laser mounted in a plane to be able to fire anywhere. In the movie, they talked about a 5 MegaWatt laser, and here they are saying the laser is more than 1 MegaWatt. Hmmmm.
use whatever part of the plane is responsible for destroying the luggage, and aim that at oncoming missiles? Much more damaging, without the costly R+D.
Actually, the threat of deploying 5,000 Minnesota-St.Paul's baggage handlers (the ones who think that US mail is made by Spalding) would be enough to make any of these lunatic rogue nations think twice.
It's worked before - Thatcher threatened once to deploy 10,000 medium-range Millwall soccer fans and that stopped a potential armed conflict right there.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
"During todays first test of the laser weilding 747, a freak accident occured and the DOJ headquarters was turned into a raging inferno..."
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
These are all very good ideas/questions, and I wish to comment on them. But keep in mind I'm just a nerd following the news as it happens, not a scientist working behind the scenes.
1. The laser could be depoyed indefinitely to the region of conflict at lower cost.
Not neccessarily. A 747 is very expensive, but a boat big enough and fast enough to carry the laser and still fulfill the mission is probably almost as expensive. Further more, a boat probably isn't the best choice strategically, as I'll point out below. (Note however that my expertise is limited to aircraft, not ships. Don't take it as a bias, though.
2. It would also allow the laser to fire while the missile was still slow, full of fuel, and very close to the ground.
Perhaps, but bear in mind that one of the key points of the "airborne" laser is that the missle can be shot down at any point of its trajectory, preferably high up in the atmosphere near its apex, or over the territory of the ones who launched it if such action were justified. An aircraft is probably the preferred vehicle because they can go literally anywhere on the earth's surface (with a ship, you'd be limited to the launch sites that happen to be relatively close to the coast), and they are at least an order of magnitude faster than ships.
3. The larger payload of a ship would allow the laser to be much more powerful than one deployed on a 747.
Very right, but the laser that will be installed on the 747 is already the largest laser in the world. There is the issue of practicality. You may be able to have a higher powered laser on a ship capable of destroying a missle 500 miles away (versus the Airborne Laser's 200), but you run the risk of not getting there on time or at all.
4. The cost and risk of deploying 747s to a theater of operations could be prohibitive.
That's never stopped the Air Force before.
1. Would a big, slow ship be more vulnerable to counterattack than a big, slow 747?
Speaking relatively, I'd say a ship would be MUCH slower and therefore vulnerable to attack than a 747. Airplanes can attack ships effectively and ships can attack ships effectively, but the only thing that can attack airplanes effectively is airplanes. (If that made much sense...)
2. Would water vapor present at the surface diffract the beam so much it became unusable? For that matter, what about inclement weather?
Good question... I'm inclined to believe that things on the surface such as water vapour and weather would lessen the power of such a weapon. Whereas at high altitudes above the clouds, you let little else than clean and thin air.
All that aside, putting a laser weapon system on a ship in the future could very well be a good strategy. Probably not for shooting down global-reach missles, but for shooting down enemy aircraft overhead (remember, lasers track quite well) or for attacking other ships.
(Still need to find a way to get at those damn submarines!)
Man, with one of these we could hold the world hostage for
<pinky>one *million* dollars</pinky>
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Not true - period. One word covers this: LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict)
Since the aircraft will be a combatant vehicle, it will have to be CLEARLY marked with insignia showing that fact. It will have the ubiquitous "U.S. Air Force" on the side, star/stripe logo on the wings, etc, etc.
Just realize that the Af has been flying commercial aircraft retrofitted to do other duty for years and years - most WWII cargo craft were McDonnell Douglas civilian carriers, and there are many incarnations of the 707-737 variety in service today.
Not to mention that the large lens that is needed to make this platform a reality makes the nose bulge in an unmistakable way.
BOttom line - don't worry. It's nothing new.
As for suitcase nuclear weapons being "low-yield", Hiroshima-style fission weapons were pretty low-yield, but they managed to kill about 100,000 people each, and detection is a joke. The US spends billions on interdicting drug smuggling, and misses approximately 90% of it. Puh-leeze!
Look, the Chinese leadership may be made up of power-hungry barbarians, but they aren't stupid.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
A very good history of laser beams can be found at http://students.washington.edu/jboyd/laser.htm.
I believe you will find it informative and of relevance to this story.
USAF has been working on airborne laser concepts for years as part of various theatre and strategic missile defense projects. The 747 is a good platform for this - lots of payload capacity (power generation for the laser) and plenty of duration to loiter in a threat area.
But don't think this is going to be a "Battlestar Gallactica" with wings. The plane is going to be one great big high-value target. It will need escort fighters, tankers to refuel the fighters, maybe an AWACS to manage things,... you get the idea. Then there needs to be a ground base to maintain the laser system, housing for the technicians, facilities.... Multiply by the number of aircraft necessary to provide 24x7 defense of an area and you begin to get an idea of the difference between a one-off technology demonstration and a real weapon system.
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. There are just some times when the military needs a couple of gigawatts of directed energy in a self-propelled package! If we had a couple of these in the Gulf War, we probably would have done better shooting down SCUDs. That's the sort of thing these are made for -- theater missile defense.
This weapons platform isn't made for popping fighter planes or tanks. I'm sure it could be re-tasked to that if they wanted. That would be an interesting battlefield...
The CNN article is quite good. It pulls together facts that I have in the past seen scattered all over, or that I had to get from the ABL guys when I met them at an air show. And when it talks about a fleet of these things -- they are serious. They will test a couple of prototypes, and if they work out, they'll build like 20 of them, according to the guy I talked to and the flyer he gave me.
One thing the article didn't mention was range, which I was told would be 120-150 miles. Whoop! I want one.
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.