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.
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.
No, this is designed to hit the targets while in boost phase. It's mounted on a plane so that the interception zone is where ever the plane is. Worried about North Korea? Just fly around the Sea of Japan. Worried about Iran? Fly around the Persian Gulf. Worried about China v Taiwan, fly it near the Formosa Straits.
Other systems are intended for ballistic and reentry phases.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
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.
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!
If you can create a perfect mirror, which can also stand temperatures of reentry into atmosphere without losing reflective quality, then yes. But we live in a real world and mirrors are not perfect and are not that tough. They don't deflect 100% of light. High power laser beam will melt mirror. Mirror might reflect laser for some really short period of time. Once mirror starts melting, it will stop deflecting laser.
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).
6th paragraph:
7th paragraph
The statement about the current test is the fifth paragraph. So TFA 'discusses' two tests. The current one where a liquid fueled booster was destroyed and the previous test where destruction of the booster was 'verified by instruments'. No wonder people don't read the TFA.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Unlikely. It needs to be a front surface mirror, or else the laser will simply take effect in whatever (glass or plastic) makes up the front portion of the mirror. Even if it is a front surface mirror, such mirrors are very susceptible to scratches, dings, oxidation, and other damage that will render it vulnerable. Even minor amounts of corrosion or staining (invisible to the naked eye) can compromise the protection the mirror provides and you can't put a protective coating on the mirror to protect it from such...
Not to mention that such a delicate and vulnerable coating is incompatible with the handling and operational environment of the battlefield missiles the ABL is designed to work against.
And, before anyone asks, pretty much the same is true of spinning the missile. Spinning introduces a whole host of significant problems for the missile designer.
It's not so much about being "mirror-like" (polished), but rather about being "white" (reflective). The thing is, nothing reflects 100% of the incoming light - even the reflectivity of pure alumin[i]um's is slightly above 90% for visible light, dips to 85% around 850 nm (near IR), and bounces back to perhaps 97% in the micrometer range (which is what some big lasers give out if I'm not mistaken).
Still, 97% is a lot of wasted energy, and thus the need for high energies and huge lasers on ginormous shar^H^H^H^H planes. But perhaps light is perhaps the only thing that can reliably hit a speeding missile.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
"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."
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
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.