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.
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!
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.