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."
Some people may worry that a laser this powerful could be used to build some sort of spaced-based precision bomber. But don't worry, you'd have to get someone to build you optics for a phase conjugate target tracking system to do something like that. And no one is stupid enough to do that without realizing the implications.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
To all engineers involved.
And a careful pat on the back for not blowing up the project for all managers
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.
"It should be noted ... blah blah" . If they hit the thing, that's the hard part. Adding 1.21 Gigawatts to the existing laser (to destroy a solid fuel rocket) is the easy part.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The article indicates that this is the first demonstration from an airborne platform. However, I am significantly more interested in the application of directed energy weapons from certain aquatic platforms.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
these demonstrations aren't exactly peer reviewed.
Not many people doubt that a directed energy weapon can, under the right conditions, shoot down a ballistic missile. The question is whether we'll see on, in our lifetime, shoot down a ballistic missile under realistic conditions. Then being able to that reliably enough.
I'm not doctrinally against developing directed energy weapons, or even anti-missile systems, especially boost-phase systems. But there's been too much fakery and even downright fraud in these programs for me to lend much credence to any "breakthroughs".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I mean, I'm assuming that it detects that dark skinned guy driving the Avocados Primeros y Armas Nucleares truck across the border from Mexico, right?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This is nice, but from my lay person's perspective there seem to be a few dampers on this.
During boost you've got a missile speeding up and not at final velocity with a really big heat signature from the exhaust.
Presumably a ballistic missile won't be doing that anywhere near us, but will be...well... 'ballistic' and at full speed when it crosses into the interception zones and so significantly harder to hit.
Additionally, with fuel expended (or at least greatly reduced) the non electronics of the missile will be less vulnerable to being destroyed.
So good start, but we aren't there yet.
--- Mercutio was right.
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
Even if this system were to be put into use as a single-fire human target eliminator, it would be replacing a tool that is far more 'evil'.
fixed that for me
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.
An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch. Such forces would already be in-country weeks or months before their strike, perhaps organized as a sports team or as individuals on tourist or student visas.
Fuck it, why not just have THEM carry the bombs? Saves you from building the missiles in the first place.
Clearly, protecting these planes will be of extreme priority; they will probably be stored at a completely undisclosed location, that's if they are even allowed to land. It seems practical that these things would eventually be completely unmanned, requiring only an occasional fueling rendezvous to stay aloft for many months at a time.
Where on earth did they get "sub launched" from? I read many links on this story and nothing said anything about a sub-launched missile... The ballistic missiles used onboard subs have solid fuel, liquid fuel would be crazy.
+++ATH0 NO CARRIER
I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?
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.
My money is on railguns being the most practical weapon first:
http://gizmodo.com/351467/navy-rail-gun-test-destroys-everything-it-touches-at-5640-mph
Besides, lasers are a bit girly, they're just like overpowered flashlights ;) There's something more manly about accurately launching a solid lump of metal 200 miles at just short of mach 8!
Planes are just the first step. They'll be mounting these things in satellites once they've got the tech all worked out.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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).
Can be found here: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/12/338371/airborne-laser-shoots-down-1st-ballistic-target.html
Deeply deeply misinformed. The Missile Defense Agency press release is better than the Reuters article and a thousand times better than the Slashdot headline blurb. Some corrections:
1. Two targets were destroyed - one liquid and one solid fueled. This puts the lie to the above comment, and the Slashdot article that implies that they only shot a liquid-fueled target because it was easier. Furthermore, the solid-fueled target was identical to one that the ALTB had destroyed in flight a week earlier.
2. The first target was launched from a "sea platform", not a submarine, and is much more likely to have been a SCUD or SCUD simulator on a barge. The U.S. Navy has never permitted liquid-fueled missiles aboard their submarines because a fuel or oxidizer leak could kill the crew.
A liquid-fueled missile was destroyed. A solid-fueled one was also engaged but the test stopped short of destroying it (probably for safety reasons.) A previous test did destroy a solid-fueled target See: the article at mda.mil.
This is not a self-referential sig.
The Missile Defense Agency article does sound much more impressive. I am surprised to find that the Reuters rehash of the press release was so sloppy. I'd really like to see an independent journalist's description of the events though.
That would be hard to find. There really isn't such a thing as an independent journalist where military testing is concerned. They're not just going to let any publication send a reporter.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
$300 billion and counting. We could probably buy all the enemy's missiles at this rate.
The Missile Defense Agency article does sound much more impressive. I am surprised to find that the Reuters rehash of the press release was so sloppy. I'd really like to see an independent journalist's description of the events though.
Translation: events do not correlate to my ideology, therefore I will continue to move the goalposts for acceptable evidence.
I am surprised to find that the Reuters rehash of the press release was so sloppy.
Why? My experience is that Reuters stories are generally very sloppy. They often seem to distort information to reflect a certain bias.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
1. Two targets were destroyed - one liquid and one solid fueled. This puts the lie to the above comment, and the Slashdot article that implies that they only shot a liquid-fueled target because it was easier. Furthermore, the solid-fueled target was identical to one that the ALTB had destroyed in flight a week earlier.
The press release you link to states that they only shot down one target in this test - the liquid fueled one.
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.
So it fired its high energy laser at the second target, but switched off the laser before actually destroying it. However they had previously destroyed an identical target.
printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
direct energy shots down a mosquito. "The idea behind the "Death Star" laser is that it could be used to control mosquito populations in developing countries in hopes of reducing the number of deaths due to malaria, a disease frequently carried by the flying insects. The device was shown off during the TED 2010 conference and does in fact appear to be capable of tracking and killing mosquitoes. Oh, and it was built out of parts found on eBay." http://gizmodo.com/5470148/this-is-a-mosquito-getting-killed-by-a-laser?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+(Gizmodo)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
"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."
Actually the more salient point is that it is being done while defence spending cuts are being considered. Propaganda is a common method to make sure some one else's project gets cancelled and not yours.
I would hesitate to call Reuters a "left-wing" organization. They are driven by profits, if there is a larger profit to be made catering to the left, so be it, but they will report with bias to any side of the political spectrum if there is money in it. If it bleeds, it leads, it doesn't matter if it's a liberal or a conservative.
This case in specific, being a pro-military grade weapon R&D summary would IMO be considered slightly more to the right as most lefties I know are in favor of reducing military spending. If Reuters were a left-wing organization, I would have expected this article to point out how bloated, behind schedule and over budget the MDA is on almost all of its projects. I would expect them to drop the names of the congressmen/senators who sponsored the bill/amendment to get this project funded, and I would expect them to make some point about how the money could be better spent.
On the other hand, if Reuters was a "right-wing" organization, I would have expected this article to include a list of congressmen/senators who opposed the project, an iteration of countries that have missiles that this device could disable, and a number of warnings about terrorist, NBC warheads, and something to do with Sarah Pallin.
What we have though, is an article that appears to be keeping to a limited scope of facts. Although it gets a number of these facts wrong, I'm not seeing a whole lot of bias, just incompetence.
-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
It's pretty tough to get a missile to arrive at the exact place and time that a weapon is firing at.
Video or it didn't happen.
"They've canceled the show but we're still here. What does that make us?" "Big Damn Junkies, Sir!" "Ain't we just"
"I drank what?"
You can't call yourself a geek if you haven't seen Real Genius. Next he will tell us he's never seen Blade Runner or Forbidden Planet. Sheesh.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Because apparently, the Taliban are the only bad people left in the world, and Red China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and all the other totalitarian states in the world are suddenly our best buddies.
So when Russia starts firing nukes at the US, we get nukes being destroyed. Directly over us. Brilliant.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
You could also argue it wouldn't see the multi megaton warhead stashed in the shipping container in the bottom of the pile on the cargo ship... The airborne laser is not the right tool for the job, being designed for a different purpose. That's what the scanners at the border crossings are for -- they're the right tool for that job.
Yeah, no weapon system should even be researched if it cannot fix all the U.S. defense problems at one go at even the experimental stage. What were they thinking?
From the MDA press release linked above: "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." Only the liquid-fueled target was destroyed in this test. The solid-fueled target was "engaged" but not actually destroyed, whoever a similar solid-fueled target was destroyed in a previous test
I'm trying to picture China attacking the goose that lays the golden egg.
And Iran has no capability to attack the US. Never has and never will.
Try to stick to real threats, plz. We just finished almost a decade of pointless conflict in a nation that never attacked us and never had the capability to. I have taken from this experience that MOST of the "threats" to the US are made up by politicians wanting to funnel money into secret wartime projects under the cover of fear, panic, and chaos.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Perhaps i cant detect it, but I bet it could pop his popcorn once told to do so.
the modified 747-400F aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base and used its infrared sensors to find a target missile launched from San Nicolas Island, California.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Why? My experience is that Reuters stories are generally very sloppy. They often seem to distort information to reflect a certain bias.
Yes, and that bias is usually referred to as "laziness" and/or "stupidity."
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
******VIOLATION*******
PLEASE HAND IN YOUR GEEK CARD! You should have known that "RADIO SHACK" is now called only "THE SHACK"!!
Get off my lawn!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
In order to mount a weapons grade laser on a satellite, we would need to withdraw from the outer space treaty. This would probably be a bad idea currently as it would cause a rush to weapon-ize space by the US, Russia, and China.
Okay, let's say we have two states (let's call them Blue and Red) each with 2500 nukes.
Let's say Red develops a defense system that's 90% effective.
Let's say war appears imminent. Now Blue has a choice, it can either make a sneak attack which will still get 10% or 250 of its warheads through (which is more than enough to destroy a country). Red will of course retaliate destroying Blue so they both lose OR...
It can wait for Red to attack first (and wait for Red's warheads to actually hit before retaliating). Now though, Blue's strategic forces have been pulverized from Red's first strike and very few will make it through Red's defenses. Red wins. (If there was no defense system, enough of Blue's forces would have gotten through which would have meant that again, they both would have "lost").
In both cases Blue loses, but in the first case it can at least also destroy Red. So, it is "better" for Blue to launch a sneak attack. Now obviously no one (country) wants to commit suicide but in times of great international strife, when war seems likely anyway, a desperate "leader" may decide it is better to go down fighting. So the presence of this "defense system" has increased the likelihood of a major nuclear exchange. At the very least Blue should adopt a policy of "Launch on Warning"; that way if Red launches a surprise strike by the time the warheads arrive, the silos it targeted will be empty. Unfortunately this policy carries substantial risks; can you say "false alarm"?
For these reasons (and others) the US and USSR through diplomatic agreements but driven by base self-interest (nobody wants to die), dramatically reduced their number of MIRVed warheads. (Some missiles like the US's MX and the USSR's "Satan" could carry up to 14). While very efficient, a MIRV with 14 warheads was a very tempting target in a first strike; one hit and you've kept 14 warheads from hitting your homeland. Likewise silos were hardened so that military commanders didn't think that they had to "use it or lose it" so much, instead they could afford to ride out an attack (and make sure that the radar blips weren't in fact a bunch of geese). (The US also had a lot of submarine based warheads, the USSR used mobile launchers). Finally, with the end of the cold war, missiles have been retargeted to the open ocean. While mostly symbolic if there was an accidental launching there would be more dead fish (but fewer dead people).
So missile defenses might not "effectively end the threat of a large scale nuclear conflict". In some circumstances they could increase it. MAD has worked for 50 years. Be careful when you try replacing it with something else.
Aw, don't cry. It'll be OK.
You can get up to date news about this weapons project and general information about our missile defense command here..
So when's the last time Pablo Escobar directed artillery or missiles towards US troops or population?
Probably a while ago, since he's been dead since the early 90's. Maybe zombie-Pablo got his hands on some missile technology?
In order to mount a weapons grade laser on a satellite, we would need to withdraw from the outer space treaty.
The US is in violation of nuclear proliferation treaties, chemical weapons treaties, refuses to let UN inspectors in to check for biological weapons, and refuses to sign any treaty limiting the use of anti-personnel land mines. They won't care about any treaty when it comes to launching an anti-missile laser satellite. It'll go on the books as a communications satellite, or something. ("Yeah, communications. I'm sure Jintao will get the message when his birds blow up in their silos")
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
My question was why was he surprised. In my experience Reuters is generally inaccurate, either do to deliberate bias, or laziness and or stupidity. Personally, the errors I have seen seem to have a pattern that indicates bias (not exactly a liberal bias, more a bias toward increased government power and reduced national identity).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
To add: If recognizable special forces units are targeting an asset such as this, you better believe that a shitstorm is coming.
May I please have my frontal lobotomy if I bring back the ashtrays?
Considering Boieng's history I don't think this will be used for anything other then defense. This could be a breakthrough in defense and the way we handle defense. Soon missiles may not be used at all and prevent terrorist attacks.
In a test off the Califoria coast late last night
Where's Califoria? Do they have a Caliph, or a spell checker? I would have liked to see the test.
Califoria must be a secret test range.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.