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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Then show us the math.
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
It will fly above the clouds. No fog or rain at 40,000 feet. It will also target missiles that have cleared the cloudbank, while they are still on ascent.
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.
- 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.
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
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-
It is a defensive weapon. Heres why:
1)If we are going to launch a nuclear strike, we don't need to be concerned about someone else launching back (except Russia, explained later). Because we have the nuclear capability to destroy anything we want to (including the world ~8 times over currently) But this option is exceedingly unlikely.
2)The system is designed against small rogue nations (North Korea, Iraq, Iran,...) and limited strikes. The system is completely unviable against Russia and China. Both of these countries have strong strategic air defenses and lots of territory. This means that if the system is outside the country it cant hit 90% of either nation, and it has little chance of actually penetrating their airspace unscathed.
3)If you look at current American military capabilities, we have enough offensive power to choke a donkey, it is our defensive capabilities that are lacking. While the government can do some less than intelligent things, I dont think they are dumb enough to bankroll an offensive capability of this size, instead of a defensive project.
4)A 747 is the WRONG platform to use as a offensive system. Fighters (read: offensive weapons) are small and agile, defensive system (AWACS, C2 systems) are all large, lumbering, stable aircraft
So even if you don't believe what Boeing, TRW, and the AF say about the project, common sense would indicate that the ABL is a defensive, not offensive weapons system.
Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thraktuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Too bad this nutcase went on his political crusade after he retired. If he even thought of saying what he's spewing now, he'd be courtmartialled and tried for treason.
If he sounds like he if he is preaching, he is good at that too-- He is a Catholic Archbishop... In fact in the original article you cited, he gave his email address associated with his work with the Catholic churth.
The real reason that America is a target for terrorism is that we support the right of the Nation of Israel to exist, and the Arab Muslims want the Israeli's "exterminated".
First, Israel is not the great beacon of civility in the Middle East that some make it out to be. Fortunately (at least for the moment) Arab Israeli parties (such as Hadosh) are able to participate in the Knesset, but Arab Palastinians are generally highly opressed, and Arab Israelis do not have the ability to buy land in most of Israel. They were where the African-Americans were in this country at the turn of the century, but able to vote more freely. I am ignoring for a moment the fact that Israel has more UN Security Council resolutions outstanding against it than Iraq does.
Due in part to their poverty, the Arab-Israelis' birth rates are *double* those of the Jewish-Israelis, and so many are predicting that a Jewish state of Israel will cease to exist within the next 40 years or so when Jews cease to be the majority citizens. Unless Israel wants to have another holocaust, their only hope of remaining a Jewish state is to fully integrate their Arab citizens into it (Arab-Israelis are currently about 20% of the Israeli population). And if we include the people in the occupied territories, Jews will be a minority west of the Jordan river by 2010. This last statistic is exactly why Israel is preparing for unilateral separation by building the fence more or less along the 1967 border (including through Jerusalem!) even thouhg they are telling the people that they will never leave. Fortunately the Israeli Supreme Court *has* been quite moderate in these matters (Abraham Barak has even indicated a willingness to see Israelis stand trial at the International Criminal Court).
Regarding the Anti-Ballistic Laser (to return to the topic), I strongly suspect that the rationale is that this will allow us to attack nations like PRDK without having to worry as much at the consequences. But what good does it do against a nuclear bomb delivered in a ryder rent-a-truck? In reality it just encourages nations to sponsor terrorism when they feel threatened, and this is *not* the trend we want to promote.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP