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."
The missile they shot down was liquid fueled and not solid. Solid fuel targets may be a little harder to take out.
On the plus side Russia and a lot of other nations still use a large number of liquid fueled missiles. I also wonder how well it will work with say cruise missiles, UAVs, and or aircraft.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Nothing was destroyed or shot down and the laser weapon was not fired.
FTFA:
The plane's battle management system issued engagement and target location instructions to the laser's fire control system, which tracked the target and fired a test laser at the missile. Instruments on the missile verified the system had hit its mark, Boeing said.
For all we know at this point the "Battle Management System" is a 2nd lieutenant with binoculars and the "Test Laser" is a Private with a laser pointer. Odds are it's better than that, but the last time I heard about this laser system it was still significantly too heavy (with power source) to mount in a 747 and the best firing they had performed was with it stationary on the ground shooting at a stationary dummy target 10 feet away.
I like it more than the "missile defense shield", but only marginally.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
There was not mention of the missile being "sub-launched." That would also be quite difficult for the US since they have no liquid fueled Submarine Launched Balistic Missles (SLBMs). They are all solid fueled.
I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?
is why people get so concerned about "wasting money" trying to develop a system that could make a significant amount of nuclear weapons functionally obsolete. Money spent on the missile defense systems is not even remotely analogous to the waste like when some senator tries to create 10k new jobs by ramming 500 new planes down the Air Force's throat or something like that. Most of it is trial and error, basic science and engineering, trying to figure out how to defeat a threat that could, in one blow, murder millions of Americans.
MAD got us to this point, but the knowledge that the US could, in 20 years, not only knock out all of your incoming warheads, but unleash its own reprisal would effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict between state actors. A successful missile defense system would mean that the enemy would have to use sneakier, harder tricks like slipping nukes into cargo containers. For state actors, that's a non-starter unless they get really lucky or have a death wish like the Iranian ruling class seems to have with their badly veiled threats against at least one nuclear power (Israel).
"An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch."
That's why strategic aircraft assets are stationed on appropriately guarded bases with sufficient folks to fend off intruders, just as they were in the good old days of Strategic Air Command (back before TAC ate the rest of the Air Force).
The enemy planning a missile attack that ABL is designed to mitigate isn't a major nation-state, but a smaller foe with fewer missiles. As nuclear proliferation among fanatic regimes ensures smallish nuclear war will happen, defensive preparations make sense. Likewise, ABL that can defeat rockets and other conventional systems will have use providing top cover against them.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
> The US military, as a matter of strategy and of tactical planning, abhors the idea of killing anyone who is not actively engaging in trying to kill us first.
You must have a very loose interpretation of "us", or be living an alternate reality.
There was no way Vietnam could have touched the USA back then. And yet the US still went to war.
Was Saddam actively trying to kill the USA? He used to be an ally of the USA even.
Is Iran actively trying to kill the USA? Sure both of them made lot of noise, but their missiles would never have reached the USA. Not because of countermeasures, but just for the fact that they didn't and don't have enough range.
They may be a significant threat to Israel, but the last I checked, the USA is not Israel.
I'm sure someone with better knowledge of US military "interventions" can give more and better examples.
Either way, your arguments do not change the fact that American military policy is to reduce collateral damage, and that these weapon advances help in that regard.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin