Factory Testing of Airborne Laser Cannon Completed

Acid-F1ux writes "Lockheed Martin has completed factory testing of the optical benches for the Airborne Laser's Beam Control/Fire Control (BC/FC) system. The Airborne Laser (ABL) is the first megawatt-class laser weapon system to be carried on a specially configured 747-400F aircraft, designed to autonomously detect, track and destroy hostile ballistic missiles."

Comments

747-400F

[mfh]

The 747-400F could be Airforce One (if it's not already), so it would be understandable if these lasers were mounted to it for tracking incoming sidewinders or surface to air missiles. Not sure if it's fast enough for that, or could be. While the BC/FC may be designed to take out larger missiles, this weapon system might make a really smart pro-active chaff system, to secure the President from harm during flight. I think it's a little strange the BC/FC is being mounted on such a large aircraft, with slow scramble speed and low maneuverability, unless the US is planning to have many planes airborne, around the clock, which does seem somewhat wasteful. Nothing is said about the range of this laser, so I'm not sure if it would work from space or not.

Re:747-400F

[shoppa]

Oh, come on. I saw the documentary starring Harrison Ford and I'm 100% sure that the Prez would bail out in his escape capsule first.

Re:747-400F

[BoyPlankton]

It's a chemical laser. The fuel for the laser takes up a big chunk of that space.

Re:747-400F

[JaredOfEuropa]

I think it's a little strange the BC/FC is being mounted on such a large aircraft, with slow scramble speed and low maneuverability, unless the US is planning to have many planes airborne, around the clock, which does seem somewhat wasteful.

IIRC, the power plant, optics and electronics for this system are all fairly bulky. This isn't something that you could easily fit into a fighter plane or something slightly larger. I'm not sure how much room (if any) would be left over in a 747 with one of these babies fitted, so it might not even be feasible to put one on Air Force One.

I imagine they would combine the laser with surveillance and detection functions such as AWACS or Joint STARS. In those cases it would not be such a strange idea to have one on CAP (Continuous Air Presence) over certain theatres of operation. But to defend all of the US with these would be a bit impractical.

Which leads to the question: what other stuff could they zap with this? Ground-based launchers? Enemy fighter aircraft? SAMs? Or is this thing only good against ballistic weapons?

Re:747-400F

[ivrcti]

---"The military is just continuing a long tradition of planning to fight the last war, in this case the Cold War."-----

Uhmm... NO. In this case, they are working towards the next war, the rogue nation with a highly limited number of fairly crude ballistic missiles. Our experience during the cold war proved that while the consequences of major nuclear war are very high, the probability is rather low. The exact opposite is true of the rogue nation/terrorist group scenario.

Re:747-400F

[kfg]

. . .unless the US is planning to have many planes airborne, around the clock, which does seem somewhat wasteful.

And something we have habitually done. Look into the Strategic Air Command, or just watch Dr. Strangelove.

KFG

Re:747-400F

[joehoya]

The ABL system is to be a key part of what is known as Boost Phase missile defense. The idea is that you fly the 747 based ABL system in circles over friendly territoy monitoring a neary balistic missile threat (imagine flying over Japan and watching North Korea). When an enemy ballistic missile is launched, the ABL uses its laser to blow-up the missile while it is climing through the atmosphere (having the advantages of being full of fuel, rising slowly and over enemy territory). See FAS for details.

Re:747-400F

[caswelmo]

Exactly. Eventually rogue nations will begin acquiring (either by purchasing or developing) ballistic missles capable of hitting the U.S. or our allies. Eventually someone will try to use them.

So, should we continue down the path of no missle defense system at all? No.

It seems to me that this system is the most versatile & effective thing anyone has come up with so far. Since the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires a proactive approach (defense & offense) we had better get on the horse and start developing defenses such as this.

One of governments primary responsibilities is protection of the people. Even if spending 500 billion on this only saves one city, it's worth it. Plus, there is a deterrent factor there for those nations with only a couple of shots. With a system in place, they can't be sure if they will successfully strike or not. If they don't, they're doubly screwed.

Re:747-400F

[Coward the Anonymous]

unless the US is planning to have many planes airborne, around the clock, which does seem somewhat wasteful.

You mean like the height of the Cold War when bombers with hydrogen bombs where kept airborne around the clock?

"Throughout the Cold War there were times when tension nearly escalated to nuclear war. The most dramatic was in June 1962 when a U-2 spy plane photographed Soviet missile bases being built on Cuba, 90 miles (145 kilometers) off the coast of Florida. For 14 tense days, the world feared nuclear war would begin. Finally, in the words of Secretary of State Dean Rusk, "the Soviets blinked" and removed the missiles. Khrushchev noted that the nuclear threat, especially the fact that "20 percent of all Strategic Air Command planes, carrying atomic and hydrogen bombs, were kept aloft around the clock," had been a major part of the withdrawal decision." more

Re:747-400F

[drinkypoo]

Laser point defense for a passenger aircraft would be pretty cool, but is unfeasible. To get enough gear into the belly of the aircraft to do that job, you're going to need a bigger aircraft.

In this case the lasers are multiple megawatt and last time I checked the military was using chemical lasers to yield that kind of output. So it's likely a limited number of shots, and an entire 747 is taken over for the purpose.

The laser probably wouldn't work from space, the more atmosphere you have to send it through, the weaker your laser is going to be when it gets where it's going. I'd guess the plane is going to be relatively close to the target.

Re:747-400F

[bill^2]

The laser and its support systems take almost the entire "usable" space of the aircraft. No room for the president!

Works for me!

Re:747-400F

[Marillion]

Airforce One is a 747-200. The 200 has a smaller "bubble" on top. The 747-400F is a freighter version of the 747. The 747 Family Page has a lot of good information including a page of Milestones that clearly indicate what AF1 is.

The reason the 747 even has that bubble, is because the 747 was orginally going to be a cargo-only plane and the nose-cone on freighter versions of 747's flip up so you can slide big cargo straight onboard.

My understanding is that the "Laser" (insert Dr. Evil reference) is big enough that there wouldn't be much room for people. The hatch for the beam is on top just behind the bubble. This is a great angle to hit inbound ICBM comming from above the aircraft, but a lousy angle to catch SAM rockets from below it.

Re:747-400F

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Exactly. Eventually rogue nations will begin acquiring (either by purchasing or developing) ballistic missles capable of hitting the U.S. or our allies. Eventually someone will try to use them.

Yeah, because rogue nations are suicidal.

My major concern is that some terror group (you know, those guys that hate us and are willing to die for their cause) gets ahold of a warhead and drives it someplace interesting. Not sure how a missile defense shield would help that.

Re:747-400F

[geoffspear]

When "screwed" involves having every object in your country reduced to its component atoms, I hardly think "doubly screwed" is very relevant.

Re:747-400F

[geoffspear]

The 2 current Air Force One planes were deployed in 1990 and 1991. However, they are still 747-200s.

Re:747-400F

[jdcook]

"Uhmm... NO. In this case, they are working towards the next war, the rogue nation with a highly limited number of fairly crude ballistic missiles. Our experience during the cold war proved that while the consequences of major nuclear war are very high, the probability is rather low. The exact opposite is true of the rogue nation/terrorist group scenario.

The consequences for a so-called rogue nation are actually higher than they would be for a classic cold war confrontation. There would be no reason for the US to not respond in full force because the "rogue nation" will have shot its wad with the first salvo.

The scenario you posit requires a leader of a nation to be so completely irrational as to initiate an action that guarantees the complete and total destruction of their entire country. There is absolutely no evidence that any leader in the world is this irrational. Individuals like Hussein, Qaddafi, Il Jong or Castro may be vicious, sociopathic, megalomaniacal killers but they have never shown an indifference to their personal self-preservation.

Backtracking a ballistic missile launch to its source is now a trivial exercise. The US response would be overwhelming and final. Nothing would remain of the "rogue country" except blast glass.

On the other hand, smuggling a nuclear bomb into the US in a shipping container, for example, leaves no mathematically certain way to track it to its source. It's also much cheaper and simpler. This is the real threat from terrorists or "rogue nations." And it is a threat for which we are woefully unprepared.

One of the many reasons I think the Bush Administration is dangerous is the continued insistence on missile defense at the expense of defending the sort of threats that have already killed thousands of Americans. A few tens of millions of dollars could allow the installation of radiation detectors for every point of entry for Manhattan (it's sometimes good to be an island) and most of New York City. Instead we'll waste billions defending a threat that doesn't exist. This is irrational. Faith-based defensed is insane.

Re:747-400F

[Glock27]

The hatch for the beam is on top just behind the bubble. This is a great angle to hit inbound ICBM comming from above the aircraft, but a lousy angle to catch SAM rockets from below it.

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

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

Re:747-400F

[TGK]

I call bullshit. Here's why.

Missiles are expensive. Missiles that can hit a target across thousands of miles are even more expensive. Those aren't expensive because they're costly to manufacture, they are expensive because they are costly to develop. Consequently any state that has ICBMs capable of striking the United States is likely to have a lot of them. Similarly the warhead on an ICBM is a fair bit more advanced than your rudimentary WOMD, largely because it has been miniaturized to allow it to fit in an area about the size of a four drawer filing cabinet.

If anyone is going to attack the US with missiles, they are going to do it with a lot of missiles, not a few that they purchased. It is easier to deploy a small number of warheads with stealth than with missiles. Large numbers of warheads require missiles.

So what is the system for then? If it can't knock down a large volley of missiles and we can't expect these "rogue nations" we keep hearing about to attack with ballistic missiles what is the system for?

The answer is simple really; it defends against a second strike. It is an order of magnitude more expensive to make weapons designed for second-strike capability: that is to say, weapons that will survive the first portion of a nuclear exchange. These second strike weapons are what creates the concept of deterrence. If China launches on us today, the nuclear subs and some of the hardened silos will survive, which will be enough to reduce China to a smoking crater. Thus China doesn't launch.

Now take this from the Chinese perspective. Much like the former Soviet Union, China's nuclear weapons follow a first strike doctrine. China's weapons are, for the most part, un-hardened, land based, fixed sites. The result is that China's nuclear doctrine is fixated on striking first (which is fairly destabilizing). If someone else strikes China first, China has very few missiles left with which to retaliate. And this system is designed to stop a very few missiles.

In other words, missile defense systems are now, and have always been designed to prevent the United States from suffering the consequences of escalating a conventional conflict to a nuclear one.

This in turn made a lot of sense in the cold war. Since nuclear deterrence is based on the infamous 3 Cs (Capability, Credibility, and Communication) and the ABM programs made our Credibility stronger (with these systems we were more likely to use nukes when we said we would) the ABM system would have made our bargaining position with the Soviets stronger.

However, today there is no Cold War. China has, for the most part, decided that we're not worth pissing off, and no other antagonistic force has a sufficient quantity of nuclear weapons to bother challenging the US in a conflict in which ballistic missiles are likely to be used. ABM today is little more than graft, and ill-conceived graft at that. The system makes the US less likely to consider the horrific consequences of using a nuclear weapon in a tactical situation (much like the proposals by the Bush administration to use nukes in the caves of Afghanistan).

In short, every argument you make above is incorrect. Aircraft mounted ABM is ineffective because you can only hit during launch, and that requires being over a country pissed enough to launch nuclear weapons at you. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction does not imply the proliferation of the technology necessary to make those weapons strategically deployable. And 500 billion, while a bargain to save a city, won't do so because anyone with 20 or fewer weapons is far more likely to put a bomb on a boat and sail it to NYC than they are to put it on a missile at about a thousand times the price.

Finally, the deterrent factor doesn't exist. Until someone works out a way to eliminate (or hell, even FIND) Ohio class (or the soon to be deployed Virginia class) ballistic missile subs at sea, our deterrent is very, very, very safe.

ABM is a bad idea. It makes a nuclear exchange more likely, and that is bad for everyone.

Re:747-400F

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Except that laser point defense is already used in aircraft. Civilian ones too.

To protect a plane, you don't need to destroy the missle. It just has to miss. When the missle is detected, a relatively low power laser can disable the seeker head on an IR missle.

Remember the two El Al jets that were fired upon in Kenya? They were both equipped with this system. There is consideration that this system might be installed in American jets. It's automatic, and the pilot doesn't need to know if it's decoyed missles. Nothing he can do anyway.

Re:747-400F

[WormholeFiend]

"Which leads to the question: what other stuff could they zap with this?"

Enemy fuel supplies.

Re:747-400F

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

In this case, they are working towards the next war, the rogue nation with a highly limited number of fairly crude ballistic missiles.

If I were a rogue nation or terrorist group, why the hell would I go through all the trouble of developing balistic missiles when I would probably stand a better chance of developing a more covert weapon delivery system.

Balistic missile tests get noticed, much like nuclear tests get noticed. If I were planning to attack the US or Europe with WMD, I'd imagine I'd have a much better chance of success if I assembled smuggled components in the target country. Balistic missiles are only good as a defense and use in the MAD doctrine. No one with balistic missiles would try to launch at us, unless we were already on the brink of war. We'd know where the launch came from and be able to HBomb them back to the stone age.

The parent poster's point is valid. It is Cold War thinking to believe that someone is going to pop up with a balistic missile one day and lob a nuclear device at us without warning. I highly doubt China would up and start shooting at their best customers and the source of much of their growth. Developed and developing nations don't want to go to war. If India and Pakistan are even trying to put past conflicts behind and look towards the future, I think there is a good chance that Nukes and balistic missiles aren't the threat.

That's the reason that people think missile defense is a pork barrel project that should be killed. The return on investment in terms of security sucks. It's expensive and only deals with contingencies that are unlikely in the future. Terrorists turn passenger planes into balistic missiles because it's easier than building one under the radar of the global intelligence community.

We'd be much safer spending that money on intelligence gathering and monitoring entry points into the country. Bush and Co. have been pushing missile defense since before 9/11, which makes sense given the number of accusations that the cabinet hasn't been able to see past a Cold War strategy. Missile defense is dumb because it's a costly, misplaced priority.

We're spending this much on missile defense when so many container ships come into the country big enough to house all the finished parts you need to assemble WMD in the US. I'd rather see those ports secured and our borders protected, and given the current anemic funding for those activities due to the huge freaking budget deficit, I think it's idiotic to support missile defense.

Just my US$.02.

Re:747-400F

[Gyorg_Lavode]

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

Re:747-400F

[Zebra_X]

Yeah, because rogue nations are suicidal.

It's not that they sucidial - it's that the leaders are not rational. It is very difficult to reason with someone that doesn't not percieve the world in the same way that you do. North Korea is a very good example of this at work.

Re:747-400F

[Shakrai]

It's not that they sucidial - it's that the leaders are not rational. It is very difficult to reason with someone that doesn't not percieve the world in the same way that you do. North Korea is a very good example of this at work.

Actually leaders of nation-states usually are rational even if they want you think otherwise. The leader has something to lose -- the terrorist has nothing to lose. For all of North Korea's bluster have they launched any ICBMs at the South, Japan, or Hawaii? Kim knows if he does that his country will be turned into a glowing parking lot -- henceforth he won't do it. There's a big difference between trying to blackmail concessions out of someone and actually using your weapons.

Little known factoid: The reason that chemical warfare didn't happen on a widescale in WW2 (like it did in WW1) was because Hitler knew the Allies had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons that they would use in retaliation. Do you think that Kim Jong II or Saddam have/had anything on Adolf Hitler? Even Hitler knew better then to go down that path. Deterrence and MAD works despite what the Bush administration wants you to believe.

Besides I'm more scared about the terrorist trying to sneak a crude nuke into NYC on a container ship then I am of North Korean missiles. Or how about blowing up a liquified natural gas ship in a major harbor? That would deal almost as much damage as a small nuclear device -- and Al Quada actually had plans to do such a thing in Boston a few years back.

Why don't we start worrying about our real enemies?

Re:747-400F

[Shakrai]

I'm surprised anybody talks about MAD anymore, because it's an obsolete notion. Let's say we're at war with a nation having a small nuclear arsenal (say, 100 warheads), and accurate missiles capable of hitting the US. With their back against the wall, the other nation launches a limited nuclear strike against a military target not on American soil, say a carrier battle group. Tens of thousands of military personnel die.

No, it's not an obsolete notion. What nation with 100 warheads are we going to war with anytime soon? And how would you purpose to launch a "limited nuclear strike" on a "military target not on American soil"? If you hit a military base "not on American soil" you are attacking the country where that base is located. If you hit a carrier battle group it has defenses that can intercept and destroy inbound nuclear weapons. You can't use an ICBM to hit a mobile target like a carrier battle group. They have existing defenses that are quite effective at protecting them from nuclear and non-nuclear threats.

Yet, with nothing now to lose, that would prompt the other nation to launch their entire arsenal against the USA as soon as they spotted the incoming missiles.

Again, I ask you, what nation are we at war with that even has the ability to detect incoming missiles? The only two countries in the World that can detect ICBMs and still have enough time to do anything about them (i.e: They can detect them when they are launched) is the United States and Russia. Are we going to war with Russia anytime soon?

Instead, the American president would use the doctrine of limited nuclear war. He would likely order a similarly limited strike on an enemy target, communicating his intentions clearly so as not to risk massive retaliation. Missile defence is designed to fit into this doctrine, since limited nuclear war relies heavily on the ability to selectively and accurately destroy targets.

"Limited nuclear war"? It's this type of thinking that makes nuclear war plausible. There is no such thing as "limited nuclear war". If your foe has ICBMs and you can't destroy them in a first strike (nuclear or otherwise) then you can't have "limited nuclear war". I can't think of many things that I'd be willing to trade LA or NYC for -- even with a missile defense shield that's 90% effective are you going to roll a 1d10 if a "five" means NYC is glassed?

As things are right now, nuclear missiles are highly desirable because they are accurate, fast, and unstoppable.

They are also extremely expensive and hard to build. The only countries in the World with ICBMs are the United States, the European Union (France and the UK), Russia and China. North Korea has an untested missile that may be able to hit the Western United States. Nobody else has the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to American soil short of smuggling it in -- and your missile defense shield won't do anything about that now will it?

For instance, would the leader of the other nation expend one of his precious nuclear warheads if it had a 75% chance of being intercepted?

Would the leader of the United States (or Russia for that matter) go to war with a country that had a 25% chance of taking LA or NYC (or Moscow) out? Unless you can build a 100% effective missile defense system then it's pointless.

I think the present situation of total vulnerability is ludicrous, and missile defence will make nuclear war far less likely. It's a visionary idea that is being opposed by people who think that if we ignore nuclear weapons, they will go away.

What total vulnerability? Who is going to hit us with an ICBM? We'd know about it the minute it was launched and chances are there would be hundreds of American warheads in the air before their ICBM even hit us. Nobody in their right mind is going to nuke Honolulu, LA, or NYC if they know we will turn their country into a parking lot before their missile even hits us.

What's the most l

Re:747-400F

[Ironsides]

A few tens of millions of dollars could allow the installation of radiation detectors for every point of entry for Manhattan

Ok, so here's what someone does. They take their homemade Nuclear Fission Bomb, goto the radioation detectors (assuming it isn't shielded enough and is actually detected), wait till they set the alarms off and blow the bomb. GOOD BYE a chunk of New York New York. HELLO blast crater. You'd have to setup the detectors at a distance far enough to intercept the bombs without endangering the city if the bomb explodes. Good luck dooing that since you would need many more, and a survielence system to make sure no one sneeks through the net, or disables the detectors and then slips through.

Re:747-400F

[siferhex]

This poster is entirely correct, except for one part.

imagine flying over Japan and watching North Korea

In truth, very detailed studies have found that the laser weapon the ABL uses, though flying in the stratosphere (above most weather) would be ineffective even though the thin clouds that sometimes form at that elevation. Even on a clear day, the range of the laser is quite limited, necessitating that the airplane fly within surface-to-air (SAM) missile range of North Korea to even hope of hitting any missiles. Iran was the other test case for this system, unfortunately Iran is much larger than North Korea, and the plane would have to be flying over Iran itself to be within range of interior missile sites.

This project is pretty much a handout to the defense industry and vestige of the beam weapon dreams held over from the Star Wars heydey under Reagan.

I happen to have written a semester essay (PDF) precisely on this topic. I wrote the essay for an excillent course that deals with nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, missile defense, and arms control. The course website contains a host of up-to-date information and links, and is the longest running course of it's kind.

For a much broader and in depth view of boost phase missile defense, please see this APS study on the subject. I reccommend the brief, but informative executive summary. (PDF)

Re:747-400F

[Artifakt]

That pesky cleric who has just said "May Allah strike me dead if He does not truely want a Jehad!"?

Re:747-400F

[FrYGuY101]

Actually, What the article doesn't tell you is it's completely worthless for ICBMs. It's only effective against short and medium range ballistic missiles. Somebody else said that this was a case of the military planning for the last war, and not the next war, and they're absolutely correct. This was planned in response to the Scud attacks against US troops, Kuwait, and Israel in the '91 Gulf War. Quite frankly, the Patriot Missiles didn't cut it, and their use was more effective as a propaganda effort than anti-missile effort.

This is more effective for future police actions against states like Iraq who have the capability to strike their neighbors. As the US is protected from short and medium range ballistic missiles by the pacific and atlantic (barring some odd twist with Canada, Mexico, or Cuba), this is actually an attempt at preventing a rogue state in a hostile situation from launching a 'last ditch' missile attack against neighbors.

Just a nit-pick.

Re:747-400F

[Torque]

Even at present, well after the end of the Cold War, if the DefCon level is high enough, the U. S. Strategic Air Command fleet is set up such that 1/3 of the bombers are in the air at all times, 1/3 are prepped or prepping for takeoff, and 1/3 are down.

This was certainly true during the height of the Cold War.

The cost of keeping 1 747-400 airborne is chickenfeed compared to the cost of keeping 50 B-52's airborne at all times.

Hmmmm - coincidence? I think not...

[Ratface]

Lockheed Martin has completed factory testing of the optical benches for the Airborne Laser's Beam Control/Fire Control (BC/FC) system.

and in other news..

Reuters reports that the gyroscope that keeps the international space station stable and in the right position stopped working, just hours after a new two-man crew moved in for a half-year stay.

Someone in Lockheed Martin's Black Ops department is rubbing their hands together gleefully right now!

Re:Hmmmm - coincidence? I think not...

[Stingr]

Hmmm...wasn't yesterday take your child to work day???

Child:"What's this button do Daddy??"

Dad:"NOOOO!!!!!"

Child: Oooh pretty lights!!!

Spacestation: Houston, we have a problem.

Re:Hmmmm - coincidence? I think not...

[JosKarith]

Lemme guess...
"Well it's finished...now what."
"Well, we need a target to test it on, something small and hard to hit."
"Hey - bet you couldn't hit the ISS from here..."

Kent... this is Jesus

[tdemark]

first megawatt-class laser weapon system to be carried on a specially configured 747-400F aircraft

Hmmm... I thought they were going to use a five megawatt system on a B-1B.

Re:I wonder

[Jonas the Bold]

I think this one will burn your eyes out regardless of color.

Not that impressive really ....

[Alranor]

Call me when they manage to strap the fricking thing to a shark :)

Re: Not that impressive really ....

[Black Parrot]

> Call me when they manage to strap the fricking thing to a shark :)

You could strap a shark to the bottom of the airplane...

Early problems

[Sanity]

Apparently an early test went horribly wrong when the laser misfired, hitting the home of the project's director (who also runs a school for gifted teenagers), and cooking a large amount of popcorn, which eventually expanded to destroy the house.

Real Genius

[Apiakun]

And it's only been 19 years since Real Genius gave 'em the idea!

Now all we need is

[xeeno]

a bunch of popcorn and an evil professor's house.

Hmmm....

[danielsedlacek]

I wonder if Lockheed did a little industrial espionage and miniturized the Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

Re:Hmmm....

[jim_b]

Where's the kaboom, theres supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom

Autonomous?

[JosKarith]

I'd be interested by their definition of autonomous - are we talking this thing cruising around looking for a target, or are we talking an operator flagging a missile spotted by something else and the machine taking over from there.
Either way, brace yourselves for a thousand Terminator/Robotic master references.

Re:Autonomous?

[drinkypoo]

Clippy: "I see you're trying to shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. Would you like help aiming?"

So what is your idea?

[AtariAmarok]

"my cats like to chase the dot from a laser pointer"

So what is your idea? To point it at some spot in South Dakota for a couple of months in order to gather all of the cats in the country into one spot?

And then what? Attached buttered toast to the backs of the cats, drop them, and solve the energy problems of the world with the resulting perpetual motion machine?

Size you muppet.

[littleghoti]

The laser is on a plane this size because a laser powerful enough to destroy missiles from miles away is a big fat bulky ass piece of equipment, that won't fit on a fighter plane.

More Info?

[theNote]

I don't see it mentioned in the article, but the last time I read about something like this, it required a truck full of dangerous checmicals for every shot.

Does anyone know whther this is the same thing?
It seems kind of useless if you need that much raw material, you'd only get one shot per plane.

Re:More Info?

[delibes]

Google time...

I guess it's a chemical laser, and probably uses things like flourine gas (nasty nasty nasty, but very energetic). You can read some info about these kinds of things here

This old report from 1999 actually suggests it uses some other strong oxidisers like hydrogen peroxide and halogens - chlorine and iodine.

Basically you don't want to be breathing these things in, but you there's a lot of energy available in their reactions.

I seen this in Popular Science

[nharmon]

Some time ago, Popular Science did a story on this aircraft. The laser beam originates at the tail end of the 747, and is deflected up and over the nose to allow the mirror in the nose to aim the laser in wide arcs.

So, will this technology make the fighter jet obsolete? I mean, you can't very well out-maneuver a laser. Which means that bombers will have laser weapons on the front, back, top, bottom and sides. Kind of like back in WWII when bombers had machine guns all over the place.

This certainly changes everything.

Re:I seen this in Popular Science

[bigattichouse]

Stealth does not protect optically, only against radar... They show up quite well against white clouds. You could build a pattern recognition system to scan the skies around for dark spots that don't match up to things on radar... granted this might be mistaken for something else, but if it has a trajectory not consistent with a heavenly body or an object on the ground, then you have a pretty good candidate for a stealth fighter. zaAap

Re:I wonder

[eutychus_awakes]

The laser is invisible - off in the infrared somewhere. You could only probably see the beam at night as it ionizes the trace amounts of noble gases in the atmosphere. Then again, a bird or a swarm of beetles flying through the beam would be pretty spectacular. . .

Don't look at laser with remaining eye.

Subsequent press release

[lewko]

Shortly after the news conference, Lockheed then announced its plan to create a moon base, from where it will fire the "laser" on Earth's major cities. The "laser," was created by Dr. Parsons and shall be known as "The Alan Parsons Project." according to confidential reports.

Lockheed's shares closed at one hundred million dollars...

Re:It's about time

[coyote_oww]

Huh? The U-2 dates to the 50's. The USSR shot one down in the 60's. It wasn't all that secret for all that long.

Perhaps you are confusing this with "Aurora", which doesn't exist (yet)(maybe).

FYI, the basic U-2 airframe is still in use, now designated the TR-1. The airplane part isn't particuarly secret, it's the payload (cameras, radar, ECM, etc) that is secret.

Re:It's about time

[Goon Number 1]

The U2 wasn't around for 50 years when it was discovered. YOu may be thinking of the SR-71, which was around for maybe 25 years before they started talking about it in public.

Just an idea

[pipingguy]

Do you think they could test it out here also:

1541 Glenfidditch Avenue, Apt 101
Montreal, Quebec
Lat: 45.5092
Long: -73.5539
Mr. Jason Baumgarinagger

He plays his stereo too loud at inappropriate times.

Mirrors?

[VoidEngineer]

So, would a mirror coating on a missle be an effective counter measure to this laser?

That shouldn't be too difficult to do... heck, I was silvering mirrors in highschool chemistry class.

Re:Mirrors?

[neodymium]

This depends on the reflectivity of the mirror. If it would be 99.999%, only some 10W would get absorbed by the missile. Un(?)fortunately, it is not possible to make mirrors with such a good reflectivity across all possible wavelengh. Especially in the IR range, it's quite difficult to make mirrors with >98% reflectivity. And I suppose the laser will be in the IR range.

Re:Mirrors?

[darkmeridian]

That's what many people think. However, the laser kills targets not by vaporizing the entire thing, but rather by converting a small percentage of the target into plasma that expands and then the rapid expansion slaps the target to death. The mirror would have to be perfect. The smallest deviation or imperfection would capture energy and then turn into plasma. This would deflect the target at the very least.

Re:Mirrors?

[merlin_jim]

So, would a mirror coating on a missle be an effective counter measure to this laser?

That shouldn't be too difficult to do... heck, I was silvering mirrors in highschool chemistry class.

Well this laser is probably a COIL (chemical oxygen iodine laser), the military's favorite for laser weapons systems these days... COILs operate at a frequency of 1.315 micrometers... which is in the mid infrared band, for those that don't know... most mirrors (and substances) are opaque at this frequency; most of the light on this band is from blackbody radiation... here's an excellent primer on infrared transparency and absorbency...

You can make a dichroic mirror that reflects that wavelength, but the expense of coating a missle with it may be a couple orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the missle itself.

Here is a study of cutting different aerospace materials with a COIL. With a 6kW laser, they acheived a cut rate of .23 meters per minute through inch thick highly polished stainless steel.

So if you added a mirror to a missile, and this laser is 1MW with comparable focusing capabilities as that used in the above study, assume that it's pulse duration is somewhere in the neighborhood of a tenth of a second, and that the missile is covered with quarter-inch thick stainless steel (unlikely due to weight), and that you have to cut through 10 centimeters of the missile before you affect it's circuitry enough to guarantee non-operation, your mirror would have to be 96.5% efficient in order to work. Mirrors in the near infrared band are typically 80% - 90% efficient using exotic glass chemistries and aluminum front surfaces... this mirror in the mid infrared band would have to be significantly more efficient with far more difficult manufacturing techniques...

Re:Mirrors?

[merlin_jim]

COIL lasers (the military's current favorite for weapons class lasers) operate at 1.3 micrometers, in the mid to far IR range. And the laser's mode of resonance (transverse to an ionized gas flow in a traditional cavity) is not conducive to frequency doubling...

And, at 1 MW, this thing will punch a hole in a cloud without blinking...

Reading between the lines . . .

[StateOfTheUnion]

The Airborne Laser (ABL) is the first megawatt-class laser weapon system to be carried on a specially configured 747-400F aircraft, designed to autonomously detect, track and destroy hostile ballistic missiles.

Reading between the lines: This could imply that:

A less than megawatt laser system may already be mounted and in use on the 747-400F.

A megawatt laser system may already be mounted on other (than the 747-400F) type(s) of aircraft.

A megawatt laser system may already be in use in the military for purposes other than the destruction of ballistic missles.

Call me a tinfoil hat guy, but when the military talks about its secret stuff, often what they don't say is more informative than what they do say.

Re:Reading between the lines . . .

[millahtime]

"A megawatt laser system may already be in use in the military for purposes other than the destruction of ballistic missles."

So, what your saying is that the military may already have sharks with megawatt lasers on their heads.

Project Website

[black_widow]

http://www.airbornelaser.com/

http://www.airbornelaser.com/

The offical project website with pics progress reports et al.

Re:Project Website

[shrubya]

http://www.airbornelaser.com/

What an awful web site. It's forced into a tiny 600 pixel frame, the gifs are badly dithered, the HTML is W3C noncompliant, and worst of all, the shopping cart isn't built yet. How do they expect to stay in business? I haven't seen such a pathetic ecommerce site since 1999.

I wonder where its positioned

[TerminalInsanity]

Cos if its on the bottom of the plane, its going to have to be generaly above the missile, and then if it misses, i wonder what that beam is going to hit?

Re:I wonder

[garignak]

I think this one will burn your eyes out regardless of color.

You're eyes would be the least of you're worries if you look directly into this beam.

U2 invented in 1905

[AtariAmarok]

Remember the U-2 spy plane, we found out about that almost 50 years after it was put into service!...Dude, the U-2 had its first flight in 1955. So according to you, we first find out about it a year from now.

I think what he meant to say was that the U2 was put into place in 1905, which is 50 years before we found out about in 1955. Of course, the 1905 model of the U2 spyplane was made of bamboo and oilcloth and flew a mere 9 metres above the landscape of the Russian Empire it was spying on. Stealth was achieved by a man with a megaphone yelling out "Don't look at me!" in Russian.

If G.I. Joe Has Taught Us Anything

[autosentry]

. . . It is that these lasers *never* hit their intended target. We would be better off trying to perfect the first Transformer. Now you know.

Re:Is this really necessary?

[Oggust]

How many 747s have had ballistic missiled fired at them? How many have been shot down by targeted missiles? Does that really pose a significant threat to our international travel?

That's not the point. The idea is to cruise for a long time over the battlefield, and zab ballistic missiles during the boost phase, should any take off. Think of the first gulf war (not the iran-iraq one, the one with iraq vs the rest of the world), when a big concern was mobile launchers launching scuds out of nowhere.

The missiles are easier to hit in the boost phase, since they're not moving that fast yet, and there's a big and hot rocket plume behind them. They are also easier to destroy, since they're still full of rocket fuel. Also if they have nasty NBC stuff in them, it lands back where the things was fired from (more or less) as opposed to where they was aimed (more or less).

/August

Re:I wonder

[eclectro]

I wonder what color the laser is...

I hear the green ones burn out your eye

Actually the laser beam will be invisible (unlike the the one in the movie Real Genius), as it is in the infrared range of light. This particular frequency of light also lends itself to good transmission through the atmosphere. More info here

Another interesting thing about the laser is that it's a chemical laser that genrates energy through the reaction of oxygen and iodine.

Which means that the plane will have a limited number of shots (I believe three or four) before it has to go and refuel.

The power of this laser would not heat up and pop the popcorn like in the movie, but would vaporize a nice hole right to the ground.

I hear the green ones burn out your eye

Looking into a laser or letting laser light into your eyes is a very bad idea, no matter how low the power may seem. Even for the pen lasers that are everywhere. You do not know what the consequences may be, and harm to your eyesight is not worth it.

Strangely enough

[LouCifer]

The firing was off due to interference from Val Kilmer and Gabriel Jarret re-aiming it to their professor's house after discovering that their experiment was used for the military.

Popcorn (and broken glass) for everyone!!

(If anyone doesn't get the reference, see the plot summary for Real Genius.)

Re:Probably useless

[timbos]

Like what is the usable range of the laser, can it fire through clouds. How long can the plan stay in flight.

I work in the optics field and there was a feature on the ABL in a recent magazine that I get (Optics and Laser Europe).

There are actually a number of lasers involved in the whole system:

• CO_2 for ranging
• Yb:YAG for targetting
• Pulsed Nd:YAG for illumination
• MW CO_2 for the final kill

CO_2 lasers are usually operated at 10.6m wavelength, which is absorbed fairly strongly by water in the atmosphere, so I wouldn't imagine that the beam has a huge range (probably large enough though).

What intrigued me most was that there is only enough fuel on board for ~12 shots, which isn't that much. The fully loaded laser system also weighs 77tons, so I imagine that the plane uses a good deal of fuel to stay up.

Lockheed Skunk Works pwnz Wright Brothers

[Bob-o-Matic!]

hmm... let's see...
U-2 Shot down over Soviet Union 1 May 1960.
subtract "almost 50 years"...

Wright Brothers were still working on wheeled landing gears in 1910...

Lockheed Skunk Works rules!!!

More True than Funny

[Allen Zadr]

Actually this is the final product of the same research that was the backdrop of that movie.

To be fair

[kahei]

...it might hit a Chinese embassy instead.

This could be a bad thing...

[DamienNightbane]

I hope that the RIAA doesn't get it's hands on any of these new 747s.

Re:Probably useless

[Alioth]

A few hundred miles isn't short range compared to other weapons. An air to air missile has 50 miles range, cannons have perhaps 1 mile range. This thing fires at the speed of light for hundreds of miles. Get it aimed and the target doesn't have the opportunity to dodge out the way like they do with a missile.

Re:Better The the Patriots Detection?

[RealErmine]

You should read up on IFF , Safe Passage Corridors, Army procedure and their uses together.

Some people here on Slashdot just think it's as simple as a trigger-happy autonomous system. Think about what these systems (Patriot, ABL) have to do and realize that it's not easy.

Would you call that...

[AugstWest]

...a launch problem, or a design problem?

Not impressive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me when you can nail a six inch spike into a 2x4 with your penis.

Back to planes constantly in the air?

[n-baxley]

If this is meant to defend against balistic missles fired at the US mainland, wouldn't the planes have to be in the air all the time? Seems pretty wasteful for the low likely hood of attack.

A better use of this would be as a battlefield deployment. Something like the first Gulf War and defense against SCUDs. Not sure what the range is on this laser, so you might have to be pretty close to the source which might make this impractical.

Re:Back to planes constantly in the air?

[tsangc]

First, the US Military for a long time kept nuclear bombers in air for retaliatory strikes during the Cold War, every day, all day long.

Second, the ABL is not used for homeland defense, but for theatre defense:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/o verview.html

Besides...

[Pii]

This won't really be a viable solution until they can size the laser down to the point where it would be practicle to mount it on something the size of...

Oh, I dunno...

Frickin' Sharks.

Re:Waste of time and money

[YrWrstNtmr]

We can combat this two ways: kill everyone who doesn't like America, or make America the good guy again by improving the lives of people. And not killing them in the process.

In the case of Kim Jong Il, we probably can't do #2. He is not ready to accept anyone's assistance as far as improving the lives of his people.

val kilmer

[nappingcracker]

dude... lets put a huge ball of jiffy pop in the deans house, then sneak into the secret military compound and reprogram the targeting system so that it'll fry the deans house and give us a tasty treat!

that'll stop them from using science to effectively kill people from great distances!

genius! really! (crap im lame)

Re:I wonder

[merlin_jim]

I wonder what color the laser is...

I hear the green ones burn out your eyes.

It's already been said but let me repeat, any laser can burn out your eyes. Even low powered ones, when focused by the iris, can burn out portions of the retina.

This laser is infrared; that's actually WORSE than green. With a visible light laser, your eye sees the bright light and your pupil contracts to limit the exposure. With infrared, you can be in a pitch black room with pupil at full dilation and not even notice it. Until about six hours later when your vision slowly fades out.

Theatre-wide blinder system?

[carcosa30]

The first thing I think of when I see this is that it could be used for a blinder/dazzler with an immense range. Instant air superiority.

Someone said "green lasers burn out your eye..." This may or may not be true of green lasers but I understand that their wavelength is much more subject to diffusion by microabrasions in such materials as glass. If they're shone at car windows, supposedly the effects vary from a large blinding spot on the window to turning the entire window into a brilliant green sheet.

I understand that blinding lasers are against some Geneva accord. They're so different from blinding grenades, and blinding napalm, and blinding shell fragments, don't you know... Whether or not we respect the Geneva convention at all anymore, or whether such a ruling might just be trampled on by us if we ever got into extremis such as a fight with another technological power, I can easily see us using a theatre-wide laser this way. The benefits would be huge.

Don't see what the fuss is about...

[ajdecon]

they had an airborne five-megawatt system at Pacific Tech, though all it was good for was making popcorn.

Till Bill, Part 1

[kmankmankman2001]

The Track Illuminator Laser (TILL) illuminates the body of a missile to determine where to point the high-energy laser. Then, the Beacon Illuminator Laser (BILL) is used to determine atmospheric distortion in order to correct the shape of the high-energy laser to shoot down the missile. Tarantino's reach knows no bounds!

ABL Facts:

[Anonymous Coward]

For people thinking you could fit this on ANYTHING else. Go to the airborne laser page and look at the cutaway. This thing takes the WHOLE plane. Period. Thats why it's on a big, bulky plane. Thats why it won't be on something like airforce 1.

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

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

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

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

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

Fun Stuff!

[fuzzybunny]

Sorry, I had to laugh out loud at this:
http://www.airbornelaser.com/fun/

"Fun stuff: This section has been removed at the request of AirborneLaser".

What do you mean, the Pentagon has no sense of humor?

Nice, but boost phase missile defense doesnt work

[Attitude Adjuster]

This is slightly off-topic, but most independent analyses of the boost-phase missile defense this airborne laser is intended to be a part of say its not going to be very effective. By independent I mean analyses not made by Republican administrations ;)

You can get the American Physical Society's report on boost phase missile defense here - its in lots of pdfs.

There is a lot of cool stuff in here. Airborne lasers are covered on pages 293 - 342.

Here are their conclusions from the executive summary

"Our main conclusions are the following:

1.Boost-phase defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) hinges on the burn time of the attacking missile and the speed of the defending interceptor rocket. Defense of the entire United States against liquid-propellant ICBMs, such as those deployed early by the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China (China), launched from countries such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Iran, may be technically feasible using terrestrial (land-, sea-, or air-based) interceptors. However, the interceptor rockets would have to be substantially faster (and therefore necessarily larger) than those usually proposed in order to reach the ICBMs in time from international waters or neighboring countries willing to host the interceptors. The system would also require the capability to cope with at least the simplest of countermeasures.

2.Boost-phase defense of the entire United States against solid-propellant ICBMs, which have shorter burn times than liquid-propellant ICBMs, is unlikely to be practical when all factors are considered, no matter where or how interceptors are based. Even with optimistic assumptions, a terrestrial-based system would require very large interceptors with extremely high speeds and accelerations to defeat a solid-propellant ICBM launched from even a small country such as North Korea. Even such high-performance interceptors could not defend against solid-propellant ICBMs launched from Iran, because they could not be based close enough to disable the missiles before they deployed their munitions.

3. If interceptor rockets were based in space, their coverage would not be constrained by geography, but they would confront the same time constraints and engagement uncertainties as terrestrial-based interceptors. Consequently, their kill vehicles (the final homing stage of the interceptors) would have to be similar in size to those of terrestrial-based interceptors. With the technology we judge could become available within the next 15 years, defending against a single ICBM would require a thousand or more interceptors for a system having the lowest possible mass and providing realistic decision time. Deploying such a system would require at least a five- to tenfold increase over current U.S. space-launch rates.

4. The Airborne Laser now under development could have some capability against liquid-propellant missiles, but it would be ineffective against solid-propellant ICBMs, which are more heat-resistant.

5.The existing U.S. Navy Aegis system, using an interceptor rocket similar to the Standard Missile 2, should be capable of defending against short- or medium-range missiles launched from ships, barges, or other platforms off U.S. coasts. However, interceptor rockets would have to be positioned within a few tens of kilometers of the launch location of the attacking missile.

6.A key problem inherent in boost-phase defense is munitions shortfall: although a successful intercept would prevent munitions from reaching their target, it could cause live nuclear, chemical, or biological munitions to fall on populated areas short of the target, in the United States or other countries. Timing intercepts accurately enough to avoid this problem would be difficult."

On your next flight

[ocie]

"The flight attendants will now point out the locations of the emergency exits using a laser pointer. Wait!! not that pointer!!!!"

Re:Deterrence works, Bush knows it

[Shakrai]

Wha...? He knows it works. That is why he went after a major terrorist leader. It ended up deterring Kadaffy.

Oh spare me the Bush administration line. Gaddafi (if your going to engage in a geopolitical discussion learn how to spell) was already in the process of trying to rejoin the World community long before Dubya even took office. This had nothing to do with WMDs (Libya's WMD arsenal was a joke -- though at least it actually existed which is more then you can say for Iraq) and everything to do with Libya admitting it's role in the PAM-AM 103 bombing and turning over those responsible.

"It ended up deterring Gaddafi"? Give me a break. Deterring him from what? Was he about to use his WMDs on the Western World or start bombing airliners again? Somehow I doubt it. But hey, if you think the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is so great maybe you should put on a uniform and volunteer for duty in Iraq. I know lots of people in the military and regardless of what they might say in public they are starting to tire of the neo-con vision of Pax Americana.

a couple of thoughts

[dotmax]

Although the range of this system is "limited" to a few hundred miles, it has substantial capacity within its engagement radius. 1. It can nail missiles v.v.quickly -- it doesn't have to notice them launching either, because it will be que'ed through sensor fusion technology, such as JSTARS, AWACS and the DSS (might have the wrong name) satellites which, among other things, are specifically designed to see rocket launches. 2. I must have missed the Death Ray observation -- this has high value for snapshots at someone like ... say, Osama. 3. On the Geneva Convention and Blinding. The current administration is big-time on the record as stating that it follows the GC, and that the GC _only_ applies to _Lawful_Combatants_. The Current Administration is explicit in calling Al Queda et alia -- terrorists in general -- unlawful combatants. ERGO, the current administration does not believe the GC will prevent them from burning the eyes out of a bunch of terrorists. Also of note: the GC addresses blinding weapons, not weapons which happen to blind as part of their normal operation. 4. I suspect there are some interesting anti-infrastructure/anti-material applications we haven't mentioned yet. F'rex: starting area fires, burning down oil storage facilities, elec. dist. systems These apps are doable w/o laazers, but an ABL might leave a more difficult-to-diagnose footprint. 5. how q(.)(.)l!!!

Way to fast.

[tellezj]

One aircraft can shoot down several missiles in succession (multiple launch scenario). Additionally it is going after ballistic missiles. In order to get the accuracy it needs, predictive filters are in place to intelligently guess the kinetic position of the missile as it flies. The filter use models that are based on what a ballistic missile does. Deviate too much from that and the accuracy goes to pot. Couple that with the fact the the lasers don't go off untile the target is above the cloudline and the only mistakes that are likely are if North Korea decides to send a man in orbit during a war. (Wasn't there a cartoon about that)

Re:That is one POWERFUL laser pen!

[jridley]

Um, yeah.
Any laser powerful enough to modify your cornea, such as the ones used in lasik surgery that is referred to later, would also be powerful enough to ablate off pieces of skin if pointed at bare flesh.

There is a study out there where they took people who had eye cancers and were scheduled to have eyeballs removed soon anyway, and they focussed a common laser pointer at a single spot in the eye for something like 30 minutes straight. No lasting damage.

I don't know about the new green lasers. They look a hell of a lot brighter, but they don't have any more energy than a red laser. The increased visibility is purely due to the human eye's increased sensitivity to green light.