Directed Energy Weapon Downs Ballistic Missile 297
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."
Re:*more* evil (Score:3, Informative)
Even if this system were to be put into use as a single-fire human target eliminator, it would be replacing a tool that is far more 'evil'.
fixed that for me
Re:Boosting (Score:2, Informative)
ICBMs go very high so you don't have to be terribly close to get a line of fire to them with a laser while they are still ascending, especially if the laser is mounted on a plane. You cannot intercept them once they reach space and the warheads separate, you've simply got way too many targets then. Laser interception usually works by igniting fuel or explosives on the target, post-separation nuclear warheads don't carry much directly explosive stuff, just enough to initiate the fission (and it will probably be fairly heat resistant since it has to withstand reentry without exploding prematurely). I think for intercepting the warheads your only real choice is a missile to blow them apart.
Re:Boosting (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Don't be interested yet, headline is incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing was destroyed or shot down and the laser weapon was not fired.
This article says that you are wrong [mda.mil].
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.
Already Obsolete (Go Navy!) (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [jlab.org]
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 [mediaroom.com]
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.
Re:Pink submarine (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Don't be interested yet, headline is incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Already Obsolete (Go Navy!) (Score:1, Informative)
Just FYI, but the Jefferson Lab FEL does not fit on anything even close to a 747! It will be a long while before that system flies or even floats. For the JLab design you have to consider that a lot of cryogenic cooling is needed, which adds logistic as well as severe power constraints. Evaporative cooling on a 747 is not easy.
But hey, I am only working at Jefferson Lab, so what do I know?
Re:Don't be interested yet, headline is incorrect (Score:2, Informative)
Just found this video, clearly shows the laser in action at the ALTB.
Re:Slashdot, Reuters, and above comment: all wrong (Score:2, Informative)
1. Two targets were destroyed - one liquid and one solid fueled. This puts the lie to the above comment, and the Slashdot article that implies that they only shot a liquid-fueled target because it was easier. Furthermore, the solid-fueled target was identical to one that the ALTB had destroyed in flight a week earlier.
The press release you link to states that they only shot down one target in this test - the liquid fueled one.
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.
So it fired its high energy laser at the second target, but switched off the laser before actually destroying it. However they had previously destroyed an identical target.
Re:Pink submarine (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Pink submarine (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]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.
Re:Unfortunately (Score:3, Informative)
Taiwan's status is undetermined. It is claimed by two rival governments, the People's Republic of China (the Communist mainland government) and the Republic of China, the former government of the whole shebang that fled to Taiwan in 1949 and has since become democratic. The US recognizes the PRC, but not its claim over Taiwan; even a number of states that recognize the PRC's claim on an official basis have strong military/political ties to Taiwan, such as South Korea, Singapore, and Japan. The PRC would lose if they attacked Taiwan.
Re:Popcorn and other practical applications (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone needs a hobby. If he's parroting idiocy, so be it. It's better than SOME hobbies he might take up. Peeping Tom, for instance . . .
Anyway, on subject - I was more impressed with what I've seen of THEL http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.63/system_detail.asp [missilethreat.com]
That link is as good a place as any to start, if you're interested in it.
With a military background, I was moderately impressed when it destroyed a missile. Only moderately, because we routinely shot down our own Tartar missiles when they turned around, and targeted US!
They, they shot down artillery rounds. Without finding the video I watched, I can't recall the size of the artillery rounds, but they were fairly large, fairly slow, with long trajectories that were easy to plot with the computing power available to THEL.
The real stunner was when THEL destroyed a series of mortars. Quite small, and hard to see, let alone track. Relatively short flight time, compared to most missiles or artillery, despite the fact that mortars are quite in comparison.
The video I saw were little more than several cuts pasted together - you didn't get a real "feel" for the hardware, because so much was left out, or edited out. The (intended) impression was that THEL was able to knock each of these successive targets out of the air, with little to no effort.
No matter whether that intended impression is true or not - what THEL did do was impressive. Shooting down a Tartar missile was a minor challenge, one that we pulled off because we ALWAYS tracked it with the guns, from launch to target. We anticipated it turning on us. Incoming artillery or mortars would have been way beyond your capabilities. Incoming missile under real life combat conditions? We'd probably shoot 99's - meaning we would probably get a bunch, but one would eventually get past the guns.
(BTW - I'm talking about 5 inch 54 caliber main guns on a destroyer - not those close in defense systems that ships have today.)
Re:Interested but limited. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Popcorn and other practical applications (Score:3, Informative)
******VIOLATION*******
PLEASE HAND IN YOUR GEEK CARD! You should have known that "RADIO SHACK" is now called only "THE SHACK"!!
Re:Great. (Score:5, Informative)
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.