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."
I have no doubt that FELs will eventually surpass chemical lasers for this sort of application, but right now they're nowhere near ready for this sort of application. And if you think back the 15 years or so to when this project was conceived, they were even less ready. I'm sure the upgrade to FELs will come along sooner or later, but choosing them for the first-generation design would probably have delayed this project quite a considerable amount.
To both the idiot who wrote this and the idiot who wrote its parent: One of the most compelling arguments for directed energy weapons, a point I have seen made time after time in briefings, is the reduction and/or elimination of "collateral damage" they will enable. In fact, no one I know in the military even uses the phrase "collateral damage" without a visible reaction of repugnance. 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. So the billions spent on this project reflect a commitment to that principle, which will be achieved both by the precision of the weapon (especially when used in a tactical engagement) and by its speed and range, which are unique and could possibly eliminate the threat of long-range nuclear weapons forever. THAT was the vision that motivated SDI and the ABL from their beginnings.
This is not a self-referential sig.