Slashdot Mirror
Directed Energy Weapon Downs Ballistic Missile
A**masher writes "In a test off the Califoria coast late last night, Boeing's Airborne Laser successfully destroyed a sub-launched ballistic missile. 'This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform,' reported the Missile Defense Agency. It should be noted that destroying a liquid-fueled ballistic missile is generally considered easier than killing a solid-fueled equivalent due to the relative fragility of the fueling and other systems."
Nothing was destroyed or shot down and the laser weapon was not fired.
This article says that you are wrong.
Finally, the ALTB fired its megawatt-class High Energy Laser, heating the boosting ballistic missile to critical structural failure...
Less than one hour later, a second solid fuel short-range missile was launched from a ground location on San Nicolas Island, Calif. and the ALTB successfully engaged the boosting target with its High Energy Laser, met all its test criteria, and terminated lasing prior to destroying the second target. The ALTB destroyed a solid fuel missile, identical to the second target, in flight on February 3, 2010.
Summary: the ALTB engaged and destroyed a liquid fueled target and then engaged, but did not destroy, a solid fueled target. The megawatt class laser was fired in both cases.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
The problem with the ABL is that it is a chemical laser based system and as such it is almost already obsolete in the laboratory. Chemical lasers have huge logistical problems and can only fire so many shots, and require huge space, which is why the ABL has cost a fortune and requires a 747.
The future really belongs to the Free Electron Laser, which is making leaps and bounds. If we were to wave the mantra of intraservice rivalries around, then one should say that while the US Navy has had an awful time actually building ships, they've pretty much been whipping on the US Air Force when it comes to both aircraft and lasers and missile defense systems.
Jefferson labs has pushed a Free Electron laser to 14kw.
http://www.jlab.org/fel/
And, the US Navy has Raytheon has been awarded a contract for a 100KW Free Electron Laser
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1292&pagetemplate=release
And indeed, some are noting that it will soon be possible to carry these things in the nose of a fighter aircraft, not just a 747.
This is my sig.
Everyone needs a hobby. If he's parroting idiocy, so be it. It's better than SOME hobbies he might take up. Peeping Tom, for instance . . .
Anyway, on subject - I was more impressed with what I've seen of THEL http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.63/system_detail.asp
That link is as good a place as any to start, if you're interested in it.
With a military background, I was moderately impressed when it destroyed a missile. Only moderately, because we routinely shot down our own Tartar missiles when they turned around, and targeted US!
They, they shot down artillery rounds. Without finding the video I watched, I can't recall the size of the artillery rounds, but they were fairly large, fairly slow, with long trajectories that were easy to plot with the computing power available to THEL.
The real stunner was when THEL destroyed a series of mortars. Quite small, and hard to see, let alone track. Relatively short flight time, compared to most missiles or artillery, despite the fact that mortars are quite in comparison.
The video I saw were little more than several cuts pasted together - you didn't get a real "feel" for the hardware, because so much was left out, or edited out. The (intended) impression was that THEL was able to knock each of these successive targets out of the air, with little to no effort.
No matter whether that intended impression is true or not - what THEL did do was impressive. Shooting down a Tartar missile was a minor challenge, one that we pulled off because we ALWAYS tracked it with the guns, from launch to target. We anticipated it turning on us. Incoming artillery or mortars would have been way beyond your capabilities. Incoming missile under real life combat conditions? We'd probably shoot 99's - meaning we would probably get a bunch, but one would eventually get past the guns.
(BTW - I'm talking about 5 inch 54 caliber main guns on a destroyer - not those close in defense systems that ships have today.)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
An impressive amount of wrong in a one-line post.
1) This is a boost-phase defense, so it works when the missile is over the hostile country, not over the U.S.
2) Because of Russia's size, we probably won't be able to use this weapon against them unless they let us fly our airborne laser over their country, which is unlikely. This is for defending against launches by smaller countries.
3) It's pretty much impossible to cause a nuke to detonate by firing a weapon at it.
4) Debris from a shot-down nuke may be unhealthy if it lands on your house, but it's a whole lot better than vaporizing Manhattan.