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."

Interested but limited.

[LWATCDR]

The missile they shot down was liquid fueled and not solid. Solid fuel targets may be a little harder to take out.
On the plus side Russia and a lot of other nations still use a large number of liquid fueled missiles. I also wonder how well it will work with say cruise missiles, UAVs, and or aircraft.

Don't be interested yet, headline is incorrect

[RingDev]

Nothing was destroyed or shot down and the laser weapon was not fired.

FTFA:

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.

For all we know at this point the "Battle Management System" is a 2nd lieutenant with binoculars and the "Test Laser" is a Private with a laser pointer. Odds are it's better than that, but the last time I heard about this laser system it was still significantly too heavy (with power source) to mount in a 747 and the best firing they had performed was with it stationary on the ground shooting at a stationary dummy target 10 feet away.

I like it more than the "missile defense shield", but only marginally.

-Rick

Summary Inaccurate

[hermitian]

There was not mention of the missile being "sub-launched." That would also be quite difficult for the US since they have no liquid fueled Submarine Launched Balistic Missles (SLBMs). They are all solid fueled.

Pink submarine

[RenHoek]

I always wondered, would a laser be defeated if you gave the missile a mirror paint coat?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Don't be interested yet, headline is incorrect

[LWATCDR]

Wow you are so wrong and yet you where modded up to a five.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/12/boeing-747-destroys-ballistic-missile-with-laser/?s=t5 [engadget.com]
Including pictures of the shootdown.

Just amazing....

Re:Obvious vulnerability is....obvious?

[couchslug]

"An enemy planning a missile attack would likely deploy spetsnaz/special forces-type units to destroy such platforms in advance of their missile launch."

That's why strategic aircraft assets are stationed on appropriately guarded bases with sufficient folks to fend off intruders, just as they were in the good old days of Strategic Air Command (back before TAC ate the rest of the Air Force).

The enemy planning a missile attack that ABL is designed to mitigate isn't a major nation-state, but a smaller foe with fewer missiles. As nuclear proliferation among fanatic regimes ensures smallish nuclear war will happen, defensive preparations make sense. Likewise, ABL that can defeat rockets and other conventional systems will have use providing top cover against them.

Re:Popcorn and other practical applications

[TheLink]

> 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.

You must have a very loose interpretation of "us", or be living an alternate reality.

There was no way Vietnam could have touched the USA back then. And yet the US still went to war.

Was Saddam actively trying to kill the USA? He used to be an ally of the USA even.

Is Iran actively trying to kill the USA? Sure both of them made lot of noise, but their missiles would never have reached the USA. Not because of countermeasures, but just for the fact that they didn't and don't have enough range.

They may be a significant threat to Israel, but the last I checked, the USA is not Israel.

I'm sure someone with better knowledge of US military "interventions" can give more and better examples.

Re:Popcorn and other practical applications

[donaggie03]

Perhaps GP has a flawed view of U.S. foreign policy, but his point remains. Regardless of whether a war or battle or offensive is justified or morally right, once the U.S. military decides on a target then any casualties besides that target and anyone defending that target are considered collateral damage. Once again, whatever the justification of a military strike, they still wish to reduce collateral damage as much as possible. This may be due to a sense of morality in the top brass, or it could be because they realize collateral damage tarnishes America's image and actually pushes more people to the dark side. Or maybe it is a little of both . .

Either way, your arguments do not change the fact that American military policy is to reduce collateral damage, and that these weapon advances help in that regard.