Slashdot Mirror
Dawn of the Airborne Laser
Yonzie writes "As you may have heard, there are a number of competing franchises working on a functional laser weapon. Popular Science has an interesting story about `The Wall of Fire', an airborne laser designed to fit in the belly of a 747. Apparently, this is powerful and precise enough to destroy enemy intercontinental and intermediate-range missiles in mid-flight.
I can imagine the use of laser turrets as protection against missiles, but I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough." This is the big daddy of the JSF laser that we've mentioned before.
Number 2: "*ahem* Dr. Evil, it's about the sharks. When you froze them, they were put on the endangered species list. We tried to get some, but it would have taken months to clear up the red tape."
Dr. Evil: "You know, I have one simple request - and that is, to have sharks with frikkin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic collegue informs me that that can't be done. Can you remind me what I pay you people for? Honestly, throw me a bone here. What do we have?
Number 2: "Sea Bass"
Dr. Evil: "Riiiiiight..."
Number 2: "They are mutated sea bass."
Dr. Evil: "Really? Are they ill-tempered?"
Number 2: "Absolutely."
Dr. Evil: "That's a start."
Damn straight it's your humble opinion. Why do you think you are qualified to pass verdict on this system?
This is everything that makes Slashdot bad. (Fumes)...
AC to avoid raping.
Hmm, I believe these are the kinds of missions where they make sure n number of planes are always in the air. Sounds really expensive in terms of fuel, but I've heard of several occasions where they do this kind of thing...
I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough
That's why you keep a few of the birds in the air on alert at all time.
Seriously, you dont think the engineers who know what they're doing thought of that?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The speed of the 747 scrambling wouldn't be an issue with something like this because they simply keep them in the air, 24/7, ready to intercept. They wouldn't launch in reaction to a threat, they would already be in the air to intercept.
Scramble? I think the idea is to keep a laser platform airborne at all times, similar to the way AWACS aircraft work.
Man, if I could get one of these mounted on my car it sure would cut down the drive time on my morning commute!
Red light, huh? *ZAP* Not red anymore...
Posting as directed.
I have that magazine here on my desk. I read the article and for now they are just using a old Air India 747 to testbed this laser on. From what I gathered once they are done testing they will try faster aircraft to install this in.
My only hope is that the laser will be powerful enough to go through dense fog and also not be affected by rain/moisture as well.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
I know that the thing is currently a big ass laser - but eventually we will be able to get something like this down to a reasonable size - where it can hopefully be built into attack aircraft - which at that point will allow a plane to fly with confidence in enemy territory.
The other aspect that makes this an interesting weapon to have on a 747 - let the 747 fly into enemy territory with an escort fighter squadron - the fighters protect the 747 - which protects the fighters and maybe bombers from enemy missles.
This would be a great thing to have in Command and Conquer: generals...
Although I wonder about the speed it can defend itself - what happens if you shoot ten missles at it?
Or they could mount a microwave oven on one of those planes. And melt the missiles before they hit their target!
I can imagine the use of laser turrets as protection against missiles, but I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. MHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough.
If the 747 were too slow to avoid missles, wouldn't a laser mounted on a rotating joint be useful in fending off incoming attack without requiring the plane to scramble? The whole point would be to pick them off before they can get close enough to do damage.
Of course, I doubt you'll see these on commercial 747's. How many pilots could you trust not to play with the laser.
Flight #343, please desist in using the laser for non-defensive measure, it is not intended for roasting flying fowl.
Now only if they can figure out how to launch 747s from aircraft carriers...
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
..one of these babies mounted in a DVD recorder..
Betcha could get *terabytes* of capacity.
For those who will denouce this as unnessassary and a waste of money, look at your HandyCams with thier image stabilization, or those nifty Mirror-Chip based TVs and projectors LINK. Tickle down technology is very important to us nerds/geeks/uberusers.
--sig fault--
Yes, it looks really ingenious and all, but can I pop popcorn with it from a range of three miles? Hilarity would be bound to ensue!
All i asked for, was Frickkin' 747's with FRIKKIN LAZER BEAMS attatched to THEIR HEADS!
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
"I'm tracking where the shot went"
mmmmmmm, popcorn.
Slim Pickens? How the hell is Slim Pickens gonna ride a laser?
Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find:
one forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings. Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.
I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough.
The speed of the plane is pretty much irrelevant when you're talking about a plane that can fly at high altitude with a weapon that can hit a target less than a second after hitting fire, every time. There would be no reason for the plane to 'scramble' anywhere.
All of these high power lasers are currently chemical lasers. They generate the coherent light by using a chemical reaction. From what I understand the power source is something that resembles a rocket engine at least slightly. High power solid state lasers would be the way to go to minaturize, but they are a little ways off.
The idea is probably to use them to prohibit a retaliatory strike by a country like North Korea after we bomb them.
And this is not just my opinion. For more information on the dangers of these sorts of things, I recommend "Star Wars: A Defense Expert's Case Against the Strategic Defence Initiative" by Robert M Bowman, and his site at http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/
Also check out his program you can buy at a http://www.alternativeradio.org
Basically, I do agree that if you do the math, these are only useful as weapons designed to follow-up with a pre-emptive attack. These are hence profoundly destabilizing and so they will provide no security for the US.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Apparently, this is powerful and precise enough to destroy enemy intercontinental and intermediate-range missiles in mid-flight
Then we will have to hire people who were pros at "Missile Command" in the 80's to operate these damn lasers so that our cities can be safe!
The only downside is that in "Missile Command" you were pretty screwed, it was just a matter of time.
I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough
:)
Aim at the missiles source
I can imagine the use of laser turrets as protection against missiles, but I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough.
That's not how the military would use a weapon like this. Instead, they'd have several 747s, and they'd keep one or more aloft at all times. It's not designed to shoot ICBMs down in the descent/re-entry phase, but to shoot down most any missile in the ascent phase soon after launch.
FAS: Airborne Laser
"Lockheed Martin Space Systems, a member of Team Airborne Laser (ABL), has begun fabrication of the revolutionary, high-energy laser weapon system's turret assembly at its Sunnyvale, Calif., facility.
"The turret assembly, located on the nose of the system's modified 747-400 Freighter aircraft, houses a rotating 1.5-meter telescope designed to locate hostile missiles while in their boost phase."
SpaceDaily: LockMart Begins Building Airborne Laser Turret
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Of course, having this kind of planes or satellites is not very nice.
You're just asking for troll remarks.
But... to reply to ur obviously unintelligent remark, I doubt we would use a giant laser against individuals, or buildings. Also, this so-called "OIL war" is such BS. Obviously if we overthrow Saddam, we aren't going to take control of his oil, you know how bad that would look to the rest of the world??? We'll most likely just give control over to the new Iraqi government which we will trade with.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Your subject header said it all, of course.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
I wonder if they hire entry-level electrical engineers.
...
.....
I can dream can't I!!
I do security
serious science questions -- Won't all that energy do some very interesing things to the air it passes through? How about dissipation or atmospheric diffraction? What about very fashonable chrome plated missles? What about the "bad guys" with a ground-based version of this thing pointed at the 747?
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
I saw a presentation when I was in grad school on the previous incarnation of the 747-laser. The big problem was the laser could only blow up the missle if its tanks were mostly full of fuel.
This is because missle fuel tanks are under high pressure so that the fuel can help form part of the structure for the missle to support the weight of the fuel. If a laser can weaken the walls of the fuel tank then the missle's structure will fail, and the missle will break up.
Anyway these lasers have to hit a missle right after it launches or else the tanks have lost too much pressure and the laser won't do any damage... the presenter defended this by saying you want to shoot down a missle close to launch anyway because you don't want the debris from the missle falling on any friendlies... and this is a good argument (the scuds shot down by patriots in gulf war I caused a lot of damage when they fell out of the sky).
I do have to wonder, though, if the missle launches can be detected and the missle targeted quickly enough for these lasers to work... and what about missles with solid rocket motors? I doubt the laser would be any good against these at all.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Dang! I would hate to get shot down with one of those things!
As brought up by a few others, I'd be interested to see what it's charging times are, along with it's ability to engage multiple targets. Would make a big difference if ever used as a counter-SAM system on smaller planes.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
A car?
A person?
Stinky results I'd imagine.
Would it be "ok" in terms of Geneva Conventions, UN Standards, etc.
Shiny missile.
Seriously, as cool as a big laser is it seems as though the defense to this multi-billion-dollar system is to polish the outside of the missile to reflect the beam.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
A superjumbo sized jet with 2-3 ABL turrets at 60,000 ft. Anything (fighters, missles of all kinds, flying robots) within 500 miles is toast! Tanks on the ground explode in a few seconds. Specific buildings incinerated at will leaving the rest of the town intact. A flying battleship-- completely redefines air combat.
You can have it good, fast, or cheap. Pick any two.
This could be used for things other than shooting down ICBMs: A 747 with one of these could replace an older aircraft/gunship that spits lead at ground targets.
I think we should call the first 747 with a mounted laser off the line "TROGDOR THE BURNINATOR!"
HOMESTARRUNNER RULES!!!
One of the big reasons nukes were never fired during the Cold War was because if one side fired them, they could be sure to expect 10 times as many coming back at them. This was called Mutually Assured Destruction, or something equally positive. If somebody could defend themselves from nukes, they would be free to blow everybody else up with impunity.
I really try not to watch the news very much any more, but I think the agreement still stands to not build missile defences. Can anybody enlight me to how accurate I am on this?
All I ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
"I can imagine the use of laser turrets as protection against missiles, but I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles..."
But a stationary turret, now that's FAST compared to the missles, right?
Well, so much for your so-called "professional" career as a Journalist.
Children, this is a prime example of how to commit "professional suicide".
I wonder if we contacted Mr. Collins if he would verify for us that you're actually nothing but a crackpot?
Interestingly enough, if one looks over Mr. Feinbaum's posting record here, "The Troll's have it"!
ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
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
How perfectly reflective/shiny would the target have to ben to successfully survive this? Also, how long can the laser sustain fire? Curiosities. And I was too lazy to read the article.
It is a lot easier to hit a 747 over your own airspace with a SAM than it is to hit New York from China.
So this ONLY works when the enemy does not have a chance to make a *premeditated* attack. In other words, it only works when we bomb them first.
In this scenario, they would be scrambled before, say, we bomb Pyong Yong or Bejing, not once we get word of impending attack.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
burninating the countryside!
YES I'M AWESOME!
Is it just me, or would the explosion of a ballistic missle carrying a nuclear warhead, either caused by the laser described in this article, or a physical interception (Patriot missle or Bush's missle defense shield), turn in to a ready made dirty bomb?
I mean, the radioactive material in the bomb would hardly be vaporized I imagine, and instead would disperse down from whatever altitude the intercept occured at to contaminate the underlying area. Ok, it seems that we want to destroy the missle in the ascent phase of flight and thus the contaminated area might not be anywhere in the US, but still....
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
I wanna be an Airborne Laser,
Live the life of guts and danger,
I wanna die in the old drop zone,
Box me up and ship me home.
C'mon you know the words!
Drifting ever so slightly offtopic, here's a question I've always had about lasers: why don't SWAT teams use them? I know we don't have laser rifles or anything like that just yet, so any laser would be rather cumbersome. Still, for long hostage standoffs and the like, when you have plenty of time to get massive equipment into place, wouldn't a weapon that fires at lightspeed be rather useful? It'd certainly be the most accurate sniper weapon ever.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Alan Parsons Project
This would completely change the face of war...Now, not only can whole cities be vaporized in a second, but we can turn hundreds of enemy combatants into quivering piles of mush at a whim. What kind of a war would it be if both sides had such powerful weapons? Why is it that people are obsessed with our own destruction? Frankly, it's extremely disappointing and depressing.
What is the recharge time of these lasers and how many shots do you have? So how many shots per minute/hour or rate of fire and what is the total # of shots per energy source. Any guesses??
--this is true except for two points. As a proof of concept platform they can be shown to work. The US will most liklley go back to a 24/7 aircap of planes in the air. We did that from the early cold war until some time in the clinton administration. We ALWAYS had some bombers in the air. They could conceivably do that with these new birds once they have a fleet of them. Point two, I don't see anyplace in the fine print that says you couldn't use these against normal old aeryplanes, or ground based targets for that matter. I mean it IS the deathray thing, and it's still in the musket stage as far as it's evolution is concerned. It's only going to get more powerful and easier to aim and have more bool-eets in the clip with advancing technology, to mangle an analogy.
With that said, I am more askeered right now of my own government than anything else. That scripted "question and answer" dog and pony show last night was pure fiction. Slick, but still fiction. Wasn't a single hardball question asked. He had the questions in front of him and was calling on the reporters in turn off a list, then just reading the canned answers. He's worked on his delivery, it's getting better and the scriptwriters are getting better but it's still *acting*. Notice he said it was "his government". I thought that was cute. The skeery part is he BELIEVES THAT.
All in all though, my opinion is we need a missile defense, it's just a natural logical progression. Within 10 to 15 years the planet earth gonna have to decide once and for all who is getting the oil and who ain't, because there SURE ain't enough so that 6 billion people will all have cars and central heating and whatnot, it just slap ain't gonna happen. And china gonna be RIGHT there with the huge giganto army, all the tech their manufacturing plants can pump out, and a need for oil and water they can't ignore. Things gonna get pretty interesting then, if not even before then.
What we need more though right now besides missile defense is to get rid of the D and R parties,never elect another one to even tree warden or dogcatcher, they stole the government and run it like warring gangs on crack and booze...waitaminit, I bet that's part of it! It's..embarrasing. And we need to stop letting the CFR and those sortsa folks determine how our government should be. It ain't their government.
Ya, I know, wishful thinking, computerised voting just blew any chance we had of true reform, that and all the military following ANY order they are given no matter how illegal or unconstitutional, and congress being lapdogs.
Sorry for the ramble, just events lately are looking pretty lame, stupid and dangerous to me, and what is really bogus is I predicted this stuff(some in writing, some I just remember thinking back then and talking about) happening way back when I was in junior high in the early 60's, and it more or less has come true right on schedule. And I am NOT looking forward to the domestic attacks that will be starting once he invades, I give that a pretty fair odds-on of happening now. Saddam is a nutcase, but he's one of dozens you can point at, and not really all that powerful.
This whole war deal is in layers of political and economic reality, last night got itterated the very top most superficial layer, IMO..
my freaking eyes, watch where you point those lasers
If the laser can fit in the belly of a 747, then it can certainly also sit on the ground and burst from there.
Other people are covering this, but it's friday and I'm bored so I'll jump in too.
"I can imagine the use of laser turrets as protection against missiles, but I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough."
The ABL is meant to loiter a few hundred miles off like an AWACS or JSTAR and fire it's laser at battlefield or medium range ballistic missile during thier launch phase when they are moving slow, full of fuel and at max dynamic stress.
It's not a Bamm! Bamm! Kerplow! X-Wing or Star Trek device, but more like the big slow laser of the Death Star, focusing on the missile and knocking it out.
These bad boys won't scramble, a 747, 757, 767, 707 used by the military can remain aloft for 24-36 hours and have an unrefueled loiter of 12 hours. They have all the hardware to refuel from tankers in mid-air.
I'll use North Korea as an example. Things get hot and an ABL is deployed, the US knows where the missiles will be launched from, say No-Dong on the coast. So the US leaves an ABL with a couple US or JSDF F-15s about 120 miles out over the Sea of Japan with a brand new Arleigh Burke - Flight IIA destroyer which has some ABM capability in Navy Area Defense SM-2 Block IVA surface to air missiles. When the DPRK lights off a missile for the US or Japan, the ABL gets a shot and so does the destroyer.
Could the US be just a -bit- more paranoid? Don't ever forget, the whole world is out to get you..
In addition, a nuclear launch site situated in say, North Korea, is under eye in the sky monitoring at all times. When they go on alert, so do we. If the missile has to go 5000 miles, we've got a pretty good lead time on it as medium range ballistic missiles arent really going all that fast.
the third part is a deterent. If you are going to nuke somebody, you hit them hard. If they can retaliate, then you're screwed. If they can shoot down your missile, shooting it off in the first place was accomplished nothing and made you the biggest target in the world.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Heh, missles don't have to be the only targets either. Sounds like a fairly useful weapon. Although you do need line of sight, and I wonder about the nature/amount of damage it causes.
I hope the RIAA don't get one of these planes..
Make sure you place your burnt cd's label-face up, so they can't read 'em!
Overwhelming weapons begats assymetric warfare techniques.
This has been shown to be true in every region where it occurs, Israel, Chechnya, America.
And too often, assymetric warfare techniques mean a concentration on the civilian populace as victims.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
How long will it be before the USA uses this to fry innocent children in Iraq
Well, considering that this is designed to be used against ballistic missiles, am I to understand that Saddam has started straping innocent children to his IRBMs? I think you just convinced me of the need for regime change in Iraq...
Cute idea, but it assumes a lot. Off the top of my head....
1) Clear flyable weather. While you can detect the thermal blooms of launch, you can't rely on that for tracking, thus the need for a ranging laser. Will this work if you've got 5-10k ft of cloud cover to visually confirm the target? How about minor-major turbulance?
2) Total aerial supremancy. As with AWACS, you'll need to dominate the skies to the point where SAMs are not making the plane suddenly jink and miss the shot at the wrong time.
3) Target overload. If there are a "lot" of thermal blooms, how long will it take to determine which one is shooting the real missle? Which is just an fire/explosion on the ground? Recall that Iraq is tasked with destroying 100+ short-range ballistic missles. How do you tell a 200km range missle with a nuke vs. a 50km one with conventional explosives. You have 20 shots to figure it out.
4) Equipment. How long to reload between shots? Fast enough to take a second shot? What sort of stress does this put on the plane and the internal equipment? If you do miss, can you still track the missed target?
5) Limited range. From the description it can cover a few hundred square miles. Say 400 square miles or an area of 20 miles by 20 miles. Expand that by constantly flying large fig-8s and you got maybe an area of 3000 sq. miles covered for about five minutes every hour. Lots of luck tracking down the right five minutes of launch...
If this was fully operational during the 1991 Gulf War, it might have saved a few lives and eased the stress level in Israel and Saudia Arabia, but I doubt it would have gotten more than one or two missles. And this works only on that level. A battlefield defense versus an enemy with some ballistic capability, without significant air support, and limited firing capabilities.
It is a big step forwards though. I'll give them a few years to see if they can miniturize to limited fighter usage. Now THAT would be worthwhile.
"I may be Love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
The amazing thing about this laser is the adaptive optics required to keep the beam focused on the target long enough to burn through the casing and ignite the propellant or warhead, while compensating for aircraft vibration and atmospheric distortion. I imagine this is the reason they chose an aircraft as a weapons platform. The air is thinner, less turbulent, and has less moisture than at the surface. It's also mobile, and can monitor a larger area from altitude. An abvious next step would be putting this on ships, to replace Phalanx as a defense against incoming missles.
It is to be hoped that a device like this would only be damaging at the range it it focused upon.
Imagine if the aircraft were at 40,000ft looking down on a launch site, it spies a missile, shoots, misses and smokes a school!
Well, if that didn't happen, you can bet thats what your enemy's propaganda will tell you happened.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
..but it's probably the most action a /. junkie will have.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
you were an airline pilot suffering from air-rage and you go your hands on one of these 747's :D
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
Terrorist groups? Developing ballistic missiles? Does anybody really believe that a terrorist group, however well funded, could pull this off? Or that they'd want to, given that a $10 suitcase can do the job just as well?
This sounds like floundering to me. They've built a solution to the wrong problem and are desperately hoping that nobody notices.
We would have had this task force years ago if the build queues weren't nested so @*#*@&$ deep.
- The gun and its carrier are incredibly expensive.
- Nuclear missiles have become incredibly cheap.
- Knifes are even cheaper.
That means: While the U.S. are so fixated on high tech weapons and the incredible power of money to buy and develop superior weapons, more and more people suffer from hunger and distress.People occasionally get angry over their situation.
If such angry people go to the next shop and buy themselves a knife, or something worse, they can do real big damage to western civilization, as we have seen with 9/11.
And such people, no laser cannon can stop.
But ... the money for one of such megalomaniac laser guns could have brought a considerable number of people an existence worth to live for.
The money the U.S. and G.B. gave to Saddam Hussein when he was their big friend, could have been used for the benefit of Iraq's people and democracy.
Instead it was only for another paid war, in which the U.S. also supported the other side, Iran.
The government has been put BILLIONS of dollars into laser defense systems. This one seems no different except for its mounting point. The ground based models have failed even the military's tests. And they CHEATED to make the laser system successful. Its just a new twist on an old idea to make the public interested again.
Lasers could be used to strike communication targets while minimizing collateral amage (civillian death or non-military property damage). Damn, broke my no text rule.
you dumb assholes dont seem to understand that the US military has created the greatest 'dissident fryer' in the history of the planet. imagine if you will being killed, as a US citizen was recently in yemen, without trial, without anything. just killed. well, now that they have global GPS, space lasers, etc, they can .
"Spin" and "Wobble"
Give your missles this and it makes it
A) Harder for laser to track precisely
B) Harder for laser to create a breach or overheat of fuel.
On the downside, wobble lowers targeting accuracy, but if you're firing ICBMs, you probably have some sort of large yield warhead anyway, so a few hundred meters accuracy isn't going to make a difference.
As a side benefit, wobble will also serve to make interception (even) less likely.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Think about how little angular motion it would require to make a HUGE difference in the aim of a laser shooting at something a thousand miles away. A 747 is ideal because it's BIG and STABLE.
I saw a show about this, they had a beam stabilizer assembly about the size of a VW beetle. And even then it didn't take much turbulance for it to go completely off target.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
This is meant to fly around a battlefield and shoot down Scuds and similar medium range missiles. It is not meant for strategic defense, because there is presumably no warning on ICBM launches. It is not meant for short range tactical missles, too many of them.
It is a first step, a baby step weapon. You have to take that first step sometime.
Infuriate left and right
...from the episode of Battlestar Galactica on the ice planet with the giant Pulsar gun that threatened to destroy Adama and his rag-tag fugitive fleet of humans.
Where's Val Kilmer when you need him...
I'll tell you what the 'effect' is! It's pissing me off!
ROFL. Did me some good.
To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
Supposedly the Israeli Government put these in all the passenger planes in Israel. Israel refuses to comment either way but that is believed to be the case. And if that is true, then they believe in it enough...
If one were to make a missle with a huge mirror exo-skeloton, what would happen? Would it just burn through the mirror on would it melt the plane?
>> I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough...
You could mount the thing on a Krispy Kreme truck as long as you had line-of-sight to the target. Speed of light is just a tad faster any than missile.
And you don't scramble them. You keep them in the air patrolling.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This isn't exactly news; I gave a briefing on this subject, oh, three or so years ago. The highlights:
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.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
I can imagine the use of laser turrets as protection against missiles, but I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747.
Who said it was a defensive weapon..?
Seems more like something to have positioned to keep other missles from firing *after* we've launched ours.
I wonder if they're going to combine this laser with some Pink Floyd...
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
The thing controls the laser beam by bouncing it around mirrors inside the aircraft.
What if the missiles were covered in mirrors themselves? Wouldn't that completely negate the effect of this thing?
I have to admit that would be really funny.
Liberty.
This was one on the great quotes from the movie!
IMHO, the point of this laser is that it's portable. Say the US Army is deploying in a third country that does not have a ground-based anti-ballistic laser emplacement. You can quickly deploy a 747 and have a functional missile defense shield.
Or if a rogue state is threatening an allied country, you can quickly deploy an airborne laser to protect it.
The nice thing is that the 747 probably will be much more secure than other large planes like the E3 AWACS or the RC-135 recconaisance plane: an enemy fighter approach, and you just zap it out of the sky.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
What the fuck sort of creature is a "missle"? Sounds like some cutesy-arsed IRC kids way of describing their favorite teacher.
"Missle Katie sent me to detention today!"
Fuck. One typo isn't so bad, but consistently using the screwed up spelling when it's used correctly all around you is just being dumb on purpose
repeat after me
MISSILE
MISSILE
MISSILE
technically, Jesus *is* God (you know, that whole "holy trinity" deal)
- God the Father == God
- God the Son (Jesus) == God
- Holy Spirit == God
Amen!kind of a package deal -- never fully understood it, but there it is
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
What would happen if the missiles were coated with a highly reflective surface, like a mirror - would that prevent the laser from 'working' ?
Eu4ria
Deterrence only works if your enemy has sense enough to want to avoid destruction. If that's not the case, all bets are off. The Soviets and the U.S. deterred each other from using nukes during the Cold War because both sides understood, and wanted to avoid at all costs, that kind of exchange. But, if your enemy is a loon, nothing may deter him.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
If I'm not mistaken, Bush is saying we need missle defence to protect us against rogue states, not former/current superpowers. Thus this seems to do the job nicely. These rogue states, while having one or two long range missles, won't have sufficiant air power to overpower a carrier group or two (or ground stationed aircraft).
So... why do we need more? You may ask, perhaps this would be great if things get bad with the Russians and we need to protect ourselves from a large scale nuclear launch? Or perhaps it would protect us from a retalitory strike if we did a first strike. Well, that's what the whole purpose of the ABM treaty was for. The security nuclear arms gave us during the cold war was only because both sides were assured they would be destroyed by the start of any war. How convienent we've gotten out of that.
Ha. Anyone remember the 6 Taliban leaders decorated with AK-47's warning the United States that an attack would surely fail. Ha. We destroyed their major troop formations in the cover of darkenss - they could not even see where our missiles/bombs were coming from. Cannot imagine what that does moral. Much like getting struck down by the 'thunder god'. Poor bastards.
The article says the laser uses a chemical reaction and only has enough chemicals to fire 20 shots. So if you want to ensure your missiles hit you fire say 180 duds with V-2 quality guidance and no wareheads and 20 with internial navigation and/or gps and most your missiles are gonna hit.
Also what if its a nuke, is there a chance the war head might (at some point, whether in hitting the ground or being hit by the laser) detonate and the resulting EMP will put the aircraft out of action.
I wonder if they're planning offensive use for this, surley if it can blow up a missile in flight it can blow up one on the ground, or a plane or a palace/hospital/school or where-ever the US thinks sadam (or whoever bush has decided he needs a war against when/if this becomes reality).
The ABL is nothing compared to the ATL, the airborne tactical laser that can be equipped to a V-22 Osprey, or an AC-130 "son of Specter" AC-X gunship. Read more about it here and here (search for ATL)
>>IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles,
:)
>> and will not be able to scramble fast enough."
It may be too slow to deploy a 747 as a defense against an inbound ICBM, but this might be useful to defend the 747 *itself* from an anti-aircraft missile. I've heard talk about arming commercial planes with chaff's and/or flares to defend against shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles; the cost would be roughly $3 million per plane. Perhaps a laser system could be more cost-effective? It's certainly a whole lot cooler
When you froze them ...
..."
It should be:
"When you were frozen
How long until Iraq covers their missiles with a thin mirror? Could the plane with the airborne layer blow itself up if this were to happen?
Here is the description of the ABL system from the FY2002 defense budget (the applicable 2004 budget is not out yet). ABL is part of Missle Defense Agency's Boost Phase Segment.
AIR-BASED BOOST
The Airborne Laser (ABL) Block 2008 is an existing project line that will design, build and test an air-based laser weapon system to acquire, track and kill ballistic missiles in their boost phase. This weapon system integrates three major subsystems (Laser, Beam Control and Battle Management, Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (BM/C4I)) into a modified commercial Boeing 747-400F aircraft. It also includes ABL-specific ground support equipment. The ABL program definition and risk reduction contract was awarded to the Boeing/TRW/Lockheed-Martin team in November 1996, to design, fabricate, integrate, and test an ABL aircraft with a laser device providing approximately half the projected power of the production version. This phase culminates in lethality (missile shoot-down) demonstrations against boosting ballistic missile threat-representative targets in CY 2003. Two full power aircraft, one prototype and one production, are to be delivered by FY 2009 as part of an initial operational capability (two full power ABL plus one half power ABL). Procurement of the remaining full power aircraft will be completed by FY 2011.
The military is hiring. Call, write, or google for a military web site. A friend dropped out of college, joined the military, left the military, went to college again - this time on ROTC - got a physics BA, as a USAF officer was paid to get a masters in physics, and now supervises top secret projects.
"Be all you can be," is not a joke if you go the officer route.
That you shouldn't look directly into this type of laser either?
Not that tin foil will protect you when they target your house or car. So much for dissent...
Read, L
"I'm gonna join the USAF and get a big Frikkin Laser!"
That's what _I'm_ curious about..
(And I wonder about a solar-powered orbital laser too....)
"Apparently, this is powerful and precise enough to destroy enemy intercontinental and intermediate-range missiles in mid-flight."
<SARCASM>
You mean all we need to do is slap this ABL on a 747 and we won't need to worry about National Missile Defense? Wow!
</SARCASM>
First off, the ABL is designed to shoot down missiles in the boost phase (ie. right after launching), not mid-flight. Once the boost phase is over, the rocket stages are expended (much smaller radar signature) and it's ballistic (no real heat signature), so they are pretty hard to find, let alone track. If it could shoot them down in mid-flight, it could also take out airborn artillery shells.
Secondly, it doesn't work on ICBMs, because it has to be within a few dozen miles from the launch in order to catch it in its boost phase. It's kinda hard to hit objects over the horizon with a lazer.
If YOU were a 20- 30 Air Force pilot, where would you write your name with a giant computer controlled laser beam in letters 30 feet high? I vote the moon. Any other ideas?
Maybe it's not meant just for blasting missiles out of the sky. Think about what we could do to installations, or if we happened to zero in on someone via a spy satellite. Maybe it's cheaper than cruise missiles or drones, and more dynamic.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Everyone is stuck on the anti ballistic job being touted as the primary and seemingly only ability this platform would be capable of performing.
UMMM imagine an awacs and a couple of these things being used for air deffense. Picture an awacs circling in friendly airspace right behind the zone of conflict. Two airborn platforms circling some optimum distance away to cover maximum territory also in friendly skies with a reach of several hundred miles ( longest air to air missle range in US inventory is still the Phoenix at ~100 miles. ). In sight are all the primary airfields of the enemy. AWACS detects fighters being scrambled in response to an allied sortie. They slap their gear up and then get lit up like the fourth of july. No million dollar missle expended, no multimillion dollar interceptor and its priceless crew placed in harms way penetrating enemy airspace to engage the enemy. Just a single shot from an energy weapon system that can provide far more shots than can be physcially carried in the form of a missle. IE you spend 200 million building the plane but get thousands of shots from the system vrsus 200 million for 200 missiles with a million dollar price tag... which I belive is roughly the current cost of an AMRAM.
If they have line of sight to a ground target they can light it up as well with less potential for collateral damage from shrapnel and initial explosion that you have from current convetional munitions, less likely hood of a targeting malfunction. Granted thats only as good as your intelligence but unlike current munitions your percentage of hitting what you aim at would be essentially 100%. Secondary explosions, damage from fires started would still be an issue.
This is like putting a howitzer on a 500mph mobile platform that has speed of light ammunition 40,000 feet up in the air... its INSANE what the potential is for an aireal laser with sufficient power to be a weapon at line of sight distances from jet cruising altitudes.
And I hope no one says targeting is an issue... I garontee targeting subsonic and low supersonic munitions succesfully to their subsonic, low supersonic targets is FAR more difficult than hitting a subsonic, low supersonic target with a beam of light. Were pretty good at the former, the latter is a piece of cake by comparison. The trick is building a mobile laser with a directable enough beam to take advantage of our ability to target and the speed of light.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
It seems obvious to me that the 747s would just be
kept flying in a coverage zone. They are there for
altitude, not intercept. Since you can't use a
space-based laser by treaty, it's the best, cheapest
way to get wide coverage.
As regards speed, the laser travels at c, which
is plenty fast.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Wouldn't it be totally bitching if they successfully demoed it during the next North Korean missile test over the Sea of Japan?
"Piter, too, is dead."
A laser would only really cause burns, what you need is a bullet of some sort to kill them instantly... and speaking of which, many sniper guns fire supersonic bullets, meaning the bullet kills the terrorist/criminal before the criminal can even hear the shot. Wasnt that the point of the laser?
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
There is so much wrong with this...where do i begin?
first of all, it can't vaporize a whole city, it can't turn people into mush at a whim. it's not a weapon of mass destruction. HELL, it's not even meant to be pointed at the GROUND!! it's meant to intercept missiles, possibly ICBM, but more likely medium-range strategic missiles (think SCUD here.)
IT does this by heating the fuel inside the missile. it's a giant match.
it doesn't have a 300-mile footprint. It probably has a footprint about the size of a quarter. SO to kill those hundreds of enemy troops, you have to pinpoint them all, one by one.
There is something that does what you say, though. It's called a nuke.
And the USA, Russia, and most of europe and Asia already have them. And not a single one has ever been used in anger since the 2 were dropped on japan. Why? Mutually Assured Destruction. As surely as we'd kill our enemy, they'd kill us at the same time. THe birds would pass each other in the air.
So, in other words, both sides DO have such powerful weapons, and as a result, they have NEVER been used.
Besides, having a good defense prevents us from having any problems if someone decides they don't like us. Would you rather we have no way to defend ourselves?
it's not an instrument created from our obsession with our own destruction...it's an instrument designed to save thousands, if not millions of lives.
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
The Airforce VC-25A is basically a modified 747, they could mount one inside there to protect the President. Or just to go "cow popping" on his ranch :)
throw cold water on this super-laser weapon high-technology circlejerk, but has anyone considered the environmental impact of operating a Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser directly in the stratosphere? The whole Ozone layer destruction debate that's taken place over the last 20 years has centered around Chloroflourocarbons(CFC's). It is specifically the Chlorine that forms compounds in the upper atmosphere and subsequently destroys large quantities of Ozone. Other compounds containing Bromine(one halogen down on the periodic table) such as Halon systems used to supress fires in large computer systems is tens if not hundreds of times more destructive to the Ozone layer than Chlorine. One more hop down the table is Iodine, I can't find much information on the destructiveness of Iodine but considering the trend of higher destructive power as the halogen electronegativity gets lower it would be even more dangerous. Considering that the Iodine is being vaporized and dumped DIRECTLY INTO THE OZONE LAYER, I think this issue warrants at least a second look.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Insert Obligatory Kefka Light of Judgement comment here.
And you obviously consider the world to have commendable level of peace.
Of course here in western europe, australasia and the US that is true, but the majority of the rest of the world tells a different story. But fuck the little brown people in their mud-huts eh?
Of course, you are quite correct when you say that this is largely due to the influence of the US military/government
Man, I'm glad that I'm not looking through your belief window!
Big Laser
These lasers are powerful enough to deal w/ shininess, imo.
don't forget the movie "Real Genius". I always knew that movie was true...
Since Overwhelming weapons begats non-proliferation and we have such overwhelming armniment over Iraq, then we do not have to go to war there.
Or is there a real reason why we are attacking Iraq instead of N. Korea who has real weapons that can reach america and has shown thatthey have no problems screwing with us.
The bigger the imbalance of power between the US and the rest of the world, the less the rogue nations will be tempted to invade their neighbors.
Yep, hose pesky nicaraguans, grandians, and iraqis will not be invading ever again, on our soil.
Great. The US sure loves its weaponry. It's so cool, we even make glib jokes about it.
How many Billions did this baby cost? How many college semesters could this have
paid for instead? Oh that's right. This is a war economy and a war society. Who
needs training except for military training. That's why the other countries are jealous.
We love our freedom. And our Big Fuckin' Guns. Well, don't worry, I'll go back and
put my Liberal head back in the sand. Right after I finish putting up the duct tape.
Soon, we'll see one of these babies doing it's raster scan over protesters in DC.
We're all flame bait now.
The US is planning to deploy space based lasers (take a look at the MDA website). The treaty you are thinking of is already history. The real advantage of 747 mounted lasers is that they do not need to be as powerful because they can get closer to the target area, power suply is less of a problem, and you don't need to have enough to cover the entire globe (you can just send them where the trouble is).
I think the December '99 Popular Science(or was it december '98? eh something like that) had an early article about deuterium-fluorine lasers that the Air Force was testing. Their original test platform was an observatory-like structure in New Mexico that could project a coherant laser that had a range listed as "currently unknown". They did some firing tests with it and they were able to take out sattelites in orbit. The article then went on to explain that the Air Force wanted to install miniature versions of the laser into the nose of larger planes(747 wasn't mentioned specifically, I don't think), and then eventually into unmanned orbital modules that could be scrambled into orbit to respond to ICBM attacks.
So, when was the last time that one of Popular Science's neato whizzbang just-around-the-corner items became a reality?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Shut up. Your opinion doesnt matter. You are wrong. /. editors don't want to be accused of censoring anybody, so they let absolute SHIT through. To editors: Cut the bullshit comments off the article, and auto-post them as a reply. You're not censoring anybody, and we dont have to read the lolomglol!!!ers
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
The ABL will be deployed along with AWACS and JSTARS, flying in a circular track pattern. There will be two ABLs in the air at any given time. For example: 2 ABLS will fly the track pattern over Saudi Arabia, and be able to track and engage targets in Iraq. That is how it's going to be used: no scrambling required.
All I wanted was a 747 with a friggin laser beam on it's head! Is that too much to ask?
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
I heard somehwere that the most likely real use of a laser in the battle field would be to blind the entire enemy at one blow, has anyone considered this application? I wonder how the War Crimes tribunal would look at this kind of weapon after use?
Of course, as in "Nuclear Biological Chemical" training, all soldiers will have their Oakley Shades on - as we already see in the pics from Afghanistan!
"I really can't see the use of a laser mounted in a 747. IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough."
Who died and made this ninny an Air Force general? Just report the link and keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself, Nerdlinger. Obviously there'd be 24 hour a day overhead flights, like with the AWACs.
This should not be a problem. From what I can tell, the US has lots of plastic sheeting and duct tape to fix this issue.
If it can shoot down missiles maybe we should use it to shoot down enemy fighters and bombers as well?
ObRealGenius:
"The best defense is a good offense"
Seriously though... Could these be used as an offensive weapon? Maybe to target enemy command and control centers in a war?
My god you're right! Every time we've had a major war, as soon as it was over, we had peace. Why didn't I think of that?
I'm not sure about the "overwhelming weapons" thing, though. I guess it depends on what type of "proliferation" you're talking about. Do you mean the spread of already existing weapons (terrorists stealing or buying nuclear material from massive Russian stockpiles) or the drive to build new weapons (India and Pakistan driven by fear of nukes to build nukes)?
Seriously, that type of "aggression is good" attitude is fatally flawed: it assumes that everyone else is a wuss. What if people respond to threats with threats? What if your enemy has some pride? What if (stay with me) your enemy associates righteousness with fighting at a disadvantage? What if they have the same attitude as you?
A world in which everyone is nice is a fantasy. A world in which everyone says "I'm right, you're wrong, therefore I deserve to have way more guns than you and blow the crap out of you if I get scared." is nightmare. I know you think you're special, but everyone else thinks they're special.
-- . . ramblin' . . .
This story is obviously just a troll so /. can reach its monthly quota of Real Genius references.
Your points are salient, and a constructive
contribution to the discussion. This is sadly
unusual.
Your sig OTOH is a puzzle wrapped in an enigma.
I would resolve its paradox by observing that
Iraq hasn't really been at peace since 1991:
The US and UK have been bombing and blockading
with only brief intermissions for 12 years.
12 years of war is what killed those 2 millions,
not peace.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Ah, a question, sorry:
What MDN website is that?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
IMHO, it's way too slow compared to the missiles, and will not be able to scramble fast enough
Why scramble at all? It would be floatin' around all the time. A bunch would be.
Nooooooo.... not Hooters! Oh, the humanity!
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
"If all the young people in America were to act as you intend to act, the country would be defenseless and easily delivered into slavery." [Letter to a pacifist, 1941]
You're missing the point here. Imagine enough of these to give 24x7 coverage. Now imagine them to enforce air superiority. Not missle defense. Each one of the muthers can sweep the other guy's airforce from the sky for a radius of hundreds of kilometers. The existance of these weapons renders the posession of an airforce pointless for most 3rd world nations and quite a few of the first rank.
Airborne lasers are every Mil pilot's worst nightmare. The few incidents w/ the sovs are still the source of lots of odd practices today. Pilots never look at a target for long or with both eyes! Now imagine a fleet of these eyeball busters wandering the skys.
What MDN website is that?
MDA - Missile Defense Agency - you can find it here:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/
Your sig OTOH is a puzzle wrapped in an enigma. I would resolve its paradox by observing that Iraq hasn't really been at peace since 1991: The US and UK have been bombing and blockading with only brief intermissions for 12 years. 12 years of war is what killed those 2 millions, not peace.
I agree that Iraq hasn't really been at peace, but for somewhat different reasons. There has been a state of continuous war between the government of Iraq and the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq have consistently been the losers, and no one outside of Iraq has been willing to take their side.
Actually I arrived at the figure of 2 million by adding up the number of civilians who have supposedly died as a result of sanctions, and the number of civilians that have been killed in the last two major purges (after the Iran-Iraq war, and the Gulf War). The half million or so killed in the purges are directly attributable to the actions of Saddam. The other 1.5 million are indirectly attributable to the actions of Saddam. In Northern Iraq, where he has no power, the sanctions have not caused significant hardship. It is only in the rest of Iraq where he has been able to use the sanctions as an excuse for starving (and otherwise depriving) his own people that they have caused hardship.
Brings a song to my heart...
Love is a burning thing,
It makes a firey ring,
Bound by wild desire,
I fell in a ring of fire,
I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down and the flames went higher,
I burned, burned, burned,
A ring of fire, a ring of fire,
The taste of love is sweet,
And hearts like ours meet,
I fell for you just like a child,
And oh, the fire went wild,
I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down and the flames went higher,
And burned, burned, burned,
A ring of fire, a ring of fire,
I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down and the flames went higher,
And burned, burned, burned,
A ring of fire,
A ring of fire,
What? These disco lights?
Is this a free electron laser?
Many first generation Japanese Americans from Hiroshima sent their children back for education. As a result at least 3,000 American citizens were killed by the use of their own nuclear weapon.
10% of the victims were Koreans being used in Hiroshima as forced labor. A number of prisoners of war from many countries were also killed by the bomb.
We never hurt only our "enemies."
Unless you only want to watch them once.
Actually the number of conflict is not an all time low, on the contrary. What you mean is that there is peace in Europe and north america. but if you look down at the other continent, either there is a war somewhere , or a cease fire, or terrorism (when it comes right down to that, another form a war far more pernicious : civilist from a country against civilist from another). A lot of country have rebelious or insurgent. Heck slavery is still widespresad in some region.
The difference from the other century is that now some war tends to spread like wildfire to neighbourghs instead of being limited conflict. And between, the US military did not bring peace. In many case it brought war, and in the case of CIA & south america even created the war where there was nothing.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Instead of 747's, wouldn't it make sense to use an A380 and use a *really big* laser?
Having a static platform like this makes fire-control a little easier, too.
But I think having the system mounted on an aeroplane is more to do with rapid deployment than Cold-War-style not-being-caught-on-the-ground.
You're telling me that this multi trillion dollar project can knock out missiles and other flying objects out of the sky with high power lasers?
Riiiight...
So how long before the 'enemy' desides to coat their missiles with highly reflective mirrors or even the same stuff used to insulate satelites from the intense heat of the sun??
Speaking of Hooters and aircraft...
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
I know you Americans tend to get overexited about your toys and in the heat of the moment tend to forget where you are, but perhaps you should know that the USSR ceased to exist around 13 years ago.
Not sure on the wingspan, but a 747SP has no trouble building up flight speed on the deck of a modenr carrier.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
MHD, for example, would probably take a while (few minutes) to warm up, but have enough power at that point to throw gigajoule pulses once or twice a minute. If the exhaust was pointed backwards, you could probably do without the jets while the MHD operating. You would have to fire it at *something* after every recharge, which would probably make "insurance" shots worthwhile unless you had more targets than you could deal with.
IMHO, this would be more effectivelt done from space and/or another missile. The advantage of space is that you could use a very dirty, very fast-acting nuke to power it (ie fast response time, high and sustainable power), and you'd be shooting through much less atmosphere. The disadvantage is it's very expensive and hard to hide. You would expect to be able to fire every few seconds.
The advantage of missile is again that you can use a relatively dirty power source (in fact, you could actually use a nuclear explosion to directly pump the laser, as long as you could aim it fast) and it's difficult to predict; disadvantage is that it suffers a launch delay and might be killed by a similar enemy device before deployment. Combination of airborne platform and multiple deployable missiles might work. If you pumped the laser directly, you'd expect a few seconds of very intense continuous laser fire. If you could contain and stretch out the pumping explosion using some amazing Robert-Forward-style device, maybe 120 consecutive quarter-second shots in the tens-of-gigajoules range.
Of course, I could be talking out of my ass, it's late and I've not bothered with an actual calculator. Give it to the Aussies to build, it'll work better and for 1/10th the cost. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
How long will it be before the USA uses this to fry innocent children in Iraq
Oh, about never. One of the best points about these directed energy weapons is that they're very much precision weapons. The US goes more out of its way to avoid civilian casualties than any military in history, so I expect little civilian fallout from a system that's almost entirely air-to-air. (By the way, it'd be interesting to know what the performance of this is as an ASAT device - I'd guess it can take out the lowest ones at a minimum...)
(oh wait they are just 'casualties' of the OIL war)
Right, let's just forget about Saddam gassing thousands of his own citizens and hoarding enough bio and chem agents to take out a significant fraction of the US population (if not all of it).
Personally I trust that the Iraqis newfound "active" cooperation with inspectors will reveal every banned weapon they possess - don't you? Not.
The French are either naive, in bed with Iraq, or spineless. You pick.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I'm going to use my incredible LUNIX powers on a powerbook to overtake the airplane after sneaking onto the base where it is and fill my professors house with popcorn prior to all of it.
Please be standing close to the house so you can eat some. It's going to rule.
An alternative idea: 2 flight crews (rotating), extra fuel capacity, air-to-air tanker refuelings.
Duh,
747 orbits 300 miles from target area (say over well defended battle group) at 40,000 feet.
Hostile country launches missle
Infrared and other detectors spot it.
Point laser
*** FIRE ***
Laser moves 186,000 mps, much faster than the missle. Speed of platform and target (almost) irrelavent.
At least 3,000 Japanese Americans from the Hiroshima bomb?
l
.005 sieverts (0.5 rem) of radiation, 420 excess cancer deaths have been blamed on radiation, while about 7,600 other cancer deaths were due to other causes."
t or ies/08060003.htm
http://whyfiles.org/020radiation/hiroshima1.htm
"It's worth noting that among about 52,000 survivors who received at least
http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/lssrepor/tr01-86.htm
"The present study extends the previous report on cancer mortality among atomic bomb survivors by adding data from four additional years of follow-up (1979-1982) and by expanding the cohort (now designated LSS-E85) to include 11,393 Nagasaki survivors located between 2,500-9,999 m from the hypocenter at the time of the bombing (ATB). Among 91,231 exposed survivors with tentative 1965 (T65DR) dose estimates, there were 6,270 cancer deaths during 1950-1982. Among the 54,058 persons with T65DR dose estimates greater than 0.5 rad, there were 3,832 cancer deaths during 1950-1982, an estimated 8% of which are excess deaths attributable to A-bomb radiation. "
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09/06/s
"Long term study of the survivors of the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed that high radiation exposures cause excess cancer in the exposed individuals. Till 1990, RERF recorded 7827 cancer deaths in the survivor population of just over 86,000. Radiation exposure might have caused 421 excess cancers."
I doubt 3,000 American citizens died from Hiroshima radiation when there are around 8,000 total cancer deaths in Hiroshima.
If one of these lasers was put on every commercial aircraft under load, you could cover all of North America, Japan and Europe in a network of air defense the likes of which Star Wars advocates only dream of.
These lasers on planes on the ground, or circling overhead while coming in to land near major metropolitan centers, could protect a great percentage of America's population. And at nuclear silos across the US, Israel and others, you need only a small battery of these lasers. In short order, you could protect the entire population and strategic defenses of countries all over the world. Add to that even basic missile or space-based laser satellites, and you probably end up with the US missile defense system at billion less than right now, I presume.
Awhile ago on the history channel I saw footage of the air force in the mid-60's shooting a laser out of a plane and hitting the early tomahawk missile in one of its guidance chips causing it to crash. It was only about a mile away... but that was 60's. I also heard that this same technology is already in use on the Israel border and is capable of shooting down cruise missiles in the form of large buildings that are esentially "laser turrets" since the patriots weren't as effective as thought. Also I heard that the new Russian designed T-90 and Chinese Type 90 have some kind laser blinder that was designed to render LGB's inaccurate, I wonder if it could also be used/modified to block a weapon type laser. They have had this stuff for awhile they are just perfecting it now and technology is finally catching up apparently.
The ABL / AL-1 is intended to be a "boost phase intercept" (BPI) weapon. It is designed to orbit a potential adversary for several hours at a time with aircraft constantly rotating in and out of theater. With air refueling the AL-1 could stay airborne almost indefinitely only limited by the endurance of the crew. The whole idea is to be able to intercept ballistic missiles while they are still in boost phase shortly after they have been launched causing the debris to fall on the people that launched the missiles in the first place.
BPI is much less risky than terminal phase intercept (i.e. attempting to shoot the missiles down on reentry). If you fail to shoot the target down in boost phase you will at least get a second chance to shoot it down on reentry provided you have missile interceptors in theater (which we do in the case of Iraq).
The AL-1 uses a very powerful chemical Laser which has a range of several hundred miles (between 200-800 miles) and if I recall correctly has enough chemical fuel for about 26 shots. The laser itself occupies virtually the entire length of the airframe with the fuel storage tanks being in the aft section to the best of my recollection.
Hopefully we will have a few AL-1s available in theater for the impending war with Iraq.
Even if we only have a couple of prototypes that is still better than nothing.
Despite the fact that we have numerous missile interceptors in the form of the MIM-104 PAC2 Patriot all over the world we do not have the ability to intercept ballistic missiles worldwide with a high degree of success. The AL-1 would vastly increase our ability to perform a successful intercept. We could probably keep the continental US safe with about 10 AL-1s rotating in and out. Naturally it would be nice to have a backup in the form on NMD (National Missile Defense) with other systems supplementing our defenses. Ideally, if we could park a small constellation of satellites with HELs (High Energy Lasers) in orbit around the planet we could provide global coverage against ALL ballistic missiles (short range, intermediate range and intercontinental) launched from anywhere on earth thus ensuring global peace and stability.
Live long and prosper
Unix_Geek_65535
mounting on the plane allows to eliminate lower (and most dense) atmosphere layer BTW this layer contain all clouds which make use of laser impossible
--in theory it's our government, in practice it's an international banking and industrial cartel that buys off members of two gangs called the Republican and Democratic "parties". It's bribed and blackmailed through and through, top to bottom and sideways. In addition, all the nominated judges are members of one of those parties. And now we have closed source, no verification computerised voting, it's a sham and a scam. Those gangs are so corrupt and chicken of losing their stranglehold they have on the government they seized, they don't "allow" any third party candidates in the national televised debates.
I would LIKE it to be all of our's government, it was certainly designed that way, and even george washington gave a stern warning over organized political parties taking over, but the default is, we lost. It's gone. We don't have a representative republic unless you are an international faction with very deep pockets, THEY get represented, that's it. Our military is a pure industrial mercenary force, we haven't had a legal war since WW2 desopite being in any number of "wars", they just 'follow orders". They should just slap bechtel and general dynamics logs on their shoulderts and take their US flags off, because they don't represent us, they represent these international for profit corporations. Some federal court lst week REFUSED to even consider a lawsuit brought on constitutional grounds over whether or not it was the executive branch "ruler" or congress who "declares war". Gee, this government got time for all these other STUPID lawsuits, something as important as WHO THE HECK DECLARES WAR isn't worthy of a trial?!? HUH? SAY WHUT?
It's a joke, and saddam is no worse than dozens of other nations dictators. He's a run of the mill plain vanilla dictator. Yes, he's bad, so what else is new? How is he ANY different from any other nation in the mideast? He *might* be a threat to israel, but not the US until we invade, THEN he'll be a threat. What would YOU do if you knew some big force was coming in to kill you? Roll over or go for broke, take as many of them with you as you can? Let's apply some basic logic to this scenario here. The US is HUGE, got weapons up the wazzo, saddam would NOT attack the US knowing he could have overlapping radioactive craters where his nation used to be. This is a SCAM, just like the past dozen wars have proven to bee SCAMS after many years have passed. And if he's this threat to israel, it's their business,not ours, they have by far and away the largest military force in the mideast,overwhelmingly more powerful than even any coalition of muslim nations, and have by some counts as many as 400 nukes, all of which by the way are totally illegal by international "law" which doesn't mean anything anyway, and are in MORE UN violation status than iraq is.
Naw, I want the US to gets it's crooks and slackers out of office and the hired on and appointed bureaucracy. And get our troops out of the one HUNDRED countries they are in now. The 10% of the people left over then of that total federal bloatacracy would be closer to what the federal government's size and influence and lawful duties are supposed to be by actual constitutional design. After that, we can decide if we need to wage war on some nation. Frankly? right now? MEXICO is a threat to our nation, followed by china, russia and then north korea. Iraq, Iran and syria are way down the list.
You want a tad more security inside the nation? The dems and repubs can get serious about all the illegals in the nation, kick them out like any sane nation would, get back control over legal immigration, then get serious about inspections of imports into the nation, and if that makes foreign imports more expensive I don't care, we need JOBS back inside the US, we don't need to be exporting those jobs that are exportable to overseas and running in illegals by the millions to take jobs that are left over. Carry that to it's logical conclusion, you get CRAP. You get the middle class of the US DECIMATED. I don't want to see the US turned into yet another big second world nation with a 1% wealthy ruling class and everyone else serfs. It's breaking in the financial news right now,right today, they are finally admitting how many lost jobs we have. IT'S MILLIONS AND MILLIONS it's at a no joke level, it's BAD, I just can't see losing millions of jobs a year as being all that smart. These aren't buggy whip jobs, these are jobs that were paying home notes, car notes, sending children to college, buying groceries and now THEY AIN'T, and there AREN'T replacement jobs, and what replacement jobs are coming are at MUCH lower pay scales overall. This is NUTS and will only go to create a skewed two class society. We are CLOSE to this being reality.
Screw that, screw spending the projected 1.2 TRILLION dollars to go seize some dipsquat country in the middle east and hold it for years, it is NOT in our best interests at this time. 1.2 trillion would buy a LOT, repeat A LOT, of domestic R&D into alternative energy and DEFENSIVE arms which should NOT be exported to any more dictatorships like we have been doing for 50 years. YOU DON'T ARM GANG MEMBERS DOWN THE STREET, SO YOU DON'T ARM BOGUS DICTATORSHIPS. PROFITS are not worth it, they are short term and those profits will come back and bite you ten times worse, and we are SEEING that happen right now so we should STOP doing that. Too bad we CAN'T because the government got HIJACKED IN A JUNTA TAKEOVER many years ago.
This is too complex, no way to address all this in a single post. The government is insane out to lunch fascist, I've watched it slowly changing since I became fairly politically aware in the early 60's, and I started out my awareness working in both the conservation movement and also as a goldwater conservative.I've been a political activist going on 40 freeking years now, and it SUCKS. Don't tell me electing in ANY MORE DEMS OR REPUBS is gonna do ANYTHING besides make it worse. That goldwater common sense and reasonably honest wing of the R party got decimated and taken over by the fabian socialist old money globalist wing, which runs the repub party now. They are nuts, aristocratic royal wannabes, out to lunch lying weasels. The conservation movement started as common sense, make sure we did our best to stop pollution, save a handful of extremely endangered animals, etc,it was GOOD, until now it's gotten nuts, it got hijacked by UN worshipping naieve fairy tales gaia worshiping global socialist loons. RURAL ETHNIC CLEANSING is NOT the way to go about conservation. And the dimocrat party? Bah! The dim party is just power politics based on transfer of money, that's their voting bloc, steal from one person, give to another, count vote. A formula that works for them mostly, always has, always has been criminal in nature and practice. Bah, a pox on all their houses.
I am an independent constitutionalist who believes in common sense solutions based on the reality that we are americans, we have a unique form of government based on personal soverignty, personal responsibility, an aversion to foreign wars, honest money, sane trading, hard work, limited government, we are supposed to not meddle with foreign nations much or enter into entanglements, and we dang well SHOULD always grow our own food, grow our own lumber, make our own energy,build our own manufactured goods, and not trade with nations that are dictatorial and just lame and stupid. When we did that, IT WORKED, AND WORKED PRETTY WELL.
All that good-baby got thrown out with the bad-bathwater of greed and stupidity. It's gone from looking bad to BEING bad and the projected curve goes straight up into pure freaking heinous big brotherville terrible despotic REAL bad.
Bah phooie. Anyone wants to "go fight saddam", I'll be glad to find an online travel agent for them and point to an online map of where iraq is, go do it, good luck, don't force yet again another insane illegal war for profit on me. GO DO IT IF YOU WANT TO. We set up and supported saddam, the goons in charge now were his buddies back then when he came to power, we supplied him completely with conventional weapons and WMD despite it being "illegal", they KNEW he had proclivities for what he does, they supplied him with chemcials and biologicals and now they act surprised and he's a 'threat". Phooie, DOUBLE PHOOIE,pack up the top level admin, give THEM a rifle, put THEM on the ground as grunts over there, the hypocritcal weenies. They are BLOOD PROFITEERS,SALESMEN AND ACTORS, they are not "leaders" they are LYING CRIMINAL GOONS WHO REPRESENT INTERNATIONAL LOYAL TO NO NATION CORPORATIONS AND MAX PROFITS AND EVERYTHING THEY DO REVOLVES AROUND THAT REALITY.
Besides that, I'm looking forward to kernel 2.6 release, you?
Nothing like a good rant of a sunny saturday! Hope you enjoyed it, most fun to write, and I *do* believe what I write.
Not cancer; The blast itself. They were among the 150,000 or so killed by the blast within 2-3 months.
The patriot missiles were a huge failure- the scuds in most cases (90%) hit their targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia.a /1992/59740945-59743599.htm
You were lied to by your military and media organisations.
More info at http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html and http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/us
Re: Could you make popcorn with this?
Yes, of course. You would need to find a good range and pulse length that would heat the kernels to popping temperature, without incinerating them. And prefereably line up all the corn on a flat surface one layer thick.
My gut impression is that three miles might be too close.