Airborne Laser Test A Success

[Mr. Coffee]

Commence primary ignition.

WASHINGTON, Feb 12 (Reuters) - A U.S. high-powered airborne laser weapon shot down a ballistic missile in the first successful test of a futuristic directed energy weapon, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Friday.

Stocks

The agency said in a statement the test took place at 8:44 p.m. PST (11:44 p.m. EST) on Thursday /0444 GMT on Friday) at Point Mugu's Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division Sea Range off Ventura in central California.

"The Missile Defense Agency demonstrated the potential use of directed energy to defend against ballistic missiles when the Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) successfully destroyed a boosting ballistic missile" the agency said.

The high-powered Airborne Laser system is being developed by Boeing Co., (BA.N) the prime contractor, and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

Boeing produces the airframe, a modified 747 jumbo jet, while Northrop Grumman (NOC.N) supplies the higher-energy laser and Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) is developing the beam and fire control systems.

"This was the first directed energy lethal intercept demonstration against a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile target from an airborne platform," the agency added.

The airborne laser weapon successfully underwent its first in-flight test against a target missile back in August. During that test, Boeing said 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.

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.

The airborne laser weapon is aimed at deterring enemy missile attacks and providing the U.S. military with the ability to engage all classes of ballistic missiles at the speed of light while they are in the boost phase of flight.

"The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers (miles), and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies," the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said.

Ok, so now we know that the damned thing actually works. Pretty friggin' sweet.

[PeZook]

I thought they cancelled it? Was it resurrected, or does my memory simply suck?

[adam_grif]

IIRC there were multiple similar projects (one was an ABM, the other was some kind of generic military laser), and one of them got scrapped but not the other.

EDIT:

No, they're both still operating.

The one in this thread is the Boeing YAL-1, an ABM designed to kill missiles during the boost phase.

The other is the Advanced Tactical Laser, a smaller one for the C130 airframe, also still in development.

[TimothyC]

I thought they cancelled it? Was it resurrected, or does my memory simply suck?

ZerObama/Gates/Stupid CongressCritters cut the program from an Operational program (where we would have purchased a high single digit number or them) to an R&D program (where we are only going to have one).

[Starglider]

ZerObama/Gates/Stupid CongressCritters cut the program from an Operational program (where we would have purchased a high single digit number or them) to an R&D program (where we are only going to have one).

It's a huge amount of money for a marginal capability (not just to purchase, also to operate). The US is approaching fiscal crisis and programs must be cut. Postponing acquisition of the system was absolutely the right thing to do. Even if more funding was available, expanding and improving GBI should take priority over building more YAL-1s. The whole chemical laser design will be superceeded soon enough anyway.

[Dave]

The whole chemical laser design will be superceeded soon enough anyway.

May I ask, by what? I'm not terribly familiar with the various laser systems.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The whole chemical laser design will be superceeded soon enough anyway.

May I ask, by what? I'm not terribly familiar with the various laser systems.

The US is focusing research on FEL lasers which have excellent tunability, as well as solid state lasers. At present, solid state lasers have attained 100KW. Give it another decade, one of or both technologies would probably hit 1MW.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm a few degrees of separation from the FEL program; if the solid state people are doing as well as you say, they're going to beat the FEL people to the punch. The best FEL I know of, at Jefferson Lab, is still poking around in the 10 kW range.

[SirNitram]

I'll consider this 'working' when it can pop a solid fuel rocket. It's a bigger deal than a liquid one, but some people love to declare victory early so they can do the little dance. Even if they are on the 40 yard line.

[MKSheppard]

I'll consider this 'working' when it can pop a solid fuel rocket. It's a bigger deal than a liquid one, but some people love to declare victory early so they can do the little dance. Even if they are on the 40 yard line.

Link

Within one hour, MDA then engaged the second target, a solid-fueled Terrier Black Brant, which was launched from a ground location. Lasing terminated prior to its destruction. Still, MDA officials say this demonstration “met all its test criteria,” but they do not cite a reason why the target was not fully lased to destruction.

The ABL did not land or reconstitute its chemicals used to form the laser between the two engagements.

This round, using the sounding rocket, was actually ABL’s third airborne target and its second airborne solid-fuel target engagement, according to MDA officials. The first was apparently quietly “destroyed” during a Feb. 3 flight test, according to MDA officials, though it is unclear why MDA is only just now acknowledging it.

ABL is designed to precisely lase the outer skin of boosting missiles to prompt a failure in its structural integrity, destroying the target in flight.

Note that line:

"This round, using the sounding rocket, was actually ABL’s third airborne target and its second airborne solid-fuel target engagement, according to MDA officials. The first was apparently quietly “destroyed” during a Feb. 3 flight test, according to MDA officials, though it is unclear why MDA is only just now acknowledging it. "

But hey, another day, another post, another fucking stupid martinpost.

[SirNitram]

The inside of Shep's head: Where mistaking a post for a report on a test firing earlier in the month is a something to continue to feed a petty spat of namecalling.

So cool. A chemical laser that can refire in flight and pop both liquid and solid rockets. Someday it might even get use. Someday Star Wars might even get use.

[MKSheppard]

So cool. A chemical laser that can refire in flight and pop both liquid and solid rockets. Someday it might even get use. Someday Star Wars might even get use.

And I see you continue your tradition of belligerent stupidity that makes people want to scratch their eyeballs out in pain.

Lets see, a laser with the power (multi-megawatt) to burn through a lot of things, on a beam frequency that isn't reflected away by common materials -- apparently 10.6 micron CO2 lasers, which were tested in by the USAF in the 1980s have that problem against aluminum -- and with the fuel capacity to destroy 20 to 40 large missile targets in a single sortie from significant ranges, measured in the hundreds of miles?

That's pretty much completely in a class by itself -- Solid State Lasers (without the pesky chemicals), are still a decade or two away from actually getting up to the power currently shown by ABL. Sure, it's interim, but just about everything in the military now is.

Plus, there are spinoffs -- like Advanced Tactical Laser; which is "let's take ABL and shrink it to fit into a C-130!", which were successfully fired on ground targets -- which have many possible uses, such as using laser beams to set off IEDs or katyusha rockets that are being set up by insurgents, without the pesky problems of dropping a guided bomb into a populated areas -- you'd get an explosion from the target, but not as bad as dropping a 100-250 lb bomb onto the area...

[MKSheppard]

Another possible use for ATL is for capturing insurgents in vehicles -- one of the recent ATL tests had it burning a hole into the hood of a truck or car and seizing up the engine. Think how useful that would be if (insert random Al Quaeda leader) was fleeing on vehicle and you really wanted him for interrogation -- you could lase the engine, and land a helicopter next to the stalled vehicle to hustle them away for intensive interrogation.

If you ended up burning a hole in the wrong guy's car; well, you can just pay them off.

"We're so sorry for burning a hole in your car. We mistook you for abdullah achmed bin omar. Here, have $40,000 for a new car."

Certainly more convient than paying money to the next of kin following a hellfire strike.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Because a laser is the only platform that can accomplish that

[Mr Bean]

Because a laser is the only platform that can accomplish that

It kinda is, that whole "Shrapnel" thing has an issue with killing people.
When you need pin point destruction at range and you can't exactly chopper a special forces team ahead of the enemy to set up a road block. You kinda need lasers. Besides get them small enough and powerful enough and you start seeing special helicopter models designed to do the same thing. Lasers have lots of specialised applications you simply can't do if you want someone alive because the only weapon system we CAN use in say Pakistan is Hellfire missiles. We sure as hell can't send tanks in or mine the road or blow up a bridge ahead of them.

[MKSheppard]

Because a laser is the only platform that can accomplish that

I'm sure you could try shooting out the tires, use a EMP pulse generator to short out the cars electronics (might not work due to the shielding from the hood); or just put a tire spike rope over the road.

Or just simply call in other people to put up roadblocks (an option in Iraq, but not elsewhere).

But being able to stop a car reliably like that would be a godsend for certain applications - like retreiving someone in the process of fleeing in a vehicle in an area where you don't have a lot of personnel on the ground like say, middle of Sudan -- or being able to stop possible car bombers (mount a containerized version that has the laser emitter head in a guard tower) without having to spray the entire road with .50 caliber or 40mm AGL fire.

[K. A. Pital]

Lots of money for a marginal capability?

What's it's R&D cost? $6 billion? And the craft each would cost $170 million? To be fair, one interceptor missile costs $120 million. This can be a cheaper weapon all in all.

[adam_grif]

(mount a containerized version that has the laser emitter head in a guard tower)

The conspiracy nuts would have a field day with stuff like that.

If they can get sufficiently powerful ones on a helicopter mount, I can definitely see that being used by police departments.

With glass windows, am I correct in assuming that a laser beam will mostly pass through it, but also probably burn a hole with the small percentage of radiation absorbed? It'd be pretty cool to have helicopters in use by SWAT teams like that, the suspect pokes his head up to a window and he gets blasted from a helicopter 3 km away.

[Mr Bean]

Lots of money for a marginal capability?

What's it's R&D cost? $6 billion? And the craft each would cost $170 million? To be fair, one interceptor missile costs $120 million. This can be a cheaper weapon all in all.

You don't know where R&D takes you. Sometimes you have to sink the cost before you stumble across the next big thing in warfare. Enough experience with building enough lasers lets us shrink them. Sure there's a hard limit on how small you can make the laser but we are no where near it. Nevermind the side research they are doing into Capacitors and Batteries. If five years down the road leads to something we can mount on a tank even if power generation remains an issue will be a huge step forward.

Remember as has been said before. Once we get a good death ray with a dependable power supply and a good tracking system... cruises missiles and planes themselves will be so much outdated junk like the Zeppelin "gunships" of yesteryear. Being unable to fly and dodge a light speed weapon quick enough before dieing.

[Simon_Jester]

Lots of money for a marginal capability?

What's it's R&D cost? $6 billion? And the craft each would cost $170 million? To be fair, one interceptor missile costs $120 million. This can be a cheaper weapon all in all.

Pays for itself right quick if it manages to shoot down anything with a nuclear warhead, though I'm not sure that's a realistic use of the system, since you'd have to do it in the boost phase and anyone who can launch nuclear ballistic missiles can probably keep your laser aircraft well away from the battlefield.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, you can use it against tactical BMs in nations like Iran or DPRK. Not totally useless?

[SirNitram]

Not totally useless, but strikes me as a good way of gargling away cash. Think about it. You'll need multiple ABLs to cover a target, then more to get a rotation of 'On target, returning, maintenence, heading to target', all of which need precious fuel. Hooray, another part of the nation's defense that will be rendered useless when the prices spike too high.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Not totally useless, but strikes me as a good way of gargling away cash. Think about it. You'll need multiple ABLs to cover a target, then more to get a rotation of 'On target, returning, maintenence, heading to target', all of which need precious fuel. Hooray, another part of the nation's defense that will be rendered useless when the prices spike too high.

The same could be said of any defence system?

[PeZook]

Hooray, another part of the nation's defense that will be rendered useless when the prices spike too high.

The nature of modern warfare means that any part of any nation's defence will be rendered useless if you can't supply fuel to it, including light infantry.

[K. A. Pital]

A lot of other U.S. high tech equipment will get useless if it cannot be properly supplied with fuel and necessary chemicals + maintenance. All high tech military equipment is a bitch to maintain.

This equipment is a little cheaper (per plane, if you actually make a run of several dozen of them) than interceptor missiles, and can intercept more than 1 missile, it's re-usable. Hence why I said it's at least cost-rational. Not sure if it's too useful, but it's not the costliest way to defend yourself. The 12000 kg ground ABM missile costs ~$170 million and can down only one missile per interceptor. And that's the BEST case.