AL-1 Airborne Laser Moves ahead......

[MKSheppard]

Link

Boeing announced Thursday that the Airborne Laser completed its first in-flight test against an instrumented target missile and a B-1 bomber upgraded with the Fully Integrated Data Link completed its first flight.

During the laser test, on Monday, a modified Boeing 747-400F aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base and used its infrared sensors to find a target missile launched from San Nicholas Island, Calif., Boeing said. It said the Boeing-developed battle-management system aboard the Airborne Laser then issued engagement and target location instructions to the beam control/fire control system, which acquired the target and fired its two solid-state illuminator lasers to track the target and measure atmospheric conditions; and the Airborne Laser then fired a surrogate high-energy laser at the target, simulating a missile intercept. Instrumentation on the target verified that the laser hit the target.

"This test demonstrates that the Airborne Laser can fully engage an in-flight missile with its battle management and beam control/fire control systems," Michael Rinn, Boeing vice president and Airborne Laser program director, said in a news release. "Pointing and focusing a laser beam on a target that is rocketing skyward at thousands of miles per hour is no easy task, but the Airborne Laser is uniquely able to do the job.

The test follows Airborne Laser's engagement of two un-instrumented missiles in early June. The system will now undergo flight tests in which the aircraft will fire its high-energy laser, into an onboard calorimeter (a heat-measuring device), then through its beam control/fire control system.

The Airborne Laser team will then test the entire system against in-flight missiles, culminating with its first high-energy laser intercept test against a ballistic missile later this year, Boeing said.

The ultimate aim of the Airborne Laser is to "deter potential adversaries and provide speed-of-light capability to destroy all classes of ballistic missiles in their boost phase of flight," Boeing said. "Eliminating missiles in their boost phase would reduce the number of shots required by other elements of the layered ballistic missile defense system."

Boeing is the prime contractor and overall systems integrator for Airborne Laser, and provides the modified aircraft and battle management system. Northrop Grumman supplies the high-energy laser, while Lockheed Martin provides the beam control/fire control system.

Meanwhile, Boeing also announced that, on July 29, it successfully completed the first flight of the upgraded B-1 bomber from Edwards Air Force Base.

The upgrade includes new processors, color displays and communications systems. Boeing personnel have been modifying the test aircraft over the past year at Edwards.

Boeing said flight testing would continue through next year and it expects the Air Force to award a contract in November 2010 for the production of upgrade installation kits for the service's entire B-1 fleet.

[SirNitram]

I have a fully irrational love of this program. Laser beams.. FROM THE SKY!

[Mr. Coffee]

Please tell me that "commence primary ignition" makes its way somewhere into the firing sequence for this thing.

[Elfdart]

Can they be mounted on sharks?

[BR7]

Please tell me that "commence primary ignition" makes its way somewhere into the firing sequence for this thing.

Could well be. The primary one is a chemical laser, so there's actual ignition to commence!

[Mr Bean]

Have the proponents of this Laser plane ever explained how they defended it from enemy air attack while it was busy shooting down boost phase ICBMs?
Anyone ever try just making some missile we could hang off an F-18 that can do the same thing?

[BR7]

Have the proponents of this Laser plane ever explained how they defended it from enemy air attack while it was busy shooting down boost phase ICBMs?

The plane sits in friendly air space, beyond the immediate reach of the groups being defended against.

Anyone ever try just making some missile we could hang off an F-18 that can do the same thing?

ICBMs have much greater range and speed than any air-air missile. Unless the F-18 is right by the silo/whatever, the missile won't reach it.

[TimothyC]

Have the proponents of this Laser plane ever explained how they defended it from enemy air attack while it was busy shooting down boost phase ICBMs?

The plane sits in friendly air space, beyond the immediate reach of the groups being defended against.

Anyone ever try just making some missile we could hang off an F-18 that can do the same thing?

ICBMs have much greater range and speed than any air-air missile. Unless the F-18 is right by the silo/whatever, the missile won't reach it.

There was a test where an F-16 killed a simulated ballistic inbound with a Sidewinder not all that long ago.

[BR7]

simulated ballistic inbound

Assuming the test was valid, a defender would have several minutes to scramble domestic fighters. From the information I've heard, it's preferable to destroy the missile before it gets over your territory, seconds from destroying something.

[Vympel]

The rest of this thread title should read ".......into oblivion." It's a zombie program, with no funding in the 2010 budget, kept alive merely for R&D. SecDef hates it.

[Chris OFarrell]

Yeah....this thing only has a range of what, 200-400 klicks? There are Air to Air missiles that can almost REACH a few hundred klicks these days, certinally there are SAM's which are getting closer. Especially against something like a 747!

[Plekhanov]

The plane sits in friendly air space, beyond the immediate reach of the groups being defended against.

What's the effective range of this system? Can it reach missiles fired from the centre of Iran for example whilst remaining out of range of SAMs fired from the border?

Assuming the test was valid, a defender would have several minutes to scramble domestic fighters. From the information I've heard, it's preferable to destroy the missile before it gets over your territory, seconds from destroying something.

Which of course requires laser armed planes to be continually airborne circling nations deemed to be hostile, which I expect would take a lot of planes. I can certainly see why that approach would be preferable to prospective manufacturers of those planes.

[Hawkwings]

Obviously it just tracks the incoming AAM or SAM, target paints it, then zaps it with the main gun! Then when the hostile fighters come in close to use their cannons, the ABL fries them too!

Seriously, how cool would that be?

Alternatively, have the illuminator lasers be powerful enough to zap missiles, and leave the main gun for planes and ICBMs.

[BR7]

What's the effective range of this system? Can it reach missiles fired from the centre of Iran for example whilst remaining out of range of SAMs fired from the border?

~300km against solid fueled ICBMs, ~600km against liquid fueled ones. With 600km, about all of Iran should be covered from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and an eyeball estimate with 300km would leave the center third or so uncovered. Some SAMs might be able to reach it, but I don't know Iran's capacity in that regard, or if the laser or other defenses would negate the threat.

Which of course requires laser armed planes to be continually airborne circling nations deemed to be hostile, which I expect would take a lot of planes. I can certainly see why that approach would be preferable to prospective manufacturers of those planes.

If the 600km figure is used, 3-4 would give pretty good coverage of Iran, and one would cover North Korea. Assuming a 300km range, maybe twice that for Iran, still leaving the center uncovered. One could still work for most of North Korea, though 3 would probably be needed to cover all of it, leaving many areas with 2-3x coverage. Figure a few more, since they can't fly forever.

[JointStrikeFighter]

You don't need to cover the whole country anyway; there are only so many viable silo and TEL Lager locations.

[Plekhanov]

What's the effective range of this system? Can it reach missiles fired from the centre of Iran for example whilst remaining out of range of SAMs fired from the border?

~300km against solid fueled ICBMs, ~600km against liquid fueled ones. With 600km, about all of Iran should be covered from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and an eyeball estimate with 300km would leave the center third or so uncovered. Some SAMs might be able to reach it, but I don't know Iran's capacity in that regard, or if the laser or other defenses would negate the threat.

iirc doesn't Iran have solid fuel ICBMs? If so then according to the figures you've supplied the airborne laser can't cover a significant part of on of the main nations currently seen as a potential target.

If the 600km figure is used, 3-4 would give pretty good coverage of Iran, and one would cover North Korea. Assuming a 300km range, maybe twice that for Iran, still leaving the center uncovered. One could still work for most of North Korea, though 3 would probably be needed to cover all of it, leaving many areas with 2-3x coverage. Figure a few more, since they can't fly forever.

Don't forget these planes need to be airborne constantly for the system to work, so going off your figures even if Iran only has liquid fuelled ICBMs you'd need 3-4 of these planes in the air all the time.

You don't need to cover the whole country anyway; there are only so many viable silo and TEL Lager locations.

Wouldn't you expect any potential enemy to spread out it's launch sites in response to the airborne laser should it every actually get introduced to force the US cover as much as the country as possible?

[Sea Skimmer]

iirc doesn't Iran have solid fuel ICBMs? If so then according to the figures you've supplied the airborne laser can't cover a significant part of on of the main nations currently seen as a potential target.

Iran has no ICBMs at the moment. It does have a liquid fueled space booster it could easily convert into an ICBM.

Don't forget these planes need to be airborne constantly for the system to work, so going off your figures even if Iran only has liquid fuelled ICBMs you'd need 3-4 of these planes in the air all the time.

So? Air power has never ever been about the individual aircraft, its always been about numbers. The planned production number was 24 before the program was neutered to help fund insanity. That would be exactly enough to maintain several orbit patterns along the Iranian boarder to cover different areas.

Wouldn't you expect any potential enemy to spread out it's launch sites in response to the airborne laser should it every actually get introduced to force the US cover as much as the country as possible?

Doesn’t matter. If Iran can only launch from 1/3rd of its landmass, then 2/3rds of its land mass not does not need to be subject to search and attack missions aimed at mobile missile launchers. This is a huge advantage for US forces, and it becomes greater as certain areas (like steep slopes of mountains, Iran has many in its central region) can be additionally ruled out from the search. These aircraft could carry the air to air ABM weapon now being devoloped from the AMRAAM, which has short range. Only needing to cover a much smaller area makes that short range much more effective. Of course we also had the ground launched KEI planned as a boost phase interceptor, and it could have covered most of Iran from ONE site… but Gates killed that program utterly while offering no replacement.

Its entirely possibul that a fully equipped ABL could operate over enemy airspace anyway. After all its not like it can’t turn that laser against a SAM or an enemy fighter. Or a enemy missile launcher on the ground for that matter, though given the high cost of firing its unlikely it’d be used that way.

[Starglider]

Its entirely possibul that a fully equipped ABL could operate over enemy airspace anyway. After all its not like it can’t turn that laser against a SAM or an enemy fighter. Or a enemy missile launcher on the ground for that matter, though given the high cost of firing its unlikely it’d be used that way.

Shooting at ground targets sounds impractical. The thick lower atmosphere would attenuate and spread the beam, drastically reducing the range, but more importantly the laser doesn't actually have that much kick to it. It won't do anything to an armored vehicle (well, maybe set the tires on fire if they get lucky) and I'm not sure it would even do critical damage to an exposed missile if it's just sitting on the launcher, not experiencing flight stresses. That said, laser power is only going to increase in future versions.

[Sea Skimmer]

Shooting at ground targets sounds impractical. The thick lower atmosphere would attenuate and spread the beam, drastically reducing the range, but more importantly the laser doesn't actually have that much kick to it. It won't do anything to an armored vehicle (well, maybe set the tires on fire if they get lucky) and I'm not sure it would even do critical damage to an exposed missile if it's just sitting on the launcher, not experiencing flight stresses. That said, laser power is only going to increase in future versions.

You could ruin the effectiveness of any armored vehicle by damaging its gun tube. Mobile SAM systems would make much better targets though, since they combined light or no armor with numerous exposed antennas and missiles (even missiles in tubes are often only behind fiberglass). Even slight damage to a ballistic missile on its launcher or transloader will almost certainly prevent it from actually being fired. Even if it might still fly the enemy would run a major risk that it explodes and destroys the launcher. Repairs will take depot level work, and enemy missile depots are unlikely to survive long against US bombing. Now ruin the missile, and wreck some of the tires on the launcher and it becomes quite unlikely to survive followup attacks.

The real problem would just be targeting, since ABL uses a couple lasers to burn a path for the main laser range against ground targets is still likely to be quite good, but no FLIR targeting system can really see all that far against MP-RTIP equipped Globalhawk that can generate extremely accurate radar maps. That kind of pairing is likely to happen anyway so the Global Hawk can immediately search for not only the launcher on the ground after a surprise launch, but also the technical support vehicles that any large ballistic missile launcher requires.

[Simon_Jester]

Don't forget these planes need to be airborne constantly for the system to work, so going off your figures even if Iran only has liquid fuelled ICBMs you'd need 3-4 of these planes in the air all the time.

True, though it is mounted on a 747. I imagine the planes have relatively long loiter time.

I think you could keep three or four airborne for extended periods without an unreasonable number to begin with.

[Pelranius]

Don't forget these planes need to be airborne constantly for the system to work, so going off your figures even if Iran only has liquid fuelled ICBMs you'd need 3-4 of these planes in the air all the time.

True, though it is mounted on a 747. I imagine the planes have relatively long loiter time.

I think you could keep three or four airborne for extended periods without an unreasonable number to begin with.

It's always better to have extra spares, considering that 747s, even when armed with lasers and flying together, are pretty vulnerable targets (and suppose the other people manage to land a working laser weapons systems of their own?)

[Shroom Man 777]

Wasn't this weapon tested to be able to blow up the tires of a convoy of military ground vehicles?

[Mr. Coffee]

Who cares. It's a fucking laser in an airplane. This puts up one step closer to building the Death Star, guys. America, nay, the entire frickin' human race depends on this system to work. I mean, what the fuck are we gonna do when the aliens finally come? Toss missiles at 'em like a bunch of primitives, or are we gonna show those filthy xenos just how large our collective brains (and dicks) really are...

Remember, if you don't like lasers in frickin' airplanes, then you support terrorism, communism, liberal agendas, cancer in grandmas, and alien invasion.

YAL-1: Because lasers on frickin' airplanes is frickin' sweet.

[Sea Skimmer]

Wasn't this weapon tested to be able to blow up the tires of a convoy of military ground vehicles?

No, but the laser they want for the AC-130 (which actually has ended up taking up its entire own C-130 airframe) did do that. IN another ten years a solid state laser with the same capability should be around, but it will be a very long time before solid state can even think about matching the kind of performance being asked from AL-1.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I mean, what the fuck are we gonna do when the aliens finally come? Toss missiles at 'em like a bunch of primitives, or are we gonna show those filthy xenos just how large our collective brains (and dicks) really are...

Yes, let's do that so that they can say: "Under CREW attack(...) No immediate threat at present power and frequencies."