Laser Weapon Shoots Down Airplanes In Test

airshowfan writes "Boeing's directed-energy weapons (a.k.a. frickin' laser beams) have been getting some attention lately. The Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) is a C-130 that famously burned a hole through a car's hood, and the YAL-1 AirBorne Laser is a 747 that shoots a laser from its nose that is powerful enough to bring down an ICBM. But even cooler is the Mobile Active Targeting Resource for Integrated eXperiments (MATRIX), a laser that is mounted on a truck (which probably costs less than a 747, but who knows) and that can shoot down small aircraft, as shown in the picture on this article. (The Laser Avenger supposedly also has this capability). We live in the future!"

Comments

Re:Quick question

[ArcherB]

To top it off, our invasion of Iraq totally screwed our operations in Afghanistan. So we did the absolute most ass backwards, ineffective thing we could have done, and now we are paying for it. Well, our young men and women are. Okay, not the sons and daughters of the people who sent us into Iraq, obviously, but, you know, our disposable young men and women are paying for it.

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

As a former soldier who went to the Middle East, I can tell you that I knew very well what our mission was and fully supported it. If I didn't, I would not have gone. I would have made a pass at the Platoon SGT or something to get my ass thrown out of the Army. When I was over there, I met the people I was there defending and understood why I was there. I was given freedom from my forefathers with help from the French. I didn't earn it. What makes me so damn special that I get freedom from tyranny and these people don't? I've earned it now. Sure, I didn't fight for my own freedom, but I gave the gift to someone else and would have been willing to die for it. I made that decision before I ever signed.

And yes! It makes me VERY proud to be an American, thank you.

We invaded Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11

Right. They violated 17 UN resolutions, tried to assassinate a former US president, fired at our soldiers who were there enforcing an UN mandate, and do I need to bring up the mass graves filled with men and women still clutching their toddler children?

Afghanistan may have been their home base, but if we invade countries because they house terrorists, who should we have invaded because of Tim McVeigh?

Housing terrorists is one thing. Terrorists live everywhere. It's when the government knows they are there and do nothing about it. The Taliban didn't just "house" Al Qaeda , they harbored them. They actively assisted them and refused our offer to take care of them ourselves. What would you have Bush do? "Hello, Mr. Taliban guy, Dubya here. Listen, the guys that planned the attack that killed 3000 of our citizens are in your country. Do you mind if we come get them? I'm sorry, what was that? No way in Hell? What about my mother? Well, OK then. Thank you for your time. (hangs up phone). Sorry, Dick, they said no."

Re:Shiny things?

[Interoperable]

Well it really depends on the the power density in the beam. If a target is 90% reflective to the the wavelength used by the laser, then the laser would have to be 10 times more powerful to achieve the same heating in the target. My guess is that polished aluminum might maintain 90% reflectivity, but who knows. Of course, a speck of highly absorbing dust will burn very quickly, subsequently, the burned area around the dust will also begin absorbing so a hole may grow very quickly. The question is then: how long can the laser remain focused on the burning patch? If it wanders due to atmospheric disturbance the spot may not cause a failure of the target.

Here's the real problem. If you make the laser so powerful that a bit of dust will cause a significant burn to start, a speck of dust on your targeting optics will obliterate the laser platform itself. You could manage this by using a very large targeting mirror and focusing onto the target (possibly what the system does but I couldn't be bothered to look it up) but then you need accurate range-finding as well as directing and you need to keep the beam targeted precisely enough to hit a small focal point for an extended (probably still less than a second) period of time .

At the end of the day the whole system is damn hard to get working. Targeting an enemy missile rather than a slow-moving drone may still be an unsurmountable challenge. I suspect that the whole system is a giant waste of money made even more expensive by the possibility of shiny targets.